Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

My amendment states: “financially, socially and environmentally sustainable”. Perhaps if I had said “financially, environmentally and socially beneficial” or “the maximum financial, social and environmental return”, it may have contacted the sense of expansiveness the Minister of State is hoping for with the fund. I genuinely believe it is poor economics for the State as an actor to constantly look at how we make and spend money as though they are completely separate. We should join up how we think about both of them. I do not think it is responsible or good management of public finances. I have thought this about the area of public procurement for a while. I have highlighted it in respect of the mandates of certain organisations. There is this idea that we will make money in one area, but we will spend it in another area. That shows a lack of joined-up thinking, because we are not a company and we are not solely an investor. We are a State. We have an extraordinary power to be able to look at both sides of the equation, namely, the spending and the joining up, and look at what is the best decision for both of those aspects. We should not necessarily throw it up and then have it land. This is like how certain parts of economics do not stand up. For example, trickle-down economics does not work. That is economics that does not work.

I hope it makes a lot of money. However, it would be better overall if it made the same amount of money while we made choices that were more environmentally or socially sustainable and if those choices were checked against it. It would also be better if it made slightly less money but environmental and social decisions were taken in terms of how the money was spent, because that would create a situation where we as a State would incur less cost. I will press the amendment.