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

Auto-enrolment has been discussed for a lengthy period and, in principle, it is something my party supports and has argued for. However, we are not satisfied with the structure outlined in the Bill. Consequently, we will not be supporting the legislation on this Stage. If substantial changes are made during its passage, we will consider doing so on a later Stage. In principle, auto-enrolment is necessary because many workers, unfortunately, do not have adequate pensions to see them through their retirement. Increasingly, and I think the minds of the members of Government may have been concentrated by this, we are seeing more and more people as they approach pensionable age and their retirement finding themselves in more precarious situations than previous generations. Many are renting, and that number is only going to increase. The general assumption underpinning the State's pensions has been that by the time people reached pension age, their accommodation had been settled, whether they were paying a local authority or differential rents or had paid off their mortgages. This is no longer a safe assumption. Unfortunately, more and more older people are finding themselves in precarious situations because of the mishandling of the housing crisis by this Government and previous Governments.

More generally, there is a huge reliance on the bedrock of the State pension, which want to see strengthened. We also want to see a greater contribution to allow more people to be in a secure position and, therefore, we support the principle of auto-enrolment, as our previous spokespersons in this area, Deputies John Brady and Claire Kerrane, outlined. We have two primary difficulties with the legislation. It is our view, fundamentally, that if we are going to develop a new stream of pensions, any framework the Government is trying to establish needs to be built on strong foundations. We are concerned that the foundations this Government is relying on, namely, private funds, are not strong. We are concerned that this approach will be a gift to the private pensions industry and we will face significant risks for many workers who will rely on the auto-enrolment schemes in future.

Not long ago, during the Celtic tiger years, many people found that the pensions they had been paying into for a long time, whether defined benefit or, more typically, defined contribution, were not worth anything like what they had imagined them to be worth. Many people then had to keep on working for longer and make different decisions in terms of their accommodation. Many people also had to remortgage. Difficult decisions were made during the Celtic tiger years because people were let down by private pension funds. That is not a strong foundation on which to build the auto-enrolment scheme.

We have outlined our views on how auto-enrolment should be structured for some time. I refer to our submission in response to the Minister's strawman document. I am sure she has received it and is aware of what we said in it. This was an essential element of our views and concerns. It is our view that the fund we are talking about, which will be worth an enormous sum, should be managed robustly and with the certainty of an adequate and worthwhile pension in retirement. That must be guaranteed. The very least citizens should be assured of is the secure management of their pension savings. As I said, the financial crash saw many members of defined pension schemes left at the mercy of the markets. That type of an approach to auto-enrolment would put pension funds at risk and would not ensure an adequate supplementary pension in retirement. We do not wish to see the private pension sector being gifted the hard-earned savings of Irish workers to increase its profits through substantial fees. We are opposed to workers' savings being used to shore up private providers operating on the basis of profit.

Our very strong preference is that the NTMA, which is already responsible for managing a number of funds, including some recently announced by the Government, would be responsible for managing these funds and investing them to the benefit of citizens. Rather than focusing on its own profits, the NTMA would prioritise the financial well-being of citizens' contributions to ensure their comfort in their old age. It could also ensure that money in the fund is put to work for Ireland, and the interests of the State and our people, by investing in green energy, housing projects and other worthwhile secure investments. Instead, under this proposal, contributions will be collected and handed over to the private pension industry. That is the primary concern we have with the Bill.

It is also worth noting that we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. We agree in principle with people being auto-enrolled in a pension scheme. However, people will not have the option to opt out for six months, which is a substantial period. Those on €20,000 will pay €5.76 a week, or between €20 and €30 a month. If people are looking at their last €20 or €30 at the end of the month as the bills come in for their electricity, gas, rent, mortgage and so on, that amount could make a substantial difference. I appreciate that people have the option to opt out, but in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis the fact that people may potentially have to wait six months to opt out is challenging for these workers. We have a concern in this regard also.

The Minister and I have had several exchanges on the right to retire at 65. During our last couple of exchanges, I welcomed some of the Minister's comments because she did not indicate any principled objection to it. She pointed to the transitional payment and I pointed out this was a difficulty for a variety of reasons. The Minister did not point to any financial obstacle and said she would consider it. I welcomed that she seemed to take a less rigid position than her predecessor on the right to retire at 65. However, the Government has not moved on the issue, as it should. People should be entitled to retire at 65 after decades of work. Many of the people contemplating doing so will have been working on their feet for long days from the age of 15, whether as home helps or cleaners or in the trades. Having worked hard, they may potentially have to sign on the dole or continue to work beyond the age of 65. There should be a right to retire at that age and that is the view of many people. The Government has not moved on the issue. The Minister has said she would consider it. I urge her again to continue to consider it if she has been considering it. It is the least that people who have been working for many years deserve.

Coming back to the specific proposal at hand, there is no doubt that we are looking at a changing landscape for workers compared to ten or 20 years ago. The cost-of-living crisis has a major impact on the amount of money that workers can afford to set aside for a pension. We can no longer assume that people will own their homes when they retire. This means that an adequate pension that can cover real costs, including, potentially, the cost of a mortgage or rent into retirement, will be crucial.

We support the general principle of auto-enrolment. If substantial changes are made in the legislation and to the structure in question, we would reconsider our position. Right now, though, we are not satisfied that this house is being built on solid foundations. We believe there is a much better way to do this with the NTMA and it is to a body such as that we should be entrusting our workers' pension contributions. It is for this reason that we are not supporting the legislation at this point.

See this speech in context