Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 21, line 12, before “invest” to insert “directly”.

We do not need to go through this in great detail but these amendments relate to the same core issue, that question of the use of external asset managers. As I said, I am uncomfortable with the State's reliance on the use of such external asset managers. The policy needs analysis and potentially a review. Amendment No. 24 will provide that the agency will have to be directly investing the assets, which is intended to improve accountability and transparency in respect of those investments.

Amendment No. 25, similarly, will remove the provisions in section 28(2)(b) whereby investments may be conducted by external asset managers.

Amendment No. 27 will delete the provision, which I have some concern about it, in section 28(2)(b) that would allow the fund to enter into contracts and commitments of any description. That is a very wide provision, and I am concerned the fund may enter into an investment commitment from which it finds it hard to disentangle itself. If it enters into a commitment with, for example, entities that may choose, after the point of investment, to engage in some of the activities in respect of human rights or environmental damage we have discussed in other parts of the debate, it will make it much harder for the State to remove itself. Moreover, we look to the question where there will be a discussion about reasonable expectations that may have been made if a commitment has been made. As a result, the agency will effectively have a contract or commitment it will have to balance against social or environmental concerns, and I am not confident the social and environmental concerns or governance concerns will take precedence because we will be told there are legal complexities given the agency will have made commitments and signed contracts, with all that comes with that regarding legal expectations and so forth. It is easier when we are investing and we can just stop investing, but when we enter into contracts and commitments, that comes with problems for that core issue, which is essential for me and which I have emphasised throughout the debate, namely, proper oversight and accountability to ensure no Irish public money will be used for harm or in a way that is inappropriate. That is why, in amendment No. 27, I suggest the deletion of that provision. I have left everything else the agency might do in its borrowing, lending and purchasing, but I am seeking to remove it where it applies to contracts or commitments.

In the case of amendment No. 26, I have tried to include some political check and balance for those contracts and commitments in order that we will, at least, have some political accountability for those contracts and commitments that will provide that where the agency has entered into a contract or commitment, it will have to obtain the consent of the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, meaning they will have oversight of that decision to enter into a contract or commitment. Again, that means that if things go wrong, there will be a level of political accountability, and it will raise the bar for risk-proofing of any contract or commitment. The point is that a partnership can be risk-proofed, but what those people we have partnered with go on to do after we have signed the contract with them or made the commitment, and the other activities they may choose to engage in, are not something that can necessarily be anticipated at the time. This comes to the wider question of the need to build a divestment, which was one of the areas we discussed earlier. It is better to avoid improper investment in the first instance, but if it does occur, how do we build in an easy mechanism for divestment for the agency?