Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations, 1985: Motion.

Mrs. McGuinness

I move:

That the Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations, 1985 (S.I. No. 49 of 1985) made by the Minister for Social Welfare in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 209 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 be and are hereby annulled.

This is a motion in the names of myself and Senator Robinson requesting that the Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations, 1985 (S.I. No. 49 of 1985) should be annulled. It is brought under the statutory powers of Seanad Éireann to move to annul any Statutory Instrument of this nature during the period in which it is laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, that is for 21 sitting days, from the making of the regulations. These regulations are made under section 209 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 and basically they refer to the provision of free fuel to persons in need during the winter period by way of the national fuel scheme. Perhaps I might preface my contribution by saying a word or two about the fuel schemes as a whole because part of the problem — and I know well that the Minister is aware and conscious of this problem and indeed is well disposed towards trying to solve it — is that there are two fuel schemes in operation and that there are various anomalies arising under both of them. Mrs. McGuinness

The original fuel scheme was what is known as the urban fuel scheme and it operates, as I am sure many Senators know from their own local knowledge, in some 17 cities and towns throughout the country. This scheme was originally introduced in 1942 during the Emergency so as to ensure a supply of fuel for urban dwellers who were not living in areas where turf was readily produced. Those of us who can remember the Emergency will remember that turf was the only fuel readily available at the time. Basically, this urban fuel scheme has been in operation ever since. It applied to non-contributory, old age and blind pensioners, to both contributory and non-contributory widow pensioners and to unemployment assistance recipients with a dependant but not to those without dependants. To begin with, the scheme involved collecting the turf, but at present it is done by means of the issuing of weekly vouchers to those who qualify for it. This scheme gave rise to considerable anomalies, particularly because it was introduced at a time when the towns involved may have been small. There has been a great deal of urban spread since then. You get the sort of anomaly that, for instance, Galway is not included presumably because it was thought in 1942 to be closely in touch with turf-producing areas and therefore the scheme was not needed. Now when Galway is much more of a city it seems strange that it should be left out. Outer Dublin areas like Tallaght and Clondalkin, which are quite definitely areas of urban population but which did not belong to the area when the scheme was originally introduced, are therefore excluded. This kind of anomaly arose. Partly on account of that and partly because it was necessary to have a more nationally based scheme, there is in addition the national fuel scheme. It is to the national fuel scheme that these present regulations refer.

The national fuel scheme is administered by health boards. It is administered as part of the supplementary welfare scheme and generally it is for persons who are unable to provide for their own heating needs. It has been, certainly in the past, the practice to give this to people who are depending on what are called long term social welfare or health board payments. There is, as in most of these things, a means test but up to recently at any rate, one of the anomalies of this scheme was that recipients of what are called short term social welfare payments, that is payments like unemployment and disability benefits or unemployment assistance were excluded from the scheme so that if you were an unemployment assistance person and if you lived in an urban area and had dependants you benefited under the urban free fuel scheme, but if you lived outside an urban area you could not get it or if you lived inside an urban area and had no dependants you could not get it.

Apart from anything else one must ask oneself what are long term and what are short term welfare benefits in this day and age. There are quite a number of people on unemployment assistance who could be very well forgiven for thinking this is, in fact, a long term position. Apart from that, the difficulty that I see in the present regulations is that these regulations are made under section 209 of the Social Welfare Act and the criterion under that section is not a criterion of what type of social welfare benefits you have, but a criterion of need. The section itself refers to the possibility of adding to the ordinary weekly amount of supplementary welfare allowance. It states that under subsection (1) where the weekly amount of supplementary welfare allowance, if any, payable to a person pursuant to section 207 and any other income, including any payment under the Act or under any other statute, of that person, is not sufficient to meet his needs, then—

(a) in any case where that person is in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance, the weekly amount of such allowance payable to that person may, subject to this section, be increased, or

(b) in any other case, a weekly payment of supplementary welfare allowance may be made, subject to this section, to supplement that person's other income.

