John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No apologies have been received. The first item on the agenda is the Social Welfare and Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System (Amendment) Bill 2025. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Calleary, and his officials. It is important to note that, in order to participate in a division of the committee, members must be physically present. In other words, they cannot vote from a remote location.

I invite the Minister, if he so wishes, to make his opening remarks.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach. Níl mórán le rá agam ag an tús, ach gabhaim buíochas leis an gcoiste as ucht freastal ar an teacht-chun-boird breise seo. Tuigim gur trathnóna déanach é agus go mbeimid anseo amárach.

I thank the Cathaoirleach, the members and the clerk and his team for facilitating three sittings in a few hours. The work is important in the context of the Bill and of our Revised Estimates tomorrow. I put on record my thanks to the committee for that. I propose that we get straight to it.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister very much.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on extending parent's benefit by 4 weeks per parent, and increasing both parents benefit and adoptive benefit to €350 per week and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”.

I thank the Minister and his officials for coming in. I have a series of amendments that generally relate to reports of policy ideas arrived at by me and my party. We would like to get a more fulsome sense from the Department of the costs and benefits of the various policy positions - not just the Minister's, but what the different perspectives could be on those policies.

This is the first of such amendments on the extension of parent's benefit. As the Minister is probably aware, giving children the best start in life can have huge economic and social benefits in the longer term, so we are very keen to make sure that that element of a policy framework like this works against disadvantage and we assess fully the economic benefits of it.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for his amendment but I will not be accepting it. I agree with him about giving children the best start in life. That is why we focused on the child support payment in particular in this budget and made record increases to it. I do have an issue - this is going to be a common theme for the evening - with reports in legislation. It is not something I agree with personally. There are other ways of getting the information and preparing the information. Deputy Hayes also has the support of the Parliamentary Budget Office in the Oireachtas in this regard.

Extending parent's benefit would follow on from extending parent's leave, which is a matter for the Department of children and the responsible Minister. The Minister, Deputy Foley, has lead legislative responsibility for parent's leave. We then have the responsibility for the associated benefit, which follows anything that has to do with the duration of the leave.

In this budget, as well as increasing the child support payment, we also secured a weekly increase of €10 on parent's benefit and adoptive benefit, which would bring the weekly rate to €299. That rate increase applies across all family leave, including maternity and paternity benefits.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How stands the amendment? Does Deputy Hayes want to withdraw it or press it?

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to press the amendment. I was looking at old committee hearings recently and one of the Minister's predecessors took every report that was put forward. The only reason a report was not taken was if a report had already been supplied in the previous six to 12 months. It is worthwhile for the Minister to reconsider his position.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will consider that, but I would prefer to act rather than to do reports.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: “Report on surrogacy leave

7. The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on introducing paid surrogacy leave for parents of children born by surrogacy, and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”.

Regarding paid surrogacy leave, I understand the Minister may put this to another Department again but as a wider point, there is a unique role that the Department of social protection plays in terms of the funding of all these different kinds of measures, and that is at the heart of many of these amendments and the different reports I want to get to. It is about having an understanding of some of the data behind them, some of the expenditures associated with them and the people who will be affected. The point of this particular amendment is to understand the data from a surrogacy leave perspective, which is something I wish to see put forward in general.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Chair and Deputy Hayes. While I will not be accepting the amendment, I agree with the Deputy that it is an area the Department has a lot of work to do in and it is something I would certainly be happy to work with Deputy Hayes or any Deputy on in this space.

As regards the specific amendment, the matter involved is outside the scope of our Department. The Minister for Health has lead responsibility for the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024. That far-reaching legislation is complex but encompasses the regulation for the first time of a wide range of practices in this jurisdiction, including domestic altruistic surrogacy. It also provides for the regulation of future surrogacy arrangements undertaken by Irish residents in other jurisdictions. The legislation allows for the creation of the Assisted Human Reproduction Regulatory Authority to recognise the parentage arising from past domestic and international surrogacy arrangements.

With regard to surrogacy leave, the programme for Government has a commitment to introduce paid surrogacy leave. The Department of children has lead policy and legislative responsibility in this space. We will then take on the responsibility for the benefit when it is introduced. While I am not in a position to accept the amendment this evening, I agree it is an area for which there is much work to be done. I hope that, during my time in the Department, we can do some work in relation to this whole area.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is Deputy Hayes happy enough with that?

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. I will be withdrawing it.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did Deputy O'Reilly wish to speak?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, just to make an observation, although not specifically on surrogacy. The Minister has outlined quite well how this is one of those areas where nobody is responsible for it but everybody is responsible for it, yet when everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible. It is a difficulty. I have dealt with this legislation previously and it is one of those issues where there is no sense in providing the leave if the money is not going to be provided to pay for it. Sometimes, it is a case of wondering who is going to be the person to drive this. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that his Department will try to drive this. It is an issue that is in the programme for Government. There is a lot of stuff in the programme for Government and we will, as the Minister encourages us to do with his speeches, check against delivery. This issue does not impact on a large number of people - it is a very small number of people - but it is still incredibly important, and where the political system has failed in the past and let people down, the damage has been huge. It is one of those issues where there can be a difficulty in getting a Department to drive the necessary change. When we debated the surrogacy legislation, there was very little difference between the parties, yet progress was very slow. I just wanted to make that observation.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not disagree with the Deputy. I would certainly be happy to discuss this with the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality to see where her Department is at on that. It is incredibly important for those who are on that journey that this area be regularised. When it is and when the legislation is in place, we in our Department will certainly stand up and take our piece, but I will follow it up with the Minister, Deputy Foley, and revert to the committee. I agree with Deputies Hayes and O'Reilly that this is an area that is very important.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for that. Does Deputy Hayes wish to press or withdraw the amendment?

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will withdraw, on the basis that the Minister will come back to us.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on introducing a second tier of child benefit by integrating the Child Support Payment with a modified Working Family Payment to reduce child poverty, and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”.

I welcome this part of the Bill. The extension of the working family payment is extremely important in the current social welfare model.

My amendment is specifically around the second tier of child benefit. It is worth remembering that, in August and September as we were running up to the budget, there was a lot of kite flying from the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil more generally about ensuring that there would not just be a second tier of child benefit, but that there would be equal measures, something that would be the same as a second tier of child benefit. As the Minister and I know, about half the budget that would have been needed to deliver a second tier of child benefit was allocated to child poverty in this working family payment. This goes to the heart of the question of why we would need a report. If we see that the person who leads the country wants to see a policy enacted and then two months later it is not, it becomes a question of why. What was the specific thing that held it up? Was it the Department of Finance or the Department of public expenditure, or were there problems in terms of the workings of that particular payment and how it was going to be successful to target child poverty? As the Minister knows, child poverty has doubled in the past two years to 8.5%, so there is a real urgency, especially considering that the target to bring it down to 3% is within the programme for Government. I hope the Minister will agree with me on this amendment.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The programme for Government has a commitment to explore the targeted child benefit payment. Regarding Deputy O'Reilly's last remark, we have four years remaining in the lifetime of the Government. We will implement the programme for Government and I assure the Deputy that I am doing a check against delivery and will provide it to the committee on 23 January next.

