Senator Lynch is in possession and he has 12 minutes left.
House Improvement Grants Scheme: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Senator Fitzsimons on Wednesday, 2 October 1985:
"That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment to revise, as a matter of urgency, the house improvement grants scheme."
Debate resumed on 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 enchancement when circumstances warrant it."
—(Senator Ferris.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The lack of domestic bathroom and toilet facilities is a great problem in rural areas. About one quarter of rural houses are still without a toilet, 30 per cent have no fixed bath or shower and 20 per cent are without internal piped water. The lack of these basic facilities in rural Ireland, when we are a mere 14 years away from the 21st century must be regarded as highly unsatisfactory, and we must ask if the existing grant schemes are equal to solving this problem. More State support will be needed in this area.
With regard to the 250,000 dwellings over 60 years old, there is a connection between the low level of grant support for housing renovation and the urban decay and dereliction we see around us. We are totally out of line with the rest of Europe in the emphasis we place on the renovation and maintenance of our existing building stock. The results of this neglect are plainly visible. Our older urban buildings are situated in or around our town and city centres. Overseas visitors must be shocked at the level of urban decay here. To the visitor, the identity of a town or a city is determined by its centre and not by its modern suburbs. Until recently we have failed as a nation to seriously come to terms with the decline in our urban population. We have allowed houses to decay and encouraged people to move to vast suburban housing estates taking up much good agricultural land. I refer in particular to County Meath. Some of this development is inevitable in view of the welcome population growth we have enjoyed over recent years. However, we have failed to focus on the housing possibilities in our inner cities and towns which have schools, shops and business premises, not to mention developed roads and sanitary services. To reverse the tide of decline in our older urban areas, we must develop a system of support for the renovation and maintenance of our older housing. As has already been explained, when a house reaches 60 years, it needs extensive refurbishment to restore its usefulness as a dwelling.
The cost of renovating an older house can be considerable but it is not as high as the cost of building a new house. The problem is that many older houses are in socially deprived areas and are inhabited by people of modest means and the elderly. The problem is compounded by and very much a result of the continuous haemorrhage of residents from these areas over the last 20 or 30 years.
The burden of restoring life to these areas has fallen uniquely on the local authorities. For example, Dublin Corporation have provided many fine inner city houses. However, the cost is over £50,000 per house. These houses are available only to qualifying local authority tenants. In the interests of restoring a balanced social mix to these areas and encouraging young home buyers to look positively at the advantages of living in inner urban areas a scheme of generous home improvement grants is needed. Such a scheme, apart from giving existing residents the opportunity of renewing their houses, would encourage young people to buy houses in these areas and restore them. When young people are brought back into inner urban areas, life and business return there also. With a good social mix the potential for crime and vandalism is reduced. I am not talking about Dublin alone. The same process of urban decline is under way in all our cities and towns at present. It has even spread to the smallest towns in rural Ireland. Other countries have seen an improvement in this regard. The restoration of these areas requires an overall strategy, the central component of which must be the renovation and maintenance of our existing housing stock. A system of grants to encourage the renovation and maintenance of our older private dwellings would encourage householders to put their money into this very necessary work and stimulate activity and employment by small construction firms. It would also help to restore a pleasant living environment. However, qualifying work under such a home improvement scheme should be confined to registered contractors. The black economy in construction is very extensive and it should be reinforced by the use of State moneys.
I suggest that we look at the schemes in operation in Britain at present. The pattern of home ownership is similar to here although the average age of the housing stock is probably older in Britain. The same type of dwelling — single housing units rather than flats or apartments — is the norm there as it is here. Two rates of grants are available in Britain, one, for greater London and the other for the rest of Britain. I would like to quote the rates for the rest of Britain, which are expressed in sterling. I am not suggesting that we should have identical schemes here but they could serve as a model. The first type of grant in Britain is the improvement grant. The first improvement grant category is the priority case which applies to houses in particularly bad condition which lack standard amenities and are in need of standard structural repair. This designation also applies to houses in housing action areas and the improvement of a dwelling for a disabled occupant. The maximum qualifying expenditure is £10,200 and the maximum grant is 75 per cent. The non-priority case designation of improvement grant is for the general improvement of older houses. Here the maximum qualifying expenditure is £6,000 with a maximum grant of 50 per cent.
The intermediate grant is designed to help to meet the cost of putting in missing standard amenities, such as fixed bath, shower, washhand basin and indoor toilet. The maximum qualifying expenditure here is £2,275 and the grant is 50 per cent.
The repairs grant is designed to assist substantial and structural repairs to pre-1919 houses. The expenditure limit is £4,800 and the maximum grant is 50 per cent. This grant applies to repairs only and not to improvements.
