This question is on the social welfare appeals office. The staff in the Department of Social Protection do a fantastic job. I have read reports where the Ombudsman commends the staff, the appeals officers, the deciding officers, the work they do and the way they deal with the public. I want the Minister to report that back to the staff of the Department. They are very professional and very helpful to Members all the time. I am interested in the number of cases currently being considered by the social welfare appeals office and how long some of these cases are taking to resolve.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter and for his kind comments about the staff of the Department.

The social welfare appeals office is an office of the Department of Social Protection which is responsible for determining appeals against decisions relating to social welfare entitlements. Appeals officers are independent in their decision-making functions. Significant efforts and resources have been devoted to reforming and streamlining the appeal process in recent years. A modernisation project is currently in progress to develop and implement a new appeals business process and IT system. The next phase of the system, which will be implemented in quarter 3 of 2024, will provide functionality on the MyWelfare platform for making appeals. This will provide a secure and comprehensive online appeals service for customers. It will improve the customer experience by offering an additional online channel that will facilitate 24-7 access to view current appeal status. It will also reduce the administrative overhead of validating and registering appeals.

The time taken to process appeals reflects the need to consider each decision in detail and, in many cases, to offer the appellant the opportunity to provide further information in addition to that submitted with their appeal. The chief appeals officer continues to monitor processing times and every effort is made to reduce the time taken to process an appeal. However, the drive for efficiency must be balanced with the competing demand to ensure decisions are consistent and of high quality and made in accordance with the provisions set out in primary legislation and regulations. Draft new regulations setting out the processes to be followed by the appeals office, including specific timelines for receipt and processing of appeals, have been prepared and discussed at the Oireachtas committee and issued for public consultation. These regulations are now being finalised and when implemented should enable a more efficient and transparent appeals office.

As of 31 May 2024 there was a total of 12,489 appeals registered and under consideration. Of these, a total of 5,174 are with the appeals office to be finalised with the remaining appeals under consideration by the relevant scheme area in the Department before submitting the file papers to the appeals office. The average processing time for an appeal was 16 weeks.

I thank the Minister for her response and commend her on the work she is doing in this area, especially updating the IT systems, which should make for a huge improvement there. I ask the Minister to give us a bit more of a breakdown of which schemes or areas are causing the most difficulty with respect to appeals. Is there anything standing out there with respect to the number of appeals being lodged for a particular scheme, for instance? What is the longest waiting time in the various schemes she has in front of her? Will she make those figures available to us in tabular form at a later stage? I am aware she cannot give them all to us now, but they would make interesting reading, especially the longest waiting times. Has she looked at the need for extra staff and resources in the appeals office?

I thank the Deputy. I have a table that sets out all the data and the appeals processing times in weeks by scheme for January to December of 2023. The one that seems to have the most appeals is illness benefit, with a processing time of 40.9 weeks. I will get this sent to the Deputy, because I have only just received it. I am not too sure how many weeks it took, but they were finalised eventually. I will get that detail to him.

For an appeal decided without an oral hearing, the average processing time was 17.6 weeks and for those with an oral hearing it was 29.2 weeks. We are trying to improve the system. It has been upgraded and the modernisation project is under way so we are trying to improve the times.

I commend the Minister on her efforts to improve the time. A period of 29.2 weeks is quite a long time to be waiting for a decision, and especially if the person does not have any income over that period. Obviously when income has been reduced quite considerably, there is a stress that goes with that. Does the Minister have targets in respect of these times of 29.2 weeks and 17.6 weeks? Is there a target to reduce them further by, perhaps, halving them in time with new systems coming in place, more resources and so on? Bearing in mind that every social welfare appeal goes to the appeals office, are we making enough use of the review process? Do people go directly to the appeals office rather than having their cases reviewed, which obviously takes a shorter time? This would really reduce the number of cases that are going to appeals.

I thank the Deputy. They can ask for a review and if the review fails it then goes to an appeal. Often the issue gets resolved at review stage because maybe further information has been provided and then it goes through. We are changing the system. It has been modernised to improve the efficiencies and to decide quicker. I understand how important it is that people get an answer quickly because it can be worrying for them when they are waiting for the decisions to come through. I take on board the points raised by Deputy Stanton.

I seek to ascertain the extent to which the Minister might be able to improve the levels of payments made to various recipients. This could arise from a variety of reasons such as lesser contributions in old age pensions or any other issue that is at present seen as a glitch in not allowing the payments to be equal with the highest.

As the Minister for Social Protection and during the lifetime of this Government, I am proud to have introduced many improvements to the social protection system. As part of budget 2024, I secured a €2.3 billion social protection package. This was, for the second year in a row, the largest social protection budget in the history of the State. Post-budget analysis from the ESRI showed that the package would insulate most such households from rising prices into 2024. As part of this package, a wide range of lump-sum payments were paid in late 2023 and into 2024. These included supports for low-income working families, people with disabilities, carers, those living alone and those in receipt of the fuel allowance. A double bonus payment was paid both at Christmas and in January.

I was also pleased to announce key reforms such as the introduction of pay-related jobseeker's benefit from later this year, as well as an extension to parent's benefit to nine weeks, improvements to the wage subsidy scheme, extending free travel to those who are medically unfit to drive, further extending hot school meals and extending child benefit to 18-year-olds in full-time education, among other measures.

Across my time in government, we have seen very significant rises across the board in the rates of pensions, disability payments, carers' payments and other weekly schemes. There have also been significant increases in seasonal and annual schemes such as the fuel allowance and the carer's support grant. Decisions about budget 2025 will be made in the coming months. In working with my ministerial colleagues, I will of course continue to take account of the independent evidence from the CSO, the ESRI, and bodies such as the Vincentian Minimum Essential Standard of Living Research Centre. As always I will also listen closely to the views of Deputies in this House, the community, the voluntary pillar, advocacy groups and other stakeholders in the run-up to the budget.

I thank the Minister for that reply. It is well acknowledged that substantial improvements have been made in relation to the delivery of social welfare payments throughout the country and this is greatly valued. Is it the Minister's intention in the course of preparation for the next budget - which is in some months' time - to examine family situations whereby a large family may have a lot of outgoings and whether there could be a general test or overall template in order those who come in under the level of payments required might have a fall-back situation and could rely on favourable consideration when it comes to the budget?

Yes we have a number of schemes. There is the basic payment and then there are social transfers that also kick in depending on family size and depending on the situation. A number of different variables are taken into account when determining the default payment a family receives from social welfare. These variables are reviewed every year when I look at them.

There are other things I have changed quite a lot in the last few years, such as the roll-out of the hot school meals programme, which has proved to be very successful. This is helping to keep money in people's pockets because parents do not have to incur that expense of having to purchase and prepare the food for their children's lunch at primary school. The hot school meals programme has made a difference.

