Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Feb 1995

Vol. 448 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Special Housing Aid for the Elderly.

Mr. Leonard

I thank you, Sir, for allowing me raise this important matter on the Adjournment. If Members examine the Estimates for the Public Service for 1995 they will note that under the heading "Environment" the grant aid for the task force on special housing aid for the elderly has been reduced by 50 per cent, from £4 million to £2 million. It is ironic that on the day I tabled a parliamentary question requesting an increase in this scheme I should be asking the Minister not to reduce it by 50 per cent. This smacks of the politics of my constituency in the 1930s when Ernest Blythe, as Minister for Finance, reduced the old age pension by one shilling. He took away one of the six shillings per week given to old age pensioners at that time, but we are taking away £2 million of the £4 million which was provided for this scheme.

The scheme was set up in 1982 by the then Minister of State, Deputy Ger Connolly, and developed into one of the best examples of value for money in any Department. It extends the lifespan of old houses and allows old people spend their last days in a familiar environment. It is an alternative to local authorities providing old people's dwellings at a cost of £25,000 or £35,000 per dwelling.

Under the scheme assistance is provided to carry out necessary repairs such as fitting doors and windows, draught proofing and insulation works. Assistance is also provided for the installation of a water supply, including the extension of an external supply into the house and the provision of toilet facilities, including the transfer of external WCs into the dwelling house. It also covers the installation of baths and showers, electricity and hot water systems. The scheme is administered by the health boards. Labour is supplied by FÁS and the cost of materials is borne by the health boards and where applicants can afford to do so, they pay some of the cost.

As a member of a health board for 21 years, I have promoted this scheme which provides great value for money and additional comfort and facilities for the elderly. I sought to have the scheme extended to include water and sewerage facilities. In my health board area we received £204,000 in 1992, £212,000 in 1993 and £335,000 last year towards the cost of the scheme. We extended the scheme so that it now covers works from minor repairs to the provision of running water facilities and septic tanks, what should be basic facilities in every household.

To qualify for the scheme the house must be owned by the applicant and priority is given to applicants who are aged, handicapped or living alone. The scheme is particularly beneficial to the handicapped. Priority is then given to aged couples, including brothers and sisters who do not have anybody living with them and then to widows with children and to unmarried mothers. While it is not a condition of eligibility, applicants who can afford it are asked to contribute towards the cost of the works. The scheme is operated as flexibly as possible. Applicants who arrange to have the work carried out will receive health board funding. Where applicants are in a position to supply the materials, the health board can arrange for the work to be carried out. I have promoted the scheme for many years and have requested those operating group water schemes to make supplies available to the elderly because of the high costs involved.

Between 1973 and 1977 under the Estimates for the Public Service in the Department of the Environment it was decided to withdraw funding for local improvement schemes to provide funding towards road improvements. I fought that decision strenuously and funding for the scheme was not altered. The late Minister, Jim Tully, reconsidered the matter and informed me it was a technical error. I hope this is also a technical error because the matter needs to be reconsidered. Those who made the decision are not aware of its implications or the damage it will cause to this very worthwhile scheme. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider this matter and to at least allocate the £4 million provided in 1994. If she does that she will do a great day's work.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Allen)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the funding provided for the scheme of special housing aid for the elderly in the 1995 Estimates. I thank Deputy Leonard for having raised this matter. I know his track record and his commitment to this area.

The scheme, administered by a task force, under the aegis of my Department, is funded by the Exchequer. It was instituted on foot of a budget provision of £1 million to a task force which was set up in 1982 to undertake an emergency programme to improve the housing conditions of elderly persons living on their own in unfit or in unsanitary accommodation. The task force includes representatives from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, FÁS, ALONE, local authorities and the Departments of the Environment, Health and Social Welfare. The scheme is operated on the ground by the health boards under the direction of the community care programme managers and the work is carried out by contract or by FÁS trainees working under the supervision of health board foremen. Labour costs are met in full by FÁS in the latter case.

Funding at an annual level of £1 million was continued up to 1985 after which it was increased to £1.5 million. A sum of £2 million has been provided each year since 1989 except that in 1994 a special additional sum of £2 million was granted to the task force on a once off basis out of the proceeds of the tax amnesty.

Generally the annual allocations to the various regions are calculated by the task force having regard to the level of activity on the ground and the demand for the scheme, as shown by the health boards. Aid is provided for any works considered to be urgently necessary to improve living conditions. Typically, aid would be available for necessary repairs, the provision of water and sanitary facilities, the provision of food storage facilities, etc. It is estimated that over 23,000 cases have been dealt with between 1982 and the end of 1994.

Due to the high level of demand for assistance at the end of 1993, the number on hands and awaiting action by the health boards had increased to 3,600. It was for the purpose of clearing as much as possible of this backlog the extra £2 million was provided in 1994. Deputy Leonard's party said specifically that the extra £2 million was a once off payment and that the allocation would revert to the original level after 1994. This brought the overall provision for the scheme in 1994 to £4 million. In last year's budget, the then Minister for Finance made it very clear that, given the once off nature of the proceeds of the tax amnesty, it would be inappropriate to use such receipts to underpin continuing public expenditure and it would be quite wrong to assume that programmes which benefited from a once off injection of tax amnesty funds can continue at the higher level. Therefore, it is not a fair presentation of the facts to say that the allocation is being reduced by £2 million this year; it is more correct to say that the provision for the scheme has reverted to its normal level of £2 million.

The extra provision from the tax amnesty had a positive effect on reducing the arrears. This is shown by the fact that at the end of June 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, work on some 1,000 of the arrears cases on hands at the end of 1993 was either completed or underway and it is estimated that a substantial number of the remaining cases have been dealt with in the second half of the year. The special allocation made available in 1994 has helped to put the scheme back on a more even footing coming in to 1995 and will allow health boards better scope for dealing with applications now being received.

It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to publicly express appreciation of the role played by the various agencies involved in the most valuable work being done under this scheme and to compliment the members of the task force, the health boards, FÁS and the other voluntary bodies associated with the successful operation of the scheme over the past number of years.