2025-11-12

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." As colleagues know, Standing Order 174A provides that pre-legislative scrutiny is not required for a social welfare Bill which gives effect to budget measures. This Bill provides the legislative basis for the key social welfare budget measures. It also provides for some technical amendments to the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act in advance of the system going live in January, a few short weeks away. Looking first at the social welfare budget measures, the total social protection budget for 2026 is €28.9 billion, an increase of 7.4% on budget 2025. This includes over €1.15 billion in new measures on top of an underlying increase of €930 million for the existing level of service. The social welfare budget package prioritises measures to support children, which reflects the Government's, the Taoiseach's and my commitment to reduce child poverty over the lifetime of this Government. In total, the social welfare package in budget 2026 contains over €320 million in targeted measures to tackle child poverty. This is a significant investment and is on top of other cross-government child-related measures that are contained in budget 2026. Specifically concerning social protection, the measures included in the Bill provide for the largest ever increase in the child support payment, increases of €8 per week for children under 12 and €16 per week for children aged 12 and over. The increases will bring the payments up to €58 per week for a child under 12 and €78 per week for a child aged 12 and over, which will directly benefit about 330,000 children whose parents are in receipt of a social welfare payment. There is also an increase in the income threshold for the working family payment by €60 per week for all family sizes. There are about 50,000 families, with over 100,000 children, in receipt of this payment. An increase of €20 per month in the domiciliary care allowance, to €380, will directly benefit about 60,000 households and 70,000 children. There is an increase in the weekly personal rates of payment by €10 per week, with proportionate increases for qualified adults. The increase of €10 in the personal rate is equivalent, this year, to about 4.1% compared to inflation of about 2.7%. For pensions, the increase is about 3.5%. The back-to-work family dividend scheme, which allows people to retain their child support payment on taking up a job, will be extended to people on disability allowance and the blind pension. This change will mean that parents who are on a disability payment will continue to receive a full payment of their child support payments for up to four children for the first year and half that amount for the following year. This change is being made now to ensure that families who depend on disability payments have the same income security and support as those on other working age payments when they transition from welfare to full-time employment. The Bill also provides for an increase in the employer PRSI threshold, which reflects the increase in the national minimum wage. Other measures announced by the Minister on budget day, but which do not require primary legislation in the Social Welfare Bill, include a range of improvements to the payment and eligibility to the fuel allowance scheme. The rate of payment will increase by €5 per week to €38 per week during the fuel season. The fuel allowance scheme will be extended to families in receipt of the working family payment, and people on disability allowance and blind pension payments who find employment will be able to keep their fuel allowance payment for five years even after they take up the job. This is important in preventing cliff-edge losses and in reassuring people with disability they will not lose out if they take up employment. Many people acquire an illness or a disability while in work. A key issue is encouraging their employers to adapt their workplaces to help those employees stay in work. The wage subsidy scheme, which provides a wage subsidy to employers who employ disabled people of between €6.93 and €9.45 per hour, is currently only available when an employer hires a new worker who is currently in receipt of a disability payment. From next year, the subsidy will be available to people who are already in work and who acquire a disability that would qualify them to move onto a disability payment. This addresses a critical issue of supporting employers to hold on to their workers who become disabled. The worker will be able to qualify for a partial capacity benefit payment and the employer will be able to receive a wage subsidy. I am also increasing the base rate of the wage subsidy scheme to €7.50 per hour, which is a vital measure for employers when recruiting, and now retaining, people with disabilities. In the programme for Government, we have set out an ambitious goal to abolish the means test for carers over the life of the Government. In budget 2026, we are increasing the income disregard for a single person by €375 a week to €1,000. That is an increase of 60% and means that a single person who provides full-time care but does some part-time work can earn just over €54,000 per year from that work and receive a full carer’s payment. In parallel, I am also increasing the income disregard for a couple by 60%, or €750, to €2,000 per week. That means that a person who is caring in a household where their partner might earn up to €108,000 per annum will receive a full carer's payment. These are the largest ever increases in the carer’s income disregards and they are evidence of the Government's determination to deliver on its commitment to eliminate the means test over the life of the Government. As Minister for Social Protection with a dual brief covering the Department of Rural and Community Development agus An Ghaeltacht, I am very much aware of the power of schemes that are operated by the Department of Social Protection that have a dual mandate. These schemes help those on welfare by helping them to help their communities. Programmes such as community employment, Tús, and the rural social scheme are hugely important, not only in giving people a sense of purpose and a direction forward but in helping to sustain communities. Key supports such as meals on wheels, Tidy Towns and many others would simply not exist without these schemes. In budget 2026, I have secured an increase to the additional payment, or the top-up, offered to people on welfare who participate on a CE, Tús or RSS scheme to €32.50 for 19.5 hours per week. I am also pleased to increase the value of the materials cost grant by up to €1,000 for each community employment sponsor. The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance is being extended to two- and three-year olds. In addition, the Christmas bonus to be paid in the week commencing 1 December will be paid on the same basis as last year. I will now discuss the Bill section by section. Section 1 provides for definitions of the relevant Acts. Looking at section 2, the weekly earnings of an employee determine the PRSI rate an employer pays on behalf of that employee. Currently, employer PRSI is charged at a rate of 9.0% on weekly earnings between €38 and €527. When weekly earnings are in excess of €527 the employer PRSI at the higher rate of 11.25% applies. The earnings threshold increase from €527 to €552 in section 2 takes account of the forthcoming increase in the minimum wage from €13.50 to €14.15 per hour. Employers with employees on the national minimum wage will, therefore, continue to attract the lower rate of employer PRSI. This measure comes into effect in January and will save employers some €645 annually on employer PRSI for each of their employees working full-time on the minimum wage. Section 3 provides for a €10 increase in the weekly rate of maternity benefit to €299 from January coming. Sections 4, 5 and 6 provide for the equivalent increases in relation to adoptive benefit, paternity benefit and parent's benefit, respectively. Section 7 is to give effect to the increases in the graduated rates of jobseeker’s benefit and jobseeker’s benefit for the self-employed. Section 8 is an administrative amendment in relation to the newborn baby grant, which is a once-off €280 payment for newborn or adopted children given in addition to the first month of a child benefit payment. It extends the period of time that a person may qualify for the payment from one month to three months. The working family payment provides extra financial support to working families on low pay who have children. Section 9 provides for a €60 increase in the weekly income thresholds of working family payment for all family sizes. This will mean that existing recipients whose employment earnings do not increase will see their payments rise by €36 per week. Section 10 extends the back-to-work family dividend to recipients of the blind pension and the disability allowance. Section 11 and Schedule 1 provide for increases in the rates of social insurance payments. There will be a €10 per week increase in the maximum personal rate of the PRSI-based benefits set out in the Schedule. This section also provides for the largest ever increases to the child support payment, as well as proportional increases for qualified adults. Section 12 provides for €10 increases in social assistance, in other words, means-tested payments, with proportional increases for qualified adults. It also provides for the budget increases to the child support payment. Domiciliary care allowance is a payment in recognition of the additional costs involved in caring for children with a severe disability. It is not means tested. Section 13 provides for an increase in the rate of payment from €360 to €380 a month. Section 14 is a technical amendment, correcting the reference to a section in the Taxes Consolidation Act, following an amendment in the Finance Bill. This concludes the social welfare and budget measures in the Bill. As the House will be aware, the forthcoming introduction of My Future Fund will take place from January. This is a transformative scheme that will improve the lives of many people by helping them to save now and build up a retirement pot that will give them security in retirement. Put simply, for every €3 a worker saves, the employer will be required to add another €3 and the State will also provide a top-up, so that every €3 saved by a worker turns into €7. That €7 will be invested on behalf of the worker, so the worker will benefit not just from the employer and State top-ups but from investment returns. Budget 2026 commits some €154 million to fund State top-up contributions for the automatic enrolment retirement savings system next year. A further €23.7 million in funding is being provided for the administration of the National Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings Authority. My Future Fund has been discussed and planned for many years but is now happening and starts in January, just seven weeks away. Given the tight timeline for the commencement of My Future Fund, some technical amendments have been included in the social welfare budget Bill, in section 15. These amendments have no material impact on the provisions of the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act, which was passed by the Oireachtas in 2024, or the policy intent that underlines the Act. I will go through the amendments now for the benefit of the House. In section 15(1), paragraphs (a) and (b) relate to the change in implementation timelines out to January 2026. Paragraph (a) restores the original policy intent to provide for six months from the establishment date of the National Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings Authority for the development of the statement of strategy. Similarly, paragraph (b) provides for the reporting period for the Pensions Authority's first supervisory report to cover the period from 14 October 2025 to 31 December 2026. The amendment in paragraph (c) grants the National Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings Authority a provision for operational flexibility in assigning an automatic enrolment retirement savings date using Revenue payroll data. This provision is limited, giving flexibility of no more than 31 days. The amendment is necessary, particularly at calendar year-end periods, when some employers bring January payroll runs forward to mid-December. The automatic enrolment legislation further requires that the employer notify their employee that they have been enrolled. However, it currently does not specify a time period for this notice to be provided. This amendment sets out a requirement of providing notice to the employee within 14 days from the receipt of the determination of enrolment given to the employer. Paragraph (d) mirrors this previous amendment, in terms of assigning an enrolment date and the employer notification, for employees who opt in to the automatic enrolment retirement savings system. Paragraph (e) amends the requirement that all subcontractors of investment management providers be a regulated financial services provider. In practice, investment management providers, like all other businesses, use subcontractors to provide a wide range of services, including, for example, IT, logistics, facilities and security management. The proposed change retains the position that the investment management provider itself shall be a regulated financial services provider within the meaning of the Central Bank Acts. As a safeguard, it also provides that the authority may, at its discretion, require that some selected subcontractors would likewise be regulated. Looking at the final amendment to the automatic enrolment legislation, the current Act provides for offences relating to hindering an employee from participating in the automatic enrolment retirement savings system and that offences relating to the non-payment of contributions be dealt with through a fixed payment notice procedure. The amendment in paragraphs (f) and (g) extends this to include any contravention of the provisions that obligate an employer to provide a notice to an employee of their enrolment in My Future Fund. This amendment reflects that low-level regulatory breaches are best suited to being dealt with under the fixed payment notice procedure. This concludes the amendments in the Bill relating to the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Act. Finally, section 16 is the Short Title of the Act. In commending the Bill to the House, I thank the 7,000 or so people who work across this country in the Department of Social Protection to ensure that the benefits of the Department and its work make a difference to families and communities right across the country. It is my privilege to be their Minister and to introduce my first social welfare Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I also welcome the fact that it gives us a chance to talk about not just the social welfare element but also auto-enrolment, which some of my colleagues will focus on. As we near the start date, the issues that are arising are coming to the fore for people and there is less and less time to deal with the questions that are arising as time is running out. To deal with the first part of this first, as it were, we are here to legislate for measures that were in budget 2026. I remind people, the Minister in particular, that at a time when the Exchequer has a surplus of billions of euro, and the economy, the Government keeps telling us, is supposedly booming, poverty is rising for workers and families, particularly children, at an alarming rate not seen since the recession. For essential welfare payments like disability allowance, jobseeker's payments and the State pension, the Government has decided that it will not even keep them in line with inflation. For the people who depend on these payments and their families, their welfare payments are actually worth less now than they were in 2020. The Minister and I both know that nothing about this is inevitable. This is a choice Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Lowry group have made. We are not in a recession; it should not feel to people like we are. The money is available for redistribution but this Government does not seem interested in doing that. In the same year as over 300,000 households are currently in arrears on their electricity bills and one in five children continues to grow up in poverty, the Government is giving a €10.4 million tax cut to millionaires under the special assignee relief programme, narrowing the fiscal base, squeezing those who are in the middle and working people, and refusing to tax the booming economic growth progressively. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions and maybe he can answer them in his summing up. He gave a commitment that the carer's allowance means test would be abolished over the lifetime of the Government. I have asked this question repeatedly and am yet to get a satisfactory answer. He allocated €10 million in the budget for a half year. That is simple enough maths. That is €20 million for a full year, unless maths has changed since I was in school. He tells me in responses to parliamentary questions I ask that it will cost €600 million to phase the means test out. By that logic, with €20 million allocated, if the Minister continues at the current pace, it will take him 30 years. Can he tell us in real terms when the carer's allowance means test will be abolished, how he will achieve that and how he thinks allocating €1.8 million less this year than he did last year will achieve that goal? It strikes me that we are going backwards. I also want to ask the Minister about some aspects of the auto-enrolment programme because we have a chance to discuss that today. There are some gaps in My Future Fund. The presentations are good, the flyers have gone out and all of that has been grand, but there are some issues occurring in real time and, as we get closer to the deadline, people are starting to get a little worried. These are issues we have raised with the Minister's office and I hope we will get to the bottom of them. There are issues around agencies that are solely funded by the State and the provision that has been made in that regard. I will have a chance to discuss this with the Minister tomorrow during parliamentary questions. I sincerely hope his answer is not that they have had years to prepare for this. If that is his answer, I respectfully suggest that he go away and get another answer because that is not fair. There are men and women working really hard, let us not forget. They are the people on the front line of the Government's homeless crisis and its healthcare waiting lists. They are working incredibly hard but they want to know what provision has been made by the Government - their employer, essentially. I know the Department does not wish to establish an employment relationship with them but, notwithstanding that, where you are the sole funder, you are effectively in the position of an employer. What provision has been made? What has the Department done proactively to ensure that these people will be able to participate in this scheme? We know why auto-enrolment was implemented. Auto-enrolment was not implemented because the Minister looked into his heart and thought working people should provide for their pensions and their retirement. Auto-enrolment was implemented simply because the Government knows that the members of generation rent are ageing and that they will be renting when they have retired and because it is necessary to make provision for that. Again, that is more money going into the private sector. Auto-enrolment is not what is needed. It will not prevent pension poverty because a lot of what is being done will be eaten up by rising rents. Those who are working in the sector, where they are solely funded by the State, are now starting to panic about how provision is going to be made for them. I want to discuss a letter that was sent to the Minister by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in relation to pay-related job seeker's benefit. Buried in the budget is a decision that the Minister took not to increase that benefit in line with other provisions and measures. We have discussed this back and forth. In its alternative budget, Sinn Féin's indicated where it felt the money that the State has should be directed. Clearly, we believe that money should be directed towards those people in society who need it the most. For the avoidance of any doubt, that is not vulture funds, property developers or any of the other people the Government chose to ensure benefited from its budget. It is wholly unsatisfactory that jobseekers and those who are dependent on social welfare will receive an increase to their weekly allowances of €10. As we know, that increase will not ensure that those allowances will keep pace with inflation. It appears that those people who are on pay-related job seeker's benefit will not receive an increase. The media reported that the Minister's response in this regard is that this is a new scheme and the matter is still under review. The cost-of-living figures are there. We are aware of the increase in grocery prices. As I was coming here this morning, I heard a discussion on rising rents. In the past couple of years, rents have increased by one third. Where does that leave people? The Minister mentioned not wanting a cliff edge, but if pay-related jobseeker's benefit is not going to be increased, then the people involved will fall even further behind. Those who will be getting a very modest increase as a result of the budget are already falling behind the rising rate of inflation. People whose only crime has been to work hard and pay higher PRSI as a quid pro quo for having this pay-related jobseeker's benefit will fall even further behind. For them, the cliff edge will become even more stark and the drop will become even greater. Will the Minister perhaps address that matter in his closing remarks and share with us the rationale behind it? Saying that this is a new scheme is not going to cut it for people. The Minister needs to explain the link between the increased PRSI and the trade-off for that, which does not seem to be there. This is something that punishes people for the crime of working. Surely, the Minister can do better than that for people and can outline what his thinking was in making that decision. The people who are dependent on social welfare are already going to fall even further behind. We know the payments that they are getting are worth as much as they were in 2020, but the cost of everything has gone up. This is causing people who are dependent on social welfare to fall even further behind. We in Sinn Féin have serious issues. We do not have an issue with auto-enrolment, which, as we have said, is a concept that would be an idea in the hands of another government. The way the Government has rigged it, however, means that it is just a transfer of money into the private sector, which, in and of itself, will not benefit working people or the working poor. There was a different way to do it. The Government could have ensured that money was driving infrastructure development and housing. Instead, it is a bonanza for the private sector.

