Seanad debates
Wednesday, 5 February 2003
Adjournment Matters. - Disabled Person's Grant.
10:30 am
Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Minister to the House to discuss the operation of the physically disabled person's grant. I refer specifically to the North Tipperary County Council area, which is the area with which I am familiar, and what has happened to the grant in that county in recent times. After being warned as part of our Estimates discussion in December, at the January meeting of the county council we were told that it was finding it necessary to suspend the operation of the grant in the area due to financial constraints, and that as of that date, more than two weeks ago, the council would not be able to process any new applications but would only honour applications which had been fully accepted, with planning permission approved where necessary, health board approval gained and tenders accepted – in other words, only where the work was almost ready to go ahead would the council proceed, and then only because it felt it had no other option under the law.
Even in the short period since then a number of people have approached me who want to apply for the scheme, but the scheme has now effectively been suspended. The financial background, as the Minister knows, is that one third of the cost of the scheme is paid by the council and two thirds by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. At the moment, North Tipperary County Council has an outstanding liability, we are told, of more than €800,000 to the scheme, with another €400,000 in approved applications due to be funded if they all go ahead. This means that the council may have to pay out more than €1 million for the scheme, which we are told it does not have. This amounts to a crisis in the funding of the scheme, which has resulted in its being suspended. This is unacceptable.
The grant is not means tested. It was devised to assist a household or individual who needed to make adjustments or additions to a dwelling to accommodate a disabled person, for example, somebody who is confined to a wheelchair, or has an illness resulting in a permanent disability that necessitates the installation of a shower where a bath cannot be used or a downstairs bathroom or bedroom. The scheme has proved extremely popular: we were told, at county council level, that in north Tipperary we have one of the highest numbers of applications for the scheme outside the cities. That suggests that either word of mouth has got around that the scheme is very successful and accessible or the quality of housing, particularly among the elderly, is so bad that it needs a major upgrade.
One of the reasons people are dependent on this grant is that the housing aid scheme for the elderly has effectively broken down, which means that many older people are using the physically disabled person's grant in order to have, in some cases, quite basic repairs carried out in their homes. They are getting letters telling them there is a four-year waiting list for the housing aid scheme. About two years ago, the Comptroller and Auditor General, in a report on the operation of that scheme, concluded that elderly people are probably dying before their time due to the housing conditions in which they are living and the inability of local authorities – or in this case the health boards – to implement the housing aid scheme to a satisfactory level.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify this, but I would have thought that the grant had a legal and statutory underpinning. However, it is now not available to those who are entitled to apply for it in our county, where elderly people, families with a disabled child and people who have been in accidents will no longer be able to access the scheme. I am aware of many cases in which work that needs to be carried out cannot be, because people cannot afford to pay for it on their own. Recently, after a struggle lasting over twelve months, an elderly couple with whom I have had many dealings, who live on the side of a mountain without electricity, running water or an indoor bathroom, were able to build a decent bathroom and bedroom because of the physically disabled person's grant. They now have a bit of comfort for the first time in their lives. It was a struggle but we finally secured the grant and it has been useful.
Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Senator for giving me the opportunity to speak on funding for the disabled person's grant. The Government is aware of the importance of the grant in helping to meet the accommodation needs of disabled persons but its operation at local level is the responsibility of local authorities and one in which I have no direct function. Authorities operate within a framework laid down in statutory regulations designed, as far as is practicable, to give them an appropriate degree of flexibility in administering the scheme. It is a matter for them to decide the level of funding to be provided for the scheme in their areas from within overall capital allocations notified by my Department for house purchases and improvement loans, disabled person's and essential repairs grants.
My Department's involvement in the scheme relates primarily to the recoupment to authorities of two thirds of their expenditure on each grant. The balance of one third of the cost is funded from the authorities' own resources from an amount included for that purpose in their annual estimates. Local authority capital receipts, surplus to the requirements of the main local authority housing programme and the remedial works scheme programme, may with my Department's approval be used to meet this balance. While it is open to a local authority to seek a higher allocation in the event of increased demand, an increased capital allocation would not of itself allow increased expenditure by the authority without a corresponding upward revision of its own provision for expenditure on the scheme.
Significant improvements have been made to the terms and conditions of the scheme in recent years. The effective maximum grant has doubled from €10,158 in 1997 to the current €20,320 and can cover 90% of the approved cost of the works compared to two thirds in 1997. The recoupment rate has increased from 50% to two thirds and a disabled person's new house grant of up to an effective maximum of €12,700 has also been introduced. I am aware these improvements have resulted in a substantial increase in applications from disabled persons. The number of grants being paid increased from 2,857 in 1999 to 4,883 in 2001 while the cost of paying the grant increased from €15.8 million in 1999 to €41.7 million in 2001. Costs are escalating out of all proportion.
As regards the position in north Tipperary, the county council wrote to my Department last week outlining the financial position on its scheme arising from increased demand and making proposals for changes in its funding. The increased demand for grants in the county is reflected in the increase in the amounts recouped to the council – from €137,000 for 48 disabled person's grants in 1998 to €688,000 for 98 grants in 2002.
The Senator is correct that the number applying for these facilities, which I know are badly needed and I am glad to see being taken up, has massively increased. The scheme is based on the recoupment provisions where the local authority puts up some of the money and I put up two thirds. It is on a quid pro quo basis. I am sure the Senator appreciates that I do not have unlimited funds and it is not as if I have cut back on the scheme – I am providing every bit as much as I did for the last few years. As the scheme is not means tested, anybody who applies – whether they have millions in the bank – are getting State money.
I note the proposals that have come from the Senator's county council in this regard and I am considering a more targeted approach to the scheme. I certainly have no intention of reducing the resources available because of their importance in terms of the quality of life they can deliver to those who avail of the grant. Some authorities have managed the scheme well while some have not and instead blame me for cutting back. However, when one examines the figures, my predecessor and I have increased the funds on top of the initial allocations to make sure we could meet all demands. I am afraid some authorities have allowed the scheme to go out of control. Without assessment of their own resources or the context of the scheme and how it worked, they have kept approving applications. They have done so knowing there are no matching funds to meet the one third requirement and that they have no leverage to come back to the Department.
North Tipperary unfortunately finds itself in this position, which is regrettable. I received the information from the Senator's local authority in the last week. However, the allocations I have given in terms of local government funding and non-national roads have been much better than anticipated. I allocated all the resources I could to ensure local authorities would not in any way be cut back on the funding available to them last year. As a consequence, I do not have any extra resources in any kitty to meet the Senator's or other local authorities' legitimate requirements. Nevertheless, we will look at the matter and talk to the officials concerned about it.