Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Apr 2023

Pensions and Social Security: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

Apologies have been received from Stephen Farry, MP. On behalf of the committee I welcome, online, Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick, lecturer in law at Ulster University, and, in person, Dr. Tom Boland, lecturer in sociology at University College Cork, to discuss the social protection systems on both sides of the Border and how they might operate in a unified or federal state.

I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practices of the Houses regarding references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. This is what we read to every witness. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. However, witnesses and participants who give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within those precincts, and they may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.

Witnesses are also asked to note that only evidence connected with the subject matter should be given. They should respect directions given by the Chair and the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to a person or entity's good name.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members that they must be on the Leinster House campus to participate in the meeting.

I call Dr. Fitzpatrick to make her opening statement.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the invitation to articulate an ambition that I share with colleagues across this island, that a new social security system in a unified state is one that is built on the tenets of dignity, respect and the provision of a replacement income which will ensure that all people can afford a minimum standard of living. To this point, the social security and pensions systems North and South have not received extensive attention in the increasing discord on the future of this island, despite the provision of social protection accounting for one of the largest areas of public expenditure in both jurisdictions. As such, we very much welcome the opportunity to emphasise how important it is to provide this area of social policy with forensic consideration in ongoing constitutional debate.

I am pleased to report that Dr. Boland and I are involved in a new group, the All-Island Social Security Network, AISSN, which brings together a group of academics who are researching the social security system North and South to think through some of many complexities of unifying or co-ordinating two huge wheels of government administration into an effective system that delivers for those who require economic protection. Our first official meeting will be in May and we are keen to maintain contact with this committee and others across political and civil society who are imagining a new Ireland.

I will first address social security in the North. The British social security system, with which Northern Ireland largely maintains parity, and the social security system in the Republic of Ireland have more in common than which divides them, as both systems mirrored the development of the British welfare state following partition. Yet, in the last ten years, we have witnessed increasing divergence in the generosity of both systems, particularly for those of working age and in respect of the levels of conditionality applied to claimants. Current benefit levels in the North can be considered to be at an all-time low since their introduction in the 1948. At that time, unemployment benefit was equivalent to 20% of average weekly earnings. Today’s equivalent, the universal credit standard allowance, has fallen to 12.5%. The most recent uprating means that working-age social protection is being maintained at the greatly diminished level of adequacy it had reached in the late 2010s.

The trend of providing support outside the social security system, through a series of one-off payments to those in receipt of some social security benefits and through a web of discretionary payments provided by the Department for Communities, the Housing Executive and some larger local councils, continues. One-off payments provide some temporary relief from immediate pressures but no long-term protection against poverty. Those at pension age have been protected to a greater extent due to the Conservative Party’s commitment to maintain the triple lock, which denotes that pensions will rise by the highest of three measures, namely, inflation, wage growth or a figure of 2.5%.

The benefit cap, which caps the income a household can receive from the social security system and is mitigated in Northern Ireland until 2025, and the two-child limit, which limits protection to the first two children born after April 2017, break a long-standing, Beveridgean link between benefit awards and need, measured according to family size and housing costs, in favour of an unjustified retrogression of rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The British social security system is at a conditionality precipice where the post-war aim of developing a centralised system to provide some semblance of economic security has become secondary to ensuring the unemployed claimant and, more recently, the low-paid claimant can secure complete financial independence from the state. Over the past ten years, the government has substantially sharpened the stick for those claiming social security benefits to beat them into any form of work, despite its own evidence suggesting that such punitive approaches have limited value and yield far from optimum results, with those sanctioned more likely to be forced into low paid and precarious employment.

What about social security in a new Ireland? In our paper for the Analysing and Researching Ireland North and South, ARINS, project, Charles O’Sullivan and I assert that a constitutional reunification process provides an exciting opportunity to build a new welfare state from the ground up, prioritising the social, economic and cultural rights of contemporary society. The complexity of co-ordinating the administration of both systems cannot be underestimated, particularly as the administration of tax and benefits in the North remains split across the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland and His Majesty's Revenue and Customs, HMRC, in England. We consider the current co-ordination efforts on matters of social security contained in the common travel area and while we recognise what works well, and indeed what does not, we also acknowledge the considerable gap between co-ordination of two distinct systems and the formation of a whole-island approach in the case of reunification. This will necessitate difficult conversations on the shape of a new system.

In respect of pensions, it is important to note the existing agreement between the British and Irish Governments in which Britain agrees to honour historical national insurance records of Northern workers and existing pension entitlements of those retiring in the South. As Tomlinson underlines, this is ultimately a political matter but for planning purposes the assumption should be that the law is honoured.

Ultimately, to answer all the crucial and difficult questions posed by creating a unified social security system will require going back to basics and revisiting normative questions such as “What is the purpose of social security?” If we do not get that right, and if we underestimate the value of comprehensive social protection in the creation of economic prosperity, the utopian vision of a new Ireland could be greatly compromised.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Fitzpatrick for her address. We will now hear from her colleague, Dr. Boland, after which we will have questions. Each group will have 15 minutes to ask questions. It will be an informal session which will, I hope, allow us to benefit from the witnesses' knowledge in this area. I invite Dr. Boland to make his statement.

Dr. Tom Boland

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. In 1998, when the Good Friday Agreement was signed, the Republic of Ireland had probably the most generous welfare system in the world. It was generous not just in terms of cash but also in terms of trust. The Department of Social Protection looked on unemployment benefit at that time as an entitlement, almost like a right. Being unemployed was never and is never an easy option. Payments have always been less than the minimum wage but, back then, it was secure. An unemployment payment was as reliable as a pension, as such.

The differences between welfare systems North and South are many and reflect economic factors and governmental priorities. Any movement towards a united or federal Ireland should ensure that all citizens on the island are treated equally by those systems. The opportunity to discuss different welfare systems and consider lines of development alongside Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick and the committee and drawing from research carried out by the AISSN is very welcome and important.

Unfortunately, current trends towards confluence on the island reflect the tendency of governments in Dublin to imitate measures which were developed by governments in London. The Northern Executive's mitigation of UK welfare reforms in 2012 demonstrates that there is an appetite for other policy directions, perhaps following more European models. We have, therefore, an opportunity for new thinking in this conversation.

After the Troika bailout in 2010, the Irish State remodelled welfare, copying ideas from the UK, Australia and even the US. It introduced conditionality, activation and sanctions. This means that even if a person is eligible for a welfare payment, it is no longer secure. Any non-compliance with the directives of welfare officers, even missing a meeting, can result in a cut to welfare which puts people below the poverty line or may even make them destitute. Since Covid, the severity and frequency of these measures have reduced somewhat. The rather dubious JobPath scheme and the "Welfare cheats cheat us all" campaign are behind us I hope. Yet, a more suspicious and punitive attitude has become ingrained in the system and conditionality and sanctions have become routine and accepted. I want to be very clear that sanctions do not work. Threatening and punishing people does not create more jobs. Earlier this month, as Dr. Fitzpatrick mentioned, the UK finally published a report which shows that people who are sanctioned move to accept less well-paid jobs.

Research in Ireland suggests that even the threat of sanctions depresses people's wages and pushes them into lower quality jobs. North and South, we need to move away from sanctioning and return to the ideal of unconditional support, and offer information, training and education as options to help people back to work.

While the Republic perhaps once had a most generous welfare state, the provision of services was somewhat lacking and often outsourced to the church, historically. There is no NHS south of the Border. The welfare state should also extend beyond cash payments to housing, healthcare and education, all three of which should be rights assured by the State, rather than left up to the market.

Effectively, the Irish welfare system, like any welfare system, is a hybrid, made up of different ideas and systems borrowed from elsewhere. If there is ever to be an all-island welfare system, we must give very careful thought to the values that underpin the system we adopt. I too am a hybrid. My great-grandfather was a Presbyterian who left west Cork in a hurry during the War of Independence. My mother is English, and my father a Dub. He met her when his whole family emigrated to England and part of his family were Huguenot back in the day and refugees from France. Inniu, táim líofa sa Ghaelainn, rud a fuair me ó mo bhean chéile. Is hybrid mé mar táimid go léir.

It is like The Cider House Rules in that we make them up every day. Any welfare system is a hybrid; it is recreated every year by politicians and policymakers, by the people who run the systems. The challenge of an all-island welfare state is also an opportunity to examine our systems and what we want to achieve with them. It is not just a technical task but also a question of politics and cultural values, so this conversation is very welcome.

An Cathaoirleach

I was reading more of Dr. Boland's analysis. I thank him for his contribution. How did the group originate? Do they self-select? When Dr. Boland says “a group”, I presume he means two or more.

