Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Jan 2010

Vol. 699 No. 1

Adjournment Debate.

Adoption Services.

Deputy Alan Shatter

The Government should publicly apologise for the indefensible and incompetent manner in which it has dealt with the issue of Vietnamese adoptions. It has neither acted in the best interests of children nor in the interests of prospective Irish adopters. The Minister of State with responsibility for children has serious questions to answer.

For five years there was a bilateral adoption agreement between Ireland and Vietnam. By 31 December 2008, 636 adoptions effected in Vietnam by Irish adopters had been recognised by the Adoption Board. At the start of 2009 there were an estimated 330 prospective adopters declared suitable to adopt by our Adoption Board who expected to adopt in Vietnam and who were assessed for adoption on the assumption that they would do so. For five years it was known that the bilateral agreement would terminate by 1 May 2009. However, the Government gave no warning or notice to the hundreds of people under adoption assessment by the HSE who intended to adopt in Vietnam that, following their obtaining a declaration of eligibility and suitability to adoption from our Adoption Board, this State would create any difficulty in their completing such adoptions.

The expired bilateral agreement contained provision for the establishment of a review group composed of Irish and Vietnamese officials to monitor the workings of the bilateral agreement and the adoption process in Vietnam involving Irish adoption applicants. During the five years of the agreement's operation no report was ever published by this group warning of any difficulties. It is clear that up to March 2009 the Government intended to put in place a new bilateral agreement with Vietnam. The Minister of State with responsibility for children informed this House that at the beginning of March a new proposed draft agreement was forwarded by the Government to the Vietnamese authorities. Vietnam received the new draft agreement approximately seven weeks before the expiration of the original agreement and at that stage it was understood that the main difficulty related to the short period of time available to put in place a new agreement before 1 May 2009. It was only in August 2009 that the Minister made known the fact that, as a result of two international reports on Vietnamese adoptions, one of which was a draft report prepared by International Social Services, questions were being asked about the probity of the Vietnamese adoption process. It took six months from the receipt by the Minister of State of the draft ISS report to announce a Government decision not to enter into any further bilateral agreement on adoption with Vietnam.

The Minister of State with responsibility for children should publicly answer the following questions. In his statement issued last Thursday, 14 January, he stated: "When any Government enters into a bilateral International Adoption Agreement, there is an expectation that the Government has satisfied itself that current policies and practices in the country of origin are robust." What steps did the Government take to so be satisfied prior to entering into the bilateral adoption agreement which expired on 1 May 2009 and prior to furnishing to Vietnam a new proposed draft bilateral agreement in March 2009?

During the currency of the expired bilateral agreement, what action, if any, was taken by representatives of this State appointed to the Ireland-Vietnam review group to ensure that Vietnamese adoption practices met appropriate standards and what reports, if any, on this issue were made to the Minister of State with responsibility for children or his predecessors? Why has the Minister of State with responsibility for children refused to publish full details of meetings held by the review group and the reports, if any, furnished by it to him and the Department for Health and Children and why has the Department refused to make available relevant information and documentation when sought by me under the Freedom of Information Act?

The Minister is only now critical of the link between the provision of humanitarian aid in conjunction with adoption services by an adoption agency licensed by this State to assist Irish applicants in effecting Vietnamese adoptions. Why is this the case when the expired bilateral agreement, under which the agency operated, expressly envisaged the provision of such humanitarian aid and rendered it impossible for Irish applicants to effect Vietnamese adoptions without making a specific humanitarian aid payment?

What consideration, if any, was given by the review group during the lifetime of the expired agreement to any difficulties arising as a consequence of the link between humanitarian aid and adoption services? Why did the Minister for Children give assurances to 20 couples at an advanced stage in the Vietnamese adoption process after 1 May 2009 that satisfactory arrangements would be made to facilitate them completing Vietnamese adoptions and why have no such arrangements been made? As a result of publication of the ISS report, has Vietnam refused to continue negotiations on the conclusion of a new bilateral agreement with this State or has the Government simply decided to suspend indefinitely negotiations on a new agreement? What consideration, if any, did the Government give to negotiating a new agreement incorporating provisions to address any concerns resulting from the ISS report and the creation of structures to properly and transparently monitor the workings of such agreement?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea)

Deputy Shatter should conclude.