In subsection (2) it goes on to state that the Minister may prescribe the circumstances under which a payment may be made, the amounts of the payment for particular classes of persons, and so on. It also provides for the possibility of allowances in kind as opposed to allowances in money, but the main thing as far as I am concerned is that the criterion set down in section 209 is that where a person's weekly income is not sufficient to meet his needs that is the basis on which any interpretation of this section should be founded. Up to fairly recently the national fuel scheme was administered under a departmental circular. This circular actually confined the scheme to long term social welfare recipients. Specifically, the circular excluded people in receipt of what were called short term benefits, that is, as I have said, disability benefits, unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance, and so on. On account of the regulations in this circular, persons who might be very much in need and, indeed, who might have been in greater need than some people on long term benefits and certainly might have been more in need than, say, some of those in receipt of the non-contributory widow's pension — people who benefit under the urban scheme — were refused any benefit under the national fuel scheme. They were refused the benefit straight away without any consideration of their means simply on the grounds that they were short term social welfare recipients.

On account of this, one of these people who had been refused any help under the national fuel scheme took a High Court action to establish whether this exclusion was lawful or not lawful. She, in fact, succeeded in her action. The judgment in the High Court was given on 12 November 1984 by Mr. Justice Finlay who is now the Chief Justice but was then the President of the High Court. Having considered all the sections of the Act, the circular, the various schemes and so on he came to a conclusion that having regard to these statutory provisions he was satisfied that the position of the prosecutrix — this was the lady who brought the case — at the time of her application for supplementary welfare allowance for heating needs was that she was a person who if she could establish that her means were insufficient to meet her needs and the needs of any child dependent on her had the statutory right under section 209 of the Act of 1981 to supplementary welfare allowance and that that right was governed by section 209 of the Act of 1981 with which must be incorporated Statutory Instrument No. 168 of 1977.

Mr. Justice Finlay then went on to describe the functions of the Minister with regard to section 209 and felt that the Minister was correctly exercising his functions under Statutory Instrument 168 of 1977 and that in so far as the circular issued on his behalf on 22 June 1983 — this is the circular I am referring to — formed advice and guidance to health boards carrying out the national scheme it was clearly a proper and valid administrative act. However, Mr. Justice Finlay went on on the following page of the judgment to say:

In so far as the circular purports to exclude absolutely from the discretion of the deciding officer whether on the initial application or on appeal concerned with applications for supplementary social welfare allowances the discretion to grant such an allowance to a person in receipt of unemployment or disability benefit or unemployment assistance, it seems to me to be ultra vires the Minister. It was not contended on behalf of the respondent nor does it seem to me that it could be contended that the issuing of this circular could possibly be an exercise by the Minister of his power to prescribe matters in relation to social welfare supplementary allowances which is now contained in Section 209, subparagraphs (2) and (3) of the Act of 1981. I am quite satisfied on the very full and candid affidavit filed by Mr. Donoghue on behalf of the respondents that neither he deciding to appeal it with his function nor the officer deciding the initial application, considered the general question as to whether the prosecutrix's means were insufficient to meet her needs and the needs of her dependant child but rather that their decision was solely based on their understanding that they were excluded by the terms of the circular of 22 June 1983 from granting her a supplementary welfare allowance once they were satisfied that she was in receipt of unemployment benefit. For these reasons I am satisfied that a valid decision has not been reached on her application either initially or on appeal and that the two orders by way of decision must be quashed and the cause shown disallowed.

To sum up the meaning of this, it is simply that the then President of the High Court judged that the criterion under section 209 was "need", and that in purporting to exclude certain classes of person without any consideration of their needs the circular was ultra vires the Minister. That remained the position for a few months. On 18 February 1985 Statutory Instrument 49 of 1985 was issued. This was putting into the form of a Statutory Instrument the regulations which covered the national fuel scheme without changing them in any way. I am quite prepared to admit that it did not worsen the situation. I am quite prepared to admit that it did not change anything and that what it did was to keep things going on the same level as they had been before. It does not state, in terms, that the people on short term benefit are excluded. By the way in which it is drafted it excludes them.

In paragraph 2 of the Statutory Instrument it defines the Act as being the Social Welfare Act of 1981. It defines the fuel allowance as being an increase of supplementary welfare allowance under section 209 (1) (a) of the Act, or a supplementary welfare allowance under section 209 (1) (b) of the Act for the heating needs of a person. It then goes on, in paragraph 3, to amend the original Statutory Instrument by the addition of sub-articles such as No. 7 where it states that a fuel allowance may be paid for the period of 30 weeks beginning on the first Monday in October of each year to a person where he is in receipt of any one of the following payments, and it lists old age pension, blind pension, and so on. Subsection (b) provides that such person should be living alone or with no person other than a dependent spouse or a dependent child or children, or with a person or persons who would otherwise be qualified for fuel allowance, or a person who resides with him for the purpose of providing constant care and attention when he is considered by the health board to be so incapacitated as to require such care and attention, or where he is considered by the health board to be unable to provide for his heating needs. In other words, by listing out the people who are eligible it, by implication, excludes the same people again.

