On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Allen Dunne, senior executive officer with the Disability Federation of Ireland, together with Mr. Martin Naughton, Mr. Nick Killian and Mr. Mladen Tubic. Before we begin, I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Dunne to make a presentation.
Disability Federation of Ireland: Presentation.
Mr. Allen Dunne
I thank the committee for giving the DFI the opportunity to appear before it. I work for the Disability Federation of Ireland. My colleague, Mr. Martin Naughton, and his personal assistant, Mr. Mladen Tubic, join me as well as Mr. Nick Killian, the chief executive officer of the Irish Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus who is also a county councillor for Meath, chairs the SPC in Meath and is a board member of DFI.
We are here to talk about the housing needs of people with disabilities. Members have copies of the presentation as well as a green document called Housing, the Vital Element. For people who are not familiar with the Disability Federation of Ireland, DFI is an umbrella organisation, an organisation that has a wide number and range of disability organisations under its remit and has a wide membership.
Today's presentation is on the ongoing campaign on housing issues. Earlier this year, DFI held a conference called "Talking around the houses" to raise awareness of the housing issue and produced the document Housing, the Vital Element. Later in the month, DFI will make a budget submission. Housing is one of the main issues on which DFI is focusing.
I will start with the disabled person's grant, DPG. I am very aware that members will have built up an expertise from their experience of DPGs. To put it in context, 8.3% of the population identified themselves in the last census as having a disability. The EU average is approximately 12%. The predictions are that in the next 30 years, the number of people over the age of 65 years will grow by 75%. We will have a rapid increase in the number aged over 65 years. At present more than 60% of the allocation for the disabled person's housing grant is paid to people over the age of 65 years. This is a grant for those with mobility impairment to meet mobility needs. The DPG was introduced 35 years ago to make houses accessible. Members will appreciate that when one has mobility impairment, having an accessible house is a basic right. I will hand over to Mr. Nick Killian.
Mr. Nick Killian
I thank the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation on behalf of the Disability Federation of Ireland. I am sure there is not one public representative in the room who has not made representations on a disabled person's grant at some stage because of the difficulty in trying to get DPGs through the local authority. As people who work in the disability sector and representing people with a disability, we are aware that living in inaccessible, unsuitable and potentially dangerous homes is causing immeasurable strain for the individuals concerned and their families. Many people with disabilities are stuck in hospital and contribute to the waiting lists, and many of our members are inappropriately stuck in nursing homes. It would be much better if they were able to live in their own homes among their own families in their own environment, with the support of family and neighbours.
The DFI has a number of key concerns with the DPG. We acknowledge that since 1997 there has been a significant increase in the level of DPG funding and now the maximum figure that can be claimed is €20,320. However, the current budget for the grant is not meeting needs. Some regions report full funding of the scheme, others are forced to leave individuals on the waiting list. This lack of uniformity among local authorities around the country reflects the fact that the DPG is no longer capable of or suitable for dealing with the pressing housing needs of people with disabilities.
One of the greatest concerns is the difficulty with funding the balance of the cost of the grant itself. We are all aware of the high cost of building and the way it has accelerated during the past two to three years. The different percentages of the maximum figure of €20,320 that is allocated to individuals are simply not enough when it comes to a major job that must be carried out in adapting a particular house. This is often impossible for people to meet as more than half of the households of the elderly fall under the 60% poverty line and 54.4% of households headed by a person with a disability live below the poverty line.
Everybody is aware of the inconsistencies in the application for the grant between local authority areas. I do not believe there is consistency among local authorities in the manner in which this grant is dealt with. Each local authority has a specific way of dealing with it. There is no obligation on local authorities to apply for funding of the grant from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Department provides 66% of the funding but because some local authorities cannot meet the balance of 33% from their own resources, they do not seek the funding from the Department. We know that some local authorities have returned the funding in the course of the past couple of years. That is very worrying.