There are several variations of these grant schemes, perhaps too many. However, support on a similar scale is required here if we are to make a meaningful impact in preserving our older houses. There has been a drop in house improvements and in the payment of house improvement grants. The present grant scheme, with its requirement of a prior inspection has had a detrimental effect on many applicants who through ignorance had not contacted their local county council or notified the Department on time and had started work and even dug a foundation. The inspector calls and he must tell the applicant that once work has started the authority are powerless to allocate a grant. Somebody who decides to build a bathroom or provide the bare essentials, water or sewerage, does not do so except because of necessity. The intention was to ensure that the grant scheme as initiated by the Government would operate from the time of its implementation and that people would not get grant money for work which had been done six months or a year beforehand. However, many people who were relying on what seemed to be a fairly generous grant discovered that, having given a contract to a builder, they could not pursue the work. The Minister should look at this.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to put on record at the outset my support for the amendment put forward by Senators Ferris and Dooge. When this Government took office in 1981 I was very much involved in the introduction of the house improvement scheme and I would, of course, be fully committed to any necessary review of the scheme should circumstances so warrant. The Minister has already touched on the question of a review in his contribution to the debate. I do not propose to dwell further on that aspect now but I can assure Senators that I have always been committed — and I still am — to the need for worthwhile incentives to ensure the maintenance of our housing stock in good condition and equipped with the amenities which are essential in present-day circumstances.
I will confine my comments to certain of the matters mentioned in the earlier stages of the debate. Firstly, in proposing the motion Senator Fitzsimons raised the question of the essential repairs grant scheme and he was critical that it did not extend to urban areas. Since its introduction back in 1963, this scheme has been confined to houses located in county health districts, and it was never intended to cover repairs to the generality of houses. What we are talking about is a restricted scheme to enable county councils to give assistance for necessary repairs to prolong the lives of houses which are in poor condition and which are not capable of being made fully fit for habitation at a reasonable cost. Typically, these grants are given to elderly persons so that they can continue to reside in their houses in reasonable comfort for the remainder of their lives. As we all know, many elderly people are naturally reluctant to move from neighbourhoods and the houses in which they have lived for most of their lives. The reason down the years for confining this scheme to rural areas was that there would not be a continuing need for many of the houses involved after the lifetime of the occupants. Clearly it would be uneconomical to invest large amounts in extensive repairs to such houses. The same considerations do not apply in urban areas.
Reference was made during the debate to the special scheme of housing aid for the elderly. This scheme is administered by a task force which includes representatives of the St. Vincent de Paul Society and ALONE. It was set up under the aegis of my Department and is operated at local level by the health boards, who, I might add, are doing an excellent job. In addition, I also have to acknowledge the very worthwhile contribution AnCO are making to this scheme in practically all health board areas. This scheme is meeting a real demand and there is no doubt that a very valuable service for elderly people is being provided countrywide at the lowest possible cost. Elderly persons who are in need are being assisted by the carrying out of necessary repairs and the provision of basic amenities in their dwellings. The scheme is flexible and informal in its operation and I know from personal experience that it has alleviated the hardship which many elderly people in poor circumstances would otherwise have to suffer. The national plan contained a commitment that the scheme would be maintained in 1986 and 1987. So far about 4,000 cases have been dealt with under the scheme. With a scheme like this it is inevitable that the total demand may not be met in any year, but I am gratified that there is a commitment now to continue it for at least two further years, so enabling many of the cases not yet dealt with to be accommodated.
I think that the plea made by Senator Fitzsimons in relation to thatched houses deserves a response. I understand that there have been some cases involving re-thatching which qualified for grants under the category of works relating to repairs to the basic fabric of a house. I accept that some owners of houses with thatched roofs may not be aware that, within the normal terms of the scheme, the expenditure incurred on roofing repairs such as re-thatching can qualify for grant assistance. This is something that might well receive wider publicity and I understand that the Department are currently considering how best this might be arranged.
In the course of the debate, comparisons were drawn between the levels of grants now and expenditure on improvement schemes in earlier years, particularly in 1979 and 1980-81. However, I should point out that the unusually high expenditure in these earlier years was attributable to quite exceptional circumstances. Firstly, the solid fuel scheme, on which nearly £14 million was paid out in about eight months in 1979-80, gave rise to a once-for-all jump in expenditure and, secondly, the way in which the earlier improvement grant scheme was terminated resulted in over 40,000 applications being received in the course of a fortnight at the beginning of 1980. To put it mildly, I do not think much credit can be claimed for a short term boost in expenditure that is the direct result of a decision to terminate the grants scheme altogether.
I was interested to note that in the course of the debate considerable concern was expressed at the operation of the black economy in the construction industry generally and, in particular, in the carrying out of works under the grants schemes. The Government have been seriously concerned for some time about the operation of the black economy in construction. My Department have been anxious to ensure that so far as possible the black economy does not operate on construction contracts operated by or on behalf of local authorities and certain measures have been implemented to deal with the problem. The tax clearance certification procedures drawn up in consultation with the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners are being strictly implemented by all local authorities.
