Vol. 569 No. 5
1 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the amount the recent excursion to a hotel (details supplied) for the Pensions Board cost; if she will provide a copy of the agenda; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18126/03]
The Pensions Board is a statutory body which is financed by fees payable by occupational pension schemes and PRSA providers. The main functions of the board are to supervise the operation of the Pensions Act and to advise on matters relating to pensions generally. The memberships of the board includes representatives of trade unions, employers, the Government, the pensions industry, trustees, consumers and pensioners. The existing board was appointed in December 2000 and published a strategy statement in 2002 covering the period up to 2005, when its term expires.
It was decided some time ago that the board should conduct a mid-term review of its work programme and also a review of its strategy. To facilitate these reviews an away day was held in the hotel in question on 15 and 16 May. Those who attended included members of the Pensions Board, management of the board and officials from my Department involved in the pensions policy area. The meeting was facilitated by a consultant and the main objective was to identify areas of the strategy which needed to be revised.
For a number of years the work of the board has revolved around the implementation of the national pensions policy initiative. The implementation of the provisions of the Pensions (Amendment) Act 2002 is also a critical element in the board's programme of work and a review of progress was an important part of the meeting in question. The board also looked at the external influences affecting pensions when it took office in 2000 and the way these have changed over the past years.
Following on from these reviews, there were wide-ranging discussions on a number of issues in the pensions area. These included: the ability of the system to deliver adequate income for pensioners; the role of trustees in operating schemes; the possible implications for the board of the appointment of the pensions ombudsman and the launch of the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority; and the action required to ensure that PRSAs will be effective in increasing overall pension coverage. The detailed agenda will be provided. I understand from the board that the cost of the away day, including preparatory and follow-up work, was approximately €19,000.
The Pensions Board is active in regulating pensions and developing policy. It is appropriate that, at intervals, it should conduct an in-depth review of its operation and policy thinking. I pay tribute to the commitment of the board and its members for the outstanding contribution they have made to the development and implementation of the legislation in place for the regulation of pension schemes and the protection of pension rights.
I am glad the Minister provided a detailed response because I have been having great difficulty in obtaining responses to parliamentary questions from her. Does she agree that this business of the Pensions Board could have been conducted in her Department? Yesterday, I attended Government Buildings and was never at a more lavish venue. There was nothing wrong with the board conducting its business there. Why did it have to go to Tinakilly House, at a cost of €19,000, at a time when people are finding it difficult to live on their social welfare payments because of recent cost of living increases?
The Minister has overall responsibility for the Pensions Board. Why did she allow it to spend €19,000 on this venture at a time when people are losing home help and are unable to get into hospitals. At a time when all Departments are implementing cutbacks and when social welfare recipients are expected to live on €150 per week, members of the Pensions Board can attend a weekend conference and avail of bed and breakfast accommodation, including meals and golf outings. Can the Minister stand over that?
I am appalled at the amount of money spent by the Pensions Board. The meeting should have been held in Government Buildings. I do not know how the members of the board had time to do their business, given that they were involved in golfing activities and availed of dinners and a free bar. I would be interested to see the conference agenda and to ascertain if members of the board adhered to it.
I regret that the Deputy does not listen nor understand. On three occasions I have indicated where the money comes from.
It is taxpayers' money.
The Deputy should brief himself adequately. I am sure the Pensions Board will facilitate him with its workings and funding mechanism.
Including its members' golf handicaps.
I reiterate that the board is financed by fees payable by the occupational schemes and the PRSA providers, not by my Department. I do not interfere in the work of the board on a day-to-day basis, nor would I anticipate doing so as it is the regulatory authority under the Act. I am accountable only in the way provided by the legislation.
As usual, Deputy Ring reflects on something in his idiosyncratic manner which was inadequately reported in the media. Naturally the reports will not be corrected. I indicated that I would circulate the agenda of the conference. Between 9 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. the board was involved in the review of its strategy for the period 2002-05. This included a consideration of progress reports, the external influences on pensions during 2002, a general discussion on the direction of the board since 2000 and an examination of four specific items, including the question as to whether pensions systems will work, if the focus on trustees is the best way forward and if the advent of the pensions ombudsman will change the occupation of the board.
Who appointed the board?
The Minister appoints the board.
That means the Minister has overall responsibility, which she refuses to accept. The expenditure of €19,000 on the conference was a disgrace when people are hardly able to live.
Perhaps the Deputy should have asked such questions when his party was in Government.
