Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 2023

General Scheme of the Future Ireland Fund and Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund Bill 2023: Discussion

We have received apologies from Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Maria Byrne and Deputy Stephen Matthews.

Today the committee will undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the future Ireland fund and infrastructure, climate and nature fund Bill 2023. We have as witnesses officials from the NTMA and the Department of Finance. I have quite a list of people here. From the NTMA I welcome Mr. Nick Ashmore, Mr. Dave McEvoy and Ms Susan O'Halloran. From the Department of Finance I welcome Mr. Oliver Gilvarry, assistant secretary, banking and financial stability; Mr. John McCarthy, chief economist; Mr. Pat Leahy, principal officer, banking and financial stability division; Ms Rose O'Connor, assistant principal officer, banking and financial stability division; Jack Neilan O'Connor, administrative officer, banking and financial stability division; Ms Moya Moore, legal adviser; and Mr. Colm Roche, assistant principal officer in the economics division. They are all very welcome. I hope I did not leave anyone out. That is my list of runners and riders. We have them all here. We have a small crew on this side but they are formidable. I think the witnesses know each one of them.

I remind everyone about privilege as it relates to the evidence both sides are to give the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Those joining us online may have just limited privilege, whereas if you are on the campus of Leinster House, you have full privilege.

Mr. Ashmore, you are to give us an opening statement. Then I will call Mr. Gilvarry.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We have a presentation. We will be able to get it on screen. It is a short presentation to give some context on the NTMA's role and activities around the management of funds such as the future investment fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund.

The NTMA is a broad-based organisation. It manages a number of commercial assets and liabilities on behalf of the State. It is divided into a number of divisions supported by our central shared services but also with a common agency board. The key divisions are the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, the National Development Finance Agency, funding and debt management, NewERA, which involves shareholder executive and advisory services, and the State Claims Agency. We have a number of committees and elements of governance, including an investment committee that governs the activities of the ISIF, a standard audit and risk committee, a remuneration committee and, more recently, the State claims advisory committee. We share functions such as HR, ICT and so on. Some of those functions are also shared with affiliates, NAMA, SBCI and HBFI, which each have their own boards as well.

In the context of the new funds, we are looking at two quite different approaches in terms of investment strategy, one being a long-term fund, the future Ireland fund, with its aim of supporting future expenditures from 2040 onwards, and with contributions running through to about 2035, potentially reaching anything up to €70 billion in contributions. The investments will scale up from there with returns on investment. Then there is the infrastructure, climate and nature fund, which is more short term and will be there to help step in where there is an economic shock to ensure that capital spending is maintained, providing future funding for projects that will contribute to the achievement of climate and nature goals, with that starting at €2 billion to be added from 2024 to 2030, scaling up to about €14 billion, with a sleeve of up to €3.15 billion for the climate and nature projects, should they come through, from 2026 onwards.

The NTMA's role in this so far has been to support the Department of Finance's work in establishing the new funds and providing input in terms of drafting the heads of Bill and starting to think about the logistics and the operations we will need to have in place to manage these funds once they come into existence. Through ISIF and its predecessor, the National Pensions Reserve Fund, the NTMA has a long experience as a long-term commercial investor of assets on behalf of the State. Over the years, it has grown from a single function as a sovereign borrower to a manager of the wide range of portfolio State assets and liabilities which we saw in the organisation's structure. However, the addition of mandates over time to the agency by the Government has demonstrated the agency's ability to flex and scale its operational platform in order to meet new challenges and new mandates from the State. We will continue to work closely with the Department as the necessary legislation is put in place to optimise arrangements for the establishment and management of the new funds.

The NTMA has been involved in managing and looking after a number of funds on behalf of the State. The original one was the National Pensions Reserve Fund, established back in 2001 to meet as much as possible the cost of social welfare pensions and public service pensions at that point planned to be paid from 2025 until 2055. That fund was used largely in the crisis to help support the banking system and was converted into the ISIF in the beginning of 2015. The NTMA also managed the Social Insurance Fund when it was somewhat larger than it is now, in the period from 2001 to 2010. That fund is the net pool of the income and expenditure around social insurance in any one year and waxes and wanes with the economy and the level of contributions.

The ISIF, which is active at the moment, established in legislation in 2014, commenced in the beginning of 2015. It is a strategic investment fund with a mandate to invest on a commercial basis where it can support economic activity and employment in Ireland. That fund is the one I work on and lead the team on, and it is active out in the market making investment at the moment. We also have the national reserve fund, established back in 2019, there to be drawn in the event of certain exceptional contingencies in the economy. It was established initially with €1.5 billion. That was used very quickly in 2020 and 2021 with the Covid crisis but it was re-established the year before last and is currently sitting with about €6 billion in assets largely invested in short-term investments ready to form some of the initial contributions to new planned funds.

Lastly, we have the Ireland Apple escrow fund, established in 2018. The NTMA is responsible for the oversight and management of the fund, in accordance with the escrow framework deed and through its own specialised investment committee.

The NTMA, through ISIF and the NPRF before it, has a long-standing commitment to be a responsible investor and actively looks to integrate ESG factors into its decision-making process, with a view to enhancing the overall outcomes for the funds and, ultimately, the State as beneficial owner.

We have a sustainable responsible investment strategy, which we publish on the website, that informs how we achieve the mandate and how we behave as an investor and a steward of public assets. As part of the investment strategy for the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund, the NTMA will consult with the Minister for Finance on how it incorporates responsible investment and exclusions going forward. That platform will extend to ISIF. We are looking to try to create an ESG platform and set of capabilities that will feed into all the funds that the NTMA manages. ISIF, formerly the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF, was a founding signatory of the UN principles of responsible investment in 2006.

I note a few comparable international funds. As a team, we have strong relationships with a number of these funds and we look to them to help us to compare and benchmark what we do and to develop additional capabilities. The Australia future fund started in a similar timeframe to the NPRF. It was similar in that it took the proceeds from the sale of a telecoms company. That fund has grown significantly, up to €125 billion. It expects to pay out withdrawals from 2026 onwards. It is a good example of best practice and an established fund that we can draw lessons from.

We also talk often to the New Zealand super fund, which is focused on universal pension payments. It started in 2001. It is probably a similar size. The NPRF might be a little larger by now. It is one of the leading advocates of sustainable investing and also a strong performer as an investor. It is a good proof point that one can do both effectively.

AP4 in Sweden is a long-established fund. It is the sort of size that we would expect the future Ireland fund to get to after a number of years. It is part of a network of state funds that manage the state's pension liabilities across different aspects. We think it is an exemplar of sustainable investment and also efficient investment operations.

The Alaska permanent fund is similar in that it pays out every year to support the economy of the state. It is not quite the same as what the future Ireland fund would do, but it is an interesting analogue in that respect.

That is a brief presentation from the NTMA side. I am happy to hand over to Mr. Gilvarry.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation and the opportunity to attend to discuss the future Ireland fund and infrastructure, climate and nature fund Bill. As outlined, my name is Oliver Gilvarry and I am the assistant secretary of the banking and financial stability division of the Department. I am accompanied by colleagues from the Department, the NTMA and ISIF.

I want to outline the general scheme of the future Ireland fund and infrastructure, climate and nature fund Bill. The general scheme was agreed by Government in October and the drafting process is currently under way with the help of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The Bill seeks to establish two funds, which are the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. The structure, along with the retention of the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, provides a basis to save and invest resources to deal with known and unknown long-term pressures on expenditure facing the State; supports counter-cyclical expenditure and helps to address specific climate and nature issues; and maintains a stream of investment in the domestic economy though ISIF.

The Bill can be considered to be in three main parts. The first is the establishment of the future Ireland fund. The second is the establishment of the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. Finally, there is the management of these funds by the National Treasury Management Agency.

I turn to the future Ireland fund. Over the coming decades, there are expected to be significant pressures on both public expenditure and revenue which face the State. These pressures have been outlined in the Department of Finance’s scoping paper in early 2023, by the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and by the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. These costs are not solely related to the ageing of the population, such as increased pension costs, increased demands for healthcare and long-term care, but also from the impact of climate neutrality and the digitalisation of economies, including our own. For each year from 2024 to 2035, 0.8% of GDP will be invested in the future Ireland fund. That roughly equates to €4.3 billion in 2024. In 2024, an additional €4.1 billion from the National Reserve Fund will also be transferred. The investment returns will be maintained within the fund, helping it to grow through returns on returns, which is otherwise known as compounding. The fund will be maintained over the longer term, with the returns on the fund used to support Government expenditure, thereby benefiting future generations. No payment is envisaged from the fund until 2041. This allows the fund to build up over time through investment and compounding so that it can contribute significantly to public expenditure needs from 2041 onwards and thus for future generations.

