Professor Mary Murphy:

It was discussed at the steering group that did the research. It came up in the process of the merging of knowledge, particularly where departmental officials were mindful and one might say anxious that this could happen. As a cost-saving measure, there could be pressure to make it meaner as to who would be eligible on medical grounds, were it to become easier to pass the eligibility requirements on income grounds, and there might be trade-offs there. That would need to be carefully configured in an implementation stage as to what the balance between the two would be. We are certainly not recommending that. We are recommending that it would be as is, subject to improving the "as is" from an obligational point of view and, as Ms Cox said, from the review of the medical criteria.

However, that is not to move people in or out. It is to solve anomalies and make the process as respectful and non-demeaning as we can; it is not to rule people out. The Deputy is correct that there is always a risk that when something that increases eligibility is introduced on one side, people find other mechanisms or reuse existing mechanisms to close down the eligibility on another side. That would need to be very carefully balanced and monitored.

However, the present system is not perfect either. One could argue that already for a growing number of people who are entitled on medical and care grounds, the means test is being used to screen people out. Getting the balance right is difficult and requires really careful design. That is why we are not talking about tomorrow; we are talking about 2027. We need a good really hard review with the right people. That co-production is important and we need to have the people who will ask the right questions in the room. That includes the staff who will implement it and also the people who will use it, both from an NGO and a family perspective. Their knowledge can help to perfect the system.

Nobody is trying to design something that everybody will get. Everybody is respectful of the fact that there are constraints on public resources and it is about trying to get the balance right. We did research where people told us that getting rid of the means test it would make a big difference to how they feel about being carers. They know they still need to prove that they are carers. They know they still need to prove medical care, but getting rid of the means test would make a big difference to their lives. When we looked at the costings, it surprised us that retaining some element of means testing at a very high level was still quite costly and there was only a €10 million saving from the abolition. That gave us the answer. There is not really any point in spending €10 billion to administer a system when we would only save €10 million in the cost. There was no real question there.