Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 30 Apr 2008

Pensions Board: Role and Functions.

No. 4 on the agenda is the presentation by the Pensions Board on its role and functions. I welcome Mr. Brendan Kennedy, chief executive officer of the board and his colleagues, Mr. Philip Dalton, Ms Yvonne White, Ms Mary Hutch, Mr. David Malone and Mr. Andrew Nugent.

I ask Mr. Kennedy to commence the presentation and to deal with other relevant issues identified by committee members. Before I do that, I wish to draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Brendan Kennedy

I thank the Vice Chairman and the Oireachtas joint committee for this opportunity to brief--

I should have said that I am not Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae and I apologise for that. I apologise for the Chairman's absence. He was anxious to be here but he has important business.

Mr. Brendan Kennedy

The Pensions Board is grateful for the opportunity to make the presentation. Deputy Healy-Rae wrote to ask me to cover four additional points and I have included those in the following statement. The Pensions Board enjoyed a good working relationship with the last Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs and we look forward to maintaining that relationship with the present committee.

In this presentation I offer a brief overview of the work of the board and outline some of the key challenges it faces over the next year. I am happy to answer any questions the committee may have or, alternatively, to come back if there are particular issues members wish discussed. As the committee will know, Ireland is facing important strategic decisions about pensions and the board is happy to assist the committee in any way.

I will begin with some facts about pensions in Ireland. Out of a workforce of 2.1 million, about 55% have some pension coverage in addition to their State pension entitlement. Total pension savings in Ireland are about €90 billion. There are about 100,000 active pension schemes with about 800,000 members. These range from a small number of schemes with more than 5,000 members to more than 75,000 schemes with just one member. In addition, more than 130,000 people contribute to personal retirement savings accounts, PRSAs which represent more than €1.25 billion in assets.

The Pensions Board was established under the provisions of the Pensions Act 1990 as a representative body and comprises a chairperson and 16 ordinary members appointed by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. The board fulfils a number of very important roles in pension matters, including the regulation of occupational pension schemes and PRSAs, advising the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on pensions matters, both at his request and at the board's own initiative, and providing information about pensions and improving awareness of pensions through its annual awareness campaigns.

The work of the board is important to a wide range of people, including pension savers, scheme trustees and those involved with the management and administration of pensions. Through its policy role, the board makes an important contribution to the development and support of pensions in Ireland.

The board published its statement of strategy in 2006, which covers the period to 2010. This statement sets out how the board intends meeting its mission statement objectives which are: to promote the security and protection of members of occupational pension schemes and contributors to PRSAs in accordance with the Pensions Act 1990; to promote the development of efficient national pension structures; to promote a level of participation in the national pension system which enables all citizens to acquire an adequate retirement income; and to provide information and authoritative guidance to relevant parties in support of pension security, structures and participation.

To give members an understanding of the work of the board, it is useful to describe our main activities in 2007. We maintain ongoing supervision of occupational schemes and PRSAs. In that year we introduced on-the-spot fines for certain offences under the Pensions Act and also undertook a review of our supervisory priorities to ensure board resources were being used most efficiently.

In policy, legal and technical areas, we provided technical support for the Government's Green Paper on pensions and the pensions aspects of Towards 2016. We undertook a review of trusteeship, including the development of proposals for the regulation of those who do the administration work for pension schemes. We also undertook a review of the funding standard for defined benefit schemes and we have participated in EU discussions on the EU pensions directive and cross-border pensions.

In the role of information provision we responded to 10,100 direct queries. We developed the board's website, www.pensionsboard.ie, to include multilingual versions of the most popular pages. These are available in eight languages. The site received 450,000 hits in 2007. We also conducted the successful annual national pensions awareness campaign.

The board's priorities for 2008 are ongoing regulation of occupational pension schemes and PRSAs, and other ongoing supervisory activity, including the introduction of the regulation for administrators, which was set out in the recent Social Welfare Act. If requested we will participate in the follow-up to the Government's Green Paper on pensions. We also offer information activities including the 2008 awareness campaign, which begins tomorrow, further development of on-line services, and continued involvement in EU pension discussions.

