Ms Clare Duffy:

My point, which reflects what Ms Hughes has said, is about the use of language and the reference to a universal basic income rather than a "participation income", which is the phrase that NESC used. It recommended, in particular, a participation income for carers because carers are participating and contributing. The language is just slightly different.

My main comment, which relates to what Professor Lynch said, concerns the supports and policy instruments that are needed. I am thinking specifically of family carers of older people, people with disabilities and so on. We have in this country some of the best legislation that facilitates carer's leave.

I have never seen another country that has better carer’s leave legislation than we do here in Ireland. If a person is working and needs to leave work in order to care for someone, he or she has 104 weeks, which is two years, in which he or she can leave. During that time, if a person has enough PRSI contributions, he or she gets a thing called carer’s benefit. It is comparable to going on maternity leave and getting maternity benefit. Instead, a person goes on carer’s leave and gets carer’s benefit. Because carer’s benefit is not benchmarked against a person's previous salary, however, it means the vast majority of people, that is, 83%, who claim carer’s benefit are women. Carer's benefit, as it stands, is €1 more per week than carer's allowance. Carer's benefit is €225. Even just looking at how we can link it to a person's previous earnings would be really helpful and, again, to rebalance that gender inequality that currently exists.

One thing to say is that even though we have that lovely legislation, which is the Carer's Leave Act 2001, there are never really any more than 3,000 people availing of that at any one time. The take-up is incredibly low and it has to do with that income adequacy and how someone will pay the mortgage with €225 per week.