Vol. 497 No. 2
30 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he has made available the full 1998 budgetary allocation under the scheme of community supports for older people; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24649/98]
44 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will make additional funding available under the community care scheme for the elderly to ensure that 180 applicants for an emergency telephone line are provided with the service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22439/98]
58 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if there is a backlog of applications for the scheme of community supports; if so, the steps, if any, he has taken to deal with this backlog; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24650/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 30, 44 and 58 together.
My Department has, since 1996, operated the scheme of community support for older people, the purpose of which is to provide funding for initiatives to improve the security and social support of vulnerable older people. This funding is provided by way of grants to voluntary groups and organisations, such as the group adverted to in Deputy Jim Higgins's question, which have undertaken to identify those elderly people in need of assistance under the scheme.
A sum of £2 million was allocated to the scheme in the 1998 Estimates. A review of applications under the 1998 scheme indicated that some 940 applications had been received.
Having reviewed the level of demand under the scheme this year, I recently sought and obtained Government approval for the allocation of an additional £3 million to the scheme, bringing the total allocation in 1998 to £5 million. With this level of funding my Department will be able to assist a large number of people this year, and the regional offices of my Department are currently processing the applications received under the scheme. They expect to be in a position to advise groups of the decision regarding their applications in due course.
Although the maximum grant available under this scheme is 90 per cent of the one-off cost of the purchase and/or installation of the necessary equipment, it is not possible to guarantee this level of funding in respect of all applications received under the scheme. This will continue to apply, as it has since the scheme's inception. I am satisfied that the current level of funding is sufficient to allow my Department to make a meaningful response to worthwhile applications and to assist a large number of people this year.
It should be noted that since its inception in 1996 a total of £12 million has been made available for this scheme and up to the end of 1997 some 36,000 people had been assisted. It is anticipated that in excess of a further 20,000 people will be assisted this year. This means that, since I came into office in July last year, this Government has spent £10 million on this scheme, as opposed to £2 million spent on it by the previous Government.
I am anxious to ensure this scheme addresses the security needs of the most vulnerable people and that it provides this assistance in the most efficient and effective way possible. My Department has, in consultation with the Departments of Finance and Health and Children, commissioned an independent review of the scheme which will consider how it is meeting its objectives and whether it is doing so in the most efficient and effective way possible. The final report from the consultants will be available later this year.
Given the Minister's reply, the pre budget leaks to the effect that older people would be a priority in the forthcoming budget must be viewed with scepticism. Is the Minister not embarrassed by this response?
Irrespective of whether it is 90 per cent or 60 per cent — and I ask the Minister to give a commitment that it will be 90 per cent — how can the Minister justify the situation that, although it is now only four weeks to the shortest day of the year, not one grant has been allocated by his Department to date and not one alarm system has been installed for the elderly? Although the winter is the most vulnerable time for elderly people, not a penny has been allocated yet and the year is almost over. How can the Minister justify that?
I am not half as embarrassed as the Deputy is by asking the question.
I am not embarrassed.
The Deputy must have a hard neck to table a question such as this, in view of the fact—
I do not have a hard neck — I am representing the elderly in this country who are disgusted by the Minister.
The Deputy must allow the Minister to reply.
Perhaps he was not in this House when his party was part of a Government which allocated only £2 million to this scheme.
That was when they were in coalition with Fianna Fáil.
They allocated £2 million in each Estimate for three years. When I came into office in the second year I increased it by £3 million to £5 million. When I looked at the situation again this year I increased it by another £3 million to another £5 million. I have allocated £10 million to this scheme over the 18 months I have been in office. I have asked that a review be carried out to ensure taxpayers' money is going to the people who are most deserving in that respect. That review will be published later this year.
I call on Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.
Deputy De Rossa stated he is author of one of the questions.
It is difficult enough to sit through Priority Questions without having to sit through one's own. I am very disappointed at the lack of generosity on the Minister's part in regard to the scheme. Does he acknowledge that this scheme was introduced in the first instance by the previous Government and was established virtually overnight because of concerns expressed in regard to elderly people, particularly those in rural areas, being at risk of burglary and attack? Does he also accept that the previous Government allocated £2 million in the first and second year of the scheme and that, as there was a change of Government mid-stream, he was spending money allocated by the previous Government? Will he indicate what number of elderly people have been assisted through this scheme? What is the average allocation per application for each of the years the scheme has been in operation? I understand the Minister is proposing a 60 per cent allocation which would be the lowest ever.
Deputy De Rossa stated we were dealing with one of his questions when, in fact, we are not. We are dealing with Question Nos. 30, 44 and 58. I called on Deputy O'Keeffe as the Fine Gael representative.
I apologise for the misunderstanding.
I want to nail the lie that I am imposing any restriction on the maximum allocation available. I am aware of groups in my constituency which will be receiving 90 per cent of the amount for which they have applied; these groups have already been informed of this matter. Some groups which have made applications under the scheme will not receive up to 90 per cent of the amount applied for, which is exactly the situation which pertained when the scheme was set up.
I give Deputy De Rossa full credit for responding so quickly in setting up the scheme when it was pointed out that the tax allowance made available in the then budget was more or less useless to many older people who required security assistance as most of them did not pay tax. I regard the scheme as a good one and that is why I went to Government on two occasions during the past 18 months to get extra money to meet the need which existed. Grant applications totalling in the region of £7 million have been received this year. Last year, a similar situation prevailed where the application value was greater than the amount of money allocated. However, at the end of the year, we were more than satisfied that the money which was made available was sufficient to meet the needs of the people involved.
