asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will disregard the benefit of board and lodging as means in respect of young people who apply for unemployment assistance.

The yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by an applicant, such as free or partly free board and lodging, is one of the items which, under the relevant statutory provisions, must be taken into account by deciding officers and appeals officers in the assessment of means of applicants for unemployment assistance and there is no power to disregard this or any other assessable item in particular cases.

In view of the fact that so many people are being disallowed simply because they are living at home while waiting for employment, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider introducing amending legislation so that the question of the board and lodgings which they can get in their homes from their parents will not be assessed against them to disqualify them for unemployment assistance?

As the Deputy is probably aware, this has been the practice for some considerable time. It is not a new innovation. Each case is treated on its individual merits so there is no overall approach to it. Each case is assessed individually.

Allowing for the fact that it may have been the practice for some time, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the matter has become much more critical because of the number of young people who have to stay at home with their parents while they are looking for employment? Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it seems to be almost against the concept of what we hold for the family that if a young man were turned out of his home he would qualify? Because this person stays at home with no income his food and accommodation are assessed as income to disqualify him for unemployment assistance. Is there not a conflict there? If this young person was living on his own and turned out of his home by his family, he would be entitled to unemployment assistance but because he is living with his family he is not.

The situation is not changed. It is the same as it has been for quite a considerable time. As I explained to the Deputy, there is no overall approach to this. Each particular case is assessed individually.

Allowing for that, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that in a number of cases the actual assessment for board and lodgings is made at £10 or £11 which is in excess of the income and those people are disqualified. In view of the number of unemployed people who have finished school who are now staying at home—that situation has changed—does the Parliamentary Secretary not think it is appropriate to change the statutory provisions so that the benefit of board and lodgings, if not ignored, is assessed as income in some way to allow the person to qualify?

As I explained to the Deputy, there are cases where the deciding officer or the appeals officer would consider it appropriate that only a very nominal sum would be taken into consideration in regard to free board and lodgings, depending on the individual circumstances of the case. There is no uniform assessment as such. All the relevant factors of the case are taken into consideration.

The Parliamentary Secretary and I know of many cases of hardship. In view of that, is he prepared to consider amending the statutory provisions so that young people will be put in a better position than they are at the moment?

It is not contemplated to change that situation.

12.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will give an assurance that the Government has no intention of abolishing children's allowances.

I can assure the Deputy that there is no intention of abolishing children's allowances.

Am I to take it that if a Minister makes a statement he is not speaking with collective responsibility? As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the Minister for Finance hinted that there would be a review of the whole question of children's allowances? Is he giving me an assurance now that no such review is contemplated?

I am not aware of the Minister for Finance making such a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary is not reading the papers. A statement was made. He did not say children's allowances would be taken off. He said the matter would be under review. I am accepting that the Parliamentary Secretary is telling me that it will not be under review and there is no danger of children's allowances being removed.

I am saying that the Minister posed certain question regarding the development of the social services and the tax code to stimulate discussion. He made that quite clear.

Post factum, yes.

I am telling the Deputy that children's allowances are not being discontinued.

Is the Deputy disappointed?

Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that what was said might make people think there was a chance they would be discontinued. I should like an assurance today that the question of discontinuing children's allowances will not even be discussed.

It is not a question of my giving an assurance. It is necessary and desirable that people should think about various aspects of our approach to financial, economic and social problems. In the context of the question posed by the Deputy, the Tánaiste made the position on children's allowances quite clear.

Surely we should not even think about discontinuing children's allowances.

Probably one of the things which contributed most to Fianna Fáil's going out of office was lack of thought.

That is not an answer.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, subsequent to the statement made by the Tánaiste to which he referred, two days before the opening of his party's annual conference in Limerick, the Minister for Finance stated in this House in response to a question by me that children's allowances were one of the items included in the Green Paper's reference to circular transfers, and confirmed that the matter would be the subject of examination as indicated in that Green Paper, and also confirmed that the Tánaiste and other Members of the Labour Party in the Government had agreed with that statement in the Green Paper? Will he reconcile that with the statement he has just made to the House?

All social welfare matter and all Government policy are subject to continuing review.

So it will be reviewed?

It could be reviewed upwards.

13.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will give an assurance that the Government have no intention of abolishing social payments to small uneconomic farmers.

I can assure the Deputy that there is no intention of abolishing social welfare payments to small uneconomic farmers.

This seems to be under review the same as children's allowances. I am not talking about the abuse of social welfare. I am talking about genuine cases of small uneconomic holders who cannot live without these supplementary allowances. If the Parliamentary Secretary assures me that the abolition of social welfare payments to these people is not being thought of, I will accept that assurance.

There is no intention of abolishing social welfare payments to small uneconomic farmers.

Why are those things being spoken of? Why should a very important Minister make the statement if there is no question of reviewing them?

I am not aware that any Minister said small farmers' allowances were being abolished.

The statement was made that the matter was under review.

All aspects of Government policy must come under review.

14.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if it is proposed to alter the social welfare regulations whereby voluntary contributors are denied title to disability benefit, occupational injury benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity benefit and dental and optical benefit; and, if so, when.

A person can become a voluntary contributor only where he ceases to be insurably employed and has 156 contributions paid as an employed contributor. Since the coming into operation of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, a voluntary contributor is not entitled to the benefits referred to by the Deputy, except for a limited period after ceasing to be an employed contributor, and the reduced contribution he pays reflects this position.

If the social insurance system covered the whole working population the need for voluntary insurance would virtually disappear.

The Deputy may be aware that the question of extending social insurance to the self-employed is currently under examination in my Department, and in these circumstances I do not propose to alter the existing provisions on the lines suggested.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think the time has come to alter the system? Quite a number of the voluntary contributors are still on the books and they are being deprived of these benefits. In fact, I should have framed the question in another way and asked what they are entitled to. It seems very little is left for them. Some people are suffering gravely because of this omission from the scheme. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell me approximately when he hopes to be able to announce their total inclusion in the social welfare code? In the budget perhaps?

As the Deputy may be aware, an examination is being made within the Department into the question of the publication of a Green Paper on insurance for the self-employed. I appreciate the statement made by the Deputy. I am aware of the serious curtailment of social insurance coverage. We have made considerable progress in this area over the past three-and-a-half years. Some tens of thousands of people have been brought within the code who were excluded prior to that. There is a large problem representing something like 31 per cent of the population who fall into the category of self-employed, and it is desirable that coverage should be extended to them as soon as possible.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider in some way including the necessary moneys in the coming budget to bring them into the scheme? It would be an ideal time to do it.

The budget is always an ideal time but, as the Deputy will appreciate, I cannot anticipate the budget.