Private Members’ Business.

Disabled Person’s Grant Scheme: Motion.

Mr. Gilmore

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

—deplores the failure of the Government to provide sufficient funding for the disabled person's grant scheme, administered by the local authorities, which has created huge difficulties for persons with disabilities or mobility problems who need to make physical adjustments to their homes; and

—noting the further difficulties being created as a result of inadequate funding for the home improvement scheme for the elderly, administered by the health boards;

calls on the Government to:

—provide sufficient funding to allow local authorities to clear all outstanding applications for the disabled person's grant scheme;

—increase the maximum amount payable under the grant to at least €30,000; and

—place the grant scheme on a statutory basis.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Penrose, Howlin, Upton and Moynihan-Cronin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

Louise is 11 years old, she has Down's syndrome and suffers from a condition of the ear which affects her balance and which makes using stairs difficult and dangerous. Louise lives with her parents and two brothers in a two-storey council house in my constituency.

Mr. Howlin

I raise a point of order. No member of the Government is present.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

There is nothing I can do about that.

Mr. Howlin

I do not think the House can properly sit if no Member from the Government side is present.

Mr. Gilmore

I move that the motion be agreed.

Deputies

Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

The motion is agreed.

Acting Chairman

Fan go fóill.

Mr. Gilmore

The motion has been agreed.

Mr. Rabbitte

Will you put the motion, Sir?

Mr. Penrose

The motion should be put.

Deputies

The motion is agreed.

Mr. Rabbitte

What are you declaring, Sir?

Acting Chairman

I do not think I have authority to declare a motion agreed. There is now a representative of the Government in the House.

Mr. Penrose

However belated.

Acting Chairman

Belated though it be, I ask Deputy Gilmore to proceed.

Mr. Gilmore

In deference to you, I will proceed although the record of the House should show that the motion was agreed. I trust I will be credited with the two or three minutes it has taken for the Minister of State to arrive.

For the benefit of the Minister of State I will repeat that the constituent to whom I refer is an 11 year old girl who has Down's syndrome and a condition of the ear which affects her balance and makes using a stairs difficult and dangerous. She lives with her parents and two brothers in a two-storey council house in my constituency.

On 23 August 2001 her mother applied to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council for the provision of a downstairs toilet to reduce the number of times Louise would have to climb the stairs. On 28 August 2001, the council wrote to the occupational therapy section of the East Coast Area Health Board for a report and recommendation. Over a year later, on 10 September 2002, the occupational therapist carried out the inspection. The health board states that its occupational therapy section is understaffed.

The occupational therapist's report, dated 18 September 2002, did not arrive in the county council until 28 January 2003 because it was initially sent in error to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which did not forward it to the council until the error was discovered following inquiries by Louise's mother.

The occupational therapy report, dated 18 September 2002, states:

Louise is a nine year old girl with Down's syndrome. She has also had a mastoidectomy that has affected her balance, increasing the likelihood of her falling. The hearing in Louise's other ear is poor and may deteriorate.

Going on to describe the house, the report states:

. . .at the end of the stairs, there is a fanned turn with three steps. Enclosing the steps there is a wall. The wall poses a definite risk to Louise, as the area of most risk of falling is on the stairs. A downstairs toilet would be of benefit to Louise in facilitating toilet training and reducing the need for using the stairs during the day. In the long term a bedroom at ground floor level would be beneficial.

The report goes on to recommend works to straighten the stairs and that the provision of the downstairs toilet is a high priority.

Almost two years after that report was written, no work has been carried out. the council's architect has yet to visit the dwelling. Yesterday, I inquired again about this case and I was told the architect would probably call within the next month to see if it needed to be referred to a consultant architect, but God only knows when Louise will get the downstairs toilet which the occupational therapist described as a high priority two years ago and which is needed to reduce the "definite risk" that using the stairs poses to Louise.

The Minister may respond to this case that the delays were with the health board and the local authority. Both the health board and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council have serious questions to answer about their handling of this application. However, Louise's case is not an isolated one. Current applicants for the disabled person's grant in my constituency are now being told by the council that their applications will not even be processed until the backlog from 2002 is cleared. This means that people who have had accidents, strokes or heart attacks or who suffer from some disability will have to wait between two and three years at least for necessary adaptations to be carried out to their dwellings. It is a condition of the scheme that work cannot commence until the grant has been approved so the delay in processing and approving grant applications necessarily results in the work being delayed.

People who are unable to climb stairs have to wait years for the provision of a downstairs bedroom or toilet and are often confined to using the living room as a makeshift bedroom and to the indignity of using a commode in some part of the living space of the house. Elderly or infirm people who can no longer get into a standard bath have to wait years for the bath to be replaced with a step-in shower. All over the country, thousands of people with varying types of disability are in these circumstances.

At the end of 2003, the Irish Wheelchair Association released the results of a survey it conducted throughout the local authorities. Most councils reported that their money had been used up for 2002 and were considering introducing varying stages of prioritisation, some relating to the disability and some relating to a means test. While the response varied from one council to another, one thing was consistent, all over the country the disabled person's grant scheme has run into serious trouble.

According to the Disabilities Federation of Ireland, the recent census estimated that 8.3% of the population identify themselves as having a disability. More than 120,000 people with disabilities are dependent on social welfare payments that are insufficient to either get or service a mortgage. The disabled person's housing grant scheme, DPG, has for more than 30 years played a crucial and central role in supporting thousands of people with disabilities to return to or remain living in their homes. In this way people have continued living active lives and contributing to their communities. It continues to allow people all over the country to participate fully as equal citizens in the communities in which they live. However, the scheme has never fully addressed the needs of people with disabilities.

As far back as 1980 the National Economic and Social Council stated that an effective housing policy for people with disabilities must involve the following three elements: a satisfactory adaptation scheme, provision for special housing as part of the building programme and provision of housing with support services where the demand exists. The Disabilities Federation of Ireland has reiterated its call for these three components as part of a national accommodation and support strategy for people with disabilities.

The disabled person's grant has come under assault due to the financial strain faced by some local authorities, particularly over the past three years. Changes to the scheme, including the introduction of means testing and the reduction of individual amounts payable, have led to increased vulnerability for people with disabilities, often at crisis points, including over-long stays in hospitals and inadequate standards of housing.

The Irish housing stock is largely inaccessible to people with mobility impairment. The disabled person's grant was introduced to part fund housing adaptation as required by people with mobility impairment. However, people with disabilities are still trapped in inaccessible, unsuitable and potentially dangerous homes due to the failure of the disabled person's grant scheme.

Today's crisis in the disabled person's grant has been well flagged to the Government. Over the past two years especially, my Labour colleagues and I have been raising the issue by way of Dáil questions. The response we have received from the Minister of State with responsibility for housing has been the same, the Government has increased the maximum allowable, the local authorities should make up the balance from their resources and the scheme is under review.

