Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will exercise my right in that regard. The Bill at the moment simply states, "The Chief Executive Officer may, with the approval of the Board". I want to indicate that I may table an amendment on Report Stage to address this. It allows for when they are not complying with the conditions of funding. The core matter is whether there will be a condition of funding which is that there should be compliance with international law. I know that sounds clear, but we need to be clear about the conditions of funding. It is not clear to me. Stating "ethics" in a general sense is very vague. Where are the ethics? Where is the mechanism to ensure it is done properly?

That is why I suggest there would be regulations. This relates to amendment No. 85a, which proposes that there would be regulations around the conditions of funding. The process is already there. The Minister of State pointed out that there is a process with regard to the chief executive officer. I have already indicated that I believe there should be a mechanism whereby the board, or a member of the board, could make a request. I have already indicated that I believe, rather than having termination of funding or even the review solely sit with the chief executive officer, it would be more appropriate if the board was able to request the chief executive officer to conduct a review, or indeed if the board was able to make a request to the chief executive officer to consider the termination of funding. The only way the funding can be taken away, with a whole mechanism and appeals, relates to conditions of funding. Will the Minister of State or the Government take some steps to ensure that those conditions of funding include compliance with international law? That would mean the mechanism in section 43 of the Bill could apply. At the moment, there is nothing in the Bill. Amendment No. 85a is very mild. I am simply saying that the Government would make regulations. I am not even asking that I would make them or that we would make them here today. I am simply saying that regulations would be made which may be related to that question of conditions of funding in ethical matters. It cannot just be an interpretive piece. I accept that it has to have some kind of basis.

I am concerned by some of the language about the International Court of Justice and how it is not binding. I do not think the State should be trying to emphasise that the International Court of Justice is not binding. It is a pretty poor message to send. To be clear, while the International Court of Justice is not binding and it is not going to send armies in to enforce it, a ruling from it is the highest legal decision that we have in the world. Simply saying that they are not binding sends a very poor message that is inconsistent with Ireland's general approach. It states that it is non-binding except on the parties to the various conventions. For example, at the moment, the International Court of Justice has given a provisional ruling and is looking to make a full ruling in respect of the Genocide Convention, which Ireland is a party to. The Genocide Convention requires that all parties to that convention, including Ireland, take whatever actions they can to prevent the conduct of genocide. Where a credible risk of genocide has been established, that is why the provisional measures proposed by the International Court of Justice are clear that everybody should be doing what they can to try to stop a genocide.

One thing that Ireland can do is an arms embargo. Next week, we will bring forward the Air Navigation and Transport (Arms Embargo) Bill 2024 to ensure that no weapons are passing through our State which may be implicated in a genocide. Another thing that we can do in general, if technology has been developed in Ireland and funded by the State, is to make the conditions of funding clear enough that the chief executive officer can say that since they now know that this project is being directly employed by the Israel Defence Forces in targeting civilian infrastructure, for example, the organisation would like to withdraw its funding. The mechanism and appeals under section 43 would then kick in. Unless the conditions are clear, then we do not have a mechanism which properly allows us to ensure that we are not complicit in those breaches of international law.

The Minister of State makes a fair point that in certain cases, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, there is an Act to address it. I may table an amendment where I address it as an Act.

Is amendment No. 102a separate? Maybe that is why it was not addressed.

I am disappointed that the Minister of State cannot support these amendments at this point. I urge him, to go back to look at this between now and Report Stage. I am open to any proposal which would ensure that the conditions of funding under this Bill empower the chief executive to terminate funding under section 43. I am quite open to section 43 being the mechanism rather than any other mechanism. Under section 43, which is about termination of funding where there is non-compliance with the conditions of funding, the conditions of funding should be such that the chief executive officer is able to act in the kinds of scenarios I have outlined today. That is maybe the easiest and simplest way to address it. I will not press all of these amendments now. I will press one or two but not all of them. I am genuinely hopeful that the Minister of State will find a way to assure me that the scenarios I have outlined will not happen. I have not had that assurance from him.