Dr. Tom Boland

Yes. Dr. Fitzpatrick will deal with that.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

Basically, I was invited to write a paper for the ARINS project, which is funded by the Royal Irish Academy. It was at that point that I realised there has not been a lot of open conversation between academics interested in social security in the North and the South. I sent an email around to all of the academics I could find who are working on these issues across multiple disciplines, whether that be law, social policy, sociology, politics or history, and invited them to become involved. Approximately 15 of us are to meet in May in Dublin and it is at that initial meeting that we are going to set out what we want to achieve, how we are going to operate, how we might expand and how we might engage others in the research that we are doing.

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome what you are doing because it is something that is of great concern to everybody. If there is a proposition to be made, it has to be based on fair and appropriate analysis. From what Dr. Boland was saying, are there any advantages in the present system that he would note? Given some of the language that the witnesses are using - I know they are academics and I am the politician – they sound more like politicians than academics. Dr. Boland mentioned penalties. From my experience as a Deputy dealing with constituents and with the Department, I found those in the Department enormously helpful. If somebody has fallen on the wrong side of the regulation and a significant amount may have been owing to the State as a result, they have been very careful and, I would say, aware of and sensitive to the needs of those people. I do not know if Dr. Boland has found that. Perhaps it is our job to get the statistics on that. When we talk about sanctions, I find the administration of the system, with all its faults, extremely helpful, particularly to people who are disadvantaged, who are poor and who fall into the category of greatest need. I do not know if other Oireachtas Members would agree with me.

Dr. Tom Boland

We arrive at a committee and we should probably spend as much time celebrating the achievements, such as the achievement of keeping the country going through Covid. In general, welfare systems everywhere are doing an extraordinary job and they are one of the greatest creations of the modern state. There is no question about that. Overall, as Dr. Fitzpatrick and I have discussed, the welfare system south of the Border is more generous in terms of money and also less harsh in the way it deals with people.

An Cathaoirleach

It is not harsh at all, in fact, and I want to make that point. It is not harsh, to my knowledge. That is an important point to make because, of all the Departments I deal with, I find it the very best.

Dr. Tom Boland

I would say that it is the very best and, in a certain way, it is the best of those we have mentioned so far in the liberal, Anglophone countries we are talking about. It has become remarkably better. We were going in a bad direction. In 2018, which is the last date I have numbers for, we had something like 12,800 sanctions, which is 12,800 people pushed below the poverty line. I have spoken to many of these people and it was for infractions that were as minor as missing meetings.

An Cathaoirleach

I am not aware of that but Dr. Boland's narrative is a real one, which I accept. It is important for us to analyse and support the view that the system needs to improve, and if we have a unitary system or federation, that it is the best of both systems and that we work to improve it.

On another point, there are significant differences between North and South. Has Dr. Boland written or commented on those? For example, benefits for old age pensioners and the unemployed are significantly higher in the South. There are lots of good things in our system.

Dr. Tom Boland

I might let Dr. Fitzpatrick come in on that. The standard rates are approximately twice as high south of the Border but what really matters is that, south of the Border, the pressures under which people are put are much less, and the degree of support that is offered is generally more understanding and takes a longer view in regard to getting people into good jobs, training and education, whereas in the North it is a different story. I will let Dr. Fitzpatrick deal with that.

An Cathaoirleach

Fifty years ago, when I started off in politics, the community welfare system was very harsh but it is much more client- and family-focused now. In particular, I find that with exceptional needs payments and issues such as that, the system has become far more supportive of people and less judgmental, which is all good and is what we need in our system.

Dr. Tom Boland

I was unemployed in the period from 2006 to 2008. I went into those community welfare officers and they were extraordinary and they said, “We will support you and make sure it works out for you.” However, that is no longer the case and we need to return to that great practice. We need to recognise when we have done things well, and in this State we really did things well in respect of social welfare in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. If we are talking about “best in class” or best policy, we should imitate our past rather than across the water.

An Cathaoirleach

The other point I would make is slightly different. At one stage, medical card applications were done by the local community welfare officer and then, unfortunately, they were centralised and, therefore, people either get it or they do not get it. When dealing with the community welfare officers, they understood and knew the families concerned, and would always make that exception, if they could. Those are the good things. I do not know if other people feel that way about it, but that is my knowledge. I am a Fine Gael Deputy, so forgive me for taking my colleagues’ time, which I rarely do.

There is another point that will arise in the future.

Have our guests carried out an assessment of the different demands there might be on the two economies, North and South, if there were to be an equalisation? Is that their area?

Dr. Tom Boland

I speak all the time but we are not really numbers people in that way.

An Cathaoirleach

I spoke to some people in Belfast yesterday. They told me that unemployment in the North is very low, at 2.9%, which is remarkable.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

Unemployment is low but economic inactivity, where people are not in work or are not looking for work, is historically high. Between 25% and 26% of people are not in work or are not looking for work and that is more than five percentage points above the rest of the UK. The main reason relates to sickness and ill health but also to family and caring commitments women have at home. Of course, there is no childcare strategy or investment in the childcare system in the North. While the unemployment figures are low, the economic activity figures are substantial. They are significant and should not be overlooked.

An Cathaoirleach

How do these people manage to exist?

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

It might be that they rely on a partner, have retired or are a student, but many of them are not really existing. They are destitute, in extreme poverty, and struggle to get any support from the State.

Senator Emer Currie

Among that 25% to 26% of economic inactivity, how much relates to sickness and ill health?

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

I pulled up the statistics for this just this morning. Long-term sickness is the biggest reason for the economic inactivity in Northern Ireland, and it increased from 25.1% in 1995, three years before the Good Friday Agreement, to 39.6% in 2022. The overall figure for economic inactivity in Northern Ireland is 26.3%.

Senator Emer Currie

Does Dr. Fitzpatrick know how that compares with the South?

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

I am afraid I do not. I do not know whether Dr. Boland can offer any insights into economic inactivity. It has been a long-standing problem in Northern Ireland because of the legacy of the Troubles and the conflict. There is a growing gap between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, as well as between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Senator Emer Currie

This meeting concerns the ideological approach rather than layering on the economic realities. Our guests are saying we need to get the foundations right to create a social security system. Which countries are the ideal from an ideological point of view, in Dr. Boland's opinion?

Dr. Tom Boland

As we might expect, one answer is Scandinavia. I have colleagues in Denmark. It is not as much ideological as relating to the systems and processes. The Danish system is scaling back from the infrastructure we are building up to activate people and direct them into work. It is beginning to say people will find work in their own way. Another element of the Danish system that appeals to us as researchers is that the department is very open. At present, officers of the Intreo office cannot speak to us about their work in the way that people in almost any other walk of life can. That openness to research and researchers is something we would like to copy from abroad.

Those systems in Scandinavia focus much more on supporting people back into education and training. There is a great deal of debate about the effect of various forms of activation. The UK study from which Dr. Fitzpatrick and I are quoting shows that when people are sanctioned, they will generally just accept any job at all, so they may take the lowest paid job and often quickly end up back on the dole because of short contracts and so on. There is some good evidence to suggest that if people are given proper supports and training, even though they may spend longer unemployed, they will eventually find their way into a more secure job with a career progression path ahead of it. It is about patience.

Senator Emer Currie

Does Dr. Boland have data on the people he is talking about, who might take a job and then fall out of the workplace again? Does he have statistics regarding the churn? It would be important for us to see that, given he is questioning the current activation model.

Dr. Tom Boland

They would be useful data to have. I am a qualitative researcher-----

Senator Emer Currie

Are the data anecdotal, in that case?

Dr. Tom Boland

I would not say they are anecdotal because-----

Senator Emer Currie

They are qualitative rather than quantitative.

Dr. Tom Boland

Yes, but the quantities are in the hundreds. I have 158 interviews and a colleague, Michael McGann, has 117. They are in the hundreds and we find consistently that people say the same sorts of things-----

Senator Emer Currie

I apologise for putting Dr. Boland under pressure but my time is limited. Where is he finding these people for interviews? I worked in marketing, so I understand the difference between a qualitative and quantitative approach. Where is he finding them?

Dr. Tom Boland

It is snowballing. We put up posters in places where unemployed people are likely to be, asking them to contact us if they would like an interview, so it is akin to stopping people in the street. We also work with the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, INOU, to ask whether it can put out a mailshot to its members. Of course, that skews the information to certain people. There is a well-known effect whereby people do not contact you for an interview unless they have something to say, so there may be a degree of skew to that.

Senator Emer Currie

In terms of activation, does Dr. Boland not see the value of the Springboard+ approach, for instance? I am a woman returner, so I have experience of the system. Does he not see any value in the activation programmes we are running?