I turn to the infrastructure, climate and nature fund, ICNF. In Ireland, fiscal policy has tended to be pro-cyclical and capital spending has been particularly susceptible to pro-cyclicality over the years. An adequately capitalised fund is a good means to support counter-cyclical fiscal policy. It is also recognised that there are increasingly significant environmental challenges, not just in climate but also in degradation in the biosphere and impacts on water quality. Each year, €2 billion will be invested in the ICNF, from 2024 to 2030, building a total contribution to the fund of €14 billion. The contribution in 2024 will come from the dissolution of the National Reserve Fund. Any investment return will be retained within the fund.

The ICNF has two components, which are support for climate and nature projects and counter-cyclical support for infrastructure projects. The climate and nature component is subject to a cap of €3.15 billion in expenditure from 2026 to 2030. This is intended to fund capital projects when specific objectives have not been met for climate such as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or in the areas of nature and water quality, such as the deterioration in areas of special conservation or reductions in biodiversity. When access to that element of the fund is triggered by the relevant Ministers, the process will be managed by the Minister for public expenditure with guidance developed by his Department.

The counter-cyclical element in the ICNF has substantial value in cushioning future economic shocks and maintaining growth-enhancing investment through periods of lower or negative growth. The creation and existence of this fund will ensure that the State has resources available in a future downturn to support capital expenditure through the business cycle, instead of reducing capital expenditure in a pro-cyclical manner. In turn, this would avoid generating backlogs in capital projects due to a lack of spending during economic downturns. Up to 25% of the fund, less any commitments made to climate and nature expenditure, can be used in one year. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for public expenditure would co-ordinate this process so that the necessary amount is drawn from the fund in one year. This is to ensure that the resources of the fund are deployed appropriately.

Both funds will have a broad investment policy set out in legislation and post enactment a more detailed investment strategy will be prepared by the NTMA with input from the Ministers for Finance and public expenditure. The heads of the Bill provide for the funds to be vested in the Minister for Finance and managed and controlled by the NTMA. The funds would be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

As I had referred to earlier, it is intended that as part of the development of these funds, the National Reserve Fund would be discontinued and its assets allocated to the future Ireland fund, with €4.1 billion going to it, and with the getting ICNF €2 billion in 2024.

The intention of this legislation is to enable the State to put aside resources to manage the future challenges we know we will face in the coming years. It will also help to support capital spending in downturns, preventing a repeat of past occurrences where capital projects were delayed or cancelled due to economic downturn. This will be alongside supporting Ireland's climate and nature commitments, in the event we are missing or are likely to miss stated targets in those areas. I and my colleagues are available for questions.

I thank all the officials for coming before the committee this afternoon. At the outset, it is important to state that the decision to establish both of these funds is a political decision that was made by the Government. It is a decision that I support and which will, presumably, be given legislative effect when the Bill is enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I think this is a worthwhile exercise today, because it gives us an opportunity to assess how the legislation will operate and the funds, in effect, will operate in practical terms. Could I start by asking Mr. Ashmore questions about the two funds? Is it his belief that both funds will be operated and managed in a similar way to how the NTMA manages ISIF and the National Reserve Fund at present?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

They would be largely similar, in that the principal governance body overseeing the funds will be the agency board and the operational delivery will be managed and co-ordinated by the NTMA agency team under the executive management led by Frank O'Connor as chief executive. However, the mandates of the two funds are distinct. They are also distinct from ISIF. The investment strategy and the approach to investment of those funds will look somewhat different, mostly with regard to the timeframe.

There will be longer-term investments in the long-term fund and higher degrees of fixed income and lower-risk assets in the shorter-term funds. ISIF has a specific investment mandate around commercial investment that engages a slightly larger team than you would have relative to the assets and a much more proactive involvement in the economy and development of transactions. The new funds will, we imagine, be almost all globally invested outside the Irish economy in liquid markets to begin with and, over time, perhaps in alternative assets as that becomes appropriate.

When the legislation is enacted both funds will be statutory entities. Will they separately be corporate entities or are ISIF and the National Reserve Fund at present corporate entities?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No, they are not. The original National Pensions Reserve Fund had a separate corporate identity in the National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission. However, following the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014, the agency established a formal board and can provide that governance on behalf of the State. These funds and the ISIF do not have a separate governance identity as such.

On the first fund, the future Ireland fund, under head 5, there will be a statutory obligation on the Government to pay a certain amount into this fund each year, is that correct?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

That is correct.

It states it will be a sum equivalent to 0.8% of GDP. I think, after the infrastructure fund is set up, there is a requirement that €2 billion be put in every year. Are there similar statutory mandates in respect of the other funds operated by the NTMA that require the Government to invest a specific amount each year?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No. I may pass to my colleague, Mr. McEvoy, about the Social Insurance Fund but the ISIF is not a fund that expects that. It receives contributions to the discretionary portfolio in the form of dividends from bank shares. When AIB issues a dividend, we get a contribution but there is no obligation on the State to provide additional contributions.

At present, concerning the funds the NTMA operates, it is dependent on the individual decision of Government as to how much money goes into those funds. Is that correct?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

It is very much a political decision.

Perhaps this is a question for Mr. Gilvarry. Now, it will be very much a legal obligation on the Government, is that correct?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Yes. The aim is that we set clarity regarding the contribution. This comes from the report by the Department earlier this year and from looking at the excess corporation tax and the volatility in that regard. We did an analysis and we feel 0.8% is an appropriate level and that we have certainty on what that will build up over time and that we get returns on returns.

I am not critical of it. It is important to point out it is a departure, in that there is now a statutory obligation on the Government to provide a certain amount of funding.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The NPRF was 1% of gross national income at that time. There is that precedent.

To look at the future Ireland fund, the requirement is 0.8% of GDP. In 2022, GDP was around €480 billion, I think. Is that correct?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I think so.

We are looking at a figure of around €3.8 billion being required. Using 2022 as a standard year, the Government would be required to put into the future Ireland fund a sum in the region of €3.8 billion each year.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

It would be around €4 billion. That is worked off whatever the GDP was for the previous year. The 2024 contribution will be based on GDP in 2023.

I am trying to look ahead. You could say we have a dynamic political environment. It is not always the case that Governments have majorities in the Dáil. Under heads 5 and 6, it looks like the sum of 0.8% of GDP can be reduced if the Minister gets the approval of the Dáil to do so. Is that correct?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We are working this through at the moment in drafting and working with the OPC. The concept is that we set the level in the legislation but there will also be a framework. We have seen volatility in corporation tax. In five or six years' time, what will the economic condition be? We are working in a framework in which the Minister can reduce that level or, in exceptional circumstances, stop contributions. While we are still working through the process, there will be a framework in which there will be accountability to the Oireachtas in that regard. Similar to the National Reserve Fund, it will require a motion before the House.

What happens if, hypothetically, a Minister for Finance or the Government decide they do not want to pay 0.8% of GDP into the fund and they cannot get a Dáil resolution to reduce it? What is the consequence for the Government, other than acting unlawfully?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

In that case, the legislation would state that if they do not do a resolution or the Minister of the day does not decide to reduce it and follow the steps we will have to put through in legislation, that would be illegal. They would have to make the contribution of 0.8%.

They would be obliged to make it.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

It is the same as the NPRF.

Concerning the infrastructure fund, am I correct in stating that there is a similar procedure? Can the Minister come back and look for a resolution from the Dáil to reduce the amount?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The amounts are lower. We are setting an amount of €2 billion to go into that from surpluses from 2025 on. Contributions will end in 2030. It would be a similar process - if there is a significant downturn, contributions will end. On that basis, if there is a significant economic downturn, the ICNF more than likely will be utilised. The whole aim of it is to support the NDP and keep it going so we do not end up with a backlog of projects, particularly projects where we may not have put the shovel into the ground.

In the highly unlikely event that there was a Government prior to 2041 that wanted to access money in the fund, how will that be prevented? Let us say that ten years from now, the Government decides it wants more money. There is money in these funds and they are not supposed to mature; the first does not mature and cannot be accessed until 2041. How, without legislative change, does it block a Government from doing that?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

It does not really. The intent of the legislation is not that it will block. Any Government can change the legislation if needed. From memory, I think the NPRF legislation was changed as was required then. As the Deputy is aware, no Oireachtas can tie the hands of a future Oireachtas.

Mr. John McCarthy

On that point, the legal issues are legal but there are also reputational issues. Mr. McEvoy can speak more about this if needed. At the moment, all the credit rating agencies and market participants are saying this is a really good thing and a positive. It is a reason borrowing costs in Ireland are low. If a Government decided to work against that, there would be a reputational hit and higher borrowing costs. There would be a negative spillover to reputation.

