asked the Minister for Social Welfare if people have the same right of appeal under the new national fuel scheme which was announced recently as they have had prior to the Supreme Court decision last November.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - New National Fuel Scheme.
12.
The Supreme Court decision referred to declared the regulations governing the national fuel scheme to be invalid and, as a result, the scheme as it stood, including the statutory provisions for decisions and appeals, ceased to exist.
In order that the persons who would previously have received fuel allowances could continue to do so, arrangements have been made with the health boards for the operation of the scheme on a non-statutory basis pending a review of the situation. The present position, therefore, is that although the statutory basis is no longer there, the rights of applicants have effectively been safeguarded. Where persons are dissatisfied with decisions on their claims the boards will review the decisions in the light of any new facts or evidence.
I take it that in the event of a mistake being made in the assessment of one's income, and an applicant refused free fuel, applicants will have a court of appeal, so that they can lodge an appeal against the decision of the official concerned? Is that correct?
The Deputy used the expression: "have a court of appeal". I would remind him that the right of appeal claimants had previously was under the legislation relating to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme and as the Deputy knows, the national fuel scheme formed part of that legislation. The Supreme Court decided that the regulations specifically providing for the national fuel scheme were not valid; that also invalidated the legislative provision for the scheme. We had to consider what alternative regulations we could make. Of course the previous legislation included a formal right of appeal. We thought of making alternative regulations but it was thought likely at that point that the same legal problems could recur which might threaten people's existing entitlements. It was considered that, in the short term at least, a non-statutory scheme offered the best solution. In a non-statutory scheme, as the Deputy will be aware, it is not possible to include a formal legal right of appeal. But I am satisfied from our contacts with the health boards that claimants will have the same opportunity as before to bring all the facts of cases before the health boards and that full consideration will continue to be given to them. In all cases there will be arrangements for reviewing cases which are refused. In most cases the mechanism will be the same as before, that is the supplementary welfare allowance appeals structure, even though the formal right of appeal no longer exists. Any person who is dissatisfied with a decision taken in their case should get in touch with the relevant health board and seek a review.
I want to be very sure that all officials of health boards are aware of this, that a person can appeal where he or she feels there is any injustice invalued in their assessment. This is of vital importance because as far as I know, community welfare officers throughout the country are completely confused about this aspect. I am glad the Minister is telling the House this afternoon that everything stands as heretofore. It is of vital importance that every official within each health board is made fully aware of the Minister's statement here this afternoon.
I repeat that I am giving the Deputy information that has been given to me in the course of our discussions with the health boards.
Is it the Minister's intention to rectify the anomaly obtaining between Dublin city and county, whereby people moving from Dublin city to Dublin county qualify under the provisions of the free fuel scheme whereas a vast number of people living in County Dublin do not qualify? It is very difficult to explain this to constituents. Would the Minister state whether she intends reviewing this?
The Deputy is referring to the difference between the urban fuel scheme and the national fuel scheme. He will be aware also that the rationalisation of those schemes would be a very considerable undertaking possibly with implications of enormous expenditure, or if not enormous additional expenditure then the loss of entitlement of a great many categories of people. My Department have this under review and it should be rectified. However, it is a very difficult question because of the financial implications involved.
I am moving now to Priority Questions.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am sorry, that time is up. Ceist 20.
Sir, I have been here since 2.30 p.m.
Deputy, I cannot help that. I have done my very best.
The Minister's replies were exceptionally long.
I am moving to Ceist 20. People cannot have it both ways. If they are prepared to be long-winded they cannot complain then. I know people like Deputy Foley do not take up time and he may feel that he has grounds for complaint. Perhaps he has, but not against the Chair.
Sir, may I raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of our disallowed private notice question today on An Foras Talúntais?
I will communicate with Deputy Treacy.
Sir, may I raise on the Adjournment the ESRI's report regarding under age drinking among post primary school students?
I will communicate with the Deputy.