I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee.
Commencement Matters
Hospital Charges
I thank the Minister of State for attending. Senators from County Roscommon have drawn three of the Commencement matters today which shows how active Senators from County Roscommon are. There is also one from County Mayo.
I ask the Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, to resolve the outrageous circumstance in which a two-year old child is being pursued for €100 by Intrum Justitia for attending the accident and emergency department at Portiuncula Hospital in November 2015. Like all children under six years of age, this child from Roscommon town has a GP visiting card. Her parents' income is just €400 per week. She was rushed to the emergency department at Portiuncula Hospital last November. Unfortunately, as the Minister of State knows, we have no emergency department in Roscommon thanks to a decision taken by Senator James Reilly when he was Minister for Health in the Fine Gael-led Government in 2011. Her distressed mother telephoned Westdoc when her daughter took ill in the middle of the night last November. The Westdoc personnel told her to give the child Calpol, which the child then vomited up. Her temperature continued to rise. It was the middle of the night and Westdoc told her to go and get Nurofen. No shops were open locally which sold Nurofen and the Westdoc personnel said there was nothing else they could do. The family then drove to Portiuncula Hospital to seek immediate medical attention for their very ill child.
The Westdoc doctor should have seen a child whose temperature was rising out of control and who was vomiting. Had a Westdoc doctor seen her and been unable to address her symptoms, he or she would have signed a letter for the accident and emergency department exempting her from any charge. As a former chairman of the Western Health Board, I find it morally wrong that a two-year old child, who is covered under the GP visit card and was not provided with a service by Westdoc, is now receiving threatening letters from Intrum Justitia in respect of legal action on a bill of €100. It is an international company and I have named already the directors from Sweden and elsewhere.
This issue must be resolved immediately for the family concerned and an assurance given that all children under six years attending emergency departments will not be billed and their families pursued by a legal debt collection agency.
It should be noted that the child in question had to be brought to Portiuncula Hospital as the emergency department for Roscommon town which was located in Roscommon hospital was closed by the last Fine Gael-led Government weeks after taking office in the summer of 2011, despite promises delivered in the square of the town to keep the department open. The current situation is totally inadequate and unacceptable to the people of Roscommon and surrounding areas who have had no emergency services at Roscommon County Hospital, now known as Roscommon University Hospital. The name was changed but the hospital did not have its status improved. The HSE has failed to deliver a rapid response ambulance service in County Roscommon which was promised since the wrongful closure of the emergency department five years ago.
The family to which I refer then received a letter from Saolta requesting the money. When I was chairman of the former Western Health Board and such issues came before me, I would have dealt with them more pragmatically, especially given the fact that the family made the effort to contact WestDoc but that service would not see the child and would not give the family a referral letter. Indeed, WestDoc could have supplied such a letter retrospectively, pointing out that the family had contacted the service. The family made an effort to contact a GP before attending the emergency department at Portiuncula Hospital. Given the circumstances, this matter should be resolved and the fee waived. Frankly, the bill has been sent to the child but the child is only two years old and does not have €100. The family are simply not in a position to pay it.
I thank the Senator for giving me the opportunity to address the House on this matter.
First, it is important to point out that it is not appropriate for me to comment on any individual or specific case. However, I have been advised that this issue has been resolved favourably for the people involved. I cannot go into any more detail in that regard.
Regarding charges for attendance at emergency departments, there is a statutory fee of €100. This fee is payable by patients who do not have a medical card and who attend an emergency department without a referral letter from a GP. The fee is, of course, applicable to a patient's first visit as part of an episode of care but patients with medical cards do not have pay this fee. It is important to remember that this fee for presenting at an emergency department is the only outpatient charge currently payable in the public hospital system.
Expanding and utilising primary care services to best effect is a core element of an integrated approach to alleviating pressures on emergency departments. There are now 13 community intervention teams in place and in the first half of 2016, these have reduced hospital bed requirements by approximately 73 beds per day. A total of 92 primary care centres have opened with a further 39 at the preliminary stages of development. A project to increase access to diagnostic services in GP surgeries is currently delivering approximately 1,300 ultrasound scans per month, while the GP minor surgery pilot project has delivered just over 4,200 procedures since commencement. Also, in the first half of 2016 usage of out-of-hours GP services increased by 14% over 2015. In September the HSE published the winter initiative 2016-17 which provides €40 million of additional funding for winter preparedness. Under this initiative, community intervention team services are being expanded in four regions and the availability of aids and appliances in primary care has been increased to facilitate patients being discharged from hospital back to their own homes. The Department of Health continues to work with the HSE to develop and expand primary care services but also to ensure these services work effectively in order to reduce the necessity for patients to attend emergency departments.