We looked at the over-70s fuel allowance and I expanded that, which was a big change. We put in place higher income limits so more older people would qualify. A couple can have an income of €1,024 per week and €50,000 in savings and still get the fuel allowance. We expanded those things.

There was also the extension of child benefit to 18-year-olds in full-time education. This was another very popular measure I brought in from the beginning of May to help families into the future because children are starting school older.

One issue that has come to my attention in recent times - and at all times - is in relation to family law disputes where the mother of the children may be forced to pursue the partner in court in order to get a validated payment, which is a very dangerous thing to do if there is violence. This happens in many cases and puts huge hardship on the mother of the children and creates terrible fear in those cases. It places the mother at a disadvantage to such an extent she sometimes does not want to pursue the case at all. Some officers consider these things and take a liberal view but others do not. Is it possible to generalise it and make it possible to have a procedure where there is no threat to the mother of the children in those cases?

I am glad the Deputy brought this matter up. Due to the child maintenance review that was carried out, I have changed the legislation so that from the beginning of this month, child maintenance is no longer taken into consideration as part of the means test. A person does not have to go to court to prove what he or she is getting or not getting. All of that is being disregarded and one-parent families are now able to make their claim without the need for recourse to the courts. That maintenance is for the children and now it is not included as part of the means test. I was glad to be able to change that because it has made a difference and particularly for women who had to go in and out of court to prove they were not getting the payment, and then they had to go to the social welfare office. Then their partner would miss a week, pay one week and miss another few, then pay another and it was torture for those unfortunate people who found themselves in that situation. I am glad I was able to change that legislation. I was very keen to change this because I saw it often enough from my days in the credit union where mothers in particular, were unfortunately left in very difficult circumstances when they were not getting the payment and their social welfare payment was based on that income.

I thank the Minister.

Tomorrow night we will vote on Second Stage of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. As it stands, the Bill proposes to increase employees' PRSI every year for the next five years. Given that employers' PRSI is the lowest in Europe and given the cost-of-living crisis workers face, will the Minister withdraw the Government's proposal for an extra tax on ordinary workers and increase employers' PRSI to cover the costs?

I thank Deputy Murphy. The PRSI system plays a fundamental and supportive role in our society. For the PRSI contributions they make, employees and self-employed workers receive benefits for the periods spent out of employment during periods of unemployment, illness or maternity, for example, and upon retirement from the workforce. One of the findings of the latest actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund was that the fund will experience significant long-term sustainability challenges. This is mainly driven by the challenge Ireland will face concerning demographics, particularly the ageing of our population. All PRSI rates applicable to employees, employers and the self-employed are significantly below the EU average. The rates are not directly comparable because different approaches, thresholds and ceilings apply across member states. It is in this context that we are undertaking a collective, evenly spread and gradual programme of increasing PRSI rates across all three contributors to the Social Insurance Fund – employees, employers and the self-employed – between 2024 and 2028. These increases will support the retention of the State pension age at 66 years, help address the long-term sustainability challenges facing the Social Insurance Fund and also provide for the new jobseeker's pay-related benefit. The Bill to provide for these increases is currently progressing through the Oireachtas. I am satisfied that the approach decided upon by the Government achieves a fair balance in addressing the long-term sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund without unduly impinging on the incomes of workers and the cost of doing business in Ireland.

This is a stealth tax increase on ordinary workers. It has not been subject to anywhere near enough media scrutiny and public discussion. The Government is, with one hand, taking money from ordinary low-paid workers and, with the other, putting money into the pockets of businesses through the employers' PRSI tax break it has given businesses through the business support package. A full-time worker on the minimum wage will face paying almost €180 extra in PRSI and a worker on the average wage will face paying almost €350 extra. Therefore, the Government is taking money from workers' pockets to give it to employers. This is at a time when people are to be hammered with increases in excise and carbon tax on petrol and diesel, which are planned for later this year. They will be hit again and hit by the cost-of-living crisis in every single way. The Minister is planning to increase taxes on ordinary workers and should withdraw this proposal.

If the Deputy wants to keep the pension age at 66, he should realise it has to be paid for. That is the reality. Sometimes he is a bit detached from reality. With him, it is usually a case of spend, spend, spend on the grounds that somebody else can pay for it. That is how he operates. He got his answer at the weekend. People are not buying his view. The Government parties won over 500 seats and his political grouping won 13. That tells him all he needs to know.

These are very modest increases. There is an increase of 0.1%, which equates to about 90 cent per week on the average industrial wage. The value of the State pension is roughly €380,000 for the average person. That is what your pot is worth when you retire. The contribution is an extra 90 cent per week and it is reasonable. Now is the time to introduce it. These are very small, incremental increases. Now, when we have full employment, is the time to introduce them.

It is the Minister who is spending money, giving it to big businesses. Why is she introducing the business support package through changing the threshold for the lower employer PRSI rate, costing the Social Insurance Fund €60 million? She is giving the businesses €60 million and will take €60 million from workers next year. She is taking from workers to give to businesses, yet she pretends nothing is happening here and that everything just goes on. She also talks about 0.1%. It will be 0.1% next year but over the subsequent years it will go up to 4.7%. What is missing from this discussion, because Fine Gael represents the interests of big businesses, is the fact that we have one of the lowest employer PRSI rates in Europe. An analysis by the Government's own tax strategy group found that even the higher rate of employer PRSI is less than half the EU average and less than a quarter of what bosses in France pay. The employers are therefore the ones who can afford to pay for this scheme.

The recently agreed PRSI rate increases, although still very significantly under the EU average, achieve a fair balance between addressing the long-term sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund and maintaining the State pension age at 66. The proposal is not unduly impinging on the incomes of workers and the cost of doing business in Ireland.

There is a very simple point that I believe the Deputy missed. If you keep piling all the costs on the employers, their businesses may not survive, meaning we will have no jobs. That is what happens; it is very simple. Increasing the employer rate by such a margin would clearly lead to very significant pressures on employers with regard to the affordability of retaining staff, expanding their workforces and generally keeping their businesses sustainable. The proposal is for small incremental increases across the board. If you target one cohort alone, the amount will have to be bigger; it is as simple as that. Therefore, what we are doing is right.

I wish to ask the Minister for Social Protection if she is aware that foster caring for children with additional complex needs does not qualify one for full pension support, even in cases where Tusla has advised these carers they need to be on call 24-7 to support the children's medical needs and therefore one carer per household should not rejoin the workforce. Has she liaised with the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth on this matter, as that Department's Minister promised in a parliamentary question response on 17 January?

