Proposed changes to Jobseeker's Allowance under Budget 2010

singingstranger

Hi folks, just something that struck me earlier.

As most of you will probably have heard, earlier the Government announced plans to cut the amount paid in jobseeker's allowance (i.e. the dole) as part of its budget cutbacks. It's proposed that for new applicants aged 20 or 21 that the allowance would be capped at €100 per week, while for anyone older than that it's to be capped at €150.

I was wondering, though - given that there is no variable criterium (other than an applicant's age) for how much an applicant is going to be paid, couldn't it be argued that the proposal would be blatantly discriminant against people under the age of 22?

I can't claim to have any legal training but I had a quick browse through the constitution, UN charter and the European convention and can't find anything that prohibits distinction between citizens based on their age - likely to safeguard the rights of children and pensioners, I would imagine - but given that a 21-year-old would have the same standing as a 22-year-old, and if he was on the dole (so as to satisfy locus standi), would he have a case to bring?

Just thought I'd put it up; if anyone can enlighten me I'd like to hear your takes on it.

r14

Article 40.1 of the Constitution provides an equality guarantee. So it is possible that someone could bring a challenge on the basis of discrimination. It's an interesting point though. You always imagine discrimination on the grounds of age as being between a 20-something yr old and a 60 yr old.

I doubt any challenge would be successful though. Generally when they are dealing public expenditure issues or taxes the courts will be very wary of interfering. Imagine if a person succeeded in their challenge and to make up the shortfall the Government had to cut public servant salaries even more or reduce the state pension. People wouldn't be very happy with the Courts interfering in the executive function like that.

singingstranger

I did wonder whether by that logic, someone could argue that almost all forms of welfare would be legal. Interesting point re separation of powers though.

Dante09

Very interesting question indeed, especially from an A40.1 point of view.
I wonder whether the recent JD decision by the supreme court may bare any influence on this point. There the SC held
"The choice of an age limit of 18 years for those seeking redress under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 was a legitimate exercise of legislative power that was not incompatible with the Constitution." (quote from irish times database), in effect overruling the HC decision that setting a a particular age limit in a piece of legislation was unconstitutional.

jaffa20

Good point OP. In any case, it's pretty unfair that someone who is currently on Job seekers allowance will not be affected but those of the same age group who apply from january on will be receiving almost half than the former. That just seems illogical.

doccy

jaffa20 wrote: »

Good point OP. In any case, it's pretty unfair that someone who is currently on Job seekers allowance will not be affected but those of the same age group who apply from january on will be receiving almost half than the former. That just seems illogical.

That's a very interesting point.