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

I have certainly had to think long and hard about my attitude to the final vote on this Bill, and I had to consult colleagues. This is because a trick is being played with this Bill. The trick is to smuggle in a very regressive measure under the cover of one that is marginally progressive. I find that sort of politics quite dishonest. It is a way of trying to blackmail the Opposition into endorsing legislation that is regressive.

Much of the debate on this Bill has focused, for important and entirely legitimate reasons, on the issue of lone parents and the impact of changes already made, but not dealt with in this legislation. I am referring to the phasing out of the one-parent family payment for families when their children reach the age of seven. That was a the regressive move. As has been said, we were promised this would not be implemented until we had Scandinavian-style child care but we have not got that. The Government has broken the promise. Instead of giving what it promised, it has offered the sop of the back-to-work family dividend, essentially under pressure owing to agitation by lone parents, advocate groups such as SPARK and its supporters in this House. In so far as the Government has been forced to introduce the dividend, lone parents who are not working will be able to move on to the transitional payment and, therefore, not lose out. However, as has been pointed out at length, those who are working will lose out, even with the back-to-work family dividend. That loss will become increasingly worse over a number of years. On the other hand, it is better than nothing for those who will benefit from the concession the Government made under pressure. While much of the debate has focused on that, what was smuggled in under the radar was not really spotted by me and most other Deputies until we read the detail of the legislation on Committee Stage. We saw in various sections of the legislation that the Government is giving a little with one hand but taking away with the other. The taking away is in the form of the tightening of the eligibility criteria for carer's allowance, carer's benefit and the respite care grant.

These issues are every bit as serious and important as those concerning lone parents. This is a real sleight of hand by the Government. We have debated this extensively through the amendments we tabled on Committee Stage, in addition to those we tabled on Report Stage this morning. The Government has not given any justification for the changes included in this Bill in respect of the criteria, the definition of a "relevant person" who would be entitled to carer's benefit, or the criteria for eligibility in that regard. We just got bluster. The reason for this is to cover up the fact that the Minister of State, his officials and everybody knows that this is a tightening up.

The Minister of State said something to the effect that the previous legislation was ambiguous. If I am correct, that was the justification. The Minister of State said this Bill is doing away with ambiguity. I would prefer the ambiguous version because it offers more latitude and support to the applicant for the carer's allowance, or carer support, than the tightened-up version. The existing legislation states a relevant person shall be regarded as requiring full-time care where they meet the criteria. This Bill states a relevant person "shall not" be regarded as requiring full-time care and attention unless certain criteria are met. That is a clear shift in the presumption of entitlement. It absolutely clear that it is a shift. It makes it easier for deciding officers to say "No". That is essentially giving legislative support to deciding officers who were wrongly refusing applicants. When they refuse people, they are inflicting suffering on a very significant cohort who do not need further suffering on top of the disabilities, illnesses and infirmities that lead them to apply for carer supports in the first place. It is just not fair. Needless suffering is being experienced. We should be moving in the opposite direction, as alluded to in the amendments that Deputy Collins and I tabled. These amendments would simply require the acceptance of the word of a general practitioner.

I will make a point I did not have time to make earlier. When we discussed this on Committee Stage, I asked why we should not simply accept the word of the general practitioner or professionally qualified medical practitioner when testifying to medical eligibility for a carer's payment. The response we got from a committee member on the Government side was that it would put too much pressure on general practitioners. We also heard the excuse that it would make the general practitioner judge, jury and executioner in the determination of eligibility. I would much rather a general practitioner, who is medically qualified to decide whether somebody needs carer support, to be judge, jury and executioner than somebody who is not medically qualified and for whom a significant pressure is the budgetary constraint. I am not merely speculating that budgetary constraints are an influence on deciding officers; we know this because amendments to address this were ruled out of order on Committee Stage because they would represent a potential charge on the Exchequer. Why would they be a potential charge on the Exchequer? If somebody meets the medical eligibility criteria for a benefit, he is entitled to it. If the Government were honest in this legislation, it would actually say the relevant person shall not be entitled to a benefit unless he or she fits the medical criteria, "subject to budgetary constraints". Of course, it would not say "subject to budgetary constraints" because that would completely undermine the principle of the measure, which is supposed to be a support for people who need it.

The Department could not possibly admit that in legislation but it is absolutely clear that this is what was driving the thinking. The idea is that the Government cannot open the floodgates, as the Department would see it, because it would impact on budgets and would bring a charge on the Exchequer. The Government does not admit that this is what is driving the tightening up of the criteria in the legislation. It is dishonest legislation.

One of the implications was explicitly stated at the committee. Certainly, from talking to some of the Deputies afterwards - I am not referring to the Minister of State, but other Deputies - there was a belief that general practitioners are willy-nilly signing letters stating that someone needs supports or is permanently disabled or whatever, when that is not the case.

See this speech in context