A total of 36,000 people have been assisted by the scheme and it is estimated that a further 20,000 will be assisted in the coming year as a result of the increased allocation. I accept that the previous Government allocated £2 million for the first, second and third years of the scheme. On taking up office, I recognised the need for additional funding and I was happy to secure that. Funding under the scheme has not been cut in spite of what some Members of the Opposition might suggest; if anything, it has been increased.
Does the Minister accept that a total of £5 million was allocated to the scheme in 1997? It is ridiculous to speak of the previous Government allocating £2 million for 1998 when it is not even in Government this year. Does the Minister accept that the £5 million which was spent in 1997 was initially cut back to £2 million this year and subsequently supplemented to bring it up to £5 million? Does the Minister accept that his Department — presumably at his behest — has written to the various organisations involved offering them unsavoury options which put the onus on them to make decisions? Under one option, it is stated that individuals will be obliged to pay between 30 and 40 per cent of the actual cost and, under another option, that voluntary organisations are obliged to choose the most vulnerable individuals as sufficient money would not be available to cover all applications. That is quite unfair to the very good voluntary organisations operating in this area. Is the Minister not behaving like Pontius Pilate when he should be providing the top-up necessary to ensure that the full 90 per cent is available to all applicants? With so much money in the Exchequer, is the Minister not making the unkindest cut of all as far as vulnerable elderly people are concerned?
The Deputy is somewhat naive if he believes that, in relation to all schemes coming before any Government Department which involve the expenditure of taxpayers' money, people are automatically entitled to a 90 per cent payment. That is patent nonsense. It is a Department's job to vet applications to see whether they are valid and necessary; that has been the case previously in regard to this scheme. The Deputy may have been contacted by an organisation in regard to allocations for this year but I wager that there were other organisations last year and the year before — when only £2 million had been allocated to the scheme — which were dissatisfied with the amount of money received.
In regard to the Estimates, Deputy O'Keeffe obviously does not understand the system of multi-annual budgeting. A Department is obliged to outline an indicative sum of the funding required for schemes such as this on a three year forward basis. The previous Government outlined a figure of £2 million for 1997, 1998 and 1999 respectively. When I took up office last year, I increased the figure to £5 million and have done so again this year. No cut has occurred and no 60 per figure has been imposed. If applicants comply with the criteria, they are entitled to receive up to 90 per cent of funding. However, there is no guarantee that every group will receive that amount.
What is the situation in regard to the backlog which exists? Some applications were received last August but no money has been forthcoming. The budget is only two weeks away and I would like the Minister to outline the current situation in this regard.
The deadline for applications was late May. As I had initiated a review, which was ongoing at that time, it was felt we should wait until the review had been completed. However, I decided to go to Government after the summer when it became apparent the review would not be completed until some time in the new year. As an interim measure, I requested that an additional £3 million be allocated to the scheme and the Government consented to the request on the basis that between now and the completion of the review, the manner in which the scheme should operate in the future will be examined. The scheme is very beneficial to many people and is being delivered through a number of voluntary organisations. Difficulties have been experienced since the scheme's inception because of the fact it was established so quickly; that is why I decided a review would be useful.
My question has been partly answered by the Minister in the reason he gave for the delays. Recently I was contacted by one scheme which last May sought an allocation towards work amounting to £9,000. They only received a letter back the other day saying their application would be considered if they decided how many they would apply for on the basis of a figure of £7,000. Is the Minister satisfied that it is very late to receive a letter in mid-November concerning a scheme which will give peace of mind to the elderly and that it will be hard to put the scheme into operation this winter?
I explained that for this year only £2 million was included in the Estimates submitted in 1997. Because of this I found it necessary and was happy to obtain from Government extra funding for the scheme. I accept that due to the upcoming review there was some delay in making the final decision relating to the £5 million. However, this was indicated immediately to the regional offices. My understanding is that regional offices have indicated to groups what their allocation will be. Groups which are not receiving the 90 per cent sought will have to tailor their measure. There are groups receiving 90 per cent of what they sought.
Those who have been looking for assistance towards alarms for the past six or seven months are not interested in what was in the Estimates in previous years. Billions of pounds are available and in that context I ask the Minister what criteria he is setting for deciding whether an application should receive 60 per cent, 70 per cent or 90 per cent funding, particularly given that elderly people who have to find 20 per cent of the cost must come up with £28? Does the Minister accept that on the basis of a 60 per cent allocation elderly people will have to find over £100 for the same appliance and that this is totally unacceptable? He should try to find the money in the context of the Estimates. What portion of the £5 million, which the Minister referred to time and again, has been expended this year?
While the amounts in the Estimates may not be of concern to the people involved, they are of concern to me. I faced a situation where the Estimate submitted under the MABS by the previous Government, of which the Deputy's party was a member, was only £2 million. I was worried about this and decided to endeavour to get additional resources for the scheme, something I successfully did. This is why there is much more money in the scheme this year than was anticipated and planned for.
I do not have information relating to expenditure under the scheme, but the allocations have already been notified to the various regions. There were 940 applications which will involve an estimated 25,518 individuals. It is important to note that one group alone which perhaps made application to a number of other regions in the country applied for £755,000 in one region, namely, Dublin south. This was a very significant application and obviously had to be checked given the fact that ultimately this is taxpayers' money. If a group such as this received 95 per cent of the amount it would leave an awful lot less for groups around the country. I do not know where the Deputy is getting the figure of 60 per cent.
I am getting it from the Minister's Department.
It is a matter of determination in relation to different applications as to what the percentage will be. Not all applicants will receive 100 per cent funding. This is never the case—
Is there no change in criteria?
There is absolutely no change in criteria and I have made no decisions in that regard. The only decision I made was to get Government approval for an extra £3 million.
