Dáil debates

Thursday, 19 May 2005

Other Questions.

Security of the Elderly.

3:00 pm

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the role his Department plays in the allocation of socially monitored alarms through the scheme of community support for older people; his plans to extend or create a new scheme to support the provision of socially monitored alarms to persons with disabilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16645/05]

Gay Mitchell (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the funding that has been allocated to the community supports for older people scheme in 2005; if this scheme has been oversubscribed since its introduction; if he is satisfied that the allocation fully meets the security requirements of eligible older persons; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16677/05]

Photo of Noel AhernNoel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 8 together.

The community support for older people scheme provides grants to assist communities in improving the security of their older members. The scheme is administered by local community and voluntary groups with the support of my Department. It provides for maximum individual grants as follows: €300 for the once-off installation of socially monitored alarms, €150 for locks for doors and windows, €150 for security lighting, and €50 for smoke alarms. People with disabilities who are over 65 are included in the scheme, but there are no plans at present to extend it further. A sum of €2.8 million has been allocated to the scheme for 2005, an increase of 17% on the 2004 allocation of €2.4 million.

Funding was provided at 90% of the cost of equipment between 1997 to 2003. In 2004, following a review of the scheme, this 90% limit on funding was abolished and replaced with individual maximum grants, as outlined earlier. Grant levels were fixed by the Department on the basis of the grants sought and paid out in the previous year. Smoke alarms were added to the list of qualifying equipment in 2004.

Deputies will appreciate that the scheme has been running for the greater part of a decade and has supplied security equipment to many older people. Since 1997, in excess of €30 million has been provided to assist older people under this scheme. Personal security depends on a range of factors and this scheme makes a valuable contribution to the security requirements of eligible older people.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister of State consider extending the scheme to people with disabilities who are under 65, who would benefit greatly? I urge him to examine this possibility and report to the House on the outcome of such an examination.

Will the Minister of State clarify who owns the alarms once they have been installed? Does ownership pass to the older person. Is there a scheme in place for the recycling or reuse of the alarms?

Photo of Noel AhernNoel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The scheme is community based, administered by the community section of my Department and focused on those over 65. People with disabilities under this age limit may require security equipment grants as well as other aids, but this scheme is not appropriate to meet their needs as it specifically targets older people. People with disabilities receive most supports through the health services and are in a different category from the people that this scheme is designed to assist.

My Department issues the grants to local community groups, some of which recycle the security equipment when possible. However, I would like to see more recycling taking place. I get the impression some groups never recycle. The equipment is never removed forcibly from the individual who receives it, but I encourage and support groups who try to recycle it.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is Department policy with regard to repairs to existing systems and the replacement of obsolete systems?

Photo of Noel AhernNoel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will provide new systems where it is established that the old ones cannot be repaired. However, people in the business tell me most of them can be repaired. I am nervous about the issue of obsolescence. If the alarm or pendant is working well a person will not qualify for a new one. I have heard reports, true or untrue, of some suppliers telling people they or their group need a new system and that the ones they got five years previously from some other group are obsolete. If the alarm and pendant work, the person will not qualify for a new system. However, in a case where it is established that it is broken and cannot be repaired, we will replace it.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree the scheme is excellent as far as it goes. Does the Minister of State agree that restrictions exist that sometimes make matters difficult? For example, this grant can only be applied for at certain times of the year, probably before the end of May. If an elderly person was discharged from hospital in June or July and needed more security, he or she would probably have to wait till next year to apply for it.

Will the Minister of State confirm whether there is an annual monitoring fee of between €60 and €100 attached to this equipment? This sum would be a considerable drain on the resources of elderly people who receive a non-contributory pension. Should the system not be free, like fuel, electricity or telephone rental?

Photo of Noel AhernNoel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From the beginning the scheme has been administered once a year. We get queries and complaints from some groups from time to time who feel they should be able to get the pendants on an ongoing basis. However, most groups seem to get by. We advertised for applications some weeks ago. Quite often a number of months pass between the time when a group applies and approval, but most groups get by, perhaps because an applicant may have died or because they usually have a spare or two.

I accept that people are released from hospital at various times and the health service provides them with substantial supports, aids, equipment and home care packages etc. It should not be beyond the remit or responsibility of the health service to provide these items where necessary in severe cases as they can be bought commercially.

We provide grants towards the initial cost of the pendants. Depending on who the person is signed up with, there is an annual monitoring fee such as that mentioned by the Deputy, or perhaps more in some cases. That fee is the responsibility of the individual and is not covered by our scheme.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unfortunately, whether in urban or rural areas, older people are not as secure as they used to be, so obviously the scheme is very welcome. Has any study being done on the effectiveness of the scheme? Have the various alarms been useful in situations where, for example, a home was under attack and the alarm was used? It may be difficult to give a response to that question, but I am interested in whether there is real improvement in terms of the security of older people in their homes.

Photo of Noel AhernNoel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have not done any study since our Department took responsibility for the scheme. The scheme has been consistently popular so, obviously, the community groups that apply to the scheme feel it is of benefit. The biggest fear is not so much that houses may be under attack, but that a person alone might be unwell or fall and may need to summon help. I am not aware of any study that has been carried out, but people on the ground and community groups dealing with the elderly feel the scheme is of benefit. It may not provide the elderly with total protection against all concerns, but it provides reassurance that they will be able to contact the outside world in the event of any unforeseen circumstance.