Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Higgins for tabling these four amendments and for her clear rationale and motivation. Senator Higgins will understand that I am dealing with this legislation and have to respond specifically to it and address the issues that she raises in amendments as they apply to this legislation. I am not for an instant taking away from the points she has made. I accept her bona fides on them. Senator Higgins is right on many things and I would like to think we are in agreement with the thrust of these amendments. We want to make sure that the public finances are not invested in a way which breaches the provisions of the Cluster Munitions And Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 and the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018. We are in agreement with the application of the principles of both of these Acts with regard to these funds.

The Senator already made the point that I will make, which is that we have legislation in place. That is not for an instant to take away from the clear example that the Senator has provided on a European level, but it is important for me to draw the contrast with that comparison. We are talking about domestic legislation that has domestic oversight. We are not talking about European legislation and interpretation of European treaties. This is something that we have control of. When I say "we", I mean the Government as well as the collective Oireachtas. We have the ability and responsibility to adhere absolutely to not just the spirit of the legislation cited but the full responsibilities therein. The Senator raised clear concerns about the role of investment managers. I know that will be part of further debate this afternoon.I wish to make one point very clear. I am sorry this impression was perhaps not given during pre-legislative scrutiny and the associated discussion, but I hope I can underpin for Senator Higgins that it is absolutely the case that where the State is investing funds and there is a clear policy instruction or legislative requirement, the investment manager is required to follow those instructions. It is not a case of merely needing to take them into account or of paying attention to them, but a clear requirement. This is the long and the short of what is a key point. We absolutely expect the thrust of this legislation to be followed, and not on some sort of aspirational basis. This is what is happening because the legislation we have proposed and on which the Deputy and I engaged briefly on Second Stage is very clear in respect of the aims of the Government. It is also very clear in respect of the role the two funds can play and the return required. Equally, it is also clear regarding the responsibilities and existing requirements imposed by the Acts of 2008 and 2018.

The Senator has raised concerning issues relating to the EU. She has raised them before and we have debated them. We will take that into account. We know the processes through which we can take account of the aspects the Senator referred to under the treaties as well as directly as a member state government. Indeed, it is also possible to do so as a parliamentarian through the various functions available. I do not necessarily believe this is a debate for here and now. While I appreciate the example given, in the context of the amendments submitted by the Senator, the existing legislation is quite clear. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept any of the four proposed amendments.