Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their work and for their interest in this area. I am somewhat of an economist myself; my background is in economy. I am always trying to understand areas where convergence would work, as well as where we could work towards that convergence in order to make the reunification as structurally easy as possible. The witnesses have made it very clear in their discussions that in the convergence between North and South we want the North to go towards the South. We want for the South to improve as it progresses along its path but we want the North to really step up. Dr. Fitzpatrick was very clear on that.

On the political side of things, because this is where we are, it is a matter of creating the actions and those policy changes. We are now hopefully going closer to that. We all pray we are getting closer to having an Assembly back in Northern Ireland. Where are we? What advice can the representatives' groups give to the next Minister who is in charge in the North to get those policies working towards the way we do it, as well as to constantly improve? There are so many ways we can improve in the South. Deputy Tully spoke about this regarding the issue of the carers' allowance and other areas on which we were constantly in agreement on the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Disability Matters. How can we proactively support a North-South Ministerial Council, which we all hope will happen within the next couple of months? How can we, as this implementation committee, work towards that convergence? The ideology of a reunification is one thing, and that is where I am. However, no matter what ideology you have, it would be better because we would be raising everyone's boat on the island.

First, I refer to those devolved powers in Scotland of which Dr. Fitzpatrick spoke. How do we support that? It is very much about us here supporting the North, as well as about us learning from the issues. Also, we all want to move towards a Scandinavian model, whether that is in childcare, social welfare and so on.

My second question goes back to Dr. Boland's initial conversation about supporting social welfare payments for people who are unemployed. I am going to throw out the idea of the no sanction, no circumstance requirements. Has research been done on supporting the low-paid job, as opposed to increasing social welfare and having those circumstances? I refer to positively discriminating in order to help low-paid workers, because we know that labour activation is not just about the job; it is about inclusion in society, about getting work and about going out there. When I was unemployed, I did not have positive experience on social welfare, just like a lot of people. You would swear I was taking the money from them. Personally, it was very difficult for me when I was unemployed. I felt really bad about myself but when I got into a job, I got working and I started using my own skills. Where is the research in relation to this? This may be a segue into the conversation we will have about how support getting away from low-paid jobs and supporting people who are in them. That may be by keeping their benefits, keeping their medical cards, keeping their free pass, increasing the family income supports etc. This will be in order to keep them in labour, as opposed to having no sanctions. I understand this is very delicate, but I am just trying to pull out that side of the argument.