Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

"(5) (a) A person applying for a subvention, or a person acting on his or her behalf, may appeal, to an appeals officer designated by the Minister, on the grounds of—

(i) his or her means and circumstances, or

(ii) any abatement of the rate of subvention to that person of the maximum rate appropriate to that person's level of dependency, against a decision of the Executive—

(I) not to pay a subvention, to pay a lower amount of subvention than the maximum rate,

(II) to withdraw a subvention, or

(III) to reduce a subvention, within 28 days of the date on which the Executive notified the person of its decision and the grounds for its decision.

(b) The designated appeals officer shall consider an appeal under paragraph (a) and shall inform the person making the appeal of his or her decision within 28 days of the receipt of the appeal.

(c) For the purpose of deciding the appeal, the designated appeals officer may request information from the Executive and from the person to whom the appeal refers or a person acting on his or her behalf.

(d) A decision of an appeals officer shall be final and conclusive.

(e) Where the Executive has determined that a person does not qualify for a subvention, or qualifies for less than the maximum rate of subvention, it shall inform the applicant of his or her right to appeal the decision under this subsection.".

All of our arguments on Committee Stage centred on these amendments. While I was expecting clarity from the Minister of State in the meantime, he only provided it in two respects. The HSE's appeals procedure for nursing home subventions is not the new procedure we expected. It states that an appeal is a request by a person for the re-examination of a decision made on his or her application for a nursing home subvention in respect of a refusal of the amount awarded under the 1993 nursing home regulations, but these regulations will be out of date once this legislation is enacted.

My second piece of information concerning the Minister of State's thoughts is the press release we dragged out of him by making the charge that this legislation will force elderly people who live alone to sell their homes if they require subventions. He stated that this matter has been agreed with the social partners. Not only do I not know which social partners were involved in the discussion, but I do not know the views of elderly people's advocacy groups such as Age Action Ireland and the Irish Patients Association or whether they have spoken to the Minister of State.

Not only is the legislation piecemeal and scattered, but the Minister of State is trying to take houses away from elderly people. He has given no indication otherwise. I tried to make sense of his press release, but he has his party leader's habit of talking in riddles. It is the same old story. While the Minister of State says the legislation will improve matters, it will copper-fasten provisions that make it difficult for elderly people to get subventions.

Amendment No. 3 relates to the HSE guidelines. Deputies will traipse into the Chamber to vote on the Bill at 1 p.m., but is it realistic to expect us to do so before the appeal guidelines are published? This is a disgrace. This morning, Deputy Rabbitte stated the Government cannot put legislation together and the Tánaiste told the House that the amount of work we will do in 2007 will be brilliant, but this legislation is not clear and the Minister of State refuses to answer straightforward questions. He should not table such legislation until the guidelines have been published. He has no social service inspectorate and no HIQA legislation. The protections we are talking about for elderly patients, not only in nursing homes but when they are trying to get into nursing homes, do not exist. I do not know whether these come under the amendments being discussed, but there are a number of other matters that have been highlighted here in this regard.

When I first looked at this legislation, I assumed it was only elderly people who were living alone who were at greatest risk of having their house, of any value as opposed to of the value of €300,000 in some areas and €500,000 in others, taken from them. Often I assumed they were the only people under threat.

This also needs to be explained. If an elderly person living in a house of substantial value with a daughter or son ended up going into a private nursing home, the State might force that son or daughter to sell that house. The legislation uses the words "could reasonably give rise to destitution or homelessness of a person having a close connection with the applicant for a period of not less than 12 months". On giving rise to destitution or homelessness, the Minister of State might well state the value of the house is so high that if they downsized to a smaller house, that would not lead to destitution or homelessness. Even a relative could be forced to move out of their house to a smaller house.

The same applies with the financial assessments made on 50%. That means the State will also possibly be looking at the income, for instance, of a gay couple living together. The Minister of State has not made that clear either.

What is going on here needs to be made crystal clear to everybody and that is why I will keep pushing these amendments until the Minister of State gives me a full and proper explanation. I will wait to hear some of the Minister of State's answers on this.

When he made a press statement last week, I went to the trouble of going through his Second Stage speech to see exactly whether he was making this clear. He stated that I was wrong in some of my statements, but he is making it quite difficult here for elderly people and he must explain some of the matters which he did not explain clearly on Committee Stage.

There is one important point I want the Minister of State to make crystal clear for us. On Committee Stage, he stated "The principle of co-payment for long-term care is one that was accepted by the working group on long-term care which we established and is reflected in the social partnership agreement." What does he mean by co-payment? This is his opportunity to add clarity to this. I do not want to hear any more about a Cabinet sub-committee looking at funding for long-term care of the elderly. He is making that decision on this legislation. He is taking the house from the person and this is the core principle of much of what he is talking about. If the Minister of State is stating that co-payment is the way forward in funding long-term care, it is time for him to stand up and state exactly what is co-payment. Co-payment, as the legislation stands, means basically that elderly persons who own their homes are in trouble when it comes to getting subvention.

Since some of these regulations were more or less passed on to the HSE last Christmas we have been aware there are difficulties. Some people are saying this is not being implemented uniformly across the country, but this legislation will make it apply uniformly and it will be a great deal more difficult for elderly people.

In some respects, if this information is not disseminated from this Chamber, the Minister of State will get away with it.

See this speech in context