Bernard Allen
Question:7 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the steps, if any, he intends to take in the social welfare code to encourage young people to live at home.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefit.
John Connor
Question:39 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he proposes to eliminate the social welfare regulation called benefit of board and lodgings, which reduces and, in many cases, precludes the payment of social welfare entitlements to young single people living in the family home.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 39 together.
In assessing the means of a young person who is claiming unemployment assistance and living at home, account is taken of the value of free board and lodgings including the value of accommodation, meals, support and maintenance as well as generally sharing in the standard of living of the household and the facilities which the household enjoys. The value of free board and lodgings depends on the household circumstances and the amount of the assessment varies by reference to the parental income. Where a young person living at home qualifies for unemployment assistance he or she is entitled to a minimum payment of £5 a week and, as I announced recently, this is being increased to £10 a week from July.
The practice of relating the value of board and lodgings to the income level of the household in which the applicant resides is designed to take account of different household circumstances in an equitable way and provides a mechanism for targeting scarce resources to those most in need.
The abolition of the assessment of free board and lodgings would represent a substantial cost to the taxpayer. A recent estimate of the cost of abolishing the assessment was that the cost would be in excess of £60 million per annum.
What is the figure?
It is approximately £61.4 million.
The minimum payment which I am increasing to £10 in July provides a limited measure of financial independence to young unemployed people living at home and claiming unemployment assistance.
I am conscious of the need to create opportunities for young people to participate in employment, education or training as an alternative to early dependence on social welfare and I am taking special measures through the school leavers' scheme to provide such opportunities.
The Minister may put forward many academic arguments as to why he should not encourage this position. Will he not agree that teenage boys and girls are being forced out of the family home because of his Department's refusal to pay unemployment assistance for the reasons he outlined? Will he not agree that young people who leave the family home will receive not only unemployment assistance but may also receive supplementary welfare allowance in the form of a rent allowance and be placed on the local authority housing list? The Minister trotted out the figure of £61 million. Last year I asked the Minister to quantify the amount of money being paid to young people in respect of supplementary welfare allowance in the form of rent allowance. I also asked him to quantify the amount of money being paid to young people who have left the family home because of the unemployment assistance position. Will the Minister indicate those figures which may offset the figure of £61 million and will he not agree that the provision in this regard is not only anti-social and anti-family, especially in this, the Year of the Family, and regardless of how the family is defined, but also puts young people at risk?
Let us not forget the need for brevity at this time. A question should be brief.
I will try to be brief in my reply. Deputy Allen raised the question of young people allegedly being forced to leave home. There are some cases where this is the position. The Department of Social Welfare's recently commissioned ESRI report, based on an analysis of the updated data from the 1987 household survey, found no clear evidence to suggest that the current assessment of benefit and privilege was encouraging young people to leave the family home in order to qualify for unemployment assistance and rent supplement. As Deputy Allen and I know there will be cases where that position will arise.
A separate Department of Social Welfare study carried out among a random sample of people in the Dublin area, reached a similar conclusion to that of the ESRI report. I will give some details of that survey to indicate the position. Regarding the figure for single rent supplement recipients, 5 per cent moved from the family home because of family disputes; 19 per cent moved to cohabit; 32 per cent came from rural areas and are likely to have moved to urban areas to seek employment; one-third of the remaining 44 per cent were over 30 years and a significant proportion of the balance had previously been independent of the family home, having lived away from home while attending college, living abroad and so on. Unfortunately, I do not have a survey in respect of recipients in Cork, but the survey for Dublin provides some indication of the position.
It certainly does. The figures given by the Minister indicate there is a problem. A considerable percentage of people are claiming the benefits I mentioned because they were forced out of the family home. The Minister is drawing unfair conclusions from the statistics. Can he answer the question I asked earlier, that is, to indicate how much is being paid in the country as a whole in rental subsidy under the supplementary welfare Act.
Please avoid repetition.
The Minister did not answer my question.
It is a luxury we cannot afford at this time.
If the Minister had answered my question I would not have to ask it again.
The Deputy would have to give me notice of that question.
I gave the Minister notice last year.
We are now dealing with a specific question on the Order Paper.
The Deputy should table a question. The overall figure which include everyone is a separate question and the answer would, therefore, not be meaningful. There may be reference to it in another question relating to supplements.
The Minister should put us out of our suspense.
The overall figure would be in the region of £40 million. That figure would include mortgages and rent supplements. I have outlined the position in relation to young people and the findings of the ESRI survey.
That is a very limited survey.
The ESRI survey is quite extensive.
Let us not get bogged down in this particular question. There are four more Priority Questions to be disposed of.