As regards the specific amendment, we are focused on reducing child poverty through co-ordinated actions across many Departments. That is why we have a Cabinet committee looking at this. The ESRI has proposed a model for the second tier of child benefit that would abolish the existing child support payment and remove the core conditions of the working family payment. That would involve a net cost of €770 million per year.

The ESRI estimates that its proposed second tier of child benefit could potentially reduce the child at risk of poverty rate by approximately 4.6%. Under the model, however, some 100,000 children would see a reduction in their respective households' disposal incomes. We also have concerns regarding the potential impact of the ESRI proposal on work incentives. We need to ensure that the potential second tier of child payment has the impact we all want it to have, that is, to address that child poverty rate to help those families with children most in need, but not to result in those kinds of consequences in terms of that level of children.

We are carefully considering all the impacts and the ESRI is one approach to reducing child poverty. There are a range of possible approaches and we are going through all those within the Department in advance of next year's budget. In the meantime, we have introduced record increases in the child support payment in this budget, which this legislation is providing for, with over- and under-12s getting specifically big increases. We have increased the working family payment and extended the fuel allowance to those on that payment, which should benefit some 50,000 families.

We are focused. We are not just leaving the problem there. We have invested significantly in the child support payment, the working family payment and the fuel allowance. We are considering what a second-tier payment might look like but I do not want to introduce it - we are going through all of these options - at the cost of some 100,000 children.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is totally fair and I would not want the Minister to introduce anything with unintended consequences of that magnitude. However, it would be worth understanding some of those dynamics and for those dynamics to be presented to the committee so that we can understand from a policy perspective and the perspective of unintended consequences what various options are available to the Government and the Department itself in terms of alleviating child poverty and focusing on it further than what-----

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be worthwhile, in that context, for the committee to have the ESRI in and engage with it on that. We would try to use that engagement. We engage with it ourselves and with many bodies regarding this matter. We will publish a draft proposal in time when we have finished all that engagement and looked at it. The most important thing is that we target those child support payments and child poverty payments generally to families who need them the most. We are absolutely focused on reducing that child poverty rate. It is not one I want. We are focused not just on payments but also on other supports being introduced by the Government, for example, the schoolbooks grant and the expansion of the hot school meals programme.

Those two issues have not been fully tracked in child poverty rates yet. We are focused on reducing that rate. That is why we set a child poverty target that is very different from the one we have at the moment. We are enabling many tools to ensure we deliver on that.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is also worthwhile pointing out, if we are going to bring in things from outside the Minister's Department, that a huge part of child poverty is also housing. According to the ESRI, about 20% of children are now in consistent poverty when we take housing costs into account. In targeting child poverty, beyond payments like a second-tier of child benefit, it is important to address this in a holistic way. Education is important but we also need to tackle housing. If the Minister does not mind me saying so, that has been a major failure of preceding Governments and Ministers for housing. I am happy for the ESRI to come in and explain some of the things. I hope that the Department will also do that.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will note that for the spring schedule. We have a committed schedule between now and Christmas but might consider that for the spring schedule.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4

4. In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 265 of Principal Act

11. Section 265(1) of the Principal Act is amended, in paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant purpose”— (a) by the substitution, in clause (III) of subparagraph (v), of “section 16 of the Student Support Act 2011,” for “or section 16 of the Student Support Act 2011, or”,

(b) by the substitution, in subparagraph (vi), of “the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995,” for “or the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995, or”,

(c) by the substitution, in subparagraph (vii), of “Childcare Support Act 2018, or” for “Childcare Support Act 2018,” (inserted by section 23(c) of the Childcare Support Act 2018), and

(d) by the substitution of “(viii) the provision of a service under the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act 2024,” for “(vii) the provision of a service under the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act 2024,” (inserted by section 110(a)(iii) of the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act 2024).”.

This is a technical amendment which corrects errors in section 265 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. In the main, the reason for the amendment is to correct an error whereby there are currently two designations for subparagraph (vii) in paragraph (a) of the definition of "relevant purpose", which is contained in section 265(1) of the Act. Section 265 contains provisions for the sharing of information, which include defining the purposes for which information may be shared. Section 110 of the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act 2024 incorrectly inserted in subparagraph (vii) the purpose for sharing of information as "the provision of a service under the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act 2024". That insertion conflicts with an existing provision designated under subparagraph (vii) by section 23 of the Childcare Support Act 2018. This amendment seeks to correct that by designating the provision for auto enrolment in subparagraph (viii).

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall prepare and lay a report, with a timeline, before both Houses of the Oireachtas on abolishing the means test for carer’s allowance and that the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”.

The amendment concerns a report on a commitment in the programme for Government on abolishing the means test for carers. I am somewhat concerned by some conflating information I have received on this. When it was discussed in the Dáil Chamber last week, Deputy O'Reilly said about 53,000 people have now been excluded from the means test. According to the Department of public expenditure, the data the Minister gave about a month previously referred to a figure of 30,000. I want to get a sense of what abolishing the means test would look like from an expenditure perspective, the number of people who would be affected by it and how the Minister plans to deal with it under the programme for Government.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have a timeline. It is very clear in the programme for Government that we will do it over the lifetime of the Government. The removal of the means test is a very significant shift in policy but we are determined to do it. I have made clear in the House on many occasions that I am determined to make that change. We will do through a prudent and sustainable approach.

We are in the process of starting that. In July this year, the weekly income disregard for carer's allowance increased from €450 to €625 for a single person and from €900 to €1,250 for carers with a partner or spouse. As part of budget 2026, we have announced further improvements to that. For carers who work, the weekly income disregard will increase from next July by 60% from €625 to €1,000 for a single person and from €1,250 to €2,000 for carers who are part of a couple. Those particular increases are the largest ever in income disregards for the carer's allowance.

Since June 2022, the cumulative increases in the disregard have amounted to €670.50 and €1,335, respectively, an increase of just over 200%. The income disregards are currently the highest in the social protection system. They are higher than those of any other payment and we intend to go further with that.

A carer in a two-adult household with an income of approximately €110,000, which is a large income, will from next July receive a full carer's payment. A carer with an income of €138,000 will receive a partial payment. They are large incomes. We intend to go further on that. The income disregards were €37,000 and €60,000 before we began this journey. We are very much focused on that.

