Vol. 497 No. 2
26 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will review his decision to reduce the 90 per cent grant aid for security devices for the elderly in view of recent avoidable tragedies involving older people; the number of these applications from each region; and the additional funding needed to maintain the normal 90 per cent grant to each applicant. [24447/98]
My Department has, since 1996, operated the scheme of community support for older people, the purpose of which is to provide funding for initiatives to improve the security and social support of vulnerable older people. This funding is provided by way of grants to voluntary groups and organisations which have undertaken to identify those elderly people in need of assistance under the scheme.
A sum of £2 million was allocated to the scheme in the 1998 Estimates. A review of applications under the 1998 scheme indicated that some 940 applications were received. The regional breakdown of these applications will be made available in a table to be included in the Official Report.
Having reviewed the level of demand under the scheme this year, I recently sought and obtained Government approval for the allocation of an additional £3 million to the scheme bringing the total allocation in 1998 to £5 million. The allocation of these additional funds will allow my Department to assist a large number of people again this year. The regional offices of my Department are currently processing applications and they expect to be in a position soon to advise groups of the decision regarding their applications.
While the maximum grant available under this scheme is 90 per cent of the once-off cost of the purchase and/or installation of the necessary equipment, it is not possible to guarantee this level of funding in respect of all applications received under the scheme. This will continue to apply as it has since the inception of the scheme and the actual amount of the grant will continue to vary in the light of individual circumstances and needs and the overall demands. I emphasise that no decision has been made by me to change the basis for making awards under the scheme despite some media reports. I am satisfied that the current level of funding is sufficient to allow my Department to make a meaningful response to worthwhile applications and to assist a large number of people again this year.
It should be noted that since its inception in 1996 a total of £12 million has been made available for this scheme and up to the end of 1997 some 36,000 people had been assisted by the scheme. It is anticipated that in excess of a further 20,000 people will be assisted this year. This means that since I came into office in July of last year I have spent £10 million on this scheme as opposed to £2 million spent by the previous Government.
I am anxious to ensure that this scheme addresses the security needs of the most vulnerable people and that it provides this assistance in the most efficient and effective way possible. In this regard, my Department has, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the Department of Health and Children, commissioned an independent review of the scheme which will consider how the scheme is meeting its objectives and whether it is doing so in the most efficient and effective way possible. The final report from the consultants will be available later this year.
Scheme of Community Support for Older People 1998 Applications
|
Regions |
No. of groups |
No. of indivi. |
|
Dublin North |
75 |
1,869 |
|
Dublin West |
30 |
1,100 |
|
Dublin South |
75 |
2,835 |
|
Midlands |
90 |
2,260 |
|
Mid-West |
101 |
2,706 |
|
North-East |
122 |
3,000 |
|
North-West |
73 |
1,636 |
|
South-East |
70 |
1,193 |
|
Southern |
193 |
5,578 |
|
Western |
111 |
3,341 |
|
Total |
940 |
25,518 |
How much extra will it cost to fulfil the full 90 per cent?
I cannot give that figure. The total number of applications amounted to in the region of over £7 million. Indeed, one group in Dublin South applied for £755,000. Again, I emphasise that I did not in any way change the remit of this scheme. It was never guaranteed under this scheme that a full 90 per cent would be provided in each case. That was the way in which this scheme operated last year and the previous one. I emphasis that since I came into Government 18 months ago, we spent £10 million—
I object to this procedure.
—as opposed to the £2 million spent by the previous Government.
This is not in accordance with Standing Orders. I asked a simple question which was how much money would be needed. Does the Minister accept that £5 million was available in 1997? Will a small amount of extra money, £1 million or £2 million, be sufficient to allow 90 per cent for 1998? Why was that money not provided?
When this scheme started in 1996, when Deputy O'Keeffe's party was in Government, it included £2 million for three years in the MABS, the multi-annual budgeting scheme. When I came into office I increased the figure, with the consent of the Government, by £3 million. I increased it by another £3 million this year. The money the Government of which Deputy O'Keeffe's party was a member allocated to this scheme was grossly insufficient.
I challenge the Minister on his figures. He did not allocate an extra £3 million. Does the Minister accept the amount was £5 million in 1997 and £5 million in 1998? Does he accept it would be reasonable to allow an extra couple of million pounds this year to ensure that the 90 per cent figure will not be cut? It is impossible for many old people to put up the 30 per cent or 40 per cent which is now demanded because of the way the Minister is administering the scheme. Does he accept this is one of the meanest cuts of all on the part of a Government which is flush with money? As far as the elderly are concerned, this extra couple of million pounds should be made available.
These are supposed to be questions. While Deputy O'Keeffe accused me of doing something in relation to my replies, he is not too bad at it himself.
As a result of an initiative taken by me to increase the figure of £2 million, which had been provided for in the Estimate, an extra £3 million was given last year and again this year. The 90 per cent figure in the previous year and in the first year was never an absolute maximum grant to be made available; it was always a maximum potential and not every group got 90 per cent. There was never a guarantee that all groups would get 90 per cent. This year, as well as last year, some groups have been in some way dissatisfied because they applied for much more than the previous year.
The Minister is playing with figures and with the security of the elderly.
We did much more than Deputy O'Keeffe's party did when in Government in relation to this scheme.
