Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not disagree with some of the comments that have been made here in terms of the armaments industry and all of that. However, we have to remember that this is not State money. This is the money of the citizens who contribute through the automatic enrolment process. They also have property rights. This is their pot and their money. I do not propose to take on board these amendments but I do propose reverting to the OPC on one of them for further consideration.

I will go through them all now in detail. What I am saying is that people in auto-enrolment would be restricted whereas people getting the 40% tax back would not be restricted. To me it would be an inequitable treatment of the lower paid workers who will benefit from automatic enrolment. I am going to go through the amendments in specific detail but that is why. I do take on board what the Deputies are saying but if it is going to be applied, it has to be applied to everything. It cannot just be applied to automatic enrolment and the investment of the money that comes from the members and the citizens. They should not have to reach a different standard than others. That is the basic point I am making.

In respect of amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 22, which are similar in purpose, I need to emphasise that the new authority will not be administering a new State fund but rather will be administering hundreds of thousands of individual savings accounts that are and will remain the personal property of the AE participants. The AE project is, in that sense, a State-incentivised personal retirement savings scheme for individuals rather than a new national fund. It is very important that we treat AE participants' money on a par with those invested in occupational or supplementary private pension schemes and that we do not AE participants' investments into overly concentrated or niche risk profiles.

On amendment No. 16, the Deputy has referenced prohibiting investments directly or indirectly in various asset classes that include munitions companies. The practicality of this provision presents difficulties as to how it could be known whether an investment indirectly contains the prohibited companies. How far does the term "indirectly" go? Would it be even possible to determine this? Would any investment management company sign up to such vague terms and conditions? There is arguably no such thing as a derivative investment that could be analysed to this level of detail in a timely manner. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendment. Furthermore, the definition of the types of munitions companies - cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines - is quite narrow. The proposed amendment still means that investment could be made in all sorts of other arms.

On amendment No. 17, I would note that the NTMA, which is covered by the fossil fuel provision, can actually invest more flexibly under the 2014 Act than NAERSA would be able to do under this Bill if the Deputy's amendment were accepted, which I do not propose to do. I have the same concerns around the appropriateness and workability of amendment No. 22.

Turning to amendment No. 19, I will point out that the setting of a definition of the best long-term interests of participants cannot be easily measured. In terms of what constitutes the best possible health of the environment and society in which the participants live, none of us really knows what that means, how it could be defined or how it would interact with the goal of the best long-term financial interests of participants. For that reason, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 19 either.

Finally turning to amendment No. 18 in this grouping, I do not propose to accept this amendment at this time but I do think the amendment merits further consideration, so I am referring it to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to see how it can be accommodated as an amendment on Report Stage. I trust this represents something of a positive compromise for Deputy Ó Cathasaigh, to be provided for very shortly.