I welcome today’s motion and want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for all the Department has done in relation to the Warm Homes Scheme and the fact that her department has made 71,000 households warmer since 2001, is a commendable achievement.

However, there is no doubt that its success has slowed down some.  The application process could be improved as there are certain people who are claiming benefits who are not meeting the criteria used to qualify for the scheme.  If we assess the criteria, we find that you must be a homeowner.  However, what if you are elderly and can longer cope living on your own, so you move in with family, who are willing to look after you?   I have been contacted by a constituent from east Antrim who has recently been turned down from the scheme.  The decision to refuse her does seem very unfair.  This lady has her elderly mother-in-law living with her.  The mother-in law could no longer cope living on her own and moved out of her Housing Executive bungalow over a year ago.  Her mother-in law is on all the qualify benefits, but because she does not own the current house where she resides, she will not be eligible for the scheme.    The house she is living in is cold and in a bad state of repair and her daughter-in law cannot afford to do all the necessary repair work.  Can the Minister tell me why is it that when a pensioner aged 90, moves out of a pensioners bungalow to be looked after by family and saving the government over £100 a week, is then turned down for the scheme.  Does the Minister agree that in this situation, family appear to be penalised for helping their family? They are willing to look after the elderly and let them move into their homes, yet they are not able to avail of the Warm Homes Scheme.  If this pensioner rented a property elsewhere, she would be eligible to apply to the scheme.   In this case the Department are not tackling fuel poverty they are overlooking the vulnerable and taking advantage of the family and relatives that are willing to look after their loved ones!

The Minister has told us that she wants to target resources so as they have the maximum impact within our communities, well then let’s consider all of the private landlords that are eligible to qualify for the scheme.  Many of their tenants are on benefits, have never worked and yet they avail of the scheme.  However, those people who have worked all their lives never claimed benefits and that are on low incomes will not be entitled to any heating upgrades.      Surely there should be some form of means testing the landlords who are entitled to avail of the scheme, the scheme increases the value of their properties.

If fuel poverty is a function of three distinct features: household income being one of them and energy prices; and the energy efficiency of the home being the second and third feature then why are we not assessing the income of private landlords if we only assess the income of tenants what happens when the tenant moves to another private rented property, owned by another landlord.  Landlords keep gaining from the scheme.

Sadly eliminating fuel poverty in vulnerable households by 2010 now appears impossible.  Although without Warm Homes, the Department has estimated that 53% of households would now be in fuel poverty. To date in 2009/10 only 303 heating installations have occurred out of a total of 2,111, it is very doubtful that the scheme will achieve its target of 10,000 interventions.  It would be humiliating for the department to still have 1 in 3 households in fuel poverty when there is 18 million of a budget to be spent.  Let’s get the department to look at ways in which to extend the criteria for those people who have old oil and gas boilers.

I have heard nothing but good reports regarding the work of the new contractors who took on the scheme in July.  Indeed, I have heard that they are able to install a new oil heating system within a day, with no mess, fuss or complications for the customer.    With this in mind then, let’s allow them to continue reducing fuel poverty, people do not want to spend another winter with inadequate heating and why should they if we have still have money to spend. We have just had one of the coldest winters in twenty years and in addition to the Winter Fuel Allowance we have paid out over £4 million to 166,000 qualifying households as a “Cold Weather Payment” to help them pay for their heating during the very cold spell.

In respect of this, questions must be raised – Could this money have been spent elsewhere?  The Department are able to pay over £250 each to 166,000 homes for a winter fuel allowance and a further £25 for a Cold Weather Payment, if the Warm Homes Scheme was being utilized to its full potential, would these extra allowances been necessary or is there a percentage of the qualifying 166,000 pensioners who could benefit from the Scheme meaning they wouldn’t need the extra money.

I would ask the Minister and her department to consider widening the schemes application criteria to include those who are on low incomes and to utilize the remaining money that has been allocated.

I look forward to her response.