Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

That is a good place to puck off. The Barnardo's report published this morning highlights the risks of poverty that exist for many families. People with disabilities and single-parent households remain most at risk.

I have a number of questions. Before posing them, I take this opportunity to thank Ms Skelly for her contribution, which reflected the fact that we have a number of matters to consider from a policy point of view. The first of this involves doing what is right by carers. Second is the need to look at the big picture in order to ensure that there is enough support and coverage in terms of the carers. In my experience, nobody is involved in caring for the money. Most people are doing it out of love, duty and responsibility among other reasons. I am conscious of the fact that other western countries are increasingly talking about a crisis in care. We have a system whereby, in one way, we are fortunate that so many family carers are in a position to assist. In other ways, we rely too heavily upon that and expect too much of family carers. The system is not helping them in an adequate way. The proposal relating to the means test is well worth considering. The committee consider such a proposal in the past. It will form an important part of our report at the conclusion of this process.

I have a specific question for the HCCI. In the context of the hours we are talking about, I am trying to imagine the direction from which the Department of Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands is coming at this matter. I have not had a direct conversation on the matter with the Department, but what is happening closely resembles the position relating to cut-off for the working family payment. Is that a coincidence? It might be a complete coincidence. However, is the Department conscious of a relativity in that regard when that cut-off point is reached? This is something the HCCI has talked about for some time. It certainly does not suit everybody, but it makes sense for those people who are caring at home and who want to work as carers outside the home, be paid for doing so and have an independent income. That is how they choose to get it. Obviously, the rigidity that exists is a major obstacle. Does the HCCI have any indication that the Department is going to budge on this matter?

For the other organisations represented here, have there been any encouraging discussions regarding the means test? I welcomed the fact the threshold relating to the means test was increased last year. However, the witnesses' organisations are looking for it to go a bit beyond that. Have there been any encouraging discussions with the Department in that regard? Do any of the organisations have observations on the mix of doing what is right and supporting carers properly and the strategic challenge that exists in other countries but that could arise here in terms of the care system generally? Is that something the Department needs to consider when it reflects on the means test and whether the current system is sustainable? Is the system sustainable? If it is not, are the Departments of public expenditure and Social Protection aware of that?