Mr. John Dunne:

I know our job is to come in and tell the committee what we want and make it look nice and easy, and then the committee is supposed to go off and do it. I will unpack some of the complexities around this, however. The idea of classifying carer's allowance or carer's benefit as an income support is problematic. Moving in the direction of treating it as payment for work is also problematic. I say that because I would like the committee to consider this a bit. In the Danish system, if a person is a family carer, he or she is actually employed by the local authority, which is not as strange as it sounds because the local authorities deliver the care services over there. A person becomes an employee, however. I have still not figured out how they manage that in terms of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and health and safety. That is where the idea of something like participation income begins to sound very attractive.

Mind you, having said that, Ms Duffy raised the other point of pay-related social benefit. God knows I am old enough to remember a time we used to have it in the past unless I am dreaming. There is talk - or I have at least picked up talk - in Government circles of beginning to maybe move in that direction again. It would certainly be a significant factor in helping the interface between the social welfare system and the care system, let us put it like that. As regards the idea of complications like the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 or health and safety, however, the State has been correct to try to stay outside the front door and not go into the home. Yet, at the same time, obviously, much care happens at home. It is a very tricky line to walk. Therefore, in terms of the committee's deliberations and the expertise on which it can draw, it probably merits much reflection.