I thank the Deputy for the question. Matters relating to foster care, including any criteria relating to work, are the responsibility of the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, and of Tusla. The State contributory pension is funded from the Social Insurance Fund through the contributions paid by workers. The payment rate reflects the number of social insurance contributions paid over a working life. However, it is recognised that people may have periods out of the workforce for reasons such as caring responsibilities, including foster caring. Accordingly, the State contributory pension provides measures such as PRSI credits, home-making disregards and home-caring periods to recognise these periods of care outside paid employment in the calculation of a payment rate. Foster carers are entitled to the benefits of PRSI credits and home-making disregards and home-caring periods where they meet the criteria, in the same way as biological or adoptive parents. There is no difference in treatment. Foster carers can register for caring periods for each child under the age of 12 if in receipt of child benefit. If a foster carer is not in receipt of child benefit, they can still qualify provided the caring periods are confirmed by Tusla. In the case of a child who is over the age of 12, periods can be registered where the child requires continuous supervision and regular assistance throughout the day with the activities of daily living, including nursing care. There is a maximum of 20 years' caring periods available. In addition, long-term carer's contributions are available that attribute the equivalent of a paid contribution to long-term carers of incapacitated people to cover gaps in their contribution record for State contributory pension purposes.

Foster carers who have cared for an incapacitated person for a cumulative period of over 20 years are eligible for these contributions. Officials from my Department have actively engaged with the Department of children and Tulsa on this matter, met representative foster carers and hosted an information seminar for nearly 300 foster carers to explain the State pension system and their entitlements.

Go raibh maith agat for the information. It is fantastic to hear that there will be a webinar. I decided to raise this matter with the Minister of State because it has been highlighted to me by my constituents that there is an anomaly whereby some foster carers, most of whom are women, find themselves unable to qualify for full contributory State pensions. It is apparently possible to exceed the amount of credits allowed and simultaneously fall short in PRSI payments when fostering for long periods of time. This unfair situation is affecting foster care morale and deterring new foster carers from joining when we need them the most. That is the situation despite the fact that foster carers save the State millions of euros.

A grassroots group of foster carers called Movement for Change in Foster Care has pointed to the past three years of lobbying and holding meetings with Tusla and the Departments of Social Protection and Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Its representatives say that in order to move beyond the stalemate, all three State agencies need to find a workable mechanism that will fit in with the pension rules so that no foster carer falls short in his or her pension entitlement because of time spent fostering.

I thank the Deputy. I should have opened by acknowledging the work that foster carers do in Ireland. There is an exceptionally high rate of foster caring for children who need care in Ireland and we must ensure that maintains. In fact, we need to grow it, which we can do by further supporting foster carers.

It is important to say that the foster care allowance is payable by Tusla to foster carers on behalf of, and to offset expenses relating to, the child in foster care. The foster care allowance is not assessed as means for any social assistance payment. I acknowledge that the foster care allowance is currently €325 per week per child under the age of 12 and €352 per week per child aged 12 or over. That increased by €25 in the budget last year. From November this year, the foster care allowance for children under 12 will increase to €400 per week and for those over 12 to €425 per week. There was also an additional one-off double payment in December.

I acknowledge that the weekly payments have gone up. When the Irish Foster Care Association, IFCA, conducted a survey prior to the increase in the payments, 50% of the carers surveyed said they experienced financial difficulties due to their commitments to caring and have considered giving up fostering because they are worried about being able to provide an adequate level of care.

The Minister of State mentioned the home caring periods scheme, which can help to qualify carers for the State pension. However, it only applies to households where the children are under 12. If they are over 12, it applies where the children are disabled. High-needs fosters do not vanish at the age of 13. Tusla advises carers that they need to be on call 24-7. That is a prerequisite because the children are too traumatised to attend crèche full time and would have numerous medical appointments and birth-family access. A number of difficulties are at play.

I point to the fact that the home caring periods scheme is capped to a maximum of 20 years, which means talented long-term foster carers are unable to use it. That seems unnecessary and I raise that issue with the Minister of State.

I note that the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, promised to liaise with the Minister of State's Department. The Minister of State has said that is happening. He also mentioned the webinar. If he could speak to any other headway that is being made, it would be great.

I am coming at this question from the point of view of my role in the Department of Social Protection and my knowledge of the foster caring side of matters is being added in, to be honest. It might be appropriate to send the question to the other Department to get more detail.

The Deputy mentioned children over 12 and a disability requirement. I do not think the situation is that rigid. Different language is used in respect of the level of care required and the word "disability" is not specifically mentioned in the guidance for children over 12. That may practically end up the case for many children over 12 who qualify but the language is not that rigid.

It is important to say that Tusla can provide additional financial supports to foster carers through additional or enhanced payments. Most carers know that, I suspect. They should engage with their Tusla contact point if there is a particular financial difficulty.

I wish to ask about the current waiting times at the appeals office and if additional resources will be allocated to it. The Minister gave a general answer in respect of the times involved. We dealt with the issue of hubs previously. Some of the teething problems seem to have been sorted out but we seem to have a backlog. The sooner this can be dealt with, the better.

I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. The social welfare appeals office is an office of the Department of Social Protection which is responsible for determining appeals against decisions in respect of social welfare entitlements. Appeals officers are independent in their decision-making functions.

The office is currently finalising its annual report for 2023, with the data showing that the overall average processing time for an appeal was 16 weeks. For an appeal decided without an oral hearing, the average processing time was 17.6 weeks and for those with an oral hearing, it was 29.2 weeks. Significant efforts and resources have been devoted to reforming and streamlining the appeal process in recent years. A modernisation project is under way to develop and implement a new appeals business process and IT system. As part of this project, 12 additional administration staff have been added to the appeals team. In addition, ten appeals officers have been appointed this year to replace those who have retired or moved to new roles. This project aims to provide an enhanced and responsive appeals service for customers. A new IT system was introduced on 6 November 2023. The next phase of the system, which will be implemented in quarter 3 of 2024, will provide functionality on the MyWelfare platform for making appeals online.

The new system has already significantly reduced the time taken to register and acknowledge appeals lodged with the appeals office and, in time, will reduce the overall average processing times.

The chief appeals officer continues to monitor processing times and every effort is made to reduce the time taken to process an appeal. However, the drive for efficiency must be balanced with the competing demand to ensure that decisions are consistent and of high quality and are made in accordance with the requirements set out in primary legislation and in regulations and the general principles of fair procedures and natural justice. In order to streamline the process and provide for specific response timelines, a draft new set of regulations was prepared and discussed at an Oireachtas committee and also issued for public consultation. These are now being finalised to take account of responses received and when implemented, will enable a more transparent and efficient appeals process.

We would all welcome any streamlining of systems, whether the IT systems or the process generally. My office still encounters issues. We are dealing with a particular carer's benefit appeal that has been hanging around since February. Average timescales are sometimes made up of some cases that are all right and other cases that are very difficult. Some cases take too long to resolve. It is a matter of dealing with that.

