There is constant debate in the social science and policy-making fields on the advantages and disadvantages of means testing for social benefits. Most governments prefer to introduce universal be­ne­fits as they are perceived to be fairer and easier to implement. However, those working on the coal face of deprivation and inequality in society make a strong case for raising benefits but giving them only to those who genuinely need them.

As high inflation persists, the financially distressed will feel the pinch more than any other sector of society. Means-tested benefits may not be sufficient to help them live decently. Others with an inflated sense of entitlement will exploit loopholes in the non-contributory social benefits system to claim support they do not need.

The National Audit Office, in a report on the eligibility criteria for non-contributory benefits, has declared that these criteria need to be revised to ensure that social benefits really go to those who need them most. The NAO recommends that people who own a high-value property or summer residence should have that factored into calculations when they apply for non-contributory social benefits.

The NAO report gives convincing reasons why the present criteria are not fit for purpose. It argues that “excluding ownership of a summer residence from the capital means test needs to be revisited, perceiving ownership of such an asset as a significant luxury which, if liquidated or rented out, would surely position its owner above the established thresholds and financial vulnerability altogether”.

It is evident that some of the people who receive means-tested benefits do not genuinely need them. It is, therefore, wholly wasteful that they should be getting them. The benefits inspectors interviewed by the NAO said they sometimes wondered how a benefits recipient could furnish their homes with “certain luxuries” or afford “high-end cars” if they were relying on benefits for their income.

Some challenges cannot be laser-targeted away. The culture of dependence may be preventing some from seeking ways of escaping from a permanent reliance on handouts. At the same time, the culture of entitlement is widespread, encouraged by a long history of politicians doling out favours for votes. This leads to exploitation of the system as if by right.

A review of the current criteria for means testing would need to look at a number of considerations. Qualification for benefits must factor in the realities that surround financial depri­­vation. Persons who genuinely have no means of generating any income because of health problems must be helped in a way that respects their dignity as human beings. For instance, Caritas has often commented on the minimum income required for a family to live a decent life. It is particularly important that financially distressed households with young children are given extra support to help them avoid getting caught in the poverty trap.

Those able to work must be encouraged to continue to do so beyond retirement age. Labour market policies should make it easier for these people to do so. Many try to “stand on their own two feet” for as long as possible. However, when they cannot do so because of genuine limitations, they deserve social support. 

It must be said that revising the eligibility criteria to avoid abuse of the benefits system will only be effective if proper enforcement processes are in place.

It is unjust for scarce resources to be hoovered up by those with sufficient means – even if they must turn to their existing assets for funding – because this deprives the truly needy of a level of benefits that would enable them to live a dignified existence.