Dr. Nat O'Connor:

In relation to the application process, it should be possible for the Department of Social Protection to have a single form whereby people can fill out their details and be told what payments exist. Unfortunately, though, many people have the experience that unless they tell the officer sitting across the desk that they are applying for certain payments, they will not be informed if such a payment exists. That is a concern. When the Department does engage in advertising, as it has done recently with the additional needs payment and the fuel allowance payment for people aged over 70, it has seen an uptake. This shows that people are unaware of entitlements and that such advertisements can work.

On the consolidation of means testing, which the Deputy raised, that was a proposal by the Troika, comprising the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission. There is a danger here that there could be a consolidation downwards to minimise the welfare system to a real minimum. At the same time, while it makes sense to consolidate the means tests into a coherent system, it should not be a levelling down but a levelling up, and it should make sure that these anomalies that we currently have do not occur.

On the issue of taxation of universal benefits, we tax the contributory State pension and we also tax the non-contributory State pension, which is means tested because people can earn a certain amount of money, €200 per week in fact, alongside that. That figure has not changed with inflation either and, therefore, the amount of money a person can earn has gone down. While it is not strictly a means test, it is an example of how one of the eligibility rules has been diminished by inflation because that, too, has not kept up as these things have changed.

On the final point, which was about participation income, our welfare system is based on an anti-poverty approach. It provides a minimum or basic income to keep people out of poverty. It is not like the income replacement systems that are common across north-west Europe. From that point of view, people should be entitled to an income based on their basic human rights and their need to achieve a minimum essential standard of living. There should not be a participation eligibility element to that; it is simply a basic requirement. If we had more earnings-related top-ups, we could perhaps talk about participation income, rather than this happening for the basic welfare payments.