Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Joan Collins tabled these two amendments on my behalf. I am gobsmacked that they have been ruled out of order, particularly the one that refers to the general practitioner. One could possibly argue that because amendment No. 4 removes the requirement regarding care for in excess of 12 months, it could mean greater access and, therefore, represent a potential charge on the State. We will deal with this issue when discussing the section because we will still be able to argue these points then. My point is setting aside the moral arguments we could make when dealing with the section. Applying to amendment No. 5 the same logic applied to amendment No. 4 is preposterous. How could it possibly represent an additional charge on the State if the legislation states one must comply and given that we do not second-guess diagnoses, as the Minister just said? One either fits the medical criteria or one does not. It is on that basis that people are deemed to be eligible. Therefore, how on earth could the making of the decision on eligibility by a general practitioner, rather than a deciding officer, involve an extra charge on the State? Either one fits the criteria or one does not. The amendment is simply about stating who is best suited to decide whether a person fits the criteria, be it a medical professional or somebody with no medical training at all. How could this be a charge on the State? I am gobsmacked that the amendment has been ruled out of order. It is out of order to rule it out of order.