I feel that this Statutory Instrument, while it may be argued that by putting the matter in the form of a Statutory Instrument rather than in the form of a circular the Minister is acting more legally than he was by putting out a circular, is a very poor way of getting out of the situation. This Statutory Instrument is not in the spirit or the letter of section 209 any more than the previous circular was. It still avoids the basic criterion of need, which is the criterion which is set out in the section. It still excludes people on short term social welfare payment, simply because they are in receipt of these, without considering whether they may be or may not be in more need than some of the classes of persons who are allowed to have free fuel.

The reissue of the circular in the form of a Statutory Instrument is simply a way of perpetuating a scheme which was inherently unjust, inherently unfair, not in the spirit of section 209 and certainly not in the spirit of Mr. Justice Finlay's judgment in the High Court action. I am sorry that the Minister should have seen fit to do this. I appreciate that the Minister has his difficulties in administering this scheme. I am grateful to the Minister in that he has made himself available to deal with this matter in a very rapid time since we put down the motion on the Order Paper and that he has, indeed, been most helpful both to Senator Robinson and myself in discussing the background of the situation with us.

I certainly accept that the Minister would like to see a full-scale, thorough reform of the whole fuel scheme. I would suggest to him that this is the course to take. In the meantime, I would ask him to withdraw this particular Statutory Instrument. At the moment we are coming to the very end of what is known as the heating season in free fuel terms. The free fuel scheme will be in abeyance during the summer months. It will not be coming in again until the heating season in October of this year. Now is the time over the summer period to have a look at the whole scheme and to try to introduce a genuinely national scheme which will bring in both the urban people and the people in the rest of the country together and which, indeed, could well be administered under section 209 in the way that the present scheme is through the health boards. Very often they are the people who are administering all sorts of different social welfare aid and probably are the best people to do the work.

Such a scheme should purport to exclude, in particular, people on unemployment assistance who may have been on unemployment assistance for years and who are only by courtesy, as it were, described as people on a short term social welfare payment. Such a new scheme should rely completely on the criterion of need and should be administered in that way so that persons, regardless of their social welfare status who are in need of this free fuel help, should be able to get it. What the Minister has done by bringing in this Statutory Instrument is simply to introduce an artificial legal distinction between what he did by circular and what he is trying to do by Statutory Instrument. I still think that he is certainly outside the spirit and letter of section 209. I would imagine it would still be open to legal challenge in bringing forward this Statutory Instrument. I understand and appreciate the Minister's commitment to the need for change and reform in this particular area. I would urge him now to withdraw this Statutory Instrument and to use the months of the summer to create a new scheme of the type I have outlined.

Mrs. Robinson

I second this motion. It has very important underlying principles. There are aspects of the history of these regulations which are worth focusing on. The position since 1980 when this fuel scheme was introduced has been governed by departmental circular. That is worth pondering on in itself, because a circular issued by the Minister in this way is not published. It is not known to anybody outside the addressee, the person to whom the circular is sent and the officials of the Department. The existence of the particular circular which predated these regulations was not known, for example, to applicants for the fuel voucher. They did not know that there was a circular saying that certain categories were not to be considered as being eligible to apply for a fuel voucher under the national fuel voucher scheme. Social workers did not know that this circular existed. Lecturers in our universities on social welfare law did not know that this circular existed. There is an important issue there about the way in which we regulate particularly in this area of access to social welfare benefits. We are talking about people with very real needs. We are talking about their access to knowledge and information and the way in which they can know of their rights.

It was not, in fact, until this High Court case and until the circular was produced in the course of it that its existence became known to a wide number of people who would regard themselves as being informed of the whole area of operation in social welfare. As Senator McGuinness said, the intention, indeed the direct language of the circular, was to exclude from eligibility under the scheme three categories as expressly stated in the circular itself as persons on short term social welfare payments e.g. unemployment and disability benefits and unemployment assistance. The circular had before that stated the categories of persons who would be eligible for inclusion. These are the general categories of persons in receipt of pensions, benefits and allowances. It is very difficult to try to understand the rationale behind the exclusion because the categories who are eligible are, I think without exception, categories who are in receipt of a higher weekly benefit or allowance or pension than the three categories who would be excluded.