Dr. Tom Boland

I see great value in all activation programmes that provide people with education resources-----

Senator Emer Currie

What does Dr. Boland mean by resources?

Dr. Tom Boland

Knowledge, information and training skills, or building up people's human capital, as the phrase goes. The difficulty with the system is that many of these systems are connected to conditionality. All kinds of things can be offered and we hope they will be helpful to people, but if they are told they must take up various training or educational resources or risk losing their welfare payment, that will skew people's economic decision-making and they will not be free to choose as they would in the moment. Alternatively, if there were a guarantee whereby as long as people stayed in line with the system, kept within their eligibility requirements and did not do anything fraudulent or anything that broke the conditions of eligibility, there would be a genuine entitlement. At the moment, it is a benefit dependent on behavioural compliance, which involves, for example, turning up at meetings. I cannot believe we do this to people for not turning up to meetings. We would not even treat children in school like this and suspend them for not turning up for school. The same is true of someone refusing to take a job. People having economic freedom to say a job is not for them is something we should preserve. We will find it will be of benefit in the long term because if we are patient and let people choose, they will end up in a better position.

Senator Emer Currie

Are there limits to Dr. Boland's conditionality? I hear what he is saying about the box-ticking side of compliance.

Does Dr. Boland also take the same approach to whether there would be courses for interview skills or supports and things that are more positive? Would he support that or does he think people should not be encouraged and it is completely and 100% up to them to be proactive rather than for the State to support?

Dr. Tom Boland

We should give people the maximum discretion. I know we are all concerned the State might be wasting money on people who are simply not committed or motivated to find a job. However, I would argue the number of people who do not have that internal motivation is small because the carrot of a better wage is a huge carrot. If the carrot is so good, there should be no need for sticks as such. I would suggest the downside, because of the stress it causes to people and the way it pushes them into suboptimal employment, is that even the threat that people might have something suspended is not worth the motivation factor that might be applied to those few who lack any motivation whatsoever.

The intended consequences of sanctioning when it was brought in was to make sure people got back to work, but the unintended consequences have been that it pushes down wages and makes people less happy and more depressed in a non-clinical sense. It affects their day-to-day lives and subjective well-being and it wastes their time. It also drives them into political alienation. People feel the State is not taking care of them. When I see people at these particular protests around the country, I often think this is to an extent or degree because they feel alienated from the State. What social welfare does as an ideal is bind us all together to say, "We will take care of you, not conditionally but no matter what."

Senator Emer Currie

It would be good to see the data on that to understand where that is happening.

My last question is around the difference between the two systems and what happens if we introduce our rate of unemployment benefit. It is more than twice the rate in the UK. It is approximately 2.7 times the rate in the North. What would happen there in terms of the impact on the economy? Would the witnesses say it had to be levelled? How would that be levelled? Do either of the witnesses have any comment on the economic impacts of that?

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

We can definitely forward on the Department for Work and Pensions sanctions report, which provides evidence from the UK Department for Work and Pensions of the impact of sanctions specifically. That is really clear in terms of how it pushes people into low-paid precarious work. It pushes people into destitution and increases people's mental health difficulties. Overall, the detrimental impacts of sanctions and punitive conditionality, such as sanctions, outweigh the benefits. In terms of looking at the way we have a 2.7% increase in unemployment benefit in the South compared with the North, however, it has to be quite a complex overview of the cost of not having that level on society, if that makes sense.

In the North, we talk about the cost of poverty, which is having huge impacts on other public services. We are seeing higher educational underachievement, lower skills attainment and huge impacts on our mental health services and accident and emergency services. It is actually the cost of poverty, so there would have to be quite a complex cost-benefit analysis in order that, in a new Ireland or a reunified Ireland, we would understand at what level it is acceptable to set an unemployment benefit payment. I would say the Republic of Ireland is definitely much more progressive. I would go as far as saying the rate of benefit in the UK and in the North at the minute is completely negligent of people's needs. People are unable to meet their very basic needs. That is obviously borne out with the statistics. We are looking at it. It is only approximately 12% of the average wage. It really is not providing adequate support at all.

As Dr. Boland said, we certainly are not economists. We are focusing on the legislation that would be required to set really strong groundwork for a system. Dr. Boland mentioned the Danish system. I would like to mention quickly what has been happening in Scotland. There were more devolution powers in 2016 around social security in Scotland. It is not a massive difference. Approximately 15% of social security powers were devolved at that point. However, they made a real point of ensuring those key tenets of dignity, respect and the humanity of individuals were really ingrained in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. That has then been reflected in all of the public services and other initiatives such as the child payment that has been activated or acted upon by the Scottish Government since then. I do not think any of us would dispute that front-line workers in job centres, as we have in the North, do amazing work. They are so attentive and empathetic. However, they are completely at the mercy of very tough legislation and very strict boundaries, in the North anyway. I know there is a gentler approach in the South but it is very difficult to exercise empathy when we have so much inhumanity integrated into the legislation.

Senator Emer Currie

Okay. I thank Dr. Fitzpatrick.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I warmly welcome Dr. Boland and Dr. Fitzpatrick to this interesting discussion. It is the inaugural meeting of the committee's work on the perspectives of constitutional change. We are looking at the part we can play to facilitate the discussion and debate and the actions on the necessary planning for the future in terms of finance and economics, healthcare, environment, natural resources, education and skills, and human rights and equality.

I acknowledge the work of some of my colleagues on the constitutional future that has already been done in the Seanad under Senator Mark Daly. Senators Ó Donnghaile, Currie and McGreehan would also have been involved in all that work. What we are trying to do is build on that to answer some of these questions. I am delighted to welcome our guests to be our first witnesses on the pensions and social security part of it under the finance and economics section. I thank them for their most interesting submissions. I also thank their group, and the group of 15 others to which they referred. Indeed, I commend the initiative of getting that group together. They also referred to the other very relevant papers and the conventions and agreements that are in place. It has been invaluable. I have read it with interest. I will start with the final sentence in Dr. Boland's conclusion, because it is worth repeating, "The global resonance of the Irish story means that an All-Island social security system could become a world-leader, turning away from conditionality and sanctions to a more supportive system, a return to the original spirit of the welfare state." That is very important to start with.

First, I want to go to the area of pensions and the existing agreement between the British and Irish Governments in the convention on social security in which Britain agrees to honour pension entitlements of people living in the North and British people living in the South and, indeed, Irish people who live here and have worked in Britain and garnered occupational pensions. Is it Dr. Boland's understanding that were this to continue in the event of reunification, any calculations that are being done in the area could give the firm assumption that pensions would be taken care of?

That point often comes up in discussion. Can we responsibly assume that this would happen, when we are doing the other modelling that we need to do?

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

Yes, I would responsibly assume that and would quote the work of my colleague, Professor Mike Tomlinson, from Queen's University Belfast in that regard.. Ultimately it is likely to be on the table in respect of any future negotiations but in the context of a planning process, as we consider how an all-island social security system could work, we should assume that Britain will honour that agreement and that law, in terms of future calculations and so on.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

In the same way, I suppose, as it does for expats living in France or anywhere else in the world. I know there is a deadline coming up shortly for British and Irish people here who claim British pensions.

Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Charles O'Sullivan assert that a constitutional reunification process provides an opportunity to build a new welfare state from the ground up, prioritising the social, economic and cultural rights of contemporary society. Who would be responsible for driving this? Who should facilitate the discussions that need to be had between the Department of Social Protection and the Department for Communities in the North, to tease these things out?

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

There has to be a host of actors involved in this discussion but ultimately it has be driven forward by those who are going to be in the government of a new Ireland. There is already a connection between the Department of Social Protection and the Department for Communities in the form of long-running summer school. There are already opportunities for conversations and that is something that Dr. Boland and I are really keen to facilitate in any way that we can. Again, we pass on our great appreciation to this committee for giving this important subject the time and space it needs. Of course, we have a lot of amazing civic society actors in this space as well. In the past I was a volunteer for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in Northern Ireland, in north Belfast so I have seen directly the important work that organisation does in terms of anti-poverty campaigning but also in providing emergency support to people.

The Deputy has asked a great question and all I would say is that it is a multilayered conversation. We are really glad that it has started in an official capacity in the Oireachtas and we are really looking forward to sustaining it as we continue to prepare for eventual reunification.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

My next question is for Dr. Boland. Are there practical ways the committee can support the work he is doing, the work of the ARINS project and the vast array of work being done by other academics in planning the constitutional future?

