Item 5 on the agenda is further scrutiny of the COM (2025) 842 proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the European Council amending directives EU 2016/2341 and 2016/97 as regards to strengthening the framework for occupational retirement provision. We have officials from the Department of Social Protection and the Pensions Authority with us today.

I will read a note of privilege and housekeeping matters before we begin. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make any charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that could be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to a identifiable person or entity they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings, they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. This is due to the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I ask any members participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm they are on the ground to the Leinster House complex if they wish to contribute to the meeting. I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or in silent mode.

Today's meeting concerns discussion on the European Union proposal regarding the strengthening of the framework for occupational retirement provision. The proposals form part of a wider effort to boost the pan-European pension market and boost supplementary pensions. The proposal is also linked to a wider strategy to encourage European citizens to invest more of their savings as part of the saving and investment union initiative.

At the outset of the meeting I thank you all for attending today to discuss this important subject. As a committee we have previously examined the review of the pan-European pension product including a meeting with the president of the European Court of Auditors on the matter. We look forward to engaging with you and gaining the insights into the Commission's proposal and its potential impact and implications for pensions. With that in mind, I welcome the following witnesses to the meeting this morning: from the Department of Social Protection, Mr Colum Walsh, principal officer, Mr Conor Dunne, assistant principal officer, and Ms Siobhan Doyle, administrative officer; and from the Pensions Authority, Mr Brendan Kennedy, pensions regulator and chief executive officer, and Mr Andrew Nugent, director of supervision, policy and legal.

I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the European Commission's proposal to amend the IORP directive. Institutions for occupational retirement provision, IORPs, are effectively private, normally pre-funded, supplementary pension plans linked to an employment relationship. In Ireland, IORPs are generally trust-based occupational pension schemes which are registered with the Pensions Authority and regulated under the Pensions Act.

The first IORP directive was published in 2003 and implemented in Ireland in September 2005 by amendment of the Pensions Act and by the introduction of a number of new regulations under that Act. In 2016, the IORP 2 directive was published and provided for a range of new governance and information requirements for pension schemes. The directive also included provisions to enhance the powers of competent authorities for effective supervision of occupational pension schemes. The IORP 2 directive was transposed into Irish law by regulations made under section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 by the then Minister for Social Protection in April 2021.

As minimum harmonisation measures, these directives aim to set minimum standards for IORPs in recognition of the fact that the legal systems in some member states have already set higher standards but also in recognition of the diverse nature of occupational pension provision across the EU.

As the Cathaoirleach mentioned, in November 2025, following a consultation process, the Commission announced a package of measures - a supplementary pension package - designed to help citizens secure adequate income in retirement by improving access to better and more effective supplementary pensions. The package of measures forms part of the Commission’s savings and investments union strategy, which is designed to make EU savings work more effectively for long-term growth and prosperity and includes proposed legislative amendments to the IORP II directive and the pan-European personal pension product, PEPP, regulation. These proposed reforms seek to raise standards across the supplementary pensions landscape, fostering greater value, increased resilience and long-term security for members. In addition to these proposed legislative amendments, the package of measures proposed by the Commission recommends that member states implement auto-enrolment, something Ireland has done since January of this year, further develop comprehensive pension tracking systems and develop national pension dashboards.

As the focus of the discussion today is on the suggested revision of the IORP II directive, I will set out, at a very high level, some of the proposed amending measures in the text. The text proposes enhanced system governance and risk management for IORPs, which includes having an effective mechanism for managing conflicts of interest within the IORP and its providers and having a compliance function in place. It seeks to strengthen the supervision of IORPs by introducing a supervisory dialogue between competent authorities, such as the Pensions Authority, and IORPs, and enhancing the supervisory powers of the Pensions Authority and other competent authorities. It proposes the implementation of an authorisation process requiring IORPs to undergo a prudential assessment and prepare a business plan before they can begin operating. It sets out the need for certain IORPs to carry out stress testing every three years against different economic scenarios. It proposes that IORPs appoint a depositary for the safekeeping of assets. It seeks to introduce new rules for the approval of domestic transfers where assets are moving from one IORP to another within the same member state. It contains proposals for enhanced transparency and information disclosure to scheme members and beneficiaries, including information on past investment performance and cost. It provides for clarification of the prudent person principle, the rule that underlines the investment approach for those running the IORP. It also includes proposals for improvements in complaint handling, discretion for IORPs to provide personal pension products and additional measures to encourage cross-border activity. Finally, there are a number of other consequential changes arising, which are contained in the text.

