Deputy Neale RichmondLet me underline for the Senator that I am not here to relive any old arguments either. I did refer to them in the context of the debate and the definition. I take this very seriously. I do not believe any Member of these Houses is ever here to posture. Saying so might be easy but we are talking about deadly serious issues here. We do so every day in these Houses and that is what people across our constituencies and panels elected us to do. I referred to the grouping of the three amendments and that is why I referred to the Geneva protocols. I acknowledge that the Senator is going to press amendment No. 32. The Government will oppose it.

There are a couple of points I wish to make in conclusion in response to the Senator. Perhaps some of them will not sit well with her, but unfortunately that is the nature of a throaty political debate. The first point relates to the notion that we are locking in or mandating future Governments. As discussed on Second Stage, that is not the intention because a future Government may have a very

different take on the purpose of the funds than the current one. I would imagine that members of the Opposition whose parties aspire to be in government are very clear that they do not want to be potentially locked into an investment strategy laid out by a previous Government. That is the nature of the democracy we live in, and that applies in general to this legislation.

The NTMA has very clear rules to follow and very clear responsibilities. It is quite clear in the ESG requirements that this is not a matter that is open to interpretation by investment or asset managers; this entails a clear instruction from the Government, and the Government has made quite clear the general areas it expects this legislation to go to, the areas in which investments are sought. Not only is this to seek investments that will provide a monetary or commercial return for the State - I believe we are going to debate this in respect of another amendment, and that is a fair debate to have – but it is also to ensure that we direct investment in a way that provides societal betterment for the people of this State in the clear areas laid out.

It is important that we pay heed to what the Government has said quite clearly on the analysis required in respect of the parallel Private Members' motion, because it is relevant to this legislation too. This legislation is quite clear in its goal. If any other legislation passes that will have an impact, we can take that into account in due course, but I do not believe the three amendments the Senator has laid out, which I acknowledge are different even though they are grouped, are needed or appropriate at this stage.