Therefore, the three categories excluded by the circular as being ineligible and now excluded by these regulations, are three categories where the benefit or allowance is lower than any of the categories who are included as being eligible, such as old age non-contributory pension, old age contributory pension, retirement pension, widow's non-contributory pension, widow's contributory pension, blind pension, invalidity pension, deserted wife's benefit, deserted wife's allowance, and so on.

The argument is not that these categories should be themselves excluded, but rather on what basis or what criterion could any fair and just society say these categories will be eligible although those on them are in receipt of a higher level of weekly benefit or allowance than the categories which we are saying are expressedly excluded from being considered. That is the first point. The term is used in the circular that the categories excluded are persons on short term social welfare payments, but to use the term "short term" now in relation to unemployment assistance, or indeed, disability, is to have no regard to the reality of Irish life.

We know that Ireland has a very high unemployment rate. We know that there are the long term unemployed. Indeed, in the social welfare code there is a category now, a long term unemployed, and therefore the words "short term" are completely deceptive. It is completely contrary to the reality for the recipient and their families. Many of the categories of persons are in receipt of long term allowances, unemployment assistance. The period of unemployment benefit for all but married women would be 390 days, and when we get round to amending the law on that it will be 390 days for married women also. That is a substantial period. It is at least one full winter, and the needs of such families could well be that they would require to be considered for the benefit.

As Senator McGuinness emphasised, it is difficult to understand the reasoning behind that circular and the previous circulars which excluded these three categories in view of the clear intention of the 1975 Act, as it was initially, and now the provisions of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. Section 200 makes crystal clear the basis of a person's legal entitlement to be considered for supplementary welfare allowance. The fuel vouchers scheme would be such an allowance. Section 200 says:

Every person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet his needs and the needs of any adult or child dependant of his shall be entitled to supplementary welfare allowance.

On what basis could a Minister decide either by circular or by regulation that categories of persons are ineligible from having their needs considered and still comply with that requirement of the legislation that every person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet the needs and the needs of any adult or child dependant of his shall be entitled to supplementary welfare allowance?

It appears that the circular in so far as it excluded these three categories flew in the face of the clear language, not just the spirit, of the legislation. In assessing the basis of need it would be much more understandable if the Minister said that anybody in receipt of an allowance or benefit under the social welfare code which gave that person a weekly income of above a certain amount would be ineligible. That could be on the basis that the State did not have enough money or that the budgetary provision was only so much and had to be divided on some sort of fair and just principle. That is not what has happened. It is not the categories at the top end who have been excluded once they get above a certain income. In the case of a number of these benefits a person can also be earning income so the person could, in fact, be quite substantially well off in comparison to the other categories. No, it is not at the upper end of the scale that the cut-off is. It is at the lower end of the scale. It is the three categories on the lowest level of weekly benefit or allowance who are as categories deemed to be ineligible from consideration.

That is the position under the terms of a circular which was not known and not publicised, and not a matter which social workers or lecturers in social welfare law or others were aware of. That position was challenged successfully in court in the manner that Senator McGuinness has described. The Senator referred to the judgment in the court. What happens after that? After that, within a very short period a step is taken to reintroduce the position which existed prior to the High Court decision. This time the step taken is to do it by way of ministerial regulations.

Again, when we think about that, regulations of this kind do not receive advance publicity. The Minister does not have to come into the Seanad and say: "This is what I propose to do for the following reason". The regulations are made. Granted, once made they are published. They are accessible but it can take quite some time before even lawyers become aware that the Minister has made a statutory instrument. That, in itself, is worth reflecting on. A significant policy decision was taken without any debate in either House of the Oireachtas, although there had been considerable public discussion and debate about the outcome of the High Court decision, and the effect it had on access to the fuel voucher scheme for applicants based on their needs and the needs of their dependants. The Minister in the regulations has, in effect, restored the position which obtained under the circular and has in the regulations excluded the three categories in question.

Senator McGuinness in her remarks said, first of all, that she felt that the regulations were in conflict with the spirit of the legislation and she then remarked that in her view it was possible, indeed, that the regulations could be open themselves to legal challenge. I would tend to share that view. It is difficult to see how the Minister could have the power, in effect, by way of statutory instrument to make an important policy decision in relation to access to the entitlements to supplementary welfare allowance which is governed by section 200 of the 1981 Act. It is governed there on the basis of establishment of need and the present means are insufficient to meet their needs.

