Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

Were the back to school clothing and footwear scheme seriously examined, many savings could be made in its administration. I do not understand why someone must re-apply each year. People must fill in detailed forms before having them stamped by their schools. I understand the need to ensure the allowance's claimant has a child going to school, but the administration could be well done through the school. The school need not ask whether the person requires the allowance, only whether the child is still attending. The duplication in forms has never made sense.

The amount available to be drawn down by a family has never made sense either. In the past ten years, children have become twice as big as we were when we went to school. The footwear they need cannot be covered by the money given by the Department. Not only must we take all of these factors into account, but we must also consider to whom we are giving the money, why we are giving it and, despite how obvious the scheme's name is, to what use it is put. How can one best ensure that families qualifying for the allowance get sufficient money to clothe their children when returning to school? I know of no family that can cover the costs of uniforms and other necessities.

Fashion changes and young people are notorious in not wanting to wear what their parents buy for them, but the number of children who do not wear jackets, for instance, when exiting their schools, particularly secondary schools, is extraordinary. Why is this the case? The Green Party would say it is due to global warming and that we no longer need clothes, but that is not the reason. Rather, jackets are too expensive and cannot be covered by the money the Department gives families.

During the 1980s, the progression evident outside the labour exchange was amazing. During the first six months of a person's unemployment, he or she was well dressed, well kept and still in the mode of looking for work. Gradually, his or her appearance started to go downhill. Three years after first being made unemployed, he or she still had the same jacket, although it was not in the same condition.

The same trends are evident in terms of school uniforms and the kinds of clothing that we need. Constantly, a friend makes the point that we do not dress for the type of weather in which we live whereas all other Europeans do. However, they have a higher standard of living than we do. Even during our boom times, our treatment of those families and school-going children that needed our support was poor.

More people will seek the back to school scheme. Regarding the notion that, come August, there will be a radio campaign to advertise for applications, why will the scheme not be rolled out in June when schools will be about to finish and why will those who were on the scheme in the preceding year not be written to in an effort to determine whether their children are still in school and dependants? The duplication in the scheme is worrying.

Community welfare officers and workers in the Department of Social and Family Affairs have been referred to throughout the debate. They operate under the rules that we lay down. We must reconsider the scheme and expand it significantly. The clothing and footwear costs of putting a child through school have increased sizably because their needs have increased.

See this speech in context