Deputy Alan Shatter

There is nothing to prevent the Minister negotiating and completing an agreement with the Vietnamese that is compliant with the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption. France, Spain, Italy and Canada, who have all ratified the Hague Convention, are continuing to facilitate adoptions from Vietnam and to ensure the necessary standards to protect the welfare of children are properly applied. As a consequence of the incompetent manner in which the Government has dealt with this sensitive issue, hundreds of Irish adoption applicants are now left in limbo and hundreds of children for whom adoption would provide a better life may remain in orphanages.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Shatter has gone far over time.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I will conclude with two more sentences. Substantial HSE social work resources have been wasted in the assessment of adoption applicants with a focus solely on Vietnamese adoptions instead of a focus on foreign adoption generally. Many of those left in limbo are now confronted with the prospect of their declarations of suitability and eligibility expiring and will have to apply to the Adoption Board for extensions and, in some cases, to the HSE for updated assessments. Adopters are entitled to answers from the Minister of State.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews)

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and affording me the opportunity to update the House on this matter. The Adoption Bill 2009, which will give force of law to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, is continuing its progress through the Oireachtas and the debate on Second Stage is scheduled to resume on Thursday. A core principle of the Hague Convention, which represents the international standard for adoption, is that intercountry adoption should be child centred. The child's interests must be paramount throughout the adoption process. The legislation and specifically the regime of the Hague Convention is designed to provide an assurance for individual children, their families and the State, that appropriate procedures have been followed and that adoptions are effected in the best interests of the child. As such, it is our intention that all intercountry adoptions must meet the standards of the Hague Convention.

Against this background, and after serious deliberation, the Government decided on 13 January to suspend indefinitely negotiations on a new bilateral intercountry adoption agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. As a result of this decision, all intercountry adoptions from Vietnam will be suspended until such time as the Adoption Bill 2009 has been enacted and both Ireland and Vietnam have ratified the provisions of the Hague Convention.

Having met with many individuals and representative groups throughout this process, I am fully aware of the great disappointment this decision has caused and will cause for those hoping to adopt from Vietnam. It is important to reiterate that this decision was not taken lightly and was based on information brought into the public domain by the Vietnamese Government in the first instance and subsequently by UNICEF with the co-operation of the Vietnamese Government. Serious questions regarding adoption practices in Vietnam were raised in these two recent reports. Such information cannot be ignored and the Government was obliged to act on foot of this information.

Of greatest concern is the question of whether the child is adoptable. The issues of consent and the exchange of fees were also raised. Where questions on these fundamental issues remain, it would be remiss of the Government to allow adoptions from Vietnam to continue. The Government has committed to providing technical assistance to the Vietnamese authorities in the area of child welfare and protection to help prepare the way for ratification of the Hague Convention should the Vietnamese wish to avail of such an offer. Based on my discussions with the Vietnamese authorities, I am confident that Vietnam will ratify the Hague Convention in the near future, at which time I would hope and expect adoptions to resume.

To state as Deputy Shatter has that the Government gave no warning to those hoping to adopt from Vietnam that a new bilateral agreement might not be put in place is not just wrong, it is most disingenuous. On several occasions in recent months in both Houses, I stated that real concerns had been raised in the context of intercountry adoption from Vietnam and these would have to be addressed before a new agreement could be entered into. When I shared a television studio with Deputy Shatter last October, I clearly explained the difficulties in putting in place a new bilateral agreement and said that there could be no certainty about the successful conclusion of the process.

Deputy Shatter contends that the Government was dilatory in dealing with the UNICEF ISS report. He claims the report was received last August and that it took the Government six months to act on it. I remind the Deputy that the report was finalised in late November. I said last October that I would await the finalisation of the report before making a recommendation to the Government. I did not think it was correct to make a decision on the basis of a draft report that could not be made available to the adoption community. The timeframe for the publication of the report was beyond the control of the Government. The time that elapsed between the circulation of the draft report and the publication of the final report is a matter for the ISS. To my mind, it involved dialogue with the Vietnamese Government and the embassies based on the ground in Hanoi.