Do I have three and a half minutes?

Sorry?

Maybe the Leas-Cheann Comhairle can stop me at three and a half minutes.

Always hard to do, but I will try.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle can try.

I wish to point out something to the Minister. While I welcome the payments that have been made, they fall very short. I refer, in particular, to the cost of disability or the failure to address the cost of disability in this legislation. There is a disconnect between the Departments of Social Protection and housing. The Minister will know that many of our constituents in Mayo - I refer to those who are tenants - got letters in the past number of weeks to say that their contribution to Mayo County Council, and, indeed, to other councils, has been increased in line with whatever increases they have received. That is totally wrong. If the Minister is saying that people are getting €10 here, Mayo County Council is saying that it wants 16% of that €10. That is disingenuous and points to how this Government can in one sense be perceived to put something into people's pockets and at the same time take it back out. That is something which needs to be addressed. In relation to housing, the eligibility thresholds have not moved. This means that on the back of very small increases, people have been knocked off the housing waiting list. That is totally wrong. That completely undermines the idea that the Government is in some way trying to address child poverty or take more people out of poverty. There is nothing more impoverishing than saying to somebody, "You are not entitled to a home" or "You cannot have a home". That is something I want the Minister to address in terms of the alignment of social protection and housing. We support the principle of auto-enrolment, but we have always said that we want the right auto-enrolment scheme at the right time. As Deputy Louise O'Reilly pointed out, this is the wrong scheme and it is the wrong time. The Government is out of touch on this with the scale of the financial pressures facing low- and middle-income families. Ordinary workers received next to nothing in last month's budget. Now, instead of some relief, this Bill adds yet another burden in the form of automatic deductions from already stretched pay packets. These are the people who have never worked so hard and never struggled so much. These workers have been forced to stay in work longer because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have said that they cannot access their pensions until the age of 66. Let us be clear. This is not just about workers; it will also hit employers, including small businesses, charities and community organisations. Many of them, particularly those whose staff are funded by State contracts, have been told that they will not receive any additional funding to cover the employer contribution. This is wholly unacceptable.

The Deputy is over time.

Instead, what we will see are wage cuts, reduced hours and even job losses to cover the cost of this scheme. This is the opposite to what we should be doing to strengthen employment.

I told the Deputy it would not work.

Sorry, I was nearly there.

In principle, auto-enrolment is a good idea, and it is badly needed. However, when it is being brought in by this Government, which recently introduced a budget that gave tax breaks to developers and speculators while giving nothing to ordinary workers and families, we have to be very sceptical about it. The reality is that this Government's auto-enrolment scheme prioritises increasing profits for private pension funds over the rights of ordinary workers. The National Treasury Management Agency, rather than private companies, would be the best placed to provide the system. There is an overreliance on the private sector. It has always been the goal of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to privatise everything that they could privatise. Once again, that is the Government's priority instead of prioritising the workers. What is proposed could have a negative impact on services and increase costs for taxpayers. I will provide an example. I want to raise the issue of people who currently have a non-workplace private pension. It was confirmed to me in a parliamentary question that these people will now be forced to auto-enrol for six months despite already paying into a pension. However, on the Government website it states that people will only be automatically enrolled if they do not have a supplementary pension. This contradicts the parliamentary question response I got from the Minister. It also states on the Department website that anyone who opts out but who still meets the eligibility criteria will be automatically re-enrolled every two years. This simply does not make sense. Does this apply to those with non-workplace pensions? We are seven weeks out from this Bill being enacted and we cannot get answers to simple questions. In relation to social welfare, and something which has already been covered by some of my colleagues, is the cost of disability. We have a cost-of-living crisis. People are struggling to pay their bills, especially those most vulnerable such as people with disabilities and carers and, once again, the Government has failed them. The Tánaiste claimed that his behaviour to a carer, Charlotte Fallon, during the election campaign in Kanturk was out of character and not in line with his beliefs and actions, but his actions have to be read as they were. The budget is the proof of his actions. Once again, when will the threshold for carers be removed? When will the means test be removed for carers? The Government promised the sun, the moon and the stars during the election but when it came to it, the Government double-backed on it once they got in. There are people struggling. They need the energy credits. The Government still has time to deliver them, because people will face a long, cold winter without them.

Any measure that we examine and look at has to be seen in the context of what is a very real cost-of-living crisis for workers and for families. It is absolutely staggering that we had a Government that spent so-called billions of euro in the budget just gone, yet left so many people worse off and the vast majority of people certainly are not better off. The €10 increase in the pension was less than what was needed for that to even stand still. There was no increase in child benefit. More money has to be spent by families sending their children to third level education. The property tax has gone up. Groceries are going up. Insurance is going up. Right across the board, people are facing rising costs, yet things like the energy credits and supports that were previously in place were taken away. We then had a budget where people were left high and dry. Some people with disabilities are telling us they are down about €1,500 or €1,600 over the course of the year because of measures or failures in this budget. We then have the automatic enrolment pension scheme which, as was said, is good in principle. However, there are a number of problems with the Bill. I support helping workers build pensions, but this particular scheme locks workers in for six months before they can opt out. That is money they simply do not have. As was said, it is being handed over to the private sector rather than the NTMA actually using it to invest in infrastructure here, which is what should be happening. I want to raise the plight of former Waterford Crystal workers, a group of whom I met with my party leader last week. These were a group of workers who were made redundant many years ago. At the time they were made redundant, they were not made aware by the company of all their pension entitlements. They were only given one option. The paperwork that the Government and others say exists was never given to them and has never been found. It was very clear to them, and it is clear to us, that only one option was given to them. Because they were not given options, they are now locked out of the compensation scheme that was put in place following a court case at the European Court of Justice. These are hundreds of workers who gave their lives, who have pensions, who paid into a pension pot but who, because the company was insolvent and the pension scheme was insolvent, were left high and dry. Worse than that, because the company did not provide them with all of the options, they are now locked out of a compensation scheme that many others were included in. It is deeply unfair. My party leader has written to the Minister on behalf of this group of workers. A group of them want to meet him. They have very clear demands that the State accepts failure in this regard. Yes, the company failed, but so too did the State. They want compensation and they want an apology. I believe that is the very least that group of workers deserve.

