Dr. Joe Whelan:

I thank the Deputy for his questions. As somebody who has volunteered as an information provider for the citizens information service for many years, I have some grasp of the complexity that must come across a TD's constituency office in terms of the individual circumstances people find themselves in, up against a system that is not necessarily designed to see the individual. Most of what I had intended to say has been covered already. I will just give a series of short answers.

On the Deputy's question about how to move towards individualisation and whether it should be done gradually, it needs to be gradual in light of the political expediency. In many ways, the introduction of a more universal system, be it a UBI, a participation income or something else, would move us towards a more individualised system, as it would allow people to approach how they wished to do things on an individual basis. Having a more universal provision would in many ways take the onus off the system.

I would echo my colleagues’ comments on self-employment. Earnings from self-employment should be treated the same as earnings from employment. The distinction is moot at this point and does not benefit anyone.

Regarding the assessment of capital, I will be in danger of repeating what has already been said. Leaving aside liquid assets, fixed assets are not necessarily an indication of wealth. They may not be earning assets. For example, they may be a family home. In that context, I am not sure how much emphasis we should place on capital.

The Deputy spoke about particular individuals who, for whatever reason, could not engage in the labour market or, in some cases, should not but who do not necessarily have a clinical definition for that reason. What do we do in those circumstances? The Deputy pointed out that these individuals were a small cohort. I will make two comments. First, regardless of whether they cannot, will not or should not engage in the labour market, we still need to look after them. Second, we should not make policy based on a very small percentage of people who do not integrate with the system in the way we wish they would. They are such a small percentage, they should not be the driving or guiding force behind how we make policy.

The Deputy spoke about where the burden of deservedness was placed. It is telling that we obsess a little about deservedness at the very lowest level. When it is a single parent or jobseeker, we emphasise the idea of deservedness, yet there are people far higher up the food chain and who have much more than others whose deservedness to hold such wealth and assets we do not question. When we think about deservedness, we tend to do it looking down. That is problematic and speaks to how we envision welfare. When we introduced the PUP, we shifted how we thought about deservedness, if only for a short time. We led with an income first model. If someone lost his or her employment due to the pandemic, he or she was entitled to the pandemic unemployment payment. In many ways, it was a universal payment based on the principles of trust and income first. Many lessons could, and should, still be learned from how we managed welfare during that period. We shifted the burden of deservedness, we did not perform scrutiny under suspicion, we accepted people’s bona fides and we had an income first, care-led model. That is something to which we could aspire.

I hope I have answered some of the Deputy’s questions.