The Commission’s view is that the supplementary pension package is aimed at promoting stronger and more sustainable retirement savings outcomes for beneficiaries, enhancing transparency regarding both costs and returns and strengthening risk management practices across supplementary pension schemes. The Department broadly supports this general view and the purpose of the proposed measures but recognises the detailed and extensive nature of them. Accordingly, they will require careful scrutiny, as with the committee here today, and some consultation. In that regard, the Department has engaged with the Pensions Authority, which is the competent authority in Ireland, in order to evaluate the impact for all stakeholders, including trustees, occupational pension schemes themselves, pension savers and the Pensions Authority itself.

The impact on those who are members of pensions arrangements to which the proposals will apply should be positive, given that the proposals are aimed at promoting stronger and more sustainable retirement savings outcomes for beneficiaries, enhancing transparency regarding both costs and returns, and strengthening risk management practices across supplementary pension schemes. This will need to be balanced against any additional workloads that could be imposed on pension schemes and any additional costs arising therefrom.

The extent of the impact of any finalised agreed measures on stakeholders in Ireland depends on whether those measures are optional and if those options are exercised by Ireland, and if the measures build on existing requirements or represent new requirements for IORPs.

The proposals to amend the IORP directive will have to be negotiated and agreed by the European Parliament and the Council. Departmental officials are currently participating in Council working party meetings at EU level under the Cypriot Presidency where the proposed amendments are subject to extensive ongoing deliberations among member states and the Commission. The European Parliament has begun its process of scrutinising the proposal. The Department is continuing to assess the implications as these discussions progress. It should be noted that Ireland will be leading on the Council’s response to these proposals during the upcoming Presidency of the Council. Any finalised proposals will amend the EU directive and, therefore, will require implementation into Irish domestic law with likely amendments to the Pensions Act and relevant regulations made under that Act.

I hope that I have a provided the committee with a broad overview of the context of the proposed amendments to the IORPs directive. We look forward to hearing the views of the committee members and are, of course, happy to assist with any questions.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss these proposals to amend the IORP II directive.

It may help if I outline the role of the Pensions Authority. We are a statutory body that was set up under the Pensions Act 1990. Our responsibilities include supervising the compliance with the requirements of the Act by trustees of occupational pension schemes and trust retirement annuity contracts, personal retirement savings account providers, registered administrators and employers. We investigate suspected breaches of the Act and conduct on-site inspections and compliance audits. We instigate prosecutions and other sanctions where breaches of the Act are found to have occurred. We prepare an annual supervisory report on the function of National Automatic Enrolment Savings Authority and its board on their functions. We provide policy advice and technical support to the work of the Minister and Department of Social Protection. We provide relevant information and guidance to the public and those involved with pensions. We deal with inquiries received from scheme members, trustees, employers, the pensions industry, the media and the general public.

Turning to the matter of proposals from the European Commission on these IORP II amendments, we welcome the attention being given to this important matter by the committee this morning. As Mr. Walsh said, the IORP II directive was transposed into Irish law in April 2021. This transposition was applied to all funded occupational pension schemes in Ireland, with those single-member pension schemes that existed at that point being given a five-year derogation from complying with the directive. This derogation will cease on 21 April, which is next week.

The transposition of the IORP II directive has contributed to very significant changes in the Irish occupational pensions landscape. These include the increasing importance of master trust schemes. These would be pension schemes that are just not for one employer but for a large number of employers. The assets of master trusts have increased from around €3 billion just before the transposition in 2021 to over €43 billion in January 2026. There has been a very significant reduction in the number of new pension schemes being created. Before the transposition of the directive, there was an average of 14,000 new pension schemes created every year. That is down to a handful today. The Pensions Authority has adopted a forward-looking risk basis for supervision, focusing on good member outcomes and not just on technical non-compliance with the Pensions Act. These changes are very significant, and we in the authority have welcomed the consolidation that has occurred among the number of pension schemes and are supportive of further consolidation as the five-year derogation comes to an end.

