Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Oct 1985

Vol. 109 No. 3

House Improvements Grant Scheme: Motion.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment to revise, as a matter of urgency, the house improvements grant scheme.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity of introducing this motion at a time when the building construction industry is in such poor shape. I cannot recall during my lifetime the situation being anything nearly as bad. Those who have been involved in the construction for longer than I have been, tell me that in their lifetime they never saw things as bad either. It is important that anything that can be done to get us out of this situation should be done. This is one area where it is important that a review be undertaken important that a review be undertaken immediately of the house improvement grants and that the amounts, conditions, scope and other details be improved. I notice that in the amendment it is stated:

. . . to keep the terms of this scheme under constant review with a view to its enhancement when circumstances warrant it.

If this had been done, and it should have been done, there would have been no need for this motion.

I should like to refer to the housing cost price index which Members will know relates to a base figure on 1 January 1975. This is concerned with the labour and materials used in buildings only. It does not take into consideration site costs, profits, interest or any other matter — solely labour and material.

That base figure of 100 in October 1981 had risen to 285.4 and at 1 September this year the figure was 431.7. In that intervening period between October 1981 and September of this year the housing cost price index had risen by 146.3 points. This was a very considerable increase. Yet there has been no increase in the grant amounts and these amounts are not over-generous — £200 for the provision of a water supply, £200 for the installation of sewerage facilities, £600 for the building of a chimney and the provision of a fireplace in a house without a chimney, £600 for the provision of a bathroom, £600 for the provision of an extra bedroom to relieve overcrowding and, since 27 April 1982, £600 for major necessary works to the basic fabric of a house.

The grant will not exceed in any case two-thirds of the approved cost, which is worked out by the Department. There is no question whatever but that if these amounts were small when the scheme was introduced in 1981 they are totally out of date now and unrealistic.

I am very indebted to the Department of the Environment, and indeed to the Minister, for details which I received regarding the payment of grants in the past ten years. In 1975 the amount paid under this heading was £2.4 million; in 1976, it was £2.8 million; in 1977, £2.4 million; in 1978, £6.4 million in 1979, £16.0 million; in 1980, £18.5 million; in 1981, £19.4 million; in 1982, £4.4 million; in 1983, £6.4 million; and in 1984, £6.7 million.

Those amounts include grants for reconstruction, water and sewerage for single installations and for disabled persons and essential repairs grants as well as the special grant to reduce dependence on oil. There were three separate house improvement grants and one special scheme in operation at different times during the period concerned but I do not consider it important to go into the details of those.

With regard to the high payments in 1979, 1980 and 1981 there were a number of reasons, apparently, for this. Chief among these was the special scheme to reduce dependence on oil which was introduced as an emergency measure in the wake of the second oil crisis. During the short duration of this scheme, some seven months, the cost to the Exchequer was £14 million or £2 million per month. In addition the decision to abolish all reconstruction grants from 1 February 1980 and the stipulation that the work had to be completed and applications for payment received by 30 June 1981 was responsible for an inordinate number of projects being brought forward than would otherwise have been the case.

To those who would say that before this scheme was introduced the grant payments for improvement were abolished I should like to point out that regarding those very high levels of payments in the years, 1979, 1980 and 1981, in round figures for any one of those years the payments as they were then would have been greater than the payments for 1982, 1983 and 1984 added together. Therefore, there is no question but that the amounts are totally unrealistic and out of date.

With regard to the importance of the improvements grants, as I have said, the building construction industry is in very bad shape and because of that factories engaged in the manufacture of furniture and carpets or in other ancillary business sutter also. It is in our interest to do everything possible to improve this situation. Everyone of us realises the importance of these grants. The Construction Industry Federation had the following to say in a circular which was sent to all Senators and Members of the House regarding house improvement grants. I quote from page 6 of the circular:

This is not a V.A.T. or taxation question but the Minister's comment would be appreciated. We have one million or so dwellings in this country, of which at least 250,000 are 60 years old or more. While all our housein needs continuing maintenance, it is when the age of a house reaches 60 year or so that major refurbishment can become necessary.

Yet we have a very limited scheme of improvement grants which accounted for £6 million in 1984 with a further expenditure of £5 million on local authority loans and other local authority improvement schemes. That is a total of £11 million or about 3 per cent of 1984 Public Capital Programme expenditure or £377 million on housing. Does this represent an adequate investment by the State in maintaining our older housing stock? I would answer unquestionably that it does not.

With regard to the scheme I should like to refer briefly to some aspects of it and in particular to the regulation regarding commencement of work. At paragraph 3 of the document, "House Improvement Grants", it is stated that:

It is an absolute condition of eligibility under the housing improvement grants scheme that work must not commence before the Department's Inspector visits the house. Therefore, you should make your application well in advance of the date on which you intend to start work, and you would be well advised not to start immediately after the inspection but to wait until you get a decision on your eligibility and on the amount of the grant (if any) to which you are entitled. A grant will be refused if you are started before the Inspector arrives.

