asked the Minister for Social Welfare her views on the anomaly which occurs in our tax and social welfare systems where a person (details supplied) in Dublin 7 who has been separated from his wife for a number of years and is now sharing a house with a partner of several years standing is not entitled to any social welfare assistance because his partner is earning more than £80 per week, but that she is taxed as a single person, getting no tax allowance for him; and the action she proposes to take in such a case.

The taxation aspects of this matter are appropriate to the Minister for Finance to whom I understand the question is also addressed for reply in the near future. As regards the social welfare system the background to this particular case is as follows.

The person concerned claimed and has been paid unemployment benefit as a single man since 8 March 1985. Due to a clerical error there was an interruption of payment on 23 April 1986. Payment, however, has now been restored and arrears due from 24 April 1986 will be paid less any supplementary welfare allowance advanced in the interim. Current weekly entitlement is £39.50, which is the appropriate maximum rate payable to a single person. His entitlement will cease by 9 June as on that date he will have drawn his full entitlement of 390 days benefit.

He recently applied for unemployment assistance and his case was referred to a social welfare officer for investigation of his means. During the course of the investigation he apparently declined on request to provide details of the earnings of the person with whom he is cohabiting. This information is required in order to establish the value of the benefit accruing to him from her earnings. In the absence of such information any claim to unemployment assistance would have to be disallowed. An officer will shortly revisit him to afford another opportunity to supply the relevant information.

The assessment to be done in this case is a statutory requirement to be found in section 146 (i) (e) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, which provides that means for unemployment assistance purposes must take account of the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the claimant. This legislation covers all such situations where, for example, a person derives benefit from the earnings or income of a spouse or partner or head of household in which the claimant lives.

The criteria used to determine the value of any benefit or privilege are designed to ensure that each case is decided fairly having regard to the standard of living of the household. In this context it is important to recognise that the scheme is designed to cater for people who are in need and the amount payable in any case is directly related to the applicant's financial circumstances. The purpose of the means test is to achieve a degree of equity between applicants living in better off circumstances and those whose circumstances are poor.

Can I ask the Minister if he accepts that there is an anomaly here? The State cannot have it both ways. Does the Minister accept that the lady and the gentleman involved are regarded as single people for tax purposes and do not get the benefits to which they would be entitled if they were married? Yet for the purposes of the Social Welfare Act it appears that the person in this case is not entitled to assistance and is about to be penalised by virtue of an income in respect of the person with whom he is living although that person is being taxed as a single person. It should be one way or the other. If the tax liability was on the same basis as that for a married couple it would be fair enough. They would have that advantage.

I want to assure the Deputy that as far as the Department of Social Welfare are concerned, there is no discrimination in the way in which the provisions of this section of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act are applied.

By and large, those provisions have been there since the introduction of the social assistance schemes. The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot answer for the Minister for Finance. He will answer the question which the Deputy put down for him. The provisions of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act are being complied with here and there is no discrimination for any reason.

I do not want to pursue this unduly. I do not like putting down oral questions of a personal nature because there are other ways of getting the information. There is a general principle involved here and I do not think my constituents or others are concerned with whether it is dealt with by this Minister or the Minister for Finance. On the one hand, one Government Department categorise the parties involved as being, in effect, responsible to each other and having a joint income. Therefore, they are disadvantaged from the point of view of the assistance to which this man would be entitled.

However, another Government Department take revenue on the basis that they are not inter-related in any way. That contradiction has to be addressed. It is not a question of whether or not the Act is being implemented properly. It is a question of an anomaly which has arisen. It is costing people money. I would be grateful if the Minister would investigate this in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to see whether or not they will be taxed as a couple who are in effect married for the purpose of assistance in this case, or they will have the benefits which normally apply to two separate people in terms of the Social Welfare Act.

The whole area of benefit and privilege is one that has been examined by the Commission on Social Welfare. The Minister received their report yesterday.

Has she any view on this?

We will see what view they have expressed on this whole area of benefit and privilege and not just on the type of case to which the Deputy refers. The same criteria and provisions of the Act are used in the case of a married couple. There is no difference as far as assessment of means is concerned.

Does the Minister accept that this principle needs re-examination?

I would not like to preempt what is in the report of the Commission on Social Welfare but I am sure there will be much discussion on their viewpoint.

What does the Minister think?

As far as I am concerned, I would like to see the whole area of means testing abolished completely.

That is a separate question.

4.