Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have some concerns with regard to the section to which the amendments relate. Perhaps the Minister might clarify a few issues because the position is quite confusing and there are quite a few calculations involved. To whom will the provisions of the section apply? Will they apply to someone who is currently in a nursing home and who has not applied under the fair deal scheme? I refer, for example, to a person who has been paying for a private residential scheme and who might come under the category ruled out under section 6 or who may already be contemplated under the nursing home subvention scheme. Will the provision apply to someone who has made an application in respect of the scheme and in respect of whom a decision is pending? Under the revised rules, the scheme does not kick in until approval issues in respect of the national waiting list rather on the day on which someone enters a nursing home. Will the Minister clarify the logistics relating to this matter?

I understand that the 7.5% will kick in on the date on which someone's application is approved. The 5% contribution used to kick in on the original date on which a person entered a nursing home. There is probably not much of a difference in this regard. On the basis of the value of the capital asset, however, there is a substantial difference between a contribution of 5% and one of 7.5%. The capital asset disregard will remain unchanged. As a result, someone who enters the scheme will - on the basis of capital assets decreasing in value - be disproportionately better off than a person who entered the scheme when it was originally devised. The reason for this is that value of capital assets was significantly higher in 2008.

Where a capital asset is generating income, will that asset be disregarded and the income calculated or will there be a double whammy whereby the income and the value of the asset will both be taken into account? If that is the case, surely that is a double charge on a single asset. Is that not unfair?

See this speech in context