That official reply, which may be repeated again this evening, misses a number of points. Demand for disabled person's adaptations have increased, the cost of building has increased and the waiting period has got so long that it makes a mockery of the application process. For example, applicants must submit an estimate of the cost of the works when making the initial application. What builder will hold himself to a three year old estimate if it takes that long for a local authority to approve a grant?

Major changes need to be made to the disabled person's grant scheme. The scheme should be put on a statutory basis so persons with a disability will be able to get their house adapted as of right. Putting the disabled person's grant on a statutory basis would also eliminate the inconsistencies that apply from one local authority to another.

The maximum grant should also be increased from the current level of €20,320 to €30,000 and indexed to the cost of building thereafter and, in line with the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, the Government should increase the disabled person's grant to cover 100% of the cost of approved building work. At present only two thirds is paid by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the balance must be found from local authorities' own resources. As a result, access to the disabled person's grant varies from one local authority to another, depending on that council's rate base or income from other sources. Access to the disabled person's grant should be based on need, not on an accident of residence.

The Government should now make the necessary funds available to clear the backlog of disabled person's grant applications. I include in this applications for disabled person's alterations to council-owned dwellings and applications for the home improvements scheme for the elderly.

I ask the Minister not to tell us that the funds are not available. The €60 million he squandered on the failed experiment with electronic voting would provide every waiting applicant with a downstairs toilet, a bedroom extension or a walk-in shower. Tax revenues for the first four months of this year were €500 million ahead of target. This is now a question of priorities.

When this was a relatively poor country, people with disabilities could apply to their local authority for a grant to adapt their house. The grant would be approved and the works would be completed within the same year. Now, with the Government's finances bulging, people with disabilities who urgently need a home adaptation are being told by the Government that there is not enough money, are being told by their local authority that it does not have the architects to inspect the dwelling and are being told by the health board that it does not have the occupational therapists to assess their need. Could there be more damning evidence of this Government's mismanagement that in economically-abundant times, its message is that the disabled must wait?

I ask the House to accept this motion. I especially ask Fianna Fáil Deputies, who reportedly came back from the recent local and European election campaign with the needs of disabled person's grant applicants ringing in their ears, to support this motion. I say to them to recall now the homes they called to in May and June, to remember the plight of the people with disabilities and their distraught parents and families, to remember their promises to them that they would do their best for them and not to let them down when this motion is voted on tomorrow night. I ask them to support this Labour Party motion so that before this House goes into recess for the summer, people with disabilities can be assured that their needs will be treated as a priority.

Mr. Penrose

This is an important motion and will establish who in the House supports rights-based legislation and who supports the idea that matters like this should be left to the discretion of local authorities or Departments.

For the last 35 years, the disabled person's grant has played a crucial role in helping the many people with disabilities or mobility problems to remain living as independently as possible in their own homes. Almost 18,000 have been assisted in improving their homes under the scheme and have been able to participate fully in their communities as equal citizens as a result. The grant has also played an important role in relieving pressure on hospital beds.

Now, however, many people stay longer in hospital as they wait for a disabled person's grant to which they are entitled, but which has been put on the long finger because of a lack of finances. The continuing financial strain placed on local authorities which manage the scheme, results in many people losing out. This is a national scandal that must be addressed immediately to help people with disabilities to make the necessary physical adjustments to their homes.

In Westmeath County Council, an efficient local authority, where people are making strenuous efforts to stretch limited resources, as of November 2003, €3.5 million was required, without taking a single extra application after that date. The 2004 budget for disabled person's grants amounts to €1.05 million, with €650,000 already committed to grants approved in 2003. Funding of grant applications currently in hand is being considered in the context of the 2004 and estimated 2005 budgets. This is disastrous for those on the lists.

They are further segregated according to priority. Priority 1 cases receive approval while priority 2 and priority 3 cases are put back and will not be heard of again. People who need these essential facilities are not being catered for and are dying. It is a scandal that this can happen while the Minister wastes money on electronic voting and Punchestown. This is the dividing line between right-wing and left-wing ideology. Everything else can be catered for but we must look after people first. That is the fundamental compassionate view of an economy — it should serve the people, not something else.

Disabled person's grants appear to be issued on a first come, first served basis. According to research carried out by the Irish Wheelchair Association, a significant proportion of local authorities had long since used up their grant allocation for the year by November. Those people who apply after a particular time of year have no hope of receiving grant approval that year.

This grant has been in existence for more than 30 years but the basic fundamental requirements for the operation of the scheme have not changed and, while any increase is to be welcomed, it will be of little use. Where would a person get a room and a bathroom added to a house for €20,000? We must deal with reality, it would cost around €50,000.

The scheme is still funded at the discretion of the local authorities and the money often runs out before the end of the year, resulting in a major shortfall in the implementation of this scheme for the rest of that year. Local authorities have to make the scheme fit the demand that exists but they implement different criteria. It is important, therefore, that the scheme is on a statutory footing. Its administration must be equal across every local authority. People could argue that they face discrimination because if a local authority is cash rich and can administer the scheme, people within that area will get a higher priority than people in a different local authority area. The Minister should seek the advice of the Attorney General on this issue.

Let us take the example of someone who has been in an accident and is left in a wheelchair. It makes sense that all the provisions that person needs to live as full and independent a life as possible are in place by the time he or she is discharged from hospital. It is absolutely essential that proper planning is in place before someone comes home from hospital but this is simply not the case. In 2001, a 72 year old person was discharged from hospital after having his leg amputated. As soon as he became wheelchair bound, the occupational therapy department in Beaumont Hospital applied on his behalf for the grant to build a bathroom with an accessible shower but he was left for months. While the situation may have been sorted out since then, there are many other people like him who are still waiting in similar conditions for grant approval.

There was a case outlined in The Irish Times of a person who spent four years on a hospital bed in his parents’ front room. He was left suffering from brain damage after being in a car accident when he was 29. Speaking in April to The Irish Times, he said: “It was very embarrassing sleeping in my parents’ front room for four years in a hospital bed. They never complained but it was annoying me that any visitors to the house had to walk through my bedroom first.” Although he was not able to secure a bank loan to make up the remaining moneys to carry out the work, with the help of the Irish Wheelchair Association, his parents and the credit union, he raised the difference.

The Irish Wheelchair Association estimates that it costs €50,000 for a downstairs bedroom and toilet but the current scheme awards a maximum of €20,320 to adapt a room in an existing house or €12,700 for a new house. At the very least, the scheme must offer recipients the more realistic figure of €30,000. Anything less is merely paying lip-service to this very important scheme. Recipients already have to provide at least 10% of the cost of the works and for many this means attempting to secure a bank loan or having to beg, borrow and turn to family members and friends to raise the money.

We must also acknowledge the importance of being independent. The smallest modifications to a home can mean all the difference between someone with a disability or mobility problem remaining self-sufficient and independent or being confined to a nursing home or residential care. It is clear there is a compelling case for the grant levels to be raised.