I will send on one or two of these issues to the Minister. In fairness, the response time from the Minister and the Department is generally decent. I am not alone in saying that there seems to be a particular issue with the appeal line for TDs and representatives to which we all have access. Sometimes you cannot get through but when you do, it is a good service. There seems to be an anomaly there. If that could be checked out, it would be useful for our constituents, whatever about TDs.

To tell the truth, my constituency office staff also use the appeal line for TDs and representatives. We all deal with social welfare appeals in our constituency offices. What happens in the vast majority of cases, as we know, is that not all the medical information is provided at the start and the application is turned down. Once that happens, you are into review and appeals.

The reviews can be quicker but I do accept that we need to do more to make the appeals process work better for people. Deputy Stanton also raised this matter this evening. Some appeals do take too long and that is it. I would say to the Deputies if they have appeals that are taking a long time bring them to my attention and I will come back to them. If I see the examples then I have a stronger case when I point out that perhaps we need to do something differently. A big piece of work is under way in the Department to modernise the appeals process so there will be an online service. This will be of benefit.

I am very supportive of modernising the appeals process, particularly any system involved. The sooner, the better, the quicker and the faster. We would all agree with this. I have no difficulty in passing on the information to the Minister. I was not going to say this but I thank the Minister with regard to the issue we dealt with previously. People are very supportive of it. What we need to get into particularly is ensuring the systems are good enough and that people can get what they are entitled to. Not for the first time I may slightly go off on a tangent from the question rather than just repeating again what I said. Earlier the Taoiseach brought up the means test for carers and he said he believed it was too mean. He spoke about the income disregard that will be dealt with this week. Will the Minister give an update on this if it is possible? I realise I am throwing this out.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for allowing me in. I welcome the fact the Minister is committing to streamlining and improving the appeals process. As other speakers in the House have alluded to, I deal with constituents who are faced with lengthy waiting periods for having their appeals heard. I suggest the Minister puts a time limit on when appeals can be heard. Any applicant for a social welfare payment must make an appeal within 21 working days or the appeal will not be taken on board. Anything that is time bound focuses the mind and makes people an awful lot more efficient. I always use the example of local authorities dealing with planning applications. Planning applications have to be dealt with because it is prescribed in law that they must be dealt with in eight weeks and they are dealt with. People will return their further information within six months or the application is deemed to be withdrawn. I honestly believe that throughout our public service we need to bring in timelines as to when a decision must be made. I ask the Minister to take this on board.

I will increase the income disregards for carers and this will kick in next week. It will be increased. It is important that we do this. It is part of the budget and it is starting next week. The online service we are putting together is a new process. Online applications will be quicker than paper applications. It will be like the passport service. The online service is very quick, in fairness to the Passport Office. A few years ago we were looking at long delays for passports. The online system has managed to change this and turn it around. The Deputies see as well as I do that when people submit stronger medical evidence a lot of the time their appeal is successful. It takes longer if they do not provide the evidence in the first place and if it is not there. If I have one message for people it is to put all of their medical reports with their application at the start. I have asked the officials to look at the application forms and the guidelines to make them clearer. The Deputies have come forward with suggestions this evening and I will take them on board. By the way, the income limit for carers will be that couples can earn up to €900 a week and a single person can earn up to €450 a week. They will kick in next week.

Deputy Bruton sends his apologies. He wants to ask the Minister whether the community employment scheme has been subject to programme evaluation, if there are plans for its evolution and if she will make a statement on the matter.

I acknowledge the important role community employment schemes play in providing valuable opportunities to participants and in supporting the delivery of key services to local communities across the country.

I can confirm that in March the OECD published an impact evaluation of Ireland's active labour market programmes for long-term unemployed people finding positive labour market impacts for both the community employment and Tús programmes. The evaluation was carried out by the OECD in partnership with the European Commission's Joint Research Centre and staff from the Department of Social Protection. In undertaking the review, the researchers accessed a wide range of administrative data on the employment schemes and engaged with a range of key stakeholders to gain a real understanding of the impact of these programmes on participants and local communities.

The main findings of the impact evaluation are that community employment and Tús have a positive impact on employment and the earnings of scheme participants in the longer term, in particular for older participants in respect of community employment and for younger participants in respect of Tús. The evaluation also found that older participants are less likely to have recourse to disability payments.

The evaluation made a number of recommendations on how the Department can adapt these programmes to better support current and future participants. These are under active consideration in the context of the delivery of the commitments in the Pathways to Work strategy, which has the fundamental aim of helping people who are unemployed or face barriers to the labour market to get a job.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. Community employment schemes have always been perceived as a labour market activation instrument. Is its value in supporting valuable social enterprise now a more dominant source of its benefits, particularly as we have close to full employment? The work done by community employment schemes in communities is very valuable. Should we be looking at ways of encouraging more people to take up these roles? There are limits as to how long they can stay in these roles. I understand that older people can stay on longer. Has any consideration been given to increasing the amount people are paid? I understand it is €27.50 per week extra on top of the social welfare payment which they get anyway. Perhaps it is time to improve this. Does the Minister of State agree that many schemes are finding it difficult to recruit people? They just cannot get them. This is having an impact on social enterprises throughout the country.

I thank Deputy Stanton. From my point of view I see the benefit of community employment as threefold. It supports many very important community services. As I have said, and as the OECD has said, it helps bridge the gap between the labour market and people who have found it difficult to break into it. It also has a very important social inclusion aspect for many individuals who access it. It helps them to feel part of the community and part of something important. We have come across many extraordinary examples of how community employment has helped people through very difficult times in their lives. It is not just about jobs. It is about recovering a sense of place and belonging and a direction in life. We are at full employment and there are a lot of vacancies. There are groups of people who still find it difficult to access the labour market and there are jobs. This has been laid bare quite a bit. We are trying to see how we can enhance some of the community employment supports to attract them into the labour market and make community employment successful for them also.

I acknowledge the great work done by the Government. We are beyond full employment. This is what I have been hearing recently. I have heard commentators use this phrase. As communities find it difficult to recruit new community employment candidates to sustain their work, do we need to think differently about the role? Do we need to think about it in a different way, potentially with longer-term placements as an outlet for social prescribing to engage talent not deemed part of the labour force? Perhaps we could increase the age. All of us are living longer and we are fitter. When people reach the age of 66 very often they can contribute to their community but they are not allowed to take part in community employment schemes. We know what an issue loneliness is. I understand the UK has a Minister for loneliness.

I recently saw reports about how Ireland has one of the highest rates of loneliness in the world. Perhaps by increasing the age limit and allowing those beyond pension age to take part in CE schemes, it would allow people to get involved and would provide the workers that are needed, seeing as the Minister of State has acknowledged there is a shortage of workers.