Dr. Tom Boland

In terms of the process that this committee is starting, I presume this is the first of a long series of planned meetings, with a view to gathering together all of the expertise on this. It is worth mentioning that the main source of information in Ireland is the CSO. In terms of high-level reflection, the ESRI publishes a great number of good papers in this area and the work of Mr. Barra Roantree, in particular, is very good in that regard. Gathering all of those perspectives together and subjecting them to interrogation or analysis is very important. It is useful to draw on all the resources, including ours, those of the ESRI and other academics. It is worth mentioning the work of Dr. Michael McGann, who has moved from Maynooth University back to Australia. The committee should consider having him over because he has doing some really interesting work on the fact that is not the character of the people in the systems but the character of the systems as set by government that is relevant. If targets are put into a welfare system, then people chase the targets rather than adhering to the spirit of the system. The spirit of the system is the support, the compassion, the care. Drawing together all of that expertise would be important. I am sure everybody thinks their issue deserves more attention and while housing is currently commanding a huge amount of attention, and rightly so, as is health, social welfare affects so many people, whether they are currently receiving a payment or not. Everyone will be receiving such a payment eventually. All of the students that myself and Dr. Fitzpatrick lecture to will eventually be in that situation so making this into a national conversation rather than a technical fix is so important.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

It is very important, in that context, to have a framework within which all this work can be done. That is why the work between the two Departments is so important. Indeed, the shared island unit would also have a role there. It is important to have something ongoing that can be built on to capture all of this expertise and bring it together.

I note references to Professor Mike Tomlinson and the work he has done. In the conclusion to one of his papers he states that preliminary attempts to model the integration of the North's population with the South's tax and social security regime demonstrate that the challenges can be overcome without too much disruption, which is noteworthy.

We recognise that there are huge data gaps. Yesterday at meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach and Committee on Budgetary Oversight, we had an opportunity to examine the work of the CSO. It was suggested at the aforementioned committees that we need to have statistics that are comparable North and South and that those committees should engage with their counterparts in the North to facilitate the work that the ARINS project and others are doing.

I have no further questions for now so I will defer to my party colleague, Deputy Tully.

Deputy Pauline Tully

Good afternoon. I echo my colleague's welcome to the witnesses and thank them both for the papers they have presented. This has been a really interesting discussion which shows real foresight and forward planning, which is really necessary.

Unfortunately, I have had to represent constituents who have been subject to sanctions from the Department of Social Protection for something very simple like not signing a form or not turning up to a meeting. They were left with reduced or no money and it was disgraceful. Having said that, most of the staff working in the Department are extremely helpful but they are overworked and sometimes the bureaucracy and paperwork that is required is excessive. What the witnesses said earlier about going back to what social protection or social welfare should be about is very important and we must think carefully about what kind of system we want.

In their work, will they examine all the payments made by the Department of Social Protection, including payments such as the carers allowance and disability allowance? Will such payments come under their remit? I am my party's spokesperson on disability and on carers. The carer's allowance is a means-tested payment. The role of carer is predominantly taken on by women but often if a spouse or partner is working, carers do not qualify for any sort of payment. The carer's allowance was introduced 30 years ago and was originally supposed to provide support for older persons to keep them out of nursing homes. Now, we see many parents working 24-7 caring for a child with a profound or complex disability who do not qualify for any money. Up to now, many carers also had no pension rights because they did not have the opportunity to work outside the home. That is set to change from next year, which I welcome, and I really hope that change happens. Will the witnesses examine that issue? I am not convinced that the Department of Social Protection is even the right place for carer's allowance. The rate is not enough, the fact that it is means-tested is problematic and I am not even sure it should be a Department of Social Protection payment because the work that carers do is really hard work.

I sometimes feel that disability is almost a disincentive to work, because disabled people are reliant on a payment, but if they take up employment they lose the payment and they lose other secondary benefits such as medical cards and so on. Again, it is something that needs to be rethought so that we have more disabled people going into the workforce but we are not taking away the stable payment that they need. There have been studies on the cost of disability and we know that the cost of living for a family with a disabled person is much higher than for a family without. Will that be part of the remit?

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

All of that is so important. Absolutely, it will be part of the discussions. The people who are involved in the All-Island Social Security Network bring expertise from all areas of the social security system. It is important that we examine all aspects of it.

I share the Deputy's frustration with the carer's allowance in the northern system and how ineffective it is at supporting carers; how it completely overlooks their role and how they save the State billions every year on the cost of care. I sit on a care commission in Northern Ireland at the moment, which is seeking to look at better solutions for carers. I do take the point that it may not lie in social protection, however, on the other side of the coin it may confuse payments even further in terms of the many entitlements that are available. That is one of the many complexities of the social security system, and something that the All-Island Social Security Group and others would like to unpick together. There is such a complex web of provision in Northern Ireland across housing, health and social care, and the NHS, and there are no direct comparisons in some areas in the South. There is a lot to get your head around. It is a very complex system. Disability benefits and carer's allowance is on the agenda. It is so important.

Disability benefits in the North, again, are completely lacking in humanity. The assessments that people have to go through are carried out by contracted companies. They throw people into huge amounts of stress, anxiety, and hardship. The whole system has to go through wholesale change. From a very personal perspective, the thought of developing, as Dr. Boland very eloquently put it at the end of his statement, a leading welfare state, is hugely hopeful for me as somebody who is experiencing a hugely punitive rule and heartless system in the North every single day and hearing stories from the people who are subject to it.

Dr. Tom Boland

I think Deputy Tully is absolutely right that there should be research done on all areas. I know that Joe Whelan in Trinity is starting work on the working family payment. In a way, we do need to branch out to study the experiences in all of these areas. We have a lot of evidence. People in interviews report to Ray Griffin and I and also to Michael McGann, and in the Finnish research that people moved from jobseeker's payment to a disability payment. They say they will go down to the doctor and claim something or other in order to not be put through the wringer and their entitlement becomes more automatic. That is the negative side of these stories about the things that go on.

In regard to carers, when we are thinking about a welfare state for the future, we have a great new innovation in the Irish system whereby we have an automatic income for artists of €350 a week for a certain cohort. Why should we not have the same system for carers? We could say that if a person has to be a carer, we will support him or her because they are doing the work of the state. People are outsourced by the state to mind people in a certain way. If we are thinking about the future of the welfare state, at the moment most of its money goes into pensions, which is the largest single block. Additionally, what it does is it sits between people in the labour market, between society and the economy. They are heating up the labour market. In a way, what we actually need is for the welfare state to act to cool down the labour market to say: "Slow down, you can go caring, whether it is for your children or somebody with a particular care need in your home, in order that we have an ecologically sustainable economy." At the moment, we are sort of addicted to growth, which means that we push people towards any job whatsoever to speed things up.

Our colleagues, Mary Murphy and Fiona Dukelow have been producing work on an eco-social state. In order to deal with the green challenge which is coming up, we really need to work less, work less frequently or work smarter or more efficiently, but to work in such a way that we have less of a carbon footprint; and allowing the people we are talking about, who are out at work and then go back home to care, the time to just care or to work one job rather than two jobs in a household. We used to have 1 million people in the labour market in Ireland in the 1980s. All kinds of things were wrong with that, because it was a patriarchal system and there was the breadwinner. There were all kinds of things which were not right about it, but they produced enough goods and services to keep the country going. Now we have 2.5 million people in employment in Ireland today and certainly we could do with fewer of them. We will have fewer of them as we have the greying of the population and fewer people will be in work. It is perfectly possible for these people to produce all the goods and services we need. In Ireland we have a nice tier of population. Other countries around Europe have far fewer people working. It is a way of thinking of the welfare state as a support rather than as an accelerator of the labour market, which leads to the kind of problems that Dr. Fitzpatrick was talking about in terms of the pressure that we have mentioned many times.

Deputy Pauline Tully

I thank the witnesses.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not know if I heard Dr. Boland correctly, but I fully agree with what he says about the State being as generous as it can possibly be. The only way we can be generous is if we have the income to pay the benefits and to look after people who need it. Am I correct in thinking Dr. Boland has said that growth is a bad thing for the economy?

Dr. Tom Boland

Our economy is very peculiar in Ireland, inasmuch as we have a great deal of redistribution and a great number of people on low wages in the tax system. We have a lot of people in jobs on the minimum wage or below the living wage who contribute little to no tax. Our activation system is kitted out to make more and more of that happen. Since it does not benefit the Exchequer very much, perhaps that is not the kind of growth that we need to pursue.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the point that if we help people towards training, retraining or self-improvement in whatever way suits people and their needs as they see it, that it would be a constructive way? I question the approach not to offer an opportunity for people to work or not to have growth in the economy. In the period in the economy Dr. Boland referred to, the 1950s and 1960s, when there was one breadwinner not everybody had a pair of shoes and not everybody got to university as they can now.

