Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

In welcoming this legislation on Second Stage, I contextualised my remarks saying they were being made on the understanding that we are examining placing the existing scheme or schemes on a sounder footing and providing for the current subvention arrangements in primary legislation so that the approach to them would be standardised across the State. Those are important premises on which to make a judgment of the legislation. Amendment No. 3 is tabled in this spirit because we want a sounder basis in every respect. When I make a judgment call on legislation, and its intent is to improve, which it should always be, I am prepared to evaluate it soundly.

Deputy Twomey's amendment seeks to do exactly that regarding the appeals process. He is quite precise and particular. The amendment states clearly, "an appeals officer designated by the Minister". That is a particular. Somebody has a clear designation and responsibility and he or she will have the required training, credentials and experience to act in that capacity and undertake the role of an appeals officer. What does the Minister of State propose? The proposed new section 7E(3) states, "Where the Executive receives an appeal under subsection (1), it shall appoint a person (who may be an employee of the Executive) to consider the appeal" while section 7E(4) provides that the person appointed pursuant to subsection (2) to consider an appeal under subsection (1) shall comply with guidelines, consider any written or oral objections, make a decision and send a copy of the relevant decision to the relevant person and the executive. I am concerned that the preparation of the legislation in regard to the appeals process is weak and open to abuse and misuse and is, in no way, firm or directional. Appointing a person, perhaps an HSE employee, who must comply with the guidelines, consider objections, make a decision and forward a copy of the decision means there is a huge gap between the legislation, which is before us for final consideration, and the amendment tabled by Deputy Twomey, which is quite specific that an appeals officer, not simply "a person", shall be appointed.

On receipt of an appeal who will be appointed? It could be a case of Johnny or Mary running by and, because he or she is not doing anything, being asked to take the appeal and make sure he or she complies with the guidelines, consider any written or oral objections, make a decision and send it to the relevant person. Where in the wording will people find confidence, assurance and the certainties that are required? On Committee Stage, the Minister of State responded to these proposals by saying appellants would have recourse to the courts. We do not want to commend such a course to them. We want to recommend to them a safe, sound and solid basis for appeal within the system. That is not clear in the legislation. It requires to be addressed and it absolutely requires amendment.

Amendment No. 3 meets the criteria necessary to give the required assurance to people that a proper appeals mechanism is in place. I appeal to the Minister of State to reconsider his rejection of the amendment on Committee Stage. Nothing he said at the time gives me an understanding of the reason he and his colleagues in the Department rejected this reasonable, important and necessary amendment.

My hope is that the Minister of State will not trundle out the same inadequate responses he did on that occasion. They simply do not measure up to the requirement. This Bill, if it is to proceed on the basis the Minister of State commended to the House up to this point, will be significantly flawed and open to abuse by officials and those who would be more dilatory in their approach to their responsibilities within the system. Public confidence will be sorely and severely affected as a result.

One role we, as elected voices, have is to act as a buffer between the system and the people. If this wording stands and becomes the substantive wording within the final, passed legislation, how can we put our hand on our heart and claim we have confidence in it and commend it to our respective electorates? We cannot do so. The wording requires address. The issues other speakers and I have articulated to the Minister of State during the debate must be taken on board.

I urge the Minister of State to accept the amendment in the spirit of ensuring the best legislation and meeting the criteria I laid out in my considered welcome of this legislation on Second Stage, namely, that it seeks to place the whole subvention process on a sounder basis. That must be the objective.

See this speech in context