Regarding the additional issues raised in the Chairman's recent letter to the board, I will deal with each of these points in a concise manner, but I am happy to answer any further questions the committee may have. The first issue concerns the adequacy of current pensions targets. The current programme for Government contains a number of commitments on pensions. The relevant pension target in the programme for Government aims to secure the target of at least 50% of pre-retirement earnings from all sources including social welfare supports, private and occupational pensions, and savings and investments. In its national pensions policy initiative report, published in 1997, the board advocated a target retirement income of 50% of pre-retirement income and a coverage rate for supplementary pensions of 70% of those aged over 30. The current coverage rate for this group is around 61%. This coverage target acknowledged that upwards of 30% of the workforce would have a pension of at least 50% of pre-retirement income by relying solely on the State retirement pension. We are of the view that these targets are appropriate. In that report the Pensions Board also recommended that the social welfare retirement pension be at least 34% of gross average industrial earnings. This target has been achieved since the report was published. The Government subsequently committed to increasing the State retirement pension to €300 per week by 2012. This was welcomed by the Pensions Board.

The second issue raised was the appropriateness and effectiveness of using tax relief to incentivise pension uptake. The Pensions Board supports current Government policy of tax relief on pension contributions. There is ongoing debate and discussion on how best to structure and distribute that relief. For instance, some people have advocated a special savings incentive account-type tax relief. Members will remember the SSIA approach of one euro for every four contributed. This has been considered as part of the national pensions review published by the board and it is also raised in the Green Paper on pensions. The issue is also being considered by the commission on taxation. Specifically, the commission is considering how best the tax system can encourage long-term savings to meet the needs of retirement.

The third issue was how integrated pensions might best be reformed to ensure pensioners benefit from State pension increases. An integrated scheme is a defined benefit scheme where the pension is calculated on the difference between the member's earnings and the State retirement pension. In recent years, the size of the State pension has increased sharply with the result that the pension from an integrated scheme has shrunk as the State pension has grown faster than member's earnings. In some cases members have seen their entitlement to a pension from an integrated scheme disappear altogether, despite the fact that the members concerned have made contributions throughout their working lives. However, it is important to make clear that once a pension from an integrated scheme begins, it does not disappear thereafter. Once a member becomes entitled to a pension, he or she will continue to get it. The issue here is the pension getting smaller in the years just before the member is entitled to collect it. Under current legislation, the value of pension benefits from a defined benefit scheme must represent at least 120% of the value of member contributions.

This issue of integrated pensions has been addressed in the Green Paper on pensions and a number of questions for consultation have been posed by the paper. These include a question on whether there are problems with the current integration arrangements for defined benefit schemes. If so, what are the possible solutions? Some three suggestions were offered, namely, to prohibit integrated schemes; to restrict a reduction in pensionable pay in the last three to five years; or to have a different integration formula for lower earners, as is the case in the public sector schemes.

Given that the Green Paper consultation process is ongoing, it may not appropriate for the Pensions Board to anticipate which of the solutions would be advocated by respondents. However, any possible solution is likely to be technically complex if it is not to have unintended consequences for all defined benefit schemes.

The final issue raised in the letter to the board was a request to make the committee a non-fee paying client for updates on the consolidated pension Acts and regulations and I can confirm that the board ensured that this has been arranged.

In summary, the Pensions Board will work to support the Irish pension system in all that it does to help Irish people to look forward to a comfortable retirement. The Pensions Board will make the most of its unique position as both regulator and policy expert and the challenge will be to seek continuous improvement as a regulator; to continue to contribute to the policy making process through our work on the Green Paper and other policy work; to encourage people to save for their retirement so that they are not just relying on the State pension as their sole source of income in retirement; and to build an organisation that delivers on our responsibilities as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Finally, I have a press pack for each member of the committee which includes copies of our most popular material. I thank the committee for its time and I am happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

I invite colleagues to ask questions and make contributions. We will bank the questions and then invite the delegation members to respond and sum up.

I thank the delegation for its presentation. We will receive copies of the board's most popular material, but I wonder if there is unpopular material too. I have some questions on the presentation and on other issues raised within the Green Paper, including the introduction of on-the-spot fines for certain offences last year. The board introduced some of these measures under the Pensions Act. Will it outline the type of offences it is dealing with now? Are there more measures that need to be signed by way of ministerial order? What is the success rate and what are the barriers to progress at the moment and the difficulties facing the board in supervising these?