I presume, at that stage, the fund or funds will be investing in projects and those people could lose confidence in Ireland as an investor if it looked like contributions to the fund were being stopped by a future government. The NTMA speaks a lot about responsible investment. Who decides? Is it a matter for the NTMA to decide what is responsible?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The structure of the legislation, as we put in the heads, is that there is a high level in the strategy. The Minister and the Minister for public expenditure and reform will have a role in that. We are trying to reflect the practice currently in the funds we operate, particularly ISIF, and have that framework. I will pass to Mr. Ashmore to talk through how it currently works.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

At the moment, we have a sustainable and responsible investment strategy that lays out how the NTMA approaches responsible investment. It aligns with the UN principles for responsible investment. The main tools we use are thinking about responsible investment in the context of capital allocation. We integrate it into our analysis of investments and potential investments. We pursue a policy of active ownership, which varies depending on whether it is public or private markets and Irish investments. We also have a practice of exclusion on a practical basis for certain categories of investment. Those exclusions are in two forms, either voluntary or through legislation such as the cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines legislation and the fossil fuel exclusion legislation. That feeds into the strategy. We deploy it in a number of ways. Irish investments tend to be singular, either in funds or individual companies, businesses or platforms.

We will assess the sustainable, responsible investment aspect of each of those investments as we put it through our approval process. In the global markets, we work with external managers. We work with third party counterparties or providers who work on our behalf to both track the ESG aspects of those investments but also to engage on our behalf, and on behalf of other investors in aggregate, with companies in those portfolios.

The hope is that by 2035, we will have €70 billion in the first fund. Is that correct?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Yes, that is the intent. In the forecasting we have done we have looked at contributions and if everything goes well and we keep the 0.8% then we will be somewhere around €75 billion. Again, these are all forecasts but if we are assuming a conservative return, we could have a fund size of about €100 billion by 2040. That is a significant size-----

By what year did Mr. Gilvarry say?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

By 2040. That would be a significant fund from which we could draw down income from 2041 to offset some of the known challenges that we face in the latter years.

Finally, I assume our guests have looked at similar funds that have been established in other countries. Obviously it is a matter for the Government in 2041 to decide what it wishes to use the funds for but how have other countries used funds when they have matured? For what purpose have the funds been used?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We have looked at a number of funds. In the Norwegian scenario, about 20% of that country's budget is funded out of the returns on the fund. Alaska is another example where the dividends are paid out. They are examples of jurisdictions which have taken the income coming through.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

A lot of the funds are for pension liabilities and a lot are not in a situation where they are paying out. Many are still building up capital or taking in capital. The Alaska fund is an interesting example because a cheque is written to every individual in Alaska every year from the fund. The Norwegian fund is interesting but is also the extreme case in the set because it is the largest fund by far in the world. It is a very substantial fund.

Thanks very much.

Mr. John McCarthy

Can I make one comment please? In terms of the fund, obviously €70 billion is an enormous amount but that will only partly pre-fund the pension and social welfare liabilities of the State. This fund does not go anywhere near fully looking after those. The increases in expenditure simply because of an ageing population are enormous. By the end of this decade, we will need to spend about €8 billion more simply to stand still because we will have more older people. That is just this decade and it increases exponentially thereafter. The €70 billion is a lot and it sounds like a lot but actually it is only part pre-funding. That point is worth making as well.

I welcome all of our guests to the committee. We had a stark reminder in relation to the cost of ageing in a report prepared by the Department a number of years ago in the context of health and pension expenditure in particular.

To go through this fund, I welcome the proposals that are under consideration here today. I will start with the existing funds. This is not new or novel. We are replicating tried and tested methods here, with the National Pensions Reserve Fund being one of the most recent examples. We got a nice reminder from Mr. Ashmore that we are supposed to be drawing down money from that fund in 18 months' time to help pay for pensions. Unfortunately, the Cabinet has decided to increase PRSI rates to deal with that because the pension fund went to Anglo Irish Bank back in the day.

Mr. Dave McEvoy

Allied Irish Bank.

Sorry, to Allied Irish Bank back in the day.

Let us start with the National Pensions Reserve Fund. Obviously that fund does not exist any more. That was set up such that a percentage of GDP was to be injected each year. Is that right?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No, a percentage of GNP.

Sorry, GNP and the Government of the day was not allowed to draw down the capital until 2025. Is that correct?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes.

However, the bankers then came knocking at the door and the legislation was changed. To answer Deputy O'Callaghan's question, the concerns that have been raised there have been done before and there is nothing in the legislation to prevent that. It talks about reputational damage as such.

In relation to the NPRF, what was supposed to be in it? What were the projections for 2025? Do the witnesses recall what we were supposed to have in that fund?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

I do not recall the projections. We conducted an exercise earlier this year, a very quick calculation, to see what we thought it might have reached if we had been able to retain the funds in the NPRF. In 2008 the fund took a serious hit in the markets, like every investor. The worst thing is that a liquidator fund, when it has just taken a hit, does not recover. If, prior to that withdrawal, we had kept the assets that were in the fund at that point, without additional contributions, and if we had just earned the average return on Irish pension funds to now, we would think it would have been about €45 billion.

It would have been around €45 billion with no contributions beyond that.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

That was the assumption.

Was there an estimation done on the basis of an assumption that the legal position was to prevail until 2025?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No, we did not do that because we did not go back and look at the GNP data to work that out.

It would be fair to say-----

Mr. Nick Ashmore

It would be substantial.

-----that the €45 billion figure would possibly be doubled, if not more. Is that the case?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes.

We had a fund, set down in law, which should be at around €100 billion, and growing, at this point in time but unfortunately, we are not there. We have to learn lessons from that in the context of these funds. On the ISIF, what is value of the assets in that fund at the minute? What is it made up of?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

It is just under €9 billion at the moment in the discretionary portfolio. There is around €6 billion in the discretionary portfolio which is the residual bank share holding in AIB.

So there is €6 billion in banks and €3 billion in the discretionary portfolio. Is that it?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No. There is just under €9 billion of a discretionary portfolio.

There is €9 billion in the discretionary fund and €6 billion in the banks, which means it is €15 billion in total. Is that what Mr. Ashmore is saying?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes.

On the rate of return, what have we been averaging in the last couple of years?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Since inception, we are averaging about 2.4%

I know that it varies at different times. The NPRF was doing very well in that regard until the financial crash. Is that correct?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes, until the financial crisis.

Would the 2.4% return be below or in line with the projections for the type of returns we would be looking at?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

The 2.4% reflects the nature of the investment of the discretionary portfolio which is split into two parts. We have what we call Irish impact investments which tend to be in alternative assets. These are higher risk, higher returning investments that are quite illiquid and which generate a greater level of return. The balance, in what we call the global portfolio, is really a low-risk, liquid reserve that is there to fund Irish investments as they arise. That generates a much lower return. The 2.4% is a composite of the two different portfolios' returns and what they have generated over the last while. That is quite different from the way we would expect to see either the Future Ireland Fund or the ICNF perform.

Yes and I understand that but I just want to know, on the basis of expectation and outturn, where is ISIF? When our guests were sitting down three years ago, what was their target in terms of the rate of return?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Our target is to beat the benchmark that is built into the legislation, which is that we beat the rolling average five-year cost of Government debt. We are actually just slightly above that level at the moment. That is the return target for the two portfolios together.

Okay. That is a legislative provision and that is fair enough. I know that our guests want to comply with the legislative provision but as investors, they are hardly sitting around a board and if -----

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No, we-----

-----markets are saying there are great returns here, let us try to get 2%. Our guests have a target and I am just wondering where they are vis-à-vis that target.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We are about on track in terms of what we had expected to do in terms of the two portfolios. The low-risk liquid portfolio has generated a very low return because we have gone through ten years of very low or negative interest rates. We were not carrying risk on that portfolio. The current return on that portfolio is much more significant because interest rates have come up so much. We would expect to be earning around 3% on that, even at the very low-risk end of that portfolio. The Irish portfolio returns are more like 6% or 7%.

Just on an issue that has been very topical here, ISIF continues to invest in companies that are on the UN Human Rights Council database of businesses and enterprises involved in certain activities related to illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine.

We are all witnessing the horrors that are happening in Gaza at this point in time. It is hurtful to a lot of people. Tens of thousands have made their views known and have come onto the streets having seen that the State is investing in companies that are involved in illegal settlements in Palestine. Can Mr. Ashmore give the committee any update? Has ISIF divested from all of those?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We have not divested at this point. What we are doing and focusing on at the moment is working with the Department, as it works on the draft legislation to exclude investments that are active in the occupied Palestinian territories, OPT. Pending the outcome of that process, we will then be ready to enact the requirements of the legislation as it comes through. Given the time and the work put in by the Department and the Dáil, we have to respect that and not pre-empt the Oireachtas decision. That is why we have not made any change at this point.

