Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I second the amendment. My amendment No. 13, which is very similar in its objective, deals with the same issue regarding the service statement rather than the assessment. It was ruled out of order, as it would impose a potential charge on the Revenue. I do not question those who made the ruling as I realise they must do so. However, there is a thin line between the requirements under Senator Terry's amendment not imposing a charge on the State and mine imposing a charge on the State. In effect both our amendments raise the same issue.

I agree with the points made by Senator Terry. While the Minister of State has said we will have an aggregate statement on unmet needs of people, it will not deal with the individuals' unmet needs. Senator Terry's amendments try to address these unmet needs, as would have my amendment No. 13. In many cases it is speculative as to whether these provisions would impose a charge on the Revenue. Having a general statement, as proposed by the Minister of State, is anonymous and does not have the same impact as considering the unmet needs of an individual, which should be delivered in a certain timeframe. It would be depressing to see a general statement of unmet needs and to know that the needs of some will not be addressed by a statement of that kind.

The purpose of the amendment is also to try to provide a forum for one of the five issues raised by the DLCG, as well as those groups that left the DLCG due to the fact that all five issues were not addressed. The issue is that services identified in the assessment of need for an individual must be provided within a reasonable and agreed timeframe.