Seán Crowe
Question:62 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will set up a redress board to deal with the claims of mature students regarding the back to education scheme. [10983/06]
View answerWednesday, 22 March 2006
Questions (42, 43, 44)
Trevor Sargent
Question:82 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the cost implications of the High Court case regarding the Government’s move in 2003 to cut a mature student’s back-to-education grant payment during college holidays; and if there are similar cases being taken against his Department. [11044/06]
View answerSeán Crowe
Question:102 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will reinstate the back to education allowance summer holiday payments that were unfairly removed in the middle of 2003. [10984/06]
View answerWritten answers
I propose to take Questions Nos. 62, 82 and 102 together.
The back to education allowance or BTEA is a second chance education opportunities scheme designed to encourage and facilitate people on certain social welfare payments to improve their skills and qualifications and, therefore, their prospects of returning to the active work force. Following the decision in 2002 to discontinue payment of BTEA for the summer months in certain cases, one person who was a participant at the time the change was introduced sought a judicial review, together with five other named recipients, in the High Court regarding the changes introduced. Other participants were subsequently attached to the proceedings, making a total of 173 persons. The hearing took place on 7 February 2006 and judgment in the case was delivered on 28 February 2006.
The judgment found in favour of one individual but did not find in favour of any of the other people attached to the proceedings. The decision is quite clear in terms of restitution in that the judgment relates solely to the one individual whose action was successful. At a subsequent hearing on 14 March 2006, the extent of the restitution was determined. The court decided that restitution was due only in respect of the summer vacation period 2003 and not subsequent years and only in the case of the one individual whose action was successful. The other 172 cases attached to the proceedings were found by the court to be not entitled to the relief granted in the one case that was successful.
There are wider matters for consideration arising from this case, including whether it is appropriate, or even legal, to consider payment to others who were in receipt of the allowance before the change was introduced. Furthermore, in view of the possible ramifications in other areas, it is necessary to consider if the judgment warrants appeal. Accordingly, having examined the judgment, I have sought advice from the Attorney General regarding the appropriate response to this case. I will consider the matter further on receipt of that advice. There are no other cases currently before the courts relating to this matter.