Without going into the details of the particular case referred to by the Senator, we must make sure that when doctors or nurses on call feel that they can fast-track a patient to the appropriate care, that is taken into account and the charges are not applied. Again, I stress that I am advised that this matter has been resolved favourably for those involved.
I thank the Minister of State for her reply. It is a pity that the Department did not inform me before now that the matter was resolved.
I was informed that information was forwarded to the Senator.
I have a letter here, dated 12 October, which states the very opposite. That letter says that the child was liable for the charge because the child's family has a GP visit card, not a full medical card. This issue has been going on for weeks and weeks. I thank the Minister of State for being here but she could have been saved the trouble of appearing before the House if someone had phoned me and told me that the matter had been resolved. I would then have withdrawn the commencement matter.
While the 92 primary care centres are very welcome, there is an issue with staffing. Furthermore, I repeat the fact that we do not have an emergency department in Roscommon meant that the child to whom I refer had to be brought to Portiuncula Hospital. That is a fact. I again thank the Minister of State.
I was advised that information was sent to the Senator but perhaps it has not reached him yet, for which I apologise.
Turf Cutting Compensation Scheme
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I am pleased to have the opportunity to highlight what is an extremely important issue for many rural communities. No one has ever denied that the turf cutting ban has been very difficult for all concerned. Despite this, many other stakeholders and I were determined, at the beginning of the term of the last Government, to work long and hard to address in a meaningful way the challenges posed by the EU habitats directive for turf cutting communities, especially in the special areas of conservation, SACs.
I was one of the first politicians to travel to Brussels to meet the relevant EU Commissioner in order to highlight the impact of the turf cutting ban on those affected. I went there with Mr. Conor Skehan, Deputies Paul Connaughton and Martin Heydon and Councillor Jimmy McClearn from Galway to meet the Commissioner, Mr. Janez Potoènik. We told him that a new Government had just been formed and that the situation regarding the habitats directive was very serious. Mr. Skehan pointed out that there had been a ten-year derogation and that all we wanted was another six months. We were absolutely shocked when Mr. Potoènik and his officials said, "What derogation?" The Fianna Fáil-led Government had decided that this issue was so explosive that they would tell the people that there was a derogation and they could continue to cut turf. At the same time, solicitors' letters were coming from Europe. We were absolutely shocked. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív admitted in the Dáil a few months later that Fianna Fáil thought there was a derogation but then found out that there was not. It was a shameful way to deal with one of the most important issues in rural Ireland at the time.
I am glad that the Government of which I was a member dealt with the issue. As part of my campaign on behalf of rural communities, I called for an independent commission and was very glad that this call was heard and a mediation process, in the form of the Peatlands Council, was established. I believe the council and the setting up of the peatlands forum allowed the genuine views and concerns of the turf cutting communities to be taken on board in a formal manner. All of this ultimately led to the setting up of a compensation and relocation scheme for turf cutters affected by the habitats directive. One of my primary objectives throughout the whole process was to make sure that those affected would be financially recompensed and thankfully that happened.
In my own region I fought for and helped to deliver compensation for more than 1,000 turf cutting families. That equates to a sum of €23,000, tax free, to each turf cutter over a 15-year period. That is a huge amount of money for people in Roscommon, east Galway and other areas. There are other counties that do not have SACs and they wish they were part of this compensation scheme. I understand this issue has been considered for more than four years. It is also important to remember that the concerns of turf cutters wishing to relocate to other bogs were duly recognised by the Department. These turf cutters received a one-off payment of €500 and are also entitled to receive 15 tonnes of turf each year until the relocation bog is ready.
Today I take the opportunity to ask the Minister of State for an up-to-date appraisal of the turf cutters' compensation scheme and the related bog relocation scheme. The latter is more complex, as everyone will acknowledge. These schemes have recognised the genuine concerns of the affected communities who have been carrying on the turf cutting tradition for generations.
I pay tribute to all of the stakeholders, particularly the turf cutting community which understood that the last Government was forced to deal with a very difficult legacy issue but came up with practical solutions for those affected.