The Oireachtas has passed Second Stage of Sinn Féin legislation. The Dáil has given in an initial view on it. It is not enacted in law yet but that it is a signal. To tell the truth, the public is just aghast at this. It should not take waiting for the legislation to be passed and a signature by the President for the NTMA and ISIF to say, "Let us not invest Irish taxpayers' money into companies involved in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine". They are illegal.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

A timed amendment was passed, which will bring us up to February. The Deputy is right but this is a complex issue, and we are working through it. We have been engaging with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on this. There is a report to come through. The Minister wrote to the committee. He also wrote to the CEO of the NTMA for views on this. We have been working quite closely with NTMA and ISIF on this. We have also been engaging with the Attorney General on this as well.

We have the UN list. As the Deputy knows, the UN list has only recently been updated. Before that, it was in place for a number of years with no changes. I think 15 companies have come off. There is one company that has come up. In regard to that list, as we understand it, a lot of entities did not engage. That is not anything against the list but the UN had written to a number of the companies on it, but very few engaged. We have to see what is the best approach on this, and the timed amendment gives us time to look at it and see how best it can be operationalised. This is something that we are very conscious of, particularly as we are moving through with the two funds on how we have this framework. There is a lot of work going on in the background. It is not just as simple as us putting a list together. We have to make sure that we are doing this right and we get the appropriate outcome.

I can pass over to my colleague, Mr. Pat Leahy, who has been leading on this, if there is anything he would like to add.

Mr. Pat Leahy

With regard to the legislation from Deputy Doherty's party, we need to make sure that it works. A broad policy approach needs to be considered by Government with regard to this, and I do not think anybody outside the House appreciates this. The seriousness of the situation or what is going on is not underestimated. It is more to make sure that we get a coherent policy approach. The arrival of these two new funds clearly is an issue to be talked about as well, and how they deal with this. There is also an issue on how the legislation progresses. Clearly, disinvestment is always an option but the legislation will still need to be dealt with in terms of how it will work or not work, as the case may be. It is a relatively complex issue, as Mr. Gilvarry said, and we are seeking to work through it to achieve the best outcome. We will be looking at the issue in more detail as the timeline for the timed amendment appraoches in early February. I will make sure the Government has a policy position on it.

Who sets the investment strategy for ISIF? Is it the Minister? Is it Government?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

The investment strategy is set by the agency after consultation with the Minister.

Is there anything to preclude ISIF from divesting from anything, whether nuclear weapons companies, environmentally-damaging companies or companies operating in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine? Is there anything to stop ISIF's strategy dealing with that, or does it need a law to be passed?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No, we do not. We have exclusions, a mix of both legislative and non-legislative exclusions that we have enacted.

That is the point. The bombs are raining down on children, women and innocent civilians right across Palestine. It does not require a change in the law. We have put this forward. The Government has delayed this by nine months but it does not require a law to be changed for ISIF, in my view, to do the right thing. I do not understand it. A change in the law is not needed. ISIF's strategy could be adapted. Companies have views on what they should be doing from a moral, environmental and sustainability point of view. I do not think Sinn Féin should have to force this issue onto the agenda. We brought this forward at a time when Israel was not unleashing the terror it is has unleashed over the last five weeks in Palestine.

I am going to leave it at that but let me say this. The signal that this sends out - it is not so much a signal as a fact - is that Ireland is using taxpayers' money to fund companies that are on a UN list and that are involved in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine at a time when we have thousands of innocent civilians being slaughtered by Israel. Stop it, immediately. I have huge regard for the NTMA and I do not believe that it needs to do this. It may want to play the game the Government is playing in terms of waiting nine months and doing its own thing. Just stop this. I do not think there is anybody out there - maybe a few but very few and far between - who would actually argue or think that it would be a bad idea for us to stop using taxpayers' money in this way.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I want to make a point on this. The nine-month timed amendment provides us with time to see how best to operationalise and approach this issue. As I said on the UN list, there have been issues with the UN list before. We have had changes to the UN list. Companies have come off, and no companies have gone on. We have to identify how this works, and that is what the timed amendment is doing. This is not something we are ignoring or delaying. There is significant work being done in the background, and there are a number of issues. As I said, we have engaged with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on this, and we will await the report there. We have been engaging at a departmental level with the NTMA and ISIF on this, and significant work is under way. There are legal issues as well that have to be engaged with. We have been engaging with the Attorney General on this.

There are a number of different aspects to this, and that is not, as we have highlighted, to underplay the issues that are under way in the Middle East at the moment, and everything that is happening there. This is something that has to take place-----

Mr. Gilvarry is speaking from a departmental point of view but it is not the Department that sets the ISIF strategy. ISIF itself can do this. Does Mr. Gilvarry accept that? I know the Department is dealing with the Attorney General on legislation and all the rest, and I am going to leave it at that. I have not gone into the meat and bones of this.

Deputy Doherty's time is nearly up.

Okay. I ask the Chair to give me a few minutes. The National Reserve Fund has €6 billion in it. How many years did we miss the legislative requirement to put money into that fund? There was a legal requirement to put money into the fund, and the Minister brought a resolution every year to say it would not be done this year.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

It was three years, I think.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

The suspension of contributions to the fund was done within the legislation. The legislation allowed for-----

I understand that, and this legislation allows for it as well. I just want to know how many times it was done.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

In 2020 and 2021.

On the investment strategy, it can be invested inside or outside the State. That is common to both funds. What is the NTMA's thinking with regard to the proportion of investment, if any, that would be State-wide? I know there are risks when one invests in the State. What is the thinking at this point in time?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

The first thing is that we want to make sure we can invest inside the State, so that we do not have a surreal situation where we are excluding Irish companies from broad stock indexes that we are trying to get exposure to and invest in. From a practical point of view, it is very important that we have a global investment mandate in order to optimise the commercial risk-adjusted return of the funds.

The other side of the coin is that the ISIF is there with a specific mandate to undertake commercial and developmental investments in Ireland and in the economy. Therefore, that frees up these funds to take a global approach where they are just focused on obtaining the best risk-adjusted return they possibly can, in accordance with the strategy and the risk appetite set by the agency, and also in a responsible manner.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Just to add to that, we very much see this as consisting of three pillars. There are the future Ireland fund, the ICNF and ISIF, which supports the domestic economy. The other two funds invest internationally in the vast majority of cases. We still have ISIF and the crowding-in of private investment within it. That is how-----

I hear that. The point is well made.

According to the general scheme, "The Agency shall publicly disclose the investment strategy determined from time to time". Do the witnesses have any sense of whether that will be on an annual basis?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

If we have any investment strategy, it will be published on the website. It will not be a question of us producing it, it disappearing and reappearing. It will be there all the time.

Perfect. I wanted to clarify that in terms of the heads of Bill. The issue of 8% of GDP was dealt with. On the balance standing to the credit of the National Reserve Fund, €4 billion is going into the future Ireland fund and €2 billion is going into the ICNF in 2024. Is that being liquidated at the minute?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

It is being held in Exchequer notes at the moment.

In terms of the Minister doing what he did with the future Ireland fund, namely, bringing a resolution before the House to say that he, or perhaps she in the case of a future holder of the office, is not putting the money in, the general scheme refers to an evaluation to determine whether "a significant deterioration in the public finances has occurred each year or where that deterioration persists in the case of years subsequent to a deterioration being established". It appears that there are more stringent criteria for the Minister doing that. There has to be a serious deterioration in the public finances. How will that be quantified? What is the legal weight in terms of having regard to the views of the Minister for public expenditure? It requires Cabinet approval anyway. If the witnesses would not mind answering those two questions.

Mr. John McCarthy

I will have a go at the first one. What we are thinking is that if there is a deterioration in the economy, we may want to keep money to support the domestic economy rather than put it into this fund, so we need to create a situation in which we can reduce the contributions. If there is a cyclical downturn or a structural downturn, for instance, if corporate tax receipts were to fall off a cliff and remain permanently low, that is what we mean when we talk about continuing difficulties. In the past, 1% of GNP was put into the National Pensions Reserve Fund, and that was it. What we are trying to create, on this occasion, is the ability to reduce the amount depending on the state of the economy or the state of the public finances.

The serious deterioration could be looked at. Is it a serious deterioration based on the projections in respect of the public finances, which is one thing, or a serious deterioration in the public finances, which is another? We could be in a situation where we are in surplus but we actually do not want to put this money into the fund because legislatively it is locked away until 2040, and we just do not know what is down the road. Is it serious deterioration in terms of the projections, or in terms of the actual public finances? Some would argue that there is no serious deterioration if we are looking at a balanced budget.

