The Government must think things are bad in Cork when they call on Deputy Bradford to speak on social housing.
Social Housing Policy: Statements (Resumed).
The only person who is politically homeless in the constituency of Cork East is Deputy O'Keeffe but unfortunately he is leaving the House and will not hear my spirited defence of Government housing policy which, as he knows, has made a marked difference, not just in the constituency of Cork East but throughout the country.
He is within earshot.
I welcome this policy. At one time housing policy was determined according to party philosophy. One group in society thought the only way to tackle the issue was to provide local authority housing while others argued that the private market would cater for all housing needs. The correct approach lies between those two extremes. I am happy with the Government's approach to housing.
Funding is necessary if housing policy is to be implemented. I welcome the thoughtful approach given to housing policy and the involvement of voluntary groups in this area, in particular Respond, St. Vincent De Paul and the rural resettlement group. The latter group will make a presentation tomorrow to the Select Committee on Social Affairs. That group proved we can tackle the problem of rural depopulation and urban sprawl in a new way. We must do what we can to fund such groups. State funding, effective work by the local authorities and the involvement of local groups bring a new dynamic to this area.
Extra money was provided in 1995 and I hope the Minister will succeed in giving extra funding to local authorities in 1996. There is no point in having good ideas or schemes if we do not have sufficient funds to implement them. I hope the Minister is successful in maintaining the budget for 1996.
The Minister serves in an important and interesting Department and can choose the areas on which to spend the money allocated to it. In the Department of Social Welfare, for example, the money must be used to fund priority areas and there is little room for choice. The Minister has indicated a willingness to look at new ways and means of spending money which is having an effect at local level.
Cork County Council welcomes the increase in funding received in 1995. For example, it is ironic that many of the projects for which funding was made available this year have not yet started. It is seldom that money made available is not spent and the system in that regard needs to be reviewed. Local authority management, engineering staff and officials point out that there are delays with the tendering and bonding systems. It is regrettable that when money is made available for housing programmes it is not possible to start projects immediately. Difficulties with tendering and issuing insurance bonds must be dealt with to ensure that money made available for a certain year is spent in that year.
Despite the improvements in terms of policy and finance a genuine housing problem still exists. Many Members are also a member of a local authority and, like me, I am sure that on a weekly basis they meet a large number of people with housing problems. When I was first elected to the local authority in 1985 the number of people requiring local authority housing was smaller than at present. It seemed that only people from a certain sector of society sought local authority housing, but at present people from every walk of life make demands on local authorities in terms of housing. Perhaps that is the reason for the increase in housing problems. New policies and an increase in finance are needed to solve these problems. I look forward to new ideas from the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, during the term of this Government.
Deputy Quill and others referred to rent subsidies payable through health boards. A total of £54 million was provided in 1994 for rent and mortgage subsidies. I accept the money was needed by those people but it would be possible to build up to 1,500 local authority houses with that amount. There is a genuine fear that the very effective system of mortgage and rent subsidies creates problems instead of solving them. At one time most people were unaware of the health board rent subsidy. If rent on a flat or house was beyond a person's means they would dismiss the possibility of obtaining that accommodation, or alternatively the landlord might reduce the rent. However, people can now afford accommodation at £60, £70 or £80 per week because they receive a rent subsidy from the health board. Landlords are the beneficiaries of this scheme.
In many cases accommodation is of very poor standard. There should be close monitoring of the condition of accommodation subsidised by the State and money should not be made available for accommodation that is not fit for human habitation. In view of the fact that up to £60 million will be spent in 1995 on rent and mortgage subsidies we must ensure that money solves problems, not creates them, as is the case in some instances at present.
I agree that problems arise for young unemployed people who remain in the home in that they are entitled to a minimal rate of social welfare. If, however, they leave home and rent a flat they receive not only full social welfare but also a health board subsidy towards the cost of accommodation. The Minister should discuss this matter with her colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, because it is unacceptable to almost force young people from the family home to obtain full social welfare entitlement. The State is not saving one penny from that system because the money saved in social welfare is lost in rent subsidies. Young unemployed people living at home should be entitled to full social welfare. That would save anguish and chaos as well as much of the money paid at present on rent subsidies. The Minister should impress on her colleague that changes must be made in this regard.