Any exclusion from that, it would appear to me, should be in the primary legislation and is a matter of such fundamental policy and principle as not to be succeptible of being achieved by way of the exercise by the Minister of power to make a statutory instrument. That is a legal point that is not appropriate to a debate of this kind which is really raising the values and the principles behind the step taken. I think the worrying aspect of the matter is that, once again, it is those most in need on the basis of their weekly income by way of benefit or allowance who are excluded by the statutory instrument.

As Senator McGuinness said, the Minister has both met Senator McGuinness and myself and also communicated with us by letter in which he has set out the background. I am sure he will elaborate on this still further when he makes his contribution. In the course of a letter of 10 May he concedes in effect. I am going to quote one sentence from it. He says:

I quite accept that many of those now excluded from the scheme may be in greater need than some who are entitled to a fuel allowance including some who have automatic entitlement under the urban fuel scheme.

Then he goes on to say that

to extend the entitlement would cost money and that money is not available.

I think there is a fundamental point of principle here. If some who are excluded are in greater need, why are they excluded, how can we exclude them? How on the basis of principles of equality and justice can a fair society, a society which is seeking to remove the kind of barriers and the kind of poverty traps which are all too prevalent in our society, possibly accept that and preside over it?

It is not a matter of excluding categories in some equitable way. It is a matter of including the categories most in need. It is extremely important that the Minister does take to heart the points emphasised by Senator McGuinness. We do have time now for the whole rationalisation of the fuel voucher schemes to be considered. The fuel voucher schemes do not operate during the summer months. The regulation prescribes the 30 weeks from 30 October, and, therefore, there will be time in which to examine the whole position and hopefully introduce a new statutory instrument before next October which deals with access to the fuel voucher schemes on the basis of means and in a just and fair manner which does not exclude in particular the three categories at present excluded who are most in need. I support this motion.

Mr. Fallon

I support the motion to have this regulation annulled. I have always believed, quite apart from what has happened now, that a number of factors dealing with the free fuel scheme should be amended. Certainly, I feel and always felt that the free fuel voucher was totally inadequate having regard nowadays in particular to the price of the bag of coal, briquettes and turf. Certainly I think it can be said that there should be a massive increase in the free fuel voucher for people who are in receipt of that voucher. In that area it can be said — and it has been said by previous speakers — that there has been a total discrimination against many, many people who are in receipt of other forms of social welfare benefits.

Indeed, the previous speaker said — and I have a note taken of it too — that people who are on short term unemployment benefit, because of the massive unemployment, because the scene has changed so drastically, quite definitely many of these people will be long term unemployed, that their income will be far less than what people who are now qualifying for the free fuel voucher receive. Certainly I think there is a need for a change in this area. I do support the view that, irrespective of what category of social welfare benefit one is receiving, the main criterion should be the need of that person and if his income is not sufficient to provide him with heating requirements then he should be given the free fuel vouchers.

The judgment of the High Court some time ago was referred to. As we know, it went against the Minister for Social Welfare and certainly there, again, one would not have to be a High Court judge to consider and make the point that need, and basic need, was the main criterion for such a judgment. People nowadays because of the hardships they are finding are certainly troubled in regard to their heating requirements for the 30 week period during the winter months. I would hope that the Minister would accept the spirit of the High Court judgment and irrespective of the type of social welfare benefit that they are receiving come along and offer a free fuel voucher to people who are very much in need. That, as I said, should be the criterion.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are thousands and thousands of people who are recipients of social welfare benefit of whatever kind who are unable to provide for their heating requirements for the winter months. I think for a Government who say they are a caring Government that should not be allowed to happen. If a change is required a change should take place. As I say, many, many people who are now excluded are in greater need than those who are getting the free fuel voucher. That situation is totally incorrect and unfair. I support the view. I hope that the Minister will accept it. I know it will cost extra finance, but it is money for the weakest sections of our community. There are many, many people who just had not the money to buy coal, turf and so on on the coldest nights of the winter months of last year. That should not be allowed to happen, and I would hope that the Minister would see fit to extend the social welfare beneficiaries to allow all who are in need irrespective of the type of benefit they are receiving to benefit from the free fuel scheme.