I am also focused on increasing payments for existing carers. In the past five budgets, weekly carer's payments have increased by more than €2,650 per annum. We are determined to abolish the means test. It is demand-led and we will deal with this tomorrow in the context of the Revised Estimates. We are going through all of the existing data.

Existing carers who are on a minimum or partial payment will get a higher payment because of the change to the income disregard. There are carers who are not currently in the social protection system and have never previously engaged with the Department of Social Protection who, because of the level of income disregard, will now engage with us. It as very difficult to estimate those numbers. I was very clear when I took questions last Thursday and will be very clear again today. We will ensure, over the lifetime of the Government, that this is abolished and there will not be a means test for carers.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are you happy enough?

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is no reflection on the Minister's intentions or bona fides, but the figure I was given by the Parliamentary Budget Office and Department of public expenditure and reform was, from memory, €628 million. A figure was put on this. We have had a back-and-forth exchange before, but I feel obligated to mention it because the amount allocated in the budget for a half year was €10 million, which will be €20 million for a full year. At that rate, to get to a figure of €628 million would take 30 years. Clearly, the Minister does not intend that to take 30 years, and I respect that.

Based on what the Minister has said, however, it is possible that there would be no further increases for a number of years and then a massive increase at the end. The figure of €628 million still stands. We all know this is the Government responding to pressure from outside, but starting with a figure of €10 million when the ultimate bill will be €628 million seems to be something of a slow start. I understand there are things we cannot know, such as the number of people who may become eligible and will apply. However, someone in the Department of public expenditure put a figure on this.

Does the Minister see where I am going with this? It is difficult to see how the Minister's ambition will be accomplished within the lifetime of the Government, given the pace he has set and the cost I was given. If he has different figures that contradict that cost, I would be happy to hear them.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has touched on the issue. If everybody who self-declared as a carer in census 2022, our most recent census, was to qualify, then the potential cost of abolishing the means test could be €3 billion per annum. The minimum is €600 million per annum. We have to phase this in so that when the budget is in place in the Department it will facilitate a minimum of €600 million, in terms of the carers who qualify for the full payment and those who will come into the system for the first time and never engaged, or considered engaging, with the Department but will now do so.

I am determined to do that during the lifetime of this Government, but I could not do it in the context of one budget. We will do it. I cannot lay down exactly when. We are not finished the process with this budget. I have to look at every budget allocation I get but this is a programme for Government commitment. It is a commitment I will deliver. I would like to deliver it early in my time as Minister but I also want to focus on existing carers. We want to make sure their rates, and the carer's support grant, increase, and that we also look at the other payments that people in the caring area get.

It is difficult to say double that will result in a certain number qualifying. We will have this discussion again tomorrow when we go through overruns in terms of carers. I am glad to see the overruns, to be honest. Normally, that is not the case. However, I am glad to see them because it means that more people are engaging and applying. We engage with carers' organisations on this. We will again have an engagement with them well ahead of next year's budget to run through where we are at. It is a difficult one. Once that test is taken away, an awful lot more people will engage with the Department than would normally be the case. An awful lot of people who have never engaged with the Department will engage in this space. That is what we are trying to measure. Before we make the final decision, we will have those figures available. We will be back. I have no doubt this will come before the PAC and others again in trying to estimate this-----

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----but I assure the Deputy that my team and the team in the Department are doing their level best to get a good estimation of this. We are determined to abolish it.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To be clear, I was not calling into question the hard work of the people on the Minister's team. I know everybody is working hard but there is a problem with the figures in that €600 million was put against it and now a figure of €3 billion has been added. It just-----

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I put a context on that figure. It is so that everybody-----

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know. I fully appreciate that, but it strikes me that-----

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----in the census who is a carer and is identified as a carer-----

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand where that figure came from. I reiterate my point to the effect that a cost of €600 million minimum and a €10 million start does not exactly fill me with confidence, but we will check against delivery.

Mark Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Those involved in caring will tell us that they are saving the State €20 billion each year. The figure the Minister put on is €3 billion maximum to get everybody into that. Has the Department done any engagement? Are there any surveys on those people who are not engaging? I have come across a number of people in the past couple of years who were not aware of the massive increases the Government has put in, although these are still not enough. Has there been engagement by the Department in respect of those people who are not engaging with it? Is the Department depending on carers' associations to give it data in that regard?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There has been. We hold a carers' forum every May. All the carers' groups come in, not just the most high-profile national ones. We get engagement with all the carers' groups. That is something I will definitely look at ahead of next July. We need to ensure that people know the disregards are that high and they can engage the Department. They are more than welcome to engage with the Department. That is why we made the programme for Government commitment. We recognise the amazing contribution being made by carers to the State. What they are doing is recognised. That is why this will be the only payment not to have a means test in the lifetime of this Government. I will also say that €1.24 billion is what we will be investing in carer's allowance in 2025. It is not an inconsiderable investment.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To go back to that figure, the Minister said a minimum of €628 million and up to €3 billion, if we go by those census figures, for those who have self-declared. I would like to get a sense of this. Does the Minister have an understanding of what lies on the spectrum? What are the differences between people who self-declare versus what that minimum is? Given that the Minister said €1.24 billion was spent on the carer's allowance, is he committing to a 50% increase in the carer's allowance over the lifetime of the Government, which is that extra €600 million? Is he committing to a quintupling or quadrupling of the carer's allowance over the lifetime of the Government to the €3 billion mark?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One of the challenges in answering that relates to our demographics. We are all getting older and there will be a greater need for care within community facilities. That is making it harder to measure that demand. We are working across Government in that space in terms of health strategies generally. For those who self-declare, we do not have a huge amount of detail on what their hours are. We engage with the groups on that. We engage very strongly with carers' groups and have a very strong working relationship with them, to go back to Deputy Wall's point, in trying to make sure that people who are entitled to this get it. On his suggestion, we will certainly do a lot more of that in 2026.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on introducing a cost of disability payment, and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”.

This relates to another commitment in the programme for Government on the cost-of-disability payment. I know this is something the Minister would like to see, and there is still some research to be done. For that reason, I would like to see a report on it brought to the committee.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for his amendment. The programme for Government contains a commitment to introduce a permanent annual cost-of-disability support payment, with a view to incrementally increasing this payment. We have begun making progress on this but it is vital that we get this payment right. This involves taking time to engage with disabled people and their representative groups on the issue. We know that addressing the cost of disability is not solely about income. It is about access to services and other supports. That is why a whole-of-government approach is required.