I welcome the Minister to the House this evening and I welcome the opportunity to discuss, once again, social protection and the recent budget. In responding to budget 2026 previously in this House, I described it as a punch in the stomach for many working families and unfortunately, I must repeat that here in this debate today. Budget 2026 needed to deliver real and radical policy changes towards a social welfare system that delivers equality and fairness for all those who need it. Instead, the Government gave €1.2 billion in VAT rate cuts for fast-food chains, large ones at that, and tax cuts for big property developers. They put the needs of McDonald's before working families and low-income households who are struggling day in, day out. I can assure the Minister that unlike so many of the people I deal with on a daily basis, Ronald McDonald is not worried about paying the heating bill. This money could have been used to fund a cost of disability payment starting at €25 per week and to fully, once and for all, abolish the carer’s allowance means test. Carers in this country are saving the State €20 billion each year. These could have been the radical measures that people needed in budget 2026, the measures that the Labour Party proposed in our own alternative budget. To add insult to injury, there would have been money left over to help even more people. This is what we should be debating here today instead of what is in front of us in this Bill. I previously shared a story of a constituent of mine who has multiple sclerosis and is struggling to cope with the cost of disability. She cannot avail of the disability allowance because her husband works and the payment is means-tested. She is also raising two children and like many families they are struggling. I have had numerous calls to my office asking how the Government expects families to be able to afford a heating bill this winter. The painful truth is that budget 2026 has left people with disabilities €1,400 per year worse off due to the loss of once-off measures. That is not spare cash lying around, it is what keeps their heads just above water. It is what helps keep the heating on during these cold winter months; heating that gives people with a disability some form of quality of life and which is essential to it. As always, there is still time for the Government to do the right thing and provide some level of support for people with disabilities. A €10 increase in core weekly social welfare rates is a paltry amount for many people on fixed incomes, like pensioners, who are deciding between eating and turning on the heating. An increase of at least €16 per week was needed to keep up with the cost of living, while additional increases were also needed in child benefit and a targeted second tier payment should have also been a priority for this budget. The number of children in Ireland living in consistent poverty nearly doubled in 2024 to 8.5%, rising by over 45,000 children in one year to over 104,000. ESRI research published in September also shows that one in five children, that is, over 225,000 children, live in families below the poverty line when housing costs are accounted for. It is a failure of our society and those in government that child poverty figures are relentlessly rising. We called for a new targeted second rate of child benefit, as recommended by the ESRI and the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. That step could have reduced child poverty by a quarter and cut the child poverty gap in half. The increases in this Bill to the various streams of maternity and parental benefits are welcome but fall short of what Labour demonstrated was possible in our alternative budget. The Labour Party would have increased the payment rate to €350 a week rather than €299, as the Bill does. That would be the first step towards the introduction of a pay-related leave benefit scheme. We would also extend the amount of paid parent’s leave available by a further three weeks for each parent taking it to 12 weeks each. Combined with maternity and paternity leave benefits, this would provide 52 weeks of leave. To bring Ireland into line with other EU countries, the Department of Social Protection must also begin to develop proposals to achieve pay-related leave benefits and carer’s benefits. We would also have removed the three-day wait for jobseeker's benefit and moved towards a system based on hours worked rather than days, reflecting modern work practices and providing additional funds for the extension of pension benefits to bereaved partners. We would have reformed disability payments and introduced a single taxable benefit, protected secondary benefits like medical cards and phased in a cost of disability payment in 2026, starting with a payment of €25 per week. As an interim step, we would increase the disability allowance weekly income disregard from €165 to €250 for those in work. A significant proportion of single parent households are consistently at risk of poverty and face higher rates of deprivation. We would have provided for targeted income support measures in the budget. Lone parents transfer to the jobseeker's transition payment when their youngest child turns seven years of age, but there are still a number of anomalies between the two payments. For example, those in receipt of one-parent family payment can access the working family payment, but those on jobseeker's transitional payment cannot. We would have extended the working family payment to those on jobseeker's transitional payments and increased the earnings disregard for one family payments and the jobseekers transitional payment from €165 to €250. Like previous speakers, I also want to highlight the concerns expressed by the Irish Congress of Trade Union, ICTU, which has called the Bill a sting in the tail for workers. This is due to the fact that the Bill contains a stealth cut to the jobseeker's pay-related benefit. Despite introducing a €10 increase to weekly social welfare payments, ICTU has since learned that the jobseeker's pay-related benefit has not been included in the general increase. This is essentially a payment freeze for many people who have worked and paid their taxes – the people who keep this country going. We are already seeing a slow but steady increase in the rate of unemployment, which now stands at 5%, according to the most recent CSO statistics, a figure which is up by nearly a quarter since last year and which is at its highest level since the pandemic. This comes after a string of high-profile job losses at companies like Fastway, Amazon and Intel, as well as reports of an increase in so-called quiet or silent layoffs and a reduction in the number of companies that are hiring. Workers will pay an extra €52 this year and €104 next year. This is in order to help fund the new payment, which will help workers in the short term when they lose their jobs. That is what workers have signed up to, yet the Government does not seem to be keeping its side of the deal. I encourage the Government to do the right thing and rectify this as a matter of urgency. The Government had no issue with addressing issues in the Finance Bill, including a VAT cut in respect of apartments. It must now do the same for workers. I have raised on previous occasions the lack of support for foster carers who the State relies heavily on to provide care for children with nowhere else to go. Budget 2026 should have indexed the foster carer allowance to take account of the ongoing cost of providing care and provide pension security for families who dedicate their lives to fostering. Foster carers had to wait 15 years for the last increase in the allowance. The question many are now asking is whether they will have to wait another 15 years for the next increase. The allowance is to pay for the child. Many foster carers will use much of their own savings just to get by. I have raised the issue of the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance for foster families with the Minister. It would have cost just over €1 million and would have been a vital support for all of those foster caring families. They will again have to use their own savings and any other income they have to provide the very best for the children in their care. That is what these families do. They put everything into the care of their foster child because no one else will and the State has failed to help on this occasion. I want to use this opportunity to highlight an issue we will discuss tomorrow during Question Time. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government is taking the €38 weekly fuel allowance away from those who qualify simply because they now have to provide a roof over the heads of a son or daughter who has returned home because they cannot find accommodation. Unfortunately, some may break up with a partner or simply cannot afford to pay rent in their area. It is very unfair to make this cut during our current housing emergency. Again, I ask the Minister to examine this matter. Unfortunately, I am sure he, like my office, received a number of such queries during the week. I am not sure whether the Department is targeting people, but there have been multiple queries submitted to my office this week by families who provide a roof over their loved ones' heads and who have had their fuel allowance cut. I want to raise with the Minister, as I have done on previous occasions, the cap of 18.5 hours for those who are working and are in receipt of carer's allowance. This affects those who need to work or study. I have had many queries from those who are studying. The cap is becoming a serious problem for those who are travelling long distances to attend courses while at the same time providing essential care for a mother, father, brother or sister. I know everyone in the House has examples of this, but, unfortunately, the 18.5 hour cap is excluding those people from receiving the payment. As I did when I was a Member of the Seanad, I want to ask why we cannot increase the eligibility for domiciliary care allowance from the age of 16 to 18. I am sure the Minister's office receives calls from worried and distressed parents whose children's disability is a lifelong one, yet they must go through reams of paper to prove they still have an entitlement to domiciliary care allowance at the age of 16. It is simply not good enough. Other families are struggling to provide care and much-needed private services for their 16-year-old children because they face the withdrawal of the payment. Many families find they have to endure a review or appeal. They welcome the fact that, as the Minister said, the allowance has increased. However, we must examine the age limit and do something about the reams of paperwork people have to fill in when their child has a lifelong disability. These social protection measures will do little or nothing to help many pensioners, lone parents, carers and people with disabilities who have to make tough choices this coming winter. They are making choices like whether they can afford a heating bill or have enough money to buy something to feed themselves. I deal with many people on a daily basis who ask me what they are going to do. I must raise with the Minister and with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael people's concerns about the direction being taken in respect of working families and low-income households. These families and individuals raise their concerns with me on a daily basis. The cost of living for many is simply out of control and energy bills are through the roof for many people. Many hope and pray for a mild winter. It is a conversation piece time and again at my clinics, and I am sure many others hear the same in their offices and clinics. In a country with the surplus the Government has in front of it, it is simply not good enough that people are hoping and praying for a mild winter. Regarding the auto-enrolment system, I and the Labour Party broadly welcome its introduction. It is much needed and will help to increase the basic standard of living for workers who are unable to contribute financially to a private pension or whose employer does not provide one. It is a conversation that I encourage the Minister to continue to have with young and not-so-young workers because it goes to the core of future suitability for many working families in this country. I have previously raised the issue of the self-employed. They should also be auto-enrolled. We have heard over a number of years about concerns regarding ongoing bogus self-employment contracts, in particular in RTÉ. Self-employed people must be included in order to ensure companies are not incentivised to place workers on such contracts. The pension coverage among this cohort is, as we know, already too low. I welcome the implementation of the scheme but, as I mentioned, the Labour Party has some concerns, and I ask the Minister, as I have done on previous occasions, to address them. I again welcome the fact that we are debating the Bill and thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for affording me the opportunity to contribute

I am pleased to speak in support of the Social Welfare and Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System (Amendment) Bill 2025. The Bill introduces significant and welcome changes. It finalises the arrangements for the new automatic enrolment system, which will ensure that all employees have access to a pension, and also gives effect to the improvements set out in the budget. It is important to put the scale of that budget package on the record. In 2026, overall social protection expenditure will rise from roughly €26.9 billion in 2025 to €28.9 billion. That is an increase of around €2 billion, or almost 7.5%, in a single year. It is not something that happened by accident. It reflects political choices at Cabinet and strong, determined negotiation by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Calleary. He has secured a substantial envelope for his Department so that we can support pensioners, carers, people with disabilities, families and jobseekers in a sustainable way. At the centre of this Bill is the €10 per week increase in core social welfare rates from January 2026. That means higher payments for State pensioners, people with disabilities, carers, jobseekers and one-parent families, with proportionate increases for qualified adults and those on reduced rates. Maternity, adoptive, paternity and parent’s benefit will also increase from €289 to €299 per week. For households that are stretched, that is not an abstract figure. It is the difference between keeping the lights on, covering the weekly shop or managing school costs without slipping into arrears. The Bill underpins a very significant child poverty package. The child support payment is being increased to €78 per week for children aged 12 and over and €58 per week for younger children. We all know that adolescence is expensive. Families with teenagers in lower income households are also under pressure, and this is a very direct way of recognising that reality. Working families are being supported through higher working family payment thresholds, up by €60 per week for all family sizes, and by allowing families on the working family payment to qualify for fuel allowance, which is backdated to January. That rewards work, supports families and targets help to those who most need assistance with their energy bills. A particularly important part of this Bill is the package for carers and people with disabilities. From January, the maximum rates of carer’s allowance and carer’s benefit will rise by €10 per week. From July 2026, we will see the largest ever increase in the carer’s allowance income disregard, up to €1,000 per week for a single person and €2,000 for a couple. The income limit for carer’s benefit will rise to €1,000 per week. That is a major recognition of the fact that many carers also work outside the home, and the State should not punish a family in those circumstances. For children with significant additional needs, the domiciliary care allowance will increase by €20 per month to €380. People on disability allowance or the blind pension who move into work will keep their fuel allowance for five years and will qualify for the back to work family dividend. The wage subsidy scheme is being simplified and strengthened so that employers are better supported to hire and retain workers with disabilities. There are serious, practical measures too. They will not resolve every case that comes through a constituency office or at a clinic, but they are a clear statement that this Government sees carers and people with disabilities and is prepared to back that recognition with resources. I do want to say, however, that I believe we have further to go. Carers still face a heavy means test regime and a lot of paperwork at exactly the time when their energy should be focused on the person for whom they are caring. The big increases in income disregards are very welcome and I strongly support them, but my view is that, over the next four budgets, we should move further away from strict means testing for full-time family carers. Long-term caring is also a contribution to the State, not just a private matter for the household, and our system should increasingly reflect that. The second part of the Bill deals with the automatic enrolment retirement savings system. The original Act was a landmark reform designed to bring hundreds of thousands of workers automatically into a pension, with employers contributing and State top-ups. That is essential if we want today’s younger and lower paid workers to have a decent income in retirement. It has been spoken about time and again in this Chamber, and this is actual practical action. The amendments here are mainly technical ones and follow on from feedback on the original Act. They will help ensure that automatic enrolment works in practice, not just in theory. To conclude, this is a good and necessary Bill. It delivers on budget 2026 in a way that will put extra money in the pockets of pensioners, carers, people with disabilities, jobseekers and low-income families. It strengthens supports for children, especially teenagers in lower income households. It improves incentives for people with disabilities to take up work and it clears the way for automatic enrolment to get fully up and running. I want to acknowledge the work of the Minister, Deputy Calleary, and his officials in securing a strong allocation for his Department in the budget of 2026 and in targeting those resources where they are most needed. If we remain focused on that over the next four budgets, and if we continue to make progress on issues like the means testing of carers, we can look back on this period as one in which social protection did what it was supposed to do: protect people, enable participation and give all families a fair chance. Tá áthas orm tacú leis an mBille.

I will deal initially with auto-enrolment. In fairness, it has been said by a number of my colleagues that we are not against it in principle, but we do not agree with the methodology behind the operation of this particular auto-enrolment scheme. Obviously, the issue is that we believe the home of this money should have been the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, and it could have been put aside for infrastructural spending and whatever. However, I would like to deal very specifically with the issues that have been brought to me by a number of organisations in my constituency. I tabled a parliamentary question in relation to community organisations, not-for-profits, charities, etc. We all know the organisations we are talking about across the board. I can get rid of an awful lot of the fluff in this answer. There has also been an extensive communication campaign to inform people that the scheme will commence on 1 January 2026. Therefore, employers have been given a substantial lead-in period to budget appropriately for its introduction, including through budget negotiation with a sponsor, where appropriate. We are talking about a number of organisations where it is the State that supplies the money, such as the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, which supplies money to Pobal. I will go through some of the organisations. We have The House on Cox's Demesne, which does everything from breakfast clubs right through to probation services; the Redeemer Family Resource Centre, which does a huge amount of work; Mid Louth Youth Services; Outcomers, which deals with, and has for many years, LGBT citizens who have been impacted greatly; and places like Muirhevnamor Community Centre. We could probably rhyme off a whole pile of organisations. We are talking about those that are funded through Pobal, the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, UBU and organisations under the Department of Education and Youth. When we are talking about youth diversion and probation, we are talking about the Department of justice. There are organisations that are doing work funded through Tusla and the Department of children. They are getting different answers from every Department in relation to this, but at the end of the day, the State is what supplies the money. Whatever about the first year, it is 1.5% on a one-for-one basis and based on gross earnings, but that is years one to three. In years four to six, it jumps to 3%. In years seven and nine, it is 4.5%. After ten years, it goes to 6%. Therefore, there will be monetary issues straight away, but they can get significantly worse. There needs to be a greater level of communication. The Minister might engage with his own Department of rural and community development and those others to make contact with these organisations because they are very worried about this. We have dealt before with the cost of disability and work activation. I would say straight out that the cost of disability payment is the major thing that was missing from that budget. However, the Minister knows that the work and access programme needs a hell of a lot of work. On the wage subsidy scheme, there are huge issues for those who employ a number of disabled people. We also need to look at the wider issue. The likes of Intreo workers could probably play a vital role if we are talking about WorkAbility-type projects to ensure there is a route map for those with disabilities into good employment. We need to look at all of this. Mr. Eddie Hennessy spoke about the need for a fund in relation to entrepreneurship at the disability matters committee. The biggest issue was the absolute fear of losing disability allowance. We have seen some changes-----

You should conclude, Deputy.

