Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Naughten's proposal is reasonable and is in line with the objectives of the social welfare code. Where anomalies arise, as in the example he gave, a degree of discretion should apply. I have come up with examples in respect of different schemes where a bit of flexibility would provide the relief or help that someone needs to get over a hump. One of the reasons we may have such a complicated social welfare system is that over time we have provided add-ons other than the core social welfare rates in circumstances where difficulties have been identified. At the very least there is no harm in examining the issue. Either the Department or the committee should investigate whether this is workable. While we do not want to open the scheme up to widespread discretion - I do not think that is the intention - there are specific cases where it might benefit others for a few months. I am inclined to support that.

I am opposed to amendment No. 2, which did not arise out of Committee proceedings. As far as I know, the committee was in favour of the name change to reflect precisely the purpose for which the respite care grant is used, namely, that it is a support rather than something people can use in order to disappear off on holidays once a year. It did not seem to have any impact. Nobody from the Carers Association complained to me about it. I thought it was reasonable.

As we are dealing with procedures etc., I take this opportunity to urge the Minister of State, if he has any sway, to ensure that the report of the Convention on the Constitution dealing with the prohibition on Members other than Ministers from making proposals that result in a charge being imposed on the people. That prohibition has led to all my amendments being ruled out of order on this occasion. Even if they are positive and in the best interests of the public from my point of view, while I can table them, they are ruled out of order. A report compiled by the Convention on the Constitution recommended amending the Constitution in this regard. We have not debated that report even though the convention presented it to the House over a year ago. We are supposed to debate them within three months. That is something I believe can be changed. I do not suggest that every single idea that comes into my head or anybody else's should be thrown into the mix. However, once suggestions are not mischievous and hugely overburdening, we should at the very least be able to debate them at some stage in this Chamber rather than it being a case of their being shot down before the debate even starts.

Amendment No. 4 is positive and I support it.

See this speech in context