It is a major problem that there is no statutory entitlement to the grant and that its payment is at the discretion of the local authority. Many local authorities are finding that, with the current demand, they run out of money early in the year and are simply unable to meet the demand for grants, even in the most extreme of cases. It is clear more funds must be made available to local authorities to enable them to ensure that all applications are funded. There is no consistency in the administration of the scheme. Behind these applications are people who have suffered due to the failure of the disabled person's grant. Their cases are not once-off and their experiences are repeated throughout the country. The Minister must take the opportunity to review and completely overhaul, standardise and most important, improve the scheme. Up to now the Government has failed to provide sufficient funding for people with disabilities. The recent increases in funding for local authorities do not go far enough. The Labour Party believes it is vital that the level of grants for home adaptation for people with disabilities is raised significantly. The service must become rights based and not one constrained by the local authority cash constraints and limits.

Dr. Upton

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion on behalf of those people who are very often least able to fend for themselves and often left longest waiting. The waiting lists in my area seem to go on forever and the queues seem to extend indefinitely. It is not good enough that disabled people are kept waiting for long periods of time to be provided with what are often very basic needs that would allow them to live with what would be considered a minimum of comfort, independence and security. It is totally unacceptable that disabled people are kept waiting not just for months but in many cases for years. They are told, "I am sorry, we do not have anybody to visit you for at least 15 months to two years."

People with disabilities are not able to wait for months, let alone years, to know if their bathroom will be approved or if their bedroom extension will be given to them. Frequently people say, "Why did I bother? It is just not worth it." There is hassle involved in the form filling, waiting for the application to be approved and so on. They become disillusioned. They say, "I will be dead by the time this grant is approved; why did I bother?" There is a follow-on disruption to their house which may be caused by any modifications that may arise. They want to have the house adapted so they can live in comfort but they frequently find it is simply not worth the trouble.

As my colleagues have stated, the amount of the grant is not adequate to meet the requirements of even a modest modification or adaptation. The mere €20,000 which is now approved will frequently go nowhere near meeting the real cost. People often must borrow the money from the credit union or beg the money from their family. These are people who are at risk in any case and it puts further stress and strain on them.

People make a reasonable assumption that the grant will be available to them within what they would consider to be a reasonable length of time. They do not have a problem with waiting a couple of weeks or months. However, the process drags on. The inevitable bureaucracy of the number of people to be seen and visited spoils it for the applicants and makes them bitter towards the whole business.

It is one thing to wait for approval from the local authority but I wish to raise another issue this evening. The delay in obtaining reports from occupational therapists has been mentioned by my colleagues. The waiting time for the occupational therapist is approximately 15 months to two years. The provision of what I consider to be very basic changes is often delayed for years before an occupational therapist can give approval. I have many constituents waiting for an occupational therapist's report before the grant can even be considered. Why is there such a delay and why is no action being taken to ensure the supply of occupational therapists can at least go some way towards meeting the demand?

I hear frequently from health board officials who state, "I am sorry, we do not have the occupational therapy posts filled." Why is there only one school of occupational therapy in this country with the numbers attending the course capped? The queue goes on and on.

An elderly lady in my constituency has been given the run-around so many times in her attempts to obtain approval for such basic needs as a handrail and a special chair. The hospital occupational therapist decided and approved the requirement. Later, however, the whole process, for whatever reason, had to be re-enacted with the occupational therapist from the local health board. The only problem is that the lady lives in a third-floor flat and in order to be approved for the chair, she had to go to the occupational therapist. If she were able to negotiate the stairs in the first place, she probably would not want the occupational therapist to visit. She has been informed she must wait for up to 15 months for an assessment. There is some form of arrogance associated with this situation. A disabled person must do battle with three flights of stairs in order to be assessed for something that has already been approved by another professional. Is it not possible for the file to be passed from one group to another or one person to another? How much time and money is spent or wasted on this kind of inefficiency?

Individual occupational therapists will often do their very best to accommodate people. They will give as much information as possible. There is a serious block in the system in terms of the availability of occupational therapists to make these grants available and to allow approval to go ahead. Why can the shortage of occupational therapists not be addressed? Has consideration been given to recruitment from abroad? Is it not possible for some straightforward elements of the occupational therapists' reports to be addressed by the use of students on placement? I am not asking that professional, fully-qualified occupational therapists be replaced but there must be some system whereby some accommodation can be made.

It often happens that two or three months after the grant has been approved, the person dies. This is an indication of the block in the system, the length of time wasted and the frustration of those people who are entitled to minimum requirements for adapting their homes and making life more comfortable and tolerable.

Acting Chairman

There are 14 minutes remaining.

Mr. Howlin

Deputy Moynihan-Cronin and I have seven minutes each. I wish I had longer but I have seven minutes to address what I regard to be a basic social justice issue. We spend a lot of time in this House, probably rightly, on the weighty matters of the European Presidency. We are proud to strut the stage with the best and the good in any of the European fora. This issue is a defining issue, whether we have the right to call ourselves a civilised and just society. What we are discussing is affording some of the most vulnerable people in our society the basic means to hold on to their dignity. If we cannot do that in an efficient, caring, reasonable manner, then we forego the right to strut with the great and the good and pretend that we are a civilised, developed society.

Three different schemes touch upon the matters being discussed. They are the disabled person's grant, the essential repairs scheme operated by the local authorities and the housing aid for the elderly scheme which is operated through the health boards. They are often used to send a fool further. When the money is inadequate for the local authorities to deal with essential repairs or when the disabled person's grant for the year is allocated in its entirety, somebody is sent to another venue to fill out more forms, to be assessed by more people marching through their house and hopefully, at the end of the day, they might receive something. More likely than not, they simply waste time in the waiting.

I wish to speak about three of the most recent cases from my own county and I could pick many more from my files. All three cases touch on the basic tenet of dignity, the ability to bathe oneself and have access to a toilet. To think that in the dying days of our Presidency of the European Union, what is being debated in the House is whether we can provide such basic facilities as these to the citizens of our State.

The first case is that of an elderly couple who because of medical conditions such as breathlessness, hypertension and cardiac failure, can no longer use the bath. They applied to the local authority for funding to provide a walk-in shower at ground floor level. The senior staff officer of my local authority responded:

While I appreciate that a grant is sought urgently for the adaptations proposed in this case, I regret to advise that sufficient funding is not available at present to approve a grant for these works. The application may be reviewed if there is a significant health and mobility deterioration. In the event that all the highest priority grant applications are finalised during 2004, the Council will consider the case again.

The money was used up. This is a letter dated March of this year and this elderly couple have been refused a grant.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Deputy should not shout in case he wakes the Minister.

Mr. Howlin

The second case relates to a young person in my constituency who suffered serious brain damage in an unfortunate accident. The health board notified the applicant that no funds were available for modifications to provide a walk-in bath and asked that the person call later in the year.

