Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I support Sinn Féin's motion. We strongly believe that the issue of fuel poverty and the current fuel allowance system require further interrogation. The Labour Party has carried out an analysis of this year's fuel allowance payments arising from budget 2021 and I would welcome the Minister's response to that analysis, if she can respond to it. It is our contention that in real terms there has been, in effect, a cut to the fuel allowance for 2020-21.

The reason we are saying that is because the fuel allowance is paid over 28 weeks from the end of September through to March. Due to Covid-19, the 2019-20 fuel allowance season was extended by an extra four weeks. This would have been worth €98 to recipients, because four weeks multiplied by €24.50 is €98. In 2021, the payment increased by €3.50 a week from January, which would be worth an additional €98 over a full 28 weeks. However, only 14 of the weeks in this year's fuel season will be paid at the higher rate, which means they will only get €49. That signals, in real terms, an actual cut in the fuel allowance. That is the Labour Party analysis. I would welcome a response from the Minister in respect of that analysis because if she agrees with it, and I mean this respectfully, that would blow the Government's argument regarding the policy roll-out on the fuel allowance for 2021 out of the water. It effectively means that people on fuel allowance this winter will be down €49 compared with the 2019-20 season, and next winter they will also face more expensive fuel due to the higher carbon tax. We are on record as saying we are not against the carbon tax but it means people will be worse off in 2021. The Government will say that there is no carbon tax increase by €7.50 per tonne until May, but thereafter that will hit.

The Minister also says it is for individuals to seek supplementary welfare allowance and that community welfare officers will not be found wanting when it comes to exceptional needs payments. That has been my experience in my constituency. The system that is set up to allow for payments for exceptional needs has, in my experience, continued to be a robust one and that level of discretion is, thankfully, there. We welcome that. However, the figures show that, in spite of the Minister's contention that supplementary welfare allowance can be paid and is available in exceptional circumstances, between January and December only 11,922 people received the fuel supplement or the heat supplement. In the context of the overall spend and the numbers that are in receipt of fuel allowance, one would have to contend that 11,922 is quite a small number of people to have benefited from that additional payment. That speaks volumes about the continuing level of fuel poverty that exists within this State.

I do not doubt the Minister's bona fides. When we are arguing these points in opposition, we all subscribe to rhetoric. There is no question about that. There is scope to look at the fuel allowance again, perhaps to look at the Labour Party analysis of the real-terms impact of the cut, and see whether the supplementary welfare allowance could be examined afresh with a view to ensuring that more people are notified and made aware of its existence.

The 11,922 people who availed of the payment in December and January is a small number relative to the 300,000 plus in receipt of the payment. That is our core point.

I want to speak to the element of the motion that deals with the PUP, and it not being a qualifying payment for the fuel allowance. We are seeing a growing phenomenon in our constituency offices of people who are feeling the effects of long Covid. I appreciate that the science in regard to measuring the effects of long Covid might not be up-to-date but the phenomenon of long Covid and its effect on people is widely accepted. There is a sufficient evidence base in that regard. The enhanced illness benefit is the current payment that meets the needs of those people, as I understand it. I ask the Minister to undertake a budgetary analysis of people who are suffering the effects of long Covid and to design a payment that would include provision for a fuel allowance to meet the needs of households with people who had been working but are no longer able to work because of the long-term physical effects of Covid. That would be a stringent exercise. I merely want to it put on the record of the Dáil today in relation to the Minister's agenda. I am asking her to look afresh at measuring the long-term impact of long Covid and to examine if additional supports can be put into that budgetary line, including a potential provision for fuel allowance payments where there is a fuel poverty marker in a given household.

I accept the points made by Deputy Bruton but the people I am meeting are not in a position to be able to avail of the supports that have been articulated by him. Whatever about local authority programmes and the progress in that regard, which I acknowledge, the people who have availed of Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland grants in respect of the extensive work that needs to be carried out on the housing stock are people who do not have the means and cannot access loans to bring their houses up to the required standard such that fuel poverty is extinguished. There is still a significant gap in the housing stock that is plugged, by and large, by the fuel allowance. I understand and acknowledge that progress is being made but it needs to be accelerated. While that acceleration of enhancement of buildings and housing stock is under way, eligibility for the fuel allowance should be looked at again, if at all possible. I acknowledge that the number of people in receipt of the fuel allowance is significant, but if it could be looked at afresh, particularly in regard to those people in fuel impoverished houses, that would be widely welcomed.

See this speech in context