asked the Minister for Social Welfare if guidelines have been issued to social welfare officers investigating claims for, or reviews of, unemployment assistance especially in the west of Ireland; if he is aware that excess means have been assessed in respect of board and lodgings to applicants living with relations; if he is satisfied with a system that leaves an applicant who is without means and lodging with relations approximately £2.50 per week; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
13.
Guidelines are issued from time to time to all social welfare officers dealing with the investigation of applications for qualification certificates for unemployment assistance purposes and the review of the means of those already in receipt of such assistance. The guidelines are up-dated as necessary to take account of any legislative changes. No special or separate guidelines are issued in relation to the west of Ireland.
The purpose of the assessment for board and lodgings on applicants living with relations is to achieve a degree of equity as between applicants living in relatively better off circumstances and those whose circumstances are poor. In the absence of this form of assessment the sons and daughters of better-off parents would be entitled to the same amount of unemployment assistance as those of poorer parents, which would not be an equitable situation.
An applicant who considers that the amount of means assessed against him is excessive has the right to appeal and to have his means determined by an appeals officer.
The amount of unemployment assistance payable is calculated by reducing the appropriate maximum rate of unemployment assistance by the amount of the additional means. The scheme is financed entirely by the Exchequer out of general taxation and it is essential to ensure that scarce resources are allocated as fairly as possible.
Will the Minister not agree that a sum of £22 per week for board and lodgings which has been assessed in many cases by social welfare officers is outrageous? In the case I have mentioned it leaves the applicant, a brother, with the paltry sum of £2.50 per week for various expenses. Can the Minister really condone a system like this which treats these people with contempt?
It depends on whom the Deputy is talking about. That is the basic problem I have in replying to him. Very clear-cut criteria are laid down for wage-earning families and also for farming families where the applicant's parent is a farmer. In that case the procedure is to estimate the yearly income from the farm and divide the amount between the parents and all the dependent members of the household on a weighted basis. In calculating the amount to be attributed to each a weighting of 1.5 per cent is attached to each parent and 1 per cent to each non-earning dependent including the applicant. In this instance, in the case of farming families consisting of parents and three non-earning children the diviser would be 6. It is a complicated system of calculation, but the maximum limit taken into account is no more than 12.5 per cent or one-eighth of family income. There must be some system of assessment.
The Minister in reply to a question of mine yesterday, which process took him in excess of two minutes, confused rather than elucidated. Would he agree that the modus operandi determining eligibility in these cases is cumbersome and archaic and needs updating? It assumes that the parent of an applicant seeking unemployment assistance is going to be generous to his son — or daughter — and in effect it takes no account at all of personal circumstances that might exist in the family. I would ask the Minister——
The Deputy is not asking a question. He is making a submission.
Will the Minister review the method by which eligibility for unemployment assistance is assessed and will he say that all those who apply for unemployment assistance and are eligible by way of age and unavailability for work will draw the full allowance, and stop discriminating against the young unemployed?
I do not think there is discrimination there. Let us take a large farmer in the Deputy's own county who has a son at home who is unemployed. Surely the Deputy does not suggest that no account should be taken by the investigating officer of the board and lodgings attributable by way of income to the son — or daughter — in question. Likewise, in relation to a wage or salary earner where a father may have £15,000 a year income, is the Deputy suggesting that no account whatever should be taken of the fact that he maintains a son or daughter who may be unemployed and that there should be no relativity? We are saying though the regulations that the relativity should be no more than 12.5 per cent or one-eighth of the income.
I am asking for one final supplementary. The Minister draws attention to the earner at £15,000 but I am putting it to him that I am aware of a wage-earner with less than £6,000 gross per annum whose son was refused unemployment assistance. I am suggesting to the Minister that the investigating officers do not go into——
The Deputy is not entitled to suggest at Question Time.
I am asking the Minister if in the circumstances the investigating officer does not go into the detailed assessment as outlined in the Minister's response to Deputy Calleary and consequently if there is an element of discrimination against children whose parents——
This is argument and debate.
——are not prepared to support their children and consequently——
If Deputies want to kill Question Time it is largely their business. The Chair is concerned only to the extent that he is supposed to try to enforce Standing Orders and the fact that Question Time is being turned into a long debate on each question is not in the interests of Deputies.
Would the Ceann Comhairle agree that this question and some of the others today have particular relevance to a huge number of unemployed young people who cannot get any unemployment assistance?
Those questions do affect a number of people.
This question does so particularly and a number of young people are drawing no or minimal unemployment assistance because this eligibility clause is being waged against them. It assumes——
The Deputy has other ways to raising this.
——that the parents are going to be generous in dealing with their children and that is not so. The Minister should recognise that fact and do something about it.
The Minister mentioned the appeals system. Will he accept that the appeals system at the moment is completely overloaded, that there is a delay of at least five months before a decision is given? Further, will be accept that if the criteria which he used in his reply are applied to many families in the west of Ireland, particularly where brothers and sisters are living with small farmers, instead——
I am asking the Deputy——
With respect, Sir, I do not bother you too often. I am worried about what is going to happen.
I appreciate that, but I ask the Deputy to adjudicate on himself as to whether he is asking a question or making a speech.
I am asking a question.
Nobody would recognise that.
If you look at the report you will see that I have prefaced all my remarks with——
You could bring in today's newspaper and ask the Minister if he has read what is there.
I am asking the Minister whether, if the criteria he used in the reply he gave to me are applied, very many people in the west of Ireland, sisters and brothers of small farmers, will only apply to the various local authorities to be re-housed and there will be added expense on the State not only in relation to the supply of houses, because those people will then be eligible for the full unemployment assistance that they are applying for.
In the west of Ireland 14,000 smallholders are currently being paid unemployment assistance, as are their dependants, on a notional basis. From now on, arising out of the High Court judgment, they will be paid from April 1983 on a phased-in basis, a factual basis.
The Minister means arising out of budgetary decisions.
Therefore, from now on the income of a person and his dependants will be paid. That applies in every urban area and there is no reason why it should not apply in every rural area.
(Interruptions.)
Can the Minister say if any guidelines have been issued since 1 January this year to investigating officers, and in what way they differ from previous guidelines?
I hope that Deputy O'Hanlon will not take this as personal in any way, but I think that part of the trouble at Question Time here is that the spokesman or shadow spokesman feels obliged to intervene on every question.
(Interruptions.)
It is very unfair of the Chair to imply that. Would you allow me to ask a question?
Yes.
As is evident from the number of questions asked yesterday and today, this is of great interest to the west of Ireland in particular. Would the Minister agree that some change seems to have occurred in the manner in which his officers are carrying out these assessments in recent times? The number of cases coming to our notice has increased substantially. Is the Minister aware that in many cases the figure of £22 per week which has now been assessed as board and lodgings for single people thus deprives them of everything except a few shillings of the unemployment assistance money? Finally, would the Minister give the Deputies here who have an interest in this matter copies of the system which he has sought to read out in explanation of how this assessment is made? Would he be so kind as to let us have a written statement giving us all the details on how the income is assessed in regard to board and lodgings?
I will make the criteria of assessment available.
The other question was about new guidelines.
No, the guidelines are those of April 1980 and assessments commence in 1983. That is the basis of the reality. There is no difficulty.
Would the real reason be the Minister's answer to Question No. 5, shortage of money?
This is Labour Party policy obviously.
No.
The remaining 542 questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.