David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 32: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action he has taken following recommendations by the Irish Human Rights Commission regarding the contributory State pension for self-employed persons; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15573/07]

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

It is a fundamental principle of our social insurance system that those qualifying for benefits must satisfy a range of contribution and other conditions. In the case of contributory pensions, this involves commencing payment of contributions ten years before pension age, payment of a minimum number of contributions at an appropriate rate and reaching a minimum average annual contribution rate. The State pension — contributory — is a valuable benefit and the conditions are designed to ensure that those qualifying have had a sufficient and ongoing attachment to the social insurance system.

The case reported on by the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, involves a couple who were over 56 years of age in 1988 when compulsory social insurance for the self-employed was introduced. Accordingly, they were unable to satisfy one of the basic requirements for pension as they did not commence paying insurance ten years before pension age. In 1999 a special half rate pension was introduced for individuals in this group based on the payment of 260 contributions and, again, the couple involved did not satisfy the qualifying condition. While one party of the couple could have qualified had the necessary contributions been paid, because of advanced age the other person would not have been able to make the necessary contributions before reaching pension age. A refund of part of the social insurance contributions was available to such people from 1996.

Having considered the case, the IHRC has recommended that a reduced benefit be paid to people who, because of advanced age, could not satisfy the conditions for the special pension introduced in 1999. The recommendations of the IHRC are based on its assessment of the situation under the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Code of Social Security.

On the European Code of Social Security, the IHRC places particular emphasis on provisions in regard to the position of people who, by reason of their age when provisions are introduced, cannot satisfy contribution or employment conditions. The Department makes annual reports on compliance with this code to the Council of Europe, summarising changes to the social welfare system. These reports are then referred to the committee of experts of the International Labour Organization, ILO, for its examination. The Department's 1999 report included details of the provisions on the self-employed that are now the subject of the IHRC investigation. At that time, the ILO committee confirmed that Ireland met its obligations.

Accordingly, as an initial step in its review of the IHRC report, my Department has asked the ILO's committee of experts for its views on the way in which the IHRC has interpreted the relevant articles. The position will be reviewed in the light of the views received.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that it appears that the international human rights standards, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Code of Social Security, have not been respected entirely in this matter? Does he agree that the advanced age of a person alone should not exclude him or her from entitlement to the State pension?

Is the Minister aware of the submissions of other organisations, such as the IFA's pre-budget submission of 2007, which expresses concern over the treatment of a relatively small group of self-employed people who were between the ages of 60 and 65 in April 1998? Will he state how many persons were affected adversely such that they could receive no benefits in spite of their having had to make contributions? What are his personal views and when does he or his Department expect to receive a report from the ILO on the matter?

My main point concerns the human rights standard. Does the Minister agree with the IHRC's recommendation that a reduced benefit be paid to self-employed people who contributed to the social insurance scheme but did not qualify for the pension only because of their age when the legislation came into force? Does he agree that this policy is ageist and should be reviewed? How many individuals are affected?

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

As I stated, I asked the ILO's committee of experts for its views on the way in which the IHRC has interpreted the relevant articles. I do not know when we will receive its views but as soon as we do, the Department will be well disposed to publishing the information.

There are obviously anomalies throughout the system and we have made good progress in recent years in ironing them out. A small number of people are affected. When I met the IFA, it raised issues similar to the one raised by the Deputy. One difficulty in addressing the matter concerns the implications for other schemes and the implications if one interferes with the basic principle of attachment to the social welfare system through making contributions from a certain date and meeting the necessary conditions.

There are 3,500 people in receipt of the special half rate pension for the self-employed; there are 28,000 people in receipt of the pre-1953 pension; there are 13,300 people in receipt of the pro rata pension on the basis of EU and bilateral arrangements; and there are 1,800 people in receipt of mixed insurance pensions, at the modified and full rate. There is no precise estimate of the number caught in the manner the Deputy describes and we await the views of the ILO on the matter.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree there are approximately 500 individuals affected altogether? What is his personal view on the matter? Has any thought been given to paying a pro rata pension? We know individuals received the half rate pension if they had paid contributions for more than five years. Some had paid for nine years, yet they only received half the pension, which seems unfair. In this day and age, given the super-duper computers in the Department, it should be possible to arrange to pay people the pro rata pension. In the case in question, doing so would be fairer.

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

The number who could benefit from the recommendations of the IHRC is limited. The people in question were over 61 in 1988 and could not satisfy the conditions for a standard pension at that time and, because of their age, they were not in a position to make the 260 contributions required for the special pension, which was introduced in 1999. It appears from our records that more than 700 people became insured for the first time in 1988. This is the best estimate we have. To pay a half rate pension to such people would cost approximately €4 million per annum and this can obviously be considered in a budgetary context following the advice of the ILO's committee of experts.