Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Arising out of the Minister’s remarks, nobody serious has said the Fagan-Kenny approach is defective or pointed out some defect in it. They have all said it is interesting, it could be so and perhaps it would yield greater results. Nobody has said the reason it is wrong or the reason we should avoid it. The only argument I have heard offered against its adoption is that it has not been implemented elsewhere and it is, in that sense, untested.

Without my amendment, when would it be proposed to commence the Bill, if enacted, under section 1(2), as unamended? If the Minister is in a position to say the Bill, if enacted, will be amended almost immediately, I can see some force in her argument that she wants to get on with it. However, if it will take time to get it up and running and put in place all the necessary arrangements, I do not see that the arguments the Minister made about further delay are all that valid. Some space should be created by this House and by Dáil Éireann to look for a further evaluation.

The Minister said the Pensions Council is independent, but it has not actually said at any stage that it finds any particular fault with the Fagan-Kenny approach. Nobody said the Fagan-Kenny approach, if adopted, would result in worse outcomes for pensioners under the scheme. All the indications I, as well as Deputy Bruton in the Dáil and others, have seen is that what the Minister is doing is conservative, suboptimal and avoiding an opportunity to do something that would significantly increase the real return on pension contributions for people subject to auto-enrolment.

In any event, how quickly will this be brought into operation? All I am effectively asking for is a 12-month space. Will the Minister bring it in before Christmas, after Christmas or before Easter? Will this be operational before this time 12 months? Is this an argument that is redundant because the Bill will not be in full operation before the date specified in my amendment?