Vol. 419 No. 2
9 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of young single men and women who have been refused unemployment assistance for each of the past five years due to the fact that their parents were working and thereby were refused benefit on a means test basis; the numbers for the same period who were granted reduced benefit; if he has any plans to review this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
One of the items which is assessed as means for unemployment assistance purposes is the value of free board and lodgings which an applicant may enjoy. This most often arises in the case of applicants living in the family home with their parents. It covers the value of accommodation, meals, support and maintenance as well as generally sharing in the standard of living of the household and facilities which the household enjoys. The assessment achieves a degree of equity as between applicants in different household circumstances.
It is estimated that of single people in receipt of unemployment assistance about a quarter have their payment reduced because of the free board and lodgings assessment. Provision was made in 1991 for a minimum payment of £5 per week where a claimant's only means consist of board and lodgings. It is not possible to say how many applicants do not qualify for unemployment assistance because of the free board and lodgings assessment.
While the assessment can result in people not qualifying for payment or getting a low rate of payment, the system does recognise the fact that some people have the benefit of free board and lodgings and to that extent are not in need of assistance in the same way as people who do not. The abolition of the free board and lodgings assessment would have major financial implications. I am examining the question of rationalising means tests generally and in that regard I will be examining the scope for easement of the assessment in these cases, particularly in the case of older applicants.
This is an old, thorny question. This is very frustrating for young people. As the Minister will remember, we discussed this issue during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, 1992. Is the Minister aware that when young people are refused social welfare benefit on the grounds of the value of free board and lodgings which they enjoy at home, the vast bulk leave home and rent accommodation which is subsidised up to £35 per week by the community welfare officers? Would it not be better if the young people stayed at home and received the basic rate of unemployment assistance, because this would save the State and the Department a substantial amount of money in rent subsidies and at the same time relieve the local authorities of the pressure to house families who can no longer avail of accommodation in the private sector.
I am aware of what is happening. When people live at home one of the items assessed as means is the value of board and lodgings but when they leave home they are entitled to full unemployment assistance together with a supplementary allowance to meet the cost of their rent. This costs the State a considerable amount of money. This problem, which I have to admit is increasing, has been brought to our attention.
In the Social Welfare Bill, 1992, we have made some provisions to ensure that people do not abuse the system in that regard. I accept the genesis of what the Deputy says because in a great many cases it is costing the State more money than to pay the young person the basic rate of unemployment assistance. It should be recognised that the assessment of benefit takes account of the type of households people live in. If the parents are very well off, the young person is regarded as having a greater benefit and privilege than people living in poorer circumstances. In fact, the assessment of board and lodgings does not come into play if the young person's parents are on unemployment assistance, or low rates of social welfare payments. There are anomalies in the system which are resulting in the problems the Deputy has outlined.
Is the Minister aware that in some cases means test assessments for young people is resulting in payments as low as 50p per week and that some times, in rural areas they have to travel miles on public transport to collect it?
If their only means is benefit and privilege, their minimum payment should be £5 per week so there must be some other income involved.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am glad to say the Minister appreciates the difficulty outlined by Deputy Bell with whom I agree 100 per cent on this. A family may appear well off in theory but if the father is in receipt of a high income he is taxed to the hilt. After he meets the various households expenses, his disposable income is limited. In one case an assessment of £39 was made for board and lodging. This form of assessment should be averaged down to, perhaps, £10 per week. A nominal charge should be put on board and lodgings because the present system is grossly unfair to young people who have to mix around with others of their own age group who are employed.
It is hard to quantify the number of people affected by the assessment of benefit and privilege because many people do not bother to apply knowing they will be hit in that regard. If we relaxed the qualification aspect totally there would be very considerable cost implications whereas the exact number of people who would apply and who would be affected is not——
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Can the Minister put a sensible assessment on it?
We estimate that the cost of disregarding benefit and privilege would be £25 million annually, at least.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am not saying that you dispense with it.
A final question from Deputy Eric Byrne please.
I appreciate that this is an extremely difficult problem. It is one which has been in existence for a long time. Would the Minister not agree that there are tremendous human relationship problems when it comes to a 17 or 18 year old who cannot get work and is forced to live at home, much to the annoyance, perhaps, of his parents who, because of being dependent on social welfare themselves, have to literally ask the young person to leave home, find alternative accommodation and live a life of their own? Would the Minister not agree that the only long term solution to this complex problem is a basic minimum income for all?
That would not be the responsibility of the Minister present.
The Deputy raised this point previously. It is one that has been raised also by experts and commissions over the years. Such a proposal has considerable gigantic budgetary considerations so it would be foolish of me to hold out any hope of achieving it in the near future.
Question No. 10 please.