Mr. John McCarthy

Theoretically, or even in reality, we could have a situation in which from January in a particular year, the economy goes off a cliff or the public finances go off a cliff so that by the end of the year, we are looking at a real deterioration and we do not want to continue. It would be based on actual developments or forecasted developments. The idea is that the Minister would undertake an assessment, looking at a wide range of macro variables, economic as well as fiscal, to see if a reduction is justified, whether that is a reduction in the current year or a reduction in future years.

I have two final questions on the ICNF. Each year, €2 billion is being invested, and the total contributions will be no more than €14 billion. The general scheme allows the Government to increase those contributions following a resolution passed by the Dáil, but they can never go above €14 billion. The Government is not going to meet its climate targets, so the reality is that money is going to be drawn down from the climate fund in 2025, I assume, which is allowed for under the legislation. In my view, we will not have situation where there will ever be €14 billion in the fund. If the Government brings a resolution, let us say in a bumper corporation tax year, to put more into the climate fund, can we put an extra €2 billion in it if €14 billion of contributions have already been paid into it, even if some of them have been withdrawn at that stage?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

On the ICNF, the aim of €14 billion in contributions is roughly what the NDP provides for, as 5% of GNI*. The annual spend on capital is roughly €12 billion to €14 billion, so we are aiming for that. The intention is to build that up to 2030. Subject to correction from my colleagues, we are not intending to put additional money in there in a one-off basis. The plan is that in 2030 there will be a review and the government of the day can decide whether to continue to contribute €2 billion, or whatever amount, into the ICNF going forward. The whole aim is to bring ourselves up to €14 billion by 2030. If we are unlikely to meet our targets in relation to climate, nature and water quality, there could be a draw-down on that from 2026 to 2030. When we were looking at this, we wanted to ensure that we had learned the lessons of the past, or that is the intention of it. From what we have seen in capital expenditure over the years and as I pointed out earlier, the projects that are cut are usually the projects on which the shovel has not been put into the ground or have only started off. We are also looking forward so that at the end of the day, if we fail to meet our targets there will be problems for the State not only in potential fines, but also in respect of the impact on our biodiversity and water.

From my reading of head 12.3, it allows for additional contributions to be made. Perhaps the committee can get a note on that or somebody else can pick up on it. With the indulgence of the Chair, I have one last question. Roughly €4 billion is going into the future Ireland fund and €2 billion is going into the ICNF each year, which amounts to €6 billion going into these funds. The surplus projected for 2025 is just over €14 billion, and that is with a budgetary package, demographics and all that being catered for. The projections for 2026 are roughly the same. If we take it that there will be a €14 billion surplus in each of those years, €6 billion of which is going into the funds, what happens with the other €8 billion?

Mr. John McCarthy

Debt reduction.

Mr. John McCarthy

Debt reduction, yes.

Paying off debt?

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes.

Is that wise, if the return on these investments is actually higher than the cost of the debt, especially if we are doing it on a fund that can be liquidated?

Mr. John McCarthy

The numbers to which the Deputy referred are the central forecast. There is every possibility that our central forecast may be wrong. Things could be worse. As the Deputy is aware, we have seen corporate tax receipts easing over the past couple of months. The figures of €14 billion and €16 billion are in no way guaranteed in later years. That needs to be borne in mind as well.

They could be higher. The point is that we may get a higher return. If you talk to anybody at home, and I know there are issues in terms of the reputational damage, the funders are looking at the funds and whether the money can be accessed. If we are talking about debt of 2.5% and a return of 3%, why would we be using our money to pay down debt when we can get a 3% return that will becomes available to us, especially at that scale.

Mr. Dave McEvoy

One thing that is important is that there is the flexibility to make an incremental payment into the fund. There is that flexibility. It is very important, at any stage, to look at the cost of our debt, the amount we have to fund and the cost of it. If it makes sense, there is room and scope to make incremental payments into the fund.

I call Deputy Conway-Walsh.

I have to go in five minutes. Could I have five minutes now, if Deputy Conway-Walsh and the Chair do not mind?

It is important that we hear from Deputy Boyd Barrett.

I appreciate that. I want to ask about the banks and the ISIF money. There is €6 billion of the ISIF money in the banks. Is that right?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

The part that contains the bank shares is currently-----

That contains the bank shares.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

-----sitting at €6 billion. It is a mix of bank shares and some cash. Some of that cash is reserved for the funding of the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland. There is a small asset which is a loan to Home Building Finance Ireland and there is some cash that resulted from the sale of shares in the AIB.

Can the witnesses remind me how much there was in banks before we started to sell off the shares in the banks that we had nationalised?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I would need to check it for the Deputy and we can come back to him. The number that I have in my head is that the investment in the banks was somewhere around about €30 billion, ignoring Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide. We can come back but we will have to check it.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

It was about €20 billion originally.

It was about €20 billion.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

That was a mix of buying 15% of Bank of Ireland and nationalising AIB.

As we sold off those shares did that money just go back to normal Government expenditure?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Yes, that came back into the Central Fund.

It came back to central funding. Are we getting dividends from our shares in the banks?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes, we get dividends from AIB. At the moment, they come into the discretionary fund of ISIF and it tops up the capital there.

What sort of money are we getting from AIB?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

It is less than a couple of hundred million.

A couple of hundred million, but it would have been more presumably.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes, it would have been more previously, but I think it was never more than €300 million.

Okay, €300 million. Perhaps Governments have made announcements on this or perhaps not, but is it projected that the other €6 billion in shares is going to be sold off?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

It is being sold off at the moment. There is an active sale programme under way, which sells a small amount every month and then periodically we have seen the shareholding and financial advisory division, SFAD, within the Department of Finance, which controls this process has sold particular placements of stocks and shares. This month there was a sale of about €500 million.

Just so that I understand, is it the case that once it is all sold off, there will be no more dividends coming in? This money is being transferred over to a fund. Which fund is it? Is it the infrastructure fund or both?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

On the shares, the dividends that come in are any receipts from the disposal of AIB that is in the directed portfolio and ISIF which basically come back in through to the Exchequer.

In response to the Deputy's point on dividends, at a point in time when we have sold all the shares in AIB, for example, no further dividends will come into the State. The dividends are only coming in because of the shares we hold in the bank.

Yes. Have we done a cost-benefit analysis on that? I am just curious. It is obviously Government policy but I wonder what the benefit is. Dividends are going to stop coming in. I am not tracking bank shares at the moment but the value of bank shares are going up because they are making super-profits.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The divestment of the investment holdings in banks is Government policy. In the case of Bank of Ireland, what has happened is that the money that was provided to it to support it during the crisis was paid back. It is Government policy to reduce the holdings in AIB.

In the meantime, is it the case that before we sell off those shares, they are going to go into one of these new funds?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

No. There is the directed portfolio in regard to ISIF and some of the money that comes through out of the share sales or the dividends is sitting in ISIF at the moment but usually that goes back into the Central Fund, basically into the Exchequer.

For what it is worth, it seems to be folly for us to be selling the banks off and losing the dividends at a time when they are making us a lot of money. It would be a prudent investment to run the banks given all the surplus money we have.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I will make just one point on that. The counter to it is that because they are paying dividends we are getting the capital return out of that.

But it is one-off and that is it.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

It is, but as we have seen during the crisis, dividends were also switched off, as they were during the pandemic. Banks were not paying dividends.

Overall, I think the one lesson we have learned is that the banks never lose. Everything was thrown at them to bail them out. They never lose and they are back making profits again. Anyway, it is obviously a difference in policy.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

On the bank side, again, it is a very different framework from what we had in 2008 in regard to a European supervisory framework and also on the resolution funds we have in place.

I will ask the next question on Palestine very quickly because I have just two minutes. Do we have information on where companies are operating in the occupied territories? Do the witnesses have details that can be shared about investments we have in Israel full stop, not just companies that might be operating in the occupied territories but that are based in or operating in Israel? Some of us – not least quite a few human rights organisations - happen to believe that the whole system is apartheid and we should not be investing in it. Whether the Government agrees or not with that, I wonder if we could have access to the information on where we may have investment in the State of Israel? Is that information available?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We publish a full list of ISIF's individual holdings every year in our annual report. That is available on the NTMA website.

Does the NTMA break it down into jurisdictions?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We do. We have a geographical analysis.

A geographical analysis is available. Can I get that on the ISIF website?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes, on isif.ie.

That is great.

This is the very last question I want to ask. If we are not meeting our climate targets, can the money being used to meet our targets – the money that can be spent - be used to buy carbon credits?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The intent of this money is for measures that help us, whether it is in relation to capital projects that will reduce 1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent being emitted, or improve water quality or biodiversity. That is the intent here. The intention would not be that we would go and buy credits.

It would not be the intention but would it be allowed? We are going to miss our targets. Everybody knows that. One of the ways the Government has got out of that dilemma is by purchasing carbon credits - buying the right from other people to pollute more. I am just wondering if it allows for that.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

How we are constructing this is that it is for projects that help us reduce emissions and help us improve biodiversity and water quality.

