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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, to delete lines 31 to 38, and in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 30.

This was discussed on Committee Stage, and in an effort to be reasonable and take on board the Government's concerns while addressing the issues we raised, we have tabled a series of amendments which shift the balance of presumption about people's entitlement to carers and supports towards the positive and away from the negative. To clarify what I mean, the Bill states, "For the purposes of the definition of 'relevant person' in this Chapter, a person shall not be regarded as requiring full-time care and attention unless the person has such a disability that he or she requires from another person" continual supervision throughout the day, and other requirements outlined in the Bill. This series of amendments proposes that the Bill should state that a person shall be regarded as requiring full-time care and attention.

It is a positive rather than a negative. I think the negative wording in this Bill is symptomatic of what is actually going on in the Department. We will come to this again later when we are dealing with another issue in the context of other amendments, some of which bizarrely have been ruled out of order.

The bureaucratic default position of rejecting people's applications is probably influenced by budgetary considerations. Many vulnerable people, including some who are disabled, are being put through unnecessary hoops in order to access their rights and entitlements. These people, who are already suffering in difficulty, need to be supported. The framing of this whole legislation, not just this section or this part of the Bill, is about tightening up and providing the legislative back-up to say "No" as the first response. If it is not the case that it will place a bigger onus on the applicant who is seeking to get resources or supports, and if our anxieties and concerns that this is the inclination of the Department and the Government are misplaced, the Minister of State should have no reason to refuse our amendments. If the intention of the Bill is to provide support to anybody who is entitled to that support, as it should be, there is absolutely no reason for the Minister of State not to accept these amendments. The only reason to refuse to accept them would be a desire to retain a provision that will make it easier to say "No" without good cause. I hope that is not the case, but some of us on this side of the House suspect that it is.

See this speech in context