Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to speak to the section. My amendment has been ruled out of order because there is potential charge on the State. I listened quite intently to what the Minister of State said on Second Stage. She said she did not want to backdate it because it would create a precedent, but it would not. We have had numerous precedents, particularly relating to issues of compensation where payments have been backdated. Even as recently as last November, a statutory instrument was introduced that backdated provisions to the beginning of October. It is quite common in these cases.

There are many precedents whereby a Government brought in legislation that implemented provisions from the date of the relevant Government decision. The Government decision to address these particular anomalies within the fair deal scheme was taken three years ago. Only a handful of people would now be impacted by this particular provision but in those instances, some of them have substantial bills accruing against their family home and estate for someone who went into a nursing home more than three years ago. This issue needs to be addressed for those families. The issue will be addressed going forward. In cases where costs have accrued prior to the Government decision three years ago, the people concerned do not have a legitimate claim. However, the Government took a decision three years ago next month to exempt the family farm or business after three years. It has been a tortuous process to bring forward this legislation. It has taken three years. I accept that. However, should individuals be penalised and forced to sell the family farm or business because of the delay in implementing the Government decision by drafting this legislation? I suspect we are talking about a relatively small number of families and individuals. I plead with the Minister of State to consider this matter again in advance of Report Stage.