Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:
30
Mr. M. Higgins
asked the
Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs
whether it is intended to increase the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance in the budget on 3 December 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[20557/97]
Richard Bruton
Question:
35
Mr. R. Bruton
asked the
Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs
whether his Department has analysed the cost of school attendance as a basis for reviewing the value of the back-to-school grant; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[20346/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 30 and 35 together.
The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance scheme is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards. The scheme is designed to assist certain recipients of social welfare and health board payments with the cost of children's school uniforms and footwear. Certain people on low incomes who are in receipt of family income supplement may also qualify for assistance.
Under the scheme an allowance of £43 is payable in respect of children from two to 11 years and an allowance of £58 is payable in respect of qualified children from 12 to 22 years. The rate was last increased in 1996. The clothing and footwear component of the consumer price index published by the Central Statistics Office has been falling since 1994 and fell by 8.9 per cent between November 1996 and October 1997. Any proposals to increase the rate of payment cannot be viewed in isolation from the general increases in basic payments. Over the years, basic social welfare payments have been increased by more than the rate of inflation.
There is no provision under social welfare legislation to cover any other costs concerning school attendance. The Department of Education and Science has responsibility in relation to the provision of school books and examination fees.
Expenditure on the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance scheme has more than doubled in the last seven years from £5.6 million in 1990 to £12.7 million in 1996. A sum of £13.5 million has been set aside in the estimates for the scheme this year.
Any changes in the scheme will be considered in the context of the forthcoming budget and in the light of available resources.
Paul McGrath
Question:
31
Mr. McGrath
asked the
Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs
if his attention has been drawn to the fact that some young people must leave the family home in order to qualify for unemployment assistance; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that having left home they then qualify for the maximum rate of unemployment assistance and also rent allowances; and the proposals, if any, he has for a policy change to enable at least a minimum payment to all unemployed young people living with their parents.
[16411/97]
I refer the Deputy to my previous reply to Question No. 28 on 15 October 1997.
In assessing a person's means for unemployment assistance purposes, the value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed, such as free board and lodging in the family home, is also taken into account. The purpose of including this item in the assessment of means is to ensure that, by taking account of different household circumstances, the available resources are targeted at those who are most in need. The abolition of this assessment would, therefore, remove this targeting and would have substantial cost implications. One of the principal arguments for the abolition or relaxation of the benefit and privilege rule for young unemployed people, is that it encourages them to leave the family home in order to qualify for higher unemployment assistance payments and rent supplements. However, the limited evidence which is available does not suggest that this is happening to any significant degree. A report published by the Economic and Social Research Institute in 1993: "Pathways to Adulthood in Ireland: Causes and Consequences of Success and Failure in Transitions Amongst Irish Youth", while not directly addressing this issue, presented evidence which did not lend great support to the argument outlined above.
The report looked at the rate over time at which young people moved out of the family home. It found that leaving home is a highly complex process with many different facets, including the pattern of full-time education participation and the nature of employment sought. Most interestingly, in this context, the research found that unemployed people were the slowest group to move out of the family home. While these results must be interpreted in the light of the complex factors which prevail in the decision to move out, they do not lend support to a view that unemployed young people are more likely to leave the family home because of the qualification conditions for unemployment assistance.
More recently, in its report in 1995, the review group on the role of supplementary welfare allowance in relation to housing considered the issue of how the benefit and privilege provision might be contributing towards young people leaving the family home and claiming rent supplement. While the group found that the possible effect of the benefit and privilege rule was one of a range of factors which may have contributed to the growth in rent and mortgage supplementation since 1989, they were not able to establish the relative importance of any individual factor. However, the group concluded that key factors in the growth of numbers of people claiming rent and mortgage supplements, included the increased availability of information relating to welfare entitlements and increased public expectations regarding welfare support levels.
While the available evidence does not support the notion that the benefit and privilege rule is a highly significant factor in the movement of young people out of the family home, my Department will, nevertheless, continue to evaluate this provision in the light of any new evidence which becomes available.
A number of improvements have been introduced over recent years in the assessment of the benefit of board and lodging. For instance, in 1991 provision was made for the introduction of a minimum weekly payment of £5 for claimants whose only means were assessed from board and lodging. This minimum payment has been progressively increased to £25 per week.
It should also be noted that, where the combined net parental income does not exceed £19,698 per annum, a claimant is entitled to at least the minimum £25 weekly payment of unemployment assistance.
The cost of abolishing the assessment of the benefit of board and lodging for unemployment assistance purposes is estimated to be in the region of £20 million in a full year. The question of implementing any further improvements to the provisions for assessing benefit and privilege, would have to be considered in a budgetary context and in the light of existing priorities and available resources.
