Analysis: Seamus Brennan must wonder at the wisdom of his fairly single-minded pursuit of a plan to introduce mandatory pension provision in Ireland.

The publication yesterday by the Pensions Board of its examination of mandatory pension options bore all the signs of a work completed under duress.

The board itself offered up a "recommended" option but only grudgingly.

"The recommendation is being made in response to the specific request of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs in his letter to the board on February 6th, 2006. It is not a recommendation for or against the introduction of such a system," the report states.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the policy path the Minister has seemed set on.

The Department of Finance has set its face firmly against the idea, not least because, however it is proposed, mandatory pensions look certain to cost it a significant sum of money.

Business leaders have consistently opposed the idea of mandatory coverage and, when it became apparent that the group would have to recommend one or other option for such a scheme, its representative, Marie Daly, simply walked away.

Ibec's case is rooted in concerns both about cost and the imposition of further red tape on business, but it is also concerned that the Government is not listening to expert counsel, who had strongly suggested giving a revamped voluntary approach to pensions a fair run just eight months ago.

It's hardly surprising that, having had this report for more than a month, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs chose to publish it quietly in the middle of the political holiday season. The whole performance was closely akin to the scuttling of a poorly engineered vessel.

Mr Brennan was putting a brave face on it yesterday, talking about "real progress" in addressing the pensions issue.

The biggest problem for the Minister, though, is selling the idea of mandatory pensions as anything other than an additional tax. It has already been put off to beyond next year's general election under the terms of Towards 2016, the national agreement currently in the process of being ratified.

Under that document, the Government has agreed to publish a Green Paper on options to address a shortfall in pensions savings. But that won't happen until 12 months after ratification - putting it towards the end of 2007.

At that stage, if a growing chorus of economists is to be believed, consumers and the economy are going to start feeling the post-SSIA blues. Any move to part them from a further 5 per cent of their pay in those circumstances is unlikely to go down well politically.

The scheme proposed by the Pensions Board is, by its own admission, some way short of a consensus view.

Chairman Tiarnan O'Mahoney felt the need to write in the letter accompanying the report to the Minister: "The views expressed in this report are the collective views of the board and do not necessarily represent the views of nominating representatives".

Apart from senior Department of Finance mandarin William Beausang, who expressly poured cold water on the whole idea, and Ibec's Marie Daly, it seems clear there are significant differences even among the remaining nine members of the group.

Last night, the Minister appeared to accept this when he said any proposed solution to the potential pensions crisis in future years would have to be "financially and economically sustainable" for both employers and the Exchequer.