Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:
23
Proinsias De Rossa
asked the
Minister for Social Welfare
, in view of the substantial levels of non take-up of social welfare benefits identified in a recent ESRI report (details supplied), the steps his Department intend to take to identify the reasons for the non take-up and to ensure that all eligible persons are aware of their full entitlements; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Michael Moynihan
Ceist:
35
Mr. Moynihan
asked the
Minister for Social Welfare
the measures he proposes to take in 1990 to ensure a full take up of the family income supplement.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 23 and 35 together.
The reportPoverty, Income and Social Welfare in Ireland presented the results from a large-scale national household survey on poverty, income distribution and the usage of State services, carried out by the ESRI in 1986 and early 1987. The study was jointly sponsored by the Combat Poverty Agency, the EC Commission and the ESRI itself at the request of the Minister for Social Welfare.
The study found that only 3.1 per cent of benefit units appeared to be entitled to some form of payment but did not claim. The payments to which these people appeared to be entitled included unemployment assistance, supplementary welfare allowance and family income supplement. The take-up rate of family income supplement was estimated at between 13 per cent and 22 per cent of the families eligible, and between 14 per cent and 40 per cent of the amounts of money payable under the scheme. One of the aspects of studies such as this is that it can be difficult to get reliable estimates of income from respondents. Thus, some of those whom the survey identified as eligible for payments might not, in fact, be eligible.
Following the publication of the initial findings of the survey, additional funding was made available to the ESRI, through the Combat Poverty Agency, to undertake research into the question of non take-up of social welfare payments, as part of a second phase of the study. This research involved re-interviewing a proportion of the original sample to identify those whose incomes were still below the level of payments to which they may be entitled, and then returning to the households in question to explore the reasons for non take-up of benefits. The fieldwork for this study was carried out last year. The results are currently being processed and a final report should be ready before the end of the year. When I have this information on the reasons for non take-up of benefits, I will consider further the measures which need to be taken to address the problem.
The ESRI report makes specific reference to the low take-up rate of family income supplement. In the last year my Department have intensified their efforts to improve the take-up of this scheme. An advertising campaign to promote family income supplement started at the end of last June. The campaign set out to make information on family income supplement much more widely available. Fact-packs were distributed to people who work in a professional or voluntary capacity with families in low paid jobs. As well as extensive advertising, information leaflets and claim forms are widely available through local social welfare offices and post offices.
In the weeks following the campaign family income supplement applications were more than double their previous levels. Cases in payment increased from 5,159 at the end of 1988 to over 6,000 at the end of 1989.
The advertising campaign was followed in November with a mailshot to families on low wages in the north-west of the country. Further mailshots in other regions are planned, and it is proposed to use a number of different mailshots to test the impact on the response rate. I will also be arranging for research into the reasons why many people who appear to be eligible for family income supplement are still not applying for the scheme.
Families on low incomes who are exempt from income tax could also be entitled to family income supplement. In notifying low-paid taxpayers of the increased tax exemption limits, announced in the 1990 budget, the Revenue Commissioners also alerted such taxpayers this year to their possible entitlement to family income supplement.
One of the reasons for low take-up has been the fear among potential recipients that family income supplement payments will result in loss of entitlement to the medical card. The Government are taking steps to ensure that no person will lose the medical card as a result of claiming family income supplement.
I will shortly be announcing improvements in the levels of family income supplement payments to apply from July and I will be giving particular consideration in this context to the need to improve the level of take-up under the scheme.
Another reason for low take-up of family income supplement, which has been identified by research, is that some persons may have low entitlements and are discouraged from claiming because of the time and inconvenience involved, relative to the value of supplement. I am giving consideration to the possibility of determining a minimum payment under family income supplement, which would give such persons an incentive to take up their entitlement. This will be in addition to general increases in family income supplement rates, which will also serve to increase the value of family income supplement to those who have currently a low entitlement.