Mr. J. Higgins

I will be very brief, indeed. I think we on both sides of the House would concur that there are quite a number of anomalies in the operation of the free fuel scheme. Collectively, again we owe a debt of gratitude to the joint sponsors of this motion for highlighting such anomalies, and I am also confident, from what has been said by both Senator McGuinness and Senator Robinson as a result of their dialogue and correspondence with the Minister, that the Minister is receptive to their ideas and that in fact something positive will have to be done in order to eliminate such anomalies. We all are aware of the importance of the scheme because there is no doubt whatever about it that it has contributed largely to reducing a certain degree of hardship in relation to basic heating requirements of people in need. If we are honest about it, apart from those anomalies which have recently been uncovered, the scheme has operated relatively well.

I have here a circular which was sent out by the Western Health Board prior, in fact, to the High Court decision. It is quite clear from this circular, which incorporates an application form for the scheme, that in effect the particular categories in question will not be considered. It states who is eligible — persons who are unable to provide for their heating needs from their own resources. Normally, these would be people who are receiving one of the payments listed below who have no other means. I agree that "normally" does indicate a certain degree of flexibility or the possibility of the inclusion of others. In addition, it says that applicants must be living alone or (a) with a dependent spouse and/or child or children, (b) with another person receiving one of the payments listed below, (c) with an incapacitated person, (d) with a person providing constant care and attention for the applicant. Down through the list — blind pensions, disabled persons's maintenance allowances, deserted wife's benefit, deserted wife's allowance — there is no mention whatever of unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit to qualifiers.

To my knowledge it has never been interpreted by community welfare officers that these people have had any entitlement. I cannot fully accept that there was any misapprehension or any misconception as to the exact and specific categories of people who would qualify. I concur entirely that many of the people who do qualify, those people who are deemed to be long term beneficiaries of various schemes are in a far better financial position than those who are debarred. I agree that in the intervening period, because the scheme has now terminated for this year, the Minister should look seriously at the scheme to see if anything could be done to redress the imbalances and the anomalies.

I, like everybody else, dislike categorisation. There is a danger in categorisation. That is, that you are excluding genuine hardship cases. If the Minister at some stage could see his way to include in the scheme people on unemployment benefit or assistance, then he could rely on the judgment and the discretion of his community welfare officers and the community welfare officers of health boards to apply discretion in relation to determining who is or who is not in need. If there is one category of social welfare officer, community welfare officer or social assistant that I would like to praise, it is the community welfare officer who operates within and under the aegis and umbrella of the health boards. These people have generally, where guidelines permitted them, used their discretion very admirably. In the majority of cases very few people, if any, have gone in want or in need because of over rigid application of the guidelines.

I would exhort the Minister that over the summer period in the interregnum between the termination of the existing scheme to the introduction of the new scheme he would have a serious look at the particular qualifications of people and the categories who are debarred.

I would suggest to the Senators who are sponsoring this motion that rather than ask the Minister to withdraw the statutory instruments in question they would consider not pressing this issue in order to afford the Minister the necessary time and to give him the necessary opportunity to look at the problem that has arisen. I believe that there is need to have a thorough look at it, because you cannot simply open the floodgates and allow in all people who are on unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance schemes.

I am generally identified as being one of the stronger advocates of what is known as the small farmers' dole. These people also come under the umbrella of unemployment assistance. Nobody could seriously suggest that somebody who is eligible for small farmers' dole or unemployment assistance could seriously be considered — there are something like 13,000 of them — to be determined eligible for the free fuel allowance. The vast majority of them have holdings, land and turbary rights and access to the supply of fuel for themselves.

There is a lot of validity in what the sponsors of the motion are saying. I believe that long, hard and thorough reappraisals should take place. I would exhort the sponsors of the motion, to whom we are very grateful for highlighting the anomalies, rather than pursuing the matter vigorously in the House to the stage of a vote that in fact, they would consider withdrawing it in order to afford the Minister ample opportunity to reexamine the position before the November reintroduction of the new scheme.

