Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach agus tá súil agam go mbeidh sé in ann rud éigin a dhéanamh faoin gcás a bheidh mé ag ardú inniu.
I would like to address myself to the question of means testing, particularly as it relates to people over the age of 18 living with their parents. As I understand the regulations at the moment, and it is hard to get definitive documentation on this, people living with parents are assessed on their parents' income above a certain level. I understand that if somebody claimed unemployment assistance while living with their parents whose income exceeds £160 a week, they would then not be entitled to social employment assistance. I understand that the calculation is worked out by excluding parents' income up to a limit of £105 and making amounts in excess of that assessable. I heard of one case lately where the parents' income — was £200 a week. There was three people in their twenties — from 21 to 27 — living at home; and £105 was deducted from the £200 giving a balance of £95. There was a dependent child in the house, so £12 was allowed and the difference when divided by three meant that each young person was entitled to unemployment assistance of around £30.
The argument can be put that the State cannot fund such people and that there was sufficient means in that house. Most adults do not want to be dependent on their parents beyond a certain stage of life, and there is a hidden cost that cancels any possible savings made by accounting the parents' income, that is, the temptation for people in this situation to move out of home and obtain accommodation elsewhere. If they do they become entitled to £55 per week, to go on the housing list and to a rent supplement in certain cases. The Department of Social Welfare can wind up paying them in the region of £80 to £90 per week. Furthermore, another name may have been added to the housing list and there is pressure already on housing lists all over the country. The State may eventually be obliged to provide such a person with local authority accommodation at a cost of £20,000 to £30,000.
I know that regulations say one must justify leaving home, but that is not beyond people's imaginative capacity when there is a financial benefit at stake. It is easy enough to say I am not getting on with my parents, we fight all the time, I had to leave home and if I return there will be rows all the time. It is impossible for a social welfare officer in that situation to give an accurate assessment of the situation. My view on this is that people placed in this situation in order to obtain independent means add to the net cost on the State.
I would also like to address myself — as I have in my motion — to people who obtain temporary, transient, part-time income. Somebody might be on call to work part-time in a pub and would earn £5 or £10 a night. If they work legitimately they are obliged to sign off for that day which means that they lose £10 or £11 unemployment assistance. It is reasonable to say that nobody is going to forego £10 or £11 to earn an income of £8 or £9.
Many schemes are meant to address this problem, including the part-time workers' scheme, but that operates on the assumption that we live in an ordered world. It presumes, for example, that part-time work will give one an income well in excess of £25 a week if one is single. It also presumes that one is going to get work for two months at least. As an ex-employer who often gave part-time work, I faced a serious problem if I needed to employ somebody for one, two or three days. If somebody got sick, they could get supplementary income by working on an on-call basis getting a day here and a day there but if they work the system legitimately, as the Minister recently pointed out they should in a recent major speech, there is no profit in it for them.
Furthermore for somebody working in the self-employed sector on a part-time basis, there are no part-time job incentives because to avail of these incentives one must be in either A1 or J1 employment. I know the Minister has addressed himself to the question of means testing but in my experience, it is a minefield which prevents people from rising one small step above the minimum income levels. We should accept that social welfare incomes are minimum incomes and the objective should be to help people to get off the bottom rung of the ladder because the concommitant cost savings in social services, housing, etc., are considerable when there is even part-time work available. I have done a certain amount of survey work unofficially and have found that where there is part-time or full-time work and a variety of income extras available in a community, the cost of and demand for social services drops rapidly. Unfortunately our system tends not to take that balance into account and that policy has not been cost effective. It has been a disincentive to people to work and, furthermore, has encouraged people in the long term to make extra demands on the State.
Ceisteanna tábhachtacha iad seo uilig. Ní mór dúinn córas a leagan amach nach spreagfaidh daoine chun costais bhreise a chur ar an Stát. Is maith go bhfanfaidh daoine ina gcónaí sa mbaile muna bhfuil postanna acu mar beidh siad ann le cúnamh a thabhairt dá muintir agus iad ag éirí sean. Caithfimid a chinntiú go mbeidh daoine ábalta ó thaobh airgeadais de glacadh le hobair pháirt aimsearthach. Ba chóir go mbeadh daoine ábalta tairbhe a bhaint as obair ar bith a thiocfadh a mbealach gan an t-uafás fadhbanna páipéar sa mbealach orthu is atá anois agus gan a bheith faoi bhrú dul taobh amuigh den chóras dleathach, ach leas a bhaint as obair laistigh de.
