Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State said I had indicated that this is completely new in social welfare legislation. I did not say that. I said I am aware it appears in various aspects of social welfare legislation but I also said it was new in respect of applying for carer's allowance. I said it is a reversal of the words of the 2005 Act which cover carer's allowance.

We can argue about numbers and the numbers qualifying have increased. The number of people qualifying for carer's allowance may have increased but the obstacles they must undergo to get it have also increased quite appreciably. It is a pretty devastating indictment of the system that more than 50% of people who were initially refused carer's allowance, in the main because they were deemed to be medically ineligible, ultimately qualify when they go through either a review or the appeals process. That takes months and sometimes up to a year and a half. I have known cases that took two years from beginning to end. That means that people who were entitled to this State benefit under the laws of the State were messed around and delayed for up to two years before they got their benefit. This is a travesty in respect of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country.

The Minister of State says there is no change in the legislation even though the legislation we are debating today differs from the initial qualifying legislation. The Minister says this makes no difference. The 2005 Act sets out when a person is entitled to carer's allowance. This legislation is saying they are not entitled to carer's allowance unless certain conditions are met. Any lawyer from one end of the country to the other will readily conclude that this is a very definitive shift in the burden of proof. It places the burden of proof firmly on the shoulders of the applicant. FLAC has indicated that and its views have been set out in this House. FLAC did not give that opinion lightly. It has access to the best legal advice possible in this area. I have the greatest respect for officials in the Department but if it comes to a legal dispute and the officials are on one side and FLAC is on the other, I know which side I would be on.

If, as the Minister of State says, this makes no change, why write it in? What are we doing? We ask questions every day and we will be asking them shortly about promised legislation that has yet to appear. What are we doing putting clauses in legislation that are not needed and that by the Government's own admission make no difference? This can only tighten up the provisions relating to carer's allowance. We should remember that this is a means-tested payment. Millionaires do not qualify for carer's allowance so the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country are the ones who will be adversely affected.

See this speech in context