asked the Minister for Social Welfare if it is intended to act on the recommendation of the Combat Poverty Agency report, Poverty and the Social Welfare System, that a detailed study should be undertaken to establish the reasons for the non-take-up of social welfare benefits and to identify those most at risk; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Non-Take-up of Social Welfare Benefits.
10.
The report Poverty and the Social Welfare System in Ireland presented the first results from a large scale national household survey on poverty, income distribution and the usage of State services, carried out by the ESRI. The study was jointly sponsored by the Combat Poverty Agency, the EC Commission and the ESRI itself. The survey results indicated that a number of people appeared to have incomes below the level of supplementary welfare allowance but did not establish the reasons for this.
There are a number of possible explanations for this finding. In surveys of this kind, which involve personal interviews, it can often be difficult to obtain reliable estimates of means. Alternatively, some of the findings may be due to the fact that the researchers' approach to assessing income was different from the means tests used by the Department.
The Combat Poverty Agency's comments on the report included the recommendation that a detailed study should be instigated to establish the underlying reasons for non-take-up of benefits and to identify those most at risk in this regard. Additional funding has been made available to the ESRI, through the Combat Poverty Agency, to undertake research into the question of non-take-up of payments as part of a second phase of the study. This research will involve reinter-viewing a proportion of the original sample to identify those whose incomes are still below the supplementary welfare allowance level and then returning to the households in question to explore the reasons for non-take-up of benefits. The fieldwork for the study will begin within the next few weeks, and the final report should be ready by the end of the year.
The Minister must be aware that the non-take-up of social welfare benefits is not confined to supplementary welfare allowances and the question he dealt with earlier on the family income supplement is a case in point. The projected take-up of this scheme was in the region of approximately 30,000 but the actual take-up was 5,000 or 6,000 at most. Does the Minister not consider that the remit given to the ESRI simply to investigate the non-take-up of supplementary welfare allowance was too narrow and that he would need to broaden it, and in the interim that he would need to take up the second recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare that the independent agencies be assisted and expanded to give more effective advice to people at risk?
The study found that 2.8 per cent of people entitled to benefit appear to be entitled to some form of payment but did not claim it. The payments to which these people appeared to be entitled included unemployment assistance, supplementary welfare allowance and family income supplement. In relation to family income supplement, it was originally thought that the number eligible would be in the region of 35,000, but having studied it again it has been found that the number eligible would be of the order of 20,000.
The rest have emigrated.
Not at all, we now have more detailed information on people's circumstances.
Would the Minister agree that the complicated nature of our social welfare system makes it very difficult for people to understand what they are entitled to? Could I further ask what plans the Minister has to simplify the system and if he would agree that the publicity issued by his Department in relation to claimants' entitlements is phrased in such a complicated manner that it makes it very difficult to understand it?
If the Deputy looks at the record she will find that I have been doing a great deal to simplify the schemes. When the information booklet is published, the Deputy will find that because of steps taken in the recent budget and in the Bill that will come before the House there will be tremendous simplification in the number of rates for different circumstances. There is a great deal of simplification being undertaken at present. With regard to the question on publicity, we are also updating and trying to simplify as far as possible all our publicity information. There is a difficulty in simplifying it in that there are legal constraints and one has to be very careful what one says not to misconstrue the situation. That is the reason I am trying to have a good information service throughout the country where one can discuss the pros and cons, because no matter what way one goes about it there are technical difficulties.
Would the Minister agree that part of the non-take-up of social welfare benefits might be due to the fact that people under report their incomes and might not meet the criteria for entitlement?
To some extent that is indicated in the reply I gave. There is a difficulty in that when one comes to actually doing a means test this is different from a survey asking people how much they have. In a means test you are actually assessing the value of various things which people may not realise at times have value. This applies in particular when assessing farms and farming output.
The Minister must be aware, as virtually every Deputy is aware, of people who have not claimed their entitlements simply because they were not aware of them. Does the Minister not accept the case for targetting more effectively what publicity and information is available to people who are most at risk? For example, the family income supplement should be targeted at low income earners through the Revenue Commissioners who presumably have vast records of people's earnings under the PAYE system. An information leaflet sent out with the tax free allowance certificate would target the people most likely to qualify for family income supplement and similar types of schemes for other social welfare benefits would also produce better results than blanket television and newspaper advertising.
In meeting our targets we have changed our approach to advertising and we will change it further to make it as effective as possible. There is still an element of difficulty in relation to communication, as suggested by Deputy Harney. Information officers will play a very important part here. I want to have a good information system available so we are expanding that area. The process of matching the two sets of records will give us that facility in the long run.