Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 20 July 2011
18 Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Social Protection if she is satisfied that there are sufficient supports in place to help people struggling to pay their electricity fuel and other utility bills. [21599/11]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am satisfied that there are sufficient supports in place to help people with their electricity, fuel and other utility bills. Energy poverty is a factor of income, energy prices and the thermal efficiency of the home. The most cost-effective means of protecting households from energy poverty is to improve the thermal efficiency of the home. The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland has administered an energy efficiency programme for privately-owned low-income households, the warmer homes initiative, since 2001. More than 65,000 such households have benefited to date, with a further 15,000 expected to receive energy efficiency upgrades this year. A similar upgrade programme is also in place for social housing with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government supporting local authorities to improve the energy efficiency of older social housing stock.
On income supports, my Department assists low-income households with their energy costs through their basic payments, through the means-tested fuel allowance scheme and the household benefits package. The fuel allowance of €20 per week is paid to people who are dependent on long-term social welfare and unable to provide for their own heating needs. It is paid for 32 weeks, from late September to the end of April. The household benefits package, comprising telephone and electricity or gas allowance, as well a free television licence, is available for all those aged 70 or over; those in receipt of carers allowance; those who are 66 to 70 and in receipt of a qualifying payment and generally living alone; and those aged under 66 and in receipt of a disability or caring related payment.
Under the Department's supplementary welfare allowance scheme, a special heating supplement may be paid to assist people in certain circumstances who have special heating needs because of ill health or infirmity. In addition, exceptional needs payments may be made to help meet an essential, once-off cost which an applicant is unable to meet out of his or her own resources.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Unfortunately, because of commitments made by the previous Government it was necessary last week that the Government approve changes to the fuel, telephone and electricity or gas allowances which will generate savings of €17 million in 2011 and €65 million annually. While this Government has had to implement these measures, the House should be aware that these savings were provided for last December in budget 2011 but were not specified or announced by the Government at that time. While we want to protect the basic social welfare payments which have very positive economic and social effects, regrettably there is an ongoing necessity to achieve savings due to our commitments with the IMF, EU and ECB Troika.
I still believe last week's measures will have a detrimental effect on many vulnerable people. In her earlier response pertaining to the issue I refrained from asking a second supplementary question, because I wanted to put this question in context further to the answer just given. The Minister mentioned in her earlier response that this was a legacy issue upon which the Government was forced to act and the Tánaiste said the same thing in the Chamber last week.
Is it not a fact that the previous Minister met providers and other stakeholders to secure a better deal on electricity and communications elements of the household benefits package, which would have been a win-win situation? As the Minister said, we are paying approximately €500 million per annum in guaranteed payments and it was not unreasonable to seek a discount of approximately 10% which would have resulted in savings for the Exchequer but would not have affected the package of benefits. This is even documented on page 24 of the budget brief for 2011 from the Department of Social Protection. In the context of those savings being sought, which were not pursued by the Minister or her officials on the Minister assuming office — she took the soft option of informing the House it was a legacy issue — is the Minister willing to confirm that the previous Government at no time proposed the reduction in the free electricity units and had instead proposed a reduction similar to the Eircom reduction to be negotiated with the electricity suppliers?
In the 2011 budget, the previous Government included indicative headings of savings that it did not announce or, in some cases, specify. I have advised the Deputy of this fact previously.
The Department is a major purchaser of utility services. Upon becoming Minister, I was surprised to learn that the Department did not get much in the way of discounts. The change to the telephone allowance is effectively a discount, with free rental of telephones provided by Eircom. The previous Minister may have been affected by this problem and I do not know whether he entered into negotiations. The nub of the problem seems to be that, according to the advice of the Chief State Solicitor's office, the Department of Social Protection does not have the right to go to the market to procure electricity as it is not the customer in the first instance and, therefore, has no entitlement to approach the market. To make matters even better, the Competition Authority stated that it is more important than ever that any scheme administered by the Department should not favour one electricity supplier over another.
I am obtaining legal advice on this matter. I do not know whether the previous Minister did so. Effectively, the current advice means that, although the Department is spending more than €500 million purchasing gas, electricity and other utilities for its clients, we have no right to get bulk discounts. I am confident that previous Ministers must have been aware of this feature of competition law, but we may need to change that law.
I must interrupt because the Deputy may want to ask a further question and we are running out of time.
I want to narrow it down.
Briefly, please.
According to the Minister, she has sought legal advice.
I am seeking it.
Yes, on her Department consulting providers to seek discounts. Is the Minister now saying she is unaware that the previous Minister and his officials were also seeking discounts, irrespective of the legal opinion? Despite the fact that this matter was referred to in the budget briefing, is she claiming that she is unaware of those negotiations and intentions? Did she disregard them when making last week's cut?
The Deputy will understand that I will not speak for the previous Minister or his opinions.
I am not asking the Minister to do that. The officials are the same.
For example, he had conversations with the late Minister for Finance regarding the family income supplement. However, nothing occurred as a consequence. I do not know what the previous Minister did——
He instructed his officials.
——but I was astonished upon arriving in the Department that, despite being a large bulk purchaser of utilities, we did not get discounts. I must seek legal advice to determine how to get better value through discounts for those who rely on the package of household benefits.