The third case relates to an application for housing aid for the elderly. I will cite the deputy appeals officer's response to my representations.

As you are aware funding for this scheme is allocated by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Board [that is, the health board] must operate the scheme within limited funding provided. Because of the large number of applications received for assistance under the scheme a means test may be carried out to establish an applicant's ability to contribute towards the cost of work involved. Having viewed this application I am in agreement with the decision of the board.

These cases are examples of the reality on the ground. When young people who are disabled or elderly people who have served and built the tiger economy of which we are so proud, and about which we boast, need assistance from the State to afford them basic dignity, they are denied it due to lack of money. If there are any priorities, surely expenditure in these areas should take precedence over the billions we can find for other matters.

My colleagues have spelt out what is needed in this effort. We must have a rational scheme and co-ordination between the three current schemes. We must have rights based provision set down in law, which is simple, workable and uniform in its application because it is clear that the likelihood of receiving a grant depends on the local authority to which one applies. My experience is that some local authorities make better provision and are better able to provide than others. This is not good enough because people have a right to basic services.

The Houses of the Oireachtas have an obligation to set out the appropriate rights in statute law and provide ease of access to ensure the assessment and applications can be completed easily and processed quickly. What we have done is put in place barriers. We pretend we are giving a service when we know the money is not available and tell people, as in the three cases I have outlined, that they may as well give up and enter a nursing home, rather than end their days in dignity because we do not have the wherewithal, either the resources or the wit, to provide essential services for people in need. A government which cannot get this basic element of social provision right is not entitled to call itself a socially just government.

Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this issue in which I have a great interest. After the recent local elections, we listened to a stream of representatives of the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats parties wonder about the reason their parties performed so badly when the economy is in such a wonderful state and so many jobs are being created. Unfortunately, the people about whom we are speaking tonight are not benefiting from the wonderful economy and are not able to take up the jobs being created. The Government is concerned with economics and jobs, rather than people. That is the reason the Fianna Fáil Party did so badly in the local elections. We all heard that message on the doorsteps.

I support the motion and pay tribute to the organisations which represent people with disabilities, particularly NAMI. They deal with this issue morning, noon and night on behalf of their members, families and friends. The disability organisations support the motion and want the grant to be raised to a realistic figure of €30,000. They also want a full review of the scheme to be completed without delay to ensure all the issues raised in the House tonight are addressed.

I will describe a very sad case with which I am dealing. I do not know how anybody living in this supposedly wonderful economy will be able to live with himself or herself on hearing this story. It relates to an elderly couple who had to move out of their house because the roof is made from asbestos. The lady of the house is suffering from serious health problems and the couple were forced to move into a mobile home. The local authority recently sent them a letter notifying them that they must move out of the mobile home by the end of August because they do not have planning permission for it. We have since applied to the local authority for a grant to replace the roof and to the health board to replace rotten window frames. If it takes the usual length of time to process the applications and award the grants, the couple will be forced to live in a house with an asbestos roof with which no health and safety official would dare deal. The couple is facing the difficulty that no builder wants to go near the roof. If the roof is not repaired and the local authority removes the mobile home from the site because it does not have planning permission, who will deal with the couple? I do not want to live in a society in which two pensioners who cannot afford to make necessary repairs will be put out of their house on to the side of the road. I do not care what planning laws we break; people are entitled to their home.

The disability Bill the Government promised in its programme for Government is still being discussed. The reason it was not produced before the local elections was that it will not be rights based. The Government is not fooling anybody, whether people with disabilities, the organisations representing them or the Labour Party. The Taoiseach stated the legislation will be introduced in the House in the next session. Although I have not been involved in any discussions on the matter, I know it will not be rights based. The Opposition will continue to table motions such as this in the House until we have rights based disability legislation.

Last year, Kerry county councillors received a letter from the local authority regarding capital allocations for disabled persons and essential repairs grants. It stated:

Kerry County Council recently received a capital allocation of €1,378,000 from the Department of the Environment & Local Government in respect of payment of Disabled Persons and Essential Repairs Grants. This is the first time in recent years that a cap has been placed on Disabled Persons and Essential Repairs Grants expenditure by the Department of the Environment & Local Government.

This allocation of €1,378,000 represents a 22% reduction on the provision made in the Revenue Estimate for Disabled Persons and Essential Repairs Grants in 2003.

This letter was written by an official, not a politician. I and other members of the local authority in County Kerry raised hell about the matter and shamed the Department into giving us an additional few bob. It is an absolute disgrace that one must shame a Department and Minister into giving money to those most in need.

I implore the Government to consider people with disabilities. It heard the message on the doorsteps and knows people with disabilities are out there but will not come on a radio programme or go to the newspapers. They have their dignity and I ask the Government to have the dignity to look after them.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Gallagher)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"acknowledges the achievements of the Government in significantly improving the housing grant assistance available to disabled and elderly persons in the past five years by:

—providing a substantial increase in combined funding for the disabled person's and essential repair grant schemes from €18.6 million in 1999 to €65 million in 2004;

—increasing the effective maximum grant available under the disabled person's grant scheme from €10,158 to €20,320 and the essential repairs grants scheme from €1,143 in 1999 to €9,523;

—increasing the maximum disabled person's grant available in individual cases from 75% to 90% of the approved cost of the works;

—increasing the level of recoupment to local authorities from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government from 50% to two thirds;

—retaining the disabled person's new house grant towards the purchase or construction of a new house;

—increasing the funding for the special housing aid for the elderly scheme from €7 million in 1999 to €11.6 million in 2004; and

notes that a review of the disabled person's grant scheme is being finalised by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and supports the continued actions by the Government to respond to the housing needs of elderly and disabled persons through a range of targeted initiatives

I wish to share time with Deputy Seán Power.

I am pleased to reply to the motion. The Government is committed to a strong sound and appropriate housing programme. An investment of €1.8 billion will be made in 2004 across the full range of programmes, with particular priority being given to programmes that assist those in most urgent need. The continued increased allocations for disabled person's grants, essential repairs grants and the special housing aid for the elderly schemes are evidence of this commitment.

I am well aware of the pressures on both the disabled person's grant and special housing aid for the elderly schemes. These are only two of a number of housing schemes operated by my Department and, in that context, it is necessary to balance the competing claims of the various schemes to ensure the available funds, which are limited, are directed to those whose housing need is greatest.

I will first put the disabled person's grant in context and outline the improvements that have been made to the terms and funding of the scheme over the past few years. Demand under the scheme has increased significantly in recent years. Regulations governing the scheme provide that a housing authority may pay a grant for the provision of additional accommodation or the carrying out of works of adaptation that, in the opinion of the authority, are reasonably necessary for the purpose of rendering a house more suitable for the accommodation of a member of the household who is physically handicapped and the works are necessary for his or her proper accommodation, or who is suffering from severe mental handicap or severe mental illness for which he or she is undergoing treatment and the works are necessary for his or her proper treatment and accommodation. The framework for the disabled person's grants scheme is laid down in the statutory regulations. The regulations are intended, as far as practicable, to give appropriate flexibility to local authorities.