Under the recently published national humans rights strategy for disabled people, my Department is leading a strategic focus network on the cost of disability. The delivery and monitoring structures of this strategy have been codesigned with stakeholders to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability. The first programme plan of actions for 2025-26 will be published shortly. This will set out: the key priority actions under each commitment; who will deliver them; a timeframe for delivery; and the key performance indicators for each one. Reporting on all of these programme plans will be carried out every six months. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Disability Matters will function as part of the broader political and democratic oversight of that process. At the heart of this approach is that at all stages the views and opinions of disabled people, their organisations and relevant stakeholders will be central to delivery.

My officials have already held meetings with a number of organisations to discuss the possible structure and content of the strategic focus network on the cost of disability. I am confident that the robust delivery and monitoring structures around this will provide effective political and democratic oversight of progress. I will be meeting a number of organisations at the next meeting of my Department's disability consultative forum on 2 December, when the cost-of-disability strategic focus network will be the main agenda item. I have asked my officials to have this work completed ahead of next summer before we begin discussions on budget 2027, with a view that I can bring a proposal to Government in this space.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The core issue I am very worried about is Disability Federation Ireland stating that people with disabilities will be €1,200 worse-off next year than they are this year. The cost-of-disability payment proposed by the Social Democrats and others would have ameliorated that by about €1,000.

If the Minister is meeting with disability groups on 2 December, and is hoping to have a report by next summer, it would be very helpful for us to see a report on the cost-of-disability support payment at this committee. That may go to the disability matters committee, which the Minister mentioned, as well. I am very conscious, however, that there may be a big shock for people with disabilities next year as a result of the Government's actions and that we will have to look at the cost-of-disability payment with more urgency next year.

Mark Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy made a very important point. Those who have disabilities are coming into all our offices regarding the reductions in one-off payments. The query related to this committee discussing it, as well as the disability committee. It is very important that we on the social protection committee get a chance to discuss that payment as quickly as possible. Definitely for me, and for other colleagues I speak to, there is a lot of concern out there that those one-off payments are not there any more. Will the Minister come back to discuss where he and the Government are with a cost of disability payment at the moment?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister outlined the work that is being done in his Department. I tried to take a note and now I cannot read it back. What I have written is a "strategic focus network". Is that what he said? Would it be possible, if he is not going to accede to the Deputy's amendment - the Minister is clearly not going to accede to any of them bar his own, which is grand - would it be possible for this committee to be updated on the work of that group? It is up to the Chair, but I think we will be holding plenty of hearings in relation to the cost of disability.

Just for the Minister's own information, there was a big publicity campaign to advise people about energy credits. The Government was not as quick to do the same campaign to advise people that they are not getting them. People have been in my office telling me they cannot afford to pay their bills like the 300,000 people who are already in arrears as we head into winter. For them, the withdrawal of those vital energy supports will mean in some instances that they will be cold in their homes. This is a particular issue for people with disabilities, but is there some way for the committee to track the work the Department is doing? It is in the programme for Government and it is something we would like to see the Government deliver on, but it is also something about which the committee will have an input, along with the disability matters committee.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind committee members and Deputy Hayes, who is not a member of the committee, that we have joint meeting of the disability committee and the social protection committee tomorrow week. That is something that will be discussed at that meeting. I ask the Minister to respond.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Chairman. I will keep Deputies O'Reilly, Wall and Hayes updated. We are in the very bottom part of the mountain in terms of climbing it, but the most important thing for me is that we get some sort of buy-in and agreement from the disability groups as to what this payment looks like. Second, Deputy O'Reilly is right. A lot of Departments are involved in this. The disability community, absolutely, but to go back to Deputy Hayes's previous point, the housing committee will have to be involved here as well. I am happy to come back in terms of the work of the strategic focus network.

As I said, we are in very early days. I propose sometime in the spring we will give an update as to where we are at. I would also point out that within this legislation there are a number of measures, including the €10 increase in the weekly rates of payment, which will be permanent. That will bring the maximum personal rate of disability allowance to €254 a week from January. As already said, we have the highest ever increases in the child support payment from €16 to €78 for children aged 12 or over and €8 to €58 for children 12 and over. There is a €20 increase in the rate of domiciliary care, which will bring the rate of DCA to €380 per month from next January. The fuel allowance has increased by €5. Importantly, people who are moving from disability allowance or the blind pension to take up work will be able to retain their fuel allowance payment for five years.

The back to work family dividend is being extended to the group where they have children. That has been one issue that has come back to me already. People who move from DA to take up employment are always worried that if, for whatever reason it does not work out that they are left without their benefits at a cliff edge. The second thing that we have done is that in the case of any person who moves from DA to employment and where that does not work out, the officials in the Department will get them back onto that payment very quickly. That was not always the way. We are trying to make sure the systems are in place to do that. We have also made changes to the wage subsidy scheme.

I am very focused in on in terms of increasing the opportunities for employment. I had a meeting with a super group. I recommend a meeting with the NOW Group in terms of what it is doing in this space. It would be really worthwhile to see what it is doing. Across disability allowance, the invalidity pension, the blind pension and domiciliary care allowance, we have made over €250 million in additional funding in this space for next year. I want to introduce a specific cost-of-disability payment but in the meantime, we have not been sitting on our hands, we are also investing in permanent increases across a range of other schemes as well.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“(3) The Minister shall carry out a review on the rate increases that would be required in order to move towards social welfare rates which meet a Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) and shall commission a departmental study on the effect that adequacy of social welfare rates could have on addressing poverty levels and the findings shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”.

I welcome and thank the Minister and his Department for funding this kind of research into the minimum essential standard of living, which I think is important in terms of deprivation and how we think about poverty more generally. This idea that there is a minimum essential standard of living that every person should be entitled to and that every person should have access to is important. How we index our social welfare rates is going to be one of the big questions over the coming decade or so. Specifically, when we think about deprivation and poverty levels, one of the things that has come to my attention from a lot of my constituency work is that there are people who may be on what we would call decent incomes but actually may still be experiencing a lot of deprivation, often because of housing costs or something else of that nature. This question of minimum essential standard of living and how we actually index social welfare rates and how we make sure those things are pegged so that deprivation is not something that is affecting a lot of people or a disproportionate number of people is a worthy cause. I hope that he accepts this amendment.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy. The minimum essential standard of living is an assessment of the minimum income that is needed to live and partake in social and economic norms of everyday life. As he has acknowledged, and I thank him for that, we provide funding to the Vincentian MESL Research Centre to support the research work plan. They provide us with high-quality work in an important area of social policy. One of the benefits of the Vincentian MESL Research Centre is that it is independent and that it provides an independent analysis of the different levels of income that are needed for a wide range of household types, which include the different costs arising for households in rural and urban locations.

