asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by recipients of supplementary welfare allowance in the Western Health Board area regarding the manner in which assessments are made; and if he will explain the criteria for deciding eligibility.

The basic aim of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is to provide an allowance for any person whose means are insufficient to meet his needs. A basic weekly allowance is payable to a person whose means fall below a specified level and his means must be assessed for this purpose in accordance with the legislation. There is also provision for additional weekly payments to meet special needs such as rent, heating, or diet, for single payments in cases of exceptional need and for payment of grants in cases of urgency.

I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the manner in which assessments are made for supplementary welfare allowances in the Western Health Board area. If, however, the Deputy is aware of any cases where he considers that an incorrect assessment was made I will be glad to have the matter investiocrati gated by the health board on hearing from him.

Would the Minister accept that, where people have been transferred from the Department of Social Welfare to the Western Health Board for payment of benefit, there are instances where the payments are much lower from the health board than from the Department? That would suggest that, in the method of assessment by officers of the health board, the same guidelines are not being used in assessing the allowances payable to people who have to transfer from the Department to the Western Health Board for payment of benefit.

As the Deputy appreciates, it would depend on the reasons why they were transferred from social welfare to supplementary welfare allowance. As I said in my reply, I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction. My Department contacted the health board about this matter and no such cases have been brought to their attention. If the Deputy supplies us with details of the cases he has in mind we will have them examined and let him have a reply.

I can quote a number of instances. There is one in particular which comes to mind. A person was in receipt of unemployment assistance and because he had to go into hospital and have an operation he was transferred to the Western Health Board for payment. The allowance he received from the health board was 50 per cent of what he had been receiving from the Department. That is one instance where what I have been talking about comes to mind.

There would appear to be some difference in the method of assessment by the Western Health Board and one would assume that when a certain figure was already being paid by the Department a similar figure or almost similar would be paid by the Western Health Board.

If the Deputy will give me all the particulars of that particular case and any other cases he may have we could get the proper answer to his query.

I can give the details to the Minister but I got a similar reply yesterday in relation to other matters I raised by way of question. Will the Minister agree that we should not have to come in to the Minister or to his Department with matters of this kind? There seems to be some discrepancies in regard to the method of assessment.

The problem is the Deputy put down a question and every effort was made to supply the information. The questions asked if I were aware of the dissatisfaction. I was not aware of it until the Deputy put down his question. My Department contacted the Western Health Board to see what complaints they had received and our information from the health board is there appears to be no case in which the Deputy was involved. Every effort has been made to help the Deputy but I would require more specific information. The question does not provide it and the health board does not appear to have it and so I have nothing on which to go.

Is the Minister aware that where the Department of Social Welfare officials are of the opinion that a person in receipt of unemployment assistance or, indeed, an applicant for it, is working the community welfare officer will not give supplementary benefit and though the opinion of the social welfare investigating officer may not be correct this leaves the family without any income whatsoever?

That is a separate question.

No, it is not. It is germane to Question No. 4. Who is the deciding officer on an appeal?

In the case of an unemployed person in receipt of unemployment assistance and the social welfare officer has evidence that the recipient is employed that is a separate scene altogether to that mentioned by Deputy Gallagher. The supplementary welfare allowance scheme was introduced in July 1977 in place of the former home assistance scheme. The scheme is operated by the health boards under the general direction and control of the Minister for Social Welfare. Any person whose means are insufficient is entitled to a supplementary welfare allowance and there is a leaflet available explaining the various provisions of the scheme. One applies to the relevant health board and the community welfare officer initially investigates the claim and then the superintendent may also have to examine it.

I appreciate the Minister's reply but surely he will accept that there are cases where the investigating officers may make an error in not allocating unemployment assistance to a particular person. Surely every effort should be made to ensure that every family in the State has a basic income.

I agree. In any case where it can be shown that the scheme has not been operated as it should be operated and people are denied social welfare payments I would be very anxious to have details of such cases.

