Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Mathews. I want to go back down to the Committee of Public Accounts so I am in a bit of a rush. I welcome this Bill. The NTMA has proved itself to be a very capable arm of the State and this should be recognised. We should look at those factors that make it so successful in how it conducts its work. They include how people are recruited, compensated and rewarded for performance in the workplace. There is possibly a lesson that can be shared with other Departments and other public bodies. Of course, there are different salary scales in the NTMA for various reasons, but it relates to the way in which it structures the pay scales, incentivises competition in the workplace and rewards achievement. People are held to account and are held responsible for their actions. It is possibly an interesting case study in respect of lessons that might be shared with other aspects of the State and how we do our work.

A strategic investment fund for the State is important, but it must be strategic and profitable and operate as the NPRF did before we funnelled it into the banks. Deputy Lawlor made an important point about recognising how important the NPRF was and the foresight involved in building up that fund. Unfortunately, that fund was mostly lost in the economic crisis because of what happened in the banking collapse. In taking the money remaining in the NPRF and creating a new fund with it, we must be strategic with those investments in the hope that we have that investment and funds should they be needed if there is another difficulty in the future, financial or otherwise. Hopefully, they will not be needed. The investments must be made on the basis of a decent financial return for the taxpayer. We are not spending this money; rather, we are investing it. We must not use it to curry favour with a particular demographic, region or interest group or for political reasons, because it would be disgraceful if we did that and a big mistake.

Many speakers have spoken about where the NTMA should invest and different ideas and proposals. Deputy Lawlor spoke about housing, which is important. One thing I wanted to touch upon is how the money is invested. I will be tabling an amendment in respect of that along the lines of the ethical investment Bill I introduced last year and in keeping with other national investment funds, most notably Norway's strategic investment fund. This fund is prohibited from making certain investments. I would like to introduce that into our new fund. There is already an ethical prohibition on the State's investing in companies that produce cluster munitions, and I would like to extend that to companies that produce nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon delivery vehicles. The NPRF has already invested €10 million in such companies, which is a disgrace. As we divest and reinvest that money, we must not reinvest in companies that do such work. This would be in keeping with our long-stated foreign policy objectives since our very first days in the UN. It is incredibly important that we are not hypocritical in how we spend taxpayers' money. If this country believes in the abolition of nuclear weapons, it is completely hypocritical for us to invest in companies that are building them. I hope this amendment will be accepted by the Minister of State when I table it. I intend to pursue it rigorously because it is important to me and to the people of this country. It should be recognised at every point that it is their money.

While we are talking about the NTMA, when we exited the bailout last year, we decided not to take a precautionary line of credit from the troika because the NTMA had built up cash reserves in the region of €20 billion, which was a smart move. It is always important that we have such contingencies in place, particularly given the continuing fragility in the international markets. However, I wonder if there is scope to take a portion of that €20 billion in cash reserves - even as little as 7% - to reinvest in the domestic economy by way of a change in the tax bands. If we were to increase the entry point to the marginal rate of tax by €10,000, it would cost the State €1.3 billion. I am not sure whether we will have that even on the current growth forecasts for this year, in keeping with the cuts that must be made this year to bring the annual deficit down. It would be a one-off payment, but such a one-off payment might prove to be the stimulus that we need, so that going into next year's growth levels it might carry over and become something more permanent. I wonder whether it has been discussed at senior level, but if not, I ask that it be considered, because the arithmetic for the next budget is tight, and from what I have heard in certain quarters, I am concerned that we may not be sticking to the current programme, which has specific parameters set out in Irish and European law. It is incredibly important that we reduce the deficit because we are legally obliged to, and for the continuing economic stability of the State. At the same time, we must find measures that might help stimulate the economy. They might not be directly in front of us in terms of the job creation that is taking place every month, which is welcome. The measure about which I spoke might be worth looking at as a one-off measure to help carry us over into next year and to more permanent changes in the tax arrangements in this country.

See this speech in context