I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Curran, to the House and wish him well.
Care of the Elderly.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the need for the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to outline the implications of the recent cutbacks in the community support for older people scheme and his plans for the future of the scheme. I understand there has been a meeting with a number of the national organisations who have been concerned about this issue in recent days. Perhaps the Minister could update Members on the outcome of that meeting and whether he has changed the decision to suspend the scheme. This is an urgent matter which affects the elderly.
We have seen recently harsh cutbacks and reductions in public services and the impact of this on front-line services. In the medical card debacle, the psychological security of the elderly was taken away when the automatic right to a medical card for those over 70 was removed. This psychological aspect has had a damaging effect. The suspension of the community support scheme for older people represents another cutback for this age group.
I have seen a letter dated 7 April from a principal officer in the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht which states:
As a result, the funding available for a range of activities supported by this Department has had to be curtailed to meet the Government's objectives in regard to finance. These actions affect the community scheme for older people and result in the suspension of the scheme from today.
This suggests the scheme is no longer in operation. There are many people who want to access this service. Hospital social workers are trying to obtain security pendants for elderly people so that they can leave their long-stay beds and return home. People who have suffered a stroke, especially those who live alone, need the security of this alarm system to return home. In Clondalkin, in the Minister of State's constituency, from where some aspects of the Dublin scheme are run, people are on waiting lists to access these services.
The scheme was introduced in 2002 to provide funds to local community and voluntary organisations to install personal monitored alarms and other items of home security such as door and window locks to enable older people to live independently. It was a relatively small initiative but very important in terms of the security of those who benefited from it. It is difficult for many older people to access the funding for this type of security from their own resources. Some 10,000 people have availed of the scheme since its inception. This year alone, more than 1,850 have benefited from the scheme. I pay tribute to the many community and voluntary groups which facilitate older people in accessing the scheme, administer funding and ensure people feel safe in their own homes while preserving their independence.
I acknowledge we are in a time of financial difficulty. However, will the Minister of State outline the logic behind the decision to suspend this scheme? Has he considered the adverse impact on individuals who will no longer be able to live in security in their own homes? How much will be saved by the suspension of the scheme? Must it be suspended in full? If savings must be made under the scheme, if access is to be limited or if the Government has any concerns about its management, will the Minister of State clarify those issues? The suspension of the scheme represents another attack on the elderly. Surely any savings will be cancelled out if people are obliged to avail of long-term residential care because they are unable to return home?
I look forward to the Minister of State's explanation why this decision was taken and his plans for the future in regard to the scheme. Is it the intention to reopen the scheme? What are people expected to do in the meantime?
I thank Senator Fitzgerald for raising this matter on the Adjournment. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this issue and will attempt to respond to the points raised as directly as possible. My Department has operated the scheme of community support for older people since it was established in mid-2002. It was originally devised in 1996, based on the simple concept of helping people active in their communities to maintain contact with older people in their neighbourhood. Grants are not paid to individuals but to community organisations working with older people. This approach has helped over the years to ensure broader community support for older people and has allowed volunteers and staff of community organisations to maintain contact with older people.
Since my Department took over the scheme, in excess of €22 million has been awarded to community and voluntary organisations. Our estimates suggest that 60,000 older people have been direct beneficiaries through the provision of a monitored alarm — sometimes referred to as a pendant alarm or panic button — or one of the other covered security items for their homes. My Department reviewed the scheme in 2004 and made several innovations in response to concerns raised at that time. The scheme was developed to allow for the installation of window locks, door locks and chains and to cover the cost of providing sensor exterior lighting. Further innovations have been introduced since then, including a grant in respect of smoke alarms. Funding is now provided for carbon monoxide detectors where they are supplied as part of other smoke detection devices.
One of the key recommendations of the 2004 review was that a standard individual grant should be paid. This grant is now fixed at €300 per installation for the monitored alarm and lower amounts for the other equipment available. This approach has helped to ensure community groups obtain good value for money and that commercial suppliers are obliged to provide quality equipment at a reasonable price given these products vary little in their design or service.
I am satisfied the current level of grant ensures recipients of the alarm are not required to make any contribution to the cost of the supply or installation of the equipment. The only costs falling to the older person or their family members are the annual monitoring costs. I understand these costs vary from as low as €50 to a high of more than €100. This is an area in which I would like to see greater competition. People must be encouraged to shop around for the best value.
The changes introduced in 2004 have meant that the demand for grants has grown to unsustainable levels. From 2002 to 2006, the average annual expenditure on the scheme was some €2.4 million. The average expenditure for 2007 and 2008 reached more than €4 million, an increase of two thirds. I am sure Members will agree that this could not be sustained, even in better times. Moreover, I am concerned that the changes introduced to the scheme in recent years mean it is no longer targeting genuine need among older people.
As a result, the scheme was suspended in early April. This was done with a view to affording my Department the opportunity to review its operation in the coming months and relaunch it later in the year with tighter terms and conditions. Earlier this week, the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív and I met representatives of Age Action Ireland, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Muintir na Tíre, Irish Rural Link and the Senior Citizens Parliament to discuss the suspension of the scheme and their concerns about how it currently operates. Arising from those discussions, we have agreed a process that will set the broad parameters for a review of the scheme and for the necessary consultation to be undertaken as part of it. I hope the review process will begin in May and be completed by mid-September. These bodies have also agreed to participate in the review process and to work with my officials in addressing their concerns regarding the operation of the scheme.
I assure Senator Fitzgerald that all applications received up to the suspension of the scheme will be processed and approved, as appropriate, in line with the current eligibility criteria. Funding will be made available to eligible groups in the coming weeks. When it was first established, the scheme had a once-a-year application system, but this was reviewed some years ago. The original complaint was that a person who missed the application deadline was obliged to wait 12 months before applying. The scheme is now open for application on a continuous basis. I acknowledge that we are not accepting applications in the coming period but I emphasise that towards the end of 2008, we cleared virtually all applications on hand. That is why the expenditure for last year was some €4.3 million. We will not accept new applications during the period of the review but it would be disingenuous and unfair to suggest there is a substantial backlog of applications. The applications received prior to the suspension will be dealt with in full. In addition, it is important to note the suspension of the scheme in no way affects those who have already received a monitored alarm device.
I reiterate my commitment to this scheme and the security it has offered to the many older people using the alarms. I hope to relaunch it in September once the review is completed.
The Minister of State indicated there was a concern that the scheme was no longer targeting genuine need among older people. Will he elaborate on this? I take his point that the backlog of applications has been cleared. However, what is the case for those who apply between now and September? Are there contingency plans to deal with them?
I welcome the Minister of State's assurance that the scheme will be re-launched in September. Can he assure people who already have monitored alarms that monitoring will continue, even under the revised scheme?
Continuous monitoring has nothing to do with the Department. It is a matter between the individual customer and the commercial companies which supply the monitoring. The customer pays a monitoring fee of between €50 and €100 per annum, and that will continue.
I have a concern about real and genuine need. Throughout the years we dealt with about 6,000 applicants per annum. Last year we dealt with approximately 11,000. It is important that limited resources are targeted where there is real and genuine need. Applicants for the scheme are not means tested and it came to the attention of myself and others that some sort of means test might be required and that the necessary structure should be put in place.
Applications will not be accepted between now and the completion of the review. While the review is in place the applications which have been received to date will be processed but no new applications will be accepted.
The Seanad adjourned at 1.45 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 April 2009.