Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We have a very serious concern about this section and amending it is our primary objective with this legislation. I am disappointed my two amendments have been ruled out of order. I will consider, having spoken to the Chair, whether there is scope to resubmit on Report Stage and I retain that prerogative.

Our approach will not come as a surprise to the Minister because we have been talking about auto-enrolment for some time. In our submission in 2018, we made it very clear that the State should play a lead role at the heart of auto-enrolment and that the NTMA should be central to managing these funds and investing them to the benefit of citizens. Rather than focusing on profits, the NTMA would prioritise the financial well-being of contributors to ensure their comfort in their old age. This is relevant to some of Deputy Ó Cathasaigh's amendments, but using the NTMA would give us greater scope to ensure the money in the fund is put to work for Ireland by investing in green energy, housing projects and other key areas of benefit to society.

Part of the reason we are examining this issue is that we are potentially looking forward to a different future. The pension system was very much structured on the assumption that people would own their own home or be in a secure home by the time they retired. Unfortunately, we no longer have that comfort, so it is important we ensure that if workers will be able to enjoy another pension in addition to the State pension, that pension should have the heft to properly assist them. In the past we have seen the impact of previous pension disasters. The collapse of various pension schemes left workers very vulnerable. It is for that reason we believe the NTMA is the most appropriate organisation. I noted Deputy Bruton made a similar point on Second Stage. We are concerned the approach that is being taken is precisely what the pension industry has been looking for. The breaking down of it into these individual pockets and the individual management fees related to that are hugely beneficial for the industry. We are concerned this is very much a gift to the pensions industry. The industry will benefit from this significantly and it may allow it to enter parts of the market it has not been in previously. I am concerned that could expose the potential beneficiaries of this scheme to increased risk. Deputy Bruton said:

The question of whether it makes sense to have the pension fund split into individual pension accounts with their own risk management profiles and investment strategies has been raised. I am quite persuaded by the argument that, for a fund like that proposed, which is to be managed centrally by the auto-enrolment board, there is a strong case for a policy to maximise the return to the fund in which people would own units.

There is a lot in that. There is also the issue of what happened in Britain with NEST and its large auto-enrolment model, which this is closely related to. A decision was made to change the third-party administrator from a private body but it then had to return to that private body after unsuccessful tendering to find a new supplier. A significant cost was incurred having to return to that particular provider.

I am concerned that this is major legislation. It is a big decision and we need to make sure that anything we set up is robust for the future and for the pensions of Irish workers. I am concerned that this is not the right approach and that it will expose them to further risk. While it may not be the primary beneficiary, the pensions industry will still be a substantial beneficiary rather than the workers, as we would prefer to see. Obviously, the NTMA would require additional staff and expertise but nonetheless, with time, that is absolutely achievable if the political will is there.

My amendments have been ruled out of order but I will be voting against this section. I urge the Minister to consider this again. Sinn Féin was not on its own by any manner or means in making points to this effect to the consultation five or six years ago. Many people are similarly concerned now that the wrong approach is being taken and that we are taking risks that are not necessary in terms of workers' pensions.