Security of the Elderly.

Mr. Finucane

The easiest way to table this issue is to read from a letter that describes a situation very eloquently:

I am a voluntary worker for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I am writing regarding the scheme of community support for older people first introduced in 1997-98, now being administered by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. I am very frustrated with the way this scheme is being administered. First, the applications this year had to be received by 5 p.m. on 24 March. So far, no application for socially monitored personal alarms sent by me through our regional office in Limerick has received any funding or any explanation as to when funding will be allocated.

Second, I am receiving applications practically every week for these alarms from elderly people who have lost their partners, brothers or sisters and are now living on their own, mostly, may I add, in rural areas. I have to tell you that the scheme will not be operational until 2006 while applications will be submitted by the end of May. They may possibly be eligible for a personal alarm by October-November, which means a waiting period of 12 months. Surely this is not a scheme to benefit the elderly, who are advised to live in their own homes and not be a burden on the State by being cared for in nursing homes or hospitals.

Third, when the scheme was first introduced, the grant for same was 90% of the cost. Since being administered by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, the grant has been reduced to €300, which means that a pensioner is expected to pay €165, whereas with a 90% grant, all a person had to pay was approximately €50. Surely this is a sad reflection on how the Government is treating its senior citizens. I might add that the need for these personal alarms is greater each day. Old age pensioners cannot afford €165 for these alarms, as they find it very difficult to live on their small pensions considering the cost of living increases in fuel, ESB, etc. each month.

Finally, I am requesting you to have something positive done at once to eradicate this total disregard for our elderly, to reinstate the grant to 90% and make provision for an emergency fund to be made available for alarms to be fitted when the urgent need arises.

Even were I to prepare a script, I could not articulate the matter better than this person, who is genuinely concerned about the issue. From time to time and in my capacity as a public representative for the area, I refer people for consideration for these security alarms, which are extremely important to elderly people living on their own. A situation I have seen evolving over the past ten years is that of a number of break-ins in rural locations. It is a sad reflection on our times that this is happening but these people rely on security pendants or monitors. People who voluntarily provide this service are expecting a more professional approach from the Minister of State's Department.

Regarding dormant accounts funding, and the Minister of State may correct me, the funding is within his Department. Therefore, it appears there is funding to examine this issue. The main two components would be to return to the 90% of cost grant and that, for a person who applies in October or November, it will not be November of next year before they get an alarm. The Department must be able to respond on a more urgent basis if a case warrants it.

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Mr. N. Ahern)

I thank Senator Finucane. As he said, the scheme of community support for older people was transferred to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in 2002 from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The scheme was originally established in the mid-1990s in response to a spate of burglaries of homes of older people and was based on the concept of contact with people at local level. For this reason, the funding was provided to voluntary and community organisations rather than grant aiding individuals in order to assist and stimulate broader community support for older people. The scheme is, therefore, administered by local community and voluntary groups with the support of my Department.

Since its inception, funding of €30 million has been awarded to community and voluntary organisations to provide socially monitored alarms and other security items for those members of the community in need of such equipment. Funding can be provided under the scheme for the once-off cost of installing socially monitored alarm systems, window locks, door locks, door chains designed to strengthen points of entry to the dwelling and outside security lighting. In 2004, we introduced a grant in respect of smoke alarms.

The maximum grants available to individuals are €300 in respect of socially monitored alarms, €150 in respect of physical security equipment, such as locks and chains, €150 in respect of security lighting and €50 in respect of smoke alarms. Many community groups that apply do so for a range of these. Some groups that might be more attached to a number of installers are inclined to apply under only one heading, namely, the alarms. However, the real community groups apply for a range of different items and it is very easy to spot the different applications.

Funding was provided at 90% of the cost of the equipment between 1997 to 2003. In 2004, following a review of the scheme, this 90% limit on funding was abolished and replaced with individual maximum grants, as I mentioned above. Grant levels were fixed by the Department on the basis of the grants sought and paid out in the previous year. Therefore, we are giving grants and asking people to send in details of their quotations to determine what is happening. Previously, some suppliers kept on putting up prices and we were giving them 90% of whatever the quotation was. The aim of the individual maximum grant measure is to encourage competition between suppliers in the interest of ensuring value for money both for taxpayers and individual applicants.