This is a penal clause. The criterion should be the necessity of work to the House. Grants should be geared to improving the housing stock solely. Very many people have suffered a loss they could not afford because they had done some very small part of the work before an inspector called.

The procedure is completely different with regard to a new house. The condition in that respect, as outlined at paragraph (ii) of condition (c) of the circular is that relating to new house grants:

You have not occupied the house for more than one year prior to the date on which your application for a grant was received in the Department

so one could be up to a year in a new house before applying for the grant. Yet if one does a small part of the works for improvement one is disqualified. The people who suffered were people who tried to affect necessary improvement to their houses, people who needed an extra bedroom, the installation of water and sewerage and so on. I am sure Members on all sides will agree that the procedure up to now regarding the relevant grants is gravely wrong.

I wish to pay tribute to all those in the Department who administer the grants, the officers, engineers and various people involved, but there are long delays in the administration and payment on grants. These could and should be avoided.

I remember some years back the then Minister for Local Government, Mr. Tully introducing a pilot scheme in Country Meath where the grants for new houses and reconstruction grants were administered by Meath County Council. That scheme was a great success. The amount of paper work involved was reduced. Travelling expenses were reduced. People who were involved could call into the central office in Navan rather than have to get in touch with the Department of the Environment. There is everything to be said for decentralisation, including savings in administering the scheme. Again, this is something which would not be controversial and something with which all Members of the House would agree.

Some aspects of the grant could be brought more up-to-date, for example, in the area of solar energy, an area in which it would be worthwhile encouraging people to build conservatories for passive solar energy because it has been proved that a simple conservatory, a glazed extension on the south side of a house, would be a great advantage as regards solar energy. This sould even be encouraged in new houses. In order to encourage this development, a conservatory area should not be included in the area for grant purposes. The qualifying maximum limit for new houses is 125 square metres or 1,346 square feet. The Minister should encourage people to make use of passive solar energy. It is the cheapest form of solar energy in this country. It has been proved worthwhile. If the Minister encouraged it in that way, both in new houses and in old houses as part of the improvement grant scheme, it would be well worthwhile.

Regarding the essential repairs grant, paragraph 17 of the regulations stipulate that:

A grant under this scheme may be paid to a person only where the housing authority (i.e. County Council) is satisfied that a house situtated in a county health district cannot be made fit for human habitation in all respects at a reasonable cost and that the repairs in respect of which a grant is proposed to be paid constitute at least the repairs that are necessary in order to prolong the life of the house. Full details and application forms are available from the County Council in your area.

This is an important grant, although the maximum again is only £600. The regulations vary in the different counties but in County Meath I believe the house has to be in very bad repair and only one elderly person occupying it. In other words, an elderly couple may not qualify. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that.

Why is this grant not paid in the urban areas? In County Meath we have three urban districts — Trim, Navan and Kells. A loaf of bread costs the same in an urban area as it cost in a rural district. If anything, houses in the urban areas may be in far greater need of this grant. I can see no logical reason why people within an urban boundary cannot avail of the grant. I realise it is administered and paid for by the county council but why is somebody entitled to it because he lives outside the boundary while somebody living on the other side is not entitled to it? This does not make sense. It is an aspect I would like the Minister to look at.

With regard to the disabled persons grants, again this is an important scheme but the maximum amount payable is £4,000. That was inaugurated in the late seventies. The amount may be unrealistic. I know from experience it is a very important grant. In the Dublin area those who are qualified to avail of it have the plans prepared for them free of charge by the local authority. This is a facility that should be extended to all areas. It is most important.

We have another important grant which is housing aid for the elderly. In may area it is administered by the North-Eastern Health Board. It is for making the basic fabric of the house habitable and no major works are included. The work is carried out in co-operation with AnCO which, again, results in a further saving. In County Meath the money has been used up for this year. There are 380 people on the waiting list and about the same number has already been attended to. The work mostly consists of the fitting of doors, windows, fireplaces and painting. These small works enable people to live in their homes. It keeps them out of hospitals, county homes and State care: in other words, it is a saving for the State. This is something the Minister might be able to look at to see if it would be possible to increase the amount of money available for these works. We have a short list, a medium list and a long list in the figures that I quoted. Some of the people quoted may be on the long list and they may never qualify for inclusion. It is an important scheme and it would not take a great amount of money to continue it for the full year.

I made a plea before to this House for thatched houses and I would like in these circumstances to do so again. We have a unique heritage of beautiful thatched houses. I have done a study of thatched house in County Meath and found that fewer than 100 of them are inhabited. These will never be replaced. It has been said by concerned people that they should be bulldozed down but I would not agree with that. I attended a meeting of Bord Fáilte officials in Slane in the past year at which Minister Bruton spoke very enthusiastically and rightly of our unique heritage of traditional houses, which included thatched houses.

