Mr. John Dunne:

I thank the Deputy for that encouraging contribution. I will speak on where we want to get to. I will preface this by saying that we have a constructive working relationship with the Department of Social Protection, as we do with this committee.

Ireland does quite well in the area of income supports when compared with Europe. That is not to say it does good enough. There is a problem with charting where we want to go. We have gotten to a point where as long as income support for family carers is viewed in the same context as a special variation on income supports for jobseekers, where one does not want to factor in conditionality, one does not want carers going back to work because that will cost the State more. As long as that is the world view, we will probably struggle in many ways.

To us, the PUP and the artists’ scheme present an alternative way of conceiving of income support for family carers. We completely accept that would be a big step. Our ask in that regard is not that we rush into anything; it is that the Government looks at this seriously and considers what would be involved. I know that there are lots of very sharp rocks just below the surface, such as exported benefits. I know that the Commission is fundamentally not convinced by our distinction between assistance and benefits. There are all sorts of really technical issues at play in the background. I am not suggesting that this will be an easy ride. It is something that is worth aspiring to and moving towards, and a strategy for that is needed. We do not want movement on this in this year’s budget. We simply want a commitment to start an exercise that would tease it out. If can be done for artists, and if it can be done when the pandemic hits, we would like to understand why it could not be done for carers, who are a particularly deserving cause.

I would like to address the strategy that Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned of taking it one step at a time. Frankly, I have no argument with that at all. Making the carer's allowance non-taxable would be a help and addressing the fuel allowance anomaly would be a help. Yet, we are still left with the issue of who qualifies for carer's allowance. Then we get into the problem of the means test and, particularly, the disregards. Deducting the mortgage and rent costs is completely appropriate. We can get into arguments about moral hazard, such as when somebody lives in a nice big house. I do not know if you realise that Ms Ryan is addressing the committee from her home. To me, it looks like a high-dependency unit in a hospital, but it is her home. As she said, she had to pay for that herself. She got a contribution towards the costs. Not only did she have to pay for it, she has to pay to maintain it all. All of those expenses are simply not considered when one applies a means test. That seems to be a pretty extraordinary gap in the system.

There are many reasonable incremental improvements that can be made. I believe in eating the elephant one step at a time. However, we are also asking for a look at a radical change. I acknowledged in the speech as a frustration, but it is true, that within the social welfare system carers are generously treated. Our point is that the social welfare system is not the correct place to be locating them. I am not, by the way, trying to move away from the Department of Social Protection, which is a great Department to deal with. However, it is not for income support for working. That is my response and I thank the Deputy for a constructive contribution.