asked the Minister for Social Welfare the difficulties encountered in determining the details of a family income supplement in 1983; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The family income supplement scheme is designed to increase the incentive to work for persons with families who are only marginally better off working than if they were claiming social welfare benefits. This involves topping up the take-home pay of low-paid workers. The effect of this on the labour market and the various methods of control which would have to be employed to prevent abuse of the scheme were among the factors which had to be taken into account in fixing the income levels to which the supplement would be provided for different family sizes and the amounts to be provided for each family. In addition, the task of estimating the number of families who would benefit from the scheme proved to be difficult because of the absence of up-to-date income distribution data for the families concerned.

It was therefore decided to postpone the introduction of the scheme and the money thus saved was largely used to provide a special increase of 5 per cent for the long-term unemployed with effect from October 1983. It was announced in the Budget Statement of 25 January 1984 that the scheme will come into operation in November next. It is my intention that provision for the scheme will be incorporated in the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill.

Does the Minister accept that we were told here by the Minister for Social Welfare that 20,000 families would benefit when the scheme was announced on 9 February 1983? We were told at that stage that the Government had decided to implement the scheme by legislation in the near future. Six months later we were told the scheme would be introduced on 1 December 1983. Now the Minister of State says that they did not know the number of people who would benefit, that that had to be estimated and that other difficulties arose. If such difficulties were there last year they will be there this year, and does the Minister expect the House to accept that that is the reason why the scheme was not introduced in 1983? Was it a money saving device?

As I have stated, the money saved was used to provide a 5 per cent increase for long-term unemployed, with effect from October 1983. It is the intention that the scheme will be incorporated in the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill. In regard to a scheme like this, the Government should not be criticised for being ambitious or, perhaps, overambitious. It was announced in the Budget Statement of 9 February 1983. It is a completely new form of scheme and unforeseen difficulties arose in connection with getting all the required information. The Deputy may rest assured that provision for the scheme is being made.

Could the Minister tell us where the figure of 20,000 families who would benefit from this scheme came from? This figure was given to the House by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare.

That is a separate question.

That is a separate matter.

On a point of order, it is not a separate question.

The Chair rules that it is.

The Minister has told us that one of the reasons for the scheme not being implemented last year was that they were not able to estimate the number of persons who would qualify. I am asking the Minister where the figure of 20,000, quoted to this House by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, came from. It now appears that that estimate was not correct and that the Minister did not have the relevant information.

It was an envisaged figure, bearing in mind the fact that when the statement was made the Government were in office for only about three weeks. A sincere effort was made to bring this proposal in as quickly as possible but when the scheme was examined more deeply further difficulties arose. As I say, the scheme is now to be provided for.

Would the Minister of State accept that his Minister was misleading the House, to give an envisaged figure?

No, I would not accept that at all. Envisaged figures are necessary. If one wants to work out a scheme, one must envisage a figure on which to base that scheme.

10.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will include night heating in the free electricity allowance scheme.

The free electricity allowance scheme administered by the Department is based on the ESB's two-part domestic tariff. It provides relief from the normal standing charge and from the cost of up to 200 and 300 units of electricity each two months in the summer and winter periods respectively. The scheme was not designed to cover electricity supplied at special reduced rates as in the case of night rate space heating and there are no plans to extend the scheme in the manner suggested.

Would the Minister agree that elderly people living in flats and apartments very much need heat at night? In view of the cold winters that we are now experiencing, would he reconsider his attitude and allow night heating to be included? That is not going to break the Department.

I would not be too sure about that.

I would certainly agree with the Deputy that every effort should be made to ensure that elderly people have proper heating. The present free electricity allowance comprises relief from the normal standing charge in respect of the ESB two-part domestic tariff together with the cost of up to 200 or 300 units of electricity which is currently 7.35 pence per unit per two monthly billing in the summer and winter periods respectively. Since the introduction of the scheme in 1967 it has been confined to electricity supplies on the two-part domestic tariff which covers most electricity supplies for domestic purposes. It has not included electricity supply at the special reduced rates, such as for storage heating which is covered by a separate tariff at approximately half the domestic rate. I gather that the Deputy wants this provision extended to storage heating, but there are many difficulties in that area. The ESB estimate that approximately 4,000 to 5,000 of the 164,000 pensioners entitled to free electricity have storage heating, which is a very small number of people.

