Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 54 and 55 together.

The back to education allowance, 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.

In 2002 the Government, in view of the expenditure constraints facing it at that time, appointed an independent Estimates review committee to consider the Estimates proposals received in the Department of Finance from Departments and offices.

In its report to Government, that committee recommended discontinuation of the practice of paying the back to education allowance over the summer period to people who were formerly on the live register. The committee concluded that people on the scheme during the academic year should be able to take up paid employment during the summer break, leading to savings in the cost of social welfare payments. If they could not find employment, they would be entitled to unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit, subject to satisfying the usual conditions and therefore no handicap would occur.

All other participants on the scheme, such as lone parents or people with disabilities, were unaffected by this decision and continue to receive the allowance during the summer period.

Following the decision to discontinue payment of BTEA for the summer months 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 on 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.

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 legal decision relates solely to one person in respect of one year. 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, I sought advice from the Attorney General regarding the appropriate response to this case. I will consider the matter further on receipt of that advice.

See this speech in context