I thank the Senator for tabling this matter which I am taking on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys. I commend the Senator for his work on the turf cutting compensation scheme and the relocation scheme in recent years. I want to acknowledge the work of the last Government in sorting out a mess that was left behind. There was a debate in the Dáil last night where similar sentiments were heard from the Opposition that the last Government had tackled something that had been left unresolved for a number of years.
Since 2011 huge efforts have been made to solve the issue of the protection of Ireland’s raised bog special areas of conservation within the framework of the EU habitats directive. This has included intense and ongoing engagement with turf cutting interests, farmers, non-governmental organisations and the European Commission. In addition, a long-term compensation scheme has been introduced to compensate cutters for their loss arising from the cessation. This cessation of turf cutting compensation scheme comprises a payment of €1,500 per annum, index-linked for 15 years, or relocation to a non-designated bog, where feasible, together with a once-off incentive payment of €500. Over 3,200 applications have been received and the total expenditure under the scheme amounts to in the region of €19 million. Some 11,086 annual payments, 1,649 once-off incentive payments of €500 and 896 deliveries of turf have been made in respect of these applications.
The review of the raised bog natural heritage area network, published in January 2014, concluded that Ireland could more effectively achieve conservation of threatened raised bog habitat through focused protection and restoration of a reconfigured network. The Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016 has been presented to Dáil Éireann and published. Its purpose is to provide for the implementation of a reconfiguration of the natural heritage area network arising from the 2014 review. The cessation of turf cutting compensation scheme has been extended to land owners and turbary rights holders affected by the proposals arising from the natural heritage area review. Some 246 applications have been received under the scheme and 342 annual payments have been made at a cost of just over €525,000 to applicants from these sites. Thirteen once-off incentive payments have also been made in respect of these sites.
Details in regard to the cessation of turf cutting compensation scheme for each raised bog site are available on the website of the National Parks and Wildlife Service of my Department. The county or counties in which each bog is located are also shown. I am making available to the House a table illustrating the amount of compensation paid under the scheme on a county by county basis. Some 633 applicants to the cessation of turf cuffing compensation scheme have expressed an interest in relocation to a non-designated bog. My Department has written to over 400 turf cutters seeking expressions of interest in relocation to specific non-designated sites.
The relocation of turf cutters is a complex process. Notwithstanding the complexity involved, 62 turf cutters have been accommodated on non-designated bogs in counties Offaly and Galway. For a number of special areas of conservation, the relocation site identified may not be suitable or may not have the capacity to cater for the number of turf cutters who may wish to relocate there. In such cases my Department, in consultation with turf culling interests, is considering the available options in terms of relocation and the provisions of Article 6 of the habitats directive. The national raised bog SAC management plan will set out how the raised bog special areas of conservation are to be managed into the future and how the needs of turf cutters are to be addressed. The measures to address these needs include financial compensation, relocation to non-designated bogs and considering the possible utilisation of the provisions of Article 6 of the habitats directive.
There has been a significant reduction in turf cutting activity on the 53 raised bog special areas of conservation since the cessation of turf cutting has come into effect on these sites. Final resolution of all issues in regard to the protection of Ireland’s protected raised bogs will only be brought about by everyone working together, within the law, with my Department and with the Peatlands Council, which was established for the purpose of ensuring input from all stakeholders.
I have provided a table for the Senator highlighting the amounts paid in different counties. There is some overlap, given some bogs overlap county boundaries, and the table reflects this. He will see there are payments of €22,815 for Roscommon; €695,000 for Galway-Roscommon; €17,000 for Longford-Roscommon; €220,000 for Galway-Roscommon-Sligo; and €2,536,000 for Roscommon-Longford-Westmeath; and a sum total of €19,881,602.35.
I thank the Minister of State. The sums involved are staggering and I would like to thank the Government for making them available. Nearly €5 million has been paid in four years in County Roscommon and there are another 11 years to go. I am sick and tired of people out there asking, "What about the turf cutters?". I am very happy that we delivered for them. There are politicians who said from the very beginning that nobody would apply but, five years ago, we told them that 1,000 people had applied. Those politicians then said there would be no money but we said the money was ring-fenced. This is absolute proof that the Government has dealt as best as it could with a very difficult situation. It should be highlighted that this money is going to 1,000 families in counties Roscommon and Galway every year and there are another 11 years to go. Most of those families, thankfully, have a second NHA bog where they can continue to cut turf. This is something that needs to be highlighted. It is good news. Once again, the Government has put its money where its mouth is.
I concur with the Senator and commend him for the work he has done in the past five years in achieving this settlement on behalf of turf cutters in the Roscommon-Galway area and across the country. I also commend my former colleague, Mr. Paul Connaughton, who put a lot of work into this and travelled to Brussels to meet the Commissioner. The details are that the sum is possibly more than people would have anticipated. A sum of €19,881,000 is a significant amount going into rural communities in lieu of the cessation. It demonstrates the commitment of Government to those affected by the cessation of turf cutting on raised bog conservation areas.
The majority of those who were active on these sites are remaining in the scheme. Engagement with turf cutting interests continues with a view to resolving the issues relating to the raised bog special areas of conservation. As I said, the national raised bog conservation management plan was developed arising from a motion in Dáil Éireann in March 2012 which was supported by the Dáil. This is in line with A Programme for a Partnership Government, which outlines that the Government recognises that domestic turf cutters have a traditional right to cut turf, a right which is balanced with the conservation objectives and legal obligations of the State.
I again state that, having inherited an economic and financial mess in 2011, we also inherited a mess in regard to bogs and what had not been done. We grasped that nettle under difficult circumstances and we achieved a result. There is more of a way to go and, as I said, a Bill is at present being debated in the Dáil and it will be brought before the Seanad in time to bring closure to the issues in regard to turf cutting. I again commend the Senator for his work on this issue in recent years.
Educational Disadvantage
I am delighted that the Minister of State, Deputy John Halligan, is in the Chamber to deal with this matter. I ask him to immediately, not some time in the future, end the discrimination and injustice that pupils of Inver national school are experiencing by being denied the benefits offered by the DEIS scheme. The school is in a rural area with dispersed national schools. Every other school in the vicinity has DEIS status, which means that they receive certain educational supports in order that children can come through their education with a fair chance in life. Inver national school meets all the DEIS criteria such as high unemployment, low wages and low academic standards, which it shares with the other national schools in the area.
This issue has been ongoing for 11 years. If DEIS means anything and if we can have confidence in it supporting people experiencing educational disadvantage and social disadvantage, something needs to be done now. The Minister of State could be the person to do that. The reality is that this school had disadvantaged status up to 2005. At this juncture, with the inception of DEIS, forms and reminders were sent to the school to be completed, but the principal failed to fill in the forms and, to this day, the pupils of the school have been missing out.
Not only are the children at a disadvantage, their parents pay more for their education than any other parents in Erris. The school does not receive the same funding as other primary schools in the area. It does not receive the same book grants and it is excluded from applying for IT grants even though every other school in Erris can. The school has to pay twice the amount for visiting experts and workshops than every other primary school in the area. How can this be acceptable? Through no fault of their own, children have been at a disadvantage for a generation. This has to stop. I acknowledge a review is under way but when I was in the Dáil, I raised this issue several times. This review has been ongoing a long time and the notion that it will be concluded by December and that action will be taken next September cannot be stood over. Something needs to be done in the interim.
There is a blockage in the Department. Officials are afraid to set a precedent but this is an exceptional case. This community was ravaged by the divisions caused by the Corrib gas project with neighbours going against neighbours during a deep and bitter dispute. Over the past ten years, many of the injustices have been righted in this area. Anomalies have been removed and mistakes forgiven and corrected. Will the Minister of State and his senior Minister stand over and ameliorate one outstanding source of division, which is the discrimination the children in Inver national school have experienced for the past 11 years? There can only be one answer because other than that, the benefits of DEIS will mean nothing. Over the years, successive Ministers have lauded and praised the success of DEIS in promoting school attendance, general well-being, mental health, and outcomes with children staying in school longer. This community and these children should be given a chance. It is an exceptional case through no fault of their own. The principal who was charged with taking care of these children failed to do their duty. This cannot be left to civil servants. Action has to be taken by the Minister of the day. Successive Ministers have failed.
As the Senator may be aware, an extensive identification process to select schools for inclusion in the DEIS programme was conducted in 2005. This process took the form of an invitation to schools to apply to participate in the programme by way of a completed survey of their pupil cohort. This is new to me but she is correct that a number of reminders were issued to the school in question by my Department, a completed survey form was not received and, therefore, it could not be assessed for participation in the programme. Departmental officials say those are the criteria they laid down; I did not lay them down. They say on a number of occasions they contacted the school. Furthermore, an appeal mechanism was put in place in 2006 to address the concerns of schools that did not qualify for inclusion in the DEIS programme, but regarded themselves as having a level of disadvantage sufficient to warrant their inclusion. lnver national school did not participate in that process. I do not know if the Senator is aware of that. I accept there is a difficulty with the school and based on what she has said, it should probably be included in the programme. Officials say reminders were sent on two occasions and the school did not participate in the process. The Department has no information about the school, apart from that furnished by Members when raising the issue in the Dáil and the Seanad.
Many representations were made to my predecessors on behalf of this school seeking its inclusion in the DEIS programme. These representations were unsuccessful. No schools which were unsuccessful in the initial identification and subsequent review processes were ever admitted into the DEIS programme. As the Senator may also be aware, a process to review the DEIS programme, which began last year, is almost complete and it is my intention to publish a new plan for educational inclusion before the end of this year. The review is examining all aspects of the DEIS programme, including the range and impact of different elements of the school support programme, and the potential for innovation within and between schools and its scope for increased integration of services provided by other Departments and agencies.
No new school has been included in the DEIS programme since 2009, but now a new assessment framework is being developed using centrally held CSO and departmental data for the identification of new schools for inclusion. The number of schools to be included in the programme will be determined by this proposed new identification process, which will assess all schools in the country, including those not currently participating. It is important to note that it will not be necessary under this new arrangement - this may solve the problem for the Senator - for schools to make an application as all schools, including Inver national school, will be automatically assessed. The school will not have to apply for the new assessment and it appears, based on the school's history and the Senator's contribution, it will be included. That could be sorted following the automatic assessment.
I thank the Minister of State. In a nutshell, the children in question meet all the criteria and through the fault of the principal, which is a very pointed thing to say-----
The Senator should not name anybody. We do not know who is to blame.
Perhaps it is time the truth was told. The children have been waiting 11 years and cannot wait another year. Does the Minister of State think it is acceptable that children should have to wait another year and that a generation has lost out while successive Ministers stood over this? Will action be taken now even on an interim basis? I raised this issue in the Dáil and in person with the former Ministers for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan and Ruairí Quinn, and nothing was done, which is unacceptable. Reasonable people would wonder whether we are tied up in bureaucratic red tape with officials saying a form was not submitted on time through no fault of the parents and the pupils. They would have submitted the documents. Senator Keith Swanick will also have some knowledge of this. They have spent significant time lobbying and courting the Department for some fairness.
There needs to be an intervention, otherwise the Department is showing itself up as a bureaucratic nightmare that does not respond to the educational needs of children in a vulnerable situation. Their community has lived with the fallout of the Corrib gas project. Is it just lip service or does the DEIS programme mean something? Measures need to be taken between now and next September. I acknowledge the Minister of State is only new to this brief but he has championed people in disadvantage. I am hoping for a breakthrough because the parents and the school have had enough of being ignored. I ask the Minister of State to act.
I empathise with the Senator in her comments. I do not say that to be compassionate. I understand the difficulty is that criteria were laid down for all schools to be included in the DEIS programme and the school did not participate in the process. The school was also informed that there was an appeals mechanism in place but it did not even participate in that part of the process. I do not know why what was the case. The school was informed that an application had not been submitted and that an appeals process was in place, when it was not included, but it did not participate. Perhaps we need to know the reason for that but it is neither here or there. The school does not have to reapply because an identification process is being undertaken. Based on what the Senator has said, which I believe, if the school meets the criteria, no assessment will have to be done. I see no reason it should not be included.
I ask the Senator to meet me in a few weeks and if she wants to bring a representative from the school I would be delighted to meet that person. We can go through this and see if we can push it forward. If what the Senator is saying, which I completely believe, is that the school should be included then it should be. We must go past what happened and whatever errors were made in the school. The Senator is completely correct; if an error was made, or a misjudgment was made by an individual, the rest of the school should not suffer. I accept this and there is no point in me saying otherwise. I ask the Senator to bear with me for a couple of weeks, then meet me, and if she wants to bring somebody from the school I would be delighted to meet that person, to see whether we can push this forward.
I thank the Minister of State. That is very fair.
Ireland Strategic Investment Fund Investments
I thank the Minister of State for taking this important motion on investments held by the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, through the strategic investment fund. This is a health and financial policy issue because tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in Ireland and is an enormous strain on the health system. We always want to see the NTMA generate a significant income for the taxpayer through prudent and strategic investments. The strategic investment fund has a statutory mandate to invest on a commercial basis and I fully acknowledge the independence of the NTMA in carrying out its important work. The long-term strategic investment of taxpayers' money is something that can and should be done professionally and devoid of political interference.