Following the Government decision, I met representative groups last week to update them on the situation. I shared with them the contents of my statement prior to its circulation to the media. The Adoption Board has agreed arrangements for people who had hoped to adopt from Vietnam. All couples or individuals who possess a declaration of eligibility and suitability for Vietnam may select a new country from which to adopt, subject to submitting the usual change of country report to the Adoption Board. They may also retain their current place on the helping hands list for Vietnam, which is being maintained. In the event of Vietnam reopening, those on the Vietnamese waiting list whose declarations have not been used in the meantime to effect an adoption in another country will be in a position to proceed without delay, having regard to their position on the Vietnamese list. All couples or individuals who have a declaration of eligibility and suitability for Vietnam but have sought to change in recent months will be in a position to avail of the foregoing arrangements.

At all stages of the process, which has caused great anxiety and ultimately disappointment for couples or individuals hoping to adopt from Vietnam, I have consulted the adoption community and informed them of my actions. I have no difficulty in standing before this House and accounting in full for the decisions I have made. I suggest that Deputies on all sides should continue to have regard to the sensitivity of the matter at hand and respect the position of children who have been adopted into this country from Vietnam in recent years. We all have a responsibility to these children. The status of their adoptions is not in question. The adoptions have gone through a lengthy legal process and have been entered into the register of foreign adoptions. The Government must do its best to ensure that the interests of any child being adopted by Irish citizens are promoted and protected. Deputy Shatter mentioned that 20 adoptions were at an advanced stage when negotiations were suspended. It continues to be the position of the Government that it will try to facilitate the finalisation of such adoptions, subject to the serious legal difficulties that apply.

Road Network.

Deputy Pat Breen

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me an opportunity to raise this important issue tonight. I am extremely disappointed that neither the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government nor the Minister for Transport is present to respond to this Adjournment matter, which has been raised by five Deputies. I am angry because the Ministers have not taken the time to come to the House to speak about an issue that is affecting every county. Given that they were not here during the freeze itself, perhaps I should not expect them to be here tonight.

This has been one of the harshest winters of the past 50 years. We have had frost and snow in County Clare since 22 December last. I suppose it was not until the bad weather hit the city of Dublin that the Government decided to take some action. We did not have the leadership needed to deal with the crisis, unfortunately. We had no Taoiseach and no Tánaiste. The only response was from the Minister, Deputy O'Dea. When he was asked why the Army was not being called in, he said it had not been asked to come in. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, blamed everybody other than the Government for the crisis.

In the absence of leadership from the Government, local communities and local authorities stepped up to the plate to assist elderly people and grit neighbourhood roads. I commend and compliment Clare County Council, which did a great job in keeping the main arteries open, despite its limited resources. The problems caused by the big freeze were compounded when the thaw set in and the state of the roads became apparent. Motorists have to contend with huge potholes as they go about their daily business. Having driven on the roads of County Clare over recent days, I am familiar with the problems on the R465 between Limerick and Broadford, for example. Roads like the N68 are badly afflicted with potholes.

I remind the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews that the county councils do not have the money to deal with this situation. Road maintenance grants have been slashed by 10%. Like the other Deputies who are about to contribute to this debate, I want funding to be provided in my local area so that the roads which are in an atrocious condition can be repaired. This is a road safety matter, in so far as lives will be saved if action is taken.

Deputy Joe Carey

I express my gratitude to those who helped to keep roads open throughout the crisis in County Clare. I refer to Mr. Tom Tiernan, who is the senior engineer in Clare County Council, his engineering staff, the outdoor staff and those who drove the gritting trucks. I pay tribute to the voluntary efforts of communities throughout County Clare. Many people played their part and put their shoulder to the wheel. Such leadership and involvement was sadly lacking from the Government, however. When the Minister, Deputy Gormley, eventually commented on the issue, he practically laughed at people. The reality is that road maintenance grants were cut by 10% in last month's budget. Those cuts followed the €7 million cut that Clare County Council experienced in 2009. The council simply does not have the money to return the county's roads to the required and proper standard.