The MESL Research Centre is already producing two documents on an annual basis that are of direct relevance to the Deputy's amendment. The MESL annual update, which is normally published in June, updates the annual MESL costs. Second, the MESL budget impact briefing is published after the budget. It outlines the core social welfare support changes and the proportion of MESL need that is met as a result of those changes. The annual report provides analysis of the permanent adjustments to core rates and to secondary supports. It accounts for the impact of permanent policy measures that reduce potential living costs. That would include the provision of hot school meals at primary level. It does that for a variety of household types again. Second, a comprehensive breakdown of household income compared to the MESL expenditure for different household types can be found in that report. It can be found in the appendix tables of each annual update. The information the Deputy is seeking is already there within the reports. That is why I am not accepting the amendment. I encourage all Deputies to review both documents that contain the information in a very accessible format that is there already.

We also, as a Department, fund research by the ESRI in this space. Last year the ESRI published a technical paper on the minimum essential standards of living, poverty and deprivation in Ireland. That looked at questions of crossover between the minimum essential standard of living and different measurements of poverty, which I know the Deputy is also interested in. Much of what the Deputy is seeking is available. We do use it. We use the research in the context of budgetary negotiations. We do use it to stand up our cases and our discussions that we have with the Department of public expenditure and we used it in this budget.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am happy to withdraw my amendment on that basis. I thank the Minister.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 8, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“Amendment of Principal Act (disregard from income of participant contributions paid under section 59(1) of the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act 2024)

15. (1) Section 227 of the Principal Act is amended, in the definition of “weekly family income” (amended by section 11 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2011), by the

insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (aa):

“(ab) any participant contribution deducted from emoluments (within the meaning of Part 3 of the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act 2024) in accordance with section 59(1)(b) of that Act,”.

(2) Part 4 of Schedule 3 to the Principal Act is amended, in Rule 1(2)(b)(v), by the substitution of the following subclause for subclause (I):

“(I) An amount equal to the sum of the first €75 of any additional income (within the meaning of Rule 2) and 25 per cent of so much of that additional income as exceeds €75, when that additional income has been reduced by the aggregate of—

(A) any allowable contribution referred to in Regulation 31 of the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 2018 (S.I. No. 345 of 2018),

(B) any amount deducted from reckonable earnings under section 13 and regulations made under section 14, and

(C) any participant contribution deducted from emoluments (within the meaning of Part 3 of the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act 2024) in accordance with section 59(1)(b) of that Act,”.

(3) This section comes into operation on 1 January 2026.”.

It excludes employee auto-enrolment contributions from the assessment of income for the purposes of the working family payment and for supplementary welfare allowance means arrangements insofar as it relates to recipients of rent supplement in particular. Currently, employee contributions to other types of pension or retirement savings schemes are excluded from an assessment of their income.

The intention of the amendment is to have consistency in the treatment of pension and retirement savings contributions within the social welfare system. Specifically, the amendment aligns the treatment of a participant or employee contributions to My Future Fund with that of employee contributions to occupational pensions, to personal retirement savings accounts, to additional voluntary contributions and to retirement annuity contracts. By introducing this amendment, we are ensuring that people in receipt of the working family payment or rent supplement will not be negatively affected because they have been enrolled under the auto-enrolment system. Other payments that may be impacted in a similar way do not require amendments to primary legislation and I will be making regulations to address these payments in the future.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 8, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(a) in section 11(5), by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

“(c) one shall be a person who is a participant in the scheme and who may, in the opinion of the Minister, appropriately represent the interests of participants.”,”

This is one that is particularly close to my heart, specifically the question of representation on boards for auto-enrolment and the allocation of moneys. When we think about pension entitlements more generally, one of the things that has come to my attention across the board, whether we are talking about occupational pensions or pension provision in private pensions, is the representation of people whose money it is and how that money is being allocated, how that money is being used and how the governance model is being implemented. There is a rightful question here around making sure that a participant in the auto-enrolment scheme is represented at the board level of automatic enrolment. That is what this amendment is about. This is not just the end of that. There is a big question around how we think about the pensions landscape more generally. People, for example, who have retired out of professions, who were in occupational pension schemes are often not represented in the occupational landscape and beyond that. This is my effort to try to at least rectify that in the case of auto-enrolment.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy. The National Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings Authority, NAERSA, is the overall authority with responsibility for My Future Fund. The inclusion of individuals on the board of NAERSA is based on the principle that the board of the authority should contain individuals who have relevant experience relating to the functions of NAERSA. That includes people who have both knowledge and experience of both employer issues and worker concerns. Section 11 of the Act provides that the duties of the members of the board in the performance of their functions should be owed by them to the authority and to the authority alone. The independence of the authority is very important to me. I have already appointed seven individuals to the board of NAERSA. One has a very strong background in representing workers' rights. Another has a strong record in representing employer interests. They represent two of the key participants the Deputy seeks in his amendment. Together with the other individuals I have appointed, they are very diverse and have extensive experience. They have experience not just in large projects, in worker and employer rights, but also in the pension industry. I am of the firm opinion that each of them is ideal and that, truly, the board will be a sum of its parts, coming together to ensure that NAERSA will be successful in the goal of administering My Future Fund.

