Dr. Tom Boland:

It comes down to this question about UBI but on the question of carers, there is a broad feeling in favour of universal entitlements and automatic entitlements where possible and where they make sense. Certainly in the case of carers, where you can demonstrate that you have a caring duty, as Dr. Dukelow was explaining earlier, there is the idea of participation income. It is the sort of area where you can target and focus supports that are not means-tested and are essential to achieving social goods such as, for example, carers alongside lone-parent families which are caring relationships also. Where it can get into a sticky situation is in terms of the State insisting that you are doing something in particular. But we also fully support non-means-tested pensions inasmuch as we feel that is something that should not be subject to question. You should have an automatic entitlement after a certain number of years of life to support from the State. Absolutely, it seems that a non-means-tested version of the carer's allowance is something we would probably support - or I would support - or, at the very least, strong disregards should be created around it whereby if you have other income but also have caring duties, your entitlements are not means-tested.

The UBI and the grand gesture of universal payments are not something that we are going to generate from this committee room as they are very much a political question. We have been looking at means-testing as a frugal minimiser of spending but it also exists at the other end, that is, the sharp end where it is invasive towards people, where it is penny-pinching and there are cliff edges and trapdoors and so on and so forth. The other aspect of means-testing is that it ensures those who have independent wealth and might fit a certain category are not given the State's largesse. It has this emphasis on promoting equality or equality of income, which is one good thing that can be said for it. In that way UBI gets rid of that, whether you are well or badly remunerated, which seems problematic. Even if UBI is not exploited by employers - which is a possibility that has been pointed out - as a way to remove the floor and fundamentally change the employment contract, it is good for relieving absolute poverty but it does absolutely nothing about inequality. In that way it has its limitations. Consequently, reforming the system is the direction I am going with in that regard.