asked the Minister for Social Welfare to explain the method used in calculating "means" in the case of an application for unemployment assistance where the person has no income whatsoever but is charged with "means" on the basis of board and lodgings in the family homestead.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Assistance.
17.
The yearly value of board and lodging is one of the items which deciding officers and appeals officers are obliged by the law to take into account in the assessment of the means of applicants for unemployment assistance.
The legislation does not specify the method by which the value of board and lodgings should be calculated. Each case is decided on its merits having regard to the standard of living of the household and the circumstances of the applicant.
The Minister stated in his reply that this comes under the law. Would he not consider changing this outmoded system? Does he not agree that a lot of people over 18 years of age are living in different places? If they live at home £3 is deducted for board and lodgings. If they live with somebody else there is no reduction. Will the Minister agree that once people are over 18 years of age they should be entitled to the full assistance?
I should like to give the Deputy this assurance but this matter keeps coming up. I am monitoring the situation. I know it gives rise to a lot of frustration.
It is a stupid scheme.
I am sure the Minister is aware that this is a Catch 22 situation because those young people have to move away from the family home to claim it and they have no money to live in digs.
This is not quite true.
There is no question about it not being quite true. If there is a normal income coming into the household, which is the situation in thousands of cases, this money is deducted. It is a complete failure on the part of the Minister's Government to deal with this situation.
The Deputy is lecturing now.
The Deputy need not get excited or lecture me about this. I deal with as many cases as the Deputy does and I know that this is a matter which is raised by many Deputies from time to time. It is not true to suggest that young people living at home do not get unemployment assistance.
Is the Minister aware that they have been awarded as little as 10p as a result of assessment of their means and that they have to go by bus to collect that amount?
I know that because of their situation at home and the way in which that is calculated some applicants do not receive any benefit.
Does the Minister not agree that that is an iniquitous situation and should be abolished?
I know also that it is not a universal situation.
In his role as Minister for Health the Minister considers that people over the age of 16 are adults and are entitled to medical cards in their own right but as Minister for Social Welfare he deprives them of this because they are living in the family home. Does the Minister not agree that that is an anomalous situation? I am not attacking the Minister; I am merely asking him if he is aware of the situation.
I do not like the situation where the Deputy stands and continues to harangue across the floor of the House.
I am merely asking a question.
I stopped one Deputy from doing this and I shall have to stop all Deputies.
The position is not governed by me. It is governed by statute and the statute clearly indicates——
The Minister can change it.
That is a different matter. The House can change the statute——
The Minister can initiate it.
At the moment the situation is that under the law the means must include the value of board and lodging. I am well aware of the situation and, as I explained to Deputy White, I know it causes a lot of annoyance and frustration and perhaps even hardship in some cases.
Is it the Minister's intention to change it?
I have indicated I have the situation under review.
What does the Minister mean by saying he has it under review?
We must move to the next question.
To say that we must move on when we have got an unsatisfactory answer——
I think I have given fairly adequate information to the House.
With the permission of the Chair I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I shall communicate with the Deputy.
I think I have given the House fairly adequate information. I have also indicated to the House that I am examining what improvements might be made. The Deputy knows that during the past two years I have listened consistently to complaints made in this House and have moved to remedy them when the next opportunity has arisen. I think he should give me credit for that. Perhaps the Deputy might be prepared to look on this particular matter in the same light?
Yes.
Arising from the valid points made by Deputy O'Connell, will the Minister not agree that at least the bus fare should be covered? It is ridiculous that some people who are awarded 10p——
That is a separate question.
Will the Minister not agree as an immediate step to provide for bus fares, that is, when the buses are running?
As the Deputy knows, each case is decided by the deciding officer and appeals officer on its merit. It is not just a question of people being awarded 10p or 50p. In some cases people are not awarded anything because of their home circumstances. I am as aware of the existing situation as is the Deputy.
It is laughable—almost too Irish to be true—that people who are awarded 10p are expected to collect that amount when the bus fare may be 50p. It is an outrageous situation. Will the Minister not do something, at least to cover the bus fare?
I am calling the next question.
The only thing I can say in reply to the Deputy is that the statutory provision in this regard has been there for a very long time and it has been implemented by officers of the Department of Social Welfare in the same way for a very long time.
That does not make the position good. I have raised this matter for years past.
I do not think that Deputies need get hysterical about the matter now.
I think that if we can pressurise the Minister a little more he will change it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Pending a change in the statute law, will the Minister give an undertaking to the House that applicants will not have their assistance reduced where the parents are on the poverty line or very near it? That is happening in many cases.
That is not a valid question.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is a valid question and I think the Minister would like to give that assurance to the House.
First, with regard to changing the law, Deputies know that there is a Social Welfare Bill every year and that gives an opportunity to make changes in the statute, to bring about improvements or to remove anomalies or injustices. I do not think any Deputy would suggest that we should bring in a special Bill just to deal with this point.
Why not?
In reply to the specific point made by Deputy Fitzpatrick, he knows that decisions in these matters are matters for the appeals officer and deciding officer whose decisions are final. Each particular case should be decided by the appeals officer on its merits. The situation the Deputy has complained about should not arise.
In view of what the Minister has said about the deciding officer and the appeals officer, has he agreed to change that system? Has he taken any further steps about an independent appeals tribunal?
I am calling the next question.