There are further changes coming to the pensions environment. The most significant change on the horizon is pension scheme authorisation. The Government, including the Minister for Social Protection, has indicated its commitment to legislate for a system of authorisation for all existing and new pension schemes. We in the authority have assisted the Department with this initiative and we welcome its introduction.

To turn to the IORP II directive changes, it might assist the committee to understand that the Pensions Authority does not have a direct role in the development of this policy. It is a matter for the Government. We in the authority have given and will continue to give technical assistance to officials in the Department of Social Protection while the proposals are progressing. While it is not appropriate for the authority to comment directly on the policy choices made to date or those that are to come, we are, of course, available to assist the committee in any way we can.

I thank Mr. Kennedy very much. That concludes the opening statements. I now invite members to discuss. I remind members participating remotely to use the "raise hand" feature if they are online and to cancel it when they have spoken.

I thank everyone for coming in. How easy is it for self-employed people and people who might have been abroad to build up stamps, buy back years and qualify for a contributory pension? Am I correct that self-employed people find it harder to get into these schemes?

We will discuss that subject in the next session.

All right.

The Deputy is always ahead of himself. Does he have any questions on EU legislation for the Department and the Pensions Authority?

Go ahead and I will come back in.

I call Senator O'Reilly.

I am not too familiar with what has been outlined but I have a few cases and I am not sure if it is the witnesses that I need to ask about them. I am aware of employees who were encouraged by their companies to go on a certain rate of tax but it turned out that it was not a good rate of tax for retirement and pension purposes.

Mr. Kennedy said that the Pensions Authority investigates breaches of the Act. Will he give some examples of what that looks like? How many cases have been prosecuted to date? How many cases await prosecution? How many cases are there per year or on the whole?

We investigate many cases. The number that end up in prosecutions where we end up in court is typically very low. It varies from year to year. Typically, it is as low as three or four but that does not mean we only investigate that number of cases. Where anybody has a concern that there may be an issue with their pension fund, that they may not be given what they are entitled to or any kind of issue like that, we would welcome them coming to us. Almost always what happens is we are able to resolve it without it going all the way to prosecution. If the Senator has specific cases, maybe she could contact us directly and we could help to address the specific details. It is very difficult to give generalised advice. We do have a regular stream of people coming to us who have queries or concerns that they are not getting their rights.

Has the Pensions Authority come across a situation where a large company may have advised its employees to choose a certain rate of tax and when it comes to pension entitlements, it turns out that the employees are entitled to a very small pension or a smaller pension than if they were on the normal rate of tax?

To be fair, Senator and all members, we are scrutinising COM (2025) 842, which is a proposal by the European Parliament and the Council. I urge members to confine their questions to that proposal.

I know. Is it the Pensions Authority that investigates such cases?

Perhaps I will answer. I am not aware of the scenarios the Senator has set out. It would be useful if she advised the Pensions Authority or the Department about them. Please bear in mind that if it is a tax issue, it will fall to the Revenue Commissioners or the Department of Finance. If the Senator can get the specifics to us, we will engage with our colleagues in the Department of Finance, if she so wishes. I am struggling to understand how someone can choose the level of tax to be placed on, does the Senator know what I mean? It would be helpful, if she has details, to send them on to us.

Mr. Walsh mentioned that there are three measures. In addition to the proposed legislative measures, a package of measures is proposed by the Commission. The first measure proposed the implementation of auto-enrolment, which is done. We have heard an explanation here and held a couple of briefings on that. Please go into further detail on other two: the comprehensive pension tracking system and dashboards.

The pension tracking system would help individuals to track their individual pension pots. For some individuals, if they have worked in various employments over their career, they may have a pension pot with employers A, B, C and D. This mechanism will help people to track and trace, and see where those pensions are.

In Ireland at the moment, we have very limited pension tracking. The Department offers a host mailing service. We will help trustees of pension schemes to try to get in touch with individuals to trace where their pot is, if they are holding a pot for them.

Separately, there is the interdepartmental pensions reform and taxation group. That has been in place since the roadmap for pensions reform. There have been discussions within that group around how we can facilitate putting in place a pension tracking system. It is something that is good. We do not have one in place at the moment. The Commission recommends it rather than mandates it. The Commission will probably, in its oversight of these recommendations, will look to Ireland and ask what is being done to implement this. It is something that we may return to the committee with at a future stage but there is no work in progress other than considering it at the moment.

