asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason unemployment assistance has been refused, on appeal, to a person (details supplied) in County Laois whose financial circumstances were such that he was awarded supplementary welfare allowance by the health board of £50 per week.

The unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed on the grounds that his means, derived from the profit from his holding exceeded the statutory limit applicable in his case. He appealed against the disallowance, and following on oral hearing of his case, the appeals officer also decided that his means, derived from the profit from his holding exceeded the statutory limit, and he was notified accordingly.

In accordance with the legislation governing this scheme, the calculation of means is carried out on an income and expenditure basis and represents normal yearly net income from the farm, in other words, the gross income less any expenses actually and necessarily incurred in earning that income. A detailed statement of the items constituting the income and expenditure in this case, was supplied to the person concerned.

It is understood from the South-Eastern Health Board that a supplementary welfare allowance is at present being paid to the person concerned at the rate of £70 per week. In determining whether a payment of supplementary welfare allowance should be made in any case, the health board would have regard to the immediate financial circumstances of the person and where they decide that the person is in immediate financial need, a supplementary welfare allowance can be paid.

If the person concerned considers that his circumstances have changed since the previous investigations of his means for unemployment assistance purposes it is open to him to make a fresh application for unemployment assistance at his local employment office.

Without querying how means are computed in regard to social welfare payments, does the Minister agree that it is incongrous that investigating officers of one Department abide by a collection of rules and regulations when computing or assessing means — they decide that somebody is ineligible for benefit or for means tested allowances — whereas the South-Eastern Health Board, whose investigating officer is a community welfare officer, are able to determine that the assessment of means by the other method was wrong? To provide the basic needs for the applicant in this case, the health board have given him an allowance of £70 a week. How can one Department, with their rules and regulations, decide that this man is not eligible and another investigating officer by another method determines that payment should be made?

We are dealing with two different schemes, unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare. There are different criteria laid down. Generally, unemployment assistance is assessed on a yearly basis in regard to income, whereas the supplementary welfare scheme is based on an immediate there and then need. Each scheme has its own purpose. There is a distinction between the two. They are governed by different sets of regulations. The applicant in this case has had his claim investigated exhaustively under the employment assistance scheme and the result was as stated. There was an oral hearing at which the applicant had an opportunity to appear before the appeals officer and give his evidence. The Deputy can take it that every possible piece of information regarding his means was available. Nevertheless, his claim was turned down. The supplementary welfare officer, on the other hand, must have found an immediate need.

I allowed the Deputy's first question because there was a mixture of specific and general information in the Minister's reply, but this is a specific question dealing with an individual case.

I am not trying to be niggling, it is not my style, but the Minister has stated that the supplementary welfare allowance was being paid to take cognisance of an immediate need. I accept that, but these are continuing payments of £70 per week. I do not impute irresponsibility on the part of the social welfare investigating officers, but I would point out that this is not a once off payment, it is being paid on a weekly basis. Therefore, it was not just an immediate need but an immediate continuing need. Is there any way in which we can streamline this procedure of assessing means so that they will be in accord with each other and take true cognisance of the financial needs of claimants so that hardship will not be imposed on people?

The streamlining of these assessment methods is continually under consideration. The Commission on Social Welfare are considering it. In relation to this individual, the social welfare officer deemed him to have an annual income of £10,700, but he is heavily in debt and has his own arrangements for repayment. Capital payments are not treated as expenses for the purpose of estimating profits from a holding. That is one of the distinctions between means testing for these schemes. Under the Social Welfare Acts this man has a relatively good income but has to make substantial repayments of debt, and these are not taken into account. Under the supplementary welfare scheme the community officer can take these things into consideration.

May I put one supplementary question to the Minister of State?

I would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if I were to allow a discussion of principle on a specific case where the facts as investigated are not known. It does not make sense.

The Minister spoke at length about the matter and acknowledged that there is a contradiction between the assessment and the supplementary payment. I am anxious to ask him a question about that.

He has not. The Minister of State has said that the man had £10,000 per year and he disposed of it in one operation, left himself without any money and then had to get something in the form of a supplementary welfare benefit.

Will the Minister agree that the means test system should be examined immediately?

This is not the occasion for putting such a question.

2.