Vol. 405 No. 9
11 Mr. Cotter asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will outline the conditions for eligibility under the back to school allowance, with particular reference to social welfare recipients and families on small incomes derived from employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
22 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to a recent survey undertaken by a Sunday newspaper (details supplied) which suggested the cost of equipping a child for the new school year could be as much as £350; if, in view of this, he will consider increasing the grant available which is only a fraction of the cost estimated; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
33 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Social Welfare if all families where (a) the main income earner is on long term unemployment assistance (b) the spouse is in part-time employment earning less than £45 per week nett and (c) there are three school going children are refused a school clothes allowance; if this conforms with the general guidelines on this allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
34 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of families who applied for the back to school clothing and footwear allowance; the number of applications which were successful and the number turned down; the average amount paid per child; if he will alter the scheme to a supplement to all social welfare recipients with children, as recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 22, 33 and 34 together.
The new back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance which I introduced in 1990 was designed to assist recipients of social welfare and health board payments in meeting the cost of school uniforms and footwear. The scheme provided for two rates of allowance, £40 for children attending secondary school and £25 for children attending primary school. Some 180,000 children benefited under the scheme at a cost of approximately £5.4 million.
The allowance is normally paid in respect of dependent children whose parents or guardians are recipients of: (a) supplementary welfare allowance; (b) social welfare benefits or allowances; (c) disabled person maintenance allowance; (e) infectious diseases (maintenance) allowance.
Each application is assessed having regard to the applicant's complete income position and in conformity with the general guidelines on the scheme. The maximum rates of the allowance apply where the family is solely dependent on the basic rate of the relevant social welfare health board payment. However, where the family had additional income from any source, including employment, account is taken of such income in assessing the level of allowance which is warranted in the circumstances.
With regard to Deputy Gregory's question, I am conscious of the effect of the income limit on those applicants whose income is marginally in excess of the limit. This is one of the issues which is being examined within my Department at present in the context of an overall review of the operation of the scheme in 1990.
Applicants in full time employment are not eligible for this allowance. This is because the clothing and footwear allowance as part of the supplementary welfare allowances scheme does not extend to assisting those in full time employment.
The newspaper article to which Deputy Mac Giolla refers examined the cost of providing a complete specialised school uniform, including gaberdine and blazer as well as footwear and sports uniforms, all purchased from specialist stores. The wider costs associated with equipping a child for school, including the cost of text books and other miscellaneous expenses such as stationery and art materials were also examined.
The rates of allowance under the clothing and footwear scheme were set having regard to the average cost of footwear and a basic school uniform, excluding gaberdine and blazer. There are separate provisions operated by the Department of Education for assisting with the cost of school books. Allowances paid by the health boards under the back-to-school clothing and footwear scheme therefore do not cover such costs.
Details of the total number of beneficiaries under the scheme are currently being finalised by the health boards, which administered the scheme on behalf of my Department. Final statistics on the number of families who applied for the allowance, the number of successful and unsuccessful applications and the average amount paid per child are not yet available. It is estimated, however, that the number of children who benefited under the scheme was in the region of 180,000.
The scheme is structured to target the available resources to those recipients who are in greatest need. I am satisfied that these measures are a major improvement on previous arrangements and substantially ease the annual burden of back-to-school clothing costs faced by social welfare and health board recipients.
Is the Minister aware that the scheme turned out to be very divisive last year? In particular, people on very small incomes were excluded from the scheme. The Minister will be aware that many of those people are worse off than people on social welfare. Will his review of the scheme take that fact into account and will he broaden the scheme to include people in low paid employment?
Any time you bring in a good scheme for those on unemployment and supplementary welfare allowance, naturally people who are not within these groups feel it is something from which they, too, should benefit. We need to consider particularly people who are near the margin, and this includes people on family income supplement. They can be included in certain circumstances, for instance, if they have no other income. In that way some of the known and defined people on lower incomes can be included. Last year was the first year of this scheme. It worked very efficiently given the introduction of a new scheme throughout the whole country, and I thank the health boards for administering it. We are assessing as well as we can the outcome of that scheme in 1990 before dealing with this year. As the Deputy may know, I have the money again to repeat the scheme this year, but the question of including much wider categories would, of course, require budgetary consideration.
May I ask the Minister if there were definitive regulations available to the community welfare officers responsible for administering that scheme? My information is that some of the officers took a very hardline approach and there was very little flexibility.
General guidelines were laid down. Previously there was wide variation in the very limited arrangements that existed. I accept there was some variation in the scheme last year, and that is one of the aspects of the review. Different health boards operated on different bases previously, and we will certainly be trying to get them to work as closely as possible. General guidelines were agreed with the health boards beforehand and were issued. Many of the decisions made by the community welfare officers are very straightforward and standard. It is with the marginal decisions that differences may occur between health boards, and these will be looked at before next year.
