Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

These are important amendments. The reasons for their importance have come very much into focus this year and in the current context.

Amendment No. 85a states:

The Board shall make regulations regarding conditions of funding and a process for withdrawal of funding from research projects which may contribute to contravention of international law, including contraventions of rulings of the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.

This relates to the very important principle of doing no harm, which should apply to the research that may be funded under the legislation. In a context whereby we hear a great deal about dual use and the potential areas of research and development that may have a civilian application but which may also - in some instances, this has been shown to be the case - be applied in ways that breach human rights or used for military purposes that may involve breaches of human rights. The amendment seeks to deal with instances where research that may have been funded in good faith by the agency has led to the development of technology that could, for example, be used to facilitate drones bombing civilian targets in Gaza. It also relates to rulings of the International Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights in circumstances where technology that may have been developed is being used either in partnership or is being purchased, co-funded or employed by those who would seek to use it in a manner which may breach human rights conventions within Europe. There have been situations where research relating to technology that was still in development has been used in ways that target the human rights of individuals, even within Europe.

I will briefly speak to each of the amendments and then return to the wider point. In that context, I have already outlined the intention behind amendment No. 85a.

Amendment No. 90a states:

When entering into an agreement under this section, the Agency shall ensure that such agreements are consistent with relevant ethical standards, human rights and international law and would not compromise the ability of researchers to participate in and receive funding from such schemes.

Again, this amendment refers to the agreements that the agency may make.Amendment No. 90b also relates to the making of agreements. Amendment No. 90a is non-prescriptive, providing "...consistent with relevant ethical standards, human rights and international law..." in a wider sense, and leaves the determination of that to the agency, but amendment No. 90b is more prescriptive. It sets out some of the specific areas where the State's obligations should not be compromised, such as under the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention or the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, for example. Why am I listing off what sounds like a horrorscape of weaponry, with cluster munitions, anti-personnel mines, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and various forms of weaponry that the Biological Weapons Convention and all of these conventions have found to be extraordinarily damaging to human life and to human rights? I do so because there is a danger currently under Horizon Europe funding. We are all very proud of Horizon Europe being directed towards the idea of a sustainable future for Europe. Horizon Europe funds all that important work in the sciences and social sciences that may help us to tackle the issues of climate change ahead. Horizon Europe has an explicitly civil function but recently there have been attempts to redirect Horizon Europe. There have been proposals from the European Commission to say that the European Union funding for research and innovation would be redirected or assigned to be linked with the European Defence Fund and suddenly billions of euro in research that we might have for tackling problems in climate change, in the social cohesion challenges we face and in areas of medical advancement that are needed could be redirected. That funding could be redirected into the military industrial complex, which we know has an absolutely bottomless appetite for absorbing all money and any money that it can. In that context there is a very real danger for Ireland as a neutral country that projects we may be funding through the agency, which may be also linked with Horizon Europe funding, could in fact end up being projects that are directed towards weapons development or indeed other military purposes that may then be applied in ways that are found to be in breach of international law or human rights. One clear example at the moment is where the UN Human Rights Council has been explicitly clear in its call for an arms embargo and that no country should be in any way implicated in the transfer of weapons to Israel at this time. Even the United States of America, which is the great exporter of weapons to Israel, has suggested that maybe 2,000 lb bombs might not be the best to use in one of the most densely populated parts of the world, where 600,000 children are currently sheltering in their last refuge.

These are real and serious questions that, unfortunately, arise because of the kinds of proposals being made by the EU Commission. I welcome that there were more than 100 submissions from Ireland. When we spoke about this previously the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, invited researchers to make their submissions and suggested that anyone was welcome to make a submission on this Horizon Europe proposal. More than 100 people have done so. Proposals and submissions have been made by those working in the universities, by those in research and by the leads on Horizon Europe-funded projects, and all of them made it explicitly clear that Horizon Europe and its civil purposes must stay completely separate from the European Defence Fund and the area of military research. Unfortunately this message has not yet come from the Government but it has come from the research sector in Ireland, from Ireland's universities and further education institutions and from civil society in Ireland and across Europe. I hope that this will be the end to this very dangerous proposal from the European Commission and this very dangerous attempt for the resources so badly needed for research and innovation and to serve the good and the common good of humanity to be rerouted towards its destruction.

In this legislation we need to prepare for a scenario in which the European Commission and member states go ahead with the militarisation of our future. We can look to how deeply irresponsible it has been for the climate crisis that we face. In the rearmament race we are seeing at the moment we know that military emissions are some of the great sources of carbon emissions. Military usage and the military industrial complex are some of the greatest producers of carbon emissions. When we talk about a race towards increasing the armaments industry and the idea of people getting in on some of the defence industry money that might be out there, we need to be clear on the implications for our planet and not just for the individuals who may be at the receiving end of weaponry. The implications for the planet as a whole are devastating. We would literally be taking money away from action on the sustainable development goals on climate and the European green deal and instead directing it towards something that will escalate and accelerate our climate crisis and thereby lead to more war and more conflict.