The pensions dashboard piece is about assisting policymakers to understand how the pensions landscape looks more broadly. At the moment we have pillar I, which is the State pension; pillar 2 is supplementary pensions, which is what the IORP piece if part of; and pillar 3, which is personal pensions and PRSAs, which are the main two here. It is about policy development, like ourselves within government, to be able to look at how all that fits together, and how we are ensuring that people are saving adequately for retirement. There is a piece around the State pension but then there is a supplementary pension piece. We must also understand the data and the impacts of the data in terms of changing demographics. That is what those three proposals are. Again, that is a recommendation. It is something the Commission will keep an eye on. We will also have to look at how we develop and interface all that. At the moment we have the State pension, occupational pensions, auto-enrolment and personal pensions. The objective is to get a map of all of those together.

My next questions are for the Pensions Authority. What are the potential supervisory implications?

There are two parts to that answer. The Government's proposals for authorisation are very much aligned with many of the Commission's proposals. If that authorisation legislation is introduced, it will move us in the direction that the Commission is proposing in any case.

The other issue is, in particular, the proposal for what they call a supervisory conversation. This is an engagement by the Pensions Authority every three years with each pension scheme, going into quite considerable detail about how the scheme is run and how it is providing for its members. That is a very good proposal but there are potential implications for resources, for the Pensions Authority but also for that consolidation that is happening, which I referred to in my opening statement, and the number of pension schemes in Ireland. If there is a very large number of pension schemes, it is very difficult to have that very close engagement. It would have implications for further consolidation of the pensions sector. As with so many proposals, we have to wait to see the details of that. Overall, the direction of travel of the Commission's proposals is very much aligned with the direction of travel of the supervision of Irish pensions over the past five or six years.

Is the IORP review timely and warranted? What will change in terms of the Pensions Authority? What are the main impacts for Ireland?

If the proposals are broadly adopted, a significant question will be how much time will be allowed for member states to introduce them. That is a matter for the ongoing negotiations.

There would certainly need to be a reasonable lead-in period of a number of years to allow for these. If the authorisation legislation is introduced in, say, 2027, the alignment of the timing of the authorisation legislation and the Commission proposals would work out very well and very conveniently.

Mr. Kennedy mentioned in his statement that it was transposed into Irish law in April 2021 and has had a five-year derogation from the compliance directive. That will come up very quickly. Will he explain how many pensions are involved, what schemes are involved and give a bit more detail?

I am happy to do so. The best number to start with is that in 2021 and 2022 in Ireland, there were over 160,000 funded pension schemes. Once Brexit had taken place, more than 95% of all the pension schemes in the EU were in Ireland. We are very unusual in that many pension schemes have just one member. The IORP 2 directive brought in new obligations for how pension schemes are run, with a lot more formality in how they are run and in the responsibilities of the trustees and their compliance obligations, in that they have to appoint risk function holders, appoint internal audit and so on. The impact of the IORP 2 directive was that it became no longer practical for the great majority of single member pension schemes to function.

The Chair may remember my reference to master trusts, which is one pension scheme catering for a big number of employers. That pension scheme undertakes those responsibilities centrally. What has been happening since 2021 is that, first, the master trusts had to be set up and organised, and then there has been this process whereby the pensions sector has been moving a very large number of pension schemes, transferring their assets and transferring their ongoing contributions into master trusts. That is a very labour-intensive process. We have made significant progress, but there is still work to do. The deadline next week is an important milestone. We expect that in the long term, the number of pension schemes in Ireland will reduce to as low as 500 or 600.

Where are we at now, roughly?

We are below 80,000, but we expect that number to fall quite rapidly this year. There were a number of obstacles in the way that have now been cleared. We have been informed by a number of the largest pensions administration companies that they are about to transfer a number of thousands of pension schemes into master trusts. We are still on a road, but the progress is increasing rapidly. It will be a number of years before we get to the final number, not least because some of these pension schemes are 20 or 30 years old, and there has been no activity in those schemes in those years. The practicality of getting in contact with them is a problem in some cases. It is important to emphasise how much change there has been, and how much is still going on, in Irish pensions. The proposals being made by the Commission are not to be treated lightly, but they are not as great as the changes that were brought about by the IORP 2 directive in 2021.

I thank the witnesses for attending. I apologise for being late, and I also apologise for being very croaky, as people can hear.

