asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he recognises that hardship can be caused through the operation of the means test for unemployment assistance, applied where a spouse is working, as a consequence of the fact that the cost of a mortgage is no longer deemed an allowable expense in carrying out a means test.
Written Answers. - Unemployment Assistance Means Test.
38.
The manner of assessment of means for unemployment assistance purposes is set out in social welfare legislation.
Prior to November 1986, any income that the wife of an unemployment assistance applicant had from employment was assessed in accordance with section 146 (1) (b) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, which provided that all income an applicant might reasonably expect to receive during the succeeding year as head of household was to be taken into account as means. In applying this provision, my Department's deciding officers and appeals officers took the view that the husband, as head of the household, could not normally expect to receive that portion of his wife's earnings which was used to make rent or mortgage payments. Accordingly, the amount of weekly rent or mortgage payment was deducted from the wife's earnings before assessing her income as means. The Social Welfare (No. 2), Act, 1985, provided for equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. On the introduction of this legislation, the reference to "head of household" in section 146 of the 1981 Act had to be deleted because the concept was incompatible with the principle of equal treatment.
The position now is that any income from employment which the spouse of an unemployment assistance applicant may have is assessed in accordance with section 146 (1) (e) of the 1981 Act, as inserted by section 13 (1) of the 1985 Act. This section provides that the estimated value to the household deriving from all income earned by an applicant's spouse in respect of current personal employment under a contract of employment is assessable as means. As any portion of the spouse's earnings which may be used to make rent and mortgage payments is of value to the household, it cannot be disregarded in assessing the spouse's income as means. The current provision applies to spouses, whether men or women, and not just wives as was the situation previously.
Because of the fact that discontinuation of the allowance in respect of mortgage and rent would have meant an increase in the means of many married men applicants whose claims were current in November 1986, special regulations were made which preserved the right of such claimants to continue to enjoy the allowance. These regulations originally prescribed that this concession should last for no more than a year. However, in November 1987, I took the opportunity in amending regulations to extend this period indefinitely. The position now is that any claimant who was enjoying the allowance in November 1986 may continue to do so for as long as he remains continuously unemployed.
I would like to mention also that anyone having difficulty in meeting rent or mortgage payments can claim a supplement under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Application for this supplement can be made to the community welfare officer at the local health centre.