-----and some movement but there is a lot more to do. Unfortunately, I have no more time. There has been some flexibility shown to me by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, so I thank him for that.

It was not flexibility. It was just you kept going; you could not be stopped. I call Deputy Hayes.

It has been a little over a month since the Minister for Finance and Minister for public expenditure stood in this Chamber and delivered to the country this Government's budget for 2026. We heard on that day all about the choices this Government was making - which industries it wanted to give tax breaks to, which boardrooms would be popping Champagne, and which food chains would see bumper profits next year under its watch. We heard all about the great choices this Government wanted to make while the cost of living, energy, groceries and housing skyrocketed. On a quiet Wednesday afternoon a month later, with much less fanfare, we get to the stark reality of the flipside of those choices. Now, we get to the detail in cold, hard print. An itemised list of exactly who this Government has chosen to leave behind - the carers, those facing redundancy, unemployment and underemployment, people living with disabilities and the children living in desperate, degrading poverty. The overarching problems I have with the social welfare Bill are twofold. On the one hand, the increased rates of social welfare payments do not go far enough in themselves to address inequality and the colossal cost of living for people on low incomes. We in the Social Democrats went further in our alternative budget on almost every point in this Bill. We went further by as much as 50% on most payments. On the other hand, as important as those real points of difference and rate increases are, we also in our policy, which this Government has completely failed to even consider, tried to begin a radical transformation of the social protection system. Our alternative budget was not one of mere one-upmanship with more resources put into core rates, even though we did increase them. Fundamentally, we tried to address the structural problems in the social protection system with the real, innovative and forward-thinking policy solutions that were so necessary in this country. I am conscious that this Bill introduces some non-financial measures. About 750,000 people will be auto-enrolled into pensions called the My Future Fund in the new year. Those individuals will see their take-home pay drop by between €300 and €1,200 per month in some of the most significant financial restructuring of personal finances in this country in many years. I am concerned that the Government has not sufficiently prepared for this large societal change. At its peak, the Government is planning to increase investment in pensions to the tune of €4 billion per year, or nearly 4% of the country's private occupational pension landscape, on supporting auto-enrolment, yet it has crucially never commissioned any independent assessment of the scheme. This is deeply concerning; a lapse in governance akin to building a city the size of Limerick without consulting a professional planner, if one were to use the same proportions. It gives me great pause. I strongly urge the Government to consider how it will ensure proper assessment, governance and oversight of the scheme in this Bill as it makes its way through the House. I acknowledge the adjustment in the Bill and the amendment on the Pensions Authority review. There is a narrative, which the parties in this Government have indulged in at times, about jobseeker's benefit and allowance. It is a narrative that is not accurate or fair. That narrative portrays jobseeker's benefit and allowance as luxuries afforded to individuals by a generous State at best, or at worst as a dole payment to people who do not get up early enough in the morning, as a former Taoiseach put it. A great many people on jobseeker's are working. They work part time or in unpaid roles, are transitioning to care work or engaging in voluntary work. Many, particularly young people, are not unemployed but underemployed, still finding their feet in life while trying to make ends meet. Of those who are not working, huge numbers find themselves in that position for the first time in many years, thrust into a moment of unique precarity and insecurity in their lives through no fault of their own off the back of redundancies or liquidations, which are on the increase, or cruel market circumstance. The core social welfare rates, including jobseeker's, are only increasing by €10 per week in this Bill. I think of the struggling young person already burdened by the housing crisis, the cost-of-living crisis and rising energy bills now finding themselves unemployed or put on reduced hours in hospitality or retail. How far is €10 going to go for them? Certainly not far enough to keep them out of poverty or deprivation or to provide some basic dignity. Why do we think unemployed and underemployed people should be forced to live below the poverty line? There seems to be a determination in the approach of this Government and, indeed, preceding Governments to only deal in increments. It is an over-reliance on minimal indexing and top-ups if you are lucky and there happens to be an election in a given year, with more generous and cynical splurging. There is always a failure to see the bigger picture, the need for real structural change and a bold vision when it comes to social and economic policy. In the Social Democrats, we think differently. We understand the vast majority of people on jobseeker's are using their entitlements to these benefits for a short period and will spend their whole lives contributing to the economy and this country, and while they spend this difficult time availing of their just entitlements, they deserve to live with dignity. That is why our increase to the core rates was 50% higher than the Government's and why, as we stated clearly, such an increase would represent a commitment to moving towards core social welfare rates being pegged to the minimum essential living standard. That has to be the goal for our welfare system. I know the Minister shares that particular goal. It would mark a fundamental departure from incrementalism and a shift in the way we treat unemployment and think about our workforce, both employed and unemployed, as essential and productive human capital and, ultimately, as human beings deserving dignity. When I am out meeting people door to door around Dublin, the most difficult situations I encounter are the individuals and families experiencing deprivation as a result of how our Government and society treat people and children with disabilities and illness. Parents are at their wits' end and people with disabilities are seemingly permanently socially excluded by the Government. There was no courage in this Government's Bill to stand up for people with disabilities. As the Disability Federation of Ireland said, people with disabilities will be €1,200 worse off a year next year as a result of this budget. Instead of introducing a cost-of-disability payment worth over €1,000 a year to soften the difficulties, increasing the fuel allowance more to keep up with energy cost inflation, giving relief on energy costs or properly increasing the disability allowance, the Government chose to leave people with disabilities and their families behind. That is not even to mention the means testing. The Social Democrats had the courage. We provided for that cost-of-disability payment and ensured the disability allowance and benefit caught up by significantly surpassing inflation. We provided for relief on energy bills and even for the too-long delayed reinstatement and reform of the motorised transport grant and mobility allowance, which went completely unmentioned in this budget despite the promises of the past two years. On the issue of disabilities, I also raise the serious anomaly of how the increase in the wage subsidy scheme is applied, as we heard from Rehab Enterprises, which was alarmed to find that the announced €1.20 increase in the scheme would result in just 55 cent for it. The scheme, if implemented efficiently, is a very targeted economical way of supporting people with disabilities in employment and would allow us to address our embarrassingly low rate of employment of people with disabilities compared with OECD peer countries. We cannot penalise the employers committed to employing more people with disabilities on a sliding scale like this. One cannot mention the difficulty of disabilities without also mentioning some of the best of us in our Republic - the carers who do monumental work on behalf of the State to care for some of the most vulnerable in our society. The Government had a choice in this budget to firmly find itself on the side of carers, to support and advocate for them and end the gross unfairness of a system that treats them so poorly. Instead, it mostly ignored and dismissed them, taking its cue from a then Taoiseach in Kanturk. As a new TD, it is quite eye-opening to see the level of political commitment in this Chamber and have the experience of sitting here a few weeks ago listening to voices from every party and none speak in support of the Social Democrats motion to abolish the means test, for the Minister to say he would not oppose it and, just a few days later when it came time for Members and parties to deliver their budget proposals, it was noticeably missing. Thanks to the work of Family Carers Ireland, we know that carers are disproportionately affected by social and financial hardship, face increased isolation, stress and difficulty in balancing caring responsibilities with paid employment. Again, a €10 increase in carer's allowance will barely keep the lights on. Furthermore, changes to thresholds for means tests only make weak efforts towards proper recognition of all carers' work. By the Minister's own estimates, he chose to purposefully exclude 30% of carers from carer's allowance. Tens of thousands of people who care for the most vulnerable in our society found no back-up from this Government and will be left wanting. The Social Democrats had a different approach. We put forward a fully costed plan to abolish the means test, bringing those tens of thousands of carers into the social protection system to honour their work for the hard work that it is. Furthermore, we proposed a €15 a week increase to the carer's allowance and carer's benefit - 50% more than the Government - and an increase to the carer's support grant often used for respite to €2,150 per year. The Social Democrats have always been and will always be on the side of those who care in our society and we will not be found wanting. It is also worth noting how the Government's budget supports the other big vulnerable part of our population, namely, the 800.000 people who are reliant on State pensions. It is the great success of the welfare state that we have taken care of our elderly and older people but I fear this Government has chosen to turn its back on too many of them facing the worst poverty with a €10 increase in pensions, when grocery bill increases far surpass that and a fuel allowance increase of €5 when electricity and gas prices surge to wipe out hard earned savings. There is no relief on energy bills. What well-minded person in our Republic would see an elderly person cold in their home this winter? What Government worthy of its voters would abandon them as the seasons turn and the energy companies hike up their prices, when an election is not looming? The Social Democrats have a different vision. We sought a larger increase to the State pension in fuel allowance. We wanted to keep our elderly warm, well fed and nurtured. Along with energy credits targeting the bottom 40% of households, a huge proportion of which would be pensioners, and a large reduction in prescription costs, we sought to give those who have earned old age the financial room to live it to the full. At the other end of the age spectrum, the Government did very little for new parents, increasing parental benefits by €10 per week. By contrast, the Social Democrats proposed to increase parental benefits by €61 per week to €350 to better reflect the enormous costs of raising a child in modern Ireland. We proposed extending parental benefit to 13 weeks per parent, the largest extension proposed in the history of the State by any party. This means that under the Social Democrats, the amount of paid time off for parents would amount to a total of more than one year per child, which would represent a significant milestone in our social policy and how we think about childhood. Importantly, we also sought to include fostering in the State contributory pension. On this side of the House, we may sound a little like a broken record when it comes to the child poverty figures. It is something my party colleagues and I have been bringing up relentlessly since they were published in the summer. I have spoken about it many times and I have brought it up with the Taoiseach. My party leader brought up the figures again on "The Late Late Show" last week and we will not shut up about it. Those figures have shocked us. The amount of money in this country and child poverty has doubled in a year. That is a monumental failure, by any measure, for one of the richest countries in the world. What has been so frustrating about the Government's response is all the hot air, the tones of hushed concern and worry, including in the Minister's speech today. The Taoiseach even took to writing in a national newspaper in the lead-up to the budget to say that now is the time to tackle child poverty. What do we get? Tinkering around the edges of existing welfare payments, a continued emphasis on incrementalism and a total failure to grasp the enormity of the problem and the moral stain it represents for our society. There are in this Bill at least some increases in the income disregard for the working family payment, which I welcome, but there is no substantive proposal here which recognises the enormity of the problem. That is the theme of the parties in government in health, in housing and here in child poverty. The reason we in the Social Democrats have continued to bring up the child poverty issue again and again is because we saw those numbers and we were horrified by them. We understood what those children were facing and what too many families are facing. We understood what the PBO has since confirmed, which is that poverty levels will increase as a result of this Government's budget, as well as the failures in this Bill to address key factors driving child poverty. We understood all of that and responded accordingly. Crucially, we responded proportionately. Our alternative budget set out an €870 million package for tackling child poverty. That is more than double what the Government has set aside. We have completely restructured the approach to deliver a highly targeted, evidence-based policy that will obliterate the scourge of child poverty by integrating the child support payment into a modified working family payment. That is the only rational response - the only humane response - to this problem. It is quite difficult to see the Taoiseach declare this is the year to tackle child poverty and then mere days later, have his Government deliver such a weak policy response, the details of which we now see in this Bill. I am extremely conscious that behind all these facts and figures there are people who are reliant on the support of the State for their living and to combat rising costs. In particular, I am conscious that energy prices, grocery prices and the cost of housing have increased very significantly in recent years, far beyond generalised average rates of inflation that the Government tends to quote. Furthermore, auto-enrolment will have very significant effects on post-tax income for working lower-income households. I have severe reservations the current Government's policies do not keep up with inflation in these areas to ensure people are not worse off next year, when compared to this year or the year before. By contrast, the Social Democrats proposed in one budget, a strong suite of structural, social interventions in the lives of the most vulnerable; the most comprehensive suite of measures put forward by any major party in this Chamber. We promised we would abolish the means test for carers in one year. We proposed that in our alternative budget, one of the only major parties to do so. We promised we would introduce a cost of disabilities payment, again proposed in our budget. We promised we would introduce a second tier of child benefit - costed, proposed and fully funded. We promised we would extend the parent's benefit, suggesting the largest increase of any party and bringing total paid parent's leave to one year - over one year - per child and we funded it in our budget. We promised to increase parental benefits to €350 per week in our first budget. We were the only major party to suggest increasing funding for the hot school meals programme to make it more nutritious. We committed to eliminating consistent child poverty by 2030 in our manifesto - eliminate it, not reduce it. This Government, however, has set a target of 3% to 2030. To put that in context, that means the Government is aiming at the close of its term to leave over 30,000 children in consistent poverty. That is its stated, explicit aim. Words genuinely fail me to articulate the callousness of such a goal. Rather than giving tax breaks to foreign shareholders, we in the Social Democrats sought to take a higher proportion of their huge profits. Rather than giving gambling companies, banks and commercial property a free ride, we said they should contribute more. We articulated a vision for a Republic that, crucially, lives up to its name. It is often the accusation against my party that we are not serious about governing. Well, here is your proof that we are, making the "hard decisions" to tax banks more so we can protect pensioners from the cold. I would even go so far as to say we are more serious about governing, about reshaping our country for the better, than this current Government. We promised the electorate major change in the general election a mere 11 months ago and in our first alternative budget, we articulated how we would make many of these structural changes within the first year. Notably, we have proposed a fully funded abolition of the means test for carers. We honoured a commitment in the programme for Government that the Minister did not deliver. It is my view and the view of my party that a society will and should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable, who it stands up for and how it includes rather than excludes. In this, every party must pick a side - not a leaning, not an incrementalist approach but a deep structural commitment to transforming the State from one that has left too many people behind and instead, to one that lifts people up, supports them to thrive and enables every person - every person with a disability, every carer, every parent, every child and every older person - to reach their full potential. That is who the Social Democrats are, that is who I am and that is who the Government has shown through this Bill that it is not.