My question is for Mr. Walsh. I welcome the dashboard and the tracking system. Sometimes, when you hit a certain age, it all becomes relevant. However, in the age of technology, maybe it should be more relevant earlier, and that relevance could come through either the dashboard or the tracking system. Young people are very financially aware nowadays, and maybe we need to be speaking to them earlier. What would it cost, from a departmental point of view, for the exploratory works that would be required to start that development?

The short answer is that I do not know what the cost would be. What we have looked at thus far is where we would need to start pulling the material from. The Senator made a very valid point, which is that the earlier you understand what your pension implications are, the better the decisions you can make. That is part of this. It is about helping people to be able to make better decisions.

What we have looked in the high-level discussions thus far relates to the key stakeholders, for example, industry. Given what we have seen in some countries, there is no “one-size-fits-all” to this, which is interesting. Some countries will operate on the basis of an industry-led platform, where they hold all the information and share it, others will use state-backed resources, and others will use a combination of both. From our perspective, it is about starting that process. We will work with our colleagues in the Department of Finance on that as well. However, I cannot say what it will cost because what the Senator is looking for is whether we would set up an administrative body that runs it, whether we would put in place the IT systems and structures, would we then have a staffing issue, and all of those issues. There are a few hurdles to go. We have begun the discussions at a high level and the Commission recommendation will take us further on that.

When people hit the age of 55, they realise they have the opportunity to put in more, but at that stage of life, they probably cannot afford to put in more because their kids are students by then. The best years to invest are when people are in their early 20s because it has a longer term to run within the pot. It is about how we can tell that story, but also encourage people. No matter how small it is in their early 20s, the longer it has to run, the better the outcome. When we look at the pension pots in America, they have a value, and that can be brought up on a screen. We cannot do that. That level of transparency would be encouraging. There is a wider conversation taking place at the moment, even within government, about savings and investments but there is an avenue there. Given the ageing population in Ireland, we will not be able to afford to live and the State pension will not be able to support people.

There is one other thing to say. Auto-enrolment is doing that. It has the app available, and people can see it. It has a system that will allow the pot to travel with the person, which is really important. That is a good step, but we have more to do. I take the point about financial literacy and people having an understanding. They can do that better if they can see what their pot is and what they need to do with it.

It is the combination of the pots.

In the proposed amendments, it is good to see that the information to scheme members should include information on past investment performance, which is very important for people. The first point referred to enhanced system governance and risk management, which includes having an effective mechanism for managing conflicts of interest. Can Mr Walsh elaborate on those two points?

The proposal from the Commission is in relation to transparency. There is a document called the pension benefits statement, which members receive. Within the provisions that are being proposed, part of it includes increasing the information that is made available. That is always a challenge because we do not want to overburden people, so that is something we will have to work through. One part is that it will show people the past performance of the scheme over ten years. The second is that it will enhance the level of detail provided on costs and charges so people can understand the impact of those costs on their funds. Another important element of the transparency piece is that the Pensions Authority, as a competent authority, will be required to publish details of the costs and performance, and how all of that is operating within pension schemes, so it gives people an opportunity to be able to understand that.

The second side that the Deputy points to is also important.

Ultimately, pension schemes are investing other people's money so it is about them being responsible, having the appropriate governance in place, making sure their decisions reflect the risks that are proposed to the members, having internal audits and all those functions. This is the type of language we are used to for financial service-type scenarios. It is introducing some of those additional elements into the pension scheme so that members are protected from a compliance and governance point of view and the people who are making the decisions are making the right decisions in the interests of the people whose money they are looking after and trying to grow.

It will be very important in a couple of years when we are looking at auto-enrolment to see how it is progressing.

I have one or two questions. What are the initial thoughts at EU level on this?

The challenge with this, as I said, is it is a minimum harmonisation directive. There are very few of those left but it recognises that each country has its own system. That is a challenge. We are trying to overlay rules and requirements that ultimately may not necessarily fit with our structure versus the structure in France, for example. That is a particular challenge. Also, because it is minimum harmonisation, there will be other member states that are very well advanced in their pension systems, so they will not want what is perceived as dilution there. Member states are coming to this in agreement with the spirit of it but are having to think about their national specifics and how that applies. That is one particular challenge.

