Professor Mary Murphy:

The language of the universal payment can raise a lot of alarm bells in people's heads because of the cost implication. However, we are very clearly saying that this is a non-means-tested payment but it is not universal because not everybody can qualify. It is strictly curtailed to a range of people who can pass quite strict medical and care criteria to show that they have an entitlement to the payment.

On the other question the Deputy asked, we are mindful of the medical assessment and the degree to which that is the more problematic thing for people than the means-tested assessment. By taking out the means-test assessment one problem is solved but one is left with the demeaning and navigational issues and information deficits for the medical and carer ends of the tests. Of necessity, they would have to remain. There is even a danger that they could become more stringent because they become the only tool by which one can manage the range of people who will be able to access the payment. That issue needs to be teased out. This is why we feel that the navigational working group is really important. It is not about having a free for all. It is about saying that these are really important and that this payment is not for everybody. It is for people who really need it but there must be a better process by which we make the adjudication of who needs it. It does not need to be so soul destroying and demeaning for people to be able to engage in trying to apply for it.

We are saying that the medical assessment would have to remain, while acknowledging the kinds of problems the Deputy has outlined. As for the example he gave, we came across lots of examples in the qualitative research we carried out. Many of them did not make any sense in terms of what people were required to go through in order to get the payment. There will always be a need for medical and care assessments, even in a totally reframed payment. I hope I did justice to the Deputy's questions.