Written Answers Nos. 55-63
55. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on the apparent disproportionate impact on women following changes to eligibility criteria for pensions, particularly the increase in the age limits and the increase in the number of reckonable contributions required to qualify for a State contributory pension; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25704/13]
View answerAs the Deputy will be aware, there are a number of planned State pension reform measures underway and the standardisation of State Pension age at 66 in 2014 is one of the changes, together with changes to rate bands for State pension and the increase to 520 paid contributions.
The State pension is a very valuable asset and therefore it is important that those who avail of it have made a sustained contribution to the Social Insurance Fund, from which State pension is funded, over a working life. Recent changes to State pension supports the direct link between contributions made and the rate of pension received which underpins State pension policy. Aligning the rate of pension with the contribution made ensures that those who contribute more during a working life benefit more in retirement. It also ensures greater sustainability of the State pensions system which is essential in the light of demographic changes. This is clear from the figures which indicate the current ratio of workers to pensioners will change from 6:1 at present to 1:2 by 2060.
The homemaker scheme makes qualification for the State pension (contributory) easier for those who take time out of the workforce for caring duties. The scheme was introduced in and took effect from 1994. The scheme allows up to 20 years spent caring for children under 12 years of age or incapacitated adults to be disregarded when a person’s social insurance record is being averaged for pension purposes. This can be beneficial for women who have taken time out of the workforce for caring purposes. The homemaker disregard will not, of itself, qualify a person for a pension. The standard qualifying conditions must also be satisfied.
Female employment rates have increased significantly since 1994, from c. 40% in 1994 to 60% in 2008. It has fallen back since to 55% but many of the unemployed will be getting credits. Ultimately, while difficult to quantify, this will ensure that additional women will qualify for a pension in their own right. The Actuarial Review of the Social Insurance Fund published in September 2012 confirms that the Fund provides better value to female rather than male contributors. The Review shows that those with lower earnings and those with shorter contribution histories, mostly women, have and will continue to obtain the best value for money from the Fund due to the redistributive nature of the Fund.
The Deputy may also wish to note that a review was undertaken in the Department in order to establish the prior position of those reaching State pension age and the review showed that only 0.05% of people come directly from homemaking on to State pension transition. It should be noted that women who do not qualify for a full rate pension may, if their spouse is in receipt of a State pension contributory, receive a qualified adult payment at a higher rate where they satisfy a means test. A State pension non-contributory pension, which is a means tested payment, may also be payable. Time taken out of the workforce for homemaking and caring duties will continue to be protected by the current homemaker’s disregard.
56. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will run a public information campaign to highlight to landlords, whose tenants are in receipt of rent supplement, that it is illegal to demand an under the counter and or undeclared top-up payment. [25730/13]
View answerThere are currently approximately 86,000 rent supplement recipients for which the Government has provided over €403 million for 2013. Rent supplement is calculated to ensure that the person, after payment of rent, has an income equal to the basic supplementary welfare allowance rate, less a specified weekly minimum contribution which recipients are required to pay from their own resources. The “top up” payments referred to fall into two specific categories. Where a person has an additional income above the rate of supplementary welfare allowance they are, in certain circumstances, allowed to top up their rent as they will still have sufficient income to meet their basic needs after paying their rent.
The second type of top-up payment can occur where the application to the Department declares a rent lower than that actually being charged by the landlord. There has been no evidence presented to the Department showing widespread or systemic ‘false declarations’ of rent supplement through the use of illegal top-ups. The tenant, landlord or landlord’s agent must complete the rent supplement application form, which includes the amount of rent, and declare that the information provided is correct and accurate. The Department’s form clearly states that making a false statement or withholding information may lead to prosecution. I currently have no plans to run a public information campaign to highlight to landlords that it is illegal to demand an undeclared top-up payment but I have asked the Department to keep the matter under review.
The Department, in June 2012, introduced powers of inquiry (Section 14 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012) for staff to formally request and oblige landlords to provide information in respect of rent supplement tenants, principally to verify the agreed rent and existence of the tenancy. This measure improves both the governance and oversight arrangements in place. Any instance of false declarations should be reported to the relevant Department representatives who have specific legislative powers to deal with such offences.
59. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide details of all transport services which are co-funded by her Department in respect of persons with disabilities for each of the past four years; and the amount of funding allocated to them and their locations. [25713/13]
View answerAccess to transport services for persons with mobility impairments is primarily as matter for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sports and the Health Services Executive. In a number of instances nationally, the Department of Social Protection, through the Community Services Programme (CSP), has been able to support the provision of services by community companies. Contracts under the CSP are provided in the form of wage subsidy for the employment of a manager and a number of full-time equivalent positions. The nature and type of services provided by contractors vary across a broad range of activities. To be eligible, the service must be provided by a non-profit sharing company or co-operative; the service must be capable of being traded and revenue generating and must meet locally identified service gaps or where there is a deficit in demand that cannot be met by the public or private sectors. The level of non-public resources required to be generated by contractors relate to the nature of the service provision, the local opportunities to trade and a range of other social and commercial factors. Pobal has been engaged by the Department to provide contract management, financial control and day-to-day operational services. The funding available to the programme in 2013 is just over €46m with 420 contracts in place at the end of May 2013 supporting 2,084 full-time positions. Details of contracts in respect of accessible transport service providers are set out in the table.
Community Services Programme – contractors providing accessible transport
|
Service Name |
Location |
2013 Contract Value |
2012 Contract value |
2011 Contract Value |
2010 Contract Value |
|
Accessible Community Transport Southside (ACTS) |
Dublin |
€315,946 |
€315,946 |
€315,946 |
€328,945 |
|
Clare Accessible Transport |
Clare |
€108,132 |
€108,132 |
€108,132 |
€108,132 |
|
Cork Accessible Transport** |
Cork |
€63,824 |
€127,648 |
€127,648 |
€126,648 |
|
Easi Access Transport Ltd |
Wicklow |
€223,297 |
€223,297 |
€223,297 |
€213,297 |
|
L.I.F.T.S Community Project |
Dublin |
€70,066 |
€70,066 |
€70,066 |
€70,066 |
|
Lucan Disability Action Group |
Dublin |
€193,781 |
€193,781 |
€193,781 |
€193,781 |
|
Meath Accessible Transport |
Meath |
€165,231 |
€165,231 |
€165,231 |
€165,231 |
|
The Kerry Flyer Ltd |
Kerry |
€189,748 |
€189,748 |
€189,748 |
€189,748 |
|
Vantastic* |
Dublin |
€822,000 |
€835,726 |
€865,726 |
€480,726 |
* Vantastic: Prior to 2011, funding is provided by the Department of Justice and Equality. All grants are now consolidated in the CSP
** Cork Accessible Transport plans to cease operation at the end of June 2013. The contract value shown above relates to the period Jan – June.
60. Deputy John Deasy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the number of decisions handed down by the European Court of Human Rights specifically referring to rulings of the Irish Supreme Court since joining the European Union; and the specific regulatory or legislative action taken by Ireland as a result of each decision. [26087/13]
View answerI have understood the Deputy’s question to relate to judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Ireland. The European Court of Human Rights issues judgments and decisions relating to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court and Convention operate within the framework of the Council of Europe rather than the European Union, but it is hoped that the EU will shortly accede to the Convention. Ireland signed the Convention on 4 November 1950 and ratified it on 25 February 1953.
I have annexed a list of the 45 judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights which refer to rulings of the Irish Supreme Court. In 20 of these cases, the Court did not find a violation of the Convention and 7 others were settled. There are 18 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights finding a violation of the Convention with respect to one or more aspects of the application which refer to rulings of the Irish Supreme Court.
Domestically, implementation of Court judgments is primarily a matter for the lead Minister to take forward but I have endeavoured to provide the Deputy with information on steps taken to implement judgments against the State. The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
In relation to pending judgments against the State, information on their current status (including information submitted by the State) is available on the website of the Department of Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights at: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/default_EN.asp. Committee of Ministers’ Resolutions terminating its supervision of judgments which have been fully implemented and setting out the steps taken to implement the judgment are available via the HUDOC database located on the website of the European Court of Human Rights at: www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw/HUDOC&c=#n1355308215921_pointer.
