asked the Minister for Social Welfare the date on which the cheap fuel scheme was brought into operation, and the circumstances which necessitated its establishment.

The cheap fuel scheme came into operation in November, 1942. The scheme was initiated during the period of acute fuel shortage occasioned by the Emergency in order to assist necessitous families to obtain a regular supply of native fuel, and in particular turf, in areas then classified as non-turf areas, where there were special difficulties in obtaining adequate supplies. Though not strictly non-turf areas, Limerick was brought in at the instance of the Muintir na Tíre Fuel Committee, Limerick, which was given a subvention of £600, and Dungarvan because it had originally been classified as being in a non-turf area.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the scheme which was instituted 18 years ago as an emergency measure and which has now become an established and necessary social service, should be revised so that centres like Limerick, which suffers under severe disabilities compared with other centres, would be put on a proper pro rata basis?

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say who is responsible for administering the scheme, that is to say, who ensures that the fuel is of a suitable nature for the recipients?

The local authority.

Would he say if he has any preference for timber as against turf?

No. We have no preference for timber as against turf but we allow it where turf is not available. In reply to Deputy Russell, the subvention has increased on a few occasions from £600 and it now stands at £5,500. The last expenditure in Limerick was £5,463, £37 less than the available grant.

Arising further from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, while I do not want to discourage payments made to other centres I wonder would he explain why it is that Cork City, which has approximately twice the population of Limerick, gets a subvention of £30,000?

Surely that is a separate question?

If they are paid to the same categories of people Limerick should get a higher subvention. Do I get no reply at all?

That is a separate question.

It is not. It arises directly from the Parliamentary Secretary's answer.

A great many things arise irrelevantly.

9.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total number of beneficiaries for 1959-60 in each local authority area where the cheap fuel scheme is in operation.

The actual number of beneficiaries who participate in the scheme is not furnished by the local authorities but it is calculated that the average weekly number of participants during the 1959/60 scheme was as follows:—

Does that not support my suggestion that this whole scheme should be revised?

The Deputy has made representations again and again for Limerick, and I shall submit these representations to the Minister for consideration.

Very good.

10.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the price charged to beneficiaries by each local authority where the cheap fuel scheme is in operation.

The contributions payable by beneficiaries in all areas, except Limerick, are as follows:

(1) Persons in receipt of Old Age, Blind and Widows' and Orphans' Pensions 6d. per cwt.

(2) Persons in receipt of Unemployment Assistance who have dependants, 1/- per cwt.

(3) Persons on low incomes, other than those mentioned above, 2/- per cwt.

In Limerick, persons in the above categories pay a flat rate of 1/6 per cwt.

Persons in receipt of home assistance receive the fuel free of charge, the cost being borne by the public assistance authority.

Does that again not reinforce my request that this whole scheme should be revised?

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the vast majority of people in the very lowest category, who pay 6d. for a bag of turf, have to pay 1/6 for the delivery of it because of the stupidity of his Department in refusing to sanction tenders by local authorities whereby reputable fuel merchants would deliver it for 3d. a bag?

Speech.

The Deputy is making a speech.

I suggest that the Deputy get in touch with the voluntary charitable organisations to see if they would do the work.

And I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary should listen to some of his own colleagues who are saying this in various local authorities.

If you annoy him too much he will scrap it.