Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

I am confused as to what I am speaking to, but I will use the amendment as my springboard to discuss the fuel and living alone allowances. The central point of the amendment is the need to address properly the living costs of those dependent on welfare payments. In his summing up, the Minister referred to my contributions, including my belief that the fuel allowance should be index linked. He rightly pointed out that the fuel allowance was never intended as a 100% subsidy towards fuel costs for those on social welfare. The reality, however, is that the existing fuel allowance has less impact as a subsidy than when it was first introduced. It certainly has less impact than when it was frozen at 2002 levels.

We are now entering a period of huge uncertainty over future fuel costs. In my original contribution I said that that uncertainty is not helped by the fact that the fuel allowance is a non-statutory payment. We should work towards having it included in future social welfare Bills so that we can discuss mechanisms like index-linking and, in particular, how we can put in place the means to recognise cost of living realities, including heating costs. I would not be averse to some creative thinking in this area. It is a sad reality that the poorest in our society can only avail of the most expensive fuels, which are also sometimes the most environmentally damaging. Perhaps the fuel allowance could be staggered in some way to favour more heat-effective and environmentally friendly fuels. The Minister should consider that possibility.

The Minister also referred to the fact the Bill and the budget have allocated a €2 million fund to help with the insulation of houses of social welfare recipients. That is welcome, but €2 million is but a puddle in the ocean that is the annual expenditure of the Government. If we are really serious about fuel efficiency, the Government will need to embark on a major programme worth hundreds of millions of euro to look at the nation's entire housing stock. The sum of €2 million is an exercise in dipping one's toe, however welcome it is.

Deputy Stanton has noted that the living alone allowance has not been increased this year. However, we must prepare for the changing demographics of our society. It is yet to happen to a large degree, but as this generation, which is more solitary and lives on its own more than any previous one, gets older, we must recognise a massive problem down the road. The next generation of senior citizens in this country will be more divorced from social contact and extended families as well as from the ability to interact with the wider community than those who preceded us. We must confront the sad reality that there will be many more elderly people living on their own in our society. How can we plan for that?

The only other point that I would like to make at this stage concerns something said on Second Stage regarding the need to control increases in social welfare payments and to protect them so that the bite-back in increased local authority rent does not have an immediate impact for recipients. I am aware of a guideline document issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that discourages local authorities from doing this, but apparently the directive does not have any impact.

We must consider specific legislation that would say that if social welfare payments are granted in any given year, no more than a set percentage may be used for an increase in payments to State agencies for rent and other services. Unless we do that, in the Estimates being discussed in local authorities in the next month, much of the impact of these additional payments will unfortunately be watered down. The Minister and his Cabinet colleagues must respond to that.

See this speech in context