When the shared ownership scheme was introduced some years ago most of us welcomed it as a positive measure that would help thousands of people who otherwise could not purchase a home. Because it was very difficult for local authority staff and public representatives, who are expected to be experts on all matters, to sell the concept of the shared ownership scheme there was a very slow take-up of the scheme. In the past 12 months or so there has been an increase in take-up but there is much room for improvement in that regard.
I hope the Minister will consider some of the rules and regulations governing that scheme, and ensure that local authority staff are available and adequately briefed to sell the concept of shared ownership loans to clients who call to local authority housing office seeking housing advice. In many instances constituents who inquired about that scheme visited their local authority and discussed the possibility of a shared ownership loan but generally were advised against taking out that form of loan. Staff in local authority housing offices are ultra cautious and conservative in that regard perhaps because they recognise that scheme is complicated and believe applicants may not be aware of some of the pitfalls associated with it. It needs further clarification. We need to impress upon local authority staff that this scheme is a key element of the Government's housing policy and targets should be set for local authorities regarding its take up.
I welcome changes to the scheme introduced in the 1995 budget and that applicants can now take out a loan for as little as 40 per cent of the value of a house. A lower loan for a house could not be offered as it would defeat the purpose of introducing responsible home ownership.
I mentioned to the Minister that a further change to the scheme would be effective. A mortgage subsidy is available for those who leave local authority houses and purchase or build their own houses. Anything that can be done should be done to encourage people to leave local authority houses and purchase or build their own houses, thereby making their local authority houses available for more needy tenants.
I understand why a person who leaves a local authority house and takes out a shared ownership loan does not qualify for a mortgage subsidy but we should consider making a mortgage subsidy available to shared ownership applicants. Generaly, such applicants come from the bottom of the housing market. They find it difficult to decide to leave the security of their local authority house with a fixed and modest rent and risk taking out a mortgage, whether a full or a shared ownership mortgage. We should do everything possible to encourage those people and should allow them to qualify for a mortgage subsidy. Perhaps the mortgage subsidy could be made available to applicants whose portion of a shared ownership loan is 65, 70 or 80 per cent. That would help improve the take up of the shared ownership loan scheme and it would free up local authority housing. If possible, we should try to solve those two problems together.
Will the Minister of State review the new house grant scheme? The new house grant programme is part of a philosophy of helping people to buy or build their own homes and that should be encouraged in so far as possible. In an ideal society most people would own their homes and few would depend on the State for housing, but we do not live in an ideal society. Any progress that can be made should be made to encourage people to provide their own housing. The new house grant of £3,000 has been effective in that regard. The grant was approximately £2,000 in 1981 or 1982. On a value for money basis a new house grant of £2,000 in 1981 and 1982, when housing and house building costs were much lower provided a significantly larger proportion of the cost of building or buying a house than the current new house grant. I accept that finance is limited but I ask the Minister of State to consider increasing the new house grant. I take the point made by the Minister of State that it can be argued that the new house grant simply adds to the cost of a house and if it is increased from £3,000 to £5,000 every builder in the country will recognise that there is an extra £2,000 profit available and house prices will rise accordingly. That need not necessarily happen, and while the new house grant of £3,000 provides some assistance it does not encourage a sufficient number of people to buy or build new houses and we should review it.
For 20 years the motor industry has argued the question of diminishing returns. It argued that if additional incentives were made available, more cars would be sold and more tax would be collected. During the past 12 months its argument has been tested and proved correct. A similar argument applies to the housing industry. If incentives are increased in terms of the rate of grant aid, more people will leave local authoritiy houses and more people from the lower end of the housing market will build or buy their houses. That will result in more employment in the building industry, a greater amount of tax collected by the Revenue Commissioners and everybody will be better off. I hope the Minister of State and her colleagues will consider that matter in the 1996 budget.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. Any time issues affecting local authorities are debated in the House there is never a shortage of contributors principally because most Members are current or former members of local authorities. In most instances they speak from experience and reflect the frustrations and difficulties regarding the various matters dealt with by local authorities.
