Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his engagement. The point is that it has been under this Government's watch that the failure to apply this legislation properly has happened. This is not something for the EU. The question of the wider policy on the ASAP is an EU question, but the question of Ireland's involvement with, agreement to, participation in and contribution towards this programme is a national one. It is a question for the Government. I am concerned that there is a clear inconsistency between there being an absolutely explicit prohibition on investment of this kind in the Cluster Munitions And Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 and the fact that €12 million of Irish money, effectively, is going to these arms manufacturers. As I said, we know that at least some of these arms manufacturers are currently providing arms in breach of an International Court of Justice ruling that says every state should do what it can to prevent any acts of genocide. They are also going against the call of the UN Human Rights Council for an arms embargo. There is, therefore, a real tension evident here with this policy. That is one aspect. There is then the tension in regard to Ireland's engagement. It comes back to that law. I am not going to press the amendment now but I will come back to this on Report Stage.

I was somewhat shocked at what we heard last week in the finance committee. It was not simply that an attempt was made to explain why this measure was somehow compatible but that there seemed to be no consideration of the cluster munitions legislation. To be explicit, I reiterate that this legislation bans investment in any munitions. We need to take this legislation very seriously, especially when there are calls from the UN for an arms embargo and a requirement from the International Court of Justice that all countries would try to ensure they are in no way implicated in any act that contributes to a genocide.

Regarding external asset managers, with respect, I probably will press this amendment or I might withdraw it and bring forward a new one on this matter because it is a wider issue. Simply saying it is a requirement is fine and I am glad to hear it. I believe, however, that this area needs examination and more scrutiny. It is not simply enough to say that we told them this was the requirement. We must be examining what is actually happening. We must be considering the follow-through in this regard, exploring how these asset managers interpret this requirement and looking to see how it is monitored on our side. It is, therefore, an area that does need more examination.

Whenever we delegate a job to someone else to do on behalf of the Irish people, effectively, there must be very tight monitoring of it. It may be a practice that has not had as tight a level of scrutiny as it should have had in recent years. I am not impinging the reputation of any individual external asset manager. This is an area where more scrutiny is needed, however, and not simply around what the communication outward is but regarding what the effect of the communication is. Can we look to instances where there were failures and these were corrected, for example? Have there been examples of this type of failure happening where the outcome led to a change or shift in the way external asset managers were presenting a package or portfolio of goods? Where the State's requirement in this regard is having an impact is something I would like to look at.

As I said, this is an area where I feel, in the few points where I have encountered it, there was a lack of scrutiny. I am being frank. I am being vague because there has been a lack of scrutiny and that is why I want there to be a report. This is why I want this area to be examined. The Minister of State is in the position to bring about a real examination of how external asset managers are being employed, what the effect has been and how things have panned out. I might not press this amendment, but I would like to hear what the plans are in this regard other than simply sending a strong message at the outset. I refer as well to what the consequences are if there are situations where the requirements are not being met. I will, therefore, withdraw amendment No. 2, which is the first amendment in this grouping and then move to the first of my amendments in the next grouping.