You are here

Changes to housing adaptation grant schemes will hit the most vulnerable of older people

Published 09/01/2014

SHARE THIS

Age Action is concerned at the changes to the housing adaptation grant schemes for older people and people with a disability, which it believes will hit those on lowest incomes the hardest.

“While the intention of the review was to make the schemes more focused and targeted at those most in need, the impact is that changes to Housing Aid for Older People scheme mean that funds will be spread more thinly, with the poorest of older people now receiving a reduced maximum grant while also being expected for the first time to pay for a percentage of the work,” Age Action spokesperson Eamon Timmins said.

The changes to the Housing Adaptation Grant for Older People, Housing Aid for Older People and the Mobility Aids Grant Scheme have come into effect since January 1, without any public announcement.

In addition to the reduction in the level of the maximum grant and changes to the income bands for the level of grant, Age Action is concerned that the age eligibility for the Housing Aid for Older People is being increased from 60 to 66 years old.  This will result in people who previously could have applied for Housing Aid for Older People now being faced with waits of up to six years to be eligible for grant aid towards making their homes habitable – eg replacing heating systems/windows/doors. 

The changes in eligibility for the schemes are significant and must be publicly communicated in a clear and concise manner.  Age Action is concerned that the changes only came to light as a result of a document for local authority officials which was leaked to the media.  The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government needs to issue a comprehensive statement on the changes.

But Age Action fears that changes to these schemes, combined with changes to other supports for older people, will make it more difficult for older people and people with disabilities to remain living in their own homes, especially those are seriously ill or frail.

“Changes to nursing home bed funding contained in the HSE Service Plan will make it harder to get a nursing home bed in 2014,” Mr Timmins noted.  “With community-based supports under severe pressure and now funding to help those who are struggling to adapt their homes being spread more thinly, it is getting harder and harder for the most vulnerable of older people to remain living in their own homes. When they can no longer cope, the result for many of these older people is admission to hospital or a nursing home.”

It has been the policy of successive governments since the late 1960s to support people to continuing living in their own homes for as long as possible. The latest changes to the housing adaptation grant schemes will not ease the plight of those currently struggling to remain at home.

 

SHARE THIS

The new Bill is an inadequate response to the growing demand for the abolition of mandatory retirement.

According to Dr Nat O’Connor, Age Action’s Senior Policy Adviser: “Age Action strongly opposes the revival of the Employment (Restriction of Certain Mandatory Retirement Ages). Bill 2024, which is an inadequate response to the growing demand for the abolition of mandatory retirement.”

“Across political parties, in unions and among older persons, we see support for ending the practice of forcing people out of work before they are ready, but the proposed Bill makes no meaningful progress toward that end. The aim set out in its title, to restrict certain mandatory retirement ages, betrays its lack of ambition. All it provides for is the establishment of a complex, formal procedure so that employees can make a written request to stay on past their contractual retirement age; a request which can still be denied by their employer. This is the sole ‘restriction’ the Bill would impose on mandatory retirement.”

“This is a weak and ineffective Bill which is unlikely to help most employees who are forced out of work against their will for the offence of reaching a certain birthday. There is no reason for such timid action when we have seen other countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and the United States abolish mandatory retirement entirely, in some cases decades ago. These countries have continued to enjoy well-functioning and productive labour markets and workplaces, showing that there is no foundation for the fears expressed by people who want to keep mandatory retirement.”

“Mandatory retirement is age discrimination. If the State allows a form of discrimination to be practiced, it must set out clear justifications for the practice. However, the popular arguments in favour of mandatory retirement are all myths. There is no evidence that older persons are less able to contribute to a workplace, or that they cost more than they contribute, or that they prevent younger workers from gaining employment. In fact, research has demonstrated the many benefits older workers bring to workplaces, including institutional experience, mentoring, and soft skills like better stress management.”

“Mandatory retirement is based on gross and insulting stereotypes about ageing. It is experienced by workers as a humiliating and dehumanizing injustice. It takes away our autonomy and our control over how and when we retire, which is a major life event. People who had no choice in retiring report poorer mental health, life satisfaction, health status, dietary habits, marital satisfaction, self-efficacy, and income adequacy, even years into their retirement.”

Dr. O’Connor concluded: “The proposed Bill is an incomplete and inadequate response to the problem of mandatory retirement, and by virtue of its incompleteness, reinforces and legitimises the dangerous ageism on which mandatory retirement is founded. We want our new government to take strong and decisive action, rather than tinkering around the edges of a serious problem. The Bill needs to be abandoned in favour of legislation that really helps the workers who wish to remain in work for longer.”

Churn:
It is not reasonable to suggest that the abolition of mandatory retirement would create a large problem for companies, when the scale of churn in the labour market is already far higher. The Irish labour market experienced 12.8% churn in quarter 3 of 2024, meaning that 1 in 8 jobs were created, abolished or vacated during this period, which was 365,750 jobs (Central Statistics Office 2024).

Compared to this level of hiring and resignations, managing the relatively small number of older workers who may seek to work longer or whose productivity may fall in older age is a much smaller human resources management issue for companies.

CSO (2024) Labour Market Churn Q3 2024 https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/fp/fp-lmc/labourmarketchurnq32024/

Age Action’s detailed policy paper outlining the case against mandatory retirement can be accessed here: https://www.ageaction.ie/sites/default/files/age_action_paper_abolish_mandatory_retirement.pdf