I was surprised to hear that the board will participate in the follow up to the Green Paper if invited; I hoped that its participation would be automatic. I assume the board has an important role to play in dealing with these issues in future and I would like to see the board continue to carry out this role. Perhaps the committee can examine this.

Can the board provide the committee with details of the report to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs last year? I assume it was made on the funding standard but do not know if this has been presented to the Minister yet. The board was undertaking an operational review with the intention of undertaking a more risk-based approach. Has this review been carried out and completed? Is the information on this available to the committee? Can the board representatives clarify the respective positions of the board and the Pensions Ombudsman who has appeared before the committee? The Green Paper on pensions states in section 1.30:

The Pensions Board and the Pensions Ombudsman seek, respectively, to ensure compliance with the Pensions Act 1990, and to resolve complaints and disputes in relation to occupational pension schemes and PRSAs. The Financial Regulator also has a part to play in relation to consumer protection and overall issues of solvency of providers.

Can the board representatives outline the different roles? I know what the Pensions Ombudsman is supposed to do, but I did not realise there was an overlap in these areas for the two bodies and would appreciate clarification on this.

The Green Paper refers to the average contribution scheme and states that "certain categories of insured persons can qualify for a rate of pension which is much higher than the period of insurance completed justifies". There are other categories of people with fewer insurance contributions who are less able to contribute. There are anomalies in this area and as Deputies and Senators we hear of many such cases. Each one seems unfair but the board must set the bar at some point and when an individual client submits a case the board can acknowledge the problem and how the client is treated unfairly. However, the board cannot open this up to everyone. Has it reached a conclusion on where it thinks the bar should be set?

A submission was made to the board or the Pensions Ombudsman and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on behalf of approximately 700 people, including some farmers and business people. These people were caught out in terms of the number of contributions made. I can provide the information to the representatives later.

The board expressed a view on merging the retirement pension age and the social welfare pension age to 65 years. There is another view that the retirement age should be increased because people are living longer and the increasing cost to the Exchequer of pensions. Is its view not the opposite of much existing policy, although no Government decision has been made? Does the board have a view on the mandatory pension schemes as against the soft pension scheme, which is an ongoing issue?

One of the significant issues at present is the equity or effectiveness of the current tax incentives for private pensions. Does the board have a view on the ESRI's comments that 80% of the money is going to the top 20% of earners which seems somewhat inequitable?

On the issue of integrated pensions raised by the Chairman, the board stated that it might not be appropriate for it to anticipate any outcomes in advance of the ongoing Green Paper consultation process. Much of what I have raised is part of the Green Paper and at this point in the process it would be appropriate to get a response before we make decisions in this area.

I was interested to hear there is 55% pensions coverage in addition to the State pension. How does this compare with other European states and what is the proposed target? Since the board was established does it see a pattern of people buying into pensions and is there a growth pattern in a positive direction?

Deputy Carey asked the question I was going to ask. On the issue raised by Deputy Olwyn Enright there are anomalies in the farming and non-PAYE sectors that cause problems from time to time, including those transferred to EU pension schemes without proper advice. Without proper advice they took it for granted that they were paying PRSI but they were not because they were not technically employed. Could the board give a view on that? It is a serious problem for some people. Is it too late for them to make payments when they find out?

Does the board have a role in regulating the type of pension people buy? Although it does not involve a pension, I came across someone the other day who had made a family settlement and, on the advice of the institution that was handling the money, put it all into a certain structure to provide an annual income. A couple of years later, the money is worth much less than when it was invested but the institution now states it did not advise the person to invest the money in this way and denies any responsibility. It is similar to the situation in which people who took out mortgage protection found themselves when they did not have enough money to pay their mortgages when they were due. That was also because of following bad advice. Does the board have any role in that area, given that insurance companies push their products on people who often do not understand the financial implications?

Mr. Brendan Kennedy

I will begin by expanding on the role of the Pensions Board and deal with Deputy Enright's question vis-à-vis ourselves, the Financial Regulator and the Pensions Ombudsman.