I know I am taking up time. I support the principles outlined, but if we do not have growth in the economy we will not have money to pay to look after people who cannot afford to work or are not able to work.

Dr. Tom Boland

I do not want to take the time up disagreeing with you, Chair. We may say that we need the money and we both agree that we need less pollution and more wealth generation. That is very simple, but the problem is that currently growth leads to increased environmental impact, so we do need to think of some way of organising degrowth. Hopefully it will not have a negative impact on living standards. Living standards in Ireland are reasonably high, but on the whole they are environmentally unsustainable, as they are in many parts of the world. The actual additional happiness and even the additional years lived in the life in terms of health are subject to the law of diminishing returns. The richer we get, we do not get to be much happier or we do not live much longer and we pollute the planet more. We know this. In a way, we have got to figure out a way forward that is not all about growth.

Deputy Brendan Smith took the Chair.

Senator Erin McGreehan

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.

Dr. Tom Boland

These were very interesting questions. I will answer in reverse order. The worry that always arises is that if we provide State supports to people on very low incomes, we in effect are providing a supplement to poor employment in a way that disincentivises employers from raising wages and making their opportunities more attractive to people. There is the family income supplement or the working family payment, which is in place to support people who are on fewer than 39 hours per week.

Senator Erin McGreehan

I might not have articulated this properly. I was speaking more about hiring those lower-wage workers and giving them better employment conditions. It is the whole part of it.

Dr. Tom Boland

Yes, and the big idea regarding making things better for low-paid employment is to perhaps move towards the four-day or even the three-day week model. The four-day week is being trialled, and it has been found to be equally as productive as the five-day week in many locations and sectors. As we move towards greening the economy, we might need two three-day weeks, and for everybody to have Sunday off, or something like that. For example, it may be the case that we could only have sufficient wages to pay the for the first three days, and then for the other three days for the person would be on social welfare. That could be supported by the extremely strong wealth-producing tax-paying part of the economy, such as the finance sector and the more productive, more tax-burdened areas of employment. Then, so be it, if the environment needs it. The Senator is right; people do move into jobs because they want to be feel part of things and so on.

I was most intrigued by the Senator's question regarding what we can advise them to do or what we can have as confluence between us and the North. There may be two Ministers who may ask what to do before anything else. I am quite sceptical and cautious and do not see much of this happening very quickly. The Senator has already heard that I am very much against sanctions and so on. However, it so happens that both States marketise their activation, which means they advertise for tender to particular companies to do the work of activating people. I do not think we should do it at all - I think the State should do it - but in Ireland, we do it in such a way that we put strong conditions down for how it is done and how you treat people. This includes keeping the records. Those companies include Turas Nua and Seetech. I have been before an Oireachtas committee on another occasion to criticise them. However, they are contracted. It is not about the people themselves or the companies, but the contract for activating people is much less dangerous, inasmuch as it does not push people or allow people to treat the unemployed people however they want. It lays down standards. If there was a common standard between the North and the South regarding how the activation was done-----

Senator Erin McGreehan

That is very interesting.

Dr. Tom Boland

-----that is something we could begin to do. I would prefer if we were not to do this at all. However, if we tried it, we might see that in the North, and the UK could take some learnings from this as well, that this actually works better, because overall the results over the longer term are better.

Senator Erin McGreehan

That is a matter of very simple and plain policy.

Dr. Tom Boland

Yes.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

In terms of encouraging the North to move towards a more humane social security system, an often overlooked constitutional fact is that Northern Ireland has full devolutionary powers when it comes to social security, and it has done since 1922. What we are really strangled by is the fact that we are bound to using the computer systems and welfare state infrastructure that is developed in Westminster. To deviate from those systems would cost a huge amount of money. As Dr. Boland mentioned in his statement, the mitigation package, which put in place a number of really crucial mitigations for those people who are worst impacted by welfare reform in the UK, shows there is an appetite across all parties for a different way.

It is the logistical reality which is very difficult for policy-making in the North in terms of deviation from the computer systems. As well as this, the money paid for any deviation from social security policy has to be found in the block grant or the budget provided to Northern Ireland through the Barnett consequentials. There are a lot of political complexities in terms of the North's relationship with Westminster and how we can operate differently.

I certainly think the statistics are starting to do a lot of talking for themselves. We can see how the Republic of Ireland is moving ahead of Northern Ireland on so many measures, including educational attainment, skills attainment and living standards. As Dr. Boland mentioned, the ESRI is doing fantastic work across the board in showing how these divergences are growing. It is important that we keep shedding light on this. Northern Ireland is in a state of political and legal quagmire. We are not moving anywhere fast. We cannot make progress on anything because we have no Government. We hope this will change in the autumn. I hope the DUP decides to come back to the table much sooner than this, particularly given the cost-of-living crisis which is compounding all of the problems that Northern Ireland has had historically, in terms of our levels of people on disability benefit, economic inactivity, support for carers and educational underachievement.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

I thank Dr Fitzpatrick. I will make a few comments. Senator McGreehan referred to the absence of political institutions. Of course, a lot of this work on a North-South basis should have been taking place at the North-South Ministerial Council where Ministers meet in sectoral format. They could have been making progress in regard to a convergence of systems and one learning from the other hoping to bring the better parts of the other system into one's own schemes. Senator Ó Donnghaile and I heard Dr. Fitzpatrick speak very animatedly at Ulster University a few weeks ago with regard to childcare and the difficulties due to a lack of childcare strategies for many years. Dr. Fitzpatrick has highlighted today that where there is not adequate support for childcare it puts a particular onus on families and more so on mothers.

I have a few comments. Earlier, the Cathaoirleach and Senator McGreehan mentioned the value of community welfare officers. Unfortunately in this country in recent years we have lost a lot of these officers. There are fewer of them now and people do not have as good access to them as they had in the past. There is nothing to beat an official having some local knowledge and knowing families. I have served as a public representative for many decades. My colleagues and I have approached community welfare officers to raise the cases of families for which serious difficulties, such as illness or bereavement, have arisen. I know of many instances where community welfare officers knew who to support. That support was readily given, whether on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday. This system worked very well. We do not have enough of it in person now.

Something that is often neglected in society is that we think everybody has IT skills and access to apply online. In our public governance and the delivery of public services, and this goes for private companies also, very little tolerance is shown for people who do not have IT knowledge or IT skills. It is reprehensible. If people try to ring any big public utility, apart from public service offices, they are asked to press X, Y or Z and cannot get talking to anyone. This is a terrible infringement on the rights of individuals. From the point of view of the community welfare officer, I would love to see the numbers being reversed to have more community welfare officers who are more locally based and know more of the families and clientele. I can recall so well so many instances over the years of other public representatives and I contacting them when a family ran into a particularly difficulty. There was always help and support. Many of those officers went way beyond the call of duty.

Senator McGreehan said she had a bad experience when dealing with social welfare. My experience is that the overwhelming majority of officials work very hard. They want to support people. In our line of work, that of the witnesses or any other profession, there are people who do not do their jobs adequately. That is deplorable. It is very important to have local knowledge.

I am delighted the all-island social security network has been established. We can learn so much from one another and take what is good in our system and transpose it, hopefully, to Northern Ireland and vice versa. With regard to pensions, something that is often overlooked is that we speak about Britain funding pensions in this country but we fund a huge number of pension of Irish people domiciled in Britain and that is quite right. It is a substantial transfer of money. I do not think there would be any doubt of this. This did not just start in 2019. Mentioned was made in Dr. Fitzpatrick's paper of the convention on social security of 2019. To my knowledge, this system has existed for many years.

Dr. Boland mentioned people being brought in for meetings. If people are brought in for meetings it should not be in an intimidatory fashion under any circumstance. Senator Currie referred to activation being important. I can recall some people over the years who were in long-term unemployment and in receipt of long-term payments. They got encouragement from some officials that there might be a suitable course available that would meet their particular needs. It should not be a matter of compulsion. It should be encouragement to facilitate a person whom an official thinks is suitable to follow a particular course and get into employment. I know people who had the fear of God when they received a letter to go into the office and subsequently said it was one of the best things that ever happened and they were given an option to take up a course. They took up employment and, thankfully, they have been in employment since. Is there enough interaction between the Department of Social Protection and the Department in Northern Ireland with regard to colleges, further education, providing courses and meeting the needs of people on long-term social welfare? These really could activate their skills, give them some basic skills and give them an opportunity and pathway into employment. Again, I emphasise this is not about compulsion. I would appreciate it if Dr. Boland or Dr. Fitzpatrick would comment on this.