There is no definite list of approved works that qualify for grant assistance and it is a matter for the local authorities to decide on the general criteria they apply. The regulations do not seek to provide a strict definition of "disability" for the purposes of the grant and, in recent years, more and more applications are in respect of age-related mobility problems. This trend is likely to continue. Unlike most other schemes of Government assistance, no system of prioritisation is laid down in the regulations on medical or income grounds. The only stipulation is that the grantee should occupy the house as his or her place of residence on completion of the works.

The regulations are loosely framed to allow authorities to deal with applications in a flexible manner, to open the grant to as many applicants as possible and to provide a service which the local authorities feel is appropriate in their own areas. This has been one of the strengths of the scheme. It does, however, make it more difficult to manage and to ensure the available funding is directed to those who need most assistance on mobility and income grounds. The major increase in demand for assistance under the scheme can be attributed to the improvements the Government has made to it over the past five years. The maximum grant has been doubled from €10,158 to €20,320, the percentage of grant available has increased from 75% to 90% of the approved cost of works and the level of recoupment to local authorities has increased from half to two thirds.

My Department notifies local authorities of a combined allocation each year to cover the payment of disabled person's and essential repairs grants. The terms of the grant schemes were not only significantly improved but the funding to cater for demand was also increased. In the period 1999 to 2003, expenditure on disabled person's and essential repairs grant totalled almost €245 million and covered 33,000 individual grants. The budget provision for these schemes this year is the highest ever at €65 million, an increase of €10 million on last year's provision.

It is a matter for individual local authorities to decide on the funding to be provided for the disabled person's and essential repairs grants schemes in their areas from the combined allocations notified to them for this purpose by my Department. The available funding of €65 million for expenditure in 2004 was notified to local authorities on 20 May last. Local authorities were advised to notify my Department if their allocation was inadequate or surplus to their requirements to facilitate the reallocation of funds to obtain optimum effectiveness from the funding. A small number of authorities will seek increased funding. The scope for reallocation of funds will be kept under ongoing examination in my Department during the rest of the year and all requests for additional funding will be considered in this context.

When calling for further increases in funding, Opposition Members forget that local authorities fund one third of each grant from their own resources, normally from their revenue account in the context of the estimates process. While all authorities are free to seek an increased allocation, this does not allow them to increase expenditure, unless there is a corresponding increase in the their own revenue contribution. Local authorities have become much more conscious of the need to proactively manage the disabled person's and essential repairs grants schemes in the recent past to ensure they remain within their allocation and do not put undue pressure on their own revenue accounts.

Many of them have introduced a system of prioritisation on medical grounds and have adjusted the level of grant available. It is essential that local authorities should continue to manage the scheme to ensure activity is related to their ability to fund their own contribution to the funding required while having regard to priorities in their area.

The special housing aid for the elderly scheme is administered by a task force set up in 1982 under the aegis of the Department to undertake an emergency programme to improve the housing conditions of elderly persons living alone in unfit or unsanitary accommodation. Various statutory and voluntary bodies involved in this area are represented on the task force. The scheme has, since its inception, been administered with flexibility and a minimum of formality in the interests of elderly persons whose housing conditions have been improved. However, over the years, health boards have developed a priority list to ensure the most urgent cases are dealt with as quickly as possible within the terms of the guidelines.

Typically, aid is available for necessary repairs to make a dwelling habitable for the lifetime of the occupant. The scheme was extended in 2000 to include the provision of suitable heating systems to meet the needs of elderly persons, where necessary. The community care departments of the health boards operate the scheme, using various mechanisms to carry out work under the scheme. The scheme is extremely effective. More than 51,000 cases were processed between 1982 and 2003. A further 1,395 jobs were under way by the end of 2003, the latest date for which figures are available.

The Government has significantly increased funding for the scheme from €5 million in 1997 to a record €11.6 million in 2004 in recognition of the valuable work being done. The allocations to the boards are determined by the task force from the funding available and are based not on the geographical spread of the population, but on the statistical returns received from the health boards showing the level of activity within the area, the number of applications on hand and the estimated cost of these applications. The success of the scheme is due, primarily, to active co-operation between the various statutory and voluntary bodies involved in its operation.

Apart from the disabled person's grant and the special housing aid for the elderly schemes, the essential repairs grant scheme, which is also operated by local authorities, provides grant aid for elderly persons towards the carrying out of works which, in the opinion of the local authority, are reasonably necessary to prolong the useful life of a dwelling.

Like the disabled person's grant scheme, significant improvements to the terms of the essential repairs grant scheme since 1999 have also led to increased demand for assistance. The maximum grant is €9,523. Expenditure on the scheme increased from €5 million on 966 grants in 1999 to €13 million on 2,842 grants in 2003. Recoupment costs have also increased from €1 million on 836 grants in 1999 to more than €11 million on 3,262 grants in 2003. That is more than a tenfold increase in recoupment.

A disabled person may qualify for a new house grant of up to €12,700 where a suitably designed or specially adapted new house is being purchased or built specifically to meet the needs of a disabled member of a household. There can be no doubt that the improvements made to these grant schemes and the significantly increased funding provided to meet increased demand are clear indications of the Government's commitment to meeting the housing needs of disabled and elderly persons.

The Government is very conscious of the need to ensure that the needs of disabled and elderly persons are taken into account in all aspects of housing policy. Local authorities have been asked to draft five-year action plans covering the full range of their housing programmes. These plans, to be agreed with my Department, will ensure that a fully strategic approach is taken by local authorities to the needs of all sectors of the community and will ensure that the requirements of disabled and elderly persons are specifically identified and better reflected in the authorities' housing programmes for the period in question.

In addition to the various schemes for the adaptation of existing dwellings the Government is making significant progress in the provision of new dwellings for elderly and disabled persons through the capital assistance scheme. The number of dwellings provided under this scheme for elderly persons in 2003 was 382, with grant assistance of almost €44 million, and 255 for persons with disabilities, with grant assistance of more than €29 million.

Members will be aware that a review of the operation of the disabled person's grant scheme is under way in the Department. I have already mentioned that in addition to the essential repairs grants scheme and the scheme of special housing aid for the elderly, the DPG is increasingly used by elderly people. This effectively means that this sector is now being catered for by three separate grant schemes. For this reason it is considered that the relationship between the disabled person's and essential repairs grants and the special scheme of housing aid for the elderly should also be taken into account in the context of the review. The response to increased demand for assistance under any grant scheme should not always be that we should "throw more money at it". It is often necessary to stand back and have a fresh look at the overall position and that is what we are doing now. We need to see if the substantial amounts of money we are already spending are being used to best advantage, if structures that have been established for the implementation of these schemes are still appropriate and if they are being operated in the simplest, most efficient and most cost-effective way possible.

