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.