Dr. Tom Boland

The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach really put his finger on what matters, which is about the spirit of the thing. The community welfare officer is there and will always help out. If we are having this discussion about activation, it is a matter of how it is done. As the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach said, some people really appreciate the support. The memorandum from 2011 had conditionality, whereby there was activation and a threat was brought in. In 2016, we brought in JobPath, which was administered by private providers. Some of these were given 30% targets. When a provider is given a target such as this with the best will in the world, whoever that provider is, there will be pressure. A study has been done by Michael McGann comparing local employment services and JobPath providers.

He pointed out that the level of professionalism, commitment to the job, know-how and education of the people working in there was substantially different from those hired swiftly by Seetec and Turas Nua in 2001. Many people got a very different service overall. There is the spirit, but it also matters how we set up how to do it.

Additionally, we have Springboard and a whole array of courses in this regard. A recent ESRI study on the back to education measure found it was less beneficial than people would have hoped, expected or modelled for in the short term. In the long term, however, it is certainly better. We have a whole conversation under way, led by the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Simon Harris, around trades and skills, finding alternative forms of employment and achieving more integration between social protection, education and training. These things should be an integrated system and we need a whole-of-government approach to employment not just in times of crisis but at all times. More can definitely be done in this regard. The third level colleges should be providing further education for people working within the system. I refer to continuous professional development, CPD, and other such courses. As much training is needed to work behind the screen in the social welfare office as is needed to be a social worker, or something close to that.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

Dr. Boland has covered all the points in respect of the spirit of this matter. Participation in programmes geared towards work should not be undertaken under threat of sanction or the withdrawal of benefits that allow people to survive. What we see happening in the UK, for example, and there is research to support this, is that people then withdraw from the system altogether. They do not seek state support in any form because of a risk or fear of punishment. All this approach does is to drive people further into deeper poverty or, indeed, destitution. One of the main problems the UK economy is trying to grapple with is the sharp increase after the Covid-19 pandemic of economic inactivity. This is across the board. Rather than looking at a human capital approach to employment and how we can get people into education and training and then into sustainable employment, the British Government is seeking to use the stick in all quarters. We now that many people who work part-time do so for a variety of reasons. Much of the time it is because of caring responsibilities. Those people working 12 hours a week or under are now going to face more interventions from job centres to get more hours or better paid work. If they do not fulfil those obligations, they could face sanction. We see this ideology of conditionality not only impacting those people who do not have work in the UK but also those who are in work. I feel this is a frightening road we are currently going down in that respect.

There is a great deal of opportunity to work together across all our further education institutions to support more people. Members may be aware that the European Social Fund, ESF, ended in Northern Ireland and the equivalent funding provided by the British Government was not the same. Many community and voluntary sector organisations, such as women's centres, have been affected. These include the Women's Centre Derry, for example, which lost its funding and had to make staff redundant. It is no longer able to offer employment services. Increasingly, we have to look at how educational institutions and other organisations, particularly those close to the Border, can work collaboratively in ensuring we can develop the human capital of individuals and support them in moving into sustainable education and employment.

Ms Claire Hanna

I thank our witnesses very much. It has been an informative meeting. I logged on a bit late but I was able to listen to the live stream and the evidence while I was in transit. It is useful for the here and now in respect of the changes that can be and are being advocated for. As others have said, this is with a view to trying to build a system that is new and better for the new Ireland. Improving outcomes for people, particularly for the most vulnerable people, is a good place to start regarding the purpose of bringing about constitutional change because it is very bleak in this region at the moment. The loss of funding streams for some of the groups supporting people furthest away from the labour market has just been touched on. We have the squeeze of an increasingly harsh, unresponsive and unincentivised welfare system without undertaking the kind of reform of work through programmes that help people to get back into work and providing the childcare that makes this feasible for people.

I am sure there is a utopia but is there a system the witnesses would regard as a particularly good model? I presume there is somewhere in Europe we should be replicating. The concept of the universal basic income was also mentioned, as was the sectoral approach. Many of us are watching with great interest the artists income trial in the South. An all-party group that I chair in Westminster had the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin, over to present on this issue. We are monitoring how it goes. I think this kind of targeted approach is the way to do this, given the tax system we have. What are the witnesses' views on this initiative as a concept and what it might do in reducing things like sanctions and penalties, which have become especially punitive and damaging to people?

It was also briefly mentioned that the system is slightly more generous in the South. How does that shake out as regards the cost of living, affordability and, for want of a better phrase, people's purchasing power? How does that balance and measure out in terms of sustaining people's living standards?

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

We have already talked about a few of the systems that would be preferable to the current ones in place on both sides of the Border. We talked about the Scandinavian systems and the power they throw behind ensuring working-age people have a good standard of living, rather than the minimum standard of living and the lowest common denominator target we currently have. We also spoke briefly about how Scotland has used its now limited devolution powers on social security to try to embed a different ideology of dignity and respect into their social security institutions through the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. Dr. Boland may wish to comment further on that.

On the universal basic income, I must confess my head is so focused on social security that it is not an area of expertise I have. Like everybody else, though, I am watching with interest as to how the pilot scheme works in the South.

I am generally supportive of the general principle of an unconditional payment as of right. Obviously, difficulties come into play with regard to the level of payments and when or if they should increase. These are the same sorts of difficulties that exist in the social security system.

Finally, the Southern system shows quite a lot more generosity not only for unemployed people but for another population I would highlight, that is, children. Through more contributions to the bringing-up or rearing of children, this system shows that this is important work and that it and children themselves are valued. It is completely the opposite in the UK system where we have really punitive measures such as the two-child limit whereby universal credit is received for the first two children. As Ms Hanna will know, we have seen cuts to the holiday hunger payment and to a baby books scheme. We also have no childcare strategy for those children under preschool age even though the statistics bear out that 19.3% of women who are economically inactive are in that situation because of family and caring commitments involving children under preschool age. In terms of purchasing power, I am particularly concerned for families and families of young children in the North who are being more than neglected. It is a very difficult place to raise a family at different levels of income. As the committee will have heard me say previously, I have experience of this from a personal perspective because I have two children under preschool age myself. When I get to the end of the month, all of my wages are gone and I always wonder how people with lower salaries than mine - I acknowledge that I am very privileged to have an above average salary - are able to cope and able to work.

We will see impacts on the economy. People who have children and people who are disabled are contributors to the economy. They should have purchasing power but the purchasing power of the very poorest is very limited at the minute. All of that feeds into this soaring growth in inequality and the widening gap between those at the top of the income scale and those at the very bottom. As a result of that widening gap and the purchasing power of those at the very top, what is often happening is that the voices of those at the very bottom are being obscured and hidden. That is something we must all be really mindful of.

Dr. Tom Boland

Turning first to universal basic income, it is often portrayed as the big coming idea. It has strong supporters. Guy Standing, the famous international academic, published a book on it recently. It is interesting that it is an idea supported by Silicon Valley billionaires and Milton Friedman, who called it the negative income tax. The idea is that you just float the economy by giving everybody a certain amount as a payment. It is something that seems like it might solve everything but, on the other hand, it sometimes seems like it might just be too good to be true. The thing about universal basic income, UBI, is that it puts a floor under poverty, which is an argument for it. It certainly does not do anything to change the way inequality grows within society or the way in which we distribute wealth within a society. It is a limited approach. It also seems so out there that I prefer not to pursue it. It seems that it would be such an enormous transformation as to be almost beyond reckoning.

With regard to the cost of living, an issue Dr. Fitzpatrick has raised, I will mention the generous welfare payments that we have talked about. As I said at the start, by "generous", I mean generous in spirit rather than necessarily generous in amount because we do have high rates of poverty in Ireland. We also have high rates of child poverty, as we were talking about that issue. I do not have the statistics in front of me but Social Justice Ireland produces yearly reports and the most recent said that something like 700,000 people are at risk of poverty. This is the thing. The current cost-of-living crisis as regards the price of fuel and ordinary goods means that the buying power of these basic welfare payments, which Dr. Fitzpatrick mentioned, is eroded year on year. As such, we should not be too quick to pat ourselves on the back about the generosity of these payments. In the Republic of Ireland, we always tend to compare ourselves to the UK or, even more frequently, to Northern Ireland. Those comparisons might not represent a very good average. With regard to European averages, we may just be somewhere in the middle of the table, even if we are doing better than the UK. It is important to take this in the wider context.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

I thank Dr. Boland. Does Ms Hanna want to speak again?

Ms Claire Hanna

No, that is fine. I thank both of the witnesses and the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

The next slot is for the Green Party. Are there are Green Party members online? No. The next slot is then for Sinn Féin MPs. Is there anybody offering? Mr. Brady may go ahead.