The eligibility criteria for the grant are inconsistent throughout health board areas. The health boards must deal with the local authorities, for example if somebody has an acquired disability as a result of an accident, the primary medical certificate should be sufficient for the grant to be given. At present the local medical officer of the health board must sign off on it and then an occupational therapist must assess the project. In my county, the health board cannot provide an occupational therapist to make the assessment which results in the person being left on the waiting list for six months or more without anybody undertaking to investigate what is needed. The link between the health board and the local authority is very good in some cases but in others it is extremely poor. The absence of a transparent and equitable prioritisation system for the grant, difficulties with the application process and in effect the lack of an appeals system, other than through public representatives are of major concern. If somebody does not get the grant, he or she must go to the public representative who actually appeals it.
Another issue that has been raised at DFI level is that the voluntary organisations are giving advice about this grant. It is amazing that many people do not know about the availability of DPG. What is very evident to the voluntary sector is the total lack of consultation by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with them. In County Meath we are working on the development of the housing officer by getting him involved with disability organisations through an access committee separate from the SBCs. People with disabilities representative of all the organisations in the county are on that committee and we liaise with the housing officer and the various Departments. This is something the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government could take up with the local authorities to provide a greater link between local authorities and disability organisations.
The Disability Federation of Ireland calls on the Government to increase the disabled person's housing grant to cover 100% of the cost of approved building work on the basis of need. The Government should amend the scheme so that local authorities can recoup 100% of the cost from central Government. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should publish last year's review of the DPG and ensure there are common national criteria and that the scheme is implemented uniformly across the country.
Mr. Dunne
Moving on from the DPG, I will address the issue of housing strategy. In the past disability was seen as a separate issue and was the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children and local health boards. This has changed and there is now a policy of mainstreaming towards people with disabilities. There are more coherent policies in regard to Travellers and the homeless and there is a national strategy for Traveller accommodation and for the homeless. We call for a similar approach to disability issues, given that people with disabilities are coming from so far behind in regard to housing and their relationship with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities. We need coherent national policies, which should then be broken down into the local authority areas.
In thinking that through, we need to appreciate that people with disabilities are not a homogeneous group. We all know there are distinctions such as intellectual disability, mental illness or physical disability. Specific needs exist within these groups. For example, in regard to physical disability we are familiar with the idea of a wheelchair accessible house. However, within that group, we are aware of a group of adults with significant disabilities, traditionally referred to as the young chronic sick. These people are usually bed-bound and will not get better. They usually have a neurological condition at its end stage or have been victims of a car or motorcycle accident. The Department of Health and Children has identified 914 in this condition inappropriately placed. This means they live in hospitals such as the National Rehabilitation Hospital or Tullamore General Hospital until the hospital perhaps moves them to a nursing home where they might have to live long-term. The local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government must appreciate this accommodation need.
The Inspector of Mental Hospitals has identified that of the 4,000 people currently living in mental hospitals, 46% are over the age of 65 and most of these do not have a psychiatric illness. It is an accommodation issue because there is no alternative accommodation for them in their communities. I hope these points expand the committee's thinking on what we mean by accommodation issues.
What we are saying is not new. I draw the attention of the committee to the 24 year old NESC report on the major issues in planning services for mentally and physically handicapped persons — even the language has changed in the intervening years. The report called for three measures: a satisfactory adaptation scheme, which Mr. Killian referred to in regard to the DPG; the provision of special housing as a part of the building programme for people with disabilities; and provision of housing with support services where the demand exists through links with local authorities. What we say 24 years later is no different.
Moving to the issue of social housing, it is estimated that more than 70% of people with disabilities are unemployed. They will never be able to afford an "affordable" house and the DFI, therefore, seeks equity in policy between affordable housing and social housing. The Irish Council for Social Housing has estimated an additional €100 million is required if national development plan targets on social housing are to be met.
My next point concerns supporting local authorities to support people with disabilities. Local authorities have much to learn. They need direction from the lead Department as to how they should integrate people with disabilities into housing policy, programmes and policy development at local authority and departmental level. We call on the Department to support that learning. We do not deny that fantastic examples exist around the country, such as the Barcelona project in the Kerry County Council area, which is an excellent example of how things can change and how different parts of the community can come together to respond to the disability issue. However, we feel there is a lack of leadership from the lead Department on the disability issue and the learning needed by local authorities. Learning has been ongoing for years in the health sector. In the past five years, the co-ordinating committee for physical and sensory disability at regional level in the health boards has significantly and quickly increased the learning curve by bringing organisations in and getting people more involved. Similar projects could be undertaken in local authority areas.