This State has never erected a thatched house. Local authorities have not erected thatched houses and I would not expect them to do so. They were built in times when money and materials were scarce. It is most important to preserve this tradition of thatched houses. In the North of Ireland thatched houses, especially those considered important, are listed and grants are payable for the preservation of those grant houses. I ask the Minister to introduce such a system here, to list the houses that are worth preserving and to give whatever grants are necessary to preserve them. It would cost roughly £2,000 to have a small thatched house rethatched. On the Bord Fáilte literature the thatched house is included as a symbol of Ireland. I was disappointed that in the recent White Paper on tourism policy this was not covered. On page 26 under the heading "General environment for tourism" it states:

The attractions of Ireland as a tourism destination can be summarised as follows:

(1) Scenery and natural environment . . .

In that area of scenery and natural environment it is most important to preserve all our traditional houses and to give sufficient grants and sufficient financial assistance to the owners to preserve those buildings. I ask the Minister to consider very sympathetically this plea that I make for the preservation of thatched houses.

I would like to conclude with a small extract from the policy submission of the Construction Industry Federation dated September 1985. On page 4 it states under "Housing Repair and Maintenance":

It is estimated that a minimum of 50 per cent of all repair and maintenance expenditure on private houses is done in the black economy. This is the sector which is most open to abuse in the industry. It is not restricted to small works valued at £1,000 to £2,000 but extends right up the scale to include major refurbishment and extensions. In order to promote legitimate employment, it is necessary to introduce a substantial refurbishment grants scheme or reintroduce te residence related tax incentive scheme at a sufficiently high level to fully offset the competitive disadvantage suffered by registered contractors. We estimate that 2,000 to 3,000 legitimate jobs would be created in the industry by such a measure.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to consider increasing the amount of grants. This is an important scheme and many people would like to avail of it. The amounts are unrealistic having regard to present-day expenses. They should be increased..

Above all, I appeal to the Minister to delete the absolute condition of eligibility. The Department of the Environment make the point that it is not easy to decide when an inspector calls what works are new where an old house is concerned. From personal experience I would say that this is not alway so. Perhaps, a case could be made to fine people in some small way, where they would lose part of the grant if they did not apply in time. I acknowledge the importance of applying in time but the present condition is penal and bureaucratic and I ask the Minister to consider deleting it. I also ask him to consider the other points I have raised in my contribution.

Acting Chairman (Séamus de Brún): Is

the motion sectonded?

Mr. Ellis

I should like to second the motion. I reserve the right to speak later.

Mr. Ferris

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:—

"noting that a scheme of house improvement grants was introduced by the previous Coalition Government in October 1981, following termination of the earlier schemes by a previous Government in February, 1980, welcomes the investments in home improvement work which has resulted from the current scheme and calls on the Minister for the Environment to keep the terms of this scheme under constant review with a view to its enhancement when circumstances warrant it."

All of us recognise the importance of the house improvement grants scheme. Therefore, for any Government to tamper with the scheme or to abolish it as happened was, in my opinion and that of the beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries, a retrograde step. For that reason, I wich to put on record that we welcomed the decision of the Coalition Government in October 1981 to introduce the new scheme. That scheme provided £200 for the provision of water supply, £200 for the installation of sewerage facilities and £600 for the building of a chimney and the provision of a fireplace in houses without a chimney. During that period when oil was cheap many houses were built without a chimney and to this day local authorities are saddled with houses that were determined by the Department as not needing a chimney because at that time central heating was used to a very great extent and it was thought it would be the future source of heating. Thus, the grant of £600 was vital.

There was also the provision of £600 for bathroon facilities. There are many houses, particularly in rural Ireland, that have no bathroom or toilet facilities. For that reason, it was important when the Coalition Government re-introduced the grants scheme that that sum of money was included to ensure that the basic necessities of life would be grant-assisted by the Department. There was also a need to provide additional bedroom accommodation where there was overcrowding and a grant of /pounds/600 was included for the provision of additional sleeping accommodation where there were large families. Many local authorities availed of the scheme for their own houses and they benefited from that scheme introduced by the Coalition Government in 1981.

I referred earlier to houses built by local authorities. In my own area we have the kind of houses that a previous Minister, Deputy Molloy, advocated should be built. It was then called low cost housing . It was then understood that if a local authority did not get any allocation for housing purposes. They were foisted on the local authorities and to this day we have such houses. We have them in the Carronreddy estate in County Tipperary, in Woodview estate in Cahir, in Killenaule and in Clerihan. These were low cost houses but now this Government have to reconstruct them to make them habitable. This is included in the national plan and an allocation was made in the 1985 budget but it will take us years to overcome that on error that took place in low cost housing schemes. We welcomed the decision of a previous Minister, Mr. Tully, who ensured that local authorities would in future build houses of a standard that equalled or surpassed private housing and the number of such houses built last year was greater than ever before. Last year alone over 7,000 houses were built and I wish to compliment the Minister, Deputy Kavanagh, for that dynamic policy in providing local authority houses of such a high standard.

During the time the previous scheme was suspended there were two extensions of the completion dates which were published in the newspapers. In the period 1979 to 1980 there was talk about the abolition of the scheme and it was eventually abolished by Fianna Fáil in February 1980. Because of the abolition of the scheme all the works in which people were engaged were brought forward and the grant allocation was increased from £18.5 million to £19.4 million. Because of economic problems many people were not able to complete the work. In spite of our best efforts to notify people of the extension of completion dates many people panicked. In many cases they carried out genuine reconstruction work but they were no aided by the State because they did not met certain guidelines. Initially they did not need approval and did not know there was a deadline. In many instances there was no grant assistance for genuine reconstruction work.

