Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

As I said in my opening remarks, and Deputy Enright may have been the only Member in the House at the time, I accept that people can highlight different aspects of the social welfare package and look for substantial increases. That is all very well if one did not have to do what I have to do, which is to balance the budget across the spectrum and ensure we use the resources available to us, which now total €17 billion. Over 30% of all Government expenditure goes through this Department and that is significant across the system.

I was conscious of the benefit of the fuel allowance and examined it to see if there was anything I could do. I decided what was achievable this year was to extend the fuel allowance to 30 weeks. That was a good move which cost €5.6 million just to move that one week into the mix. Deputy Morgan is talking about adding €10 a week but it would cost tens of millions of euro to do so. That is a significant cost and if we decided to do that, we would have to consider not being as generous in other areas. I am not sure that is what people want. From my perspective, the main concentration for people who benefit from the fuel allowance, and I am sure the same people are talking to all Deputies, has been the massive increases in the old age pension, which is more beneficial than simply concentrating on that area.

As the Deputy will be aware, budget 2006 provided for an increase in the rate of fuel allowance of from €9 to €14 and up to €18 in this year's budget. There have been significant increases in recent budgets, and rightly so because fuel costs have increased dramatically in that period. I would like to have had the resources this year to do more in that area, but I was faced with choices and I had to get the balance right. By and large, across the spectrum of the €900 million package available for the budget for my Department that I worked on at some length, I hope that we have used resources in the best and fairest way across the system.

Deputy Enright raised the point about a review of the fuel allowance. She said some people would prefer to get the allowance in a lump sum while others would like to have it paid out over a specific period. For the benefit of Members, a detailed review of the fuel allowance was carried out in 1998 and the review examined alternatives to the weekly payment method, including a single lump payment. A survey of recipients of the allowance on a customer panel showed that a majority, 58%, preferred weekly payment; only 22% wanted the lump sum payment, 12% favoured direct debit to a supplier, while 8% would rather have two lump sum payments during the fuel season. The review recommended continuing with the current payment system.

The weekly payment appears to be the most favoured by recipients on the scheme. I have no particular view regarding changing to a lump sum payment. I cannot recall anybody coming into my clinic to tell me they would prefer to get the fuel allowance in a lump sum. The weekly payment helps people to budget. They like to get their resources on a weekly basis. They feel secure in the resources they are getting. They know what they are getting every week and can better budget as a result. It is an issue we keep under constant review. All Ministers are aware of its importance. As fuel costs continue to rise, it is an issue I will re-examine in next year's budget.

See this speech in context