The housing needs survey will be carried out again early next year. The last time it was carried out, in 2002, some 48,000 households were identified as being in need of housing. However, only 423 of those requiring housing were people with disabilities. A range of disability organisations communicate with the DFI about the needs of their members. They constantly receive requests from, for example, those stuck living inappropriately with their parents when they are in their thirties but who have no other options. These organisations tell us of the huge housing need among people with disabilities. In addition, the Inspector of Mental Hospitals identified a significant number of people living inappropriately in mental hospitals and the Department of Health and Children identified 914 people inappropriately placed in nursing homes. Therefore, something is drastically wrong if the housing needs survey identifies just 423 people with disabilities in need. When the survey is carried out next year we ask that the Departments and local authorities take a new approach to assessing the needs of people with disabilities.
People with disabilities will not knock on the door of local authorities. The doors they have usually knocked on, if any, are those of the health boards. Significant work must be done to attract those with disabilities and help them to understand that these are local authority issues. One of the reasons we drew up the document, Housing, The Vital Element, under the programme for local government was it explained to our organisations, which have significant knowledge in this area, and local authority staff about the interfaces and links between the issue of disability and local authorities, local government and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
We anticipate the publication of the disabilities Bill, which will be a significant event for the DFI. We know the Bill will include a sectoral plan and hope these issues will be addressed in that plan, although this is yet to be seen.
To sum up, the DFI calls for the DPG to cover 100% of the actual cost of building work and to recognise that most people with disabilities do not have matching funding because they are unemployed. Local authorities should be provided with 100% of the costs so that people with disabilities do not become involved in the row between local authorities and central Government about matching funding, which is not their concern. We are aware that local authorities cannot meet the matching funding needs. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should publish the review of the DPG and progress the debate about the administration of the grant. We are calling for a national housing strategy for people with a disability similar to the ones for the homeless and Travellers and for additional capital investment to meet the targets for social housing under the national development plan. We are calling for local authorities to be encouraged to ensure the delivery of housing needs of people with a disability through progressive housing strategies and housing needs assessment procedures, and for a new approach to be taken next year to the new housing survey. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should lead the way in supporting local authorities in their learning and in how they interact with disability.
Thank you for your presentation. We will now take questions from committee members, beginning with Deputy Gilmore.
I welcome the delegation to the committee. I so much agree with the submission that has been made by the Disability Federation of Ireland that what I have to say is more by way of comment and addition than by way of question.
Regarding the disabled person's grant, I strongly agree that it should be put on a statutory basis. Anomalies and inconsistencies between local authorities should be ended. It should be 100% funded by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. As I am sure the committee is aware, the Labour Party tabled a Private Members' motion to that effect in the Dáil. I was somewhat disappointed that the Government did not accept at least the principle of it. However, I do not want to be partisan in my comments about it in this forum.
There is a major problem. From the local authority point of view the problem is one of funding. Mr. Killian put his finger on the problem that local authorities must make up the balance of the funding. Either the money they have allocated in their estimates is exhausted or they are already committed to such an extent that they are not in a position to add any more funding. In other cases they are unwilling to use the scheme because it commits the local authority to further expenditure. That is a big problem.
The other problem is the excessive bureaucracy associated with some applications. One does not need to be an occupational therapist to decide that somebody in a wheelchair needs a downstairs bedroom or bathroom. The process of application for grants of this type should be simplified so that very obvious needs are identified and approved. One big problem is the initial delay in getting an occupational therapist inspection, particularly in areas that I represent. In some cases where the need arises suddenly, after an accident, when somebody is discharged from hospital, or in the case of an elderly person whose condition has deteriorated very quickly, the system does not respond quickly enough.
