asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that many young people who are unemployed are denied unemployment assistance because of their parents' means; that some others are in receipt of as little as 70p per week; if, in view of the fact that this could be encouraging young people to emigrate, he will consider introducing a minimum payment for all those who are unemployed, which would be paid regardless of household means; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Entitlement to unemployment assistance is assessed according to a person's means and family circumstances. The rate of assistance payable in any particular case depends on the amount of weekly means assessed. Where the weekly means exceed the maximum level of unemployment assistance, no assistance is payable. Even where the payments are small the recipients are entitled to priority for other benefits including FÁS schemes and programmes.

In assessing a person's means for unemployment assistance purposes account is taken of the value of any benefit and privilege enjoyed, such as board and lodging. The purpose of this assessment is to achieve a degree of equity as between applicants in different household circumstances. This is a long-standing method of assessing entitlement to unemployment assistance.

The operation of the means test ensures that assistance is targeted at those who are most in need and is an equitable way of directing limited resources. Introducing a minimum payment for all those who are unemployed regardless of household means would have major financial implications, particularly if such payments were to be set at a level which would have a significant bearing on the decision of young people to emigrate. Provision for such payments would, in effect, be at the expense of those in greatest need and would be difficult to justify at a time when the priority is to improve the position of those on the lowest payments.

The Minister said that this is a long-standing method of assessment. Is it not time the Minister looked at it again? The Minister said that in assessing means the value of a benefit or privilege is taken into account. Is it not a fact that if a young person leaves his home and goes to live in private rented accommodation, not alone is he able to draw the full amount of unemployment assistance but he is also given a rent allowance to pay to the landlord? Why is the Minister prepared to give a rent allowance to the landlord but gives no allowance to the parents for keeping the child? That is the area of assessment of means that I want to direct the Minister's attention to.

I would like to appeal for brief questions, please.

This system is in operation since 1933, with modifications from time to time. I appreciate the point the Deputy is making. It is true that a person in a flat is entitled to full benefits. Unfortunately the cost of removing this benefit in kind would be, at the minimum, £14 million per year. The equity of doing it would also be questionable. If we had £14 million, would it be better to spend it on people in the lowest circumstances generally or to spend it on raising everybody up a little? All I can say is that the method of assessment is under review at present.

Does the Minister realise that the system as it operates at the moment is driving young people out of their homes into private rented accommodation? Does the Minister also recognise that it is driving them out of the country because many young people get as little as 70p, maybe £5, and must therefore emigrate?

That solves the Minister's problem.

The amount involved would hardly be sufficient to drive people out of the country. There are other factors that are responsible for that.

The amount is about £42.

This is basically a system which provides greater equity. Somebody living in very fine circumstances, well provided for, will not get as much as somebody in lesser circumstances. That is the basic equity of the situation operating since 1933. It is being reviewed at present but there is the basic question of where one best spends the £14 million. Within those circumstances it is being reviewed.

The Minister mentioned a figure of £14 million. What would be the cost of implementing the recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare to remove the requirement for over 25s? What has the Minister done in relation to removing the discrimination in the method of assessment as between wage earning families and farm families? Is the Minister aware that there is a continuing discrimination against the offspring of farming families? Has that discrimination been removed and, if not, why not? Is there anything the Minister intends to do about it?

The commission recommended that there should be no benefit and privilege assessment for persons over 25. They also recommended that there would be a flat rate of £10 a week paid for those between the ages of 18 and 25.

What is the cost?

The Deputy did not ask about the cost in his question. The overall figure is £14 million and the figure for the 18-25 age group is £5 million. That is to provide a minimum payment of £10 per week.

What about those over 25 years of age? The Minister did not reply to my question about the common method of assessment.

If the Deputy wants specific figures he should state that in his question.

My second question related to the common method of assessment as recommended on page 263 of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. What is the Minister doing about that recommendation?

We are, as I said earlier, reviewing the matter.

That is ridiculous.

I am calling Deputy Stagg. I am not prepared to dwell unduly long on this or any other question.

Is the Minister aware of the wild variations that occur between a first decision on means and appeals against such decisions? Is the Minister in a position to give an explanation for those wild variations? Will he confirm that persons who are deemed to have an income that would disallow them any payment are excluded by the social welfare code from all other benefits, including the FÁS schemes he referred to?

I referred to those matters in my original reply.

The Minister has ignored my question.

I am calling Deputy Harney.

The Minister in his reply referred to the other schemes and I am asking him to confirm that people deemed to have an income are excluded.

If the Deputy is dissatisfied with the Minister's reply he has a remedy. Deputy Harney has been called.

The Minister ignored my final question. I asked him if he would confirm that persons who have received no payment are also excluded from all other benefits.

The Deputy should desist.

The Minister wishes to reply to my question.

If the Minister wishes to reply to the Deputy he will be afforded an opportunity.

The Deputy is trying to be argumentative.

I am trying to get information.

The Deputy, like other Members, will be aware that unless a person is in payment he or she is to a large extent excluded, not necessarily entirely. Such a person will not get priority from any of those schemes and that is why I stated that people who get a small payment are included in the priority.

Will the Minister agree that it is inappropriate that parents should have to have financial responsibility for their children up to the age of 25 years? Has the method of assessing means changed recently? Is it now a percentage of the parents' income?

In response to the second question I should like to tell the Deputy that there has been no change recently. However, the whole question is being reviewed.

The Minister has ignored the recommendation of the commission on that.

That is not true and I have stated that it is included in the review.

This is the soft option.

The method has been the same for a long time.

7.