Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Mar 1994

Vol. 439 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - House Improvement Grant.

The most important need of any disabled person is to have easy access to normal facilities within his or her own home. In 1971 I was very conscious of the need to enable disabled people to have ground floor facilities to make ordinary living easier for persons confined to a wheelchair. As the then Minister for Local Government, I introduced a new scheme of grants, the disabled person's home improvements grants, which I am glad to say have benefited many handicapped people over the past 23 years.

I am, however, greatly concerned at the Government's evident lack of commitment to this scheme which seems to be amply illustrated in County Galway where 94 applicants to the county council have been recommended for a grant by the county medical officer. The total grant requirement, based on a 50 per cent grant, is £297,000 but due to the miserly allocation from the Minister for the Environment only £15,000 is available to Galway County Council in 1994 for this work.

I am astonished at the callousness of the Government in denying the most needy in our midst basic facilities to enable them live with a small degree of comfort in their own homes. I am talking about people who are physically disabled; confined to a wheelchair; who may need ramps to get in and out of their homes; door jambs widened to accommodate wheelchairs; door handles lowered; downstairs bedrooms, sittingrooms and bathrooms to give independence in their personal lives and kitchen sinks lowered to facilitate working from a wheelchair. Similar facilities are required for people with severe heart conditions, emphysema and other debilitating and disabling handicaps and diseases. These citizens, some disabled since birth, others disabled while playing a vigorous role as members of the working population or weakened in old age after a lifetime of service to their families and the nation, deserve better in 1994 than the Government is offering.

The Programme for a Partnership Government carries the fine words:

We are firmly committed to eliminating inequality for all groups in society that have suffered from disability, disadvantage and discrimination. People with physical disability have the same talents and abilities as anybody else — they are equal citizens. A major programme of improvements is necessary to end marginalisation, to ensure full expression of equality. Particular provision will be made in our housing policy and plans for the elderly and for people with a disability. We are committed to the establishment of a caring society where the needs of those living in poverty and others who depend on income maintenance from the State are seriously addressed. It is our intention to move as fast as possible towards a system that provides fast and efficient access to all on the basis of need.

None of these fine sentiments will bring relief in 1994 to the 94 applicants in the Galway County Council area who will be deprived of basic facilities unless the Minister's priorities are altered and more money is provided for this urgent scheme. An extra £300,000 this year would bring some relief to these stricken people. The Government that has decided to deny Galway County Council this £300,0000 has chosen instead to allocate £5 million to Croke Park. This is a strange and inhuman set of priorities for any Government. Shame on the Minister and the Government.

I call on the Minister to admit the callousness of his policies to date, to recognise the sheer cynicism that allows him to make finely worded commitments never to be fulfilled. This is sad in the extreme.

In a recent debate in this House on another subject it was established that the Minister was committed to investing £6 million in constructing one mile of roadway, yet he would deny £300,000 to the most needy, people who have had to have recourse to the housing aid for the disabled scheme to provide basic facilities in their homes.

In the specific case in question there is no possibility of any work being undertaken in 1994 under the allocation of £110,000 from the Department of the Environment, even though this application was approved by the County Galway medical officer in July 1992. At the present rate of funding it could be four to five years before all of the current applicants receive grant payments. I have not referred to the Galway Corporation area where there are also many urgent applications. In one case a 23-year old girl who is confined to a wheelchair has to be lifted in and out of the bath by her mother because a wheelchair shower cannot be provided until a grant is approved under the scheme.

Galway County Council states that of this year's grant allocation of £110,000, £95,000 has had to be paid out for work completed during 1993, leaving only £15,000 for any work carried out in 1994. Approval has been granted in 22 cases, representing £75,000, where payments will soon be due but there is no money available to meet £60,000 of that requirement. In 20 cases where the county medical officer has recommended grants totalling £72,000 approval cannot be granted because there is no money available. Another 52 cases representing £150,000 cannot be considered due to the dire financial situation.

These facts are an indictment of the Minister's policy and priorities to date. He should do something worthwhile to help these deserving people before they lose all faith in him and his Government's promises.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue in the House. Either he is misinformed as to the realities or deliberately misinforming the House about the situation. As the person who introduced the scheme, he knows better——

I object that the Minister is claiming that I deliberately misled the House. I have a letter issued to each member of Galway County Council in which the exact position is set out.

The administration of the disabled person's grants scheme is the responsibility of individual housing authorities, as the Deputy is well aware. For this reason I would have no knowledge of the position on any application and it would, furthermore, be inappropriate for me to attempt to intervene in any individual case.

I should clarify the position on the financing of these grants. Expenditure by local authorities under the disabled person's grants scheme is financed from their own capital or revenue resources, by borrowing from the Housing Finance Agency or by a combination of these methods. My Department recoups up to half the authorities' expenditure subject to a maximum cash limit in any one case.

Capital expenditure on these grants, together with local authority house purchase and improvement loans, is subject to the capital allocation for these purposes notified to the local authorities annually. Local authorities are facilitated as far as possible in providing increased capital allocations to meet demands for grant expenditure. Within the capital allocation it is a matter for the authorities to decide the funding arrangements to be made each year in respect of these grants. The Deputy, as the person who introduced the scheme, knows that neither the Minister nor the Department of the Environment is involved in such decisions. Therefore it is primarily for the local authority to determine how individual applicants fare.

The capital allocations for 1994 will be notified to authorities shortly but in the meantime they can continue to pay grants in the normal way and need not hold up any applications on this account. I am satisfied that the amounts of the capital allocations have not been the cause of difficulties in relation to grant payments. Authorities are well aware that they will always receive a positive response from the Department if they seek to have their allocations revised upwards to allow them to borrow from the HFA where they cannot provide sufficient funds from their own resources. Loan finance has been and continues to be readily available from the HFA to authorities seeking it for this purpose.

I am talking about grants, not loans.

I am not talking about loans to individuals but rather to local authorities to pay grants. Last year the number of recoupments made by my Department in respect of disabled person's grants amounted to almost 1,600 at a cost of £2.5 million. Notwithstanding the continuing increase in activity and in grant payments under the scheme the limit on the maximum individual recoupment from the Department was increased by me with effect from 1 March 1993 by 60 per cent from £2,500 to £4,000. As the general practice has been for local authorities to match the recoupment available to them from the Department in individual cases the effect of this increase should be to raise the maximum available grant from £5,000 to £8,000. This is clear evidence of the Department's commitment and mine to this scheme.

Although the level of activity under the disabled person's grants scheme remains high, I have become aware from representations that there may be problems with the availability of grants to eligible persons in some areas. Such would arise if authorities failed to make adequate provision for the scheme in their annual estimates or were not prepared to borrow from the HFA to supplement internal resources. It may well be that the problem in the case referred to by the Deputy is due to a failure by Galway County Council in this regard. It is its responsibility and it has the means to deal with it.

I would not be happy if it was the case that disabled persons, some of whom would urgently require to have their homes adapted, were prevented from having their accommodation needs met because of the failure of any local authority to operate the scheme as intended and introduced by the Deputy. Accordingly, my Department is carrying out a detailed survey to establish the general situation in regard to the operation of these grants around the country. A detailed questionnaire has recently been sent to housing authorities and they have been asked to submit their replies as quickly as possible. I will then consider whether any action on my part is needed but I stress that this should not be seen by local authorities as in any way absolving them from their responsibility to operate the scheme properly in their areas.

Top
Share