We welcomed the fact that the Government them introduced a new scheme. To overcome the problem that had been left to us by a previous Government, we had to set down some criteria regarding approval for any new works. The Department, in budgeting each year, need to know the level of claims under this heading and, for that reason alone, I must accept that approval is necessary.

Some months ago the minister gave one exemption, namely, where urgent roof repairs were necessary because of exceptional storm damage. Apparently if a person had submitted an application and then had to telephone the Department to tell them the roof was about to collapse verbal approval was forthcoming. I understand that was the only exemption.

Final inspection is vital to ensure that the standard of work carried out is satisfactory. To protect the investment of the applicant and that of the State, if is important that there be final inspections to ensure that work is completed to a proper standard. There is still a problem for some people in the area of approval and inspection. Part of the work may necessitate planning permission or occasionally planning exemption. In such a case a local authority engineer visits the applicant and gives an opinion on the spot as to whether the work about to be carried out is in accordance with proper planning. Because an official tells an applicant to carry on with the work, in some cases he starts it on foot of that verbal, or sometimes written, approval from a planning officer. He does not know that further additional approval is required from the Department of the Environment. There are some anomalies in people's minds in this area. People have genuinely started work, which normally would be grant aided by us, but because they did not get formal written approval from the Department of the Environment, they are debarred from getting the grant. That is an anomaly and that is why I ask the Minister to keep the terms of the scheme under constant review. He must now know the mumber of people who are debarred from getting grants because of the technicalities. Senator Fitzsimons referred to this and I agree that the answer is somehow in the area of devolution of power.

Senator Fitzsimons also mentioned two other vital schemes which run smoothly because the decision is made by people on the ground. The reconstruction grants for disabled persons, for instance, are operated by the local authorities. The work is inspected by the local authorities and approval is given by the local authorities. In the region of £1 million is provided for the special scheme run by the health boards for the care of the elderly. That is not enough. Th scheme is for old people living alone who want to carry out minor repairs to their homes. They do not have to make a contribution themselves but the important thing is that the decision is made at local level. I ask the Minister to have regard for his own commitment in "The Reform of Local Government", section 5.5 (a) of which sates:

The administration of the grants scheme for group water and sewerage schemes, and of grants for new houses and for house imporvements will be assigned from the Department of the Environment to local authorities. There will be an urgent examination of other devolution possibilities including the driver testing scheme and the issue of certificates of driver fitness.

That is in the Minister's own document which those of us who are local authority members have received and hav welcomed. I ask him to put that section of the devolution document into play as soon as possible. I know that will involve discussions between the existing inspectorate who carry out this work on bhalf of the Department and those who do the work on behalf of local authorities.

I know we cannot initiate such a change without consultation between the two sides concerned. However, those consultations should take place at an early date and agreemnt reached on the devolution of powers such as the approval of grants. If that happens a major change will tate place in this area of reconstruction. People can identify with a local engineer. They can telephone such a person who is in their area regularly. They should not have to depend on engineers from the Department of the environment who are based at some regional centre and must be get them to carry out inspections. The cost involved in that system must be astronomical in comparison to what it would be if it was administered at local level. Any savings achieved in administration could be passed on to the applicants. They are the people we would like to help. I hope that in the spirit of the amendment we have tabld to set the record straight the Minister will respond positively to us in trying to ensure that wat is a very important scheme is reviewed continuously and improved when circumstances permit.

Mr. Ellis

We can all agree with many of the things Senator Ferris has said, especially in the latter part of his speech when he referred to the local authorities. The motion calls upon the Minister for the Environment to revive, as a matter of urgency, the house improvement grants scheme. The main reason for seeking that is very obvious. Under the existing scheme a grant of £200 is available for the provision of a water supply; £200 for the installation of sewerage facilities; £600 for the building of a chimney; £600 for the provision of a bathroom; £600 for the provision of an extra bedroom to relieve overcrowding and £600 for major necessary work to the fabric of the house.

If anybody takes the various grants under those headings and sets them against the total cost of the repair work he would find that the grants are not sufficient, in many cases, pay the cost of the ncessary preparation work, such as having maps and plans prepared. Indeed, I hope the Minister will consider updating the amount of the grants. The grants at present are the same as those which were available many years ago. If one looks back one will see that the amount of the grant available for new houses 20 or 25 years ago was a major portion of the cost of the work. If we are to preserve the houses we have an keep them in a habitable condition we will have to make reasonable grants for this maintenance available to the people who own them. In doing so we are also saving Governmnt money in the long term. We swhould remember that every time on of those houses goes beyond repair the local authority have to pick up the tab to provide housing accommodation for the family cocerned.