Inevitably housing is always a subject of great debate. We never seem to have enough houses to settle our population. In terms of the social dynamics in the house building industry in many instances as people's incomes improve, they move up the house value scale. I am sure the technical personnel in the Department of the Environment and at local authority level regularly apply their minds to the question of flexibility in house design. In terms of the size of houses it is necessary to be mindful of ongoing social changes within a population to ensure that design policies keep in step with people's needs. However, the bottom line of the matter is the unit cost of building houses. I am sure that will always be borne in mind in the design of a scheme of houses. It is difficult to consider population settlement policies in isolation from other physical and economic policies implemented at any given time. We cannot have a stop-go policy, it is a matter of settling on a broad policy and continuing it.
Because of the concentration of population in Dublin and along the east coast it can be argued that the unit cost of housing is much higher there than it should be. I could argue that the unit cost of housing would be cheaper in other parts of the country for some reason which, perhaps, only the house building industry can explain. In the past there was a policy of building large housing estates but there is unanimous agreement that it has been disastrous in social terms. Most local authorities accept that moving people from different settings in and around an area where it is planned to build a housing scheme to a large scheme of 50 or 100 houses has been disastrous. The proposals nowadays from local authorities to the Department reflect a smaller number of houses in the schemes being put forward. That is how it should be. It is notable that the standard of houses being built by local authorities is improving and the standard of those being built by my local authority in County Louth is exceptional. The type of house which was built 20, 25 or 30 years ago would not compare with those being built today.
I have always been interested in the concept of co-operative housing. I am a firm believer in the self-help concept in communities. We should have a housing policy that encourages people on the margins to provide a house for themselves or to put their name on the local authority housing list. There are people in those circumstances and I have in mind seven, eight or nine young couples who need housing. If local authorities were in a position to provide serviced sites for them they could, collectively organise building houses. On the basis of the arithmetic I have seen where that co-operative effort has prevailed, the unit cost of the houses is much cheaper. The couples involved have been eternally grateful to those who helped to organise that co-operative effort. For some reason, which is difficult to understand, it has not caught on. It may be that people do not want the hassle and bother of organising the co-operative because it is done on a once off basis and the experience gained is not of any subsequent use to others. It is a pity that the concept could not be expanded and developed. Perhaps the Department of the Environment would examine the possibility to providing incentives in that area. It is a matter of targeting a group who are on the margins between being able to provide a house themselves of putting their name down on the local authority housing list.
I am concerned also at the maintenance costs of local authority houses to local authorities. It goes without saying it is a huge burden year in year out. I will not pretend I have a magic formula to come to terms with it, but it is possible to provide incentives for tenants of local authority houses who are on a differential rent scheme. At the end of the year a merit award could be provided to those who have a minimum maintenance cost during the previous 12 months. I have no preconceived ideas about a merit award in those circumstances. I fully realise there may be a hidden administrative cost which is not obvious to me but I think there are possibilities in that area.
I have listened to many speakers, some of whom referred to the number of young single people who apply for unemployment assistance or support through their local health board. They are living away from home because of the problems with the means test when living at home. This matter needs to be addressed because, in the Dundalk area, rented accommodation is at a premium as students in the local regional college seek accommodation. Young people who are not in third level education leave home and are applying for unemployment assistance. The reality is that the supply of accommodation is not sufficient to meet the demand that exists. This has the automatic impact of pushing up rental costs. There is a need for an examination of this problem by the Departments of the Environment, Social Welfare and Health. There is a need also to do some arithmetic in that area and to bring it into line with reality.
