Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have a number of problems with the section. I have considerable sympathy for Deputies who take the time and make an effort to put amendments together that are then ruled out of order. I have challenged such rulings and asked at the Constitutional Convention that the section in the Constitution used to prevent us from making progressive proposals be removed. If this were done, we could make positive proposals in the future.

There are problems with the section. Deputy Joan Collins’s amendment sought to remove lines 15 to 17, inclusive. There is a reference to full-time care for 12 months, but there are times when somebody does not need it for 12 months. Let me give an example. A friend of mine is awaiting a hip operation. Since he has been waiting so long, he is now confined to a wheelchair. He was told his operation would be carried out in six months. One could get on with this, but six months can become one year and possibly be two years by the time one is seen. As the second hip is now affected, the man in question is confined to a wheelchair. His bathroom and bedroom are upstairs and he lives alone. He has no access to a carer and this legislation will prevent him from having one for a short period. We need to think about this. I am not suggesting the measure be ruled out, but there are times when care might be needed for less than 12 months.

It will probably cost the State more if that person's mental and physical health deteriorates because he or she does not have care. The person in need of care may have relatives, neighbours or friends but they may not be available 24 hours a day. This has caused problems in that instance and in other instances. That is why I would be concerned if it is confined to 12 consecutive months. We need to reflect the fact that other occasions arise.

I have a second point about this section. I refer to the proposal from FLAC that the section of the Bill in its entirety should be deleted. In the view of FLAC, the section is changing the original intention of the Bill by providing that the presumption is that the applicant is ineligible rather than the presumption that the applicant is eligible, as was the case previously. It has gone from a positive to a negative. The Department's reading of this section is that it is a negative and I do not think this was the intention. It was presented to the committee as if it was a clarification to ensure that the decisions on carers in particular had a full standing in law.

The Minister may have read the submission from FLAC and the Northside Community Law and Mediation Service which co-sponsored the FLAC proposal.