The health and welfare ministry has decided to lower the upper limits of housing allowances for most of the people receiving livelihood protection assistance, starting in fiscal 2015, with the gradual cuts in the total expense to reach ¥3 billion — a 3.5 percent reduction — in the initial year and ¥19 billion in fiscal 2017.

The decision comes on top of the Abe administration's move from fiscal 2013 to reduce the core part of the livelihood protection scheme, which covers expenses for basic necessities such as food, clothing, fuels and tap water on the grounds of the falling trend of prices — a move that will cut the cost by ¥74 billion in the three years to fiscal 2015.

Although the administration cites an overall decline in housing rents as the reason for the cuts, when various factors are taken into account it becomes clear that the decision to trim the housing allowances is likely to make life harder for people on welfare. The Abe administration should rethink its decision.

While housing allowances will be raised for areas hit by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami — where rents are rising — and in some households depending on their size and locations, many households on welfare will face the cuts. For example, the upper limit for monthly allowances for a two-member household on welfare will go down by ¥6,000 to ¥64,000 in Tokyo and by ¥10,000 to ¥52,000 in Kumagaya, Saitama Prefecture. The reduction will likely force many people on welfare to seek cheaper housing. Subsequent changes in living conditions and relations with neighbors could have adverse psychological and health effects on them, particularly if they are elderly.

In calling for the cuts, the Finance Ministry said current upper limits on housing allowances are about 20 percent higher than the average housing rent paid by low-income households not on welfare with an annual income below ¥3 million. The internal affairs ministry statistics show that the average housing rent nationwide fell by 2.1 percent from 2008 to 2013. But not all welfare recipients get the maximum amount under the limits.

According to a report issued by the ministry's panel that discussed the matter, a survey of 95,924 households on welfare found that only 0.6 percent of them were receiving housing allowances higher than rents for similar housing in their neighborhood.

The report also said that only 46 percent of single-member households and 67 percent of multi-member households on welfare live in residences that meet the government's minimum standard for living floor space, compared with 76 percent for single-member households and 86 percent for multi-member households not on welfare. More importantly, the panel's report noted that focusing on comparisons between ordinary low-income households and households on welfare could result in lowering welfare recipients' living conditions depending on overall economic conditions.

Using the internal affairs ministry's statistics to justify cuts in the housing allowances is also inappropriate because they include rents for middle-income households, as an Osaka-based group of lawyers, social welfare experts, people on welfare and supporters point out.

The administration also has decided to cut extra winter-season allowances for the heating and lighting expenses of households on welfare by up to ¥10,000 per month, on the grounds that in most areas, the additional winter heating costs for non-welfare households was found to be lower than the extra allowances. But the decision — which will cut total expenses by ¥3 billion in fiscal 2015, or 8.5 percent from the previous year — ignores that fact that many welfare households end up paying more for heating because of the poor quality and condition of their residences.

The Abe administration's attitude toward society's weakest members is unreasonable and regrettable. It should heed the report's recommendation that the government go beyond merely comparing the standards for livelihood protection for people on welfare with ordinary low-income households' conditions and aim for ensuring the minimum level of healthy and cultural life. As the report says, people can only live self-reliant, independent lives when they have decent housing.