Dr. Tom McDonnell:

I very much would. I think it was an incomprehensible decision to get rid of it. When it happened, I agree that it did seem triumphalist and almost vengeful at the time. One wonders about the real reasoning. Even so, “Yes” is the answer. We are not doing this as a society. We are not gathering the data or doing the research, with some exceptions, of course. We are not doing that rigorous research to identify what are the consumption patterns and what people need for an adequate standard of living that allows them to fully participate in society without deprivation. We have to do that research.

We know that we now have the adequate minimum wage directive, which is supposed to do part of this job in terms of wages, and that will probably go beyond 60% to 66% eventually, I suspect. Why not do it for the welfare system as well? We need to do it for vulnerable people on fixed incomes who, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach said, are essentially knocked around like a political football for six months, treated like children, effectively, and completely disenfranchised. We need to have a rigorous, evidence-based process which will have academics and civil servants from the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform look at fiscal sustainability, social protection and so forth and bring in their insights, but also NGOs, users and a secretariat, such as the Combat Poverty Agency. They are doing the on-the-ground research and building up their skill sets over time - over decades, in fact. They are open to ideas and looking to what other countries are doing, what works and what does not work. We need something like that. We have a Low Pay Commission for low wages, we have a fiscal council for the budget. I do not understand why we do not have one for poverty, deprivation and welfare payments as well. Unfortunately, it will always be necessary because the market does not care to and will never be able to provide adequate incomes for all in any event.