I have listened to the statements made by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, and his colleague, the Minister for Transport. It is unacceptable that they have said they will not fund local authorities. Money will have to be forthcoming. The Ministers cannot pretend that this did not happen. Roads are being left in a very dangerous condition. I travelled on many roads in County Clare over the weekend. The road from Ennistymon to Kilfenora is falling apart. The road from Broadford to Limerick is in a terrible condition, as is the road between Sixmilebridge and Newmarket-on-Fergus and other roads in the Clarecastle, Mountshannon and Whitegate districts. This is a road safety issue. I was encouraged by the reply to a parliamentary question that I received today, in which the Minister said he is looking for an audit of roads from local authorities. I ask the Government to come up with the goods if such an audit is presented. This is a road safety issue.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

Wicklow County Council has been given €850,000 to maintain its roads in 2010. With three weeks gone in the year and 49 weeks to go, I estimate that between €500,000 and €600,000 of that annual fund has been spent already. One of today's newspapers reported that approximately €150 million — I imagine that was an educated guess — is needed to repair the damage done to this country's roads in recent times. That equates to an average of approximately €4 million for each affected local authority. It is encouraging that the Minister of State from the capital city is present in the Chamber. It seems that his senior colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who represents a neighbouring constituency, did not take this crisis seriously until it started to affect the city. As my colleagues have said, road infrastructure is the key to road safety. It is also the key to attracting investment, business and tourism. It is right that the road from the hotel in Glendalough to the upper lake car park was repaired last Sunday to make the road passable. However, another section of road not too far away, which is used for access by a milk lorry, was not repaired. If something positive is to come out of all of this, it is that local employment will have to be created as money is spent locally to repair our roads. If this is not addressed, we will have no road infrastructure in 12 months' time.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

Like Deputy Breen, I am disappointed that neither the Minister for Transport, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, nor one of the Ministers of State at those Departments, has had the courtesy to come here this evening to address this matter.

Deputy Joe Carey

Hear, hear.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

I seek an emergency aid package for County Wexford to address the disastrous state of the county's roads. Since 17 December, heavy frost, snow and flooding have left our roads in a dangerous condition. I call on the Ministers for Transport and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to provide the director of services in Wexford County Council with the funds needed to address this serious problem.

I commend the council's staff on the excellent work they have done over the past several weeks. They are working within the funding constraints imposed by this Government. It is an indictment of the Government that their budgets have already been drastically cut. The first act taken by the rainbow Government in 1994 was to make a significant investment in county roads. I call on the Minister for Transport to take a similar initiative.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I do not expect the Minister for Transport to be in the country every day of the year because he is entitled to his holidays. However, no command and control systems were in place to provide leadership in the aftermath of the weather crisis. I drove into Dublin on the Wednesday night of the snowfall and encountered complete chaos. I did not see a single figure of authority on the roads. Emergency planning was non-existent.

I recognise that it will be difficult to provide additional funding but it is important that the Minister determine the extent of the damage at the earliest opportunity. I regret that he decided to transfer responsibility for funding non-national roads to the NRA. I advise him to drive through parts of Wicklow, north Carlow, such as Clonmore, Hacketstown, Aughavanna and Deputy Doyle's country around Glendalough. Unless he sees the devastation for himself, he will not understand the extent of the problem. I do not know whether additional funding can be obtained from the EU but this issue needs to be addressed urgently because our roads were in a better condition 50 years ago.

Deputy Barry Andrews

I thank the Deputies for raising this important matter. The Minister for Transport would like to express his sympathy to all who have been badly affected by the recent severe weather. Indeed, some parts of the country have been hit more than once by the impact of the earlier flooding and the recent severe cold weather. He also expresses his appreciation of the work done by the local authorities and the NRA and commends local authority frontline staff in particular on the exceptional work they did to deal with the impact of the recent extended period of severe weather.

As well as the impact on the daily lives of citizens, there has been a serious impact on parts of the road network, as has become evident in recent days. Damage to road surfaces is an inevitable consequence of the type of weather we have had in recent times. Ireland has a uniquely extensive road network, with more than 96,000 km of road, or 2.5 times the EU average. The maintenance and improvement of this network places a substantial financial burden on local authorities and the Exchequer.

Considerable resources have been spent in recent years on both the national and regional and local road networks. The first priority therefore has to be to safeguard this investment in so far as this is possible, taking account of the recent weather impacts and the current difficulties with the public finances. The response to recent events will have to carefully target the available resources to address the most urgently required repairs, taking account of key factors such as safety, the strategic importance of the individual road and traffic levels.