The housing strategy for people with a disability needs to be addressed. I draw attention to a case of which I became aware in my constituency. I will not say too much about it because it is the subject of an appeal to the Circuit Court. It relates to a person with a disability who made a case to the equality officer under the equal status legislation. The essence of the case was that because the local authority had separate housing lists for Travellers, senior citizens and a number of different categories, and did not have a separate list for persons with a disability, the only way his disability could be considered was by consideration of a medical assessment that he was de facto being discriminated against. The equality officer found that he was not being discriminated against under the legislation and the case is now the subject of an appeal to the Circuit Court. I draw attention to the case because it has significance in terms of giving separate consideration to the housing needs of persons with a disability. In addition, I agree that 423 is a gross underestimation of the need.
I support what has been said regarding the disabled person's housing grant. I agree in particular that a primary medical certificate should suffice. In my constituency there is a three-year waiting list for an occupational therapist assessment from Cherry Orchard unless one can pay. Many elderly households are below the poverty line and become dependent on family members or must find another mechanism for getting on to the waiting list. Even when an occupational therapist's assessment has been obtained, there can be delays of up to a year or more in making alterations. The system is too bureaucratic. It needs to be streamlined, particularly in some areas of the city where there are quite a number of elderly people living alone whose houses need to be adapted quickly.
We know the areas in question. Large estates in my constituency and other areas such as Crumlin, Ballyfermot, Finglas, parts of Cabra and so on were built 50 years ago. Many people living in those areas are reaching an age where their mobility is restricted and they need sometimes very simple alterations. However, they are put on a waiting list and may have to wait two or three years.
We need to ensure that local authorities adopt housing standards that incorporate wider doors, wider passageways and so on in new buildings. Some of the housing associations are well ahead of the standards of local authorities in terms of where light switches, electrical sockets and door handles are positioned. If there were minimum standards it would be easier to adapt the local authority housing stock in the future or in the event of a disabled person moving into the house.
The federation has made the point that there is no appeals system. I take it the federation is calling for an appeals mechanism to be put in place rather than people having to approach a Dáil Deputy. I am not saying that people should not approach their public representatives.
Mr. Martin Naughton
We are actually looking for people to be supported in appealing a case.
Would the witnesses like to respond?
Mr. Naughton
There is an assumption that people adapt their houses merely because they choose to do so. It must be understood that the DPG applies to people who own their own homes. The last thing such people want to do is to change them. One of our biggest difficulties is to persuade people to adapt their houses and make them more suited to their needs when they become disabled. Sometimes people want to lock up and stay at home. There is a huge psychological hurdle. It is almost like accepting disability. We have the same thing sometimes with people who need adaptations to their cars and so on. There are many hurdles along the way. The Beecher's Brook of all of them is where between two thirds and the maximum of the grant is given but it only applies to people where it can be justified from the disability point of view. If one needs to build an extra part because of a planning requirement but it has not got a disability application, that is another reason to rule it out. That is the big Beecher's Brook.
People are not changing their houses because they want to, or because they want to add value to them. It is the last thing they want to do. At the same time, it is essential if we are to help people remain in the community in a meaningful way, not just isolated at home. It is very important that we stop saying to people who most need support that we will give them a little bit of support but we will not give them any real support.
There are people with disabilities in every county. There are people with housing adaptation needs in every county. If I am down in Cork and have a good knowledge of it, I am of no use to the guy in Offaly because the rules are probably different there. We can have rules and governance around the GAA and keep it reasonable and still have our individual county style. Why can it not be done in the most important area from our point of view — our homes? Somebody is sitting on the fence and they are not sitting on the Beecher's Brook fence. I know who is paying the price. I cannot stress enough to the committee that supporting what we are saying has to be meaningful. We have to get some real action. This matter is going on too long and it is deteriorating. The situation is not getting better.
Mr. Naughton mentioned Beecher's Brook a few times. Has he fond memories of Aintree?
Mr. Naughton
No, it is just fanciful.
Mr. Killian
Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned Part M of the building regulations. The position is that all future houses have to be built on a life-time adaptable basis. I am concerned that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should look at and review Part M and the subtle change. At present, the certificate that is signed off by the architect is the only measure the local authority has that the house has been built to Part M regulations. What it really needs is a certificate of disability that it conforms fully with lifetime adaptable housing as understood under the legislation. Some change needs to be looked at in regard to how it is dealt with. There are many local authorities which are not looking at whether houses comply with Part M of the building regulations. Planning enforcement by local authorities in that area is lax. I say that from experience. Some of that has to do with lack of manpower or funding power on the ground.
