STATUTORY SCHEME OF PROTECTION AGAINST THE RISK OF INVALIDITY IS PROVIDED BY TWO BENEFITS , THE ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE PAYABLE TO THE DISABLED PERSON AND THE INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE PAYABLE TO THE PERSON WHO CARES FOR HIM . IT WOULD THUS BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE THE RELEVANT STATUTORY SCHEME WITHOUT DESCRIBING BOTH BENEFITS .
15 THE COMMISSION ARGUES FIRST OF ALL THAT A PERSON BELONGS TO THE WORKING POPULATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE DIRECTIVE IF HE IS IN FACT WORKING , IS UNEMPLOYED AND SEEKING WORK , IS A FORMER OR RETIRED WORKER , OR IS PREVENTED FROM WORKING BY REASON OF ILLNESS OR INVALIDITY , WHETHER HIS OWN OR THAT OF A PERSON FOR WHOM HE IS CARING . THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THAT MRS DRAKE GAVE UP WORK BY REASON OF INVALIDITY , ALBEIT THAT OF HER MOTHER , AND THAT SHE SHOULD THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS A MEMBER OF THE WORKING POPULATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE DIRECTIVE .
16 THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT THE FACT THAT THE BENEFIT IN QUESTION IS PAID TO A THIRD PARTY AND NOT DIRECTLY TO THE DISABLED PERSON DOES NOT PUT IT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RISK OF INVALIDITY , THE SCHEME FOR WHICH IS COVERED BY THE DIRECTIVE . IT POINTS OUT THAT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIRECTIVE MIGHT BE SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED IF IT WERE TO BE HELD THAT THE WAY IN WHICH THE BENEFIT IS PAID COULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE BENEFIT WAS COVERED BY THE DIRECTIVE .
17 THE ADJUDICATION OFFICER , ON THE OTHER HAND , CONSIDERS THAT THE INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE CANNOT IN ITSELF BE REGARDED AS PROVIDING PROTECTION AGAINST THE RISK OF INVALIDITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF DIRECTIVE 79/7 . IN HIS VIEW , THAT PROVISION IS DIRECTED AT SCHEMES PROVIDING PERSONS WITH PROTECTION AGAINST RISKS TO THEM , NOT , AS IN THE CASE OF THE INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE , AGAINST RISKS TO THIRD PARTIES . HE ARGUES THAT ARTICLE 2 , WHICH DEFINES THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE DIRECTIVE APPLIES , IS CONCERNED ONLY WITH PERSONS WHO ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY ONE OF THOSE RISKS AND THUS EXCLUDES FROM THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE BENEFITS MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHER PERSONS .
18 THE ADJUDICATION OFFICER GOES ON TO POINT OUT THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM ARTICLE 2 AND FROM THE PREAMBLE TO THE DIRECTIVE THAT THE BENEFITS TO WHICH THE DIRECTIVE REFERS ARE ALL WORK-RELATED . SINCE THE ALLOWANCE IN QUESTION IS INTENDED FOR PERSONS WHO DO NOT WORK AND THEREFORE DO NOT BELONG TO THE WORKING POPULATION IT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ONE OF THOSE BENEFITS .
19 FINALLY , THE ADJUDICATION OFFICER STATES THAT FAR FROM BEING AN ALL-EMBRACING CODE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT IN MATTERS OF SOCIAL SECURITY , DIRECTIVE 79/7 IS ONLY A FIRST STEP TOWARDS EQUAL TREATMENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN IN THAT AREA . HE ARGUES THAT THE SCOPE