There are many houses owned by people who are on the housing list of various local authorities which, if there was a reasonable grant available, could be improved to a habitable standard. A grant of £200 for the provision of a water supply is totally inadequate. If a person has to bore a well £200 will not go too far. We must consider also the extra costs involved in providing pumping factically £200 to it. That does no include the cost of providing the septic tank and the piping.

The £600 grant for the provision of an extra bedroom to relieve overcrowding is also insufficient. The Minister should look at the conitions attached to the provision of extra bedrooms in houses. In many dwellings the bedrooms may b small but people are beging refused on the grounds that there is no sufficient overcrowding. In many cases people propose doing the work before the overcrowding develops, before somebody's health is damaged. Where there are reasonable grounds for the provision of an extra bedroom a grant should be allowed.

At the tim the person may have the necessary finance to carry out the work but due to family commitments when the extra accommodation is necessary he is not in a posiong to carry out the work.

Many peopole find that when they are finished the repair work it has cost two to three times more than they had budgeted for. Let us look at the grants as they stand at present. A grant of £1,400, the combined maximum, is a very small amound for a person involved in the reconstruction of a house. In that regard we must consider the amount available to a person building a new house in the form of grants and mortgage subsidy. Reconstruction grants should be in line with the amount available to such people. I suggest a figure of £6,000, the amount available to peopl in Northern Ireland ho wish to reconstruct a house. Senator Cregan seems shocked at the suggestion but i ask him to consider if it is not better to pay a sizeable grant to make a house habitabl and likely to last a further 40 or 50 years rather than having the house condemned within a few years resulting in the State, through the local authority, having to house that occupier? We are all aware of the cost of local authority houses today.

The regulation concerning the date of the commencement of work should be reexamined. In most cases grant applicants must obtain planning permission before they carry out the work. That involves a visit to the site by a local authority engineer. That inspection should be sufficient rather than asking an applicant to await the arrival of an inspector from the Department. Such a change in the procedure would result in a majour saving to the Department in that there would not be any question of paying travelling expenses. A local authority engineer could carry out the inspection just as well as an inspector from the Department. It is the old story of duplication but it is an area that the Minister should look at.

Many people have to wait a long time before an inspector visits the site and that results in long delays. All public representatives are aware of applicants who lay the foundations before the arrival of the foundations before the arrival of the grant. The old system wherby a person could apply even if the work was completed should be re-introduced.

The essential repairs grant of £600 is insufficient. We must bear in mind that amount of money will not to very far in the replacing of windows and doors. Will the Minister consider insisting on the use of hard wood in house repairs? It might cost more initially but in the long term it would be of great benefit to the tenants and local authorities. We are all aware that when local authority houses are eight or ten years old window and door problems develop. Those problems are not due to the fact that the manufacturers of the windows supplied faulty goods but because soft wood was used in their construction. Major problems arise because of the use of soft wood.

The grant of £4,000 towards the cost of adapting a house for dasabled persons is insufficient. That work can be very expensive, particularly in modern houses. An alteration to a doorway to permit a person confined to a wheelchair to gain access can cost a lot of money. The aid scheme for the elderly would be a good one if sufficient funds had been provided. I understand that £1 million has been allocated for that scheme but that amount will not make any impact on the problem. A grant of £600 to help those peopl is insufficient. The net result is that local authorities have to provide prefabs and other structures to accommodate old people. Many of them, if the amount of the grant was greater, would be prepared to invest money in bringing their house to a habitable state rather than having to spend the remainder of their time in a house they would never own. Old people feel they lose their sense of security then they are forced to move from their homes.

We must remember that the grants are the same as those that applied in 1981. There has not been any allowance for the increase in the cost of materials or the additional burdens people must face from the rise in the cost of living. The grant system is in need of overhaul. I suggest that the VAT paid on goods used in such reconstruction work be refunded to the pople involved. Such a refund would mean that people carrying out the work would have a sizeable amount of money available to them. I suggest that the Minister, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, consider that, particularly if he does not intend to increase the reconstruction grant. All documentation in regard to the purchase of items used in the reconstruction work would have to be produced so that a person does not get a refund of the VAT paid on a washing machine, for instance. Under the farm modernisation scheme farmers get a refund of the VAT on building materials. Such a move would encourage people to carry out the necessary repars to their homes. Finance should be provided for those who are anxious to remain in their own homes.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Kavanagh)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the motion and to express my support for the amendment put forward by Senators Ferris and Dooge.

In the area of housing grants and subsidy for either new or old houses and in the provision of water and sewerage grants, group water scheme grants ect., I can assure the House that we are no administering the most comprehensible and flexible package ever of incentives to house owners and house purchasers in the history of this State. When the previous Coalition, of which I was a member, took office July 1981 there was the totally unacceptable sitution that for the first tim since 1924 no grants were available from the Department of the Environment for house imporvements. The reason for this situation was the decision taken in February 1980 by the then Fianna Fail Government to abolish the scheme of grants which operated at that time.

Consideration of the necessity for a house improvement scheme at the time had to be seen against the background that the total housing stock exceeded 900,000 houses. A total of 49,000 houses had an external water supply only, while a further 38,000 lacked any supply. Regarding sewerage facilities, 43,000 houses had external facilities, while a further 98,000 completely lacked the facility and 185,000 houses lacked a fixed bathroom or shower. On top of all this, there were many houses which had been constructed without chimneys and, in addition, account had to be taken of overcrowding from the point of view of sleeping accommodation.

