Dr. Joe Whelan:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and committee members for the invitation to attend. Means-testing as a component of how we deal with welfare is a very important topic so it is good it is being covered at a high level. My contribution will cover how means-testing is experienced. It is based on my research and that of colleagues here and in other jurisdictions where a similar welfare system persists.

As a person who prefers an ethic of universalism where at all possible, I, as a researcher in the area of welfare, do nevertheless understand and appreciate the need for means-testing as a mechanism for rationing resources.

It may be particularly relevant as a policy instrument in instances where means are not being tested with regard to goods and services at the level of a basic social safety net, for example, with respect to SUSI grants. Means testing in general is seen as necessary by most people, even those who have been subjected to it, and operates both as a method of ensuring equality and as a way of ensuring those most in need are targeted. Removing means testing as a policy instrument in the context of social assistance schemes, such as jobseeker's allowance, in favour of a universal approach to provision would likely be technically difficult and politically challenging. Means testing as a policy instrument at the level of social assistance is therefore likely to be a feature of social provision for some time to come, even if we move gradually toward more social insurance or universal provision eventually.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that improvements to the means-testing system cannot be made. In this respect, based on research - my own and that of others - I suggest that how we do means testing could be greatly improved. In general, means testing in principle is about keeping people out and not about letting them in. Because this is the starting point of means testing, it can be a demeaning process from the outset. Historically, means testing is a very old practice that predates the formation of the State and conceptually devolves on perceived levels of deservingness. This logic in turn is something that characterised a deep historical process of poor relief so means testing has been with us for a long time. In the modern usage of means testing as a policy instrument, income thresholds determine the level of help someone will receive. Yet income, particularly when measured at the level of household, is an inexact measure of the challenges families and individuals within households can face. Access to services, goods, grants or regular payments determined by income-based criteria almost ensures that people with legitimate needs inevitably lose out. It is worth noting that household income and-or access to the labour market are not necessarily evenly distributed across and within households.

As a researcher, I am particularly interested in lived experience and in how people experience social services. Based on my research and that of others, and with respect to means testing specifically, the testimony of those I and others have spoken to suggests that means testing can be very frustrating and even stigmatising for many people even where they understand the necessity of it. Moreover, and more broadly indicative of the experiences of claiming and receiving welfare, it can induce fear in people who need help and resources.

Means testing can also be experienced as intrusive or humiliating as people are asked to lay bare personal and financial information. Again, people often understand the need to do this, but that does not diminish the nature of the experience. A frustration for some is that sometimes means testing will need to be gone through numerous times while claims are being established. People have also spoken about how they are asked to produce what can sometimes feel like an unreasonable amount of information, often in the face of immediate need.

It is also worth noting that people undergoing means testing or claiming welfare generally may well be at a very low ebb and so an intrusive, bureaucratic process can exacerbate already difficult circumstances. Despite this, means testing in the context of seeking social assistance is a purely administrative process with no focus on social care or the broader well-being of the claimant. This is not the fault of the welfare administrator working within a system where no such provision exists. It is a systemic failing.

These are all things that can be addressed within existing systems. I will finish with two broad recommendations. The first is to have easier procedures and more communication between systems so that if an individual completes a means test for one payment, they should not necessarily have to do another in quick succession. The amount and types of information asked for should also be reasonable and based on information that is likely to be accessible and available to the claimant.

The second recommendation focuses on the idea of social care and the idea that social assistance can require social care. A more humane approach to means testing that acknowledges the difficult circumstances a claimant may be facing would be welcome. In practice, this may require welfare administrators to undertake some social care training, while also building care-led responses into the system.