In the longer term, Part M of the building regulations is one way of sorting out the problem of the disabled person's grant as there will not be a need for it because the house will be built to such a standard. At present, many local authorities are not even using an access officer, which each local authority is supposed to have. They have them in name only. If one goes around to the local authorities and asks who is the access officer, some of the local authorities will not be able to say who it is. The use of the access officer in dealing with Part M and planning enforcement needs to be reviewed from the perspective of lifetime adaptable housing.
The delegation mentioned a lack of consistency in the way in which local authorities administer the disabled person's housing grant scheme. In the first six months of this year in Kildare, there was not as much as a cent spent on the scheme. Does the delegation have a breakdown of the scheme for the various local authorities throughout the country?
Mr. Dunne
I have not got it with me but we have a breakdown. The Irish Wheelchair Association did a survey last year and has updated it recently. The different procedures in each local authority are startling. People with disabilities turn to the voluntary organisation for advice on how to work the system. They come to us asking how to do it. The organisation has to have knowledge on every single one of them and it may not have staff working in each local authority area. Each local authority is different. As Mr. Naughton said, the position is getting worse.
Perhaps the delegation could forward that information.
Mr. Dunne
I will.
I welcome the delegation. It is a useful exercise that the delegation has come to address the joint committee. As mentioned, inconsistency among local authorities is the single greatest difficulty. While I do not wish to be parochial, I am obliged to mention that, in the administration of those grants in my county council area of County Limerick, we can meet every application on demand. There is no waiting list. At any given time of the year we are never short of funding for those grants. While the exercise today is useful, I suggest the witnesses should address also the members of every local authority, especially those where there are problems. In my opinion, local authority members have it within their gift to determine the terms of the scheme and the amount invested in it. I refer to the local contribution. From our point of view on Limerick County Council of which I was a member for 13 years, the first question asked on the estimates each year is how much money is required to run the disabled person's grant scheme and ERG grants scheme successfully. A figure is given by the housing officer and we provide that amount in the estimates.
With all due respects, the cause of the problem is that members of county councils are not providing that figure locally. We should be man enough to stand up and admit that. I am pleased the delegation has a list of the local authorities which shows how they are performing in this area. If some local authorities, such as Limerick County Council, can do their job correctly and meet the needs of the people in the area, why cannot others? Certainly it is an issue that should be examined because it can be done successfully in Limerick.
While I agree with Deputy Gilmore on the different interpretations of the scheme throughout the country, at the same time, flexibility is good if used positively. Sometimes schemes are introduced by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and other Departments which have tight criteria and give administrators no choice to change a little here or there, whereas with this scheme there is scope for flexibility and, if used positively, that can be a good thing.
Last Friday, I attended a meeting of the Mid-Western Health Board executives which briefed public representatives in the region. My colleagues from Tipperary and Clare cited the difficulty being experienced in waiting for occupational therapists to visit houses for which grant applications had been made. Limerick County Council does not require an occupational therapist's report in such cases. Our housing engineer examines the situation. Once the application is medically certified, the housing engineer goes out and decides on the works to be done. The grant application is made. The work is done and the grant is paid. It is a simple way of doing the business and it appears to work successfully for us.
I am not saying Limerick County Council is unique. I presume other counties can be as successful. I am at a loss to understand why local authorities are sending back money. It is an indictment of any authority to send back money. The reason it is sent back is that the local authority cannot match it because it did not provide it in the first instance.
Limerick County Council does not wait for the occupational therapist to visit houses. Sometimes the occupational therapist is the third public official to visit houses. That is triplication and a waste of resources. Perhaps a model such as that in operation in Limerick County Council could be examined and put into practice in other local authority areas. While I agree with much of what has been said, this is a matter that should also be addressed to local authority members.
Mr. Naughton
It is not necessarily our job to go and visit all the local authorities around the country. There is a lead Department and that should be part of its work. Mr. Killian spoke about it in terms of access officers. What sort of expectation was created by Departments to ensure these people went about and developed their work to ensure it is not just ad hoc? That does not work for us. If the scheme is operating well in Limerick it is a well-kept secret. Many people will be seeking to move to the housing list in Limerick.
