Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I was listening to this debate. I was watching it on the television in my office and had to come to the Chamber to make sure I was listening to the correct debate because some of the comments I have heard today seem to be entirely at variance with what is actually being proposed in this policy and this scheme. I have heard it described as "anti-worker" when in actual fact this is exactly the kind of measure we need to put in place, particularly for low-paid workers, who were the ones who, according to some Deputies, were being particularly disadvantaged. They are also the people who are outside the net where they might avail of a pension.

Contrary to the assertion by some TDs earlier that this was an attempt to dismantle the welfare state or that we were trying to shift the burden of pensions from the State to the individual, that is not what is happening here at all. In fact, what this is is an empowerment measure. It specifically targets those with lower incomes because they cannot avail of this in their own right. Instead of shifting that burden, it gives them power to deal with their own futures when they retire and it comes at a cost to the State as well.

The State is contributing a huge amount to this scheme and the workers benefit in that regard. People should not be afraid of this scheme. This measure will safeguard the future of workers in this country well into the future at a time when we are approaching a situation where we will have more and more people who are drawing pensions and fewer and fewer people who are working. We have to safeguard against that situation.

We have a situation where people are complaining and have the notion that we cannot depend on pension funds. Yes, regulation is an important part of this. Careful regulation and careful monitoring of the fees that go into the fund and where the moneys are invested must all come with this. Opposition TDs who are giving out about the scheme would have a situation where ordinary workers were dependent on the State to not cut pensions in the future or to increase pensions in line with inflation and the need for pensions, which has been a perennial problem in every state. Instead, what we are doing is creating an investment vehicle to safeguard the future of those people.

Far from being a measure that is anti-worker, auto-enrolment is a measure that is pro worker. It is a measure that is pro worker to the cost of employers. There is no doubt about that because, while the State contributes, so do employers. As somebody who has previously been an employer, I think that is the way it should be. I recognise there is a cost to business. I represent a constituency where Big Mike's closed. It is not the only restaurant in Blackrock to close in recent weeks. Fellini's in Deansgrange closed as well. I regret both closures. They did not close because of auto-enrolment and no business will close because of this. It might be an extra cost, but what is costing small businesses are things such as the regulatory regime, insurance, VAT and the increased cost of the products they are selling. They are the challenges businesses really face, so let us be honest about this. Those people want to employ workers who will be safe into the future. That is what auto-enrolment is about. It is about ensuring that, when those people do come to retirement, step down and stop working, there will be a fund there to make sure they are well looked after. That is a good thing. It is not about politics. Credit is due to former Ministers, Willie O'Dea and Heather Humphreys, and those who have worked on the scheme in the past. It is due to them but it is not about politics. It is about workers' rights.

See this speech in context