John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 341: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will continue awarding higher budget increases to non contributory pensioners; his views on whether this discriminates against those in receipt of contributory pensions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18956/07]

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Over the period since 1997, the Government has made the needs of older people a priority with the inclusion of several commitments in successive programmes for Government aimed specifically at the group. This included achieving the commitment to increase the basic State pension to €200 per week by 2007 in the last Budget. Increases in both contributory and non-contributory pensions have been well ahead of inflation over the period since 1997 thus ensuring that not only was the real value of pensions maintained but that they were significantly improved in real terms.

Looking ahead, there are three main commitments in the new programme for Government relating to weekly rates of income support for pensioners. These are:

To increase the basic State pension by around 50% to at least €300 per week by 2012;

To provide a personal pension payment, set at the level of a full rate State pension (non-contributory), for pensioner spouses in receipt of the qualified adult increase; and

To extend the age allowance to qualified adults over 80 years of age.

The level of increases in weekly rates of pensions required to progress these commitments will be considered in the context of future Budgets. My priority will be to continue the Government's policy of ensuring that every older person, be they contributory or non-contributory pensioners, has access to an income which is sufficient to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

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

Question 342: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs further to Parliamentary Question No. 32 of 25 April 2007, if his Department has received the views of the International Labour Organisation Committee of Experts on the way in which the Irish Human Rights Commission has interpreted the European Code of Social Security and European Convention of Human Rights when they reported that these articles have not been entirely respected in relation to a decision by his Department to deny the old age contributory pension to a self employed married couple who had paid PRSI; if not, when he expects to receive the views of the Committee of Experts; if he has received such views, the action he will take on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18982/07]

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department makes annual reports on compliance with the European Code of Social Security to the Council of Europe, summarising changes to the social welfare system. These reports are then referred to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Committee of Experts for their examination. The Department's 1999 report included details of the self-employed provisions which are now the subject of the Irish Human Rights Commission (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 Committee of Experts for its views on the way in which the IHRC has interpreted the relevant articles. An informal opinion received from the ILO Secretariat suggests that the Code does not require payment of a pension no matter how few contributions have been paid. My Department is seeking a formal review of the situation in the context of our annual report which will be submitted in August. While my Department will press for an early opinion, I understand that it is likely that it will take a number of months to receive. The position will then be re-examined in light of the views received.