In the context of those who have been appointed, with their experience and their strengths, it is not fully clear to me how an individual who is a participant in My Future Fund would be selected to represent the interests of all participants. Equally, we cannot say for definite that there will not be people around the table who are automatically enrolled. I can assure the Deputy, however, that the prospective target audience will be approximately 750,000 employees who have an equally diverse range of interests, be that across retail, hospitality or manufacturing. Their interests are being very well represented on a very strong board. I was taken aback in a very positive way by the level of interest in serving on the board of NAERSA by exceptionally qualified people from a wide range of interests. I am very satisfied that the current board is appropriately constituted. It will be robust in fulfilling its mandate to oversee NAERSA and to oversee My Future Fund and, most importantly, in protecting the interests of all those people whose My Future Fund accounts are its responsibility.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not disagree with the Minister's assessment of the current board and I would like to thank all the people who have put themselves forward and the important experience they bring to bear. The Minister mentioned the question of relevant experience. Someone who is participating in the scheme does actually have relevant experience. The likelihood that somebody under the income of €80,000 would be serving on this board is, perhaps, low. Certainly, it is almost impossibly unlikely that someone with an income at the €20,000 mark is going to come across the Minister's desk . It is really important the voice of workers - the voice of people whose funds and whose own money is going into these investments - is part of the governance of such a major change as this. It is not necessarily appropriate to simply say a representative from workers organisations is sufficient. We need to ensure that people whose money is absolutely involved in this scheme are part of the governance model. I strongly press the Minister to consider this in some way. As to the question of how we arrive at that person, this amendment does not give any specificity on that by design so the Minister and the Department can figure that out in a variety of ways as is the case in lots of other countries. I would really like the Minister to consider this proposal.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has mentioned that there is a strong workers' representative on the board and there is a strong employer representative on the board. I do not dispute that for a moment. It is clear we do not need to insulate the legislation against the current Minister but imagine there was a Minister who was not disposed towards doing that so the representatives would not necessarily be there to speak for the people who were members of the scheme. It does cause a lot of problems when there are people who feel they are paying into a scheme from which they are excluded about how it is managed. The amendment is well intentioned. It is a good idea to cement that kind of representation into legislation. It was always done previously. It ceased in recent times but it was a practice. The value is there for the people who are going to be the voice of the workers and the employers; the people paying in and the people administering it. I cannot understand what the objection to this amendment is and it seems to me that it always is a good thing when those who are members of a scheme also are involved in it. That is generally a good thing with pensions. The Minister is lucky there are people queuing up to be involved in the board because sometimes it can be very tough to get people to be involved. The Minister has people who are enthusiastic but the people who are members of the scheme would have a marginal rate of interest in having some involvement in how that scheme is managed.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is already outlined in the legislation that "one shall be a person who has, in the opinion of the Minister, knowledge or experience in matters relating to the interests of employees". That is specifically outlined in the legislation and we have an exceptional person fulfilling that role in the current board, namely, Patricia King. The Act further states: "one shall be a person who has, in the opinion of the Minister, knowledge or experience in matters relating to the interests of employers". Equally, we have an exceptional person fulfilling that mandate at the moment. I am very confident that the board as it is currently constituted will more than stand up for the rights of the 750,000 people who will benefit from My Future Fund and, indeed, in Patricia King we have somebody who has championed the idea of auto-enrolment for a long time. I think Deputy O'Reilly used to work with her. She is an exceptional person and will stand up very strongly, I have no doubt about it. The overall board, as it is constituted, is a board that will stand up and be a voice to workers, and be a voice for employers but, most importantly, work in the best interests of the 750,000 who will be enrolled in the scheme.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Again, this is not about the current make-up of the board. This is not about the individuals who currently are there. This is about the people whose money it is. That is the question. Is it the position of the Government that the governance of the largest transformation to the pension landscape that has been taken in many years should have no representation of the people whose money is being invested directly in the governance model? Is that what the Minister is saying?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am saying it has very strong representation of the people whose money is being invested.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no direct representation.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has very strong representation and it has direct representation. We have workers representatives and it also has representatives of the people paying into the scheme, the employers. We also have a range of interests around the table that are away from that. I am very confident in the current set up of the board that it represents the direct interests of workers and employers and it is important that it does.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With respect, I disagree.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is also open to the committee to request that NAERSA come before it as well and we might do so in future. That is open to members to discuss at future scheduling for the new year.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 8, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

"(e) in section 54(2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), by the substitution of "1 day" for "6 months",

(ii) in paragraph (b), by the substitution of "1 day" for "6 months",

(iii) in paragraph (c), by the substitution of "1 day" for "6 months",

(iv) in paragraph (d), by the substitution of "1 day" for "6 months", and

(v) in paragraph (e), by the substitution of "1 day" for "6 months",".

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not be accepting this amendment.

The overall objective of My Future Fund is pension adequacy. It is vital in that context that participation and retention rates in My Future Fund remain high.

As with other aspects of the design of My Future Fund, there is a spectrum of potential and possible arrangements here. At one end of the spectrum, you could allow opt-out immediately after enrolment, as is proposed by the Deputy's amendment and as is the case in the United Kingdom, and at the other end of the spectrum, you could follow the approach in Australia which does not allow people to opt out at all. These are extremes of the spectrum and what we have tried with this design, in learning from what has happened across the world in other systems, is to achieve a middle course.

I believe that the six-month mandatory participation period is sufficiently long that will allow members to see the value of their personal contribution. It is really important that everybody knows that it is their money. It is not Government money; it is not NAERSA's money; it is Louise's money, Catherine's money or Mark's money. It is important that the time is sufficiently long to allow them see their personal contribution accumulate and allow them see their employers' contribution and the State contribution go in. They will have the opportunity to see that through the My Future Fund app. They will see that their employer is topping up their contribution, that the State is also topping up and that their €3 that goes in becomes €7. The longer they save they will see that for real.

The provision of an opt-out in subparagraph (e) differs from mandatory pension schemes. It provides an opportunity for people to exercise some degree of choice in relation to the membership of the scheme.

Coming back to the international experience, which has been crucial to the design of My Future Fund, that international experience demonstrates why the opportunities to opt out of a pension scheme even at an early stage risk defeating our underlying objectives here and that would undermine the policy objective of ensuring an adequate income in retirement. In line with the analysis from the OECD, we have an opt-out period of only two months in the Irish automatic enrolment system. I am satisfied that in making an opt-out available, a balance is provided with the objectives and also maintaining an individual's freedom to make choices in relation to their retirement savings.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Minister indicated, he will not be accepting this amendment or any of the others but we will chat about them anyway.

The purpose of the amendment is to give people some autonomy over their own money in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. There would have been a time when I would have wholeheartedly agreed with the Minister but to be brutally frank with him, he talks about the underlying objectives of the scheme and people have an underlying objective to be able to get to the end of the week and to be able to afford to feed themselves and all the rest of it and that is not the case for far too many of them in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. When the opportunity to revisit this exists, it is the position of Sinn Féin that people should be given the choice to have that autonomy over their own money. That was the purpose of this amendment.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that there is a cost-of-living challenge at the moment but there would be a bigger cost-of-living challenge for people if they get to retirement at 66, if they are on the average industrial wage of €46,000 or €47,000, and their only provision is the contributory State pension, which is approximately €16,000. That would present extraordinarily difficult choices to people at that stage.

We are the last country in the OECD to introduce this. That is why we can learn. That is why we have adapted a middle road in terms of the best potential way to reach the objective of any automatic enrolment system, which is to give people certainty in retirement.

There will be a six-month period for people to get used to it and to see the benefits of it. In that six months, through the My Future Fund app, people will see that their €3 is becoming €7 and every €3 they put in is matched with €3 from their employer and by €1 from the State. The more people see that, the more they will realise that this is a good option for them.

I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 to 15, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

"(e) in section 68(1), by the substitution of "the National Treasury Management Agency" for "a person or persons",”.

This is my last-ditch attempt to stop this important piece of work being hijacked as a bonanza for the private sector. We believe that the investment management services should be carried out by the NTMA and that it will act in the interests of the people.