I am aware that a number of suppliers have quoted under €300 for the installation of socially monitored alarms, which are, therefore, being grant-aided to 100% under the scheme. This effectively leaves the individual applicants with nothing to pay for their socially monitored alarms. This is why we placed a limit. It was not to save money or get any elderly person to pay a portion. We saw that different suppliers were sending in prices from €250 up to €450 or €500 and we were paying 90%, which did not seem to make sense for different products that were roughly the same. We felt that we should place a guideline limit on the scheme, which was not the lowest figure. This year, a number of applications and quotations have been received below the €300 mark. In these cases, our funding goes further and everyone seems to be happy.

The changes introduced last year have no implications for the overall funding available for the scheme. A total of €2.8 million has been allocated to the scheme this year, which is an increase of 17% on last year's amount of €2.4 million. The scheme is currently advertised on an annual basis with a specified closing date. Given the nature of the scheme, my Department exercises a degree of flexibility concerning the closing date. After this date and in circumstances where an individual requires equipment urgently, the Department will accept additional applicants to the group's application during the period of processing. If someone contacts us and says they need more before we give them the grant, we can adjust the application at that stage, which is a period of a few months.

The Department has also received a number of proposals in respect of the facilitation of emergency cases on a year-long basis. I accept there is occasionally a need for this but many groups seem to get by. Perhaps they have ordered 20 or 50 and some people have moved out of the area or passed on by the time they arrive. Therefore, they often have a spare or two. Most groups seem to get by without experiencing major problems. The idea of an emergency fund will be considered when the guidelines come up for next year. We have a closing date once a year and it was much earlier this year than last. People wanted us to bring it forward and we did. The Department considers these situations on a case by case basis when they arise. Every effort is made by the Department, in co-operation with the voluntary bodies, to facilitate such cases.

I am sure Senator Finucane will appreciate the scheme has run for the greater part of a decade, supplying security equipment to many elderly people. As I mentioned, this scheme has provided approximately €30 million to assist elderly people. I am sure many homes in villages and towns and many community groups have a great deal of second-hand equipment they have taken back from people who are no longer in a position to use it. Often that second-hand equipment will suffice in an emergency situation for a month or two before the new grant is received.

Personal security depends on a range of factors. This scheme makes a valid contribution to the security requirements of eligible older people. We have closing date guidelines but we are extremely flexible. Nobody was refused or sent away and no application was returned because it was received on the Monday morning after the Friday closing date. We are extremely flexible while cases are being processed. Approximately 100 groups have already received funding this year and we are processing other applications. Some of the paperwork may not have been correct and we sent a request for further details. It is a flexible scheme which is advertised once a year. We are examining the possibility of one or two groups carrying an emergency supply of equipment but we are not examining restoring the grant of 90% of the cost. Those changes will remain. They have been extremely effective and the scheme is working well. I thank the Senator for raising the matter.

Mr. Finucane

I thank the Minister of State for his response. I welcome the fact he would apportion a fund for emergency situations. A person applying now must wait until the closing date next May and might not get the security pendant until the same time next year. The situation of a group of houses in a housing estate is different from that of houses in isolated rural areas such as those in west Limerick about which I am often approached. I refer people in these areas to the people involved for advice. Is the situation different if security suppliers are given the equipment in bulk for an estate rather than for an isolated rural area, where people often have to pay a burden of more than €160?

Mr. N. Ahern

I do not see how that is possible. Perhaps they should shop around for better value. Some groups that provide a service to community groups and senior citizen groups take good care of the groups but they are not cheap. It may be that some products are better than others but I do not think major differences exist.

The Department is flexible, even if an application was received two or three months previously and that group contacts us to request more equipment, it is possible to meet that request while applications are being processed. Once the cheque is sent out, it is regarded as completed for the year. It is not as rigid as some people might suggest.

The grant of 90% is gone. The only disadvantage to that is some alarms are more than personal alarms, they are medical aids that may cost up to €1,000. Some of them may have been covered by the grant of 90% but they are not a security measure. Some are alarms to alert a person if his or her blood or sugar levels are up or down. One or two of those cases may no longer be covered, but it is arguable whether they should ever have been approved. We work with many community groups that provide an excellent service at voluntary level and we are prepared to examine good suggestions. At the same time we want a manageable scheme.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 26 October 2005.

Seanad Éireann debate - Tuesday, 25 Oct 2005