Áine Brady (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)

Amendment No. 18 proposes that financial assessments should be undertaken by an independent third party. However, as the HSE would still be making and financing the arrangements, it is questionable how this independence could be achieved or guaranteed. This amendment is also impractical in terms of the use of public resources. It would require a dedicated budget to be provided to finance an independent third party organisation. It would also result in the existing officers who administer the subvention scheme and the public long-stay charges system, and who have received some preliminary training for the new scheme, having to be redeployed by the HSE. In short, we would be failing to utilise efficiently existing administrative resources while simultaneously funding additional administrative posts, albeit through a third party organisation.

It would result in another layer of bureaucracy, with applications being submitted to the HSE but processed by a third party. This is likely to prove inefficient and to raise issues around governance and data protection-confidentiality for applicants to the scheme. To whom, for example, will the individual complain if an application is lost or mishandled? In addition, the HSE is subject to the scrutiny of the Ombudsman in terms of the requirement to follow faithfully all procedures set down in statute. With an independent third party, this layer of protection would be closed off to applicants. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.

Similarly, amendments Nos. 28 and 29 propose that reviews should be undertaken by an independent third party, while amendment No. 27 further proposes this third party should be appointed by HIQA. As already stated, an independent third party would have to be financed. It would require a dedicated budget and would effectively duplicate the administrative work of the HSE relating to assessments. Given that reviews are undertaken on the same basis as assessments, such an inefficient use of resources cannot be justified. The governance and data protection issues which I outlined earlier also apply to reviews undertaken by an independent third party. This is because a body undertaking reviews will naturally need access to the person's data and records. For these reasons, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29.

Amendment No. 19 proposes to remove the right of the HSE to appoint a suitable person to value assets and stipulates that any valuation must be undertaken by an independent third party. It should be noted that individuals will submit their valuations with their application for State support. As such, this provision is merely a necessary safeguard within the legislation. It provides for the right of the HSE to undertake valuations at its expense, which is imperative from the perspective of accountability and the HSE's audit functions. Furthermore, this amendment would be problematic as the HSE will meet the costs of any valuation requested under section 10. As such, it is questionable whether the valuer authorised and funded by the HSE could be deemed to be an independent third party. It is, therefore, not proposed to accept the amendment.

"Suitable" person as defined by the HSE, which is in section 3, is the person who has the necessary qualifications, training, experience or combination thereof to perform a function. For evaluations it will be a qualified auctioneer.

Senator Callely raised the review of a financial assessment. The review of a financial assessment can be undertaken earlier than 12 months if the HSE is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances. That is dealt with in the next section. With regard to consultation, the Minister for Health and Children and-or her officials met all the interest groups that requested meetings with her about this Bill. These included the social partners, Senior Citizens Parliament, the IFA, the ICMSA, Age Action Ireland, the National Federation of Pensioners Associations and other groups.