Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Apr 1975

Vol. 279 No. 7

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Assistance Payments.

18.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the cause of the delay in payment of unemployment assistance to a person (name supplied) in County Donegal.

Payment of unemployment assistance in this case was suspended in mid-October last following a reinvestigation of the applicant's means, when it was found that he had been the owner of land since 17th December, 1970. The consequential increase in his weekly rate of means from that date resulted in an overpayment being assessed against him, recovery of which was completed at the end of February. Payment of unemployment assistance has been made since then at the appropriate weekly rate. An appeal of the person concerned against the decision increasing his weekly rate of means has been referred to an appeals officer.

19.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare why the full rate of unemployment assistance is not being paid to a person (name supplied) in Salthill, Galway.

Unemployment assistance is being paid to the person named at the rate to which he is entitled, viz., £4.70 a week. This is the difference between the rate of means assessed in his case, which is £3 weekly, and the maximum rate payable from 2nd April, 1975 to a single man without dependants who resides in an urban area. The means represents the value of benefit or privilege of free board and lodging. The rate of means was determined, on appeal, by an appeals officer whose decision is final in the absence of new facts or fresh evidence.

What was the figure reckoned for board and lodging?

It was £3 weekly.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in some cases board and lodging is reckoned at £8 per week?

I am not so aware but I am aware that there are variations in it.

Depending on what?

Depending on the total income available to the household.

That is broadening the idea of board and lodgings.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that in present circumstances where employment is so difficult to obtain the idea of reducing the amount of unemployment assistance payable, particularly in the case of a single man, by an amount calculated to be the worth of his lodgings in his parents' home is an unfair practice and one that should be discontinued?

The Deputy is aware that it is not a practice I introduced.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is an unfair practice and one that should be discontinued?

Not necessarily. There are a number of things I would like to see discontinued but they would have to be far more wide-sweeping than simply picking out one specific area. In this case the person is resident at home with considerable property and I do not think the assessment of £3 per week as board and lodgings could be called excessive. There is a shop involved.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the case I mentioned where £8 per week was reckoned there is no shop or property and the person concerned is not in his own home?

That is another matter.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say if this lodging allowance is deductible when the person with whom the recipient of unemployment assistance is staying is an old age pensioner, his father or his mother?

It varies according to the income going into the particular house.

What about the case I mentioned?

I cannot speculate on hypothetical cases.

That is not a hypothetical case; it is a fact of life.

If the Deputy gives me details of a specific case, I will have it investigated.

I have sent details of many such cases to the Department. Unemployment benefit recipients are having their allowance deducted by the amount of board provided by old age non-contributory pensioners.

I cannot allow an enlargement of this question.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary furnish details of how officers of his Department assess the value of lodgings in different cases to me?

Top
Share