Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Nov 1997

Vol. 482 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Unemployment Assistance Regulations.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Ba mhaith liomsa mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an gCeann Comhairle as ucht an deis seo a thabhairt dom an cheist seo a phlé.

This is a serious matter for many parents and teenagers. I tabled a parliamentary question on 15 October to which I received a long reply in which the Minister outlined the current position but failed to mention his plans, as I had asked him to do. I am sure in his absence his deputy, able though he is, will do the same.

The Minister stated that the cost of abolishing the assessment of the benefit of board and lodging for unemployment assistance purposes is estimated to be in the region of £20 million in a full year. It is unacceptable to give that kind of figure in reply to a parliamentary question. I have no doubt the Minister will not cite a counter-balancing cost in replying this evening. What is the cost to the State of 18-year olds going into flats, receiving full unemployment assistance, who may or may not receive anything up to £40 weekly by way of rent subsidy? Will the Minister communicate with me, through his officials, on that estimated cost to the State? There is no point in quoting a figure of £20 million as the cost of abolishing the board and lodgings allowance if full account is not taken of its counter balancing costs already. If a sum of £40 a week was given to everybody claiming unemployment assistance, ensuring they remained at home, guaranteeing the continuance of family values while avoiding the many undesirable consequences of young people living alone in flats — it could well prove to be a net asset to the State.

Since we allow people of 18 years of age to marry, to drive cars, encourage them to vote — although it is not really opportune to refer to this in the wake of the recent presidential election when much dissatisfaction was expressed about Thursday having been polling day — when it comes to student employment schemes is it not wrong that their parents, who may be barely above the eligible income limit for third-level grants, are further discriminated against. It is these people we should look after.

I hope the Minister will express some concrete plan in replying rather than merely retail what happens at present and what its abolition would cost.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Mr. O'Dea)

I apologise for the unavoidable absence of my colleague, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. I am sure Deputy Browne will accept me as a suitable replacement on this occasion.

Unemployment assistance is a means-tested payment to unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 66 not entitled to insurance-based unemployment benefit. Payments are means-tested to ensure the limited resources available are directed at those most in need. In assessing a person's means for unemployment assistance purposes, account is taken of any cash income the person may have together with the value of any capital or property. In addition, the value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by an applicant, such as that of board and lodging in the family home, is assessed.

The students' summer jobs scheme provides income support for less well off third-level students unable to obtain work during the summer months who are disqualified from claiming unemployment assistance. Entitlement to the scheme is dependent on students satisfying a means test similar to that applicable in the case of unemployment assistance.

The assessment of free board and lodging has been a feature of the unemployment assistance scheme since its inception and has survived all changes of Government, including the three year tenure in office by a centre left Government. Its purpose is to achieve a degree of equity between applicants in different family circumstances, for example, between applicants whose parents are employed and those dependent on social welfare payments. Otherwise, people living in affluent circumstances would become entitled to the same level of assistance as those with limited means or none at all.

In assessing the benefit of board and lodging, account is taken of the combined amount of parental income, less tax, PRSI, superannuation and the cost of housing, the first £95 or £105 being disregarded dependent on whether the household is a one or two parent family respectively. Any social welfare payments the parents may be receiving are also disregarded, the balance being divided equally among the non-earning members of the household, including both parents. However, the maximum assessment for any claimant is limited to 17 per cent of total parental income.

A number of improvements have been effected over recent years in the assessment of the benefit of board and lodging. For instance, in 1991 provision was made for the introduction of a minimum weekly payment of £5 for claimants whose only means were assessed from board and lodging, which minimum payment has been progressively increased to £25 weekly. It should also be noted that, where the combined net parental income does not exceed £19,698 per annum, a claimant is entitled to at least the minimum £25 weekly payment of unemployment assistance.

As Deputy Browne has said already, according to the figures available to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, the cost of abolishing the assessment of the benefit of board and lodging for unemployment assistance purposes is estimated at a net figure of £20 million in a full year.

I will pass on the Deputy's request to the Minister. I will also ask him to furnish the estimated saving involved through more young people remaining at home not being paid the full rate of unemployment assistance or a subsidy for renting apartments. Frankly, that is probably impossible to estimate since it would be based on an estimate of how many young people would remain at home. Indeed it is probably in the realm of fantasy.

The question of implementing any further improvements in the board and lodging allowance will have to be considered in a budgetary context and in the light of existing priorities and available resources.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): That is a repetition of the reply I received to my parliamentary question of 15 October last.