7. Deputy Eoin Hayes asked the Minister for Social Protection his views on the progress of the hot school meals programme funded by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15584/26]
Sentiment score: 0.15
First, I want to state my unequivocal support for the hot school meals programme. It is a really important programme. I am glad the Minister is doing it and the Department is funding it. The Minister said on RTÉ Radio 1 last week that a third of school meals were not meeting basic nutritional standards, according to the initial assessment carried out by a dietitian appointed by the Minister's Department. Can the Minister confirm whether his Department is worried that once more thorough assessments, including site visits are completed, the figures of compliance may be dramatically below expectations and when those more comprehensive assessment results will be made available?
Sentiment score: 0.24
I thank the Minister. Some clarity on those guidelines and standards would be very helpful. The Minister mentioned he instructed suppliers to assess certain nutritional values in the meals. This is one of my supplementary questions. The scheme is funded and being evaluated by the Department but my understanding is the contracts are being organised by the schools with the relevant suppliers. What is the role of the Department in the contracting arrangements, for example, if somebody is not living up to the contractual obligations? Does that come to the school or is it something the Department has a role in? What other instructions is the Department able to give? Reliance on private companies more generally can yield benefits in some ways and disadvantages in others. It would be helpful to understand whether there are any plans on how to change that arrangement and get better value for money, better nutritional standards and on the way the Department would like to pursue this.
Sentiment score: 0.25
In the next supplementary reply, I ask for some clarity on contracts and the Department's involvement in contracting with the schools. I note that 400 school meals were evaluated and a third of them did not meet the basic nutritional standards. Somebody told me that they did not meet three of the five guidelines. Will the Minister give a sense of how many met all five of the guidelines that were assessed? He mentioned there were 16 guidelines overall. What is the plan to assess those future guidelines? There are 11 more guidelines to go. Is it possible that nobody is meeting all the standards that the Department has set? How will that be evaluated by the dietitian and by the Department?
Sentiment score: 0.04
Will the Department be publishing the standards and what schools, or what suppliers, have met the standards over time? This may not be in the short term but as it gets up to evaluating all the different schools and standards.
Sentiment score: 0.00
19. Deputy Eoin Hayes asked the Minister for Social Protection to provide the total administration fees that have been paid by participants in the My Future Fund to date, or most recent data available; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15581/26]
Sentiment score: 0.01
I would like an update on the administration fees associated with the My Future Fund being paid by the participants. In particular, I would like a sense of any consideration that has been given to these fees not necessarily being flat fees and applying different rates to different cohorts, proportionate to their income.
Sentiment score: 0.36
I acknowledge the importance of the administration fee. I welcome the fact that a commission was not charged in terms of the fee. There are options when it comes to a flat fee versus a progressive fee. I made a few back-of-the-envelope calculations in respect of this matter, but do not hold me to them. If someone who is 60 years of age and who earns €20,000 per year is auto-enrolled in the scheme, they would spend about 6.36% of their contributions in administration fees over the course of their involvement in the My Future Fund. That is assuming that they are with it the entire time. I also welcome the suspension of administration fees if people are not contributing. That is worthwhile and something that does not happen in the UK, for example. By contrast, someone who is 25 years of age who is making €80,000 a year, and assuming that income stays the same, will spend 0.67% of their contribution on administration fees. There is a wide gap there, from a regressive perspective, on administration fees, depending on your income. If you are younger, you get better returns as you are in there for longer but if you are poorer, they will almost always be a higher proportion of your income.
Sentiment score: 0.15
I join the Minister in that. I want to make sure auto-enrolment is as successful as possible. I am confident the investment side, in terms of the investment fees, has been very well handled. In terms of the value for money, the Minister has got a very good rate for people. On administration fees, and I will send this information to the Minister, it strikes me that people who are on the lower incomes - for example, somebody who is on €20,000 for the rest of their life - will spend approximately 3.24% of their contributions on administration fees. By contrast, someone on €80,000 for the duration of the scheme will spend less than 1% on administration fees. There is a question there. If you are on a lower income, a flat rate will be a higher proportion and that may rob people of that financial security into the future. Will the Minister, or NAERSA, consider changing that administration fee in the future to make it more progressive, so that people who are on lower incomes are spending a less of a proportion of their income on the administration of the fund and that it is similarly progressive for people on higher incomes?
Sentiment score: 0.11