alternative of paying partial lump sums in such circumstances would be unduly cumbersome. Thirdly, lump sum payments would move away from a principal aim of the public assistance scheme, which is to provide a reasonable income on the basis of which the family is expected to manage like any other family in the community. Moreover, such payments might be misconstrued by members of the public as an unacceptable additional "bonus" for those receiving public assistance. For these reasons it seems better to choose the second alternative, the payment of a higher rate of assistance in long term cases.
4.14
Accordingly, it is proposed that there should be a supplementary allowance added to the basic monthly scale of allowances. The allowance would be called a "long term supplement". It would be payable to a family or single person who had been receiving public assistance for more than 18 months. A family would receive the same amount as the scale allowance payable to a single person (currently $180 a month, $200 a month after February, 1978); and a single person half that amount ($90 a month, or $100 a month in February, 1978). It is not proposed that the amount of the long term supplement should vary with the size of the family, partly for simplicity but more because household costs, like replacement of household goods (as opposed to everyday living costs), do not vary greatly between different sizes of families. The effect will therefore be to provide proportionately more help to single persons and small families. The payment of a long term supplement would not rule out discretionary grants for non-household needs (like special diets) but it would largely eliminate the number of discretionary grants to meet household needs.
4.15 If a family ceased to receive assistance, for example because a family member recovered from a long illness and began work again, but later had to reapply for assistance, the long term supplement would not be payable again until after the 18 months qualification period. However, breaks of less than 3 months would be ignored, so that a further application within that period would enable the family to regain their title to a long term supplement. To lose title to a long term supplement after a very short period off assistance, would discourage those who have been away from work for a long time from seeking re-employment unless they were quite certain that they would be sure of remaining at work for a long time.
Old age supplement
4.16 The Green Paper "Services for the Elderly" has proposed that for persons aged over 60 who are receiving assistance, but not a non means-tested allowance under the welfare allowance scheme, an old age supplement should be added to the basic scale of allowances. The supplement would be of the same amount as the old age allowance ($90 a month now, $100 a month after February, 1978). It would be paid in addition to a long term supplement, since the aim of the old age supplement is to help with the additional costs arising from old age, whereas the long term supplement is intended to provide a buffer against the extra costs which arise during long dependence on public assistance.
14