the cost of living slowed down after June 1974,
so that the assumed figure has not yet been
exceeded.
Accordingly, there is no need to
increase the scale of allowances at present.
But
the scale will continue to be regularly reviewed.
b) Disregarded resources. The UMELCO Office have
suggested that the amounts of disregarded
resources (particularly the disregard of $10 per
family member from a voluntary agency for household
needs) should be increased as they have been
unchanged since 1971. It is accented that the
amounts will have to be reviewed at some stage;
but it seems better to leave any review until the
scale of allowances is itself being reviewed. By
definition, increasing the disregards does not
help those who are worst off those without any
disregarded resources and it would be regarded
-
as unfair to increase disregards but not the scale
of allowances. The UMELCO Office also favoured
increasing the number of disregards, mentioning
in particular workmen's compensation. But, for
the reason set out earlier (para. 18), any increase
in the number of disregards should only be made
for compelling reasons; and it is not proposed
that there should be any alteration apart from
the introduction of the earnings disregard.
c) Rent rebate allowance. There has been some recent
public discussion abcut the rent levels in new
public housing. A possible way of providing help
would be to modify the rublic assistance scheme st
that it provided help in such cases although the
family income was above public assistance levels
But the effect would be to discriminate in lavo