Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left) | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with this section again. We all feel we are expressing the negativity of this section when we say that the inclusion of the word "not" is negative law-making. This has quite clearly been outlined by the Free Legal Advice Centres, which have major concerns about this section. We are questioning why the Department and the Minister of State want to change the current legislation in this way. Given that it has worked effectively up to now with no negative content in it, why do the Department and the Minister of State specifically want to change it now?

When we debated this matter on Committee Stage last week, I tabled an amendment which would have provided that a person would not be regarded as requiring full-time care unless "the nature and extent of the person’s incapacity has been certified in the prescribed manner by a medical practitioner including the person's own General Practitioner". I intended that this certification would determine the eligibility of the person's application on medical grounds. The Minister of State suggested that the amendment tabled by Deputy Boyd Barrett and I last week was too broad because it would affect the means testing of the whole application. That is why I have tabled a similar amendment that refers specifically to the "person’s eligibility on the medical grounds eligibility of the application". I think it is a very practical amendment to the Bill.

I will conclude by reiterating that I want to know why this section of the Bill is necessary. There is concern on the Opposition benches that it is being introduced to tighten up the process that has to be followed by vulnerable people when they are looking for grants and benefits and to put the onus on such people to prove they have illnesses that are so bad that they require carers to assist them.

See this speech in context