asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will arrange to have the circumstances of a family (details supplied) in County Waterford examined in order to ascertain whether unemployment assistance at an increased rate can be allowed.

One member of the family referred to in the Deputy's question claimed unemployment assistance and in the assessment of means the circumstances of his family were fully investigated after which a deciding officer assessed means at the rate of £17.50 weekly derived from the value of board and lodging in his parents' household.

The claimant was dissatisfied with the assessment of means and his case was referred to an appeals officer for determination. The appeals officer, whose decision is final and conclusive, upheld the decision of the deciding officer assessing means at £17.50 weekly.

In the circumstances the rate of unemployment assistance presently being paid is the correct amount payable under the regulations, namely, £2.25 weekly, being the maximum rate of £19.75 less means of £17.50.

Does the Minister of State regard £2 a week as being a reasonable amount of money to pay to a single person who is supposed to contribute to the upkeep of the household?

The amount is based on the general method of assessment. There is a general question coming up later. Obviously this is a very small amount but it is what is left over when the normal adjustments are made, taking into account the whole income coming into a family. In the case of unemployment assistance all means are taken into account. The quality of board and lodgings is assessed and valued and taken into account as an item of means before assessing an individual for unemployment assistance. The entitlement is £2.25. In this case had the full value of the board and lodging been taken into account and had there been no limiting factor of 12½ per cent of the family income being the maximum, this person would have received no money. He benefited from one of the limitations in the scheme.

I thank the Minister for her reply. There are 12 people in this household and only one wage earner. It seems a harsh decision to allow only £2 per week.

The investigation revealed that the applicant resided with his parents, five sisters and one brother. His father is employed by Waterford Co-op. and his certified net earnings in the past 12 months were £7,805.39. His brother and two sisters were also in employment. Three other children are school going. Since the initial report one of the girls who was in employment left work of her own accord. She claimed unemployment benefit in June 1981 but, having signed one day, did not pursue her claim. Inquiries also revealed that the applicant's married sister, her husband and child occassionally visit the family home but do not reside there. They have their own home in Waterford. There has been an appeal in the case but there could be a further application and reconsideration of the case.

I should like if there was because my information is that there are 12 in the household.

Does the Minister agree that the system of applying the means test, as in the case outlined, is unjust and will she do something to rectify the situation because of the fact that a situation can arise where there is only one person earning in a household and there is not sufficient income to meet family needs?

Obviously one would have great sympathy with an adult person who is incapable of getting employment and trying to live on an income of £2. It could even have been less in some cases. It would be desirable to extend the benefit as far as possible. This would be the general intention. As things operate at present the system is constantly examined. The appeals officer constantly reviews the situation and makes recommendations on the question of assessing board and lodgings as a genuine element in means. In considering it in future I will take into account the fears and obvious points of value raised by Deputies.

20.