We are conscious that people who apply for those grants often do so at a vulnerable stage in their lives and it is essential that the application and approval processes for those who are eligible should be as straightforward as possible. It is expected that the review will be finalised very shortly and details of any amendments, if necessary, will be announced thereafter.

Mr. S. Power

This is a very important subject. Members dealing with constituency matters on a daily basis will realise that this is a real issue which affects people throughout the country. Many of those people do not believe they have a voice to air their serious grievances and they feel very hard done by.

The Government can make the case that it has substantially increased the housing grant assistance available to disabled and elderly people in the past five years and I will instance five areas where that is the case. First, the combined funding for disabled persons and essential repairs grants schemes was €18.6 million in 1999 and that has increased to €65 million this year, a significant increase in anyone's language.

Second, the effective maximum grant under the DP grant scheme has increased from €10,158 to €20,320 over that five-year period, so we have seen a doubling of that grant. Third, the essential repairs grant has increased from €1,143 in 1999 to €9,523 today. Fourth, the increased maximum disabled person's grant available was 75%, but that has been increased to 90% of total cost of works and local authorities can now recoup 66% of costs, where it was 50% previously. Fifth, the special housing aid for the elderly scheme has increased from €7 million in 1999 to €11.6 million in 2004.

On the face of it those figures are quite impressive but the reality is different. I will deal with Kildare and its surrounding area, a region I am more familiar with than the national stage. The figures I have given represent what is happening throughout the country but I will look at the situation from a Kildare point of view. Last year in Kildare we provided €1.6 million for the disabled person and essential grants scheme, a hefty 60% increase on 2002. This year, for the first time, Kildare County Council has provided funding in its estimates for that scheme —€330,000. That means we will have less than €1 million for the scheme this year, while last year we had €1.6 million. We often talk about giving local authorities extra powers but this is obviously a case where the disabled persons and essential repairs grant scheme is not a priority.

It is estimated that the funding provided this year will meet one third of the demand but with some shame I have to say that no grants have been paid in Kildare at all in 2004, though we are almost halfway through the year. Very few grants have been paid out since July last year and we now have a serious backlog in applications and total frustration among applicants. That is totally unacceptable. We are treating the applicants as fools and that cannot be allowed to continue. Kildare County Council has no difficulty in providing millions for new civic offices but when it comes to looking after the most vulnerable members of our society, they are obviously not a priority. I ask the Minister of State to examine this situation to see what can be done to rectify it. It beggars belief that this policy is being pursued by Kildare County Council in 2004.

Most Members are familiar with the minor essential works carried out by health boards, such as insulating cylinders, installing smoke alarms, repairing windows and doors — there was a time when doors and windows would be replaced, but that is not done any more — minor roof works, dry lining a bedroom wall and providing radiators. Showers may be provided for the elderly but not for the disabled.

The big difficulty here is that the health board has only five workers and two foremen engaged on the eastern community works and looking after the Kildare-west Wicklow area. The difficulty for the health board is that a no-go area exists as far as working with Kildare County Council on a similar scheme is concerned, so many people are now applying to the health board, which can only carry out minor essential works. The health board is receiving many inappropriate applications which should be sent to Kildare County Council.

The health board deals with Kildare, Dublin and Wicklow, and while the Kildare-Wicklow area represents 13% of the population, in the past year it has enjoyed 52% of the budget. More than half the money being allocated in that area has been spent in the Kildare-Wicklow area. While I welcome such expenditure in Kildare, it is obvious the scheme is in need of an overhaul. That type of spending cannot continue.

The budget for the three counties for this year will be €1.6 million and a 15% top up payment. Where people get the disabled persons grant, the health board will provide a top-up. A major change must take place. A small number of workers have been working extremely well. Last year approximately 60 people benefited from the work in the Kildare-Wicklow area but, unfortunately, there is still a long waiting list. Apart from dealing with the waiting list, they must deal with a number of applications which are totally inappropriate and do not fit in with the minor essential works which are supposed to addressed.

The essential repairs grant scheme is targeted at older people living in substandard housing conditions. Listening to the contributions of Labour Party members, it is obvious that major changes are necessary in this area, and the Minister of State touched on that. The solution to many problems has been to throw more money at them. However, it has been obvious for some time that there is duplication in the schemes and that one scheme implemented and operated by one body would be a far more efficient way to use scarce resources.

It appears that some local authorities treat this matter with the importance it deserves while others have been paying lip-service to it, which is not acceptable. There must be uniformity throughout the country in the way this problem is dealt with. Surely it should be the policy of every local authority to allow people to live in comfort and dignity. That is all people want when they apply. They do not want to live in conditions which those of us here would not tolerate for a night, never mind a lifetime. A country can be judged on the way it looks after its citizens who cannot look after themselves. It is important the matter is addressed in a manner deserving of it.

Since my election to this House I have listened to many Private Members' debates. With few exceptions, Private Members' motions are voted down. Opposition motions are debated, sometimes belittled and usually voted down. The Opposition tables a motion, which is generally critical of Government policy, and the Government tables an amendment to it generally congratulating itself on its performance. Is it any wonder there is such cynicism among the electorate given that type of performance in the House regardless of which party is in Government? With the exception of former Deputy, Alan Shatter, who had much success on Private Members' business, the majority of Opposition Members must find it very frustrating in that they put a great deal of hard work into and undertake much research to table Private Members' motions but they are very often voted down and discarded. It is important that changes quickly.

Mr. P. McGrath

Tomorrow night.

Mr. S. Power

We should realise the Opposition does not get it wrong all the time. Regardless of what motions come before us, there is always a certain amount of good and logic in them. Rather than pick holes in motions brought before us, we should pick on the good points and work and build on them. We would have a more effective and efficient democracy if we did that.

In private, few Members of the Houses would disagree with the motion before us. Any Deputy or Senator who is in touch with the grassroots in his or her constituency would be very much aware of the difficulties encountered by people trying to live with some dignity and comfort. That is really what tonight's motion is about. I do not expect the Government to vote in favour of the motion but it is important that it takes on board the thrust of the motion and that we put in place systems to deal with the serious problem in respect of the schemes.

The Minister of State indicated that one does not necessarily have to throw money at a problem or that by throwing money at it one will solve it. I agree with that. Given the cost of building and repairing houses, it is difficult to get builders to do the small jobs. Fortunately, there is still a number who are prepared to do them. However, prices have increased substantially and it is important that we look at the grants available, particularly in the December budget, and at making major changes.

