I am concerned about the operation of the essential repairs grant scheme governed by the housing regulations made by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment in 1993. This grant scheme was put in place for the purpose of prolonging the usefulness of older houses throughout the State.
My concerns about the scheme and the way it is being administered relate principally to an apparent inflexibility in the way the scheme is operating. Some of this inflexibility derives from the regulations referred to setting up the scheme, while some may be a consequence of administration decisions taken by individual local authorities. For example, why is it necessary to specify that the approved cost of the works is not less than £200? Why cannot each case be considered on its merits, having regard to the sometimes very difficult situations facing individuals? We can sometimes make these schemes more responsive to administration requirements rather than to the people they are meant to help. A sum of £200 may not seem a lot, but it is a sizeable sum to an elderly person on a small income.
Cases have been brought to my attention where applicants for these grants have been ruled out on the grounds that the part of the house they are seeking to have repaired — for example, the back kitchen — did not constitute a part of the original house. How can one explain or justify such a decision to a person of 76 years of age living alone, whose back kitchen and adjacent toilet are no longer usable because she has been refused a grant under this scheme?
I have had numerous requests in this regard. On a bad night, or when it is raining, people cannot use the toilet, the one facility an old person wants in the house, because of the amount of water that is coming into it, or if they do use it they would have to take off their shoes. At the same time they are being deprived of an essential repairs grant. It seems a crazy situation that any local authority could deprive a person of that age, residing alone, the use of the two vital essentials in their house — the back kitchen and the bathroom.
I am in favour of a very high standard of public accountability in the administration and management of public funds, but we also need a more practical, realistic and sensitive approach to the award of grants such as these, having special regard to the disadvantaged group of people at whom this scheme is targeted.
The reality is that the inflexibility inherent in the scheme is leading prospective applicants to use, as a more workable and flexible alternative, the home improvement scheme for the elderly, operated by the health boards. I have spoken to the officers of the health boards. They are overcome by the number of applications because of the inflexibility of the essential repairs grant scheme. They have only limited finance to back up their schemes and they have not got the workforce available to undertake them. Not only are they not able to implement their scheme, but those applying for it are unsuccessful. As a consequence, the scheme is overrun with applications and is de facto becoming part of the essential repairs grant scheme.
I am asking the Minister for the Environment to review and revise the essential repairs grant scheme, now that some of its deficiencies have become clear. I also ask the Minister to make strong representations regarding a review of applications such as those I have mentioned. These are numerous, especially in rural Ireland, where it was the norm years ago to build on a back kitchen and a bathroom. It was established and agreed at that time that they would become part of the general household. To state now that because they are not part of the original household a grant cannot be provided is crazy and unacceptable.
It would be better to put those concerned into a district hospital where they would have the facilities they fought for and for which they were grant aided so long ago. However, now, at a very important time of their lives and in order to ensure they do not have to leave their homes at nightime, they are being refused the grant. In view of this I ask that a review of the essential repairs grant scheme be undertaken and that the deficiencies which exist at present be addressed.