I very much agree with the previous speaker about this valuable scheme. It has helped many people to readjust to situations that face them at a particularly difficult time. It has helped local voluntary organisations tremendously at a time when it has been quite difficult to get sufficient staff to meet their requirements. Anything that can be done to make the scheme more attractive and accessible from the point of view of extended years of service in a particular project, whatever the case may be, would be greatly appreciated by voluntary organisations all over the country and also by the recipients.

I thank the Deputies. It is important to say that this year is 30 years since CE was first started. The impact it has had on Ireland over those 30 years has been extraordinary. They are often very low profile but there are 800 CE schemes around the country. We have some of the best community people working on them and they are doing some extraordinary things for people who need a hand up.

We have full employment but, as I said, there are groups that we have not reached yet. Some particularly good schemes have been focused on Travellers. Up in my own direction in Balbriggan there is a Roma-specific CE scheme. I would like to see more of them and we have potential for some more of them around the country. Unemployment rates among Travellers and Roma are very high. We have had some good examples of tailored CE schemes that can reach out to them and bridge that gap we have spoken about. I also want to acknowledge the DSP staff who have assisted in the referral process, particularly over the last year when it has been difficult to get referrals. We have actually kept CE figures steady in placements over the past 12 months. That is a significant achievement in itself when there are a lot of jobs out there.

This is to ask the Minister to set out her plans to expand the hot school meals programme.

I thank the Deputy for raising this. The objective of the school meals programme is to provide regular, nutritious food to children to support them in taking full advantage of the education provided to them. The programme is an important component of policies to encourage school attendance and extra educational achievement. Following the expansion of the programme in recent years, 2,600 schools and organisations covering 443,000 children are eligible for funding. The hot school meal option of the programme was introduced in 2019.

Since my appointment as Minister for Social Protection, I have increased the number of schools with access to the hot school meal option and the programme has grown significantly in recent years with more than 2,000 primary schools now eligible to receive funding for hot meals. This is a very positive outcome considering that the scheme involved just 30 schools at pilot stage when I was appointed. I have visited many schools and witnessed first-hand the positive effect that the provision of hot meals has on students and staff in the schools. This very positive response was confirmed in a review of the scheme completed by the Department. I am therefore committed to continuing to expand the school meals programme and encouraging greater take-up by schools.

I have, as the Deputy will be aware, rolled out hot school meals to all DEIS primary schools from September 2023. In addition, all remaining non-DEIS primary schools were contacted last year and requested to indicate their interest in commencing the provision of hot school meals. Expressions of interests were received from more than 900 primary schools in respect of 150,000 children who were then invited to participate in the programme from 8 April 2024. All of the schools who submitted completed applications have been awarded funding. My Department has contacted the remaining primary schools who have not yet joined the hot school meals progrramme asking them to submit expressions of interest in commencing the provision of hot school meals. I will review the response and include more schools in 2025 subject to available budgetary funding.

I appreciate all of the information the Minister provided. It has been some feat that she has undertaken over the past number of years. I would like to raise St. Anne's with the Minister, a special school in Ennis. It is a fantastic school. I have heard countless testimonies that the staff and the principal go above and beyond for each and every one of the students. They currently have 141 pupils. They highlighted a difficulty they are experiencing with the hot school meals programme. They actually have an on-site cook who can and does adapt each and every meal for every child. It is quite incredible what happens there. I would like to see them keep this arrangement in place. It ensures that the children have the right textures and meals. They are tailored to their needs. It also reduces significant waste.

The funding currently only covers food items. It means they would have to work with a company. That would cover food, wages, equipment, packaging, waste disposal and delivery costs. This is great for those schools that are able to avail of it. For St. Anne's, the parents have been in contact and I am sure the children would agree. I would love to see them keep their current arrangement in place if the funding could allow for that to happen, namely if the funding could be used to pay for the cook.

When I announced the expansion, I was very keen that all special schools would be included. I am not all over the detail of St. Anne's special school but I would say to the school authorities to engage with the Department and have that conversation. If they could do that, we will see where it takes us. I am not over the specific detail there. What I want to do is try to make sure the children get a hot school meal. We have the arrangement where we provide the funding to the school and it is up to the school to identify suppliers. I know that some schools, particularly in rural areas, cannot get the main providers and have actually had the social enterprise, meals on wheels, providing the meals into the school. That works well in some places and some small schools as well. My objective is to get the children fed. I ask the school to engage with the officials.

I will ask the school authorities to do so and maybe the Minister could flag it with the Department as well. They have struggled for a long time to pay the cook's wages. They get other funding that is meant to be for vital therapeutic services and they desperately need those services. It would be important for that funding to be used and not any of it to be paying for the cook's wages in any respect. Ideally going forward, the Department might look at certain flexibilities for special schools. Because of their needs and all the different needs the children would have, those companies may not be able to cater to them. Waste might be a factor as well.

Finally, I want to raise Ennistymon Community School again. I have mentioned it to the Minister previously. She said they could engage with the Department and maybe that has taken place. I know the Minister is doing her very best to roll out the scheme to all schools. It might be a backwards step if some pupils in one particular school were able to avail of the hot school meals programme but others were not.

This is an absolutely brilliant scheme and it is really helping many children and families around the country. I compliment the Minister on that. Has the Department issued any guidelines regarding the quality of the food and consistency of quality? Are any guidelines issued on the packaging the food comes in? If a child does not avail of the meal - we all know children do not always eat what is put in front of them - is there an issue around that with respect to food not being used or being left over? I have heard reports that in some instances it can be quite considerable.

The nutritional standards applying to the school meals programme were developed by a working group led by the health and well-being programme in the Department of Health in consultation with Safefood and the healthy eating and active living programme in the HSE. Schools and organisations must reapply for funding in advance of each school year and are required to submit detailed records.

We want to maintain high standards and we want children to have nutritional food. Reports are sent in and expenditure on unhealthy food items is deducted from the following year's funding allocation.

The Deputy also talked about environmental considerations. The meals suppliers are responsible for operating policies that progressively address environmental considerations such as waste and packaging.

Finally, in terms of the Ennistymon school, I did get a local solution in place. That was done and I tried to continue it. I want to know whether the board of management has engaged with the Department. Has it been speaking with the Department of Education because this is an issue of a DEIS and non-DEIS school?

There is already hype in the media about the upcoming budget. It is being said that it will be one of the last acts of the Government, whether the general election will be this year or next year. The Government will have a surplus of €65 billion in the coming years. Can the Minister commit now to increasing social welfare rates so that nobody will be left living below the poverty line?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. As Minister for Social Protection, I am fully committed to making the case for a fair budget that protects the people most in need in our society, particularly families on low incomes and those people, including pensioners and carers, who are dependent on social welfare payments. As part of budget 2024, I secured a €2.3 billion social protection package. This was, for the second year in a row, the largest in the history of the State. This package provided a mixture of lump sum cost-of-living payments, along with an across-the-board weekly rate increase of €12 in primary payments. Independent, post-budget analysis from the ESRI also showed that in the context of the budget package, the combination of basic rate increases with some lump sum payments was more effective than a simple price-indexed increase. I am therefore satisfied that this budget protected the most vulnerable in our society, particularly children in low-income families.