Organisations, such as Tata Consultancy Services, I understand, are involved in providing digital infrastructure for this fund. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. This company is involved in providing digital infrastructure for Israel's settlement financing banks and it is a key partner for Project Nimbus, a military cloud project that enhances the state's capacity for surveillance. These business operations are effectively complicit in a genocide and I believe that, under the stewardship of the NTMA, it would be possible for such matters to be avoided.

The NTMA could be used - the Minister talked about the importance of the money building up - to harness this money in the direct interests of people in terms of investment in infrastructure, which is so badly and desperately needed. The purpose of this amendment, as I say, is my last ditch attempt to get the Government to turn back and to back the NTMA.

Sorry, the report was the SALAM report entitled "Architects of Occupation".

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy want to discuss amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, as well?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are in the same vein and we can consider those discussed.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will deal with the investment management providers first and come back to the Tata issue.

There are a number of reasons the NTMA is not the appropriate institution for managing retirement savings funds that are collected through the automatic enrolment system. The NTMA currently manages State money. It does not have the systems, the processes, the knowledge or the experience to manage individual savings and investment accounts or to conduct the administration of those over many decades. Accordingly, it would need to either build or contract those for the provision.

Second, giving the task to the NTMA would be to add something very different to its long list of existing functions.

Third, we are of the view that automatic enrolment is so important and that this is such an important project that it needs to have a dedicated expert function and we have chosen to establish a new body for that purpose, which we have just discussed. That body is NAERSA. Section 9 of the automatic enrolment, AE, Act already provides for this body to be responsible for arranging for the investment of contributions. Having the NTMA charged with this function adds a further level of complexity and cost to the oversight of the scheme.

Fourth, the NTMA reports to a different Minister at a different Department. It would confuse and complicate the governance and the regulation arrangements.

Finally, the basis of the amendment, the Deputy can correct me if I am wrong, is that the NTMA would invest the funds without using the commercial investment market. This is not the case. The NTMA invests State money in the international funds market. It uses commercial investment managers from private industry to do this already and this is what NAERSA is going to do with retirement savings. Giving that function to the NTMA would not change how the funds are invested and it would not necessarily guarantee an improvement in participant outcomes. There would be no upside benefit for the My Future Fund account holders from having the NTMA manage and invest their funds.

The automatic enrolment Act has established NAERSA. NAERSA has a statutory duty to operate in the best interests of the participants in My Future Fund. Additionally, and in line with the provisions of the AE Act, a set of investment manager providers has already been procured through a competitive tendering process earlier in 2025. That tendering process required fees to be less than 0.1% of assets under management. I can confirm that the prices attached to the bids were significantly below the maximum ceiling.

They represent excellent value for the participants and are much lower than typically available in pension schemes. Accepting the amendments in that context would result in serious legal jeopardy to the State. The chosen investment managers - chosen through a tendering process - have been negotiating a contract in good faith. They have invested considerably in establishing funds and are developing integration with the system administrator as we speak. It would result not just in a loss of value-for-money fees but also further delay implementation of the auto-enrolment scheme. I cannot accept this modification. We have been talking about this for 20 years and for the two thirds of workers in the private sector not actively contributing to an occupational pension scheme or equivalent are now getting access and can now finally have a quality assured retirement scheme. We are determined to implement this from January.

Specifically in relation to the Deputy's issues regarding Tata, Tata Consultancy Services, TCS, is the managed service provider for My Future Fund. Its role is not in investment. That was procured through an open EU-based tendering process. It was conducted in 2023 and 2024. TCS won the contract on the basis of providing the most advantageous tender that fulfilled the requirements. There is no legal basis for excluding TCS from participating in the process, nor is there a legal basis for withdrawing this contract from TCS. TCS is a global IT services consulting and business solution organisation. It includes over 600,000 employees worldwide across 51 subsidiary companies in 55 counties including TCS Ireland, which is headquartered in Letterkenny with over 1,000 employees. It is from Letterkenny that the work of the back office - the technical, skilled work in terms of managing this - is being done. It is in Letterkenny that the National Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings Authority, NAERSA, will be based. It will be a totally separate organisation to TCS. TCS will provide consulting and will run this through the governance of NAERSA.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a fundamental objection to any involvement by this State in organisations that are complicit in an ongoing genocide. That is not meant disrespectfully to any individual person who I am sure is working away well. However, the report I quoted from came before that tender process was engaged in. That information was known. I do not think the State should reward organisations that provide the core digital infrastructure for Israeli settlement-financing banks and a company which is a key partner in Project Nimbus. I do not think that company should be rewarded with a lucrative contract form the State. With respect, nothing the Minister said has changed my mind on this. The Government has had years to prepare for it - the Minister said it himself. It would have been possibly to keep this in-house and not to outsource it to the private sector. Of course the skills do not exist within the NTMA and neither did those skills exist until such time as the process was engaged with. The State had years to get this right. It is fundamentally important, given the state of the housing crisis and the likelihood people will be facing into their retirements having to pay exorbitant rents. We should perhaps talk about that a bit more. It is essential that people make provision for their retirement. It is something I have long believed in. However, that does not have to be at the expense of what could potentially be a benefit to the State.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have seen a report by the South Asian Left Activist Movement, SALAM. Is that the same report?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. From October 2021.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The report I have is from October 2025, which is just-----

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have one from October 2021, which I just cited.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It also states there are other very big companies working with TCS in relation to this - big names we all use every day. Norway's sovereign wealth fund holds a stake in 15 separate Tata companies, which includes a stake of about €250 million in TCS. Many experts would say the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is considered one of the most ethical funds in the world. I do not necessarily disagree with the Deputy's point but it demonstrates the complexity of service providers and the service supply chain. We went to an open, EU-wide tender in 2023 and 2024 to get the best possible service for the 750,000 people participating in this scheme.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, to delete lines 33 to 39.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As currently worded, section 69(4) of the automatic enrolment Act requires that all subcontractors, including non-financial service contractors of an investment management provider, IMP, should be regulated financial services providers. In practice, IMPs, like all other businesses, use subcontractors to provide a wide range of services as we just discussed including IT and logistics, etc. Moreover, even some contractors who are engaged in financial services that would be widely defined, including accountancy and advisory services, are not material to the investment management contract. They are not contemplated in the Central Bank of Ireland regulations. In addition, the IMP itself is a prime contractor and a regulated entity responsible for the full performance of the contract in line with the regulatory requirements. It is important to avoid a situation where an IMP might argue that the governing Act enables it to contract out this liability to a subcontractor. The proposed amendment retains the position that the IMP itself should be a regulated financial services provider within the meaning of the Central Bank of Ireland Act. It provides as a safeguard that the authority may at its discretion also require that some selected subcontractors will likewise be regulated. The Government amendment to the automatic enrolment Act is necessary for the proper operation of this section of the Act. The amendment to delete this cannot be accepted.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment to delete it was a continuation and would have been consequent on amendment No. 11. I respect what the Minister is saying in relation to the need for regulation and that the regulation that exists. I take him at his word that he is satisfied that all the relevant entities that need to have come within the ambit of the regulation and so on that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 8, after line 39, to insert the following:

