Ms Corona Joyce:

Thank you. We are very grateful to have the opportunity to meet with the committee this afternoon.

Both the programme for partnership Government and national positive ageing strategy contain commitments to enable people to live in their own homes for longer, when deemed appropriate.

Despite these commitments we have developed a system that seems to treat home supports more as a way to empty acute hospital beds than to enable an older person to age at home with dignity and independence, and for the accommodation to be person-centred and meet the person's changing needs.

To meet these commitments it is essential that the housing aid for older people scheme, as well as the other programmes under the housing adaption grant, continues to be adequately resourced.

As indicated in table 1 in our submission, from 2010 to 2016 great variance can be seen in the overall funding to the scheme, the number of payments made and the average grant amount. Between 2010 and 2013, funding for the scheme fell sharply, as did the number of grants. At the start of 2014, a number of changes were introduced to the eligibility criteria for the scheme. These included a reduction in the size of the maximum grant available, changes in the income bands and an increase in the age for eligibility from 60 to 66 years. The Government argued these changes were necessary to target the funding towards those most in need.

It important for members to recall that the terms of reference for the 2013 review that led to these changes explicitly included the then recessionary economic climate and shrinking budget as the context. Those circumstances no longer exist and consequently, the scheme needs to be re-examined in the light of the current economic climate. The impact of these changes has meant that the poorest of older people now receive a reduced maximum grant while being expected to pay for a greater percentage of the work. A household, for example, with a yearly income of less than €30,000 may be eligible for a maximum grant of €8,000 or 95% of the cost of the works to be carried out, whichever is greater. At the maximum grant and percentage rate, this low-income household will need to find funding to match €421. This represents a substantial burden for someone reliant on a State pension. While the level of funding increased by 20% in 2014, the number of grants awarded increased by more than 100%. This indicates that the funding is being spread more thinly. By 2016, year on year there was an increase in overall funding.

Age Action feels strongly that the scheme is not adequately resources. We ask that the changes introduced to the scheme in January 2014 be reversed to ensure better access to grants for disadvantaged older people. While the additional €5 million announced by the Government in budget 2018 for overall housing adaptation grants is welcome, there is no clarity yet as to how this will be spent across the three funding programmes. In our budget 2018 proposals we sought an increase of €18 million to restore funding for housing aid for older people. In the context of reversing the 2014 changes, which would create greater demand for the grant, we believe this is still a fair and sensible proposal.

Calls to Age Action’s helpline frequently highlight inconsistences in the implementation of these grants. Many of the callers to the helpline find the complexity of the application process difficult to navigate. They experience delays in assessment and approval. This can be very stressful and upsetting as, in our experience, most applications are made in emergency or crisis situations. Different local authorities interpret the rules of the various schemes in different ways. Age Action calls for greater clarity and consistency in the administration of the schemes and we would welcome a review of the schemes.

The current policy of prioritising the provision of housing adaption grants to facilitate discharge from hospitals on an emergency basis means that older people in hospital can access them more easily than those living in the community. This makes it harder for older people in the community - such as those with non-emergency needs - to have their care needs met. Enabling older people to remain at home for longer through investment in these schemes can deliver savings by ensuring that fewer older people require preventable hospitalisation or residential care. We need to facilitate community living, mitigate preventable hospitalisation and, if deemed suitable, provide an alternative to nursing homes admittances for those already in hospital and awaiting discharge.