asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will take steps to ensure that recipients of unemployment assistance are not disqualified while serving a prison sentence or remanded on bail, in view of the consequent hardship to dependants who are forced to avail of and live on home assistance.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Assistance.
13.
A person who is undergoing imprisonment or detention—which would include remand in custody—is specifically disqualified by statute from receiving unemployment assistance. I do not propose to take steps to remove this statutory disqualification, which would of course entail amending legislation, because to do so would be incompatible with the fundamental statutory requirement that a recipient of unemployment assistance must be available for and genuinely seeking work. The disqualification does not apply to an accused person who is out on bail.
As I stated in reply to a question on 26th October, 1972, the position of the dependants of prisoners is under consideration in the context of the proposals which I am sponsoring for the reform of the social assistance services.
Can the Minister say whether the same statutory procedure applies in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland?
I think so.
Is the Minister aware that those who are interned in Northern Ireland are not disqualified from receiving benefit from their stamps?
Their dependants probably receive supplementary benefits.
I have brought this matter to the attention of the Minister on a previous occasion. The people who are interned in Northern Ireland have their cards stamped during the period of their internment.
Their cards are not stamped but they are allowed credit for them.
14.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the basis of assessment of means for unemployment assistance purposes; and if he is satisfied that it applies uniformly.
The basis referred to is, in the main, section 13 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933, and the Unemployment Assistance (Calculation of Means) Regulations, 1934, made thereunder. That section was amended on several occasions by subsequent enactments to exclude further particular items of income from the assessment of means. Section 15 (1) of the Children's Allowances Act, 1944, so excluded children's allowances. Section 8 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1965, modified section 13 of the 1933 Act by introducing the valuation system of means assessment in relation to income from land in the congested areas.
The things which constitute the means of a person by virtue of these various legislative provisions are set out in my Department's explanatory leaflet U.A. 19 which is available free from the Department or at any employment exchange or office and a copy of which I am sending to the Deputy.
A specialist section at the headquarters of my Department calculates means for the purposes of the Unemployment Assistance Acts except in certain routine cases and I am satisfied that this arrangement produces uniformity to the utmost extent possible in the application of the relevant legislation.
Is the Minister aware that if a person is staying with his family the circumstances of the family are taken into consideration and, consequently, the man will not qualify for unemployment assistance, although he stays with his family because he has no place else to go? Is this fair? Is it not a discrimination against such persons? Is it not time to amend the Social Welfare Act in this respect?
Recently in the House the Deputy paid tribute to the fact that from time to time we tidy up any anomalies that we find possible to tidy up.
I have drawn the attention of the Minister to this particular anomaly on numerous occasions.
(Cavan): Does the Minister agree that a person who applies for unemployment assistance but who is living with his family because he has no place else to live should be deemed to have free board and lodging to the estimated value of £6 or £7 a week and, consequently, is disqualified from receiving unemployment assistance? Surely that position should be altered.
Such a person could not be put on a par with a person who would have to pay rent and rates, for instance.
He could not live away from his family because he would have no money. It would not be possible for him to go into a lodging house while he could not pay his way, so he is compelled to seek charity in his home. The position is that a person is disqualified from receiving any assistance merely because his family are deemed to have a normal income. Is that just?
(Cavan): The position is absurd. Would the Minister have another look at it?
Will the Minister ensure that, when a person is entitled to assistance, despite his family means, he will be so informed and not misinformed as to his rights and that when such an error of judgment is discovered and instructions given to the employment exchange to pay him that it would take less than three weeks for those instructions to be implemented? In a recent case in my experience it was three weeks before payment was made.
The Deputy is dealing with a specific case.
I am illustrating the inefficiency in the Minister's Department.
15.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in assessing the entitlement of a man for unemployment assistance, home assistance or disabled persons' allowance paid to his wife is included as means.
16.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why, in calculating the means of an applicant (name supplied) in County Roscommon for unemployment assistance, a disabled persons' allowance being paid to his wife was included as part of his means.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 16 together. Section 13 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933, as amended, sets out the things which shall be deemed to constitute the means of a person in the calculation of means for unemployment assistance purposes. Among these things is all cash income, subject to certain specified exceptions, which the person may reasonably expect to receive in the succeeding 12 months, including any such income he may expect to receive as head of the household whether as contributions to the expenses of the household or otherwise. One item of cash income which is specifically excluded from the calculation is "any moneys received by way of home assistance".
Disabled person's maintenance allowance, which is essentially a non-contributory pension, is not an excluded item of cash income. Where this allowance is paid to an applicant's wife, as in the Roscommon case referred to, it must therefore be reckoned as part of the income of the head of the household.
I should point out that an allowance in respect of his wife is already included in the weekly rate of unemployment assistance payable to a married man.