As the Minister has stated that there are not many involved and that it would not cost the Department that much, would he agree to include these people living in flats and apartments, where there are no fireplaces and no heating systems? Furthermore, they can only use a certain number of units. It would be no extra burden on the Department.

The cost of granting a special allowance of, say, 1,000 units — which would cover the use of one storage heater — to 5,000 pensioners with storage heating over the free winter billing period would be approximately £544,000 per annum. The potential cost of all free electricity recipients seeking a special allowance for night heating would be £17,860,000 for the six winter months. The estimate for the free electricity allowance scheme for 1984 is £20,665,000.

Would the Minister——

I would like to discuss a dozen questions at Question Time. That would be five minutes a question.

11.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that people living in the Dublin County Council area who are unemployed do not qualify under the free fuel scheme and that unemployed people living in the Dún Laoghaire Corporation and Dublin Corporation areas do qualify; if he will explain the reason for this discriminatory practice; if he will resolve the problem as a matter of urgency; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

12.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason recipients of unemployment assistance are excluded from the 1983-84 national fuel scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

13.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will rationalise the two fuel schemes which operate in cities; and the date when changes will be implemented.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 together. At present two separate fuel schemes are in operation. There is an urban scheme for residents of 17 cities and towns, including Dublin and Dún Laoghaire, and there is a national scheme which operates throughout the State. Under the urban scheme, recipients of unemployment assistance who have dependants automatically qualify. The national scheme is intended primarily to cater for the heating needs of persons receiving social welfare pensions and similar long-term payments and does not include unemployment assistance recipients.

The position whereby there are two separate fuel schemes with different conditions for entitlement is undoubtedly confusing and unsatisfactory. Proposals are, therefore, being prepared for submission to the Government with a view to replacing the two existing schemes with a single uniform scheme from the beginning of October 1984.

Did I understand the Minister to say that he was taking Questions Nos. 11 and 12 together?

And Question No. 13.

Perhaps the Minister would read out the answer to Question No. 12?

It is a composite answer.

It might be a composite answer to No. 11, but I would like an answer to Question No. 12.

The answer which I have given is that the national scheme is intended primarily to cater for the heating needs of persons receiving social welfare pensions and similar long-term payments and does not include unemployment assistance recipients.

Why, in the year of the national fuel scheme 1983-84, was there a special exclusion by this Government of those on unemployment assistance, who are the poorest in our community? This was an exclusion which did not apply in previous years. Previously it was stated that the health boards had discretion, outside the categories named, to give those such as unemployed free fuel. Why has a specific paragraph been inserted this year into the national fuel scheme to exclude those on unemployment assistance?

The national fuel scheme was introduced in 1980 to expand and rationalise the various schemes for provision of winter heating which had been in existence under the old home assistance scheme which was abolished in 1977. The conditions were devised to include the best features of the existing schemes, in particular that of the southern area, which was the most expensive, but the categories were extended to include recipients of all long-term pensions and allowances and the liberal definition of "living alone" was borrowed from the free electricity scheme. While unemployment assistance recipients were included in the urban scheme, these schemes had been brought in specifically for non-turf areas during the war and the criteria of need would not justify extending the entitlement to unemployment assistance recipients throughout the country, where the majority would have access to turf. There are indications that unemployment assistance recipients have been granted allowances in cases of special hardship, but these are isolated cases and the scheme is generally being administered in accordance with the approved criteria.

I would accept what the Minister says, but——

Deputy O'Hanlon will bear in mind——

But the Minister has not answered my question.

One moment, please. Deputy O'Hanlon will bear in mind the lecture which the Chair received yesterday about exceeding the time allotted for Question Time.

Would the Minister write to the health boards telling them to do as they have been doing in previous years?

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.