Vol. 465 No. 2
4 Mr. N. Ahern asked the Minister for the Environment the plans, if any, he has to promote the refurbishment of older local authority housing in view of the commitment in the programme A Government of Renewal; and the extra resources, if any, that have been allocated in this respect. [9340/96]
It was announced in the policy document Social Housing — The Way Ahead that a review of the remedial works scheme would be undertaken in consultation with the local authorities. This review is currently under way and the commitment in A Government of Renewal to promoting the refurbishment of older local authority housing will be addressed in this context. In the meantime, funding for the remedial works scheme and the bathrooms programme is being maintained at a high level.
In the original Programme for Government — I would quote it but I am aware that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle does not allow quotations at Question Time — commitments were given to refurbish older local authority housing. In recent years the amount of money allocated for that purpose has decreased — in 1994 £20.7 million was allocated whereas last year and this year the allocation was £18.4 million.
The Deputy should proceed by way of question.
There seems to be a discrepancy here. The promises made in the Programme of Government and the social housing document have not been met. Has the Minister withdrawn from the commitment to refurbish older local authority houses?
The commitment in the Programme for Government is clear and our approach to refurbishment is outlined in Social Housing — The Way Ahead. The underlying trend regarding funding of refurbishment schemes has been to increase the allocation. Taking into account the exceptional, extraordinary one-off payment which resulted from the tax amnesty, the amount of money involved is considerable, but I accept the Deputy's concern that it is not enough. In 1995-96 almost £37 million was allocated under the remedial works scheme. In addition, there is a commitment to provide bathrooms in local authority housing and we are very much on target to meet the objective of 1 January 1998. An allocation of £4.3 million was made for that purpose over the two years of this Government.
A new scheme was introduced for extensions to local authority housing, for which £250,000 was provided last year and £1 million this year. There is considerable investment in refurbishment and remedial works. I accept that the amount is never enough, but we must keep working to ensure there are adequate resources and that they are used wisely. I am carrying out a review to ensure we have full information on the operation of the remedial works scheme and to ascertain how best the resources can be used. It is not simply a matter of physical refurbishment but also of management, and local authorities and local communities are central to the issue of management.
I am concerned that the Minister of State's nice words are not backed up with resources. There have not been any additional resources provided in the past two years. The Minister of State referred to the bathroom programme which may have been assisted by the tax amnesty in 1994 when £4 million was provided, but that was reduced to £3 million in 1995 and reduced further to £2 million this year. Politicians are fond of using the word "review".
We must proceed by way of questions.
I am asking for a definition of this review which I believe is a tactic to avoid providing additional resources. Is the Minister of State committed to the nice words in the Programme for Government? She will be aware that many local authority houses are located in disadvantaged areas. Will she give people living in those areas some hope that their homes will be refurbished? I accept that proper management by local authorities is necessary also. Will she indicate the time-scale for this review? When will the report be published? When will we know whether the Minister is committed to the refurbishment of local authority houses or is she backing away from the promises made?
The bathroom programme has been very successful and I will give the Deputy an indication of the progress made, not just by this Government. I am not making absurd claims but it is an indication of the success of this programme that we have reduced the number of local authority dwellings without bathrooms from 6,500 in 1990 to approximately 2,000 at the end of 1995. There is not any problem in regard to funding for this programme.
That is a very basic comment.
On the remedial work scheme, this programme is carried out at various locations and is making a real difference in areas of deprivation. Resources have been allocated to the tune of almost £37 million in two years. I am not satisfied we are reaching out as far as possible and I am committing much of my time and resources to ensuring that refurbishment is a central part of the overall local authority housing programme. We must take stock of experience on the ground because of the considerable resources required for major refurbishment works. It is important to be knowledgeable about housing because many of these refurbishment works are the result of misguided and ill-informed housing policy in previous Governments which reacted in a way that was, in the long-term, extremely costly and caused more problems than were foreseen. We must ensure now that we direct resources appropriately to meet the need.
There is some validity in what the Minister of State said about the housing policy of previous Governments but we cannot simply tell people living in bad housing conditions that they will have to endure them while we examine the possibility of building new houses. In the Dublin City Council area, where most of the residents are flat dwellers, there has been a considerable decrease in the number of refurbishment works done this year following on a similar decrease last year. Will the Minister of State give some consideration to this area when examining the Estimates next year?
I will consider the views put forward by the Deputy but in relation to Dublin Corporation, for example, there is a problem with regard to its capability to build new housing. There are limitations.
That is another reason we should refurbish older houses.
A certain amount of planning has to go into this and we must ensure that we use resources effectively to deal with problems that directly result, in many cases, from bad planning and lack of long-term consideration.
We have exceeded our time for priority questions but we may take Question No. 5 in the category of other questions.