Budget 2026 left many people disappointed, upset and angry. In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, which is continuing unabated, the Government has chosen to utterly abandon the most vulnerable in society. The meagre increase of €10 to the disability payment will see people with only that payment struggle, and that is the best the Government has done since 2020. Analysis from the Irish Wheelchair Association shows that people with disabilities are €1,400 worse off after the budget and the Bill. Did the Government not consider that the withdrawal of energy credits would have an impact on everybody, but especially on people with disabilities? We know that households with a disabled person need 50% to 60% extra disposable income to achieve the same standard of living as similar households with no disabled member. The Government does not seem to care. The €10 increase will be immediately lost to food price increases and energy inflation. This is to say nothing of the significant increase in the day-to-day costs people with disabilities have no choice but to pay. Despite pre-budget analysis showing that one in five children lives in families below the poverty line and despite child poverty having doubled last year to levels last seen during the financial crash, this budget and Bill will do little to alleviate the circumstances of families who will once again be forced to choose between eating and heating this winter. Once again, carers have been left in the dark as to whether the Government ever intends to deliver on the promise to abolish the means test. Instead of a bonanza tax break for developers on apartments that have already been built, I am asking the Government to consider people with disabilities and carers first. Things could be different. The energy credits could have been retained at a time when price hikes are set to break families' backs. The Government could have meaningfully increased social welfare payments, tackled child poverty and sought to protect the most vulnerable but it did not do so. Instead, priority was given to a developer tax bonanza. This, the Minister for Social Protection's first budget, is very disappointing.

The least well-off and most vulnerable in our society have been absolutely hammered by the cost-of-living crisis that has been inflicted on them over the last number of years. It is very important to say that the cost-of-living crisis is not like the weather. It does not just happen. The other side of the cost-of-living crisis is profiteering by the people who increase the prices; it is as simple as that. The energy companies ratchet up the prices and have done so consistently over the last number of years. In fact, they have done it consistently since a previous Fianna Fáil Government deregulated the energy industry. We used to have a not-for-profit ESB energy supply in this country. Competition was supposed to lead to decreasing prices but the exact opposite happened. Prices have gone through the roof, crippling vulnerable and less well-off people. Energy company profits go through the roof and the cost-of-living misery is inflicted on the most vulnerable and the poorest in our society. That is the reality, and Government after Government continues to allow it to happen. I have heartbreaking letters, one, for example, from a young woman, Emma, in my constituency, who has a disability. She describes how the current budget will give her €660 extra a year but that is €1,000 less than she got last year. She is down €1,000 when energy prices, grocery prices and all the other costs of living have gone up. She will be poorer this year by a significant margin than she was last year. That is true of the most vulnerable and the people with disabilities. It is cruel and unfair but the Government has chosen to prioritise the profits of energy companies that are going to the roof. The Government allows them to do that, does nothing about it and does not redistribute it properly through taxes, so Emma and other people with disabilities get crucified. That is the truth of it. There is no justification for what has been done and the Government should seriously reconsider its set of priorities. I doubt that it will because it is always big business and the corporates that are profiting from the cost-of-living misery that are prioritised. A quick word on the technical amendment to the auto-enrolment scheme. I am not sure if this is in the public domain, and there are many things I would like to say about the scheme, but I will say one thing about a company called Tata Consultancy Services, which has a role in the administration of the auto-enrolment scheme. Lots of private companies, such as Irish Life Investment Managers, Amundi and BlackRock, will profit from this scheme, which should be run on a not-for-profit basis by the State. Tata Consultancy Services, which has won a ten-year contract from the Government, is a company that is deeply implicated with the Israeli military, the genocide and Project Nimbus, a surveillance project that assists the US military in the brutal occupation of Palestine and in all the genocidal horrors that have taken place over the last few years. Why on earth would a company guilty of and complicit in the genocidal horrors inflicted on Palestinians be given a ten-year contract by this Government? It is absolutely outrageous. We could have a far better pension system in this country and we could probably double the State pension if the Government just closed down the tax breaks going to the very wealthy and the companies involved in the pension industry whose profits, of course, are constantly going up. I do not have time to detail some of the facts around this, but the tax expenditures, for example, on the exemption of employers' contributions from employee benefit in kind is €956 million in one year. That is almost €1 billion, and I bet it is for the best paid workers. It is a tax scam and a tax loophole where some of those on the highest earnings and these companies get tax benefits. The money is there to give people decent pensions, address poverty and help the most vulnerable, but the profits of the rich and even those complicit in genocide seem to come first.

This Bill proves again that the Government is completely out of touch with ordinary people. The Government obviously lives in a bubble in this House. Is it that it does not know or does not care that there is a cost-of-living crisis? Families are struggling to make ends meet, grocery prices are through the roof and we have some of the highest energy prices in Europe, yet there is not a single cost-of-living support in this Bill or in the budget. Families are falling behind with rent, mortgages and energy bills. We should always remember that the measure of a nation is how it looks after its most vulnerable. We are wealthier than at any time in our history, yet we have 630,000 people living below the poverty line and of those, 190,000 are children. There are also over 16,000 people homeless, including almost 5,500 children. While the social welfare increases in the budget are welcome, they go nowhere near providing a minimum standard of living. Social Justice Ireland has said that core social welfare rates must increase by €25 per week for there to be any impact on reducing poverty. During the general election, all parties committed to abolishing the means test for carers. That is not in this Bill, nor was it in the budget. The acid test of the bona fides of this Government on carers and caring is the immediate abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance. That should be done now and included as an amendment to this Bill. This has been a demand of Family Carers Ireland for years and was promised by all parties in the run-up to the last general election. It was understood the means test would be abolished in the first 100 days of the Government or, at the very least, in the most recent budget, but neither happened. Carers play a vital role as front-line healthcare workers supporting older people, people with disabilities and those with high care needs in their own homes. They provide 19 million hours of unpaid care each week, saving the State almost €20 billion a year. The abolition of the means test should be done immediately. Family Carers Ireland stated: Despite being described as the backbone of Ireland’s health and social care system, family carers continue to shoulder the consequences of underinvestment in home care supports, outdated policies, eligibility criteria that no longer reflect the realities of modern-day caring ... Another promise made by all parties in the run-up to the last general election was the payment of a weekly cost-of-disability payment. Research by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice showed it costs a family caring for a disabled person an additional €244 per week. That has not been acknowledged in this Bill or in the recent budget. There are also serious barriers to employment for people with disabilities, including the loss of secondary benefits like travel, household benefits and the fuel allowance. The income disregard of €165 is too low. Many European countries have a full disregard. The question of child poverty is also one that comes up in relation to this Bill and the budget. Again, we see no reference to a second tier of child benefit, which is urgently needed.

I had a look at the Fine Gael website, which is not something I normally do. The party has an ad running with the title "Fine Gael supported carers and people with disabilities in Budget 2026". Sometimes you need to check in case it is AI or whatever, but how exactly did Fine Gael support carers and people with disabilities? Could the Minister of State, Deputy Naughton, explain that? I am going to go with disabled organisations and individuals rather than Fine Gael on this one. If we learned anything in the last few years, it should have been to listen to disabled people and to the force they are, given the care referendum, the Green Paper being pushed back and so on. I am a little mystified as to why the Government picked out disabled people for no help at all in the budget. People were joking with grim humour about what they were going to spend the €10 a week on, but that €10 was completely taken away by all the other things. The Irish Wheelchair Association estimates disabled people are €1,400 worse off and the Disability Federation of Ireland said the same. Is the Minister of State saying they are lying? I ask because €1,400 is quite a lot of money. The reason for this is the withdrawal of the one-off payments that were provided in the last couple of budgets. We all know, or should know, that the permanent cost of disability is massive. The most conservative estimates put that cost at between €10,000 and €15,000, and I would say that is way underestimated. There was a promise to introduce a permanent cost-of-disability payment. That has now been delayed until 2027. That is another broken promise. There needs to be a permanent cost-of-disability payment because households are paying way over the odds if they have a disabled person. In actual numbers, that cost is estimated at anything from €300 per week upwards. It should be noted that the reason for the drop-off is the disability support grant, the living alone allowance and the one-off payments for electricity and so on. One in five people who are disabled is already living in consistent poverty and the Government has made it so much worse. A lot of people mentioned carers, and rightly so. The means test for carers should be removed but, again, nothing has really been done on that. There should not be a means test for disabled people either. I submitted a parliamentary question some time back on what it would cost to get rid of the means test for disabled people. The answer I got was that it would cost €6 billion, which is laughable. It was essentially based on every single person who is disabled claiming it, which the Minister of State knows is not true because lots of disabled people do not claim any payments whatsoever. I am not saying she drew up that answer; I am just giving her an example of why it was ludicrous. Even if everyone who has a very severe disability was not means tested, the cost would be about €500 million, roughly what it cost to give the developers the apartment incentives the Government gave them in the budget through tax write-offs and so on. The Government made its priorities very clear with those decisions. I think Deputy Boyd Barrett alluded to this issue earlier. It has been pointed out to me by disabled people that there is a marriage bar in place because if they get married, they lose their income and are reduced to poverty, meaning so many disabled people cannot get married. This was pointed out to me by two disabled people who got married in the last year. They have taken a financial hit from that because one becomes the dependant of the other. We have had marriage equality campaigns and we are going to need a campaign to allow disabled people the right to get married, thanks to the absolute privileging of profit, capital, big business and corporations at every hand’s turn by this Government and previous Governments Fine Gael has been a part of.

