Seán Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 22: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the progress made with regard to his consideration of the recent report of the National Pensions Review; if it is intended to implement the recommendations contained in the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17374/06]

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 54: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the situation regarding women's access to pensions; the figures for female pension coverage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17676/06]

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 59: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons who have taken out PRSAs at the latest date for which figures are available; the overall proportion of the eligible workforce this represents; his plans to review the scheme in view of the low take up rate to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17375/06]

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 73: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the situation regarding pension coverage for part-time workers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17677/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 54, 59 and 73 together.

The most recent results from the CSO Quarterly National Household Survey (QNHS) show a 0.9% point decline in supplementary pensions coverage from 52.4% of the working population aged 20-69 in quarter 1 of 2004 to 51.5% in the same quarter 2005. The decline is within the margin of error for the survey so the position appears to be that there was little change in the rate of supplementary pensions coverage over the period in question. Workers aged 35 to 44 have the highest rate of coverage at 61.3%.

With regard to PRSAs, the most recent figures from the Pensions Board show that up to the end of March 2006, 73,322 PRSAs had been taken out with a total asset value of EUR522 million. This equates to about 4% of those at work. Pensions coverage for women increased from 46.8% in 2004 to 47.5% in 2005. Even though the coverage rate for men fell between 2004 and 2005 from 56.3% to 54.2%, men continue to have a higher rate of coverage than women. The coverage rate for women is also below the overall average for the workforce as a whole. The reasons for this may be quite varied and could, for instance, include issues such as the interrupted nature of many women's working careers, the disparity in male and female earnings, which may make pensions less affordable for women, and the number of women who work reduced or part-time hours.

Part-time workers have particularly low levels of coverage. Only 4.9% of those working less than 10 hours per week have a pension while the coverage rate for those working 10 to 19 hours per week is 15.3%. That said, part-time workers are fully insured for social welfare pension purposes.

Because of the lower than average coverage rates for women, they are a particular target of the National Pensions Awareness Campaign being run by the Pensions Board on my behalf. In this regard the Pensions Board regularly does promotional work around women's events such as the women's mini marathon and devoted a section of the National Pensions Action Week, which took place last week, to women and pensions.

As the Deputies will be aware, in early 2005 I asked the Pensions Board to bring forward by one year a review of our overall pensions strategy because I considered that on the basis of the progress being made there was little prospect of reaching our targets for pensions coverage in any kind of reasonable timescale. The Pensions Board completed its work in November 2005 and I published the report in January.

The Board has reaffirmed the various targets recommended in the original National Pensions Policy Initiative which included a retirement income, from all sources, of 50% of pre-retirement income, a social welfare pension equating to 34% of average industrial earnings and a supplementary pensions coverage rate of 70% for those aged over 30 years. The Government is already committed to achieving a social welfare pension of €200 per week by 2007 and made further significant progress towards achieving the target in Budget 2006.

The Pensions Board has recommended enhancements to the current voluntary system of supplementary pensions as it considers that it has the potential to deliver significant improvements in coverage. Essentially these suggestions involve using the successful elements of the SSIA system in a pensions context by converting the tax relief provided for personal pensions to a matching contribution.

I have already had discussions with the Minister for Finance on the possibility of implementing the suggestions of the Pensions Board and officials will examine these in more detail in the coming months to determine the practicalities and costs of such a system.

There is no doubt that, with the right incentives, the voluntary system can deliver improved pensions coverage. In this regard, I welcome the measures introduced by the Minister for Finance to provide incentives for those on lower incomes to invest their SSIA savings in pensions.

The extent to which these initiatives are successful in encouraging pensions savings may give some indication of the likely attitude of the public to the more general suggestions made by the Pensions Board in this area. However, no truly voluntary pensions system has delivered the sort of coverage rates for which we are aiming. I have said on many occasions that if we are to achieve our overall targets we may have to consider a more radical approach. In this regard, I have asked the Pensions Board to explore in more detail the ideas for a mandatory or quasi-mandatory system it put forward in its report on the National Pensions Review. As the House may be aware, the ideas explored in the report range from a mandatory system built up on the existing private sector system to a greater role in pensions provision for the PRSI system. I have asked the Pensions Board to suggest and cost a system it considers suitable for Irish conditions and to submit a report to me in the next two months.

The issue of pensions has achieved a very high profile over the last year or so but I think we have yet to have an engaging debate on exactly how we will tackle the difficult questions we face in the years ahead. The Pension Board report challenges us to have that debate and to decide finally the type of retirement we want for our older people and the contribution we will make during our working lives to that future.

As a contribution to that debate, last week I convened a National Pensions Forum to look at the central issues raised in the Review. The Forum was a very successful event which included presentations on international experiences of pension reform together with the views of various stakeholders and interested parties on the way forward for this country. It is clear from the contributions to the Forum that there are very different views out there on how we should proceed. The challenge in the months ahead will be to agree on a set of reforms which will deliver on the objective of an adequate income for all in retirement. The contributions made to the Forum and the further work I have asked the Pensions Board to undertake in the area of mandatory pensions will be important inputs into the decision making process.