Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

If members online wish to contribute, they can indicate. There are a couple of questions I would like to ask. In evidence we have received, the committee has been told about the examples in the UK and New Zealand. We know the state pension in the UK is significantly less than is the case here and that, as a result, many UK residents residing here end up getting a top-up pension from the State here because of the deficit between the contributory pension from the UK and the non-contributory pension here. For New Zealand, is there the same type of impact in terms of the buying power of the contributory pension in New Zealand as is the case in the UK? Mr. Duggan may or may not know that but if he does, he might comment.

We heard in evidence from the insurance industry that there has been a shift in the role of the CPA since the straw man was first published, and it questioned the reason for that shift. Mr. Duggan might comment on that.

I have two other points. First, Mr. Duggan in his evidence today said that if Revenue and the NTMA were to take this over, new structures would have to be built, and he is correct in that regard. However, my question is this: Is there not the possibility of the CPA being established and piggy-backing on the existing structures within Revenue in terms of the collection of some of these moneys, and piggy-backing on the NTMA in terms of the investment of some of these funds? Revenue already collects PRSI and transfers it over to the Department of Social Protection, so that goes into the Social Insurance Fund. Is there a mechanism within the existing structure whereby Revenue could collect the 6% contribution and then hand it over to the CPA, rather than duplicating that element of it?

At the other end, in terms of managing investments, the skill-set is already there within the NTMA. Why would we set up another wing within the CPA to do that when the CPA itself is going to have a substantial amount of work to do in terms of engaging with employees and getting the systems up and running? Rather than saying that this can be replaced by the existing structures that are there, and I do not think it can be, is it possible to piggy-back on those existing structures, rather than replicating elements of that as part of the CPA structure?

Mr. Duggan said in his evidence in regard to auto-enrolment and poverty thresholds that he would provide by way of example some additional information to the committee. He might furnish the committee with that after this session.