4.10 It is not proposed to alter the present basis of the scale of assistance. Although it is not so finely tuned as a system where the amount of allowance reflects the age of children, it has a number of advantages. For the family receiving assistance, it is much easier to work out what is due. It can also be argued that an incremental scale of assistance is more realistic, recognising as it does that the bigger the family is, the more the savings in "shared" food and fuel, and that a smaller family needs a proportionately higher allowance. It gives more help to a one parent family, since children and adults receive the same allowance. There are also administrative advantages the incremental scale is easier to apply than a range of different scale rates, especially if the latter vary according to children's ages. The more different rates there are, and the more they change, the more difficult the scheme is to understand, the bigger the workload and the greater the likelihood of
error.
Level of assistance
J
4.11 The ways in which the level of assistance was established, and its value is maintained, are considered in more detail in Chapter 9. The Government's conclusion is that, in general, there is no reason to disturb the existing scale of assistance, provided that it is increased when necessary to maintain its purchasing power.
Long term supplement
4.12
However, while the existing scale of assistance provides adequate help for those who have to rely on it for relatively short periods, over long periods it is not so satisfactory. There is no margin in the scale for household replacements and similar expenditure which has to be faced over a long period of time, and for which at present discretionary grants may have to be made. Such needs do not really arise over short periods, during which a family can reasonably be expected to manage on its savings from a period of higher income, for example, when a family member was in work. A general increase in the public assistance rates for this purpose would not therefore be justified. Accordingly, it is necessary to find a satisfactory method of helping those on public assistance for long periods in a way which would meet their needs and reduce reliance on discretionary provision.
4.13 There are two possible solutions. One is to make lump sum, or "bonus", payments at regular intervals to long term cases, say at six monthly or twelve monthly intervals. They could, for instance, be made at Chinese New Year. The other way is to pay a higher rate of assistance in long term cases. The first alternative, lump sum payments, would provide an opportunity to purchase more expensive items. But there are considerable objections to it. Firstly, the administration of such a system would be disproportionately expensive. Secondly, it would be unfair to those who just fail to qualify for a bonus, because they cease to be eligible for assistance shortly before the due date; and the
13
Page 120Page 121