As the Minister of State said, we have made much progress. Certainly from the point of view of providing resources, we have targeted money at this problem in a fairly substantial way. However, I am not sure we have got value for that money. It is important the scheme is streamlined and that we deal with the problem much more efficiently and effectively. When people make a genuine application, they should be given some indication as to when work will be carried out so that we do not lead them down the garden path as at present in that many people apply and assume the good news is just around the corner. Unfortunately, for many, they are dead before the good news arrives. It is an area which is in need of a total shake up, although the Minister of State referred to a review.

It is ridiculous having different schemes which overlap and duplicate the work. In some cases, we are forcing people into making two applications rather than one. They believe that if they back two horses in the race rather than one, they have a better chance of getting a result. In some cases, people apply for a scheme which does not really apply and it is a total waste of time.

For a long time we have neglected the disabled and it has only been in recent years that they have got a voice. We have substantially increased the amount of money and the services provided for the disabled. However, when one is starting at a very low base, it is easy to throw figures and percentages at people and to pretend we are making much progress. We have neglected the disabled for a long time and it is important to rectify that. I congratulate the Labour Party Members on tabling the motion. Whatever review takes place and whatever conclusions or recommendations are brought forward, it is important that we significantly reduce the waiting time. Extra funding and increased grant levels are appropriate and it is vital one scheme is in operation for all.

Mr. McCormack

I wish to share my time with Deputies Stanton, Paul McGrath and O'Sullivan.

We are speaking about the most vulnerable sector of our community, namely, people who are waiting and are being frustrated in their applications for the essential repairs grant and for the housing grant for the disabled. I compliment Deputy Sean Power on a well-judged contribution. Sometimes it is not easy to follow him on Private Members' time, although I often must do so. If the Minister of State had made the contribution Deputy Power did, we would probably have a more sensible debate. I do not know what way he will vote when the Government amendment is put. It reads:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"acknowledges the achievements of the Government in significantly improving the housing grant assistance available to disabled and elderly persons in the past five years".

Deputy Seán Power was certainly not convinced by the amendment tabled by the Government because that is not the factual position. Services for those seeking the disabled person's grant have not been increased in the past five years. In fact, Deputy Power gave the best opposition speech in this debate concerning the situation pertaining from the Government's point of view.

People who apply for the disabled person's grant are being frustrated at every level. When they apply they cannot obtain an inspection. In addition, they have to supply three estimates at the time of application, which are not relevant three years later when the application may be dealt with. In most local authorities, including the two in Galway, applications are not currently being examined because they have not yet cleared the backlog from 2002. Up to a year ago, applicants were told their applications were being examined and they were waiting for the health inspector. Any excuse was given but because of pressure from the opposition both here and at local authority level, applicants are now being told the truth — that the applications cannot be examined because the 2002 list has not yet been cleared.

Some of the applications are simple and may concern a disabled person who can no longer climb stairs and is thus seeking grant aid for a downstairs toilet or shower It is very frustrating for such people to experience delays.

As regards the duplication in the applications process, I cannot understand why the health board deals with one application, while local authorities deal with another. When frustrated applicants ring up a local representative concerning applications for house repair grants, one must go to two agencies to discover the details and one finds that there are nearly always two files on every application. That is because when applicants do not get a reply from the health board, they apply to the local authority either for an essential repairs grant or a disabled person's grant. I fail to understand why this process cannot be combined in one application which could be dealt with by one agency.

It is not often that Ministers get my sympathy but I felt sorry for the Minister of State having to read out the script that was prepared for him. He said that "the success of the scheme is due in large extent to the active co-operation of the various statutory and voluntary bodies involved in the operation". It is quite the opposite, however, because it is a case of non co-operation. When one rings the health board they do not have a clue about the county council file and vice versa.

The Minister of State also said "the Government is very conscious of the need to ensure, that the needs of the disabled and elderly persons are taken into account in all aspects of housing policy". Worse still, he said: "Local authorities have been asked to draft five-year action plans covering the full range of housing programmes." We have more and more action plans and reports — anything but doing the necessary work. Staff should be available to deal with applications and somebody should be able to visit the applicant within a few weeks of an application being made. They should be able to say whether the applicant is qualified to obtain assistance and, if so, how they can be helped. After that, it should only be a matter of making the money available.

Recently, in my constituency, I dealt with the case of an elderly brother and sister who were living together. Both were invalids and unable to climb stairs. They sought a grant for a downstairs toilet and shower. Eventually after three and a half years the work was sanctioned but both of them died before the work was completed. That is the sad reality. I have dealt with other cases where people were forced to put their elderly relatives into institutional care because they could not have their grant applications processed. In many cases the applications are for minor alterations to a house which would enable such people to live out their lives in their own homes.

The Minister of State should forget about asking councils to prepare a five-year plan. He should provide the necessary money and local authority staff to ensure that all applications are dealt with in a humane manner, so that people will not be left frustrated by delays as they are now.

Mr. Stanton

I congratulate the Labour Party for tabling this important motion. In the past 15 months, three such motions have been tabled dealing with the disabled person's grant: in April 2003, July 2003 and May 2004. On the last occasion we had such a debate, the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Noel Ahern, said local authorities should live within their means. He also said we simply cannot continue to live with the kind of increases in grants that had occurred — 3,000 grants in 1996, 6,000 in 2001, and 9,000 in 2002. He implied that some counties had approved too many grants. Did he mean that some grants should not have been approved or that there should be a quota system? Perhaps he thinks there are too many people with disabilities.

I call on the Minister of State to introduce the disability Bill, which we have been promised for the past couple of years. There have been many false dawns. I support the Minister of State who, I know, is trying to publish the Bill, but where is it? It should be published so that we can debate it over the summer period.

Some 120,000 people with disabilities are dependent on social welfare payments. The maximum grant for someone who needs to have a house adapted is €20,000. Earlier in the debate, the Minister of State said there was no prioritisation but he should take note of what is happening in County Cork where the county council has had to devise a number of categories. Category one comprises persons who are totally incapable of accessing their home environment. Category two comprises people who have severe difficulties in accessing their home environment and where the provision of facilities would reduce their level of dependency. Category three includes persons who experience minor difficulties in accessing their home environment.

The grants were suspended more than a year ago in Cork and it is only now that they are beginning to plan for them coming on stream again. People have rung me and other colleagues concerning house adaptation grants for elderly or injured relatives who cannot get into their homes or gain access to upstairs rooms. We have had to tell them that we are sorry but there is no money for that. Despite all the Government's blather about increased funding, the system is not working. All Deputies have discovered that this is so. Any Deputy who goes knocking on doors — and I know the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, is a great man for knocking on doors — will have come across this problem. I call on the Ministers to kick butt in the Department to get some action on this.

More than a year ago, we were told that the schemes were being reviewed, but they are still being reviewed. Let us get our priorities right. Let us look after the most vulnerable in society — those with disabilities, those who need to have their houses adapted in order to have some level of independence and dignity. They should not have to be carried upstairs to use the toilet or be obliged to relieve themselves in the kitchen or sitting room. The moment a person with a disability has a requirement, the State should move quickly and decisively to help that person immediately.

