НКК 013/2
CONFIDENTI AL
3 March 1977
immediate nature, e.g. unemployment, and of conferring some non- contributory entitlements. Should not the terms of reference for the review cover the need to examine some form of system, e.g. a provident fund or a social insurance scheme, for benefits of an immediate nature of a non-means tested kind? (Paragraph 1(c) of Hugh Cortazzi's letter of 2 August last to the Governor is relevant in this connection.)
3.
In the light of these general observations and other points that have occurred to us, we should like to suggest the following amendments to the terms of reference for the review:
Paragraph 1
The words "including the introduction of a contributory element, where appropriate to the class of benefit" could be added at the end of the paragraph.
Paragraph 2
Sub-paragraph (i). It might be better to replace the words additional safeguards against abuse can be introduced" by "existing criteria for eligibility are reasonable". Sub-paragraph (ii). We note that in the Governor's statement to Legco on 6 October last he said that the Disability and Infirmity Allowances are "not based on need but on proved conditions of disability or age, and are intended to provide a small pension to help the disabled and elderly to live in the community and reduce the burden on their families". In view of what the Governor said, it seems to us that it would be a step in the wrong direction for the review to address itself to the possibility of the DIA coheme being means-tested. We suggest that you delete the words "and whether the Disability and Infirmity Allowance scheme should be means-tested".
Paragraph 3
Should not "able-bodied unemployed" be included among the categories of persons in greater need?
Paragraph 4.
It seems to us that the recommendations arising from the review should cater for a situation in which there might be unemployment on the scale experienced during the 1973/74
2
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.