“(f) in section 75(1), by the substitution of “(1) The NTMA shall—” for “(1) An investment management contract shall require the investment management provider to—”,”.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 8, after line 39, to insert the following:

“(f) in section 75, by the substitution of the following for subsection (2):

“(2) The NTMA shall provide any participant on request with a copy of its statement prepared in accordance with subsection (1)(c).”,”.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, after line 39, to insert the following:

“(f) in section 75, by the substitution of the following for subsection (3):

“(3) The NTMA shall make provision for the obligations of the State under international agreements on environmental sustainability and climate change to be taken into account in carrying out the contract.”,”.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, are related and may be taken together.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 9, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(h) by the insertion of the following section:

“Report on meeting employer contribution

137A. The Minister shall, not later than 3 months after the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas assessing the ability of—

(a) civil society organisations,

(b) small to medium size businesses and enterprises, and

(c) third level educational institutions,

to meet the employer contribution.”.”.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not be accepting these amendments. It is not personal. The automatic enrolment Act already provides for review mechanisms after the operation of its system at a point in time when lessons might be learned. I genuinely feel the preparation of reports after just three to six months would not give an evidential base for any robust assessment as to how the system is operating. I am aware from our discussion last Thursday and generally that the Deputy is concerned about civil society organisations in particular. I have engaged with ministerial colleagues to ensure funding is in place. I will come back to the Deputy, as I guaranteed. After three months it will be too early. I want robust evidence. I have no difficulty with reviews. NAERSA will have independent oversight. I am also conscious of that independence. As we discussed earlier, the board will not stand for anything less than perfection. I am confident in that.

I cannot accept the amendment but I will work with the Deputy, especially on civil society organisations. We will work with her in that space.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a very genuine concern about this, which I have shared with the Minister. In instances where an organisation is wholly funded, employers have told me they do not have the money to pay into it from next year. It strikes me that what is going to happen is exactly what happened when the Government previously cut the funding for these organisations. The message given to them by the Government was that they were not being instructed to cut wages and they should not reduce services. However, they were not given enough money to pay their bills and manage. In the end, all those things happened. Wages were cut and services were reduced. It is not my position the impact is going to be the same but the impact will be that people will not get their pensions. They have a lawful entitlement to access the scheme but what if the employer is not given enough money and guidance in cases where these organisations are solely funded by the State? What was done during the economic crash was grossly unfair. Organisations that were doing their very best at the exact time we needed them were put to the pin of their collar and told by the Government not to cut wages and, whatever they did, not to cut services and, by the way, the Government was cutting their funding. They were left on their own. It happened in dribs and drabs. Some of it ended up in the Labour Court. More of it ended up with chief executives and workers' representatives sitting in rooms trying to figure out how to get through it.

I do not want something like that to happen again. That was the purpose of this amendment. I respect the Minister acknowledged it is potentially an issue. It is not an issue with his Department necessarily, but it is an issue with other Departments. I go back to my earlier point, which is that when everybody is responsible nobody is responsible, sometimes. I welcome that the Minister will take a lead on this. I would like to be a little more comforted that this is going to be addressed and will not end up as an issue because people who may wish to join will miss out if the money is not there for it to be matched up.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank both Deputies. As I said to Deputy O'Reilly, we have discussed this. I confirm that the Department has ensured any organisation under our watch has been funded, but I will remind ministerial colleagues that organisations under their watch should have the funding because this is a legal obligation. As an employer, there is a legal obligation. I need to say for the record that auto-enrolment is not à la carte and we will be very robust on that.

On Deputy Hayes's point about the investment strategy, there was a word in the middle of that-----

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Consolidated.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Consolidated, yes. I am sorry, I thought he said "comodulated" and I was trying to work out what it was. Pooling of funds is provided for in the Act. The investment funds for AE contributions are going to operate on - this is another phrase for the Deputy - a composite pooled fund approach. That means contributions are all pooled and allocated to relevant funds. Each participant's contribution carries the same level of risk as other members of that fund. The investment returns will also be pooled. It applies to all participants in a particular fund and the fund is ideally going to be high risk, low risk and medium risk and that sometimes will align with the age of the person involved and the length of time they are going to be involved in My Future Fund. Those returns will receive the same average rate of return in accordance with the amount of contributions a participant has made. A lot of work has gone on in relation to the investment strategy. A lot of work is going on as we speak on the investment providers and how they engage with that. It is going to be a big focus of NAERSA.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for that. I urge him to keep an eye on the question of certain individuals having very different outcomes on the basis of market conditions. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a composite and consolidated investment management strategy, which I would generally welcome, I am just concerned that individuals may lose out, perhaps in nearly identical circumstances to those of other individuals, by virtue of the fact that the investment strategies have been chosen and some market conditions could end up with vastly different outcomes on the basis of the risk profile associated with their investment. It is just something worth keeping an eye on as we think about auto-enrolment. More generally, since this is a State-mandated scheme and one that is governed by the State, it is one we have fiduciary responsibility on.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy. It is certainly a point we will bring to the attention of NAERSA. I am confident the investment side of NAERSA will be aware of it in engaging with the investment providers. I will bring it to the CEO and the chair's attention.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 9, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“(h) by the insertion of the following section:

“Report on the potential for a public-led investment model for auto-enrolment

137A. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the potential for a public-led investment model to replace the proposed private model for auto-enrolment, making reference to the potential for investment in capital infrastructure, including the green transition, in Ireland.”.”.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 9, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“(h) by the insertion of the following section:

“Report on equity of State contribution to auto-enrolment scheme

137A. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the comparative State supports received by workers in the auto-enrolment scheme compared to workers on a pension scheme benefiting from tax relief.”.”.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 9, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(3) The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the membership structure of the My Future Fund and implementing a structure whereby members of the scheme who are on the default investment strategy will be transitioned from different risk categories in a partial and graduated way in order to hedge against the risks of fund transition and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 9, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(3) The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the options for reducing the investment risk for individual members of the Auto-Enrolment scheme by pooling the risk across all members of the scheme and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance here this evening. I also thank the Members for their attendance this evening. The select committee will now adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, 19 November 2025 when we will meet to consider the Supplementary Estimates for Public Services for the year 2025: Vote 37 - Social Protection and Vote 42 - Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht.