Menu
VideoParliament
VideoParliament Irish politics in one place — download the app
Get app
VideoParliament
VideoParliament for Windows Get the desktop app — notifications about new speeches
Get app
Paul Murphy Questions Finance Exclusion in Corporate Directive

Paul Murphy Questions Finance Exclusion in Corporate Directive

Paul Murphy pressed the government in a parliamentary debate over the Corporate Sustainability Directive, arguing that a coordinated corporate lobbying effort seeks to weaken it by excluding financial firms. He challenged the government’s lack of a clear position after campaigners were told no position had been taken and Reuters reported some states seeking to exclude asset managers and institutional investors.

Corporate Sustainability Directive


Murphy described the directive as a proposal to make corporations responsible for labour rights, environmental protection and consumer protection throughout their supply chains, and warned that watering it down would undermine those aims.

Allegations of lobbying and proposed finance exclusion


He accused a "massive corporate lobbying effort to water that down," saying an important part of that campaign is to argue that finance should be excluded. He cited a Reuters report that Luxembourg, Ireland and Germany indicated they wanted to exclude asset managers and institutional investors, and referenced an Irish submission that could not signal agreement on including financial undertakings and called for an assessment for EU securities.

Government engagement and response


The Taoiseach responded that governments routinely engage in negotiations over EU directives, saying no country is passive and that states have an entitlement to seek amendments and give views. The Taoiseach also rejected the notion that governments are "lobbying," framing engagement as part of EU membership.

Paul Murphy — frame from statement: Paul Murphy Questions Finance Exclusion in Corporate Directive (16.11.2022)

Parliamentary exchange and outstanding questions


Murphy pressed for clarity, asking whether the reported position represented the Irish government's stance and how it could be justified. He also objected to repeated interruptions during the exchange and insisted his questions be addressed through the chair.

We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.

Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →

Transcript
Thanks, that's kind of word. Taoiseach, I want to pursue an issue that Deputy Smith asked you yesterday but didn't get anywhere, which is about the Corporate Sustainability Directive, which is a potentially important directive which would make corporations responsible for abuses in terms of labour rights, environmental protection, consumer protection, right through their supply chain. But what's happening is a massive corporate lobbying effort to water that down, and an important part of that is saying that finance should be excluded. So the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights met with Minister Dara Caleary last week and asked had the Irish government taken a position on this, and they were told no, the Irish government has not taken a position. The next day, however, Reuters reported that Luxembourg, Ireland and Germany have indicated they want to exclude asset managers and institutional investors from scope. Ireland said in a submission, it could not signal its agreement, including financial undertakings, and called for an assessment for the EU's securities. Is that the Irish government's position, and how can you possibly justify it? Deputy Murphy talked about corporate sustainability directive, but that's not passed. There's always engagement between governments in respect of a whole range of issues in terms of any directive. No one is passive when a directive has been negotiated at a European level. I'm just making a point here. No, we don't lobby. We're members of the European Union. So as a country, we have an entitlement to seek amendments, to make opinions, to give views as, no, sorry, as a directive has been debated. If we could for a moment, the interaction has to, we're going to run out of time. I want to get to the next third. If we could do it through the chair and give the response. But I am doing it through the chair, but I'm being interrupted all the time. That's fine too, but I take it on the chin. Thank you.