This Bill keeps those who are on low pay and those who are compelled to live on social welfare in further poverty for another year. I will first deal with the auto-enrolment system, which leaves out those earning below €20,000. It may be the case that they will not accumulate a huge pension over their working life, but people earning below €20,000 are entitled to have the same rights as those who are earning €100,000. I fail to see why they have been excluded. They have been left behind. The worker puts in €3, the employer puts in €3 and the State puts in €1. It is a big omission to leave out low-paid and part-time workers, a lot of whom will be women. The other concern I have is the need to ensure auto-enrolment is not used in the coming years to reduce the State pension. The level of payment provided under the basic State pension has to be maintained on the basis of the contributions made by people over a 40-year period. While people should be able to retire at the age set at the moment, we should provide a greater option for people to work until they are 70, if they so wish. There is a lot of talk about a pension time bomb and how we are going to head this off. There are a lot of people working who would like to wind down. When they reach 65, they may not want to work 40 hours a week or five days a week but they might want to work 30 or 20 hours a week. We should facilitate that. They would then make a contribution to society, pay taxes and be allowed to retire on a graduated basis. With regard to the company that is running it, if this company is, as it appears to be, connected to the greater genocide effort by the terrorist State of Israel, that needs to be reviewed straight away. I wonder why the State could not operate or administer this scheme itself as it does with the State saving schemes. The Bill allows for a slight change to employers' PRSI. We have one of the lowest rates of employers' PRSI in Europe. The Social Insurance Fund is not going to be there to keep pensions going. I have mentioned one way of keeping it up but we need to increase the level of PRSI contribution from employers, particularly for high-paid workers, if the fund is to be sufficient in the coming years. On the social welfare increases, those who were in poverty are now further in poverty because we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis like I have never seen before. There are 190,000 children in immediate poverty. They are going to sink further into it. The small increase in the budget is not going to lift those vulnerable people out of poverty. There is no cost-of-living measures or one-offs. Last year, there was money for everything because there was an election but the election is over now so there was no need for it this year. That is cynical. It is bad for politics, but it is also bad for poverty and those people who are forced to live on low incomes. We need to start doing something about the low rates of participation of disabled people in the workforce. Again, we are in the bottom of the class in the EU. We have very low participation rates. The abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance was promised and promised again. Guess what? It has not happened. It has been forgotten about. On the auto-enrolment section of the Bill, auto-enrolment needs to be revisited for those workers on less than €20,000. On PRSI contributions and the Social Insurance Fund, employers' PRSI needs to be revisited, particularly for high-paid workers. If companies can pay people €200,000, €300,000 or €400,000 a year, they can pay a bit more PRSI. On the budget, we have to do something by way of a cost-of-living package. I ask the Government to bring in a one-off measure, even at this point, to alleviate the worst excesses of the current price increases to help people over the winter period. On disabled people, the Government needs to revisit the means test. The means test for carer's allowance has to go. We need to get more disabled people into the workforce.

We have had several discussions on this and related legislation associated with the budget. In some ways, we have tended to go around in circles. We are repeating the same things time and again because there have been no efforts to make any efforts to do what Opposition Deputies have suggested. On the one hand, I am not surprised but, at the same time, I am disappointed. I will look at the auto-enrolment section first. I agree with what colleagues have said about auto-enrolment and lower earners. Sometimes those who cannot work because of family care issues or healthcare issues work part-time. They are able to work 20 hours a week or less. They make a contribution and pay tax at a certain level. For such people not to be able to get into this scheme is patently unfair. As other people have mentioned, the same applies to low-paid workers. If you are in any way a taxpayer, you should be able to contribute to the scheme. I have raised issues before regarding the guarantees that are in place to copper-fasten the contributions, especially the Government element because, during the downturn, the Government did claw back what were thought to be sacrosanct moneys reserved for people. We could see that happen again. A lovely flashy ad started in the summer about the cherry on the top but there is a reason this is called a savings scheme rather than a true pension scheme. It should be geared more towards being a pension scheme than a savings scheme to guarantee the State and employer contributions and to ensure that we will not see it being taken away in the future because of some unforeseen circumstances. As I have said before, budget 2026 overall did not include sufficient measures for the poorest and most vulnerable. I take on board what the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council said on the need to be mindful of windfall revenues but, to go back to the previous budget, in many ways, it was excessively generous compared with this one. If we had a more balanced structure, we would be in a better position. The €12 rise in core welfare rates does not offset inflation, leaving recipients with under a quarter of the average weekly earnings. Social Justice Ireland has said that a €25 increase was needed to meet the Government's benchmark. I am looking for money while saying we need to be fiscally responsible, but there are ways of getting that money. One of the ways of getting the money, especially for the likes of people with disabilities, as other Deputies have mentioned, is not to be giving little cuts to USC. I know this is controversial but we need a wider tax base and so should not take away little bits and bobs, preventing us from then being able to gain revenue down the line or requiring us to bring stuff back in again, which will have an even greater impact on society. We should be careful about taking away ways of getting revenue when we still have vulnerable people who are not getting enough. I have mentioned the €250 million housing measure, which I do not believe will work. I am not going to go into it now due to time constraints but there were areas where we could have supported those facing poverty or those who are more vulnerable within the existing tranche of funding and have had a more equitable budget, but we did not grasp that opportunity.

This Bill brings some long overdue relief to families, carers and pensioners but not much. Independent Ireland welcomes any move that puts an extra few euro in the pockets of those who are struggling to make ends meet. The €10 increase in weekly welfare payments, the higher working family payment threshold and the €20 rise in the domiciliary care allowance are steps in the right direction. Measures like the extension of the newborn baby grant show a bit of common sense in the Government, which is something Independent Ireland has been crying out for. We have said from the start that supporting families is key to holding communities together. Anything that helps parents keep the lights on and food on the table is always welcome. The uplift in parental benefits recognises that. New mums and dads need support rather than red tape when a baby arrives. The higher working family payment threshold reflects our call to reward work and not to penalise it. However, a €10 increase will not fill an oil tank. While we welcome the raise, this €10 a week will be eaten up by inflation before people even see it. The costs of heating oil, fuel and food have soared. This Bill does not go anywhere near far enough to tackle that reality. Independent Ireland believes these small uplifts are only a plaster on a deep wound. Families need real reform and not token gestures. The Bill gives a lift to those on welfare, as is right, but the working man or woman in the middle earning between €40,000 and €50,000 gets nothing. These are the people who cannot get a medical card or free school bus transport. Independent Ireland has called for tax reliefs for middle earners so that hard work actually pays. We want to ensure no one earning less than €50,000 pays the top rate of tax. You cannot build a fair society if you keep harming the workers who keep the lights on in this country. Many of our older citizens still want to contribute, pass on their skills and stay active in work. Independent Ireland says we should stop taxing pensioners who continue to work. We would abolish USC and PRSI for pension-age workers. This Bill ignores that. Let us reward contributions rather than punishing them. While we talk about people's pensions, the new Irish society is looking into people's old-age pensions. That is something I really condemn. People come to me every weekend to tell me their pensions are being reviewed. Some of them lose their pensions. Good God almighty, that was the only little bit they had. I especially refer to married women being discriminated against in respect of pensions. Reviewing people's pensions is as hard a punishment as any government could ever give anyone. It is happening quite a lot. The number is rising every day. This Bill talks about payments but it says nothing about the prices that are crippling families. Independent Ireland would cut the VAT rate to 9% on food services and hospitality. That is how you bring down prices in real life, not just on paper. Let us not forget the very sneaky way the Finance Act was used to bring in a higher rate for the hire of function rooms for meetings, weddings, parties or Christmas events. This is going to cost the hotelier to whom I spoke the other day a fortune. That person runs a good but humble hotel. The cost will have to be passed on. One hotelier told me that it will cost him €25,000 a year. This is a sneaky tax that the Government introduced in the budget. I plead with the Minister to look at it and maybe consider how we might perhaps reverse the decision in this regard. In order for the hotelier in question to cover this cost, he has to make €120,000 extra a year. This is an astonishing and sneaky tax. I would like to know if the Government backbenchers knew this new cost was being brought in. Small hoteliers are absolutely disgusted with this snide move. Were backbench Government TDs aware of this? I want to talk about the pension enrolment scheme, which will come into effect in January. One of my constituents is a subcontractor for Irish Water. He currently employs four men. In January, he will have to pay €15 per week per employee into the pension enrolment scheme. That is a total of €60 per week or €3,128 for the year. He says that he cannot afford it. When he asked his employees to pay it, they refused because they see it as a pay cut for them. He is aware that the bigger companies are offering to pay the €15 on behalf of their employees and that people are moving to the bigger companies as a result. His is not the only small business in this predicament. Where is the assistance for small businesses? This is going to have a massive effect on this man and his business. This is the problem with all the legislation that is introduced: it is another attack on the small employer. The Government is not thinking about them; it is thinking about Apple and other such companies. It is not thinking about the local businesses that employ four or five people and that going to be hit very hard. My time is up. I will give way to my colleague.

I am going to start with the auto-enrolment pension scheme. A pension scheme is good if it is introduced at the right time. To get down to brass tacks, for those who do not know, auto-enrolment means 1.5% for an employer and 1.5% for an employee. After six months, the employee can opt out of the 1.5% if he or she does not want to pay it. Is there any extra benefit for somebody in their 40s, 50s or 60s? What about people who are coming up to 64, 65 or 66? Is there any extra benefit for them in their pension if they pay into the auto-enrolment scheme? The answer I got in that regard was "No". If a person wants to pay a pension now, he or she will get nothing extra when he or she reaches pension age. Auto-enrolment should be brought in at a low base for young people and all the way up the line. That is the case 100%. If people have already been paying their taxes and everything else and they are due their statutory pension and the Minister wants them to pay into a pension out of their wages now, it is wrong that they are only going to get the same amount of money and nothing extra. There has to be a carrot, but the Minister did not allow for a carrot. Those people are employed and are paying their taxes at the moment. I agree that auto-enrolment is a good thing for young people. We had to start sometime. However, for the people who have been paying through the years and who are my age and older - there are a lot of them in this Chamber who are in the same situation I am in - there would be no extra benefit for when they get to the age of 66 or 67. Where is the carrot for hard-working people? Nothing extra is going to be given to them. That is the problem I have with auto-enrolment. I do not have an issue with it as an employer, but I have been talking to employees who do have an issue with it. Auto-enrolment is also going to drive inflation because any business model is based on the need to make a percentage rate. We have seen what happens with food produce and transport networks across this country when there are increases. If the model changes, the cost is added on. Three years ago, a cup of coffee cost €1.50. Now the price is close to €4. In places, it is €4.20. Inflationary costs are added on to a business base. Businesspeople understand that. I am a businessperson. Again, the consumer will pay for this. The employer pays, so the employer has got to add it on. Employees say they will not take a wage cut, which is how they look at it. Many employers will pay it to keep employees in case they are thinking of going somewhere else. That is one side of it. The other side is when we look at the hospitality sector, which has had three wage increases for the lower earners. Those three wage increases were again passed on to the consumer. Then we got the reduction in VAT from 13.5% to 9%, which was great, but it will not be introduced until June or July of next year. That is six or seven months down the road. What did the Government do in terms of a sneaky tax? The tax on renting a room has risen from 13.5% to 23%. The Government added 10% to the rent-a-room tax. It said it would reduce VAT by 4%, but the tax for those who have conferences or anything like that has gone from 13.5% to 23%. Who ends up paying again? The consumer. When is the Government going to give something back to people who are working? The working person in this country has no problem paying for the people who cannot work, for example, those who are disabled. All they want is a reward. By reducing the USC in the budget and not changing the tax base, the Government has already taxed workers this year. Everything the Government is doing is on the tax base; it is doing nothing for employees, employers or consumers. All it is doing is increasing the cost of living.

I welcome the auto-enrolment scheme. It is a significant step forward for an estimated 800,000 employees across this country. There have been significant false starts and delays with the scheme. The Department must do a huge body of work in terms of advertising and communicating with people about the scheme and to ensure that people across Ireland can make an informed decision about entering into the scheme or potentially opting out. However, I have significant concerns about small businesses. Employers are facing additional obligations with this scheme. Let us be honest: there are payroll obligations, communications obligations and also the administration of the scheme. That is not to mention the additional financial contributions employers will have to make. While auto-enrolment will be an advantage to many in terms of the replacement ratio on retirement, it does come at a time of significant costs to businesses. It actually comes at a time when insolvencies in the SME sector have not been as high since 2016. Last year, there were 824 insolvencies and 98.5% of those were SMEs. They are basically being run out of business because of the cost of doing business. I refer to VAT, sky-high energy costs, sick pay, increases to PRSI and increases to the minimum wage. They are all having a huge impact on businesses. The recent SME report stated that 73% of businesses found that the high cost of materials is a significant risk to them. The ability to access finance is also an issue. The Government has let down businesses on all of these fronts. It has not done anything to reduce the cost of materials, energy and so on, yet this is the juncture at which auto-enrolment is due to start. Has the Minister done any stress testing in respect of SMEs? They are really struggling. We should be very cautious. We should engage with SMEs. We should stress test the market and so on to ensure this does not make more small and medium-sized businesses across Ireland unviable because many are struggling and they attend my clinics on a weekly basis. The elephant in the room here this evening is the self-employed. The man and woman who creates employment and who innovates needs not apply because there is no mechanism in which a self-employed person can avail of this scheme. That is an incredible situation. Self-employed people are the backbone of this economy and the country and the Government has precluded them from social welfare. I was contacted last week by a gentleman who worked for Fastway. He is a self-employed gentleman who worked there all his life, paid taxes and what has he got? When he found himself on hard times, he cannot access social welfare and now the Government is introducing a scheme which will preclude him and thousands of other people from accessing auto-enrolment. I appreciate there are complexities but I urge the Minister of State to prioritise the self-employed person and incentivise those who take on risk and create employment because this Government has been a cold place for the self-employed and businesses across the country. I also want to raise concerns around individuals in low-income employment. I believe auto-enrolment may have a significant impact on those individuals. There will be a significant reduction in their pay as a result of this, estimated between €300 and €1,200 per year. This scheme is obviously designed to assist those people but many of them are living pay cheque to pay cheque in the current cost-of-living crisis. I hope those individuals do not opt out of the scheme. In these times every euro is so valuable. What assessment has been done in relation to this? On the self-employed and businesses more broadly, I am concerned that many larger companies may be able to absorb the individual contribution for an employee and that we might see the migration of employees to larger companies as a result of this. That is the risk here. While positive in theory, this scheme has significant risks for businesses. I urge the Minister of State to consider the risks to SMEs and small businesses across the country.