These proposals are very concerning and very real. They are on the table. The Government as yet has not indicated. I hope that today the Minister of State will indicate that Ireland will be clearly and robustly opposing any such proposals. If those changes do take place, that will open the very real scenario whereby projects funded by our research and innovation funding through this agency could be directed towards military purposes. This is why it is important. We are working with lots of countries and the nature of these Horizon Europe projects is collaboration. Israel is one of the largest recipients of Horizon Europe funding. To my mind, this is inexplicable when we look to its flagrant disregard for international law. A fundamental point at the moment is that Israel should be excluded from future Horizon Europe funding. I do not see why we should be working towards a future in partnership with a country that is seeking to literally obliterate the future of an entire people in Gaza. We are looking towards potential situations, however, and it is not acceptable that we would leave it to individual researchers to make those calls. We need to have guidance on this very important area from the Government or the Minister, or at a base point from the agency itself.

These amendments - amendment No. 85a in particular is extremely mild - are empowering amendments. Amendments Nos. 85a, 90a and 90b would empower the board of the agency to set out regulations and clear criteria, and to be clear that if the agency is giving funding to a project, part of the conditionality would be that the research project funded should not be directed to or applied towards the contravention of international law.

Amendment No. 90b would be really explicit, which is almost legally crucial because otherwise we will be dealing with it after the fact, where we see a project that may have been funded by the agency that is found to be contravening or compromising the State's obligations under the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention or the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.There was a real moment of great pride for Ireland when the cluster munitions ban was negotiated. I was there in Croke Park for that. Ireland, as a country which had clean hands, which was regarded as being free from the military industrial complex, which did not have a defence industry lobbying it and in its ear and which was regarded as neutral and credible, was perhaps one of the only places on the planet where we could have successfully negotiated a ban on the cluster munitions - land mines that fall from the sky - responsible for maiming people and giving rise to amputations right across the world. One of the greatest contributions we have made in the international sphere is that we hosted the negotiations relating to that ban.

Despite some of the conversations we have about Ireland needing to pull its weight and that we should be ashamed if we do not have 50 tanks, 100 tanks or whatever, we should be proud of the contribution we have made as the first signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We should be proud that we were the first country to say "Let's move in the other direction" when an arms race was under way and to say, irrespective of the conflict or war, that it is not acceptable to drop from the sky onto civilian populations what are, essentially, land mines, namely cluster bombs that may take decades to explode. Sadly, cluster munitions are being used again by both the Russian and the Ukrainian sides in the conflict. These bombs have come from the United States. Sadly, there are reports of chemical weapons and white phosphorus being used in Gaza. We are at a really key point when Ireland needs to be explicitly clear. Are we going to be a voice against the obscene use of obscene and very innovative tools of human suffering or are we going to rally in behind and see if there might be a little money coming downstream for it and try to hide ourselves in multi-country projects, with all the implications that would involve?

These amendments will allow the board and the agency to maintain clean hands in order that the research and innovation funding Ireland is giving will be used for what it should be used for, which is for a more peaceful, prosperous, inclusive and sustainable future to ensure that Ireland will not be implicated in research and innovation into new ways to take or destroy human lives. These are serious amendments; they are really necessary. We are at a crunch point. I do not want us to fail to pass these amendments today and then in two or four years' time find that Irish research projects have been implicated in terrible actions and that we wash our hands and say that there was nothing we could have done because those were the decisions made by the people responsible for the projects in question. There is something that can be done, and it is covered in amendments Nos. 85a, 90a, 90b and 93a.

Amendments Nos. 90a and 90b would give the agency the power to ensure that it adds certain conditions to any agreement it might make. Amendment No. 93a would give the Minister power to terminate arrangements. I am quite open to whether the power will rest with the board, the agency or the Minister to terminate agreements that are inconsistent with relevant ethical standards, human rights, international law or may contribute to non-compliance by the State with rulings of the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights or relevant treaties or conventions. These are quite high bars. Amendment No. 93a would give the Minister the power to make that call if it is not felt to be an appropriate decision of the agency.

Amendment No. 102a states:

The Minister shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining if and how Ireland will oppose any attempt to remove or change the current separation of Horizon Europe, with its focus on civil research, and the European Defence Fund, and its focus on military research.

When I asked previously, I was informed that it was not the right time for the Government to make a submission but that a time would come later when Ireland would make its views clear on the matter. I would like a report outlining how and when Ireland will articulate its opposition. The missing piece is that we have not yet heard that Ireland will articulate opposition to the merging of Horizon Europe and the European Defence Fund. I hope the Minister of State might be able to give us that confirmation today and then indicate how to give that expression. That would make it easier. Failing that, I have an amendment calling for a report to provide that information. Perhaps the Minister of State can move matters forward in his reply.