The improvement and maintenance of regional and local roads is the statutory responsibility of each local authority, in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Roads Act 1993. Works on those roads are funded from local authorities' own resources and supplemented by State road grants which are paid by the Department of Transport. The initial selection and prioritisation of works to be funded is also a matter for each local authority. When road grants for regional and local roads are allocated each year, the Department of Transport does not hold back a reserve allocation at central level to deal with weather contingencies because such an arrangement would mean a reduction across all local authorities in the road grant allocations to them at the beginning of each year. Rather, the allocation made to local authorities is inclusive of the weather risk factor. Local authorities are expressly advised that they should set aside contingency sums from their overall regional and local roads resources to finance necessary weather related works. Applications for additional funding to carry out remedial works to roads and bridges following bad weather and flooding can only be considered in exceptional circumstances.

Earlier this year the Department of Transport asked those local authorities particularly affected by flooding to provide an assessment of the additional road costs incurred. Last week, the Department requested all local authorities to provide information on the likely additional costs of the recent severe weather over and above their normal winter maintenance expenditure and to identify the principal components of the additional costs. While the Department has received some information on the impact of the November flooding, the collection of information on the recent cold weather is still ongoing. It will take some time to establish costs as the damage is still becoming evident and is being quantified on a daily basis. However, the Minister has asked all local authorities to provide information as soon as possible to enable him to assess the full impact of the severe weather when deciding on the 2010 regional and local road grant allocations. In allocating those grants the Minister will prioritise expenditure to deal with damage caused by the recent exceptional weather.

It is particularly important that local authorities carefully reassess their planned road programmes for 2010 in light of the impact of the recent bad weather on their road networks. The Minister asks them to prioritise necessary repairs to damage caused to roads by weather. The first priority has to be the protection of the existing road network and particularly the massive Exchequer investment of €5.6 billion since 1997.

The National Roads Authority generally fully reimburses local authorities for their expenditure on winter maintenance on national primary and national secondary roads. The Minister is aware this expenditure has also increased substantially due to the bad weather. The NRA will also be reviewing its expenditure priorities for 2010 in the light of the damage caused to national roads.

Pension Provisions.

Deputy Michael Creed

By nature of the matter under discussion, I will speak about correspondence between the Department of Social and Family Affairs and elderly people and pensioners. Major distress has been caused by correspondence sent in recent days to a significant number of elderly people which cites section 110(1) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 as the basis for informing them that their pensions are being withdrawn and refunds of payments sought. In some cases, people are being notified that the payments for which they are awaiting approval are being withdrawn.

The basis for this decision is that the people in question did not pay PRSI contributions before they reached the age of 66. However, the correspondence sneakily omits section 110(2), which states: "Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Minister may, where he or she is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it would be appropriate to do so, direct that subsection (1) shall not be applied in that case.” I contend the individuals in question have been approved under section 110(2) of the Act and, having carried these applications across the threshold of eligibility by establishing that a farm or business partnership existed and that retrospective PRSI payments could be made, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs cannot now decide to retrospectively withdraw her discretionary approval to pay the pension.

If a satisfactory response is not given to us tonight, we will raise the issue by every parliamentary device available to us to ensure the Government recognises the folly of the course it is attempting to follow.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I support the points made by my colleague, Deputy Creed. I do not understand the rationale behind the Minister's approach to this matter other than as a money-saving mechanism. The section of the legislation to which Deputy Creed referred makes clear this is a matter of ministerial responsibility. It is clearly the Minister who has made the decision to contact these people to indicate that their pension entitlement will be withdrawn. I questioned the Minister on this issue earlier today in the House and am disappointed she is not here to address it on the Adjournment. She told us that 87 people are currently affected by the change, but this number does not take account of the many more who will be affected when they reach the age of eligibility.

The Minister has it entirely in her power to withdraw the notice sent out to the persons concerned. Her staff throughout the State made the relevant calculations on the applicants' behalf and told them how much they would have to contribute in order to be eligible for the allowance. Some people have been making contributions and have now received a letter asking that they withdraw the moneys submitted. This is unfair and miserly. It makes little of the legitimate expectation of those involved in the commercial partnerships in question, as set out to them by departmental staff. That expectation was fulfilled by way of payment in the case of at least 87 of them. Like my colleague, I call on the Minister to act upon the power accorded to her under subsection 110(2) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to ensure those payments are made.