Mr. Mickey Brady

I thank Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Boland for their very insightful presentations. I have worked with the social security system since 1974 and still work with it every day. I was initially with the Social Security Agency, I was then a welfare rights worker and, subsequently, an MLA and I am now an MP. Because I represent a Border constituency, I also have a lot of contact with the system in the Twenty-six Counties.

First of all, I absolutely agree with Dr. Fitzpatrick that the system is punitive, cruel and coercive. She mentioned that the benefits system is at its lowest since 1948. The whole concept that Beveridge had of a safety net has long since disappeared. As someone who, as I have said, worked with that system for many years, I can see that there has just been cut after cut in terms of claimants. It affects people's health. I have done literally thousands of appeals over the years. The vast majority could probably have been avoided if common sense had been applied by the department. There is a myth that there is rampant fraud among people on social security. Statistics we get show that the loss of money in the system has more to do with departmental error. The department finally got around to admitting that.

Dr. Fitzpatrick also alluded to the effect all of this has on health. A report was published by the Chief Medical Officer in the North about ten years ago in which he stated that people who lived in inner-city Belfast, the majority of whom are on benefits, had ten years' less life expectancy than those living in Finaghy, in the leafy suburbs, who did not have to rely on the social security system. That is very important. In the North, we have historically had higher levels of disability, which leads to people being economically inactive. A report from the Mayo Clinic in America many years ago showed that my constituency has one of the highest incidences of multiple sclerosis in the entire world, for whatever reason. All of these things combine to ensure that people go down lower and lower. Another point I agree with both witnesses on is that sanctions and coercion simply do not work. They force people into situations they do not need to be in.

The witnesses also mentioned the bolt-on with regard to computers. I was on the Committee for Social Development, now called the Committee for Communities, in Stormont when welfare reform was being introduced. We were told all of the time that universal credit was going to work and that it would make a complex system less complex. Instead, it has made a complex system a hundred times more complex.

A person must apply online and if he or she lives in Cullaville or Cullyhanna and does not have broadband then he or she is snookered. The person must then contact the office, which was closed for two years during Covid. All of that is sort of festering, for want of a better word.

I have a couple of questions. Dr. Fitzpatrick referred to effective contact between the Department of Social Protection from the South and the Social Security Agency in the North, and that the committee in the North was involved in the summer school. In terms of working towards a new Ireland and constitutional change, would it make more sense to actually have them meet on a more formal basis? Obviously, that depends on the Government but I believe it would be a sensible way forward. As Dr. Fitzpatrick said, the two systems are diverging more and more and that divergence needs to be addressed.

Reference was also made to the Scandinavian system, which seems to be a good model. When considering the EU system, and particularly in terms of pensions for people in the EU countries, most of the pensions are based on the person's wages and what he or she is earning when retiring. In Britain and in the North, unfortunately, we have the meanest pension in the developed world. One gets a basic rate and it does not matter how long the person worked - I believe it is after 35 years of contributions. Women in the North have lost out by approximately £48,000 because of the change in pension age.

All of this goes towards highlighting a system that simply does not work. As I have said, I deal with this every single day. Atos and Capita were mentioned. These companies have absolutely no knowledge of the stuff they are dealing with. I have people coming into me with serious mental health problems, who are being assessed by occupational therapists, OTs. They may be very good OTs, or there may be very good officials, but they have no mental health training. All of that is going on and I am sure it is reflected in many parts of the legislation in the South in how the system there works. I believe it is something that needs to be addressed. The cliché is that any civilised society is recognised by how it treats its most vulnerable. Unfortunately, on both sides of the Border we have failed miserably.

Do the witnesses believe that the two Departments should have a much more formal engagement in leading towards a new Ireland, an Ireland that treats its citizens with dignity and with respect, and which does not force them down a tunnel? A lot of the people I deal with on a daily basis are forced down that tunnel. It is bizarre to have introduced the two-child rule. Another condition that was introduced more recently, of which the witnesses may or may not be aware, is the mixed couple age. This is where one partner comes to pension age and the other is not of pension age. In this scenario the couple lose housing benefit, would be forced to claim universal credit, and cannot claim pension credit for supplementary pension. It is completely bizarre. It is about getting the two Departments together.

I believe we have the opportunity, and the committee and the witnesses may agree, to create a system that is a model the world can look up to. That is my rant for today.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

I thank Mr. Brady.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

I thank Mr. Brady. We have met on many occasions. Having worked with it since 1974 Mr. Brady knows the system more than I do. He knows all of the different iterations of it. It sounds like we both agree that this iteration of the system is the cruellest. As I said in my paper, I believe we are at a precipice. I cannot see how much more punitive the system can be without being a system at all. I would not call it a system of welfare. It is a system of coercion, activation and sanction.

Mr. Brady asked if I think the two Departments should meet on a formal basis. As far as I know, the summer school is directed at those civil servants who work in both of the Departments to come together and share their learnings, to share knowledge, and to exchange all valuable learnings from each of the two systems.

With regard to meeting on a formal basis - and Mr. Brady might want to come back in here - with that being much more of a political endeavour the two Ministers of the Departments would have to agree to meet on a formal basis to really look at the framework or the bones of a potential new system, which is slightly different from the interaction that is currently going on.

As Mr. Brady has said, a lot depends on how this debate develops on both sides. I believe that we would all agree that we want it to be incredibly inclusive and we want to outline the benefits of creating a new welfare state and a new welfare system that could be a model for the world, focusing on the human at the centre of it and how best we can support those who are in most need.

Mr. Mickey Brady

I believe that the North South Ministerial Council would be an opportunity for the Minister in the North and the Minister for Social Protection in the South to actually sit down and discuss that. The longer it goes on, the more coercive the system in the North becomes, and more and more people are suffering. For instance, child poverty is a huge issue in the North. A survey done in my constituency some years ago showed that 39% of children in this constituency were living below the median level, which is appalling. When I was in Stormont there was a lot of talk about the childcare strategy. It has never been carried out. Like other members here, I have people coming in to see me who pay so much of their wages to cover this. It might be therapeutic to go out to a job they were doing before their children were born, but they are paying their entire wages for childcare because it is so expensive.

I have another question in conclusion. With regard to the all-island social security network, AISSN, I presume that the network is including bodies such as Advice NI, and the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, both organisations that at times are at the coalface of social security systems.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

Our first meeting is coming up in May. We are definitely in our infancy. We are starting the conversation with academics who work across universities North and South of the Border. Absolutely, we all on an individual basis work and have worked with the law centres, Advice NI, FLAC, the St. Vincent de Paul, and all of those important organisations that are doing such crucial work on the ground. It would absolutely be our ambition to engage with those organisations to see how we can collaborate and work together to pull together all of our research and resources that we might have.

Mr. Mickey Brady

It is important that coming out of this meeting of the committee a positive message goes out that there is the prospect of a new system that actually includes everybody. In a new Ireland we are talking about inclusivity. That has to include those people who are economically inactive due to health reasons or whatever. They must be included. The inclusive system would actually cater for everybody and not just a few. The likes of sanctions would be a thing of the past and people would be treated with dignity in relation to their own particular circumstances. This is not being done at the moment.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

I thank Mr. Brady.

Senator Frances Black

I thank both of our witnesses for coming in for this fantastic presentation today. There is no doubt that the witnesses' expertise and experience is so valuable. I may be a little bit cheeky in taking the credit for suggesting Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Boland as witnesses.

Having a respectful and productive debate around potential constitutional change requires high-quality information and expert input from witnesses such as we have before us today, to ensure this conversation is done right. I am so glad we are having this discussion here in the Oireachtas. I know for a fact that it has been replicated around kitchen tables in communities all over this island. It is important that the experiences of social welfare recipients, whether expressed by the people themselves or through qualitative research, guide our work as legislators.

I really enjoyed Dr. Fitzpatrick's contribution to the hearings of the Seanad Public Consultation Committee and am really glad she has been able to expand on her remarks today. I thank Dr. Boland very much for his very informative presentation. It was very good to listen to both witnesses.

Constitutional change will no doubt have to be underpinned by strong human rights guarantees that emphasise pluralism and equality. Do the witnesses believe explicit economic rights, enshrined in legislation or the Constitution, would help create a foundation for a rights-based social welfare system?

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

Absolutely. So many states have ratified human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights but it would be a huge step forward to integrate these into our domestic legislation and be bound by them. The Human Rights Act in the UK bears that out to some degree in terms of ensuring that people can challenge the injustice they have faced on the basis of their human rights. We are aware that this ability is under threat again and see a cautious approach from the Judiciary. Sometimes the reality is not the same as what theory suggests, but the mechanism in question is a very concrete way of ensuring people understand what their rights are and have justiciable ways of enforcing them if they are in any way eroded or challenged. The hallmark of a significantly progressive system would be the integration of the key, core and fundamental right to social security in any future legislation born in a new Ireland.