Therefore, it cannot be used for carbon credits.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I cannot see how the purchase of carbon credits could help us improve. It is basically to help capital projects that reduce the emissions, and improve water quality and biodiversity. It does not help with credits.

It would be useful to get a categoric response on that. Perhaps it is an issue that we could get further clarity on.

Mr. Pat Leahy

I might just add that I would not think so, or maybe I would even say "No" if that is what is required. It is really intended to achieve certain carbon reductions in particular for capital projects, for example, the planting of nature-based solutions for water quality.

This is literally my last question. On that very point, the purchase of forests has become a big thing because they are supposedly carbon sinks, but there are also very serious reports that a lot of our forests are actually carbon emitters because of the type of forestry – monoculture of Sitka spruce - or it is planted on the wrong kind of soil so it is actually bad for water quality rather than good for it. Who is going to assess the actual environmental quality of certain types of investment that might purport to be beneficial in terms of meeting climate and biodiversity targets, but in actuality may be very damaging for climate and biodiversity purposes?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Again, with the money that will come out in the climate and nature aspect, that would go to the relevant Departments. In this case it could be agriculture or heritage. Some of this will come through under the kind of guidance issued by the Minister through his officials in the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. The objective is that it would reduce then. If we have a system where a capital project or investment is not achieving that, it will not meet the criteria. That will be a framework that will have to be put in place as the legislation is brought through.

I thank the witnesses and Deputy Conway-Walsh.

I will just follow on from that in terms of investments in energy and decarbonisation. Does that mean subsidies can be given to private companies for decarbonisation?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The aim of this is that there would be capital projects. If there is a subsidy, that would be current expenditure. There needs to be a project that has a capital aspect to it to reduce CO2 equivalent or to improve water quality or biodiversity.

Are subsidies not being given at the moment?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Subsidies again fall to colleagues. There are schemes out there run by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. I do not know the detail of them.

That is okay. I was just following on from that. I wonder what direction we are going and how we establish if a subsidy is necessary.

We can talk about that again.

I want to go back to the issue of ISIF investing in companies operating in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. People will be alarmed to discover this because they may not know that their money is being invested there. Notwithstanding the complexities involved, how long will it take before that stops? It is important for future funds that people have confidence in how their money is invested. Mr. Gilvarry might give me a timeline.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

On the timeline, as I said to Deputy Doherty in regard to the process we are going through, we are conscious of this as we are moving through in regard to the future Ireland fund, the ICNF and what our frameworks are. We do have a framework for the investment strategy that ISIF and the board of the NTMA put forward in consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. It is the same as what I said earlier. We are working through this and we need to see how we can get the right solution and a framework that can actually work. The Deputy is outlining the issue and we can see the issue in the Middle East but, again, it is that we have a framework that can operate for other issues that we may face in the future. To be fair to ISIF, when we look at what has been done, we have certain legislation in place on fossil fuels but we also have frameworks in place that are voluntary and offer guidance in regard to other aspects. We are working through this. It is the same point that I made earlier. This is not something that we are ignoring. We are seeing what is the best way to get the best solution on this.

Could the funds be set up without this framework being put in place?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We will have a framework, as I said. The Deputy will see that in the heads, and ESG is going to be a major part of this. It depends on what the Deputy means by a framework. We will have to see in regard to the Private Members’ Bill on divestment in the occupied territories. We are going to work through the legislation but the Private Members’ Bill is separate to this. With the signed amendment, we will be bringing that forward and we will await reports from the relevant committees on it.

It is very important with these funds that, from day one, people have confidence in where their money is being invested. What has happened to date in terms of ISIF still investing there will cause alarm to people. I do not think it is the right thing to do.

I want to continue with my questions. With regard to the €100 billion that the Department is targeting for 2041, is that in current or constant prices?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

That would be nominal return so, basically, it will be return plus inflation.

Is that at 2023 prices?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

It is at current prices.

What is the rationale for dissolving the National Reserve Fund and how is that currently stored and invested? How will the infrastructure, climate and nature fund and the FIF be stored? What are the investment strategies and the time horizons of both of those funds? I am trying to get at how they are stored as opposed to how the others are stored, and I will then have some follow-on questions.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

In relation to the National Reserve Fund, at the moment, that is in Exchequer notes, so it is basically in very short-term paper, in essence, close to cash or cash. The rationale regarding the National Reserve Fund is that it was in place as a countercyclical. What we are putting in place, in particular in the ICNF, is basically to support our countercyclical there. By maintaining the NRF while having the other funds, we are really doubling up what the intention of the NRF is. We will be doubling up at additional cost and we can then use the moneys out of that to seed both the ICNF and the future Ireland fund.

In regard to the future Ireland fund, the intent is that it cannot be drawn down until 2040, so it would be a longer timeframe in regard to investments. I will pass over to Mr. Ashmore shortly to get more detail on that.

With the ISIF and the framework we have there, money can potentially be taken out up to a maximum of 22.5% of the fund from 2026 onwards. The fact it is a counter-cyclical means that if something goes wrong or the economy starts to slow down and we need to be able to take money out of that to support the NDP, that will be a much shorter timeline and more liquid assets compared to the-----

I want to clarify what I am trying to get at with this. We saw with the National Reserve Fund and the National Training Fund that the general Government balance is impacted in exactly the same way in terms of spending from the funds as it would be in terms of general expenditure. Would it be different under the FIF and the ICNF if they were not to be stored in Irish sovereign debt?

Mr. John McCarthy

No, it would be exactly the same. Once the expenditure takes place and if moneys are drawn down and spent, it would constitute spending within general Government spending, so it would affect the general Government balance.

Is that part of the problem in terms of why we cannot draw down on the National Training Fund even though it now contains more than €1 billion? Is it the right way to do this?

Mr. John McCarthy

There is no rule, shall we say, that prevents us from drawing down from the NTF. The Government can decide to spend this money if it wants. As the Deputy knows, the Government went beyond its self-imposed 5% rule and there is no European Union rule at the moment that prevents us from spending from the NTF.

There is nothing that prevents it from spending the National Training Fund. Businesses will be interested to hear that. It is a Government decision not to spend money from it.

Mr. John McCarthy

It is the Government’s own spending rule that limits spending to 5%, although it went beyond that on this occasion. It must be remembered what is the stage of the economic cycle and what additional spending would do above and beyond that.

I understand the inflationary aspect and all of that. However, investment in education and training is one of the key drivers of foreign direct investment and we see the movements, even in the past few months. It is certainly worth consideration into the long term and we can also look at some of the other categories where investment can be targeted, such as lifelong learning and so on.

Mr. John McCarthy

As far as I know, there is work under way and the Government is to come back to this issue in January in the context of the following budget with regard to how the NTF will be used to fund some of the additional training. Rather than being off the agenda, it is still on the agenda but it just did not happen in this particular budget.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

On the infrastructure fund, the aim is to draw it down when we hit problems so that we support the NDP. In that sense, if we are facing a situation where we are in difficulty or there is a slowdown in the economy, that boosts us so, in theory, the spending rule should not have an impact.

I will pass over to Mr. Ashmore regarding the investment strategy for the future Ireland fund and the ICNF.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

The Deputy is right that the time horizons for the two different funds are starkly different. The necessity to have funds available to be able to liquidate and provide funds at 22.5% of the fund in any particular year necessitates a shorter-term investment strategy which will speak to a higher proportion of fixed income and a question as to whether we would include equities in that portfolio at all. It will be a matter for the agency board to make that assessment and to come up with a strategy that reflects that. That is liable to be global fixed income, often sovereign bonds, high-grade corporate bonds and those kinds of things, that will provide an income but will give a high degree of confidence that the money is there when we need it.

For the future investment fund, it is a much longer term time horizon, not just in terms of the time to provide a payment out to the State, but that the payment is actually anticipated to be made on a sustainable basis. Therefore, when we hit 2041, we are not going to liquidate the fund over time. The fund will be invested on a perpetual basis but in such a way that it provides that payment to the State on an annual and reasonably consistent basis in order to ensure there is a fair distribution of the proceeds across generations as well. That is a very long-term time horizon and it will speak to a higher risk appetite for the fund.

The continued nature of contributions to the fund is also helpful in mitigating risk and bearing a higher level of risk over that initial period and beyond. I imagine there will be a phase, as contributions are coming in, where risk is high, with a higher proportion of equity-type risk and maybe alternative assets as well.

Then, from 2035 onwards we will have to start thinking about that forward plan for five years as to what money might be paid out from 2041 onwards. It may well be that the portfolio is adjusted somewhat in that respect to have a higher proportion of investments that bear income, either dividends or interest, and also that the risk profile is right to create a sustainable and consistent payout over time. It will evolve over time therefore but initially, that long-term time horizon will mean that fund has a high-risk capital.