The regulatory role of the board is to regulate pension schemes and personal retirement savings accounts. These are occupational pension schemes set up by employers and run by boards of trustees. Our role is to make sure they obey the rules and that they are looking after their colleagues' money. The Financial Regulator's role is to deal with banks, insurance companies, financial advisers and people who sell financial products. The Pensions Board deals with pension schemes and PRSAs while the Financial Regulator deals with financial products. There is a very clear understanding between ourselves and the Financial Regulator about where the line is drawn and there is no sense of overlap. Obviously we sometimes need to explain that to members of the public.

The roles of the Pensions Board and the Pensions Ombudsman are complementary. Again, there is a clear dividing line. Our role is essentially to make sure that pension schemes, occupational pension schemes in this instance, obey the rules. It is the Pension Ombudsman's role to put matters right where pension schemes did not follow their own rules and people lost out as a result. While it is our job is to make sure the rules are followed, the role of Mr. Paul Kenny, the Pensions Ombudsman is to put right anything that has gone wrong as a result of rules not being followed. We prosecute and fine people as appropriate. Mr. Kenny deals with individual complaints which do not necessarily arise from a breach of the law. For example, if a pension scheme does not follow its own rules and pay somebody his or her benefit when it should, it is Mr. Kenny's role to deal with that. We are satisfied that there is a clear division of responsibilities among all the parties concerned.

I will run briefly through the questions. On-the-spot fines were introduced on 17 September 2007. Instead of prosecuting people for relatively minor breaches of the pensions Act, we invite those concerned to put matters right, pay a fine and no prosecution will follow. It was deliberately designed to deal with offences at the lower end of the spectrum of pension offences, for example, failure by employers to give access to PRSAs to their employees or failure to respond to a query from the Pensions Board. The more serious offences include not passing on contributions or removing money from a pension scheme where it is not permitted. Those offences continue to be prosecuted. We are satisfied with the range of offences that are currently subject to on-the-spot fines and will not necessarily be prosecuted, and with the range of offences that are subject to prosecution in the courts.

The benefit to the board of the on-the-spot fine is that it saves resources. The board can deal with more cases without going through the courts. We also believe that in the case of lesser offences the important point is to put matters right and to move on and still have some kind of sanction against the people concerned. From the point of view of those who may be subject to fines the on-the-spot fine is not a criminal conviction so it is not publicised but kept private between the board and the person concerned. As the on-the-spot fine was introduced only last September, only offences committed since that date are subject to it. We are still in the start-up phase. Our experience so far has been that the power of on-the-spot fines has been very useful. The response of the pensions community has been that it knows if it commits an offence there is a good chance of incurring a fine. We have, therefore, seen a big increase in compliance. We are very satisfied with that.

The board participated in the writing of the Green Paper by providing technical support. The response to the Green Paper is a Government matter, a departmental matter being led by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. We would obviously be happy to participate and will do so when invited. We are conscious that it is the formal responsibility of the Department and we will need to be asked but, to date, we have had a good working relationship with the Department of Social and Family Affairs and with the other Departments concerned and we believe we can add value.

Our recommendation to the Government about the funding standard is still subject to the Minister's consideration but we will be happy to provide it as soon as possible.

Is that part of the Green Paper or is it separate?

Mr. Brendan Kennedy

It is separate. Both happened at the same time. We will be happy to provide it as soon as we can. It is still subject to ministerial consideration.

The purpose of the operational review was to examine all aspects of the board's activity to make sure it focused on the important matters and used resources in the most efficient way possible. On the supervisory and regulatory side we drew up a list of priorities and reorganised our regulatory activities to make sure we concentrated on the most important matters. Our highest priority is money going missing from a scheme - which is fairly self-evident. Our second priority is members who do not get what they are entitled to from a scheme. We have drawn up an order of priority of matters that concern us most about schemes, and that is the basis on which we carry out our activities. Like any Government agency, we must convince everybody that we are using our limited resources in the most efficient manner.

There were a number of questions on social insurance anomalies. From what we saw when we participated in the Green Paper public consultation process throughout the country some months ago, we are very aware of the effect of these anomalies on individuals and the sheer complexity of the State retirement system. That is being considered as part of the Green Paper. However, that is more of an issue for the Department of Social and Family Affairs which manages that system rather than the Pensions Board. That Department would be better able to answer those issues. Obviously we would be aware of how people are concerned about this issues and how important they are to them.

