Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 295: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the effect of a recent High Court decision with regard to the payment of back to education allowance during the summer holidays; if students who commenced on the scheme when payment during holidays was made are entitled to such payments for subsequent years; if he will re-instate payment during the summer holidays for all recipients of the allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18230/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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. 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 hardship would occur.

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. The hearing took place on 7 February 2006 and judgement was delivered on 28 February 2006. The judgement found in favour of one individual but did not find in favour of any of the other people attached to the proceedings. The court decided that restitution was due only in respect of the summer vacation period in 2003 and not subsequent years and only in the case of the one individual whose action was successful.

There are wider matters for consideration arising from this case including the issue raised by the Deputy. Furthermore, in view of the possible ramifications in other areas, it is necessary to consider whether the judgement warrants appeal. I recently received advice from the Attorney General's office in the matter and this is being considered at present. With regard to re-instatement of summer payment to all BTEA participants, I am satisfied that the present arrangements ensure that the scheme continues to provide appropriate support to those people who qualify for the scheme and I have no plans to alter the current arrangements.