The European Parliament had a brief debate on this yesterday. There is a piece around simplification and whether this is adding burden or simplifying. These are legitimate questions about the proposal. Ultimately, it is the interface between the investment piece, growing investments and, at the same time, the protection for individual members. It is worth saying that in a number of member states, one of the issues will be that pensions are very often negotiated between the social partners as opposed to being something that is a private provision. A lot of member states would also be quite precious, rightly so, about that being interfered with. There is probably a bit of road to run on it. The European Commission and Council are very keen to move this quickly but it is technical legislation that will need a good bit of scrutiny and debate between now and when the final measure emerges.

My next question is about the timeframe. Will Mr. Walsh give us an indicative-----

The European Commission and the Council are advocating that this be done by the end of the year. That is very ambitious but we do not stand in the way of ambition. Obviously, with the Presidency, we will be in the Chair for those negotiations so we will be doing our best to move it forward. Once it is adopted, there is usually a lead-in time. Two years is what is proposed in the text as it stands at the moment. We are not looking at something that will be implemented on 1 January next year. It would need a period of time to be implemented. It is going to be a negotiation between the Parliament and the Council and it depends on how that goes. In principle, people get the high-level objectives of this. It is when you get into the technical parts that it can be a bit more challenging.

How will the Commission's saving and investment union link in with this?

The key piece there is around the investments within IORPs or occupational pension schemes. To date, under the two previous IORP directives, there have been discretions allowed for member states where they can decide to put rigid rules on investments. Member states can restrict the types of investments that a pension scheme operates in. What the Commission is seeking to do is to look at those restrictions, ask whether they are valid and right for the scheme being run and whether schemes should be investing in something that may produce a higher return in equities, venture capital or whatever it is. However, to go back to Deputy Burke's piece around risk management and governance, they would then have to ensure that if those running the scheme are making those calls, they are doing so in the best interests of the members. They need to be looking at the profile of their members. If, for example, there are younger members in the scheme, they may be putting those investments into more high-risk areas at that stage, but as they come to people who are about to retire they reduce it down. The idea is that it is a two-parter. It is opening up investments and then those investments being part of what operates within the European structure.

Does Mr. Kennedy wish to comment on that?

As Mr. Walsh said, there are different rules throughout the EU and different attitudes to pension investments. Broadly speaking, the Irish structure for pension investments has always been that the trustees have a duty of care. They have a responsibility to members but there have been no specific restrictions on investment as there are in some other member states. The proposed changes to investments have less direct impact on Irish pension schemes. There is a requirement in any event that trustees make sure they are making the appropriate investments for their members. One of the implications of the IORP II directive was to formalise the way the trustees made those decisions so we, as their supervising authority, can see that they are making sensible decisions and taking the right things into account. That is an ongoing process but I do not think that the new provisions represent as big a change for Ireland as they do for other member states.

Senator Rabbitte has a supplementary question.

Any time EU legislation comes before us that is to be transposed into Irish law, we have a habit in Ireland of gold plating it and putting extra layers on it. We have seen that in numerous Departments, whether it is about bogs or some other issue. That is one of my concerns. When we start gold plating EU legislation it means an extra burden on the employer and the employee and, all of a sudden, we have gone way beyond what might have been the ask. Will Mr. Walsh assure the committee we will not be doing that here?

It will depend on the extent to which we have decisions and discretion. If Ireland has a decision or a discretion, we will be back to the Oireachtas and it will have oversight of that. As an example, to allay the Senator's fears to some extent, when we transposed the IORP II directive, it was simply brought across word for word as required, with some slight amendments, but nothing additional was placed on that. I cannot make a promise because it is about what options are provided for us but in general, because it is minimum harmonisation, our approach is to bring it to the level required. Let us bear in mind we may already have some measures in place that actually go slightly above it. It is swings and roundabouts from that perspective.

I ask that question as a member of the Seanad's EU transposition committee. Sometimes, it is very hard to get Departments to share where they are in moving things through. I welcome the fact that the witnesses are here this morning and that we are having these conversations. It also allays the fears that we, as Oireachtas members, have in doing our job in providing oversight and scrutiny.

As there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses from the Department and the Pensions Authority for coming in today and for providing various briefing materials in advance of the meeting to assist this committee in its deliberations. We will suspend for five minutes to facilitate the exchange of witnesses for the next session.