Another area to which I wish to refer deals with families on the margins of ability to provide for themselves or to put their names on the housing list. Because of an experience with the previous house improvement grant scheme which cost a considerable amount of money the policy makers in the Department have been arguing against its reintroduction. I am not sure that is wise and it may be time to re-examine it. There are many secondhand houses throughout the country in need of upgrading and improvement. If an investment could be made in those houses, it could well bring them into the mainstream housing stock and save the Department a considerable amount of money in the continuing demand for local authority housing. I appreciate that many of the older houses may be beyond the point of repair. There is a percentage of houses which, if a house improvement grant scheme were available, the owners would seriously consider investing in and making them available either for sale or rental to people in need of rehousing.
The new house grant scheme at approximately £2,000 has been static for a number of years. The possibility of a house improvement grant scheme being paid on the basis of income rather than on a set sum under a certain floor area should be examined. A new house grant scheme to the value of, say, £8,000 or £10,000 would mean that a person could provide their own house instead of automatically going on the local authority rehousing list. The conventional three bedroom local local authority house costs in the region of £35,000 or £36,000. Clearly, if the Department is prepared to put up the £8,000 or £10,000 that would tilt the balance in favour of those who want to build their own house.
I wish to refer to the population settlement policies and would ask officials in the Department or policymakers generally to examine this area again. Clearly, it is aligned to industrial development policy. If there are job opportunities in Dundalk, Drogheda or Dublin those are the areas to which people will gravitate. I query the wisdom of concentrating large sections of population on the east coast instead of looking to the west, the midlands and the south with a view to having a level playing field. Our population settlement is much more evenly spread. It may be that the huge housing costs in Dublin could be reduced if the demand was reduced.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on one of the most important issues facing politicians, as Deputy Kirk pointed out. We encounter this problem daily and it forms up to 60 per cent of the cases dealt with at our clinics.
I warmly congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, on her achievement in bringing forward the document, "Social Housing — The Way Ahead". She has added several new and important aspects to the lamentable document produced in 1991. She has recast it in a way which renews, in effect, the social housing programme. This started in 1993, under Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, but it was important to bring all the elements of social housing together. I commend the Minister of State for competently doing this in the document.
As a result of the document, there is now at last a real housing programme of which the Government parties can stand over and be proud. I commend the Minister of State for extending the 50:50 shared ownership scheme and for changing some of the limited terms of the ongoing tenant purchase scheme and making it more accessible to many people.
I congratulate the Minister of State on recognising the huge role of the voluntary bodies, particularly in the past three years, in providing housing for some of the most deprived sections of the community. That was a major achievement. The old local authority mortgage limit languished at £25,000 for many years. It was at this ceiling for most of my representative political career and it was good to bring it slightly more into focus at £33,000, which is the type of price range applicable in Dublin and other major urban centres.
The Minister of State has been deeply concerned over many years about housing for the travelling community. She was the first chairperson of the task force on this problem, before my colleague, Senator Kelly, took over when the Minister of State was appointed. The summation of some of the ideas on the provision of accommodation for travellers is most valuable. The report covers a range of topics and it is commendable. It provides a good foundation on which to build, but I wish to draw the Minister of State's attention to a number of matters which the document does not address sufficiently and perhaps, these could be examined in greater detail.
As I mentioned at the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, the document does not address the special problems in Dublin. People sometimes say I am like a broken record on this issue but the Dublin region has particular difficulties which the document does not address. The problem is compounded by the totally unnecessary and largely administrative division of the region into four counties. This is an absolute disadvantage in terms of housing people on the current housing list, particularly in Dublin City. The scale of the refurbishment programmes required is vast. Most Deputies from outside Dublin do not realise the huge problem of bad housing conditions in many areas of the city and county and the massive programme which is still required to deal with it.
I agree with the remarks of Deputy Kirk and others about design. It would have been worth devoting a chapter of the report to the design of houses and estates. An almost model estate design is featured on the cover of the report but I am exasperated at times at the poor design of local authority housing. This particularly arises in the case of small in-fill housing beside older private estates. We insist on building totally different houses, with tiny windows and doors, which clearly marks them out as local authority houses. It costs as much to build this type of house as it does to extend the design of the existing estate. This must be done if we want social integration. I am disappointed by the designs of even some of the NBA houses.