My Fianna Fáil colleagues, Deputies Sean Fleming and Michael McGrath, have previously raised this broad issue on ethical investment with the Minister of Finance and the CEO of the NTMA, Mr. Conor O'Kelly. We know from the NTMA's most recent annual report that the State held more than €7.2 million in quoted equity and debt instruments for Philip Morris, British American Tobacco and other major tobacco firms. This is incredible and is part of almost €35 million of taxpayers' money invested in the alcohol, tobacco, aerospace and defence industries.
I wish to concentrate on the tobacco companies for health and financial reasons. A detailed study, an assessment of the economic cost of smoking in Ireland, was produced by the Department of Health in 2016. The estimated cost of smoking on the health care system is more than €500 million per year. This is made up of direct costs in three areas. These are hospital-based costs of €211 million, primary care costs amounting to an enormous sum of €256 million, which could solve our primary care crisis at least five times over, and domiciliary costs of €40 million. It is estimated that approximately 6,000 people are killed annually by smoking. This is equivalent to the population of an entire town such as Bandon in County Cork, Westport in County Mayo, Kells in County Meath or Carrick-on-Suir in County Tipperary. The direct cost of €500 million year does not include lost productivity from ill-health and other huge drains on our public services. Department of Health data from three years ago shows an average cost of €5,400 every time a smoker was admitted to hospital with a tobacco-related illness, for example chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD. In 2013, which is the most recent year for which I have statistics, there were 31,000 such admissions at €5,400 per admission. This does not include the primary or GP care costs and associated costs such as medication.
I am aware that investment by the NTMA in specific companies is made through fund managers, lest it be suggested the NTMA actively seeks to invest in such companies. However, it is the case that over the summer, the NTMA CEO told the Committee of Public Accounts that armaments is the NTMA's only restricted investment category. In 2015, information made available by the Minister for Finance outlined that the strategic investment fund has excluded 14 companies from its investments. These companies are not named, but it beggars belief the Irish taxpayer still has €7.2 million in equity and debt instruments in tobacco giants such as Philip Morris and British American Tobacco. In case anyone has forgotten, these are some of the same companies that threatened to sue my Seanad colleague, Senator James Reilly, and his successor as Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, for doing their job.
This issue is above party or partisan politics. We all need to address it and provide leadership on it. When he was Minister with responsibility for health, Fianna Fáil leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, led the way in pioneering our move in Ireland towards a tobacco free society with the ban on workplace smoking. Other countries followed suit once they saw the success it was having. The area of ethical investment is another area in which we should take the lead because while wholly independent, the strategic investment fund's investment policy is set out by the National Treasury Management Agency Act 2014. According to the Minister for Finance, the strategy is determined, monitored and kept under review in accordance with the Act. This is the basis for my call for a process to be put in place to put investment in tobacco companies on the list of prescribed investments.
I struggle to understand how holding equity and debt instruments in such companies is in keeping with what various Ministers said regarding their intention to establish the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund. Former Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, spoke on Second Stage of the legislation in 2014. He stated, "The intention is that the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, will channel its resources towards productive investment in the Irish economy and leverage its resources with private sector co-investment and target investment in areas of strategic significance to the future of the Irish economy."
I thank the Senator for raising the matter of the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, commonly referred to as the ISIF, and certain investments made by that fund. I raised this issue as a concern in the previous Dáil.
By way of introduction and context, it is helpful to consider the evolution of the ISIF's investment portfolio. On the 22 December 2014, the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF, transitioned to the ISIF. The ISIF has a statutory double bottom line mandate to invest on a commercial basis to support economic activity and employment creation in Ireland. Certain shareholdings which were inherited from the NPRF and which are in companies based outside Ireland are held in the ISIF's global portfolio. The global portfolio has undergone significant restructuring since 2014 and is being sold, over time, to fund Irish investment commitments as they arise. This approach provides capital for investment in Ireland.
