Rate rebates custos
Does the rate rebates scheme hold out any lesson for the new housing rebates? If it does, then the research published today, 'Rate Rebates: A Study of the Effectiveness of Means Tests' by Molly Meacher (Poverty Research Series 1, CPAG 40p plus postage) can be of little comfort to the Government in its attempts to improve the take-up of selective social benefits.
In 1970 the Child Poverty Action Group drew the Government's attention to the low overall take-up of rate rebates which was particularly marked amongst low income families. After a meeting with the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Peter Walker, the Government announced that it intended to carry out a pilot advertising campaign in Islington. Molly Meacher was employed by CPAG to monitor the campaign's effectiveness, and this she did while employed at Brunel University.
During the campaign, 130,000 easily understood leaflets were delivered to households in the borough. For five weeks, advertisements appeared in the local press, and all ratepayers who paid their rates direct (i.e. not those who paid rates as part of their rent) received notice of rebates on the rate demands. The survey's main conclusions are as follows.
(1) Before the advertising campaign, the take-up of rate rebates amounted to only 12 per cent of those eligible in the low income areas of Islington. After the campaign this had risen to 14 per cent.
(2) Pensioners accounted for the vast majority of claimants. Conversely, low income families were very little represented, and amounted to only 6.1 per cent after the campaign.
(3) People most likely to claim were found to be those whose income just entitled them to benefit. The poorest tended to make up the vast majority of non-claimers.
Why is this? Molly Meacher's careful analysis shows that if a family occupied a home which had a rate liability that made a rebate worth claiming, their income made them ineligible for help. But if their income brought them within the qualifying income levels, they were unable to afford the accommodation.
(4) The study also looked at the other means tested benefits available to poor people. And again Mrs Meacher comes up with the same results. Those in greatest need were not in receipt of selective help. This is, however, a finding which does not tally with the published data on FIS. Here, Sir Keith Joseph claims that families eligible for large supplements are disproportionately claiming their right to extra income.
What can be done? Mrs. Meacher reminds us that rate rebates were introduced only as a temporary expedient while a more progressive local tax system was being devised. And she points out that it is very difficult to devise any short-term expedient which will fashion the rebate scheme into an effective anti-poverty weapon.
But one or two changes could be made. The qualifying income level should be raised substantially, and local clearing houses established for those wishing to claim means tested assistance. Claimants making application for one form of help would then be told of all other relevant benefits which could be claimed without further form-filling.
Previous page
