Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 308: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if conclusions two and three of the first inquiry report of the Irish Human Rights Commission entitled the Self Employed and the Old Age Contributory Pension have been investigated by her on foot of a further inquiry from IHRC in December 2008; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8462/09]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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 and who could not, therefore, satisfy one of the basic requirements for pension as they did not commence paying insurance 10 years before pension age.

A special pension paid at half the personal rate and requiring the payment of at least 260 contributions was introduced in 1999 to cater for such people. The IHRC recommended that a reduced benefit should also be paid to people who, because of advanced age, could not satisfy the conditions for this special pension. This would be a significant departure from the principles underpinning qualification for pensions, and other benefits, which require that a minimum level of contributions should be made before a person can qualify for a payment.

The IHRC laid particular emphasis on Article 29, paragraph 5, of the European Code of Social Security which deals with the position of people who cannot satisfy new conditions because of advanced age when these are introduced. In the context of submitting its annual report on compliance with the Code, the Department sought the views of the ILO Committee of Experts, which examines national reports on compliance with the European Code of Social Security on behalf of the Council of Europe.

The final resolution on the Department's 2006/2007 compliance report from the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers found that "law and practice in Ireland continue to give full effect to the parts of the Code which have been accepted."

In November 2008, the IHRC sought a response regarding the extent to which the recommendations in the IHRC report have been implemented, including by reference to two other human rights standards mentioned in the report — Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), when read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1, and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Department wrote to IHRC in January 2009, expressing the opinion that the Department was not in breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1. In relation to Article 14 of the ECHR, the Department stated that it did not consider that the current jurisprudence of the ECHR indicated that the measures concerned constitute a difference of treatment on a prohibited ground, that it pursued a legitimate aim and that its policies are proportionate to that aim. The Department also indicated that its policies met with the criteria of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The IHRC responded in February 2009, expressing its gratitude for the Department's ongoing engagement with this issue.