asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider extending the free electricity service for pensioners to widows; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

11.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will review the position in relation to widows of pensioners under 66 years of age so that they may be allowed the benefit of free electricity.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together.

The free electricity scheme is intended to provide a measure of assistance to aged and permanently incapacitated pensioners. To be eligible under the scheme such pensioners must be either living along or with certain excepted persons, such as a dependent spouse or children, or a person who is required to provide full-time care and attention. The scheme applies to persons aged 66 years or over who are in receipt of pensions from my Department, retirement pensions from the British Department of Health and Social Security or the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services and ordinary Garda widow pensions. Persons under 66 years of age who are in receipt of blind or invalidity pensions from my Department, or disabled person's maintenance allowance from the health boards may also qualify.

The total number benefiting under the scheme at present is in the region of 158,000 at an estimated cost of £18.5 million in 1983. It provides relief from the normal standing charge in respect of the ESB's general domestic two-part tariff and also covers the cost of up to 200 units of electricity per two monthly accounting period in summer and 300 units per two monthly accounting period in winter.

The allowances are not fully availed of by a large proportion of those benefiting under the scheme. Some 79,000 recipients never receive an ESB bill because they do not use the full allowance. In fact, average consumption per billing period is only in the region of 75 per cent of the units allowed and I understand that some 40 per cent of recipients use less than 40 per cent of the units allowed.

When is the Minister coming to widows? I did not ask him for the information he is now giving.

The Minister should be allowed to finish without interruption.

I am taking the two questions, Nos. 10 and 11 together.

I did not ask who is entitled to the benefit. I asked if the Minister would consider extending the service to widows.

The Minister should be allowed to reply without interruption and presumably he will arrive at the widows shortly.

This means that over 63,000 recipients are using less than half of their entitlement. A higher take-up on their part could provide considerable comfort to them particularly in the winter period when they suffer most from cold and illness and I would, therefore, encourage them to make full use of the units allowed.

Widows who meet the requirements I have outlined are, of course, eligible for a free electricity allowance. Extension of the scheme in the manner suggested by the Deputy would radically alter its scope. This would have significant cost implications both for the scheme itself as well as for other schemes administered by my Department. Funds are not available to meet such additional cost, which could be in excess of £20 million when allowance is made for the full implications of the Deputy's proposals.

Would the Minister agree that in many instances widows with young families and children receiving second level education would have a very high rate of consumption? Would he accept that, in these circumstances, they should be entitled to some consideration by his Department?

I would point out to the Deputy that if extension of the free electricity scheme was given to all widows, for example, it would extend to quite a substantial number of persons who are at work, such as working widows, and I am not sure that the Deputy would necessarily favour that form of extension. It would also give rise to severe pressures, which would be very hard to resist, for example, for the extension of the free electricity scheme to those in receipt of the deserted wife's benefit, the deserted wife's allowances, the prisoners wife's allowance, the unmarried mother's allowance, the single woman's allowance, and ultimately, to at least half of all long-term social welfare recipients under age 66. Therefore, the cost implications would be enormous in that regard.

To revert to Question No. 10, would the Minister agree that it is most unjust to impose a penalty on widows who, having lost their husbands and who had already been in receipt of free electricity, are then denied that right? Would the Minister look at that situation, that is widows under 66 years of age, where they had the facility already? There is no cost to the State involved here. As a matter of fact, it would be a saving to the State. Would the Minister examine that situation? It is a question I have addressed to Ministers since I came into this House without receiving any satisfaction.

The situation, quite simply, is that if the scheme were extended, as the Deputy suggested, to widowed pensioners under 66 years of age it would cost an extra £2 million a year, and to all widows under 66 years of age it would cost another £3 million a year. The purpose of the free electricity scheme basically is to assist pensioners, the elderly, who are more likely to suffer from cold and illness. The important point I would make here is that many of the elderly do not take up their full entitlement because of lack of awareness or perhaps fear that they would incur personal cost. I think the Deputy should be working in that direction rather than on the case of a widow who, for example, has a pension, who is 40 or 50 years of age, who has a job. Is it seriously suggested that——

I did not say that.

Well, in effect, that is the implication of the question.

In the case of a widow under 66 years of age who had already the benefit of free electricity during her husband's lifetime, is there not a saving to the State here? There is no extra cost involved. The State is saving because that person is denied free electricity when her husband dies. How can the Minister justify that?

We have done a very careful estimate on the point made by the Deputy and the additional cost would be a straight £2 million.

How can there be an extra cost, because it is a saving to the State? She loses free electricity when her husband dies, so the State does not have to pay.

As the Deputy knows, free electricity has been given to pensioners over 66 years of age. Free electricity is given to her husband to assist him, to prevent him suffering from hypothermia, to give him basic comfort, and safeguard him from cold and illness because he is over 66. Surely it is not suggested that because he is now dead that benefit must automatically transfer to his widow who is under 66 years of age?

I do not know what kind of socialism the Minister is preaching.

A final supplementary from Deputy O'Hanlon.

The Minister stated, I think twice, that approximately half the people who are entitled to benefit from this scheme do not take up the number of units to which they are entitled. Would the Minister say what is the estimated saving to the State as a result of these people not utilising the number of units to which they are entitled?

The current total cost is £18,500,000. I suppose if all the pensioners were to use their full, normal entitlement to free electricity — which I would encourage them to do if they need it, and obviously a number of them do not avail of it — it would probably amount to an extra £2 million or £3 million a year. That is basically for persons in need of electricity.

Are the estimates calculated on the basis of the idea that they will not use the total number of units?

No, I think there is a great fear on the part of the elderly that they might exceed their 200 or their 300 units in the winter period. As a result, because many elderly may not be able to read ESB meters and are fearful of receiving high electricity bills, they use only about 40 per cent of the electricity to which they are entitled. Deputies should encourage the elderly, and I am currently trying to get a leaflet prepared for pensioners to encourage them to take up their entitlement because it keeps them out of hospital, it keeps them out of out-patients departments and maintains them in far greater comfort.

I would ask Deputies to allow me move on from this question.

Would the Minister take a serious look at Question No. 10? I have not spoken about working widows; I have spoken about pensioners, the wives of pensioners. My two questions relate specifically to non-contributory pensioners. I would ask the Minister to take a serious look at the question of trying to assist widows who are under 66 years of age, and who had been in receipt of this benefit prior to their husbands' death because there is no expense to the State involved.

Frankly, I put it to the Deputy, if I had a couple of million pounds I would not be spending it in that direction.

There is no expense to the State.

Persons under 66 years of age, who are blind, who have invalidity pensions or who are on a DPMA from the health board have the free electricity and any additional money should not go——

But they are non-contributory pensioners.

Does the Minister understand the question?

I understand it, all right. It is a question of priority.

Is the Minister not aware that there are a number of widows of 64 and 65 years of age who were in receipt of free electricity when their husbands were alive and who, when their husbands died within months of being entitled to the pension and free electricity themselves, had their supply cut off? Surely this is a situation the Minister should examine?

I should stress that Deputy D. Gallagher put down this question last July and in July 1981. I want to assure him that the matter is being very carefully considered but there is no way at present, within the constraints on us, that we could do this. If I had money available I would prefer to help unemployed, long-term people who are trying to get a few bob to pay off an ESB bill, such as recipients under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.

Would the Minister please answer Question No. 12?

We cannot do everything.

12.