Following the abolition of the grant scheme none of these essential works could qualify for financial assistance. This was a lamentable situation and one that had no doubt caused hardship to very many families. When they took office in June 1981 the Coalition Government were very concerned that the continual absence of grant assistance would have serious adverse consequences for the improvement of the national housing stock. Also, many less well-off families would be denied the opportunity of providing in their houses the necessary basic amenities and standards of accommodation which are taken for granted by most of the community. Accordingly, the new house improvement grants scheme introduced in October 1981 was specifically planned to make an impact in the areas where the social and accommodation needs were most pressing. The scheme therefore introduced the concept of specific grants directed at the most pressing kind of needs. Thus separate grants were made available under the new scheme for both water and sewerage facilities, reflecting the fact that a significant number of houses lacked these fundamental amenities.

Another grant was provided to meet the acute needs of families where there was overcrowding because of inadequate sleeping accommodation. By providing in the new scheme for special grant assistance for necessary extra bedroom accommodation the Government demonstrated their concern to assist families in this situation in the most economic and convenient way possible. Similarly a new grant was introduced to enable families which did not have bathrooms to provide this essential amenity.

Finally, a grant was provided for the building of a chimney and the provision of a fireplace in a house which did not have a chimney. As Members are aware, many houses were built during the sixties and the early seventies without chimneys. Senator Ferris has referred to this already. For a number of years, in the aftermath of the first Dáil crisis in 1973, special grant assistance had been made available for the provision of chimneys and fireplaces; but this assistance was also discontinued from 1 February 1980. As there was still a good number of houses without chimneys, the inclusion of the grant for the provision of a chimney in the 1981 scheme was designed to avoid discrimination against the families in question and also to allow families the option of burning solid fuel.

From what I have said, it will be seen that the scheme introduced was very much socially orientated and targeted at the provision of basic essential amenities and at the improvement of living conditions where this was necessary. To be fair, it is appropriate for me to acknowledge at this point that the scheme was subsequently expanded by the then Fianna Fáil Government in April 1982 to include also a grant for carrying out major necessary works to the basic fabric of a house. This action by that Government was taken shortly after taking office and was in direct contrast to what had been done by them in early 1980. Clearly, it reflected an acceptance by Fianna Fáil that their earlier decision to terminate payment of improvement grants was indeed a major miscalculation.

The scheme as administered at present provides for a maximum of £2,400. Furthermore, the position previously was that an application for a grant was required, where particular facilities did not exist, to carry out almost all the works covered by the existing scheme before the house owner could qualify for payment. The present scheme was so structured from its introduction that an eligible applicant can carry out each category of work separately and qualify for payment according as the particular works are completed. There is also the special arrangement that works commenced within a three year period are regarded as forming one scheme for grant purposes. This arrangement allows for an applicant to obtain a grant for, say, the provision of a bathroom and later on qualify for grant assistance under other categories provided such work was undertaken within the three years of the commencement of the earlier works. This flexibility is of great value to many people who might have difficulty in funding various grant-aided work simultaneously.

Of course, the real test of any house improvement grants scheme is the level of response generally by the public. In the case of the present scheme total applications received amounted to 11,500 in 1983 and increased further to just under 12,200 in 1984. Further growth is taking place this year and the indications are that applications this year will exceed 15,000. It is heartening to be able to put on record this increased interest in the scheme, especially as in my view it illustrates the relevance of the scheme to people's needs. As is the case with most schemes of this nature, there is always scope for review; but in the present circumstances the cost factor, as Members will appreciate, must be of vital consideration, especially when the Exchequer is also providing about £50 million overall in housing grants and mortgage subsidy.

I can assure the House that in the spirit of the amendment to the motion now before the House I intend to keep the terms for the improvement of the grant scheme under review and it is my intention to bring forward new proposals when, in the light of the response to the scheme by house owners and the overall financial and economic situation, that course can be seen to be warranted and I assure the House that that on-going review is taking place right now. I am not in a position at this stage to suggest when improvements would become available until we speak with other areas of Government, but that review will be and is taking place and I will, I hope, be in the position in the months ahead to be able to talk further on this.

I would like to refer to an area that has been raised by Senators on both sides of the House, and this is to the problem of prior inspection. I have some sympathy and, as a Deputy who has to make representations on behalf of my own constituents, I have seen the difficulties that can arise. Senator Ferris made an attempt at explaining the problems. When I give an explanation for its necessity, I think Members will agree that there is some legitimacy in the requirement of prior inspection. Prior inspection, which is a statutory requirement provided for in the housing improvement grants regulations in 1983, was imposed to ensure that applicants would know in advance that the work would qualify, what the Department's requirements were and the amount of the grant, if any, available, in order to avoid the situation where the applicants might be disappointed and naturally embarrassed by going ahead with the work in anticipation of a grant and finding subsequently that they were not eligible for one reason or another. Also the Department experienced considerable difficulty in establishing eligibility in the past under various schemes particularly where only works commenced after a certain date qualified for a grant or where certain criteria could not be checked after the commencement of the work.