The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, spoke earlier of the need to be careful about money, and to pro-actively manage the disabled person's grant and essential repair grant schemes to ensure they remain within their allocation. The Government, however, has not been pro-actively managing its own finances in other areas. We are sick of mentioning electronic voting and the equestrian centre in Punchestown where tens of millions of euros were squandered, yet the most vulnerable are left waiting for years and forced to go through all kinds of red tape.

According to Cork County Council, those in category one will be looked after first, so those applications will begin to be processed. Up to now, however, they were not being processed, which is not good enough. The reviews and delays are leading to people being stuck in hospitals or inappropriate nursing homes, thus contributing to waiting lists for houses and medical care. They may be confined to potentially dangerous homes causing immeasurable strain for the individuals concerned and for their families. I join Deputy Seán Power in asking the Government to take this issue seriously, examine it and sort it out once and for all.

Mr. P. McGrath

I compliment the Labour Party for tabling this motion and welcome the opportunity to address the House on it. I also compliment Deputy Seán Power on his thoughtful presentation to the House tonight. He is familiar with what people are saying about the difficulties they are experiencing in regard to disabled person's grants and has made some worthwhile proposals. However, when his speech is published in the local press, as no doubt it will be since it will read very well, I wonder if he will also tell the local press that he voted in favour of the Government motion which proposes to do nothing, to examine the issue again and talk about it some more.

To put this issue in perspective, we must examine the people to whom we are referring in a practical sense. For example, I received a telephone call in my clinic yesterday about an elderly lady whom I know who suffers severely from arthritis. She has had hip replacements, which have failed and is now in a nursing home. She could be discharged to her own home, where her daughter will look after her but, unfortunately, she needs a stair lift which costs €5,000. I contacted the local authority to ask if she qualified for a disabled person's grant and was told it had not been taking applications since October of last year. When I asked when the local authority would take applications again, I was told it was not known. When I asked what could be done for the lady, I was told "nothing". If, I asked, the lady raised a loan to pay for the lift herself, would the local authority pay her the grant when the grant system is open again. I was told it would not.

What would the Minister of State say to that person? Would he tell her to remain in the nursing home, taking up a bed, facilities and nursing care that she does not really need, when she could be at home being looked after by her family if the State had the cop-on to grant this small amount of help? What are we to do but sit and wait?

I am aware of another case in which a person had a stroke and despite having made a good recovery is wheelchair bound. As is the case with most of our houses, this person cannot manage in the house while wheelchair–bound. Again I contacted the local authority to inquire about the disabled person's grant only to be told it was closed for applications and advised to return some time when it might be re-opened. What is that person to do in the meantime? He or she must stay in an institution, using up State funds on a level of care which is not required. This is short-sighted, foolish and shows that the Minister of State is not doing his job.

I agree with Deputy Seán Power when he referred to the need to amalgamate all the agencies. It is ridiculous that the local authorities which deal with the disabled persons' grants must get input from the health boards. Up to some time ago in my area, it often took six months for the health board to respond to queries on DPGs. In addition, the essential repairs grant and housing aid for the elderly scheme are available. Surely, these grants should all be pulled together and placed under the aegis of one unit at local authority level, which is where the competent people are located. The local authorities have engineers and can deal with contractors in order to get the work done. Therefore, let us centralise the system quickly.

We must next ensure that the system is freed up in order that no more are there people, such as I have described, who are frustrated, annoyed and ask what they have done to the State to deserve such treatment.

Ms O’Sullivan

There is pretty much cross-party agreement on this issue, although that will not be the case when we vote on the motion tomorrow night. Nonetheless, there is agreement on the importance of the disabled person's grant, the housing aid for the elderly scheme administered by the health boards and the importance of doing something about them. The solutions are relatively simple and mainly relate to resources but the resources are not there. All that is really needed is the political will to put the resources in place and make the kinds of necessary organisational changes suggested by Deputy Seán Power, such as providing the extra occupational therapists required to make assessments.

Public representatives know the problems very well. We go out and talk to people on the doorsteps, as does the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, Deputy Power and the various candidates who recently ran for election. However, what has been missing has been an understanding from Government at top level that these are the issues which need to be prioritised. For example, when one spends money on such basic issues, it makes a great deal of difference to the quality of people's life and their ability to live in their own homes. Until the Government cops on to the fact that it needs to address these simple issues, it will encounter the kind of alienation from the ordinary people that many Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats canvassers have experienced in recent weeks.

I hope something will come from this motion. I hope there will be an examination within the relevant Departments and something will be done about the issue. We are talking tonight about people who cannot go to the toilet in their own homes, cannot get into their baths or showers or, in many cases, cannot get into their houses. Many have to stay in a hospital, nursing homes or elderly care units because they are missing a simple link which would allow them to be at home with their loved ones and avoid being a burden on the State, which is another aspect of the issue.

If one were to carry out a cost benefit analysis of putting extra money into the disabled person's grant and the housing aid for the elderly scheme, one would find it hugely of benefit to give people the opportunity to live in their own homes. Many people are waiting on trolleys in accident and emergency units because beds are occupied by people who would not need to be there if they could have these kinds of appliances in their own homes. In this manner, the Government could address one of the main political issues of the last election, namely, the issue of people on trolleys in out-patient departments. The problem would not be solved but we could put some dent in it if people could get a disabled person's grant when they needed it rather than two or three years afterwards as other colleagues have described.

We have all described individual cases tonight. I know a woman who was in an elderly care unit for a year longer than she needed to be. Had her family received the disabled person's grant, they would have been able to take her home but instead she occupied a bed that someone else needed. She did not want to be there, neither did her husband want here there. He wanted to take care of her at home, but he could not do so because of the waiting time for the disabled person's grant.

It is not rocket science nor does it require a huge level of organisation but it needs resources. We can all see it at local authority level. Many of us who were, until recently members of local authorities, have tried to get extra funding for disabled person's grant schemes during the estimates round. Sometimes we have been able to put in extra money at local level but not if it has not been forthcoming at national level, from where it is matched. If there is no decision at national level to grant this money, local authorities are so strapped for cash that they simply cannot assign the money for such important issues as this.

Just as a person in a Department in Dublin may not have an understanding of what it is like on the ground, often a person working in the local authority or health board may not have the same sense of urgency about an issue as a member of the local authority or Deputy who is talking to these people, understands the problems and is dealing with people who, for example, cannot use the toilet in their own houses.

There is a huge level of personal indignity in all of this. People do not want to be dependent on others to do things for them. They do not want to be in a nursing home or hospital when they could be at home looking after themselves if they only had a stair lift or a bar with which to get up off the toilet or a bathroom and bedroom downstairs. It is not much to ask, given the rich economy we enjoy. I urge the Government to take this motion seriously.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 29 Jun 2004