Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990

Vol. 403 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Single Persons' Unemployment Assistance.

Deputy Eric Byrne gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter as to the practice of the Department of Social Welfare to substantially reduce the unemployment assistance of single persons living at home on the basis that they are receiving board and lodgings from their families, the pressure this is exerting on young people to leave the family home and, in some cases, emigrate. I think Deputy Byrne knows the procedure. He has some five minutes to make his case and the Minister, or the Minister of State, has five minutes to reply.

I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for choosing me from your list. The policy of the Department of Social Welfare in regard to the payment of unemployment assistance to single people who are living at home is leading to the break-up of families and encouraging young people to emigrate. Under the Department of Social Welfare rules single unemployed persons living with their families are considered to be receiving free board and lodgings and their unemployment assistance is assessed accordingly. In some cases unemployment assistance, which would normally be approximately £40 per week for an adult, is being reduced in many cases because of changing circumstances in the family to as little as 80p per week or nothing at all.

It would appear there are no standard guidelines as to what constitutes the value placed on board and lodging. It can vary greatly depending on the attitude of the relevant social welfare officer. In my constituency, for example, there appears to be a particular blitz — presumably at the behest of the Department — which is aimed primarily at single people living at home. I have received many complaints in the past few weeks from those who found their unemployment assistance drastically reduced. This policy results in many young people — and many who are not so young — being left penniless and puts great stress on family relationships. As a result young people who wish to remain in the family home are forced to leave in order to ensure some independent income by being reassessed outside the family home minus the board and lodging clause. Indeed, in some cases young people are opting to emigrate. It is ironic that this is being done by Fianna Fáil, the party who have always put themselves forward as defender of the family.

We have been doing it for years.

In the social welfare area they are pursuing a policy which is anti-family. I urge the Minister for Social Welfare to review this policy and implement the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. They recommended that single applicants for unemployment assistance between the ages of 18 and 25 years should be entitled to a standard allowance irrespective of household circumstances or parental means.

How can the Department of Social Welfare put a value on board and lodgings when a family living in, say, Dublin south inner city, north inner city, Sheriff Street, Oliver Bond Street or St. Theresa's Gardens have a low standard of living while those living in Howth, Dalkey or Foxrock have a high standard of living? I would argue that we should not put a value on board and lodgings but that we should be giving a basic minimum entitlement to all people over 18 years.

It is absolutely absurd to think that people are forced out of the family unit because of these ridiculous policies. These people can go from relative luxury or relative poverty, as the case may be, to private rented accommodation. Perhaps in some cases they will qualify for local authority accommodation with all the costs involved in that. They will be eligible to receive a rent subsidy if they are in private rented accommodation and also by right qualify for an allowance from the State through unemployment assistance. All this can be done with the stroke of a pen just because an individual has decided to vacate the family home. This is illogical. I plead with the Minister to convey to the Cabinet the need for a basic minimum income for all people.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to Deputy Byrne. The purpose of the unemployment assistance scheme is to help unemployed persons without means or with limited means to provide for themselves and their dependent families until such time as they find work or otherwise acquire an adequate source of income. I need not remind Deputy Byrne that this scheme is financed by the taxpayer out of the Exchequer.

It costs the taxpayer more in many cases.

Thus, when framing the scheme one has to bear in mind the needs of the prospective clients and the costs involved. We have to be fair to both the applicant and the taxpayer.

The Government are penalising the taxpayers.

I did not interrupt Deputy Byrne and if he wants to hear my reply he had better stay quiet. I am not prepared to tolerate interruptions like that.

Let us hear the Minister without interruption.

(Interruptions.)

The requirement to take account of board and lodgings is provided for in the Social Welfare Acts and has been a feature of the unemployment assistance scheme since its inception. The justification for this is that any non-cash benefit or privilege which one applicant would have over another by reason of the fact that he or she is living at home should be taken into account in assessing entitlement.

While it would be much simpler and administratively advantageous not to do this it can be argued that it would be unfair and an inefficient use of resources to treat applicants for unemployment assistance from well-to-do households in the same fashion as those whose parents are in poorer circumstances. People on unemployment assistance are expected to actively seek work which is suited to their level of skill, age and other factors.

If they can find a job.

An applicant who resides at home has a good permanent base from which to do this and thus he or she has certain advantages over one who resides in a rented abode and who may be forced for financial reasons to change from one place to another. I find it hard to understand how the Deputy maintains that it is those applicants living with their families who are most likely to emigrate. I would have thought the opposite.

The amount assessed against an applicant arising out of his or her residence free of charge at the family home or with other relatives is determined by a deciding officer in the first instance and is based on a practice which has been confirmed over the years by appeals officers. The Deputy may know that deciding officers and appeals officers are statutory officers who have always acted independently of the Minister of the day and of pressures which can arise from time to time. While there was never any doubt about this independence the Minister for Social Welfare has taken measures to ensure that it will be more obvious to all by having the appeals system established as an independent office.

In making their assessment in respect of board and lodgings enjoyed by applicants free of charge, whether in the family home or elsewhere, deciding officers and appeals officers in the interests of fairness, have to take account of the overall level of income enjoyed by the family in question. Generally speaking the value of the benefit to such an applicant would vary with the overall level of that income. I am satisfied that in all such cases deciding officers and appeals officers strive to be fair in their assessments. Any changes in relation to the assessment of the value of free board and lodgings would have to be considered within a budgetary context having regard to competing pressures for additional social welfare spending on other improvements. In this connection I should like to point out that it was estimated some years ago that the cost of the abolition of the board and lodging provision would then have been over £21 million per annum.

Has the Minister calculated the cost——

I am sure Deputy Byrne accepts that equity and fairness must prevail in any State system.

Deputy Byrne who is not too long in the House made a statement that Fianna Fáil have been putting themselves forward as the defender of the family. I want to say to the Deputy that not alone have we defended the family but we have supported the family and brought forward a tranche of progressive social legislation, second to none in Europe and throughout the world, which has protected the rights of the family.

The Minister must be joking.

This was the case long before the Deputy came into this House or his party came into existence. I am sure it will be the case long after they leave this House.

I have no intention of leaving this House.

Barr
Roinn