The ISIF commits to reviewing all of its investments for exposures to sectors and-or companies with potentially controversial business exposures and associated reputational risks, to ensure they are addressed and mitigated as appropriate. I can inform the Senator that the ISIF currently has equity holdings in four companies operating in the brewers, distillers and vintners category. These investments have a value of €3 million. The ISIF also has equity holdings in three tobacco companies. These investments have a value of €1.6 million. As of 30 August 2016, these alcohol and tobacco investments in total represent 0.06% of the lSlF's total assets. These investments are within the ISIF's global portfolio. They are legacy investments inherited from its predecessor, the NPRF. These investments do not form part of the ISIF's new mandate, which was formed at the time of its establishment in December 2014.
Such investments should be considered in the context of the broader portfolio of the fund and the fund's commitment to responsible investment. The ISIF's mandate is aligned with sustainability principles, in terms of investment opportunities and risk management. The fund recently published its sustainability and responsible investment policy, which is available on its website. The fund operates to high international standards and invests in line with the UN-sponsored principles for responsible investment, which focus on the management of environmental, social and governance factors to improve sustainability of investment returns, and the Santiago principles, which are the globally accepted best practice principles for sovereign investment funds such as the ISIF. The fund implements its sustainability and responsible investment policy in a number of ways but primarily by focusing on the integration of environmental, social and governance factors into its investment decision-making pre-investment and by being an engaged and active owner of its investments to positively influence companies.
Exclusion has not been part of the fund's responsible investment strategy, with the only exclusions from the fund being mandated by legislation. To date, the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 is the only relevant legislation and the ISIF operates a prohibited securities list of 14 companies on this basis. There is currently no basis for tobacco or alcohol exclusions in legislation.
The ISIF has committed to a review of its exclusionary policy. ISIF senior management and the NTMA board investment committee have agreed to review the current prohibited securities policy to examine the potential of adding to the list of excluded investment categories. A review of the ISIF exclusionary policy is under way and is expected to be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2017. The review of the ISIF exclusionary policy is under way separate to the ISIF investment strategy review. Given the new and unique mandate of ISIF as a sovereign development fund, and because of the uncertainty regarding the investment opportunities in Ireland, it was agreed at the time of the establishment of the ISIF in December 2014 that a formal review of the ISIF investment strategy would take place after 18 months. This allows for a sufficient period of time having elapsed before considering the operations and impact of the fund.
I am informed by the ISIF that preparatory work in respect of this formal review of its investment strategy has commenced and the review is due to be completed by the end of 2016. The review will include an appraisal of the success of the ISIF's mandate to date. The NTMA (Amendment) Act 2014 provides that ownership of the fund vests with the Minister for Finance. It also provides that the fund shall, in reviewing its investment strategy, consult the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The review of the ISIF will be conducted in accordance with these provisions. In addition, the legislation provides that the Minister for Finance may consult other Ministers, as appropriate.
I will be brief. I remind the House of some key facts from the World Health Organization. Tobacco kills up to half of its users and approximately 6 million people each year globally. Why is the taxpayer continuing to invest in this sector? I refer the Minister of State, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, to a previous statement by the former Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, during the passage of the aforementioned legislation to the effect that the NTMA must consult the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform who may consult other Ministers and must have regard to their views. Has this been done and, if not, why not?
The issue of investment in fossil fuel extraction has been raised by other Members of the Oireachtas. I appreciate the Minister of State, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, taking the time to deal with this important issue. However, I intend to continue to pursue this issue and will be working with others to bring a motion or resolution before the Seanad seeking that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform do exactly as provided for under the legislation and thereby bring to an end the hypocrisy whereby the NTMA, through the ISIF, holds financial positions in companies that are suing the State and the Minister for Health in the knowledge that one out of two users will die from use of these products. We need to seek a timely unwinding of such investments held by the State.
The Senator's intentions in this area are sound. I note that these are legacy holdings and that there is a review under way, both in terms of the fund's investment policy and its exclusion policy. Now is the time to engage on this front. In regard to the work which the Senator intends to pursue, he might want to look to Norway and its ethical policy for its pension fund which is well regarded around the world in terms of how it approaches its investments and is also very successful.
In the last Dáil I published an ethical investments Bill, but, unfortunately, it did not make it to Second Stage. That Bill also addressed the issue of putting in place legislation dealing with cluster munitions as part of our obligations under the cluster munitions treaty not to invest in companies that manufacture those weapons. It was also an attempt to build a framework through which we could include other ethical investments and address the need for certain divestments on an ethical basis. Issues being considered in the context of the review include what exclusions should be contained in the policy of the new fund as it moves away from legacy investments into new investments as per legislation. I encourage the Senator to engage with that review which is expected to be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2017.
Sitting suspended at 11.25 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.