Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. Automatic enrolment has been a topic of conversation for a considerable time. Sinn Féin supports it in principle and has long advocated it. However, we are not satisfied with the structure outlined in the Bill and consequently will not be supporting it on this Stage. Should substantial changes be made during its passage, we will consider supporting it on a later Stage.

Automatic enrolment is necessary because many workers lack adequate pensions to support them in retirement. More individuals are now approaching retirement in precarious circumstances than in previous generations. Many older people are renting, for example, and this number is increasing. The underlying assumption of the State's pension system has been that, by retirement age, people's housing situations will be settled, be it through local authority accommodation or paid-off mortgages. This is no longer a safe assumption. More people are in precarious situations due to the mishandling of the housing crisis by the current and previous governments. There is significant reliance on the State pension, which Sinn Féin wants to see strengthened. We also support greater contributions to secure more people's futures, which aligns with the principle of automatic enrolment.

However, we have two primary issues with the legislation. First, we believe any new pension framework must be built on strong foundations. We are concerned the Government's reliance on private funds is not a solid foundation. This approach risks being a boon to the private pensions industry and poses significant risks for workers, who will depend on the schemes. During the Celtic tiger years, many found their long-paid-into pensions, whether defined benefit or defined contribution, were worth far less than expected. People had to work longer, make tough accommodation decisions or remortgage. This experience showed that private pension funds were not a strong foundation for an automatic enrolment scheme.

We have long outlined our views on how automatic enrolment should be structured, and these are detailed in our submissions to the straw man document. We believe the funds should be managed in a way that guarantees an adequate pension in retirement. The financial crash left many defined pension scheme members at the mercy of the markets, an approach we cannot risk repeating with automatic enrolment. We oppose the idea of gifting the private pensions sector workers' hard-earned savings, which would only increase private providers' profits through substantial fees. The NTMA should manage these funds. It already manages several Government funds. It could prioritise citizens' financial well-being rather than its own profit, ensuring contributors' comfort in old age. It could also invest in green energy, housing projects and other secure investments to the benefit of our country.

We are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. While we agree with automatic enrolment in principle, the inability to opt out for six months is problematic, especially for low-income workers who might need every euro for essential bills. This is an additional concern we have with the current proposal.In addition, the issue of the right to retire at age 65 remains unresolved. After decades of hard work, people should not have to choose between signing on the dole or continuing to work beyond 65. The Government has not made any of the necessary moves on this issue. The Minister had indicated some willingness to consider it but no concrete action has been taken.

We recognise the changing landscape for workers compared with ten or 20 years ago. The cost-of-living crisis and the shifting nature of home ownership necessitate a secure pension system. We support the principle of automatic enrolment but we insist on a solid foundation for its structure. Entrusting the NTMA with managing these funds would be a better approach than what is proposed. For these reasons, we cannot support the legislation at this point. Automatic enrolment has been a topic of discussion for some time but we cannot support the Bill in its current form.