List of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights referring to rulings of the Irish Supreme Court
Courtney v Ireland, application no 69558/10, decision, 18 December 2012 (inadmissible);
Boyce v Ireland, application no 8428/09, decision, 27 November 2012 (inadmissible);
Magee v Ireland, application no 53743/09, decision, 20 November 2012 (friendly settlement);
McDermott and others v Ireland and Keegan v Ireland, application no 23213/09 and 62652/09, decision, 25 September 2012 (inadmissible);
O’Keeffe v Ireland, application no 35810/09, decision, 26 June 2012 (partly friendly settlement and partly pending);
C v Ireland, application no 24643/08, judgment, 1 March 2012 (violation);
The finding of a violation related to delays in criminal proceedings. Implementation of this judgment is ongoing and is related to the judgment in Mc Farlane v Ireland (see below).
O v Ireland, application no 43838/07, judgment, 19 January 2012 (violation);
The finding of a violation related to delays in criminal proceedings. Implementation of this judgment is ongoing and is related to the judgment in Mc Farlane v Ireland (below).
Birney v Ireland and Troy and Brennan v Ireland, application nos 50254/08 and 52079/08, decision, 10 January 2012 (inadmissible);
TH v Ireland, application no 37868/06, judgment, 8 December 2011 (violation);
The finding of violations related to delays in criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy regarding such delays. Implementation of this judgment is ongoing and is related to the judgment in Mc Farlane v Ireland (below).
Superwood Holdings PLC and Others v Ireland, application no 7812/04, judgment, 8 September 2011 (violation);
The finding of a violation related to delays in civil proceedings. There are no outstanding measures required. Implementation of the judgment was related to implementation of previous similar judgments (see Barry v Ireland, Doran v Ireland, Mc Mullen v Ireland and O’Reilly v Ireland, below).
Enright v Ireland, application no 61138/08, decision, 21 June 2011 (friendly settlement);
JB v Ireland, application no 9519/07, decision, 21 June 2011 (friendly settlement);
Adio v Ireland, application no 8596/08, decision, 17 May 2011 (inadmissible);
A, B and C v Ireland, judgment, application no 25579/05, judgment, 16 December 2010 (violation);
The finding of a violation related to the lack of an accessible and effective procedure to enable Ms C to establish whether she qualified for a lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with Irish law. Implementation of this judgment is ongoing.
Kelly v Ireland, application no 41130/06, decision 14 December 2010 (inadmissible);
Mc Farlane v Ireland, application no 31333/06, judgment, 10 September 2010 (violation);
The finding of violations related to delays in criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy regarding such delays. Implementation of this judgment is ongoing.
Stapleton v Ireland, application no 56588/07, decision, 4 May 2010 (inadmissible);
X v Ireland, application no 14079/04, decision, 15 December 2009 (inadmissible);
Boyce v Ireland, application no 23663/06, decision, 6 May 2008 (friendly settlement);
Delaney v Ireland, application no 23662/06, decision, 29 November 2007 (friendly settlement);
D v Ireland, application no 26499/02, decision, 28 June 2006 (inadmissible);
Barry v Ireland, application no 18273/04, judgment, 15 December 2005 (violation);
The finding of violations related to delays in criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy regarding such delays. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented by way of legislative and administrative changes in practice and procedure.
Panevskii and Others v Ireland, application no 2453/03, decision, 13 October 2005 (inadmissible);
Bosphorous Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, application no 45036/98, judgment, 30 June 2005 (no violation);
Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v Ireland, application no 55120/00, judgment, 16 June 2005 (no violation);
O’Reilly and Others v Ireland, application no 54725/00, judgment, 29 July 2004 (violation);
The finding of violations related to delays in civil proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy regarding such delays. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented by way of legislative and administrative changes in practice and procedure.
Mc Mullen v Ireland, application no 42297/98, judgment, 29 July 2004, (violation);
The finding of a violation related to delays in civil proceedings. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented by way of legislative and administrative changes in practice and procedure.
Dawson v Ireland, application no 21826/02, decision, 8 July 2004 (inadmissible);
Doran v Ireland, application no 50389/99, judgment, 31 July 2003 (violation);
The finding of violations related to delays in civil proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy regarding such delays.. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented by way of legislative and administrative changes in practice and procedure.