Mr. Harte

I will not delay the House. There is agreement on the time factor. The position is that there are three areas involved here. There is the legal concern, the common concern and the reality. As to the position with regard to the legal concern, I would agree with Senator Higgins. He could see the validity of both Senator McGuinness and Senator Robinson pursuing this. Most of the public would look on it as a dangerous sort of means by which a Minister can get over the law. That is the way the bulk of the public would look at it. Quite frankly, I do not think it was done in that spirit. I would have a different view to that. In the area of commonsense we have to look at it with regard to what we have been talking about earlier. Everybody is concerned with the question of poverty and how to go about combating that poverty, the areas one would get into, which would include this type of area. I am not suggesting for one minute that you can wait for this issue to be handled by the Combat Poverty Agency. I am merely drawing the analogy between the problems we have been discussing and the type of contribution that has been made where concern has been shown. For us to ask that the motion would not be pressed is not showing a lack of concern. I am very concerned about it. In the circumstances that the Minister was caught in and having regard to how the Minister when he was last supporting a Coalition Government behaved there is a clear evidence between 1973 and 1977 of all the improvements that were made in the social services and social welfare scheme. Very extensive improvements were made in that area. One of the greatest advocates at that time was the present Minister for Social Welfare. He would not have excluded the free fuel or the short time benefit people in that scheme.

Again at this time there was some difficulty with regard to giving full recognition to the decision of the High Court. The Minister does appreciate the need for an enhanced access of the public to the benefits. The Minister also has a recognition of the potential of beneficiaries to claim. They are there to obtain their rights, to see that the implementation of those schemes through the social welfare code becomes reality, for example, programmes such as free fuel, travel etc. The Minister has got a full awareness of the problem. It is consistent with what we have all been talking about earlier, combating poverty. Therefore, it presents a sort of dilemma when it comes to the question of how to deal with it.

The reality is to leave the decision as it was where it would cost approximately £7.5 million to meet the matter. If we were to let it go immediately we would be dealing with 50,000 extra claimants. It presents a problem. But it is not a reason. I do not accept it as a reason for not extending it. I accept it as a good reason for the Minister's dilemma in trying to get over it. Therefore, he needs some time for further consideration so that he can look at the whole question of rationalisation, of regulating the whole concept of free fuel in the sense of the urban and rural dwellers. Overall, having regard to the fact that he has met the mover of the motion, that he has expressed his concern about the social rights, it might be of more benefit to the House if the Minister could, in fact — he will be making a statement — give some strong indication that the matter will be gone into in much greater depth and that, as a consequence, we would not push the vote here tonight.

Minister for Health and Social Welfare (Mr. B. Desmond)

I would be particularly concerned that in the event of this statutory instrument being annulled there would be no scheme at all. This is the net effect of it. We would have to revert to the supplementary welfare allowance of the health boards. That scheme is extremely restrictive in terms of the payment of allowances for support, and I quote:

It is only payable where a person is living alone or only with persons who are dependent on him for support and such person has, due to his ill-health, or infirmity...

Effectively, if you annul the regulations or the statutory instrument today, there is no national fuel scheme. We would have to start afresh and the only thing we could operate in terms of the past would be the restrictive supplementary welfare system. There might be some confusion. I think Senator Robinson may have implied that the national fuel scheme provided for now derived from the Supplementary Welfare Allowances Act, 1975. There was no national fuel scheme in existence then. The scheme was introduced in 1980 and it was then considered more appropriate that the scheme should be administered as part of the SWA scheme. Therefore, if the regulations were annulled the question arises, do we have any fuel scheme at all? We probably would not.

There are considerable difficulties in this aspect. If the regulations are annulled, there will be an automatic entitlement by another 50,000 people to have entry into the schemes. The additional cost will be £7.5 million. The cost has rocketed in recent years. When we started off under the old Eastern Health Board scheme in 1979-80 we were talking about 15,000 people and a cost of about £1/2 million per year. When the schemes were introduced in 1980-81 105,000 qualified. Today there are 158,000 people qualifying and the cost has gone up to £19 million from a £1/2 million in 1979-80 and from about £4 million in 1980-81. It is now £19 million and if we are going to add on another £7½ million — that £19 million takes into account raising the voucher for July onwards — there will be an additional cost extra to the £2.5 million or £3 million because the value of the voucher will go up from £4 to £5. The whole scheme would have to be recast within the limit of budgetary framework. Here I come to the point in which I concur very much with the two Senators who raised the issue. The schemes are anomalous and quite discriminatory. But why did my predecessors who examined the schemes refuse to grapple with them?

It is a very serious problem whereby under the urban scheme, for example, one could have a widow with a contributory pension who could be at work, having a wage and work, and who could be simultaneously living at home with her family with a reasonable income. She qualifies for the free fuel. The person next door on long term unemployment or the person down the road in a country area does not have automatic entitlement. Equally, you can have a contributory pensioner or a non-contributory pensioner living at home with his family in relatively comfortable surroundings who automatically qualifies and the long term unemployed person does not.