The biggest weakness in housing policy is that we still have not come to grips with estate management. There were major social problems over Hallowe'en in part of Dublin City. Areas of the north and west of the county have been able to deal with such problems through the heroic efforts of local voluntary workers and, at times, politicians. However, only two areas of Dublin City, which houses one seventh of the population, have any type of estate management policy. Two years ago, Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, and the current Minister of State requested Dublin Corporation to immediately implement a regime of estate management throughout the city. However, those two years have been wasted and it has not been done. I was in City Hall earlier, discussing the 1996 estimates. As usual, money is tight, particularly since there are no service charges, which is what our constituents want. It is still the case that there is no effective estate management and this issue must be addressed. This probably also applies to other urban areas. There is a need for real local democracy in that regard.
Some new approaches are still required. A previous speaker mentioned one of the document's central themes with regard to social housing, which is encouraging people to own their own homes. It is almost a moral imperative on Irish people, probably given our history over the previous 200 years to own our property. Almost 20 years ago, one of my distinguished predecessors in the Labour Party, the late Jimmy Tully implemented a big housing programme. He put together 7,000 units a year, which is similar to the level this year, of local authority housing. They were funded directly by Government but in many cases, people had equity in their houses in estates from the first day.
For example, in my constituency, the entire Donaghmede area was developed by private builders. However, it was allocated to the housing and transfer lists and people had a type of mortgage arrangement from day one. Some of the ideas in this and the 1991 document are not entirely new.
I hope the Minister will consider these aspects again. The Department of the Environment is perhaps one of the most bureaucratic Departments. In the past I have raised the possibility of abolishing the Department of the Environment and perhaps, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. There is certainly a strong case for abolishing the Department of the Environment. I understand that it replicates much of the work done by 38 to 40 county and borough councils throughout the country. I do not know why it is necessary to do this. I sometimes think there is an unholy alliance between the mandarins in the Custom House and some of the bureaucrats at local level.
I am aware this is not directly related to the Minister of State's brief, but I still hope in policy on housing and all other matters, that we will consider establishing real local democracy. I felt some of the recent changes were nonsensical whereby the Dublin area was split in four, an attempt was made to prevent Deputies becoming members of local authorities and they would no longer be allowed to be elected chairman, although some of the best councillors happen to be Deputies.
If members of local authorities are to be given real authority, there is a need for fundamental reform of local government. I would like to see us reach the stage where the leader of the city council would be the executive mayor with responsibility for the housing department. It is outrageous that there are still slums in this city having regard to the amounts of money already spent. Local democratic control is the way forward.
I commend the Minister of State on introducing a housing programme under which 7,000 units will be provided. This is an enormous achievement. Dublin City Council, is to provide 600 of the total of 3,900 to be provided in Dublin. In the late 1980s and the early 1990s, under the baleful influence of the Progressive Democrats, Fianna Fáil forgot one of its founding principles with the result that the housing programme was strangled. There was literally no programme. This upset and irritated many people.
All the money had been spent by that stage.
Some sections of the community refused to pay their fair share and paid no tax at all with the result that the rest of us had to support the State. The Government of which the Deputy's party formed part got us into debt, but there was no housing policy.
About five years ago I was so exasperated at a meeting of the housing committee of the city council in the Mansion House that I led a walk out of members while the then Minister, Deputy Smith, was speaking. I felt he was expressing platitudes and not addressing the problems I had to deal with day in, day out. I am grateful this matter is now being addressed by the Minister of State who has doubled the allocation for social housing. At long last we have a programme we can stand over.
The shared ownership scheme has been commended and rightly so. During the past six to eight months I have been struck by the way young couples on small incomes and, at times, single parents have been able to make a new start by taking an equity stake in their own homes. The new conditions introduced by the Minister of State are very valuable.
In relation to the tenant purchase scheme, £25,000 covered the cost of a local authority house in the Dublin region. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case but the position can be restored by increasing the figure to £33,000.
Debate adjourned.