Accordingly, from the point of view of accountability there was no option but to introduce such a condition. It is also very much in the applicant's interest not to embark on a costly scheme of works and subsequently find that he or she was either totally ineligible for grants or not eligible to the extent anticipated. The existence of this requirement has been publicised in the press on a number of occasions since the scheme was introduced. Also, the matter has been exhaustively dealt with over a prolonged period in correspondence with public representatives and, indeed, the public in general. Again, an explanatory leaflet is issued as a matter of course to all who make requests for applications under the scheme. In both the leaflet and the application there is specific prominent reference to the requirement.

In addition to all this, applicants are advised to make their applications well in advance of the date on which they intend to start work and not start immediately after the inspection but to wait until they receive a decision on their eligibility and on the amount of the grant, if any, to which they are entitled. A grant will be refused if work is started before the inspector arrives and his report confirms that this is the case. However, where more than one category of work is proposed and where one category has commenced a grant may be allowed for the other provided that it qualifies in its own right. Senator Ferris suggested that in the plans for the reorganisation of local government these grants would be devolved to the local authorities and I hope to be bringing in a Bill which will allow that in the future. I agree with the Senators who spoke about the duplication of work in this area. Devolution to local authorities would, indeed, reduce that type of duplication.

Many queries have arisen already at this stage of the debate and I would like to respond to them but with more speakers to come it would be best that I respond again to them, or my Minister of State will have the opportunity to reply to many of the queries which have been raised both by the proposer and by those who have proposed the amendment and support it.

Mr. Cregan

Like the previous speakers, I welcome the proposals put forward about the problems of house improvement grants. I, like other speakers, would be worried about the problem of trying to create constructive work in the construction area. I would like to emphasise constructive work because, for example, in 1977 the Department gave £2.4 million to the public in home improvements grants. In 1978 with the change of Government it was increased to £6.4 million and then a policy was implemented on 1 November 1977 to improve the grants from £200 to £600 for reconstruction, from £50 to £200 for water, from £25 to £150 for sewerage — an enormous increase from £275 to £975 with a cost to the State in that year of £16 million. It was further increased in June 1979 with a cost to the State in 1980 of £18.5 million. Then the grants were increased again by the State in allocations to the people of £19.4 million in 1981. Because of delayed applications the money was allocated.

At that time approximately £20 million a year was being allocated — £500,000 a week — and with moneys of about £950 going to each eligible person that represents about 500 houses per week. In all sincerity, can you blame any Government, even though they were Fianna Fáil, saying that at the start of 1980 they would have to stop this because it was literally totally out of control? That on 1 November 1971 there should have been envisaged a 200 per cent increase in grants gave no consideration to what that meant. In fairness, in 1980 the Minister for Finance was perfectly right in saying to his Cabinet that that could not continue. All they had done was to throw the money out the window, and that is not saying that the people who needed it most were getting it. There were many more constructive ways in which that money could have been spent.

Between 1977 and 1982 the Government were literally irresponsible. At the start of 1980, when they knew it was totally out of control, they said they could pay out no more and nobody could get anything. The less well off do not get anything; the person who wants to get necessary work done does not get anything, but the person with plenty of money and who applies for extra or nicer windows, not an essential improvement in windows, could get £600 for that. Is that very good policy as regards Government control of people's money, in a country that is not really that old? It is totally irresponsible.

I am very worried about the lack of work in the construction industry at present. There are avenues where we could be creating work in the construction industry, especially in the home improvements grants area. A Senator pointed out a few minutes ago that when part of the work was started no grant was paid because the person got some help. Did the teacher concerned get help from the fellow next door? Would the public agree on a person getting £1,000 for digging his own trench with the person next door helping him? Where is work being created? Where is the person who should be doing that work? Are the right people working at it? We have a responsibility to ensure that if we are spending the taxpayers' money in giving to people grants which are very necessary at times, the people doing the work are people registered to do so. That is the most important point. Should one give £600 to two teachers to help each other with a trench, when they are already working? That is totally irresponsible and unfair to the rest of the community. People think it is good that extra work is going on in the construction industry and the construction industry admits that, but many areas are in serious question.

There are many people drawing money from all areas and yet they are not saying whether they are working in the construction industry. Cement sales are an instance. In all the money spent in 1980 by the Government of the day, cement sales totalled 1.8 million tonnes. In 1981 sales totalled £19.4 million for 1.4 million tonnes, a decrease, yet more money was spent. That was readily admitting that something was wrong, that the money was not being spent in the construction industry. The figures are there. In 1983 cement sales were at 1.3 million tonnes and in 1984 they were at 1.2 million tonnes. That is an unwelcome decrease, but the money is not being spent on grants. They have been reduced by nearly £10 million. I would like to see cement sales going up and more grants being paid out but I would like to see more registered people working. I do not like people telling me that they are not working and then if I look for them on a Tuesday or Wednesday they are missing because they are part of the black economy in the construction industry.