I have been very strenuously examining the situation but there is no way that we can expand the schemes across the board to include the smallholders mentioned. We cannot do it. The cost would rocket up to about £35 million overnight. There is a clear limit to the amount of public resources available. I assure the Senators that I am examining the scheme. I suggest that I should be given an opportunity of doing that. There are a number of ways in which it can be done. We can remove from automatic eligibility a number of persons. All hell would break loose on that issue because 20,000 people would automatically lose if we were to go down that road. There would be several motions in Seanad Éireann to restore total automatic entitlement. Simultaneously, if we removed automatic entitlement to a large number of people and brought in, as I think we might well and should bring in, say the 40,000 long term unemployed into the scheme we could afford to do so at some small additional cost.

I am not necessarily suggesting that it is the easiest way to do it, but one could shorten the period of the payment by, say, two weeks and bring in more people. There are a number of ways of doing it. In the budget this year we increased the value of the voucher from £4 to £5 and that was a 20 per cent increase in the value of the fuel voucher. I am not in any way trying to do a circumflexion. The High Court did not decide whether or not an applicant was entitled to a fuel voucher in that case. The High Court did not decide that at all. The only thing the High Court did was that it affirmed that any decision was a function of a health board and the decision referred only to the manner in which I, as Minister, exercise my powers in relation to the supplementary welfare allowances and how the health board arrived at their decision in the case in question. It was only on that basis that the judge reached his opinion relating to excluding certain classes, the classes which have always been excluded under the scheme, since 1980. I would stress, the two schemes have run side by side. It was crazy, with due respect to my predecessors, to allow two parallel, anomalous and quite different schemes to run side by side, a national scheme and an urban scheme. My predecessors shirked and ran away from rationalisation because if they had taken it by the scruff of the neck and rationalised it unquestionably some people would lose automatic entitlement, others would be brought in and the cost would be contained in a reasonable way.

I am anxious to go ahead with the provision here. I have left the conditions of the fuel scheme exactly as they were since 1980. The statutory instrument does not rule out the reconsideration of the schemes as they stand at present. I do not consider the schemes satisfactory as they stand. I am having them reviewed. I had them before the Government a year or two ago and I withdrew the proposals I had with a view to coming forward with further proposals. In August 1984 or thereabouts I indicated that I would have a further look at them during this year. In those proposals I suggested that we should spend more by raising the value of the fuel voucher from £4 to £5, and that was accepted. I am now doing a review of the general question of eligibility. I ask our Senator colleagues to allow me the opportunity of doing that review because the current season is coming to an end. The new season does not start until next October, and I will carry out the review dispassionately having regard to the available resources and I will submit appropriate proposals to the Government in due course.

I would stress, however, that it is a scheme which is now running at well over £20 million a year from about £4 million in 1980-81 and it is a quite chaotic system. If you were to annul the regulations now you would provide automatic entitlement in the spirit of annulment to 50,000 extra persons at a cost of an additional £7½ million which I simply do not have in the framework of the budget provisions for 1985. Equally you would introduce a system whereby we would have no scheme because there would be no regulation in existence. We then would have to re-frame the regulation.

I do not propose to detain the House further, but I can assure both Senator McGuinness and Senator Robinson that I am quite prepared to discuss the prospects of a rationalised scheme with both of them in the months ahead in preparation for the next season. I am quite prepared to consult with any other Senator on what should be one simple national scheme of fuel vouchers, widely known and above all delivered to the persons in need, with need being the actual requirement rather than status having automatic entitlement. That would end a running administrative sore in the past five years whereby we are inundated with inquiries. The administration is chaotic and the health boards are in great difficulty explaining many of the schemes to persons, and innumerable PQs and inquiries come in this regard. I can assure the Senators that I was not circumventing a judicial finding. I was restoring in a more legal framework the existing position which, as I have conceded here, is anomalous and is in need of very urgent reform.

Mrs. McGuinness

In reply to what the Minister has said, I would welcome his commitment to introducing a scheme where the criterion would be need and he should be given an opportunity to do so. Therefore I would not wish to push the matter to a vote and accordingly would withdraw the motion with the consent of my seconder. I am very glad to hear that this is the Minister's attitude to it, and we will look forward hopefully to discussing the matter with him in the coming months.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 15 May 1985