Deputy Jimmy Deenihan

The scheme in question was announced on 25 June 2008 by the Minister, Deputy Hanafin. She said at the time that it was "hugely important" for women who have over many years contributed greatly to family commercial partnerships and that it would "primarily benefit women who are approaching pension age but are not covered for a contributory pension". The details of the scheme were published in social welfare booklet SW124. The booklet, which I and many of my colleagues have used in advising clients and constituents, makes no mention of the fact that the individual must have paid at least one contribution prior to turning 56 years of age. It is important to note that when a spouse is assessed by the Department and qualified to back pay PRSI for earlier years, the PRSI then collected includes, in the majority of cases, PRSI for years prior to the applicant's 56th birthday.

In the letters sent out to applicants informing them that they will not qualify for the pension, the Department has, as Deputy Creed noted, only referred to subsections 110(1)(a) and 110(1)(b) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. There is no reference to subsection 110(2) which states:

Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Minister may, where he or she is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it would be appropriate to do so, direct that subsection (1) shall not be applied in that case.

In other words, the Minister has the power to overturn this decision in respect of those persons who have made contributions. At the very least, those who have already been awarded a pension should retain that entitlement.

Deputy Barry Andrews

I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. Spouses who are actively engaged in a commercial partnership, including the operation of a farm, as opposed to simply being the joint owners of a property, are treated as individual self-employed contributors and are thus liable to social insurance contributions. On foot of a programme for Government commitment, an information leaflet, entitled "Working with your spouse: how it affects your social welfare contributions and entitlements",was developed between the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners to set out the social welfare and tax implications of families co-working in a shared business. It was published on 25 June 2008.

The leaflet clarifies that spouses who operate in a commercial partnership may be brought into the social insurance system, subject to certain criteria. In this way, both spouses incur a liability to pay self-employed PRSI and build up entitlement towards a contributory State pension and other social welfare benefits. Following the above campaign, more than 1,000 applications for commercial partnership status were received, of which 579 applications have been finalised, including 508 that were approved. Applications for pension or benefit are submitted and processed in the usual way.

To qualify for a contributory State pension, several conditions must be satisfied. A person must have at least 260 paid social insurance contributions, with a yearly average of at least ten contributions paid or credited since entry into the social insurance scheme. Applicants must have entered into social insurance before attaining the age of 56 years. In addition, subsection 110(1) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 provides that a self-employed contributor shall not be regarded as satisfying the qualifying conditions for a contributory State pension unless he or she has paid self-employment contributions in respect of at least one contribution year before attaining the pensionable age of 66 years and all self-employment contributions payable by him or her have been paid. The above condition in respect of one year's paid self-employed contributions before reaching age 66 has been in existence since 5 April 1995.

A State pension is a valuable benefit and it is important that the conditions applied ensure that those qualifying for payment have an adequate and sustained history of contributions to the social insurance fund over their working lives. Approximately 268 applications for a contributory State pension have been received under this scheme. Following a review of these pension claims, it was discovered that several individuals who had been in receipt of a pension did not satisfy the condition whereby they were required to have paid at least one year's self-employment contributions before reaching age 66. As they did not satisfy this condition, they have been notified that their claims have been disallowed from the date of pension award. To date, 97 claims for contributory State pension which were in payment have been disallowed and 16 customers have had their rates reduced. However, following the provision of additional information by some customers and further investigation in conjunction with Revenue, ten of the 97 cases above have had their payments reinstated. A further 46 customers have failed to satisfy the qualifying conditions and accordingly their claims have been refused. One further case is currently under investigation. Overpayments will be determined in the above cases and the customers will be notified and requested to repay the amounts involved. However, a recovery officer may reduce or cancel an overpayment based on the circumstance of an individual case, in line with the governing legislation.

There are 121 additional applications for commercial partnerships currently being processed by the scope section of the Department where the persons concerned have not paid any self-employment contributions prior to reaching age 66. If a favourable partnership decision is reached these persons may incur a PRSI liability for the years in question. These customers will not satisfy the condition that they paid self-employment contributions prior to reaching age 66. Last week the Department contacted all applicants to advise them of the position and to ascertain whether they wish the Department to continue its investigation or if they wish to withdraw their application.

While the publication of the leaflet to which I referred clarified existing procedures in regard to the recognition of commercial partnerships between husbands and wives for social insurance purposes, including retrospective payment of social insurance, it did not involve a change in existing policy or administration. In particular, the clarification of the position did not alter people's potential entitlements, and all applicants for the contributory State pension must continue to satisfy the eligibility conditions contained in legislation.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 January 2010.