Senator Frances Black

Does Dr. Boland wish to comment?

Dr. Tom Boland

I thank Senator Black, whose proposition is very interesting. The sorts of rights we have been at the forefront in guaranteeing historically, such as rights to privacy, private property and free speech, are all about what individuals would do by themselves. The Senator might be imagining – I am anyway – rights to housing, welfare support or healthcare. Those rights are ones you have to claim from the collective. In a way, they are almost beyond rights. Nobody should be able to stop you from having welfare if you genuinely have an entitlement to it. It would be another very positive step forward. It is certainly the case that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a commitment to a right to work. This is a very interesting kind of right because we must ask who will provide it and who it will be given to. Legally, rights can be enshrined. I keep going back to the spirit of the system, however. If you have the right to work and the work involves being in a chain gang or breaking rocks, that is no good. Therefore, we need to make sure the spirit behind the law is also right. A compassionate, caring welfare state or society backs up the rights. I thank the Senator. She got me thinking.

Senator Frances Black

Could both witnesses say a little about how people navigate the social welfare systems? How accessible are they? How much support exists? Is there legal aid for appeals?

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

We are running out of time. Deputy Wynne has the next seven and a half minutes and there is just a minute left for the response of both witnesses to Senator Black.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

Professor Gráinne McKeever, Dr. Mark Simpson and I did research on this. The complexities of the system are a major driver of destitution. The systems are so complex to navigate. As has been outlined, in the UK we have online systems a lot of the time, complex appeal systems, added layers to appeal systems, and advice deserts. It is very difficult to get advice in certain areas, including rural areas, and to get representation at tribunals, which is key to successfully winning and securing one's entitlement. The complexity of the systems and their difficulty in respect of navigation, particularly among those with vulnerabilities, are contributing to people's poverty.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

I thank Dr. Fitzpatrick.

Senator Frances Black

I am a little disappointed that my time was cut, seeing that some of the other parties got 20 minutes or more at the beginning. I would like to contribute again if there is more time for questions.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

There are only just two. Unfortunately, we have to try to get back to other people again. That is the norm.

Deputy Violet-Anne Wynne

Most likely, I will have time left over. I hope it can be divvied out. Senator Black has everyone in the room thinking because the right to social welfare and certain entitlements sounds amazing. I thank the witnesses for the really insightful submissions. As a female representative, mother and someone who before the election was a full-time carer for my third child, I found the information quite uncomfortable to read, but I thank the witnesses for putting it all together. It is important to do so because we need to know the true picture of the difficulties that families are facing. The witnesses rightly pointed out that families in particular are being affected. That is the significant concern.

The witnesses also pointed out that those most affected are the most vulnerable, including children, women and young girls, those with disabilities and our carers, who are providing an invaluable service to society. I cannot emphasise that service strongly enough. As Dr. Fitzpatrick has stated, the affected people are vulnerable because they have no purchasing power. However, they do contribute to our society and provide an invaluable service. It became very apparent, through the information provided, that Northern Ireland seems to be treated as an outlier regarding the broader issues concerning childcare, for example. We have similar issues here in the South. The context of the issues being experienced in Northern Ireland shows it is a case of suffering even more. The message Dr. Fitzpatrick communicated was strong. There is a system of coercion with punitive sanctions that is creating unwillingness to engage in society. That is a great concern. We want people to feel connected and that they belong to society, hopefully resulting in a desire to partake and continue to contribute to society in a positive way.

I really have only one question because Senator Black has covered the topics I wanted to talk about in respect of social welfare. The question concerns the discretionary housing payment. I am really interested in the information provided in this regard. How comparable is the payment system with the housing assistance payment system we have in the South?

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

Senator Black has a further question, which we will take. We will then group the responses together. That might make the best use of time.

Senator Frances Black

I appreciate that. Dr. Fitzpatrick uses her platform as an academic to highlight the immense deprivation communities in the North face. How does she think the collapse of Stormont has impacted that situation? I thank an Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for allowing me ask that final question.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

I will address Deputy Wynne's question on discretionary housing payments and how they compare to the HAP system in the South. Dr. Boland might come in on the South and I will talk about discretionary housing payments. It is an example of how payments have become more discretionary in nature. When housing benefit is not high enough to meet the demands of tenants' rent, they can apply for a discretionary housing payment, which is effectively a top-up to help them meet the cost of their rent. However, discretionary housing payments are limited in nature. Once the money is gone out of the pot it is gone, so it can only help a certain number of people. Maybe Mr. Brady will keep me right here, but discretionary housing payments are currently on freeze in Northern Ireland because the money has run out of the budget. That feeds directly into Senator Black's question around how the lack of government is impacting on those people who are currently suffering intensely from the cost-of-living crisis. That is just one small example but it is significant in the lives of those people who do not have a lot of money. They cannot now access discretionary housing payments because that pot of money has gone and there is no government-allocated budget that will provide people with that facility. We will, therefore, see people fall into arrears, unable to pay their rent, and prioritising the need for food over the need for heat and so on and so forth. All that leads to a spiral of destitution.

I cannot overstate the impact of no government on the lives of ordinary people in Northern Ireland at present. It is severe, chronic and devastating. We had an event at Parliament Buildings in September, Crushed by the Cost-of-Living Crisis, where people suffering from poverty and destitution spoke about their experiences. Everybody who was there, which included many colleagues across the political spectrum, agreed it was harrowing listening. Here we are in April and we have still have had no progress. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 made a commitment to an anti-poverty strategy and 25 years later we are without that strategy. The most recent paper on the childcare strategy was published in 1999 and in 2023, we are no further on.

It is safe to say that working in this area of social policy, as I do, is incredibly difficult and frustrating. I take a lot of hope from the prospect of a new, compassionate, caring human rights-based system. Again, that is a very personal reflection but this situation is having a very difficult impact on people across the whole of the North.

Dr. Tom Boland

By the time we get to the end of the conversation on HAP, which replaced rent allowance, a lot of the narrative is about how things are very bad in the North compared with the South. We point towards the NHS but it is not quite what it used to be. The very existence and scale of HAP in the South indicates how much we rely on the private landlord sector to provide. It is a sort of supplement or quasi-social housing. Of course, housing is very complicated and is frequently discussed within Leinster House, but we really need to build social housing rather than to supplement rent. That is something we need to move towards. This is the infrastructural side of a good welfare state. We talked about Denmark but all around Europe, there is much more investment in the infrastructure of the welfare state, such as education, housing and health. That is something we also need to give attention to, as well as the actual generosity of the payments.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I wish to acknowledge that Senator Black suggested both witnesses attend. I am grateful to her for that, in addition to her contribution in the Seanad. Many of the social welfare payments are not drawn down in this jurisdiction because of asymmetrical information and the system being too complex. While on the face of it we may think we have all these payments, are they really getting to the people who are destitute and experiencing poverty and deprivation? One of the challenges in a new system will be that, obviously, drawdown will need to be looked at. I thank an Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for allowing me say that.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

I made the point earlier that there is too much dependence on people having access to IT and IT knowledge nowadays when they apply for public services. It is intimidating people who, unfortunately, do not have those skills. That applies to both public services and private utilities. I instanced the valuable role of community welfare officers. We do not have enough of them nowadays. In the past, each community welfare officer covered a smaller area. These officers knew families and individuals and intervention was readily got. That happens nowadays too but there is too much pressure on the individual community welfare office as well. As a society, we need to get back to doing more in-person transactions. People should not have to be online or phoning and being asked to press X, Y or Z buttons, which drives everyone mad. There is an intolerance of people who may not have the skills or confidence to use modern means of communication or whatever. It is wrong. We need to deal with that, as well as other aspects of our system.

On behalf of the committee, I sincerely thank-----

Mr. Mickey Brady

Can I make a quick comment? We should all be encouraged that people like Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Boland are raising the profile of the inadequacies of the systems North and South. I wish them the best of luck. I am sure the All-Island Social Security Network will continue to raise that profile and ensure we end up in a new Ireland with a proper system.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

I thank Mr. Brady. Is everybody okay? Nobody else is offering.

I again thank Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Boland for their very interesting contributions. I heard Dr. Fitzpatrick speak at Ulster University some weeks ago where she outlined many other issues that need particular attention in Northern Ireland. She emphasised the need for an adequate childcare programme throughout Ireland, but particularly Northern Ireland, and how inadequate it is at present. There is a lot of food for thought in what the speakers left with us today. I am sure we will have interactions in future. On behalf of the committee, I sincerely thank them for their contributions.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.50 p.m. and adjourned at 4.01 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Thursday, 27 April 2023.