Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to the amendments in the order in which they were tabled by the Deputies.

As I outlined on Committee Stage, I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 26. In that context, I am of the view that the provision in section 15 has perhaps been misinterpreted. I will explain its intention. The section provides for a person to make a further application to the scheme in circumstances where another institution in which he or she resided is added to the list of institutions covered by the scheme. In all other circumstances, only one application should be made under the scheme in order to streamline the process for the applicant and enhance the efficiency of the scheme. Where a further application is made under section 15, the intention provided for under this section - the section that would be deleted if this amendment is successful - is to afford the most advantageous calculation possible in assessing the applicant's eligibility for payments and access to health services under the scheme. Therefore, when it benefits applicants to do so, section 15(4)(b) allows for their previous application to the scheme to be decided alongside their new application in order that the total number of days they spent in the combined institutions will be reckonable in affording an enhanced medical card, or a payment, where they had previously not satisfied the eligibility criteria for such benefits.

By way of example, a person might make an application to the scheme in respect of time spent in an institution listed in Schedule 1. In the context of this application, it is determined this person spent 150 days in the institution as a mother and is entitled to the general payment of €10,000. An additional institution is subsequently added to the scheme. This same applicant also spent time, 80 days, in that institution and makes a second application to the scheme in accordance with section 15. Taking her first and second application together, this applicant, having spent 230 days in total in the institutions, is now also entitled to apply for an enhanced medical card. This provision allows for the best possible and most favourable interpretation in calculating the benefits an applicant gets under this scheme. This amendment would remove that particular section. I do not think that is what Deputies want to achieve.

I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 63. It seeks to give the power to insert an institution into Schedule 1 to the chief deciding officer and to remove the need for the Minister to consult with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when adding institutions to Schedule 1. The scheme covers the institutions considered by the commission of investigation to be the main such homes that existed during the 20th century.

The inclusion of an additional institution or institutions in Schedule 1 would expand the scope of the scheme. In that case it would be inappropriate not to seek the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to include additional institutions. It would also not be appropriate for the chief deciding officer to have the authority to expand the scheme as his or her functions are restricted to the operation of the scheme and decision-making in terms of the eligibility of applicants from institutions listed in Schedule 1. The expansion of the coverage of the scheme is a policy matter for the Department to consider in accordance with the specific requirements set out in the legislation and, due to the cost implications of any additions to Schedule 1, for the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to give consent to.

See this speech in context