The CSO's 2023 survey on income and living conditions, SILC, published recently, shows that the at-risk of poverty rate in 2023 was 10.6%. This represented a very welcome reduction of almost 2% on the previous year's figure of 12.5%, reflecting the strong impact of measures we have taken in recent budgets, including the cost-of-living supports, in protecting the most vulnerable from the risk of poverty arising from inflation. Notably, the benchmark consistent poverty rate of 3.6% is at its lowest level since records were first compiled in 2004 and is nearly two full percentage points, or 35%, lower than when this Government came into power.

In early July, I will meet with many stakeholders at our annual pre-budget forum with a view to continuing this progress. I will listen to the views expressed on their priorities in the forthcoming budget. In recent years, this has been a key input to my thinking on budget formulation and the measures that I will bring forward for consideration by the Government. I can assure the Deputies that I, and the Government, will not be found wanting in providing support to those in our society who need it most.

Unfortunately, the Minister and the Government have been found wanting. They have been found wanting for children in this country. The latest child poverty monitor report found that more than 250,000 children, or more than one in five children, in this State experienced enforced deprivation in 2023. The number of children experiencing enforced deprivation rose by almost 20% last year. The Government is responsible for that. The Minister spoke about the €12 a week increase, but it was just €4 a week for qualified children, which was nowhere near enough to offset the massive rise in the cost of living. These increases have, for example, seen grocery prices rise by about 20% in the last five years. There has also been a doubling of electricity prices in the two years to April 2023. Although the rate of increase of prices across the board has come down, prices themselves have not come down. They continue to rise and this is why we need substantial increases in payment rates to ensure that people will not be living below the poverty line.

Well, I will have to give the Deputy the facts again. Consistent poverty and at-risk poverty have fallen. The 2023 national consistent poverty rate is 3.6%. This equates to 185,385 people, down from 4.9% in 2022, and 4.2% in 2021. This is the lowest rate of consistent poverty recorded since the start of the SILC survey. It puts the Government on track to meet the ambitious target set out in the roadmap for social inclusion of 2%. In 2023, the at-risk rate of poverty was 10.6%. This equates to 545,856 people. This is a decrease on the 2022 at-risk of poverty rate, which was 12.5%, and the 2021 rate, which was 11.8%.

I do not know. Is the Minister saying it is okay?

No, I am not.

Even according to the Minister's own figures, one in ten people in this country is at risk of poverty. I will give the Minister the child poverty monitor report figures again. More than one in five children experienced enforced deprivation in 2023, and that figure went up by over 30,000 children to 260,000 children last year. One in four households is in arrears on gas bills, while one in ten households is in arrears on electricity bills. There is a dire need for permanent increases in social welfare rates to compensate for the permanently increased cost of living. Once-off measures will simply not cut it. Social Justice Ireland last year advocated a minimum increase of €25 a week to do that, but, instead, the Government increased social welfare rates by less than half of that amount. What the Government does in the coming budget will tell a lot about its priorities.

Regarding these lump sum payments, when people have ESB and heating bills in the winter, people need the money in their pockets then. There is no point in increasing the weekly rate. We need to get the money to them then to pay the bills. It has actually been shown that these once-off, or lump sum, payments have been very effective in dealing with the increase in the cost of living that was experienced. The 2023 SILC showed that social transfers continued to perform well in reducing the at-risk of poverty rate from 34.1% before social transfers to 10.6% after social transfers. This equated to a poverty reduction effect of 68.9% in 2023.

What I am trying to say to the Deputy is that the figure is coming down and we will continue to work hard to bring it down further. This is something I have committed to doing in every single budget. Since I have come into this Department, I have increased the payments in every way that I have been able to so that people have been cushioned against the cost-of-living increases.

This question is to ask about section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. It is quite an obscure section of the Act and I am curious to know how many revisions have been carried out under this section in each respective year, the number of these revisions that resulted in a changed decision, the number of revisions currently being considered under the section, the longest waiting time, because I have come across one that seems to have been quite long, and if the Minister will make a statement on this issue.

I thank Deputy Stanton for raising this issue. The social welfare appeals office is an office of the Department of Social Protection which is responsible for determining appeals against decisions in relation to social welfare entitlements. Appeals officers are independent in their decision-making functions.

The social welfare appeals system is underpinned by Chapter 2 of Part 10 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and the Social Welfare (Appeals) Regulations 1998 - SI 108 of 1998. Under the legislation, the decision of an appeals officer is final and conclusive but can be reviewed by an appeals officer under section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act in the light of new evidence or new facts that may be brought to their attention. To put that in English, if you have a decision and you can provide new information, a different person will look at the appeal. If you have a decision and you can produce more information, a different person will look at it. A decision of an appeals officer can also be reviewed by the Chief Appeals Officer under section 318 where it appears or is claimed that a decision was erroneous based on the law or the facts. Decisions can also be appealed to the courts.

The review mechanism under section 317 is particularly useful as it enables a person to submit additional relevant evidence - perhaps a more detailed medical report - after an appeal is finalised and by so doing avoid the need to make a completely new claim. There are currently 616 section 317 appeal reviews with the appeals office for determination. A table with the number of section 317 reviews carried out in each of the years from 2021 to 2023 with the outcomes and average processing times for each year is appended.

I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.

I thank the Minister very much. I remember when this section was discussed at the time the Bill was introduced in 2005 but the provision is obscure. I am astounded that 616 cases are currently being processed under this section. That seems to be quite a lot. What I am really interested in is the time it is taking to process those appeals. What is the longest period any case has been sitting there? I have come across a few that have been there for some time. It would be interesting to know how long they are there and whether there could be some impetus into getting faster decisions on such cases. As the Minister said, such cases have been through the initial application, a possible review, an appeal, and now this is a further appeal to another appeals officer based on further information or on the basis that a mistake was made earlier. It would also be interesting to hear how all these stages were triggered. Perhaps the Minister could tell me how long the oldest case has been sitting there.

I do not think I have the figure here about how long the oldest case is there, but I will get it for the Deputy. It is complicated enough and perhaps not that many people are familiar with this process, but it kicks in whenever a person provides new information. When an appeal is decided, if a person has new information, the application goes back in again and it is looked at with a fresh set of eyes. It is not influenced by any other decision that has been made; the whole file is looked at by a different person. That is important too so that there is fairness. A lot of the time it is because there is new information provided and that is what kicks the system into place.