This Government has had every warning and every opportunity to act yet it continues to ignore the depth of poverty and social exclusion growing across communities and the State. The measures in this Bill fall far short of what is needed. After years of record surpluses and headline promises, families are still being left behind and are struggling with food, energy, housing and transport costs while the Government congratulates itself on token increases that barely touch the size of this crisis. Core welfare payments are falling behind inflation once again. There was no increase in child benefit, no credible plan to tackle child poverty and no urgency in confronting the cost-of-living emergency. Energy prices are rising again; by more than 12% this winter. More than 300,000 households are in electricity arrears and almost 175,000 are in arrears in respect of gas. Food costs are still soaring, and families cannot keep up. We in Sinn Féin set out a stronger and fairer alternative that would make a real difference in people's lives. We proposed a €25 increase in the domiciliary care allowance, a €450 set of energy credits and a boost of almost €300 to the fuel allowance. We also called for €2.2 billion in additional funding for social protection - double what the Government provided - to lift families out of poverty, protect real incomes and give struggling households a fighting chance this winter and into next year. Carers continue to be treated disgracefully. The carer's allowance remains means-tested, despite repeated promises from multiple parties to end that test. I believe that “within 100 days” was some of the language used yet we have seen zero progress on that. These are people who save the State billions through unpaid care and who sacrifice their own incomes to look after loved ones. They do it out of love but it saves the State a huge amount of money. Instead of recognition of that fact, they are forced to prove their poverty every year to qualify for that modest support. That is indefensible. Child poverty is worsening. The Government has missed its own targets and quietly pushed them further out of reach. One in five children, that is, over 225,000 children, live in poverty once housing costs are counted. One in five parents now skip meals in order that their children can eat and among lone parents, that figure is one in three. Behind those numbers are exhausted parents and anxious children and a whole body of trauma that will last for decades to come. Tá bochtaineacht agus eisiamh sóisialta ag dul i méid ar fud na tíre. Tá costais bhia, bhreosla, tithíochta agus iompair ag cur brú dochreidte ar theaghlaigh. Tá cúramóirí agus oibrithe ísealioncaim á bhfágáil ar lár ag an Rialtas seo, atá rófhada ó réaltacht an tsaoil. Tá spriocanna maidir le bochtaineacht leanaí caillte agus á mbrú siar arís agus arís eile in ainneoin go bhfuil acmhainn airgeadais ag an Stát chun dul i ngleic leis an bhfadhb seo. Rural communities are under severe pressure too. Higher heating and transport costs, limited public transport and lower incomes mean deeper hardship. Families in rural Ireland pay more to get by and receive less support in return - that is the reality of Government neglect by both this Government and its predecessors. On the second element of this Bill, the Government's auto-enrolment scheme, Sinn Féin supports the principle of workers saving for retirement but rejects this design. Taking money from low-paid workers and locking it away for six months during a cost-of-living crisis is unfair. We believe the State, through the NTMA, should manage these funds safely and transparently for the public good - not hand them to private pension firms. Poverty is rising, inequality is deepening, and the Government is standing still and watching from the sidelines. We in Sinn Féin will continue to fight for a fair, modern system of social protection that values carers, protects families and tackles poverty head-on.

I am glad to get the opportunity to talk again on this social welfare Bill and auto-enrolment. We are hoping that in a very short time, the means test for carers will be abolished altogether. As I understand it, if you are caring for someone with a disability you are actually living their life. That is what many loved ones are doing. They have no choice in the matter. They do not think about it; they just continue to do that. We must be fair and look after those people as they need it because as a Government and as elected Members, we have to be fair to the people we are representing. Take the rising costs of electricity. People have been forced into using electricity. I have said it here before that the regulator is not visible. He is not being seen at all. People are wondering where he is or what is going on. The costs of electricity are increasing, in some cases by 17% and in some by 13%, with no uniform amount. There is no reasonable excuse being given for the cost of the rising electricity prices. People have been advised for carbon emissions and whatever – which is something that I do not subscribe to – and they have taken advice and gone with these under the floor heat systems and all that. They are afraid to put a sod of turf into the fire. The honest truth is that since Bord na Móna was closed down, the cost of electricity has gone up every whole day. I regret that very much because there is a carbon footprint bringing gas from wherever it comes and there is a carbon footprint from bringing electricity long distances. We need to look at everything because at the end of the day we are all under the one sky. The living alone allowance needs to be addressed because people who live alone have the same costs in the house. When there is an elderly couple living together they can share the costs and they have two pensions. They have nothing other than their pensions. That is how many of them survive day to day, but the person living alone is suffering. Some people got an increase in the working family payment that will push them off the housing list. I have so much of this in Kerry. I had a family who were on the housing list for nine years. The family income supplement should be disregarded as income. If a family qualifies for the family income supplement, they are in a bad way. They would not get it only for they need it. It would be a very laudable thing for the Department to consider, the fact that they are getting this payment and it wipes them off the housing list. It is very unfair. I have a man with a wife and three children. They are out in the cold. They are off the housing list. They have no hope in the world of ever buying a house. The way things are going in Killarney, people cannot rent houses. It is costing up to €2,000 a month for a four-bed house, and people cannot afford that. On auto-enrolment, I am concerned about it. I will be honest and say that I do not know enough about it. A lot of people are like me in that they do not understand it. Small employers are the backbone of our economy. I refer to the fellow with two or three fellows working for him, going off in a van to a plastering job, to lay blocks, hauling goods, carpentry or whatever. The man who is employing three or four is very worried about the cost of this. The Minister is saying that the employer will pay 1.5%, the employee will pay 1.5%, and the State will pay just 0.5%. After three years, it will go up for the employee and the employer to 3%. After that, it will go up year on year. After ten years, the employer will have to pay 6%. The truth of it is that the employer will finish up paying for it because otherwise he will lose his employees. That is how they will feel. I have been a small employer for many years. Friday evening often came very quick for me because I was always employing four or five or seven or eight people. The week goes very quick, and you must find the money and have it for them. Now, everything seems to be hitting the employer together, like the extra sick days that employees can ring in for. If people are sick, it is grand to cover them. It is going to be seven days now, I think, this year. Then there are extra bank holidays. It is the employer who must pay for all of that. It is grand for the State to announce a rise in the minimum wage, but it is the employer who is paying it. When that goes up, all the other wages have to go up. I am concerned about the fact that the State is not paying in at the same level. It is the employer who will finish up paying the 6% himself if he has the employee for ten years, and he will be paying the employees as well. The State will still only pay 0.5%. I do not think there is any great deal in that. I am very worried about it. The employer will finish up paying it all. Will this be run by the State? Is it going to create more work for the employer's accountant? If his wife is at it, there is more red tape involved. There is more work in it and more responsibility. I am worried about it. I am getting it in the neck already from employers that there is no one speaking up for them in this House. Everyone seems to be looked after except the employer. There is a big thing happening now called the work-life balance. It is hitting farmers and everyone else. If you are working five days hard on the road, whether it is plastering, carpentry, mechanics or whatever, there is another day's work in organising the next week, paying the lads, having everything in order and sending out the bills. People will be aware that they have the responsibility of employing lads and trying to keep them going. You are paying the worker because you are ensuring that his family, his children and everyone else is looked after. The responsibility for all of that is on the employer's shoulders. I know what it is. I have been employing people since the very first day. Friday evening comes very quick, and it is all included. Young fellows are looking at each other now. They see the fellow who is going off to college and getting a better job, whether it is for the Department or whomever. He works maybe a half day on a Friday and is home early in the evening. The poor farmer's son cannot go home. He must milk the cows, and the cows will have to be milked on Saturday and on Sunday. If one of them is calving, God help us, he cannot leave at all until the calf is born, whether that is at 2 a.m., 3 a.m., 5 a.m. or 6 a.m., and he is alone. We need to look at what is happening more closely. The young fellows of today are able to size the work-life balance up for themselves. They will not be sweating or perishing from cold in the middle of the night; they and their friends will be out at a dance or in the Gleneagles or down the town in Killarney in Scotts, the Tatler Jack or wherever. At the same time, poor Johnny will be at home waiting for the cow to calve and there will be no one to give him a hand. These things need to be recognised. It is fine, but it is God's gospel truth that we need to be more careful when it comes to our employers.

I cannot follow that. I do not know if there is any farm relief in Kerry. I know they will not be there to calve the cows. If you had twins in, God help us altogether. I am delighted to be able to speak on this Bill. I have concerns. I have to declare that I am a board member of a business that employs a considerable number of people. There are not enough of us employers in this Chamber. I know the Ceann Comhairle is an employer. Deputy Healy-Rae has been an employer for a long time and I have been one since 1982. There are not enough of us. If there were, this legislation would not be coming through in droves and heaps - involving health and safety and everything else - without a fair and reasonable assessment as to the impact it will have on employers. I am all for a fair day's wages for a fair day's work, and we have great employees and a great relationship. I salute them. Without them, my company and Deputy Healy-Rae's company would not function. We have to have fairness and some consideration for the small employers. They are the backbone of the country. I have heard some comments here, and I fully agree with them. The small man has no organisation to represent him. Small businesses have to organise all the work and make sure the money is in the bank to pay. It used to be Friday evening but now it is Wednesday with bank transfers. It is so important in rural Ireland especially and in urban Ireland that small businesses are supported. Ní neart go cur le chéile. Tá aithne ag an Aire ar an seanfhocal sin. It is so important. We are all in this together. This auto-enrolment is disgraceful, it sounds great but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We are heading towards Christmas. Hopefully we will have a bit of Christmas pudding and a bit of custard. The pain of this is that, while it might start small, it goes incrementally up every year. The penalties are €50,000 and jail. Every letter that businesses get now from Revenue lists the jail term at the end. That is fine for the rogues and the people who have to deal with CAB and all but not for the ordinary business person who is working hard and managing one employee or five, ten, 15, 20, 30 or 40 employees. Enterprise Ireland, IBEC and other entities will not talk to you unless you have 50 or more employees. That is a lot of money of a Wednesday. Then there is the PRSI and the insurance schemes and all that goes with that. Deputy Healy-Rae alluded to the new paternity leave and the domestic leave now as well. They are all grand; some of them are needed. Some people need them and I am not saying they do not. However, they all have a cumulative, huge impact on the employer and on the employer's ability to stay going and keep the ship afloat. There are insurance costs, electricity costs, oil costs and carbon tax, that cursed thing. Carbon tax is the biggest fake that was ever imposed by this House. We have not been able to debate it for ten years. It is just added every year to the budget as a measure that comes in. Then we find out, when I asked the Taoiseach about the couple of hundred million - €680 million, I think - that it did not go into where it was supposed to go at all. No, it is gone off in a piggy bank for some other nice lucrative schemes. I met people today talking about the CPOs. I am sorry for diverging a small bit here but I am sick to the teeth of all these grand active travel schemes and we cannot get a shilling to fix a bridge, maintain a road or take out a bad bend. Engineers in Waterford County Council and Tipperary County Council are telling me this. There is money for active travel, for tomfoolery schemes such as putting cycle lanes along a couple of hundred yards of a road like they have done in my area-----

Hear, hear.