While I would not insist on an occupational therapist's report I would not give it up without some replacement or support to the individual who is having the adaptation because it is a difficult time. There are many possibilities out there in terms of an adaptation. One needs some support and peer support. In one sense, while the occupational therapist's focus is too narrow I would not discard it completely. Some advocacy support should be put in place for people who are having their houses adapted, designed or planned. Support should not just be in terms of the professional planner and builder, complying with regulations and so on.
I welcome the delegation. A number of issues have arisen which have been on the minds of public representatives throughout the country for many years. I wish to take up the point made by my colleague, Deputy Cregan, about local authorities returning money. The position is not always clear. I shall take the local authority of which I am a member as an example. Laois County Council returned some money last year but it was not because we did not put up matching funding. Our difficulty concerned the constraints of the scheme. Clearly grant applications were approved but, unfortunately, those who were approved could not find contractors by the due date. That was the reason the funding was returned and that is an important point to be taken into consideration. It strengthens the point that the scheme could be better administered and allowances should be made for inconsistencies that occur in the delivery of the scheme.
That leads me to support the notion of 100% funding towards which we should be moving. In the absence of such support, and given that the number of people over 65 years of age is increasing in percentage terms, more people will present themselves for disabled person's grants. In the meantime, local authorities cannot meet the level of demand.
I have found recently that it is virtually impossible for folk to find the one third of the grant, particularly if the applicant is the head of the household and has been unemployed for a number of years. In other words, the grant is useless. It is the same as the Bus Éireann pass in remote parts of County Laois where there is no public transport.
I wish to refer to an issue raised by Deputy Gilmore and ourselves. If we can get over the smaller issues, such as 100% funding and occupational therapists' visits, and if we recognise — there is evidence — that the number presenting for the disabled person's grant is on the increase, and assuming it will be an ongoing increase, I would like to see the Disability Federation of Ireland work with the local authorities.
Targets were set some years ago when local authorities had to bring forward five-year Traveller accommodation plans. While there was no reprimand, local authorities felt that at some point in the future housing capital allocations might depend on how they were living up to delivering on their Traveller accommodation plans. I would like to see each local authority produce figures to indicate the number of people suffering from disabilities who are on the waiting list; the numbers that could be supported within the confines of their own home by way of a disabled person's grant; those who might be more suitably accommodated by way of voluntary housing; and the numbers living in local authority housing.
Targets should be set for a five-year period. This would move us away from the nonsense of having to sit at party meetings of the local authority trying to hammer out an agreement on how to get the overall estimate through in the chamber and trying to accommodate so many different groupings. God be with the days when our party had a majority. Therefore, there are certain issues that will derive support and others that will not.
It is a pity that the disabled person's grant is often cut or the allocation from our own resources is cut for the purpose of getting the overall budget package through. If that five-year programme was statutorily based, targets would have to be set and met. That would not just be for the sake of saying local authorities have supported the grants. It would outline how they are doing so under various headings.
In regard to occupational therapists and disabled driver grants, while this is not specifically the forum in which to raise this matter, nevertheless it is slightly connected. It appears that when the local general practitioner certifies that a person is sufficiently disabled to deserve some support in terms of driving a car, the process must go to the health board for further clearance. This is an issue that should be looked at because people are being deprived of support. The scheme is not uniform across the country.
I thank the Disability Federation of Ireland for its submission which sets out practical steps to improve the position. I agree with everything that has been said this morning. We have highlighted the problems and we know what needs to be done.
The delegation mentioned that much of this information is top secret and that people do not know where to go to get a disabled person's grant. I agree with the delegation on that issue. When we take it a stage further to the top-up grant which some health boards give, even that is top secret. As a public representative it took me a long time to discover there is a specific application form for the Northern Area Health Board to apply for this top-up grant. There is a need for more information in that area.
Has the delegation any information on the regimes in the health boards? I am not looking for a specific breakdown. Are certain health boards more sympathetic and accommodating than others in regard to the top-up grant or are they uniform in their implementation of the provision of extra funding?