I know of a private builder with contract tenders in Cork Corporation totalling about £7 million, yet there are only 56 workers on his workforce. Across the city I am spending only £2.2 million and I have 122 workers. Can anybody explain to me how he can build a scheme of 166 houses and, I think, another of 66 houses at a total expenditure of £7 million and a total workforce of 56 while on the other side of the city we are spending only £2.2 million to build 110 houses and we have 122 workers there? Who is responsible? The answer I am getting back is "Denis, we got the tender in'. The tender is there, he is supplying the houses, but who is doing the building? Who is providing the work and who has the expertise? We know who has the expertise; it is the people who are doing one thing one day and working the other day. We are not prepared to say it. We should be saying it. We have a responsibility to say it. If there are areas in the construction industry where we can get legitimate work, we do it legitimately and we are prepared to give good grants to people. There has been talk about urban renewal. As other Senators have said, there is a rapid deterioration in inner cities and towns and these areas need to be revitalised. A scheme should be got together between the public and private sectors to revitalise these areas, both acting legitimately. For instance, if we can acquire 3,000 sq. ft. or 4,000 sq. ft. of upstairs accommodation that can be revitalised in towns or cities, we can give a private concern the go-ahead to start such revitalisation. We can tell them "We can guarantee that we will take the accommodation, we will provide the people to go into the accommodation and we will pay you for it."

In that way a legitimate workforce is employed. But it is readily admitted within the construction industry that there are builders employing the black economy. We are not saying enough about that. How can you get on top of it? Can you blame people for getting £100 per week for plastering a ceiling and a couple of walls and then £100 elsewhere? We are not responsible enough to say that we will legislate money. This is what this Government did. Credit must be given to the Coalition Government for doing this legitimately in 1981. They will readily admit that they spent £8 million in 1984 in grants. I would really like to see it improve. I would like to be able to say to people "Yes, I will give you £2,000 if you are spending £8,000, but you must guarantee that the person on the exchange at present must not be on it next week". How do you do that? We must give people motivation but at the same time we must be legitimate about it. We cannot pretend not to know the person who is going to dig the trench so long as it is dug, and more luck to the person who is going to get £600 or £900 from the State. I see nothing wrong with affluence as long as it is evenly distributed. We have no right to say that we are going to give money to people who are not in need of it. That is irresponsible. Fianna Fáil did that in 1978, 1979 and 1981. They then found out that this was wrong and irrespective of who the Minister was he was perfectly right in saying that it had to be stopped. He did that.

I would like to make another point with regard to the number of people employed in the construction industry at present. For every 100 persons employed in that industry in 1982 there are now only 52. That is very serious. But when you look at the cement, sand and gravel sales, the reduction of 48 workers out of 100 between 1982 and now is not justified. We should not be saying that the same number of people should be gone because of the reduction in sales of cement. Sales have been very much reduced but it does not compare with the number of people who are idle in the construction industry. The Construction Industry Federation will readily admit that there has been a reduction in all purchases of materials. Let me make the point that in the construction industry only 23 per cent of everything used comes from other countries, and it is a pity we are not making sufficient use of the raw materials we are producing here. The present situation where only 52 out of 100 are working in comparison to four years ago readily proves that there is a massive black economy. That is the main point I want to make.

With regard to house improvement grants, we should be getting together with the private sector to create an initiative whereby deteriorating buildings in cities and towns can be revitalised. There is a rapid deterioration in my own area of Cork. We cannot, however, do that if we are not going to be responsible for who is doing the work.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator has three minutes only.

Mr. Lynch

It is widely recognised that the building industry has for a long time been on its knees — in fact, some people now say it is flat on its belly. This motion tabled by the Fianna Fáil Party will, I hope, help in some way to restore confidence in the building industry and at the same time alleviate some of the hardship and deprivation that exists in many areas. When the debate is finalised I hope the Minister will realise that the adoption of this motion will have a two-pronged effect. First, it will act as an incentive to the building industry and, second, it will help to remove the anomaly which exists at present between the home improvement grant scheme and the new house grant scheme as they now operate.

The total housing stock is now approaching one million dwellings. It is quite modern, with almost 400,000 dwellings completed since 1970. Yet at the same time we have some 250,000 to 300,000 dwellings, or some 30 per cent of the housing stock, which is over 60 years of age. The investment in the renewal of our housing stock is very low. £10 million was paid out in home improvement grants and loans in 1983 or 2 per cent of total public housing expenditure of £530.5 million capital. At present the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses, of which I am privileged to be a member, is drawing up a report on the construction industry. Since we started this report we have become very perturbed. As has been stated, there is a black economy about which we are very concerned. There are many ways in which we can improve the building industry but the kernel of the problem, as I see it, is that there are so many houses at present without proper toilet or bathroom facilities. In spite of very genuine and sincere efforts to try to alleviate this problem we have not to date succeeded as we would like to succeed.

Debate adjourned.

An Cathaoirleach

I might point out that the Senator will have approximately 12 minutes on the next occasion.