A person cannot join after the age of 66.

This is another group of technical amendments identified by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel as representing an improvement on the Bill as it stands. None of these amendments relates to substantive policy matters.

I will respond first. I acknowledge the Senators only have the greatest intentions with this amendment but I am afraid that, as in the Dáil, I am unable to accept it. While this amendment may seem straightforward and I accept the Senators' bona fides in tabling it, a range of complexities mean it would require time to determine the appropriate standards that should apply in respect of employments that will be exempt from the requirement to make automatic enrolment contributions. The Bill sets out that the Pensions …

On a point of clarification, was the Senator speaking to amendments Nos. 37 and 38?

They are not grouped but they are similar, so I will answer the issues the Senator raised. That is okay. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 relate to the power to amend the age limits and the earnings threshold.

That is all right. There are a number of relevant issues. The standards that need to be set will not only be about the contribution levels into an alternative pension scheme, as compared with the contribution levels into the AE scheme. This is about setting standards, which is the amendment. The Bill sets out clear instructions when it comes to contribution levels. They are always to be based on gross earnings, to be matched by the employers and to be topped up by the State. The net amount going into a person's pen…

I thank the Senator for tabling her amendments but I do not propose to accept them. A wide range of factors will go into any future consideration of the age and earnings thresholds. We do not need to specify here a selection of those considerations. In making any decisions to amend the eligibility thresholds, section 56 will take into account the gender and equality considerations proposed in the amendment and the periodic review, in section 43, will encompass a broad range of matters. Therefore, I am not convinced…

Yes, such people can opt in. Once they opt in their employer has to make the contribution and the State does the top-up. If a person decides to opt out then he or she will only ever get back his or her own contributions. If they decide to opt out, they will only ever get their own contributions back. The rest stays in the pot. It is their pot and it stays there. When they start working or for whatever reason are back working, then we will opt them in and they will always have the option to come back out again. We w…

They only get their own contributions back if they opt out after six months. They do not get the rest. It stays in the pot. The pot is safe. The pot stays with them until they retire. Whatever is in the pot is there. That is what is important about this scheme. It will always be there for them.

I thank the Senator. The risk levels are set out in the legislation under section 69. The higher risk rating is 5, 6 and 7. The medium risk rating level is 3 or 4, and the lower risk level is "consisting of AE provider schemes with a risk rating of 1 or 2." The risks are set out with reference to European standards. It is in the legislation and we refer to the European standards.

I thank Deputy Harkin for raising this issue. I am delighted that today we have expanded the income limits for the means test for carers to €900 for a couple per week and €450 for a single person. We continue to work with the carers' groups and we will continue to do so. We have made some significant changes, in particular in terms of a pension for long-term carers, which was introduced earlier this year. A lot of work is going on in that space. There is a working group currently looking at it, between officials in…

I thank Deputy Ó Cuív for raising this matter, which he has raised with me on a number of occasions. I have just come from a management board meeting that took place earlier this morning where I raised the very same issue the Deputy has raised with me. The answer is that I will have the report very shortly. I am happy to share it with him. He has brought forward a number of suggestions to me and I have asked that they would be included. I know it is something on which the Deputy and I are very much of like mind. We…

I move: That the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (No. 39 of 1997) be amended in the manner and to the extent specified in the Act giving effect to this Resolution to provide that amounts to be paid on foot of jobseeker's pay-related benefit under the Social Welfare Acts are to be deemed to be earned income for the purpose of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 and subject to taxation in accordance with section 126 of that Act.

I move: That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands pursuant to Standing Orders 95 and 181.

I thank Senators Erin McGreehan, Micheál Carrigy, Malcolm Byrne and Aisling Dolan for bringing forward this Private Members’ Bill. As Senator McGreehan said, I am pleased to inform the House that the Government is not opposing the Bill. While I realise this Bill does not relate directly to the situation with regard to restricted breeds, in light of the recent tragic incident in Limerick, at the outset I wish to extend my sympathy to the family and friends of Nicole Morey. My thoughts and prayers are with them at th…

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…

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 week…

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 …

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 …

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 …