Vol. 462 No. 1
3 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider amending the principal legislation, the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 1993 in order to allow lone parents in full-time education receive rent allowance through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. [4115/96]
Under section 172(1) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993, people in full-time education are not eligible to receive assistance, including rent supplements, under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. However, Article 7 of S.I. 382 of 1995 provides for a number of exceptions to this exclusion. Persons participating in a vocational training opportunities scheme; a second level initiative scheme; a third level allowance scheme; and a part-time education initiative scheme may continue to receive their full weekly social welfare payment and may retain any secondary benefits, such as rent supplements under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which they may have been receiving prior to participating on one of these schemes.
Until recently, successful applicants for the vocational training opportunities scheme, the second level initiative scheme and the third level allowance scheme had to be at least 23 years of age and had to have been in receipt of an unemployment payment or lone parent's allowance for at least 12 months. However, last year I announced an improvement to the qualifying conditions for these schemes. The age requirement has been reduced to 21 years of age and applicants need only be in receipt of an unemployment payment or lone parent's allowance for six months to qualify for the schemes and, therefore, rent allowance if they were in receipt of such allowance at the time of applying.
The cost of extending entitlement to supplementary welfare allowance rent supplements to all lone parents in full-time education would have resource implications which I am unable to meet at present but I intend to keep the matter under review.
I thank the Minister for his broad reply. While I appreciate he has made an effort to reduce the age limit, it is still too high. People wishing to pursue education should be compensated, not discriminated against. The Department should be prepared to assist them financially.
I think the Deputy will appreciate from my reply that I am sympathetic to the case of lone parents seeking to take up third level education. Last year I reduced the qualifying age from 23 to 21 and the length of time a person would have to be on unemployment assistance or lone parent's allowance in order to qualify. The extension of rent allowance to these students would inevitably increase pressure to extend the allowance to all students, most of whom live away from home. The cost of such extension would be £84 million, on top of the £60 million paid in rent supplements. There are, therefore, serious cost implications.
Bearing that in mind I am sympathetic to the position of those people because there is evidence to show that lone parents, particularly the younger age group, tend to be trapped in poverty as a result of their circumstances. I am anxious to assist them in extricating themselves from that problem. I am keeping the matter under review and would like to find a solution, which is not easy given the cost implications involved.
Will the Minister be prepared at some future date to reduce the age further?
I am not in a position at Question Time to give a definite answer to a specific proposal such as that, but I will continue to examine how we can assist lone parents entering third level education.
