Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

There may be a need for clarification. Section 15(4)(b) is a positive provision and removing it would negatively impact on the Bill. As such, I am opposing the amendment.

Section 15 provides for an applicant to make a further application to the scheme where another institution in which he or she resided is added to the list of institutions covered by the scheme in Schedule 1. There is a provision for potentially adding new institutions under section 43, which we discussed when debating the previous amendment. In order to streamline the process, only one application should be made to the scheme in all other circumstances, but if a new institution is added, an individual is entitled to make a second application.

Where a further application is made under section 15, the intention provided for under this section is to afford the most generous calculation possible in assessing the applicant's eligibility for payments and access to health services under the scheme. Therefore, where it benefits the applicant to do so, section 15(4)(b) allows for his or her previous application to the scheme to be decided alongside his or her new application so that the total number of days he or she spent in the combined institutions will be reckonable in terms of affording an enhanced medical card or a payment to the applicant where he or she had previously not satisfied the eligibility criteria.

I will provide an example of what we are trying to achieve. A mother spent four months in St. Patrick's, thereby qualifying for a payment but not an enhanced medical card. A private nursing home where she spent three months is subsequently added to the Schedule. If treated as a separate application, she would get a payment in respect of the three months, but she would still not qualify for the enhanced medical card. If we applied the rules on aggregation - these are the rules that section 15(4)(b) applies and that this amendment is seeking to remove - that would apply if the private nursing home had been in the original Schedule, then she would be able to qualify for both the payment and the enhanced medical card. That is what this provision is seeking to do. It is a good provision. Perhaps Deputies would like to examine the matter again. They might wish to resubmit the amendment on Report Stage, but it would be a negative move to remove this provision.