asked the Minister for Social Welfare the departmental guidelines used in assessing urban applicants for unemployment assistance in so far as board and lodgings in parents' homes are concerned; the number of applicants who have been judged as not being entitled to any assistance because of the level of means from board and lodgings assessed in their cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

In calculating the value of board and lodgings for unemployment assistance purposes each case is decided on its merits having regard to the standard of living of the household and the circumstances of the applicant.

In the case of wage earning families the method of calculation is to deduct from net parental income, that is gross income, less income tax and PRSI contributions, an amount to cover rent or mortgage repayments and also a set parental allowance. The remainder is then divided among the non-earning members of the household, including the applicant, and the figure arrived at is taken as the value of the applicant's board and lodgings, subject to a maximum limit of 12½ per cent of the net income.

Statistics are not maintained of the number of applicants who fail to qualify for unemployment assistance because of the level of means assessed from board and lodgings.

The requirement to take account of the value of board and lodgings has been a feature of the unemployment assistance scheme from its inception. Its purpose is to achieve a degree of equity as between applicants whose parents are well-to-do and those whose parents are in poor circumstances. Otherwise persons living in relatively better circumstances would become entitled to the same level of assistance as those whose circumstances were much less.

As far as I am concerned it is not an equitable system. Can the Minister tell the House how many applicants, in the categories referred to, draw the full unemployment allowance of £26.25 per week?

I do not have the full details on that but I will endeavour to get them for the Deputy.

It is a separate question.

It seems now that the Minister is telling us that a child or a young adult of 18 years coming from a middle income family is not entitled to unemployment assistance. If that is the case then quite a number of those who go to sign on for unemployment assistance and do not get it do not keep applying so the live register is not a true indication of the numbers looking for work.

Deputy Flynn is now making a speech.

I am bringing to the notice of the House what I regard as an inequitable system and the Minister is not giving any indication that he will change it. He is not saying that the yardstick used to determine eligibility is uniform. If the investigating officer sees a well carpeted home he may decide forthwith that the person is not entitled to unemployment assistance. That is not a fair way of dealing with people who are out of work and entitled to their allowance. Will the Minister do something about it?

If reference to board and lodgings were totally excluded from assessment in relation to unemployment assistance the extra cost to the Exchequer at 1980 levels would be £21.5 million. It could cost £25 million or £26 million at 1983 levels and would mean the automatic inclusion of another 18,000 persons on the register at the 1980 levels. It is a clear feature of the issue of qualification certificates for unemployment assistance that some account must be taken by deciding officers of the benefit which a person enjoys in relation to board and lodgings.

It is a question of the method of assessing board and lodging. Is the Minister not aware that a large number of young people are receiving no unemployment assistance and their parents are not in good circumstances? The carpets that are viewed by the investigating officer were put there in better times and many families being denied this allowance are experiencing serious hardship. The method of assessment outlined by the Minister is not being fairly implemented across the board.

The Deputy asked that question before.

Each case is decided on its merits by a deciding officer having regard to the standard of living of the household and the personal circumstances of the applicant. The system of calculating the value of board and lodging is kept under continuous review and guidelines are issued by the chief appeals officer updating the deductions from the parents' earnings which are set aside towards meeting their expenses before the household income is distributed among dependent members. It is necessary to have those assessment criteria. Surely the Deputy would not suggest that in the case of a relatively better off family of substantial income automatic entitlement should be given to an unemployed son or daughter. Without that criterion automatic entitlement would ensure.

The Minister knows that is not happening. I would go so far as to say he is misleading the House in some of those statements.

The Chair is calling Deputy De Rossa.

Depriving poor people of the dole.

Would the Minister indicate whether he intends to change the criteria or guidelines in any way, particularly in relation to the necessity for young adults to produce proof of their parents' income? In many cases this can be embarrassing for young people. Is there any intention to provide some kind of minimum figure for young unemployed people who at present are not in a position to collect the few pence they are allocated because of the cost of bus fares in going to collect it?

In April 1980 the portion of income less expenses which could be deemed to acrue to any one applicant was set at 12.5 per cent of net family income. That 12.5 per cent has not changed since April 1980 and I have not made the regulations in any way more rigorous than they were prior to 1980. It may be necessary for a deciding officer to ask for details of income, including a PRSI return, but in any event some certification of income must be provided or decided by the deciding officer. We cannot go on word of mouth and we cannot have a situation of a family with substantial income where the father decides he will not support an unemployed son or daughter and the State must automatically take the burden of maintaining that unemployed person.

Is the Minister aware that the vast majority of applicants for unemployment assistance do not receive the full allowance under the Act?

That is repetition.

I know of young applicants whose fathers were drawing disability benefit and others whose fathers were drawing unemployment assistance themselves and these sons and daughters did not qualify for the full allowance. Is the Minister aware of that? He says that £21 million is being saved to the State by the way this yardstick is exercised. Would he agree that there are about 10,000 young people who are not signing and who would make the unemployment figures an entirely different set of statistics if the truth were known?

If the Deputy knows of any case where discrimination under the regulations is being visited upon an applicant, I will follow it through.

We are worn out writing to the Minister and we are not getting satisfaction.

I have not received any personal complaint from the Deputy in relation to any applicant.

We do not even get an acknowledgment from the Minister's office.

Is the Minister asking me personally to deliver details of these cases to him or to write to his Department or to the Minister of State?

Any way the Deputy wishes.

The Minister knows that most of these people do not qualify for the full allowance.

13.