How was the 0.8% figure reached? Why is it the percentage of GDP rather than GNI*?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The reason we use GDP is that, again, the whole aim is that we are able to put away some of that windfall or windfall corporation tax.

It is to have cash.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

If we use GDP, we are capturing that. The fact is that if the corporation tax take falls, the GDP numbers should fall as well so then the number declines with it. It gives us the flexibility there. The reason we landed on 0.8%, if we look at the forecast on the budget documentation out to 2026, is again the volatility we have seen in corporation tax. It is to give us the space there, hence we have the ability in the heads, which I have in front of me, whereby the Government can basically fly a motion before the House to put additional money in if it so wishes.

Why is the ICNF being funded at the flat €2 billion rather than the percentage?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The reason for that is we were aiming to link the ICNF into what is basically a year's worth. The fund would get to a size that it is basically equivalent to one year's worth of capital expenditure as per the NDP. It is roughly 5% of GNI*. That is why we went with the scenario of €2 billion per year to go into that to build it up that way.

In terms of the ratios, how was the decision reached to initially fund at the 2:1 ratio in favour of the future Ireland fund compared to the ICNF?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I am sorry. Is the Deputy asking why are we putting more seed funding into the future Ireland fund?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

In reality, because of the target size of €14 million, that will allow us to build that over a couple of years. With the scenario we had, in some ways, we looked at it that we have more time to build. The fiscal position is strong at the moment. We feel over the next year or 18 months that it is unlikely that we will need to draw down on the ICNF. It was better to basically put the money into the future Ireland fund because our whole aim is to get the returns on the returns and, therefore, putting money in there early in a bigger amount means that will then grow. By 2040, the compounding on that €4 billion is significant if we work it out on that. That was the rationale.

How will the Government outline or communicate the investment mandate of NTMA?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

As we outlined previously, the investment strategy is for the board of the NTMA in consultation with the Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, but also the publication of that as well.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

That will be published once it is approved and it will remain published until such time as it is adjusted.

When we heard from representatives of the central bank of Norway, they spoke about the long-term trend towards falling real rate of returns from the wealth fund. It has over time shifted more towards equities as a share of the fund to maintain the real rate of the return and that is obviously the higher risk Mr. Gilvarry spoke mentioned. What will be the target real rate for the return of both funds, particularly the FIF? What will be the acceptable range of the real rate of return? Is that going to be established in legislation or will it be at the discretion of the Government of the day?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Again, that would be an investment. I will pass over to Mr. Ashmore on the FIF. Really, where we will be on the ICNF is that it is something we may need access to. That will constrain in some ways the length of time. It is a bit like the national reserve fund in that we may need to draw it down. We cannot put it away for ten years because we do not know when it is going to be. That will just basically constrain the return. We want it in a situation where it is vested and safe and where there is some sort of return coming through, but also have the ability to access it. Mr. Ashmore might comment on the future Ireland fund.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

The NTMA agency board will determine the appropriate level of risk and, therefore, the target return to achieve the objectives set down under the legislation. We do not have a legislative return target. There is a test in the legislation around the withdrawal of capital we will require if the fund has failed to return a greater return over a ten-year period than the cost of the debt. There will be an ability to withdraw capital from the fund. We think that is a very unlikely scenario. It is only from 2040 onwards. However, that level of return and the risk adjusted return is determined by the agency and then that will, in turn, be delivered by the executive reporting into the agency and held accountable to achieve that return by the agency on behalf of the Government.

Finally, what if the most productive investment is actually increasing the State ownership or State capacity? In public investment, it could be a situation where there would not be a commercial return but financial benefit in the form of the savings to the Exchequer. I am thinking of avoiding the costly public-private partnership, PPP, contracts or leasing contracts or privatisation like we see happening with, say, the primary care centres. These types of decisions reduce costs in year 1 but are more costly in the long term. Would there be a mechanism for allowing the FIF to fund these initiatives? That will have a real long-term saving for the State. The State would save more money than it would in investing in the medium term.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

I understand the point but I think what the Deputy is talking about there is effectively government expenditure. The fund in making investments will be targeted at commercial, independent, full-risk adjusted returns. Any investment, whether it is the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, FIF or ICNF, if they chose to invest in an Irish project or development that was not on a commercial basis, would be delivering state aid into that situation if there was a commercial counterparty. If it is a State asset, it goes straight to the expenditure on behalf of the State, no different from taxation-funded expenditure. This is really taking funds away from that process and parking them for a long-term return.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I will add that we are aiming for this to be a commercial return. Ultimately, what we are doing in the future Ireland fund is that we know what some of these challenges are. It is just not the demographic. As I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, it is with regard to climate and digitisation. This is multigenerational. That is the objective, hence the return is taking out from 2041 onwards that will basically go into the Exchequer to offset some the costs we are facing from climate change and other factors. That is why we need to focus on a commercial return on this. Basically, if we are seeing something else, the Vote really is through public spending.

I thank Mr. Gilvarry.

I will mention a couple of issues. Can Mr Gilvarry indicate the extent to which ICNF projects that are fundable are evaluated on their ability to contribute to a reduction in emissions or improvement in the economic situation arising from the reduction of emissions? Would it be 5%, 10%, 20% or zero?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

How the aim is outlined to the House and how we are drafting it is that there are criteria in 2025 for the relevant Minister. There is decision made, which Government approves, that we are not going to meet our climate targets or biodiversity targets or water quality targets. That then puts in a process regarding capital projects that will help us meet those targets. That process then will be run by the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. I will pass over to Mr. Leahy to outline how this process would work and what we are trying to achieve and then how the money is decided and allocated.

Mr. Pat Leahy

The intention is to have an element of trigger approach, largely by the Ministers for the Environment, Climate and Communications and Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications with regard to climate and greenhouse gas reductions and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage regarding, effectively, nature and nature projects in terms of water quality.

The intention is that once those Ministers have signalled that there are issues to be dealt with in those areas, a list of projects would be put together by the individual Departments. We are talking about natural projects, for example, nature conservation sites. It is not just about actual greenhouse gas reductions, it is also about improving water quality, marine water quality and biodiversity. There are EU and national obligations in these areas. The intention is to put together projects in those areas. For example, there are Natura 2000 sites focusing on hedgerow and native woodland planting and removing invasive species. There are many areas of strategic national importance in terms of birds and habitats that are under threat. The intention is to put capital projects in place to do those.

It is not just about greenhouse gases, but it is actually greenhouse gases plus nature and water quality restoration projects. The idea behind this is these are natural projects, planting trees, species removal, etc. It is those kinds of projects that are being proposed for this.

The individual Departments will have responsibility for introducing, policing and justifying proposals on a one-off basis.

Mr. Pat Leahy

There will be engagement between the individual Ministers and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. They will then negotiate on the list of best projects. The Government decides the projects to be funded and then the funding is based on handing out what projects are available. There is an element of restriction to a degree in the sense that only 22.5% of the fund is available in any one year for those projects. That produces a system of natural selection in terms of the amount of money that is available and the projects that can be funded under this.

If a Government, now or in the future, was to decide to spend the money because there is an election coming up - this is not specifically about this but about any Government at any time in the future - what would the Department's advice be? It is within the control of the Government of the day to do that if it wishes, even if it might not necessarily be the right thing to do? How can that be controlled?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Legislation on the ICNF has trigger points on the climate and nature aspect and also a trigger point relating to the infrastructure and countercyclical part. That will be set out in legislation and also in the context of the future Ireland fund. If the Government decided to do that, it would have to change the legislation. That is the hurdle. If that is its decision, it can make that change. However, as Mr. McCarthy outlined, there is the reputational aspect,. Internationally, people are looking at how we are constructing this. We are making a commitment to do this and outlining our framework. If we upend that, there will be a reputational aspect. However, the legislation can be changed. Once the legislation as proposed gets through the House, that can then be changed.

There are some contradictions along the way. Not so long ago, I dealt with a case where the protection of a bird species in an area was in conflict with the need to provide wind turbines in the same area. It was deemed that the wind turbines would be detrimental to the protection of the wildlife. How will that be measured in the future? There seems to be a doubt about it. Which is the more important and urgent issue? Obviously, the energy issue is the most important. However, the bird got the preference in the case to which I refer. How do we avoid getting into a similar situation in the future? That is just an example. It might be it a snail at some point in the future.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

On the climate and nature aspect of the fund, part of this is to meet climate targets - it could be in renewables, including turbines - and then to meet the biodiversity side in the context of the protection of certain species. Ultimately, that is a matter for the relevant Departments. As the projects come through, our role is basically to establish the fund and set it up in legislation for the NTMA.

