Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)

I share those concerns. More generally, the budgetary implications for small organisations that are reliant on State grants are worth exploring and getting to grips with. I am also conscious that some of those organisations may employ section 39 workers. In general, in publicly funded organisations about 70% of costs go into the labour force. If we assume that and then take the rate of employer contribution, we are talking about an increase in costs for most of those organisations in the order of 2%. Does that mean a 2% reduction in service or that the Government is going to given them an extra 2%? It is important to have some clarity on that. It is worth ensuring employer contributions in some of these organisations are properly funded, adjudicated and governed.

I was referring to Deputy O'Reilly's amendments there, but I have a question on the management of risk within auto-enrolment. These are individuated pension vehicles. I accept that is the design of the programme and I think there are merits to that, but in that frame I wonder if we are putting certain individuals in risk categories they otherwise should not be in. That we cannot just modulate the volatility associated with individuated pension vehicles and instead think about a larger pool in terms of a consolidated pension vehicle is something I do not think has been part of the discussion so far. It is a question about how we think about risk and how an individual, for example, on a day before a major market crash might get their pension payment, lump sum and have a very nice day out and then, two days later, another individual in the same risk category leaves with a much worse lump sum after that crash. That question of how we think about the management of risk across a larger pool of people is the one I was trying to put forward in one of my amendments. I would like to see something on that from the Department at some point.