I agree also with what has been said in respect of emergency cases where an extension is needed immediately as a result of an accident or where a person is coming out of hospital. The system appears incapable of dealing with an emergency case. That is an issue that needs to be followed up.
On the general issue of social housing, I was a member of Dublin City Council and as a Deputy I deal with the council on many of these issues. The local authority is the housing agency in Dublin city and is fairly progressive and sympathetic in respect of housing for the disabled. It has an intent to help with the specific requirements of disabled persons. Is that the experience of the delegation? I appreciate the local authority has to operate within a particular regime that needs to be improved. Where do we go from here? Obviously the delegation is addressing the joint committee this morning. Has it met the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban renewal, Deputy Noel Ahern, or what other way is the submission being pursued?
Mr. Dunne
Mr. Naughton made the point that it is not the job of the Disability Federation of Ireland to go around to local authorities. We know it is not our job but we are actually doing it. We have debated long and hard about doing that. We have asked staff to do it because we have decided that is the only way to proceed. We have written to the newly-elected local authorities and county councils and we are seeking meetings with the housing SPCs. We wrote to the Minister recently on the issue of the disabled person's grant and asked for movement on the publication of the research. We will incorporate the issue in our pre-budget submission and will do costings on it for the launch of the submission on 8 October in the Mansion House. We have different tracks for promoting the issue. As the Deputy said, it does not represent anything new. We must examine the NESC report because we are interested in moving forward. We view the DPG as only one aspect of the issue. We consider the housing strategy idea is necessary to develop broader thinking on how to respond to people with disabilities. It involves a great deal more than providing for housing adaptation.
Mr. Killian
With regard to what Deputy Haughey said about the health board top-up scheme, there is secrecy surrounding it. One would be told on contacting the health boards that such a scheme does not exist. The requirements in applying for provision under that scheme replicate the requirements in applying for a DPG in terms of forms filling, OT visits and other requirements. It is overly bureaucratic and extremely difficult to secure funding. The allocation of funding to it is quite small and, in the current climate, many health boards do not operate it.
With regard to what Deputy Moloney said about figures, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government carries out the housing needs survey. I hope the committee will impress on it that people with disabilities are not registering in that respect; they do not complete housing assessment forms. We are involved in a social housing project in my county which comes under Part V of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act. We are providing 11 houses. When we sought to identify from the housing list people with disabilities who could apply for those houses, there were very few on it. We had to contact local radio programmes and place advertisements in local newspapers requesting such people to register on the housing list with Meath County Council. When the national housing needs survey is being carried out next year, the Department should be proactive, in partnership with the voluntary organisations and the local authorities which carry out the survey, in identifying the number of such people who have housing needs. As Deputy Gilmore said, we have the figure of 423 people but there are thousands of such people waiting to be housed.
The representatives referred to the voluntary housing complexes. Such provision has been a success nationwide over the past 20 years. In circumstances where a person with a disability is not in a position to look after himself or herself, should a case be made for the implementation of an integrated scheme whereby people in different categories would be housed in such a complex? There is a need for additional assistance in terms of health boards and the local authorities working together to meet that need.
With regard to the disabled person's grant and the proposal to meet a third of the cost involved — there was a discrepancy as to the amount of work that qualifies in that regard — if a person could not meet that cost, what is the position regarding a charge being put on a property that could be met by a member of the next generation?
I welcome the gentlemen and thank them for their presentation. I want to raise two issues. One relates to the appeals process. There should not be a need for such people to have to contact their public representatives. Any review of the scheme should provide for a proper appeals mechanism. Such people do not need the hassle of tracking down their public representatives to assist them in their application for a DPG or ERG.
Have members of the DFI or its constituent bodies been involved in the strategic policy committees, SPCs? Has their input, participation or involvement led to a greater development of policy in dealing with this issue and in dealing with the external bodies? Under the umbrella of the SPCs, has their input assisted in the development of policy for people with disabilities and, in particular, in how the local authorities treat not only applications for DPGs or ERGs but housing applications? The initial objective for establishing SPCs has not come to the fore. I can speak from my experience of dealing with them in Cork. In the western division the SPCs are nothing short of talking shops. I have never heard any viable policy being deliberated there as a result of the input of elected members or persons outside it.