Murphy v Ireland, application no 44179/98, judgment, 10 July 2003 (no violation);
Nee v Ireland, application no 52787/99, decision, 30 January 2003 (inadmissible);
DG v Ireland, application no 39474/98, judgment, 16 May 2002 (violation);
The finding of a violation related to the right to liberty by the placing of an individual with a severe personality disorder in a penal institution. Implementation of the judgment is ongoing.
Mc Elhinny v Ireland, application no 31253/96, judgment 21 November 2001 (no violation);
Croke v Ireland, application no 33267/96, judgment, 21 December 2000 (friendly settlement);
Quinn v Ireland, application no 36887/97, judgment, 21 December 2000 (violation);
The finding of a violation related to the right to silence. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented by way of legislative and administrative changes in practice and procedure.
Heaney and McGuinness v Ireland, application no 34720/97, judgment, 21 December 2000 (violation);
The finding of a violation related to the right to silence. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented by way of legislative and administrative changes in practice and procedure.
Barry v Ireland, application no 41957/98, decision, 6 July 2000 (inadmissible);
Rock v Ireland, application no 41525/98, decision, 11 May 2000 (inadmissible);
Dempsey v Ireland, application no 41382/98, decision, 6 April 2000 (inadmissible);
Keegan v Ireland, application no 16969/90, judgment, 26 May 1994 (violation);
The finding of a violation related to the right to family life. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented primarily by way of legislative change in particular, the Adoption Act 1988 provided a legally protected right to natural fathers to be consulted in matters of adoption of their children.
Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland, application nos 14234/88 and 14235/88, judgment, 29 October 1992 (violation);
The finding of a violation related to freedom of expression and the provision of information about abortion services in the United Kingdom. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented by way of legislative change, in particular, the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995 and the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1992.
Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v Ireland, application no 12742/87, judgment, 29 November 1991 (violation);
The finding of a violation related to the prohibition of discrimination in the enjoyment of property rights. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented by payment of just satisfaction (ie monetary compensation) as directed by the European Court of Human Rights.
Norris v Ireland, application no 10581/83, judgment, 26 October 1988, (violation);
The finding of a violation related to an interference with the right to private life resulting from legislation prohibiting male homosexual activity. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented by legislative change, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993.
Johnston and Others v Ireland, application no 9697/82, judgment, 18 December 1986, (violation);
The finding of a violation related the right to respect for family life in the context of children born outside marriage. There are no outstanding measures required. The judgment was implemented by legislative change, the Status of Children Act 1987.
Lawless v Ireland (No 3), application no 332/57, judgment, 1 July 1961, (no violation).
61. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has met with the Ulster based youth engagement Wider Horizons group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25978/13]
View answer62. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has considered alternative funding arrangements for the Wider Horizons group in view of the winding down of International Fund for Ireland revenue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25979/13]
View answer63. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has raised the matter of Wider Horizons with the Departments of Education and Skills, Social Protection, and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25980/13]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 61 to 63, inclusive, together.
As I advised in my reply to PQ Reference No. 21088/13 of 7 May 2013, the decision to cease funding of the Wider Horizons Programme was taken by the Board of the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) which is an independent organisation. I understand that this decision was taken due to the very significant reduction in funds available to the IFI.
I would like to reiterate my belief that the IFI continues to have an important role to play and I agree with the focus of its new strategy which is targeted at those communities that have not previously, or only partially engaged in peace building and reconciliation activities. I have discussed that IFI role with the Northern Ireland Executive, the British Government as well as raising it with our friends in the US Congress and Capitol Hill during my visit to Washington D.C. last March. In a similar way, the Government has worked with EU partners to secure further funding under the EU Peace Programme. The Government supports the inclusion of cross border and cross community youth training as part of that programme.
It is regrettable that a programme such as this which has had such a positive impact on the lives of those trainees who participated in it has to come to an end. I understand that the Wider Horizons Programme was in receipt of approximately £4 million sterling per annum and the IFI no longer has the financial resources to maintain this support. However this is not a government programme and to respect the independence of the IFI, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment or to intervene further on the matter.