Would the Minister agree that the tragedy of poverty in Ireland is to be seen on the faces of young children at the beginning of the school term and the stresses and strains on families on low income or those dependent on social welfare payments is extreme at that time of the year? Would he agree that an allowance of £25 for primary school children is insufficient? The newspaper report referred to in Deputy Mac Giolla's question highlights that for primary school books alone it costs £50. Therefore, the allowance of £25 goes no way towards serving the needs of these unfortunate families whose incomes are so stretched at that time of year, particularly in the month of September with the start of the new school term.
I thought I made it clear in my reply that the scheme does not cover books. The Department of Education run a book scheme which the Deputy will have to discuss with the Minister for Education. Deputy Mac Giolla's question — to which Deputy Byrne referred — deals with a Sunday Business Post survey published on 26 August last which dealt with exclusive stores and equipment for schools. The article referred to equipment which — while it might be very nice to have — was not basic. It referred to a blazer, coat, calculators, pens, scarves, books, trousers, skirts, a flask——
Is the Minister implying that the poor should not have access to calculators and be properly dressed going to school?
Not at all. Deputy Byrne's remarks indicate that Deputy Mac Giolla has lost touch with the grass roots when he says that it costs £530 to fit out a child for school——
The figure was £350.
Well, the figure in the article was £530 although I know that Deputy Mac Giolla mentioned the sum of £350. The Department of Social Welfare did a survey which showed that the average cost for the basic uniform — shirt, tie, shoes, socks, underwear, trousers, pinafore — was £40 for a primary school and £60 for a secondary school. I was very interested in the results of the survey because I am familiar with my local schools and I know that their costings are very similar to those of the Department of Social Welfare. These were independent surveys in relation to basic costs. I know that the cost does not include the heavy overcoat which is something a person is allowed to buy from a suitable store in whatever colour is appropriate. The management and the parents say what they want as a uniform and outline a reasonable cost. That is the basic approach as distinct from the more exclusive schools which, traditionally, have a different approach. These schools have the same kind of arrangement, in consultation with the parents. As I said, Deputy Mac Giolla is out of touch and Deputy Byrne should not make the same mistake.
Will the Minister indicate how likely recipients are informed about benefits like this? Do they get an individual notice? Are they informed through newspaper advertisements or by the health boards?
There was very little difficulty in getting people to apply for the scheme when we first introduced it, 180,000 people applied; we estimated in advance that about 170,000 people would qualify and, when the figures are finalised, it may be as high as 185,000. We estimate that most eligible people came forward as it was well advertised and discussed at the time. It was recognised as a good scheme because it applied to each child each year. The Deputy should not forget that. A person would not necessarily be buying everything each year——
A person is not jusy buying one item every year, one pair of socks and one pair of shoes——
There is a definite tendency to seek to debate each question and we are making little progress. I am calling Deputy Stagg and then a final question from Deputy Cotter, who tabled the question.
I realise that they are very closely in touch with what the Sunday Business Post said about these matters but I invite the Deputies to come out with me and see the reality. They should join the rest of the ordinary population who are working from week to week.
The Minister should come up to Ballyfermot and see what is happening.
Order.
I will go up there any time.
I preface my very brief supplementary by congratulating the Minister on implementing an excellent scheme which brought benefits to a large number of people who previously had to go, cap in hand, to a community welfare officer and who did not have any rights. That right has now been established. Will the Minister now again look at the scheme to see if it is possible to bring in some level of automation to the payment? The information is available in the Department in regard to every potential applicant and — arising from that and from computerisation of the information — it should now be possible in their dole cheque to make an automatic payment when it is due.
I will certainly look at that matter. The scheme is operated through the health board and the community welfare offices——
Take it away from them.
We have directly taken a fair number of schemes on board but, when a new scheme has been operating for a short time, it is easier to see how it might best be operated in future. It is under review at present and I will bear the Deputy's point in mind.
We have dwelt inordinately long on this question. A final, brief question from Deputy Cotter.
I am aware that quite a number of people were waiting for a decision after 1 September. Will the Minister clarify how many decisions were outstanding after 1 September? As the Minister knows, little children going to school are ashamed if they are not wearing their school uniform and there are social problems attached to that.
With any new scheme there is normally some industrial relations difficulty. When the Deputies are on this side of the House — some time——
It will not be too long——
——they will find that this is the reality. There were some difficulties in relation to one case but it did not cause much of a delay. Most payments were made in the second half of August in time for the sales. I hope there will not be any difficulty in that regard.
