Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The legislation is strong and clear and should be implemented in a strong and clear way, not in a way that may be iterative, inadequate, at arm's length or without oversight. Then I come to the fact that, sadly, the Cluster Munitions And Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 did not seem to have been considered at all with regard to the recent ammunition production Act that went through the European Union. We had a hearing about that at the finance committee. The ammunition production support Act was, in most people's minds, quite extraordinary. It was an Act to direct €500 million from the multi-annual financial framework, which is the general EU budget, directly into supporting ammunition producers as an industry subsidy. It was justified by the European Commission with somewhat ludicrous twists of logic. For example, even though the Treaty on European Union is really clear that in cases where there are defence or military implications, that should not be coming from the general budget and it should require a unanimous vote, the Commission said it has not looked at it with regard to defence and military implications and that it is treating it simply as an industry support measure. Its justification was that it is an industry support measure that it needs to bring in because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the national supplies being depleted.

However, to be clear, this ammunition support Act simply supports these companies. It does not look to the weapons that they are sending to one place or another. They can sell weapons wherever they like. When we asked the Departments of Finance and Defence to speak to us about this, they did not give us any example of how they had considered the Cluster Munitions And Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 and the national implications for Ireland. To be clear, that is €500 million from the EU budget. The estimate that we had from the officials is that it is about €12 million of Irish money that has gone into a fund which goes to manufacturers which are making weapons and munitions, even though we have national legislation that says you cannot invest in any factory that manufactures munitions. It is a direct clash. Some €12 million of our money has been invested and national legislation states that we cannot have our money invested in that way.

This is a real concern. I believe we are inconsistent with our national legislation, leaving aside the separate argument which I know the Minister of State could have at a different time, which I have had with the Commission, where I believe that its interpretation of the Treaty on European Union is wrong and potentially disingenuous. It is a concern on a national level. I asked if the Departments considered it, if it was proved and if it was checked against our national legislation. They did not have any evidence that it was. I am putting this in because I know the Minister of State's reply and notes will say that this is already law and that I do not need to put it in. The point is that it is a law that is not being looked at by people who are making decisions about the Irish public's money.

For further context, the ammunition support fund goes to companies which are manufacturing ammunition and arms. Those arms can end up wherever. I have not even scrutinised the full list but when I began to, one of the companies, which I will not name, is a company that recently exported 10,000 tank shells to Israel. That is a company that is benefiting from this €500 million fund, to which the Irish contribution is €12 million. That is not okay. I do not believe the public would regard it as okay or that the Minister of State would regard it as okay. It is a failure to scrutinise. Of course, under the treaty, Ireland could have opted out under section 31. We could have said we cannot be part of this bit. Whatever the Minister of State's opinion about it overall as a strategy for the European Union, which I am passionate about, I think this is a terrible approach by the European Union in ramping up military production and investing in companies which have had tenfold increases in their sales to Israel. These are not companies struggling with production when the money is there, but the idea that the arms industry needs a boost of public money to keep it going is frankly ludicrous. That is by the by. Our concern here is about how Irish money is invested and spent.

I am sorry that this seems very wide and addresses some other issues, but it is why I have tabled the amendments. The Minister of State does not have to answer on all of these issues. I am not expecting him to, but I am saying we cannot be complacent. I have a recent example of a case where our national legislation on cluster munitions is not being properly scrutinised and thought about when decisions are being made on the allocation of the public's funding. I do not want that to be the case with these funds. It would be really regrettable if that was the case with these funds. It would taint what we are all hoping for from these funds. I sadly cannot be complacent about that fact, which is why I want to have it copper-fastened in the legislation.