John Connor
Ceist:7 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he accepts the need to extend the duration of the winter fuel scheme operated by his Department; and, if so, if he will outline the details of any proposed extension.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Fuel Scheme.
Liam Kavanagh
Ceist:11 Mr. Kavanagh asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider easing the means test for the receipt of free fuel allowances.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 11 together. The national fuel scheme is intended to help households who are dependent on long term social welfare or health board payments and who are unable to provide for their own heating needs.
It is estimated that expenditure on the scheme will amount to £34.45 million in respect of the 1991-92 heating season. Approximately 230,000 households were being assisted under the scheme at the end of December 1991.
Under existing arrangements the scheme operates from mid-October to mid-April each year. This fully covers the period when temperatures are significantly below the average and I do not consider that an extension of the season is necessary on those grounds.
Persons with other income in addition to a social welfare contributory pension will not qualify for a fuel allowance if that income exceeds £5 a week which is the equivalent of the fuel allowance. There are no plans at present to change the means test for this scheme.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. He has reminded us temperatures are low from mid-October to mid-April but they can be well below average from the beginning of October to the end of April. Perhaps the Minister will extend the scheme from the first week of October to the end of April. I did not ask about the rate of £5 per week which has been in force for a least four years and which has been significantly eroded by the effects of inflation but will the Minister agree that it needs to be updated?
We get information on temperatures from the Meteorological Office. I have detailed information here and I will endeavour to try to explain it because, as Deputies know, the temperature can rise very sharply——
Especially here.
This is a very expensive scheme and the question is, whether in extending the scheme you do it by lengthening the periods involved or perhaps by way of a means test. If Deputies care to send me their views in that regard I will take them into account. We are spending roughly £35 million on the scheme per year and I am not certain we are getting the best possible value for money.
Will the Minister consider a pro rata disqualification rather than a cut off at £5? Will he consider removing — or rephrasing — the question on the application form which asks the pensioner if he or she has access to their own supply of fuel? Many old age pensioners think it means that if they are able to walk to the coal shed and bring in fuel they will be disqualified. Indeed many people write “yes” and disqualify themselves. It has happened to people who come to my clinics.
It would be unfortunate if that happened and I will certainly draw the attention of the people who administer the scheme to this matter. I will try to ensure that people will not be disqualified because of that. I have not dealt with this scheme other than to look at its overall cost. The scheme has been expanded a number of times in recent years, which has made it very expensive to operate. Given our resources, we have to consider whether it would be better to consider ways of operating the scheme other than extending the time, as the Deputy suggests. I would use any additional resources for this scheme to ease the means test rather than extend the times, which have been adequately extended already. It costs approximately £1.3 million for each additional week the scheme is operated.
A great number of old age pensioners would re-echo what Deputy Connor has said about extending the scheme. Regardless of what the Met. Office say, old people believe the weather gets cold, and weather conditions are not the same every year. However, I will not get into that argument now.
A problem which arises frequently in rural areas and with which the Minister will be familiar is that the transfer of a farm to a son or daughter is taken into account in considering the application of a retired couple. Obviously a retired couple have nothing to do with the property they have transferred. Many elderly people are very annoyed when they find out they are not entitled to the benefit even though they have transferred their farm to their son or daughter.
I am aware of such cases. However, as the Deputy will know, a sizeable number of people who receive this benefit had adequate supplies of fuel available to them, especially those in the small farm family category. He should not try to tell me anything else——
Some of them do not have a bob.
I live in a rural area. I have had the scheme examined already and I have some details of the cost of it. However, I will have the scheme further examined with a view to ensuring that it is targeted to the people who need it most.
Is the Minister aware of the spiralling increase in the price of coal and other fuels in the recent past and the effect this is having on the old and vulnerable in our society? Is he also aware that old people who are vulnerable and have a limited income often buy the dearest fuel, that is, small quantities from coalmen who call to their houses? Given that reality, would the Minister not agree that it is time the £5 limit was substantially increased? In view of the fact that Fianna Fáil used some sort of magic wand to reduce the winter period recently for those who benefit from the scheme, can the Minister now look into his heart and use another magic wand to extend the winter period to what it was originally?
I want to be flexible about the winter period and do not want to tie myself down to specific dates. Normally we experience very cold and harsh weather at this time of the year but that is not the case this year. I take the point the Deputy has made. There are a number of projects and pilot schemes in various areas and I will circulate to Deputies details of the allocations outlined in the budget. I will ask them to look specifically at the hardship and poverty in their regions and make recommendations as to how this scheme might be made more effective.
I welcome the Minister's assurance that he will look at the possibility of easing the means test. Many people who are in the right category and in need of fuel are often excluded because they have a small income. I am particularly concerned about the reciprocal arrangement with the UK. Genuine applicants here who receive a pension from the British Government can be debarred from benefiting from the scheme because of a disparity in the amount of their pension from time to time. In view of the limited resources and the cost of the scheme, the Minister would meet most of our demands if he eased the means test.
While I agree with the Deputy, I would prefer to get more specific back-up data. As I said, I will ask those operating pilot schemes in specific areas to look at this issue and make recommendations. I do not believe this scheme is being targeted to the people most in need.