As we know, in the vast majority of cases all the information is not provided. That is the case in particular with medication information. I have seen it myself. If certain boxes are not ticked by the doctor, another letter is required to explain that a person is deserving. In fairness, appeals officer do a difficult job and they do their best.

I thank the Minister very much. I am not familiar with clients being overtly informed about section 317. Does the Minister agree that if an appeal is decided in the negative that the clients should be then informed in the same letter that they can appeal under section 317 if further information becomes available? Perhaps that is happening, but I have not actually seen it. The Minister might come back to me and let me know if it is part of the policy that clients are informed that they can appeal on that basis.

I do not think there is any time limit on the process. At least it is not outlined in the 2005 Act. There are a few points the Minister might clear up for me later.

In fairness to the Department, it generally does tell people what options are available to them. If an appellant is unhappy with the decision of an appeals officer, he or she may seek a review of the decision under section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, provided there are new facts or evidence that were not before the appeals officer who made the original decision. A further remedy is available to appellants through section 318, whereby the chief appeals officer can revise the decision of an appeals officer if she determines that the appeals officer has erred in fact or law. It is quite a legalistic procedure when one gets to that stage.

Overall, in 2023 there were 21,875 appeals finalised of which 11,000 were either allowed by an appeals officer or my Department revised its decision in favour of the customer; 9,380 were disallowed by an appeals officer and 1,420 appeals were withdrawn. I have still not answered the Deputy's question but I will get him that figure.

The free hot school meals programme is money extremely well spent in terms of education and tackling hunger in young people for families. Why do we not roll it out to all schools, primary and secondary, in September 2024?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. In recent years, entry to the school meals programme had been confined to DEIS schools in addition to schools identified by the Department of Education as having levels of concentrated disadvantage that would benefit from access to the programme.

In budget 2022, I provided funding for all DEIS schools currently in the programme. In July 2022, I announced that I was extending hot school meals to the new DEIS schools announced by the Department of Education. This provided access to hot school meals to a further 282 primary schools and a cold lunch to 38 secondary schools benefiting 61,405 children.

In 2023, the Government approved an additional €14.5 million to allow access to the hot school meals scheme for all remaining DEIS schools from September 2023 bringing the total budget to €108.9 million.

All remaining primary schools were contacted last year and requested to submit an expression of interest form if their school was interested in commencing the provision of hot school meals. Expressions of interests were received from more than 900 primary schools in respect of 150,000 children who were then invited to participate in the programme from 8 April 2024, and all of the schools that submitted completed applications have been awarded funding.

My Department has now contacted the remaining primary schools that have not yet joined the hot school meals scheme asking them to submit expressions of interest if their school is interested in commencing the provision of hot school meals, subject to available approved budgetary funding. I assure the Deputy that I am committed to continuing to expand the school meals programme and to building further on the significant extension of the programme that has taken place in recent years.

The question is in the context of the previous discussion we had about enforced deprivation among children. Other statistics are available. The Barnardos figures are striking. They are so striking that the former Taoiseach simply did not believe them at the time and he thought they were probably exaggerated. They stated that in November 2023 one in four parents did not have enough food to feed their children at some point in the previous year, which was an increase from one in five parents in 2022, again giving the lie to the idea that things are improving when, certainly for children, they are not.

Is the Minister saying that if any primary school authorities come back to her and say they are in a position to do it and they want to do it, that they could be facilitated from September 2024? Could she also give me an update on post-primary schools?

We wrote a second time to the approximately 1,000 schools that did not respond to us in the first call. Some 600 have come back and we will work with them.

We will continue to approach the remaining schools.

Obviously, I will need to secure more money in the budget this year to complete the roll-out of the programme. My plan is that all primary school children will have access to a hot lunch during the course of 2025. The programme is very important and is making such a difference to the children. Teachers think it is great. I visit lots of schools. Invariably, when I ask the children to put up their hand if they like the hot school meals, every hand is raised. The programme has made a difference. It is so important that young children, in particular, get a staple meal in the middle of the day. The schools I mentioned earlier, including the 600 that have come back to us, will come on stream in September. As I said, I will need to get money in the budget to finish the roll-out. We are nearly there.

Will the Minister comment on the situation of post-primary schools? The same arguments apply in respect of secondary students, including the points about pupil well-being in school, engagement with food, prevention of hunger, alertness in education and so on. We have the capacity to address the inequalities that exist and are reflected in our schools. We should do so at post-primary as well as primary level.

Currently, DEIS secondary schools have access to the school meals programme. I wanted to start with primary schools. As soon as that roll-out is finished, I hope the Minister for Social Protection in the next Government, whoever that may be, will start to roll out the provision to all secondary schools as well. It is the right thing to do. I have been absolutely committed to the school meals programme since I came into the Department. I am delighted the roll-out will soon be finished in primary schools. I always felt that teenagers are probably slightly better able to fend for themselves than the younger children in primary school. That is why I wanted to start with primary schools. I hope the provision will eventually move its way on to secondary schools that are not in the DEIS scheme.

My question is very specific. It relates to the Minister's plans to reconsider the introduction of a cost-of-disability payment and the details of any engagement her Department has had with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth on this matter.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I am committed to improving outcomes for people with a disability. I announced a number of measures to support them in budget 2024, including a €400 lump-sum payment in November, a Christmas bonus double payment in December, a cost-of-living bonus payment in January and a €12 increase in the maximum personal rate of weekly disability payments. The free travel scheme is being extended to people who are medically unfit to drive. In addition, the Taoiseach has placed a major emphasis on improving supports and services for people with disabilities in all aspects of their lives. He has established a special Cabinet committee on children, education and disability. The new Cabinet committee will provide for a whole-of-government approach to addressing the issues facing people with disabilities and their families.

The Indecon report on the cost of disability identified that additional costs of disability run across many areas of expenditure, including housing, transport, health and education. The report found there is a spectrum from low to high additional costs of disability, depending on individual circumstances. The report concluded, following extensive consultation, that extra disability payments should be targeted at those most in need and who face the greatest additional cost of disability, rather than spreading resources thinly. That was the rationale for the Green Paper consultation. The objective was to elicit views on making higher rates of payment available to people with more profound disabilities. Based on the feedback I received, I decided not to proceed with the recommendations set out in the Green Paper. Instead, the issue is being referred for inclusion in the programme of work of the new Cabinet committee on disability matters established by the Taoiseach.

Under the auspices of that committee, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth is in the process of developing, together with the input of disabled people and their representative organisations, the next national disability strategy, which is hoped to be delivered later this year. This new strategy will address a number of matters related to the cost of disability and will co-ordinate the continued implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, in Ireland. My Department continues to engage with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability Integration and Youth on the matter.

