asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that the present system of assessment of means for young people in receipt of unemployment assistance reduces payment to a degree which leaves these people with no other option but to emigrate.

The assessment of the value of free board and lodgings is the main item of means assessed in the case of single applicants for unemployment assistance living with their parents or relatives. This is in accordance with statutory requirements and each case is decided on it merits having regard to the standard of living of the household and the circumstances of the applicant.

The requirement to take account of the value of board and lodgings has been a feature of the unemployment assistance scheme since 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.

Does the Minister accept that at present the officers of his Department seem to be particularly harsh in their assessment of young people applying for unemployment assistance? In rural areas a person may be living with an old age pensioner which means they are assessed at £7.50 per week, which seems to be the general pattern. Sometimes a student who has gone through university finds that he or she has to live with parents and it is degrading for them to have to depend on their parents to keep them, especially when they have sent them to university. Does the Minister agree that this section of the Act should be changed?

This section of the Act is there since its inception and it was embodied in the Consolidation Act as recently as 1981. I know there is a problem in this regard but it is a question of resources. I should like to be in a position to give reasonable assistance to all young people without putting them through a means test but the cost factor is too great. Perhaps the Deputy could tell me where we could get the resources to implement it. In the meantime, the applicant for assistance who has a free roof over his head is in a slightly different category from someone who is paying £10 or £15 per week for a flat. With the resources available, one has to make those kind of distinctions to ensure that those who are worst off — I know they are all badly off — are helped to the maximum. In present circumstances, if one were to ignore that aspect it would mean that people in a relatively worse position could not be helped. I would dearly like to see a situation where there would be no reference to the income of parents or the houses which they occupy but there is a major problem in trying to devise such a scheme. It is interesting to note that when times were better and the number of recipients was not nearly as high no attempt was made to do anything about it.

May I——

May I remind Deputies that we will have the budget next week and that might be a more appropriate platform from which to discuss this?

Would the Minister urge his Government colleagues to take a very serious look at this position? He has shown some sympathy but that is not enough. Young people are being condemned to emigration and it is not good enough to say that the situation is serious, but we are not doing anything about it.

Would the Minister confirm that the means test on single people living at home is not confined to young people but that 30 year old and 40 year old people may be living at home with their parents on as little as £3 or £4 a week unemployment assistance? How does the 12½ per cent maximum deduction for board and lodging operate? Is it 12½ per cent on each individual in the household or 12½ per cent maximum? What income is taken as the basis for assessing unemployment assistance? Is it annual income? Is it the previous year's income or next year's expected income, or is it simply based on the income on the day the welfare inspector calls? When was the last time the £90 parental allowance was reviewed and increased in line with the cost of living?

I can answer some of the Deputy's questions but I do not have to hand all the information he needs because the question relates to assessment of means. In the case of wage earning families, the method of calculation is to deduct from the net parental income, that is, gross income less income tax and PRSI contributions, an amount to cover rent, mortgage repayments and a set parental allowance, currently £90 for a two parent family and £80 for a one parent family. The remainder is then divided among the non-earning members of the household, including the applicant, and the sum arrived at is taken as the value of the applicant's board and lodging subject to a maximum limit of 12½ per cent of the net income. It is different for farming families.

If the Minister does not have the information today perhaps he would let me know by letter if it is correct that the 12½ per cent should be applied to each individual of the family. In other words, if there are two or more applicants for unemployment assistance in a family, that 12½ per cent applies to each applicant rather than to the gross income. From cases which have come to my attention it seems that where two young people have applied the 12½ per cent ceiling is applied to each individual rather than both together. As regards the basis of the income, is it annual income, the income for the previous year or the following year, or is it on a day to day basis taking into account the paid overtime a person works in any given week?

I will have my Department answer the Deputy's detailed questions and send the replies to him directly.