5.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a person who is over 18 years of age and in receipt of £19.60 unemployment assistance can have his assistance reduced to £3 per week if his father moves to a better paid job; if he considers this to be a fair implementation of the unemployment assistance system; and if not, the proposals he has to ensure that unemployed young people will have access to adequate independent means.

Under the legislation governing the scheme of unemployment assistance the value of the benefit which an applicant derives from board and lodgings in his parents home must be taken into account. The amount assessed for this purpose depends on the income of the parents in each individual case and any change in that income affects the value of board and lodgings. This arrangement ensures that a degree of equity is achieved as between an applicant whose parents are in relatively better off circumstances and an applicant whose circumstances are poor. Otherwise the situation would arise where the applicant from the better off family would receive the same amount of unemployment assistance as the applicant whose family circumstances are poor.

The means test for unemployment assistance is designed to ensure that all applicants for unemployment assistance are treated in an equitable manner having regard to the resources available to them and as operated it is a fair and reasonable method of determining entitlement and allocating scarce resources to those in greatest need.

The Minister cannot be serious when he claims that £3 to a young man of 19 is a fair and adequate allocation of resources. Does he not realise that that £3, apart from having to buy shoes and clothing and so on, would get him approximately twice a week across this city by bus and no more? How does he expect such a young person to look for a job on £3 a week from one end of the week to the other?

I assure the Deputy I can be very serious about this because, as I stated in my reply, account must be taken of the value the applicant derives in board and lodgings and that in turn is related to the income of the parents. The Deputy in his question did not quote the income of the parents and he does not give any particulars. Therefore I do not know the details, but having regard to the fact that the rate has been reduced to £3 per week that would indicate that the parents' net income after deduction of PAYE and PRSI would be in the region of £10,000. With scarce resources it is not possible to apply unemployment assistance without having any regard to the income of the parents. Even if additional resources became available I would do what I could to use such resources to help the unemployed young people whose parents are unemployed or very poor, not people whose parents are relatively better off.

The nub of this problem arises from the fact that in the social welfare code a young person between 16 and 25 years is regarded as a dependant of his or her parents once he or she is living in the house. Would the Minister not consider that that is an unfair way of dealing with young people in this day and age? Will he consider changing that system of dependency?

In one sense it might be unfair but it is far from unfair to make the point that a young person living with his parents who could be extremely wealthy would get the same rate of unemployment assistance as young people living in households where the parents were unemployed. I could not implement such a scheme at the present time because any additional resources that might be made available to me would not be devoted to that purpose but to helping less well off applicants.

We are now having a debate on the policy involved in this question and that could become a substantial debate. This is not the appropriate time to discuss such a matter. It would be more appropriate on the Department's Estimate or on the Social Welfare Bill which will be coming before the House shortly.

I simply wish to put one final question to the Minister. Does the Minister not agree that there are very few wealthy people, if any, living in the Dublin North-West constituency?

That is a statistical question.

Would he also not agree that it is unacceptable for a young man of 19 years to have to try to survive on £3 a week? Does he not agree that, regardless of the income of a parent, £3 a week is not an adequate income for an unemployed young man or woman in this day and age?

That is a policy matter which could be debated another time. Question No. 6.

6.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reasons reduced assistance payments are being paid to a person (details supplied) in County Longford; and if he is aware that there are extenuating circumstances in this case.

Following investigations of his means by a social welfare officer the unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed from 23 November 1983 on the grounds that his means derived from land exceeded the statutory limit of £29.40 which applies in his case. He appealed against the decision and an appeals officer assessed his means at £34.00 weekly but as this exceeded the statutory limit unemployment assistance is not payable. The person concerned ceased to sign as unemployed after 24 January 1984.

7.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in Dublin 14 was advised that she did not qualify for unemployment assistance as she is available for employment, is seeking employment and has been unemployed since she finished a six months' work experience programme with a firm (details supplied).

It has not been possible to trace receipt of a claim to unemployment assistance which refers to the person named in the details supplied.

Further inquiries will be made if the Deputy will furnish additional information to enable the person concerned to be identified.