The representatives might wish to respond to the questions raised.
Mr. Dunne
I appreciate the raising of that last point by Senator McCarthy because it puts the issue of people with disabilities and their housing needs in a broader context. It raises the manner in which we are involved in the SPCs. There is scant involvement of people with disabilities in local authorities or Government structures. That relates to the issue that neither people with disabilities nor their representative organisations have recognised the link that the local authority is an agency that can respond to their issues. That is the reason we held a conference earlier in the year on housing needs and the reason we prepared this document. We were not merely trying to educate local authorities on this issue. We were trying to educate our organisations to make those links, to get involved in local government and to think more broadly than looking to the health boards and Department of Health and Children to meet their needs. Disability organisations traditionally approached health boards to solve their problems but the health boards cannot solve all their problems, especially issues around housing which is not their responsibility. That awareness is only growing among the organisations.
Members will appreciate that the local government structures, in respect of which there have been changes, are complex. There are county development boards, SPCs, SIM groups and social inclusion committees. We are doing considerable work in the DFI with organisations to lead them through becoming members of such committees and gaining representation, but it is a slow process. The Senator is correct in that the only way we will make a lasting impact is by encouraging people with disabilities and their organisations to get involved in local authority structures. I could not tell the Senator of an example of such an involvement except in the case of Kerry which came about as a result of people there taking on the recommendations of the Barcelona Declaration. Such involvement and making an impact go hand in hand.
There is also the matter of shared learning. Deputy Haughey talked about Dublin City Council and its members learning from how they respond to the housing issue. If a project is proceeding well in one area, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should share such information by explaining to other local authorities how that is being achieved. That interaction is important for the voluntary organisations. There is an expertise in the voluntary disability organisations on how to respond to issues and that needs to the respected. These people have years of experience in responding to these issues.
Mr. Killian
Senator McCarthy spoke about SPCs sometimes becoming talking shops. As a member of an SPC, I agree that can be the case. However, we have an opportunity, through the SPCs that will be formed between now and November, to get across the right message. A person with a disability or the disability organisations can only be represented on SPCs through the community group strand. There is an opportunity through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and through each local authority to get the message across to the local organisations in each local authority area that people with disabilities are encouraged to come on board. It is a difficult process to attract such people to participate and to decide who will be selected. That is a job for the community and enterprise directors in each county to decide, but there is an opportunity for people with disabilities to become members of housing and social committees of local authorities where SPCs will be formed during the next two months.
Mr. Naughton
With regard to the question of a charge on a house, that would defeat the purpose in some respect. I am not sure if it would be possible politically. Given that a person with a disability has had to give up part of his or her ability, so to speak, and it is proposed to mortgage or remortgage part of his or her largest asset, that is like hitting a person when they are down.
Good work is happening in housing provisions in city councils and authorities in other counties, but there is a strong mindset in such authorities that such provision should be different and segregated. In some respects we are creating mini ghettos in terms of housing provisions for people with disabilities. That is a real threat. It is interesting that somebody with a disability who might be housed does not have the same opportunity. Two or three years down the road he or she may be restricted or limited from purchasing that house in the same way as any other tenant. The feeling is that a specially-designed unit does not belong to the individual; it is not really his or her home. It is only there because he or she is disabled. There is a distance to go yet before we are treated in the same way as everybody else. We are not looking for anything special but to be given the same shot at it as everybody else. I do not know why we are still being pushed back in that way.
Mr. Dunne
I thank the committee for inviting us today and for listening to our concerns. There is a sectoral plan attached to the Disabilities Bill. We ask the committee to look at that sectoral plan from the point of view of some of the issues we raised today to see whether that plan will move on those issues.
I thank Mr. Dunne and his colleagues for their presentation and for dealing with the questions raised. It is part of a process in which we are discussing homelessness and the provision of housing. This is the last group and we were keen that it make a presentation to us before we dealt with this. It was a useful exercise and I thank you for coming in.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.45 p.m. until noon on Thursday, 30 September 2004.