I welcome that there is a major emphasis on disability, the establishment of the Cabinet committee and so on. I ask the Minister to forgive my frustration, which arises because the Indecon report was only one in a long series of reports over decades. I have an interest in looking at reports and tracing how we got to the current point. We have had a number of reports over decades. Twenty years ago, there was an Indecon report produced for the National Disability Authority. At that stage, the additional cost of disability was estimated at €143 per week. In 2015, we had the Cullinan and Lyons report. Then, in 2021, we had another Indecon report. As I said, we are talking about decades of reports. Now, in 2024, we still have not implemented the major recommendations in the Indecon report of 2021.

I acknowledge there is a range of disability and all of that. However, we have done nothing to progress the disability payment that has been asked for by so many organisations within a rights-based context. We have since had a Green Paper. I welcome that it has been scrapped. It caused great upset and distress. We must address the recommendations in the Indecon report, which were made more than three years ago.

As the Deputy knows, the cost of disability crosses the remit of a number of Departments, encompassing transport, housing adaptation grants and access to services, including healthcare. Income supports are only part of the solution. The disability groups were not happy with the Green Paper. We have to go back to the drawing board, which we are doing by way of the Cabinet committee. We will take learnings from the Green Paper. I do not have a timeline for action because the Green Paper was rejected. The Cabinet committee will look at this issue in the round. In the meantime, I will look at how I can provide additional supports, including through schemes like EmployAbility, the free travel pass and the reasonable accommodation fund. I will continue to work with the disability groups. The Cabinet committee is where it is at right now. It meets regularly, to be fair to it.

Ireland signed the UNCRPD in 2007 and ratified it in 2008. We have utterly failed to ratify the optional protocol to the convention, which would allow people to take an action. For years, we have moved away from charity. I welcome changes the Minister has made, including the different bonuses that have been given. However, organisations working with people with disabilities have repeatedly said we need to move away from that model. They want a model of empowerment that enables people to live. That requires us to provide a basic payment, but we have failed to do so. We are now back to basics. The Green Paper was scrapped, which I welcome, and the issue has gone back to the Cabinet. With an election on the cards, absolutely nothing has been given.

We can choose figures from any report to illustrate the issues. People with a disability are more than twice as likely as those without to experience poverty and deprivation. They have an employment rate of just 36%, which is the fourth lowest in the EU. I could go on. I know the Minister's heart is in this and I know the work she does. However, we have to move away from praising ourselves for giving a little bit from one budget to the next. We must move towards an overall plan that is rights-based and about empowerment.

I published the Green Paper and consulted widely. People did not want it.

Rightly so.

That was it. I took it off the table. The Cabinet committee is now in place. As I said, it is not just about income supports. There are 1.1 million people in this country who are disabled. The question is how we target the resources. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, continues to consult the sector. The findings from the Green Paper will be taken into consideration at the Cabinet committee.

As I said, it meets regularly. I know the Taoiseach is committed to dealing with this issue. I am happy to do all that I can in my Department to support people with disabilities.

This question relates to an old bugbear of mine with the number of people who fall short of the necessary contributions due to a variety of circumstances, such as women who are spouses of self-employed people, where the Department does not always allow a partnership to exist in determining the eligibility for an insurance-based pension, and where people have a shortage of contributions in any event and the number of those contributions have reduced their entitlements, if they have any at all.

My Department makes several payments to people over the age of 66.  One of these is the State pension contributory, which has a number of qualifying criteria, including having a minimum of 520 paid social insurance contributions.  Where a person meets the qualifying criteria, the rate of payment is calculated based on the number of contributions paid and credited. As the actuarial value of the State pension contributory is currently estimated at approximately €380,000, it is reasonable to require people claiming a contributory pension to have made at least 520 paid contributions over the term of their working life to qualify for a payment.

Last year, legislation was enacted to introduce a series of landmark reforms to the State pension system in response to the recommendations from the Pensions Commission. A key measure was the introduction of a flexible pension system.  This new system is about providing people with choice.  People will still be able to retire at 66 and draw down their pension as they always have.  Additionally, they may now choose to defer claiming their State pension contributory up to the age of 70 and receive an actuarially based increase in their weekly payment rate. People can decide for themselves what best suits their needs and circumstances.  For example, a person who reaches age 66 who does not have sufficient contributions to qualify for a contributory State pension may be able to use this period to continue to work to establish entitlement or increase his or her level of payment. Where a person does not satisfy the conditions to qualify for the contributory pension or qualifies for less than the maximum rate, he or she may instead qualify for the means tested non-contributory pension with a maximum payment equivalent to 95% of the contributory rate. I hope this clarifies the matter.

It does not actually. In a short sojourn in that Department, I made an attempt a number of times to change the situation whereby people had an entitlement because they had an average of more than 21 contributions in a year and qualified for a pension, and people with fewer than 21 contributions qualified for no pension. I contended that it was unconstitutional despite the fact that Departments always make these decisions and arbitrarily decided that there is a cut-off point. I know the Minister has been looking at this. I think it bears another examination. They are putting together all their contributions, caring for elderly parents and so on, coming out of the workforce and paid employment, and contributing their lives to other people in a particular way. I ask that the Minister look at this again and find out how many people in the last 12 months, for example, have been refused on such a basis.

To be fair, we have made changes. We have the long-term carer's contribution scheme. That will make it easier for long-term carers of an incapacitated person or people to qualify for the State pension. If someone has been caring for somebody for 20 years or more, the credits will be allowed towards their pension. I think that is an improvement. There are the family caring periods. There have been many changes over the years to try to help people to qualify for the State pension. The basis is that you have to have the equivalent of ten years' work, which is 520 contributions. Over a possible 50-year working life, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect somebody to have those ten years. All of these things are always being looked at and revised. In fairness, we have made many changes to pensions and I am bringing in the auto-enrolment which I think will be important.

I agree that the Minister has made many important improvements, but there is always room for more, particularly in cases where there is an obvious want or deficiency in the system that does not meet a particular situation. Might the Minister look at the possible costs of having a pro rata pension made available to all persons based on their level of contributions and without reference to the necessity to have 500 contributions in a particular period?

If you go below the 520 contributions, the actual pension you would get would be in the region of just over €30. That is how it works. There is always room for improvement. There is no doubt about that. I agree with Deputy Durkan on that. I have brought in many improvements to the pension system. I have kept the pension age at 66 and allowed the flexibility for people to work to 70. They can build up those credits if they are short, so they can get a minimum pension and the pension for long-term carers, which is important. Many people have applied for that. I am delighted because there are many long-term carers. The Deputy is right that women gave up their lives to look after a child who may have severe disabilities. The child could have passed on. The women were ready for retirement and suddenly they had nothing. That was wrong. That has changed. I will leave it at that. We will let the Topical Issue debate commence.

I would be willing to allow a bit of flexibility if the Minister was okay with it and wanted to give a timeline on Question No. 16.

Here is the Minister of State. Saved by the bell.