Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)

I fully support the amendment put forward by Deputy Twomey. The Bill has worried me from the beginning. I have at every opportunity tried to create interest in it among various groups from the perspective of members of the public pressuring elected representatives in their home areas as to the magnitude of the concern this measure will cause among senior citizens. It is not correct to accept that the only means available to a senior citizen is to go to the courts in this regard. At the time a person is seeking nursing home subvention, that person is at his or her weakest. People are seeking assistance and do not want to have to get a court decision with regard to means for nursing home subvention.

Reference was made to the difference in the valuation of houses. As the Minister of State knows, virtually every applicant for nursing home subvention in County Kildare would exceed the €300,000 bracket due to the valuation of houses in the county. There is no doubt the limit is not high enough or reflective in any way of the valuation in houses in the Kildare area, where the Minister of State and I are public representatives.

Cases where the residential home becomes excluded with regard to its valuation are also of deep concern. For example, a single parent residing with a father, mother or other loved one and who is taking part in a VTOS course would be excluded from the assessment of the valuation of the house. How in God's name can we make a decision that a house could be sold without reference to a single parent who is trying to better himself or herself, just because he or she is in receipt of extra payments and has gone outside the assessment valuation figure? How can we suggest that the Bill properly covers such aspects if we do not include a proper appeals mechanism to allow such cases to be determined and evaluated? That is the nature of this measure. A person on a single parent allowance is not included, which means his or her home would be excluded from the valuation.

The same could be said with regard to a carer. A person could have minded a parent for 20 years and arrived at a position where he or she could not care for the parent any longer. When the parent entered the nursing home, the son or daughter would no longer be a carer and might obtain employment. If, as a result of the employment, he or she moves outside the limits of the very tight exemptions, the family home could be sold over that person's head, despite the fact he or she had looked after the parent in that home for 20 years. The position is the same for anyone on low income and not in receipt of carer's allowance who works and then goes home and cares for a loved one. If nursing home subvention is needed, the house could be sold over that person's head.

There is no logic to trying to deal with the family home in this way. The entire Bill is frustrating and destroys the one thing we all consider most valuable, namely, the family home. As I stated previously in the House, no legislation should provide that the family home is included for assessment. It is one value we possess, the one pearl in our crown, and it should not in any way be used in the valuation mechanism.

If we do not put a proper mechanism in place, we will cause concern across the spectrum among those seeking nursing home subvention. They will not seek subvention because they will feel that the family home for which they worked so hard and which they want for themselves and their children will be sold over their heads just to get them into a nursing home. There should be no connection between the assessment of a family home and a person trying to access medical care. The family home should be excluded from any assessment in this regard.

I would like clarification from the Minister of State with regard to the assessment of the degree of dependency, a matter I fail to understand. If I were to attempt to obtain nursing home subvention for a loved one or parent, I would contact a matron, director of services or director of nursing in the nursing home to tell them I was seeking a placement. The official would tell me the cost was, say, €700, as it currently is in my area. There are three different aspects of dependency but the owner of the nursing home will not ask an applicant the category of dependency he or she has because one's level of dependency is reflected in the cost of one's care. If an applicant's nursing home subvention is €700, it will be that amount regardless of the applicant's category of dependency. Those who grant the subvention will not relate it to the applicant's level of dependency. Given the different categories of dependency identified in nursing home care and the mechanism to be put in place under this legislation, the cost of nursing home care will be greater for some families than for others for the simple reason that a resident in a nursing home can shave himself. It is unthinkable that we would deprive a person of something because he can shave himself. It is the Government and not the nursing home that is effectively saying that a person who can shave himself will have to pay more for his care. There is no logic to requiring that a person must pay more out of his own pocket for care because he can shave himself and go to the toilet without assistance. That is what this legislation is effectively saying and I do not see a way around that. I have yet to receive word from a nursing home that because an applicant, be it a parent, brother or sister, has medium dependency the cost of his or her care will be lower. That does not happen. I cannot understand the logic of categorising a person who needs nursing home care -the person would not have submitted an application in the first instance if he or she did not need care — and charging them more for such care. The cost of such care will have further financial implications for that person's family for the simple reason that person can walk to the toilet without assistance, shave himself and look after himself.

The Minister of State must put in place a mechanism to allow an applicant to appeal under the normal criteria. I have spoken here on numerous occasions on the effect of the social welfare appeals system. The inspectors there are a credit to the system. I have attended more appeals than I can almost count and on leaving them the person I accompanied has said on every occasion that the appeal was not bad, that the appeals officer did a good job and gave the person every opportunity. We are not giving the most vulnerable people in our society, namely our senior citizens who are responsible for us achieving what we have today, that opportunity in this legislation. I fully support the provision of the appeal system proposed by Deputy Twomey. This opportunity must be available to people.

The option of going to court is not a runner because in many cases they suffer from dementia or the early onset of it. Therefore, they do not know about the court system nor do they want to know about it. Even if a person's family mentions that the court option is the only way to appeal a decision to try to save the family home, the person will not want to know about it. They will want to stay at home and create further problems for those who have cared for them for so long.

I ask the Minister of State to give due consideration to this amendment. If accepted, it would allow people the due process of appeal under a properly orchestrated mechanism and allow them to make every effort to obtain what is a necessary payment, given the value of the nursing home subvention. In my area it has increased from €500 to €750 and is rising. The cost of providing nursing home care for one's loved one is outside the means of a person on an ordinary income.

In regard to the family home, I stress as I have previously, that the home is the one asset an old person has, with all that means to the person. Consideration of it should not be even included in the legislation. Notwithstanding that, I ask that due consideration be given to accepting amendment No. 3.

See this speech in context