David Norris (Independent)

I regret that my amendment No. 54 was ruled out of order. It is most frustrating. I strongly object to the notion that it cannot be moved because it would involve a charge to the Exchequer. Does this refer to the establishment of the commission, the payment of salaries and so on? We routinely pass similar provisions in the House. The decision to rule the amendment out of order highlights the farce under which this House is precluded from discussing any proposal involving money. The time for a re-examination of this restriction is long overdue and it should be done within the overall review of the working of the Seanad.

This is an issue the House should debate. Even though my amendment cannot be taken, I have a perfect entitlement to discuss the need for an appeals commission, as provided for in the amendment, in the debate on the section. Some 21,000 people applied for support during a previous regime, of which 9,000 were declared ineligible. No analysis was done of the reasons for these rejections. Some may have arisen as a result of non-delivery within the postal system of the correct forms. In many cases, applicants were deemed ineligible because they did not reply to letters and circulars from the authorities. This raises the question of literacy, particularly in the case of homeless people. There may well be a concealed problem of illiteracy which accounts for the fact that some applicants did not reply to certain correspondence.

Will the Minister of State consider my proposal to establish an appeals commission notwithstanding the ridiculous situation whereby I am precluded from doing so on the basis that it might create a charge on the Exchequer? That restriction is a farce and it makes the entire proceedings of this House ridiculous.