On the issue of the increase in the retirement age or otherwise, many European countries and further afield are either considering or have decided to increase the age at which the State pension is payable. As the committee is aware, this issue is considered in the Green Paper. On the Pensions Board, which comprises 17 board members, there would be different views about retirement age. On the one hand, life expectancy is increasing very rapidly in Ireland. Realistically, any male who retires tomorrow aged 65 would probably expect to live 20 years or a female 23 years. Life expectancy increases by one to one-and-a-half years every ten years. We are certainly looking at a situation in regard to the time one could expect to be retired and, therefore, the cost of pensions is increasing quickly. One of the arguments for increasing the retirement age is to try to control the cost of pensions.

On the other hand, people have worked throughout their lives and have planned for retirement, particularly those in the lower socio-economic groups. Life expectancy differs quite considerably between the lower and higher socio-economic groups. To change the retirement age has a greater effect on the less well-off. There is no black and white answer to this issue. There are pros and cons. Certainly the issue has to be dealt with and a decision made on it. It cannot be ignored.

On the question of mandatory pensions and making it obligatory for people to save for pensions over and above the social welfare pension, the board encompasses a range of views and there are arguments for and against. The strongest argument that has been put forward in favour is that it is the only way to ensure people save. So long as there is a voluntary system it will be voluntary and people will not save. The mandatory system is the only one that is guaranteed to work. On the other hand, there would be employer concerns about competitiveness and imposing additional costs and there is also the question of personal choice. There are arguments in both directions.

On the question of tax incentives, which we touched on in our presentation, there is much general support for rebalancing them to spread out the benefit more through the working population. For example, 40% of the workforce do not pay any income tax. Therefore, income tax incentives do not work that effectively for those who do not pay tax. It is not just an equity issue; it is an effectiveness issue. There is general support for the concept but there are different views on how to do it.

There are concerns that changing the structure may increase the total cost of tax incentives and is that necessarily what people want to achieve. In many of these issues there are arguments in both directions. There are no definitive answers to any of these issues because if there were, they would probably have been made.

How does our pension coverage compare with other European countries? Every country has its own pension system. Many European countries have a state pension that is much higher than ours. In those countries there is much less private pension provision because the state pension is so good that there is no need for it. One gets into an apples and oranges situation where one is comparing, say, the Greek pension system, which is very generous, with the Irish pension system which is a relatively low state pension. If one looks at the relatively small number of countries where there is a relatively small state pension and a voluntary system thereafter, there is an upper limit of what a voluntary pension system can achieve. Employers are not obliged and people themselves are not obliged to make pension provision. Many people choose not to do so while many people always mean to do it but never get around to it. Certainly, in our own research, the most common reason people give for not having a pension is that they never got around to it.

On the question of whether we have a role or what role we have in the products people buy, we have a role in ensuring people have information about pensions. Where people go to a financial institution, an insurance company or a bank, our only role there is in regard to personal retirement savings accounts. We have very specific rules and very specific close supervision of PRSAs regarding the information provided but for other financial products such as investment products, the Financial Regulator is the body concerned. We monitor PRSAs and occupational pension schemes so I do think we have a role.

We participated in the Green Paper consultation process. The paper was written to encompass as many Irish pension issues as possible. The intention in writing it was that anything related to pensions should be in it. It leaves us in a situation whereby the answer to almost everything is that it is in the Green Paper. It is important not to forestall the public consultation process. Certainly the view of the Pensions Board is that at a national as well as a personal level, pensions are something that cannot be put off. There is always a reason to put it off. The fact that there is a Green Paper process and the Government is committed to responding to it is to be strongly welcomed.

I thank the committee for granting the opportunity to the Pensions Board to appear before it. If at any future date there are other specific issues the committee wishes to discuss with the board, we will be more than happy to oblige.

I thank Mr. Kennedy and his colleagues on the Pensions Board for their attendance today. I am pleased we have been able to conclude the business which was done so well and so effectively. We look forward to seeing the Pensions Board again.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 May 2008.
Top
Share