Vol. 520 No. 1
36 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he has received representations from Irish groups in Britain to extend the free travel scheme to Irish pensioners resident in Britain while they are visiting this country; if he will consider this proposal in view of the fact that the cost is likely to be relatively small; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15009/00]
50 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the plans, if any, he has to review the free travel pass for people in rural areas; and if he will extend this scheme so that it can be used in part or in full for taxi fares. [15088/00]
54 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he accepts the conclusions of the recent review of the free schemes operated by his Department in relation to the free television licence scheme, in particular the criticism that the payment arrangements for this scheme are unsatisfactory; and his proposals in this regard. [15050/00]
62 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will consider modification and extension of the free schemes to include other categories of social welfare recipients; if he will ensure that the schemes are acceptable for those already included; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15090/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 36, 50, 54 and 62 together.
As Deputies will be aware, A review of the free schemes was recently published by the Policy Institute, Trinity College, Dublin. The review examined the underlying rationale of the free schemes and their performance using efficiency criteria and customer views, and assessed their overall contribution to combating poverty and social exclusion. It noted that the schemes share a number of common objectives as follows: to provide assistance to those living alone by targeting them with specific benefits providing both income and social inclusion gains; to support older people and people with disabilities in their wish to remain in the community as opposed to institutional care; and to support Government policy which seeks to acknowledge the value of older people in our society.
I requested that the issue of extending the free travel scheme to non-residents be examined in the review. This request was made following a number of representations from groups representing Irish people resident in the UK. When they were informed by my Department that this could be contrary to EU law, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality, they then requested that the scheme be made available to all EU senior citizens.
The review considered that the main objective of the free travel scheme is to encourage older people and people with disabilities to remain independent and active within the community, thereby reducing the need for institutional care. Accordingly, it concluded that extending the scheme to visitors would not be in keeping with the objective of the free travel scheme. It should also be noted that such an extension would have significant administrative and cost implications, in the order of £8 million to £15 million, depending on the level of concession granted. The free travel scheme is based on spare capacity and CIE has already expressed its concern about capacity constraints on the public transport system. It is unlikely, therefore, that it would grant any further extension of the scheme on the current concession basis.
The review also considered the difficulties involved in access to public transport services. In this regard it noted that there are two main groups affected, those who have a disability which prevents them using the service and those for whom a service does not exist, which mainly affects those living in remote rural areas. This problem, which is unrelated to the free travel scheme, is part of a wider social and infrastructure problem, affecting all those who are disadvantaged and who can neither afford their own transport or avail of access to public transport.
The review examined a number of alternatives to the existing system including the use of vouchers. It considered that a voucher type system, which would be open to a wide range of transport providers including taxis and hackneys, would be complicated and less feasible than the current system. Voucher schemes, by their nature, introduce stigma to a scheme. In addition, they are administratively not feasible, particularly if issued annually, as the number of vouchers and potential operators would be enormous. For example, if people were issued with only four vouchers per month, allowing two return journeys, this amounts to 25 million vouchers to be processed annually, based on the current number of free travel passes issued. The experience of my Department operating a voucher based scheme, such as the free bottled gas scheme, which is claimed by only 414 recipients suggests that the difficulties inherent in this type of scheme make it most unsuitable for a central Government Department to operate.
The use of vouchers is not in keeping with a fundamental aspect of the scheme as originally envisaged; that of using existing spare capacity on public transport as it covers the country. It would do little to facilitate the provision of public transport services where none exist nor would it facilitate the provision of accessible public transport. The current value of the free travel pass would not be sufficient to provide an acceptable amount of travel and would inevitably lead to demands for increases. However, the review of the free schemes recommends that a social transport fund be supported and made available to voluntary and community based organisations for the provision of local transport initiatives that would be unlikely to operate without a subsidy. Such a fund would be mainly social in nature and could facilitate the provision of wheelchair accessible vehicles. The review considered it appropriate that such a fund could be managed locally, perhaps by the local authorities, in view of their knowledge of local services and to maintain community autonomy.
In relation to the free television licence scheme, the review indicated that recipients of the free schemes place the highest value on the free television licence. The scheme assists in combating social exclusion and alleviating loneliness for many vulnerable people living alone. However, a number of issues are raised concerning the payment arrangements for this scheme and the review noted that there is not a financial benefit to my Department in operating the scheme while there are considerable benefits accruing to other State agencies. My officials are currently examining the proposals put forward in this regard.
The review examined the many demands to extend the schemes to other groups and to other services using social inclusion objectives as the criteria for decision. It considered that the schemes as currently constituted provide a basic package that ensures a limited standard of comfort or well-being to a particular targeted group, that is based on age or disability. Other groups, particularly those in receipt of long-term payments may experience social exclusion, but they are not groups in need of community care support nor do they experience the same physical risks of isolation as older people and people with dis abilities. It noted that, where payment levels are adequate, any extension of the free schemes must be based solely on increased social benefits that are over and above those which can be purchased by increased income. Accordingly, the review concluded that the schemes should not be extended further to additional groups of people or to include other types of schemes.
The report examines a great number of issues and requires detailed consideration. I will carefully examine all the recommendations made in this report in the context of future budgets.
The Minister is as long-winded as ever. The promises given to Irish emigrants in the UK have not arisen in this report and the Minister has decided that progress will not be made on this issue. The promises made by the Minister and his colleagues as recorded in The Irish Post now mean nothing and free travel facilities will not be made available to Irish emigrants.
Most Deputies received extensive submissions on this issue from groups such as the Camden Elderly Irish Network in the UK. One of the key points made by the groups was the huge amount of remittances, around £3 billion, which were sent back to this country by these people who are now senior citizens and are asking for this basic facility. It is fair that at this stage of their lives we should extend free travel to them. The administrative difficulties to which the Minister referred should not prevent us from doing this.
Even though many of those living in rural areas have free travel passes, they are not of any use to them because they do not live within an ass's roar of bus routes where they can use them. Does the Minister agree that his reply regarding the use of free passes for taxi travel was negative? He found all the reasons they cannot be used and did not suggest anything positive. Does the Minister agree it is fair to those in rural areas with free travel passes to find some way in which they can use them?
I asked the review to look at the issue of those seeking free travel in Ireland and it came down firmly on the side of restricting free travel to those resident in Ireland. If one gives free travel to UK residents it must be done on a Europe wide basis which is why this issue was raised at EU level.
That is not what the Minister said when he was in Opposition. He said there were ways around it.
We also asked the review to look at those in rural areas which do not have access to the free travel scheme. The group looked at a number of issues, including vouchers, and recommended a social transport fund which I hope, will be managed locally for those in rural areas, perhaps through local authorities or the county development boards. We will aim to make progress on that.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