The prioritisation of the projects will be for discussion by the relevant Departments to see how it goes. It falls back to planning and other aspects. Unfortunately, I cannot give the Deputy a definitive answer. Our focus in the proposed legislation is that there are trigger points to be met and we then have a framework for the selection of the best projects in respect of the climate and nature, and we need to meet those targets.

How can we avoid a situation, as happened in my constituency some years ago, where the building of a motorway had to be diverted and rearranged because of the existence of a slug, vertigo angustior? It cost €25 million to save the snail's bacon. To this day, we do not know whether that was €25 million well spent. In those kinds of situations in the future, how do we quantify the impact on biodiversity, ecology and so on as well as the impact on the economy?

I also have a few other questions. I do not want to go on too long, but I want to get the answers as well as I can.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Some of the issues we face on biodiversity relate to European targets that we have to meet. In a situation like that, it comes back to the planning aspects and how that would all work. We are creating a framework to be led by the Department of public expenditure on these projects to evaluate the projects to get the best value for money. If there is an issue relating to biodiversity, similar to the example the Deputy mentioned, that is further down the line with the project and also on the planning aspects. Once we have the trigger points and the framework, the Department of public expenditure will have the framework and seek value for money on those projects.

Since they are EU-set targets, we need to be alert to the fact that the targets are viable, that they have a particular impact and that we do not have to unnecessarily punish ourselves to achieve little. However, if we need to punish ourselves economically, would Mr. Gilvarry agree that we need to be able to achieve a realistic and identifiable benefit?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

With anything that is coming through, whether directives or regulations from EU level, we have the impact assessments that are done by the Commission. From the position we set out at an EU level on those, as one of the member states negotiating, we set forward our policy. We do that in the Department of Finance in respect of anything on the financial services side, the economics side or the tax side. That is part of the policy formation process, and we then make recommendations to the Minister and the Government. I do not see it being any different with frameworks relating to planning, nature, water quality or biodiversity. However, I cannot comment specifically on those because it is not within our wheelhouse or within our area.

What about the extent to which countries buy carbon credits? My colleague raised that matter already. Who are the biggest offenders in that area? Are we the biggest offender or are some of competitors on a par with us?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I do not have any detail on our level of expenditure on carbon credits. We can engage with our colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, which is the lead Department on that, to see if we can get some information. I do not have anything to hand or any knowledge on that.

We should note that as something to identify for the future. Our economy is an open one and subject to the fluctuations that occur in virtually every other economy . We are not the biggest country in the European Union by a long shot. From time to time, we are informed as to what we should be doing in order to achieve particular things. We all recognise that we need to put our shoulders to the wheel and achieve certain targets on climate change.

To what extent do we have to punish ourselves and inflict pain on our economy in order to achieve X, Y or Z while balancing that against our ability to deliver and the impact that delivery is likely to have? This is an important question. For example, the dairy sector is regarded as a serious offender in this regard. If we closed it down, it would be the country or countries that then supplied the market and bought all the carbon credits they needed that would benefit the most. Nothing would change in the overall situation because people would still have to eat. The same scenario applies in the beef sector and almost every other aspect of our economy. If one went to some of the countries that are our competitors, one would see obvious issues but what are they doing about them? Are they tackling them to the same extent as us or are we at the end of the chain and expected to make greater sacrifices than others? My strong advice is that we have to do what is necessary to achieve certain targets, and we are doing that.

The aviation industry has been singled out. There are limitations in what can be done. The fuel can be changed over time, which I hope is happening. However, we live on an island and would have difficulty getting off it if not by boat or aeroplane. It is a problem for us, unlike the rest of our EU colleagues, who live on the mainland of Europe and can get into an electric car or truck and drive in any direction they wish to go about their business.

The Cathaoirleach will be glad to know I am coming to an end. I get worried about the Apple escrow fund from time to time. Occasionally, someone raises the issue. For example, it has been raised in the European institutions in recent weeks, with doubt cast over it. To what extent are we subject to their intrusions, given that taxation is the preserve of national governments across Europe? The competition Commissioner decided to intervene on the basis that favourable conditions were being provided in this country to Apple. Before this case, I had believed that the entire manufacturing sector was treated the same, with a 12.5% tax on their profits. Following a long and arduous discussion on an agreement brokered by the OECD, I also thought that we had reached a situation whereby a corporation tax rate of 15% would apply to everyone across the board. However, it now appears that that is not so and that we can expect more to come. At the same time, there has been a slowing down in corporation tax receipts recently. We could find ourselves caught between two forces, one of which is the slowing down. I do not know the reason for that, as I do not have information on its cause. We could damage our economy – the agrifood sector, which helped to bail us out of the financial crash, the pharma sector, which helped to bail us out of the crash, and the tourism sector. These are three vital sectors. If we find ourselves unable to enable them to deliver their goods and services during good times, we may find ourselves very restricted during bad times. What are the witnesses’ opinions in this regard?

Mr. Pat Leahy

I will comment on the Apple case, which has been ongoing since 2014. It is a long-standing case at this stage. The European Commission has powers under EU state aid rules to bring that type of case and engagement. It determined that state aid had been given. The State was required to recover that money, which was circa €14 billion at the time, from the company.

The first court of the EU annulled the Commission’s decision. The Commission appealed that to the Court of Justice of the EU. As the Deputy probably has heard, the Advocate General recently expressed the view that the verdict should be referred back to the lower court. The higher court – the CJEU – will probably decide whether to do so in 2024. I would not expect to get a decision from it before then. Effectively, the Department and the State’s legal team are considering the points made by the Advocate General.

It has always been Ireland’s position that the correct amount of Irish tax was paid and that Ireland provided no state aid to Apple. We are now awaiting the judgment of the CJEU on this matter. We will see where it goes from there. It is a long-standing case that predates much of the agreement on tax that was done more recently. It started in 2014, so we are nearly ten years on at this stage. It is likely to continue depending on how the CJEU rules.

It appeared that a finality had been reached in the new regime, with a corporation tax rate of 15% being applied in every country. It now appears that every country is not stuck with that, particularly some large countries. Those countries can have an impact on our economy in a dramatic way because they are larger than us and have clout. They have also made reference to this country. I do not know why they should target us in particular, as there are bigger fish out there that are never mentioned at all, yet have been doing the same thing.

I will finish on this point. For a reason I cannot understand, I was one of the people who was called upon to go to over to Brussels in 2007 or 2008 where we were informed in that oval room where the Commission and everyone else meets that Europe was effectively broke and that this country was the cause of it. When probed, it transpired that other countries had sinned in the same fashion and to a far greater extent. They were signatories to the European Stability and Growth Pact and so forth. They had sinned repeatedly, but they were bigger, so they could afford to look down on smaller minions within the EU and apportion blame as they saw it. They pointed out, in our weakest hour, that we were offenders in this regard and needed to be punished in some way. I did not find it a particularly enjoyable experience, to say the least, and I was disappointed. I remember attending another meeting at the same time where the theme was “Where has social Europe gone?” Some guy eventually said that social Europe had overspent. That is what happened.

I am a little concerned about trends in various areas. We are doing our best to achieve targets in lowering emissions and so on. We are doing well, so we need to give ourselves credit, but if ours is a moving target, the bar is lifted as time passes and the number of options for solving the problem is reduced, it will make life difficult for future Ministers for Finance.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to proceed on this subject. It may seem remote from today’s discussion, but it is not. It will come back to visit us again. I am worried about the extent to which the competition Commissioner can overreach the ability of member states to control their own taxation, which is their preserve. If the witnesses wish to comment on my views, fine.

The witnesses might make short comments. We are due to break at 3.30 p.m., so I will conclude this meeting then. The witnesses might provide us with a note on the Apple case, including its background. They do not need to go into great detail on it. Rather, their note should give us the general picture.

Mr. John McCarthy

We can do that for the committee.

Does Mr. McCarthy wish to make a short comment? Providing the note would be okay.

Mr. John McCarthy

I will make one or two quick comments, as I am conscious of the time.

Regarding changes on the corporation tax front, there are two pillars. There is an agreement to go ahead with a 15% rate. We will not implement that yet. The legislation is changing, but it does not take effect until 2026. There are greater problems under the first pillar, that is, the allocation of taxing rights and how much we should have to allocate to central Europe, as it were.

There are bigger problems on that front. I share the Deputy's concerns in that taxation is a national competency and the rules on state aid infringe on that. The Deputy also mentioned the slowing of corporate taxes. We have had three months of falling corporate taxes, with a sharp fall in October when they were down 45%. We do not have numbers for November yet, but they will be crucial. It is the most important month of the year for scheduling of the self-employed and corporation tax. We will report on that in a week or week and a half. That will be the crucial point.

In the interest of keeping my contribution short, I will leave it there.

I thank the witnesses for attending today's session.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.30 p.m. until 12.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 November 2023.
Barr
Roinn