They start here and finish there and go nowhere. We can have cycling and walking lanes and we cannot have money to improve low-cost accident schemes and very important life-saving measures. They showed me a cantilevered part of that greenway today. It was in the Minister's own county, I think. I could be wrong. It may be Galway. They were putting in this massive cantilevered walkway costing billions, not millions. They obviously had money for this if they were proposing it. I am sure the architects have got millions already to design it. We have a bridge in Ardfinnan that is closed with a one-way system for the last 12 to 13 years and we have to have more consultants reports, with the money we have spent on it. Now we have a lovely design for a stand-alone footbridge but it is going to cost €7.5 million. If we spent €2 million on the bridge the first day, it would have been repaired. I hate saying this but I have said it many times. The night of the flood I was on the bridge or beside it. They closed the bridge for the fear. It is a pity it did not go in the flood that night because we would have had a new bridge long ago. I diverted a small bit there but the cumulative impact of all these grandiose schemes is that you have money for things that you do not need at all. The cost burden on employers will include mandatory contributions starting at 1.5% gross salary, rising to 6% over ten years. SMEs operating on tight margins are going to be crucified and that is the simple fact of it. They are only barely surviving. They are nearly under water as it is, with so many increased costs. The administrative complexity highlights ongoing compliance requirements such as monitoring employee eligibility, managing opt-outs and non-enrolments, and updating payroll systems. Who is going to do that in a small business? Is mo bhean chéile a dhéanann é sin sa ghnó atá againne. The bean chéiles are worn out and tired. We do not have the staff like they do in the Departments, the county councils or wherever to pass the work on to this, that or the other secretary. It is a single man and a woman running a business on their own and they are nearly fatigued with the amount of red tape and a lot of baloney that is coming down on top of them. I have no truck for anyone who does not want to have insurance and does not look after their workers and make sure of their health and safety but bucketloads are being fired at them and a lot of it is nonsensical. An awful lot of it is nonsensical but it is making good jobs for the gang, the new brigade we have going around, such as the fellas from the health and safety office and all these inspectors. Most of them could not drive a machine if you gave them the whole of Ireland and yet they can tell you how to drive and operate it safely. It is pure nonsense. I have spoken in the House about the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, many times. That should be changed to a supporting organisation, especially after the last recession. We had a bit of a boom but now we have tightened up seriously again and are heading into very dark times and choppy waters. NERA should be changed to a national employers support because if we do not have employers, we will not have the jobs. It is as simple as it gets dark this evening at 5 o'clock and it will be daylight in the morning at 7.30 a.m. or 7 o'clock. It is as simple as that. We are not going to have those employers if we do not nurture and mind them. We have not nurtured them for decades. We have put more paperwork on top of them. We are smothered with it. It is paperwork after paperwork. I mentioned earlier about IBEC and organisations like that. IBEC has said it supports the principle of the auto-enrolment - of course it does - but emphasises the need for alignment with other cost pressures. That is what I am talking about: the costs. It could not be coming in at a worse time than now because things are very tight. Margins are very tight because there is no record or account of the insurance costs or the claims. We have talked about reports. Goodness knows, we have offices and agencies now for everything. Useless, toothless and fruitless is what I call all these bodies that are supposed to be looking after the costs to protect the consumers. They are not protecting the consumers; they are fattening themselves. They have the brass plaque up on the wall, the nice office furniture, a big office chair, a fine big job and a team under them. They are costing a fortune. NERA has six offices all over the country. It has the finest of offices. There are many others. We know about all the NGOs that are milking this country and leaving it high and dry but it is the same with these so-called watchdogs that we are setting up. There are so many and we would set up another. The Taoiseach has set up more investigations, organisations and everything else than he has had hot dinners during his time as Minister and as Taoiseach and they are doing nothing only pushing paper. The vast majority of them, as I said, are not fit for purpose. They are jobs for the boys, most of them retired people from here or the Civil Service. They are persecuting people who are the enablers, who want to get the work done, who want to employ themselves first and then employ others and grow their businesses. These are people with good relationships with their employees. They do not want to be lectured and told what to do with legislation after legislation without any pre-legislative scrutiny. Even if we had that here, and this is a criticism of my colleagues, there are not enough self-employed people in this House. They do not have the time nor the energy to go for it because they are too busy working. We have plenty solicitors, barristers, some doctors and whatever else - professional people - but we do not have any self-employed people. This is a sign we are out of kilter with the ordinary working small businesses. If you are out of kilter with the small business people, you are out of kilter with their employees. If you push them out of existence, we will have people on the social welfare. Where will that get us? What I am saying here is ten or maybe 15 years too late. It has just gone beyond a joke. In the name of dead generations and the future generations, we should cry "Halt" here, look at what we are doing to employers and see if can we support them rather than persecute them.

We now come to the end of the debate with the Minister's closing speech.

Gabhaim buíochas le gach Teachta as a gcuid óráidí anocht. Bhí turas suimiúil againn. Ní coimirce sóisialaí amháin a phléamar. Bhí muid ag caint faoi dhroichid, faoi bheithígh agus faoi gach rud. Gabhaim buíochas le gach Teachta a chur suim sa díospóireacht agus a thug am don ábhar tábhachtach seo. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach a rá go bhfuil €28.9 billiún le caitheamh ar chúrsaí coimirce sóisialaí sa chéad bliain eile. We will be spending €28.9 billion in the Department of Social Protection in 2026, which includes €1.15 billion in new measures. That is a record amount and a record investment in families, in communities and in people across the country. I said in opening the debate that we had prioritised resources and concentrated on a number of areas. A number of Deputies have raised the whole area of child poverty but we have provided the largest ever increases in the rates of child support payments, which are specifically targeted at people on social protection and on the lowest incomes. We have increased the threshold for the working family payment. We have increased the domiciliary care allowance, DCA. I have also applied extra resources to addressing appeals in DCA this year to try to get as quick a response as possible. Among all of the social protection budget measures, the €10 is in excess of this year's inflation rate. I accept that there is grocery inflation and energy inflation and that is why we have done targeted measures in extending the fuel allowance to those on the working family payment and also making changes to the fuel allowance for those people on disability. Therefore, there have been very targeted measures on this occasion and they are not one-off. They are permanent, targeted payments that will assist people and families. I will try to deal with some of the issues that were in the remit of the Bill. I will not get to them all. We will have the chance to discuss them at parliamentary questions tomorrow and at committee next week. Deputy O'Reilly and a number of Deputies raised the issue of jobseeker's pay-related benefit. Budget 2026 does not provide for a change in jobseeker's pay-related benefit because it is a new scheme and I needed to go through an annual cycle to see the impact on workers, as the Deputy predicted I would say.

I am doing the lotto tonight.

We are having that impact. We are also looking at a pay-related approach in a number of other areas. The increases in PRSI that are contained in the PRSI roadmap are to address the future sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund, as well as pay-related benefit schemes. I remind the House that we are paying up to €450 per week to recipients under this scheme, which is €200 more than jobseekers' payments. I recognise that many Deputies raised the cost of disability. We are committed in the programme for Government to introducing a permanent and annual cost-of-disability support payment. We have started the work on that not only within our Department but through the Taoiseach's Department, the disability programme office and the Cabinet committee on disability. We have set up within our Department a strategic, focused network on the cost of disability and have begun our engagements with the disability groups as to what a cost-of-disability payment might look like, who should get it and the various issues that need to go into it. I have asked my officials to have that work completed ahead of next year's budget. It is complex and there is a lot of work involved in it, but I am confident that I will be in a position to bring a proposal to the Government ahead of next year's budget. Deputy O'Reilly and, I think, virtually every other Deputy raised the carer's allowance. The full cost of abolishing the means test for the carer's allowance is €600 million. We will deliver that over the lifetime of this Government. From next July, a household on an income of €104,000 will be able to claim a full social welfare payment for carer's allowance. That is the first time that level of income can qualify for a social welfare payment. We will closely monitor the inflows arising because many people may make a decision now to seek carer's allowance. I may have a chance to discuss this again in the morning and in committee in detail next week on Committee Stage. I have dealt with child poverty. To respond to Deputy Hayes, the ESRI in its post-budget analysis stated that there will be a decrease in the rate of child poverty as a consequence of the budget measures, in particular the child support payment. That will not come through for another two years in terms of the figures being measured, but I think it pretty much will show that. Deputy Healy spoke of the cliff edge for people with disabilities who lose secondary benefits, as did Deputy Boyd Barrett. It is good to have the latter back in the Chamber and to see him in fighting form. In budget 2026 we ensured that those with disabilities can retain their fuel allowance payment for five years after taking up work. We have also extended the back-to-work family dividend to people on disability allowance in order that they can keep their child support payment for up to four children for a full year and 50% for the second year. Deputy Stanley raised quite a number of issues around auto-enrolment, which I will move on to now. There has been a lot of debate about auto-enrolment in this House over recent years. With the greatest of respect, while Deputies come in and say they know nothing about it, there have been many opportunities to discuss it and to share the information. In particular, since I have come into office, I have provided briefings, audiovisual room hearings and updates on it. As regards the specific areas, Deputy O'Reilly raised the issue in relation to the NTMA. There are a number of reasons the NTMA is not the best institution to manage retirement savings funds through the automatic enrolment system. First, the NTMA manages State money. It does not, in our opinion, have the systems, the knowledge or the processes to manage up to 750,000 individual savings. This is a key part of auto-enrolment. It is not State money; it is the money of everybody who has enrolled. That is one thing. The NTMA does not have the skills to do that. Second, we wanted a dedicated expert function through NAERSA to manage AE and to give confidence to people whose future is dependent on the success of it. NAERSA is making the independent choices in that regard. The NTMA also reports to different Departments. In terms of efficiency, it is important that NAERSA reports to my Department. The NTMA invests State money in the international stock market. It uses commercial investment managers from private industry to do that, which is what NAERSA will do with people's retirement savings. I welcome Deputy Hayes's acknowledgement of the increased supervision within the Bill. In relation to the funding for community and voluntary groups, my Department has been quite proactive in advising other Departments, including the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, about this issue throughout 2025 and about all the money that is necessary. We have also engaged with employers and have had extensive engagement across the system in relation to automatic enrolment since our straw man public consultation in 2018. We have made every effort over recent years to ensure that people knew that this was due to be enacted. It was due to be enacted from September of this year, and there was quite a lot of coverage earlier this year when we extended it to January. There has therefore been a substantial lead-in period. It is not just for the community and voluntary groups; it is for businesses small and large. We stacked the contributions deliberately to assist people, not just savers but also businesses, in stepping it up such that it is a phased in approach and they can prepare further contributions. We will continue on the basis of this evening's debate to remind my colleagues in the Government - I will do so formally again - of the fact that we will start this on 1 January and that they should make provision for it and should make information available. In relation to Deputy O'Donoghue's point about older people in automatic enrolment, the system has been designed to be simple and for people to understand it. Every €3 a person puts in, the employer puts in another €3 and the State tops up by €1, so that €3 becomes €7. It is a significant carrot. Your €3 becomes €7 regardless of your age. I once again emphasise the point that the contributory pension and the non-contributory pension remain as the bedrock of our State pension system. For somebody who is on the average industrial wage, which is around €46,000 at the moment, when you drop to €16,000, it is a huge drop for the 750,000 to 800,000 people who have no other plans in place. Auto-enrolment will not make up the entire gap; it will make up a significant gap and make a big difference. In terms of the assessments of AE, we have published a macro and a microeconomic assessment, the SME test around automatic enrolment and the poverty test around automatic enrolment. I am not sure whether it was a mistake on Deputy Hayes's part but he mentioned that an employee could be down €300 to €1,200 a month after being enrolled in My Future Fund. I do not think so.

I meant a year. Sorry.

It is a year. If it were a month, that would be gross earnings of €20,000 to €80,000 a month, so I presume he is talking about annual contributions. That €300 becomes €700 for the participant after the employer and the State contribution. That is put aside for their future. Deputy Stanley spoke of the exclusion of people earning under €20,000 from AE and the exclusion of part-time workers. It is possible for those workers to opt in. The reason they were not being automatically enrolled is affordability. If they have a number of part-time jobs that reach the threshold, they can choose to be enrolled. I thank all the Deputies. We will have Committee Stage next week and we will have further engagement. I once again emphasise that I can make any officials available - and I commend Deputy O'Reilly, who has taken up this offer on several occasions - to brief on automatic enrolment. It is a major step change, but the officials in my Department have been more than generous with their time and expertise. I encourage every party to follow Deputy O'Reilly's proactivity in this space. We will brief them. They might not like the answers but we will absolutely give them the information. I commend the Bill to the House.