In addition, local authorities have been alerted to the need to ensure that the provisions of clause 39 of the Approved Conditions of Contract for building works, and clause 34 of Conditions of Contract for civil engineering works, are adhered to. They have been requested to carry out regular site inspections to ensure that appropriate rates of wages, hours of labour and conditions of employment, including membership of the Construction Federation Pension-Sick Pay Schemes are being implemented in all building and civil engineering contracts in which they are either directly or indirectly involved.
Much more may need to be done to deal with this problem which has become so pervasive and so difficult to eradicate. The stage is now being reached at which radical measures may have to be taken to deal with this problem in areas of private sector activity that are grant-aided. I know the Government are looking at this problem. The issues involved are difficult but I am confident that if the situation is seen to warrant it, they will not be slow to take the necessary action.
Senator Lynch commented on decay in the big urban areas and in the smaller urban areas, too. There are problems particularly in the older urban areas. It is important also to realise that local authorities were given the facilities of a revolving scheme whereby they can buy old houses, renovate them and sell them. That was done with a view to improving existing housing stock. The joint venture schemes are operating now and they allow local authorities to make sites available in particular urban areas.
There is one typical example off Clanbrassil Street in Dublin and the same applies to other areas.
I wish to assure the House that this is something I am always very concerned about and that I would look at any proposals that might come up. Certain action is being taken in that area.
Senator Lynch referred to the smaller towns. It is my happy experience to notice in the past 20 years the dramatic improvement in a lot of towns throughout the country, particularly since the Tidy Towns competitions began. The general fabric of these towns has improved. It is great to see that. We should commend the people who become so involved in this area but we have problems with regard to older areas and there are things we obviously have to look at to see if we can effect improvements. These must be taken into consideration in terms of the resources we have. We are always looking at ways of improving grant schemes, particularly in relation to older dwellings. That is important with regard to bathrooms and toilets. The Senator indicated the number of houses that were without these facilities. That is something we all regret but I am happy to say that there is some assistance there by way of grant aid. We should always have an active mind particularly in regard to our older cities and towns, that they do not fall into disrepair because once they go it is very hard to restore any real life to them. I accept what the Senator has said. I have taken it on board but the picture is not as bleak as one might paint it. There are things to be done and we hope that in the fullness of time and when the economy picks up, many of these things can be taken on board and accelerated.
I support the motion and call on the Government to revise drastically the house improvement grant scheme. The grant scheme as it operates at the moment provides for £200 for the provision of a water supply, £200 for sewerage facilities, £600 for the building of a chimney, £600 for the provision of a bathroom, a further £600 for a scheme which would help to relieve overcrowding in a house and another £600 is available to improve the actual fabric of a house. If you accept and take each of these programmes and examine them one by one, you would have to conclude that at this point they are totally insufficient compared with what would be the overall contract for the work in hand. In many cases I would have to suggest that these grants are very often not even enough to get the scheme under way.
The provision of planning, the provision of maps and the actual administration work that goes into the preparation of getting a grant is not even sufficient with the grants that are now on offer, that is not even to mention digging one hole in the ground by way of a foundation. Grants are grossly inadequate and need revision.
What I think has to be said is that we as a nation like to own our own houses. This has been a feature of our life for as long as we can remember. There are many cases where people have old houses and where, by getting a home improvement loan plus worthwhile grants they would do a particularly nice job and restore a house to proper habitable conditions. If the grants were attractive enough more people would be encouraged to go out and seek the rest of the finance with a view to improving their houses. The grants are not adequate. If the grant scheme is improved it should be for people who need the money most. It was a mistake in the past that if a grant was available, for example, for the provision of windows and if the windows were in any way defective, the grant was applicable. The fact that it was available encouraged people to seek the grant. In many cases the windows were quite good enough for a further two, three or five years but by virtue of the grant being available naturally the people concerned completed their application, were approved for a grant and had the old windows removed and new ones installed. I am not saying that was an abuse but there should have been some form of means test in relation to those grants. For the future, if there is to be any improvement in any grant scheme it should be for the people who are less well off.
Going back to those programmes, for example, the £200 for the provision of a water supply, we all know that the cost of boring a well today is grossly in excess of that amount. The cost of any degree of plumbing would be much higher than £200 so that amount is totally inadequate. In the case of sewerage facilities or of the £600 for overcrowding, those amounts would represent only a fraction of the overall cost.
It is well established that the building trade is in a very serious situation. We know that unemployment, morale and work in that area have reached an all time low. I read recently that in the private housing sector for the past year house starts were reduced by over 17 per cent on last year. Obviously, this being the case, the sales of all the other ancillary trades, such as hardware and so on, were reduced accordingly. The volume of Irish Cement sales fell by 5½ per cent compared with last year. This reduction in the number of starts of new houses has had a very damaging effect on the whole building industry. The introduction of a better grant scheme would bring some relief to an already decaying building industry.
In any new scheme the question of duplication must arise. That is why I would prefer that if a new grant scheme were devised, there should be decentralisation. In Westmeath, some years ago, we had a scheme where all applications were dealt with through Westmeath County Council. I think I am right in saying that Meath has a similar scheme. That is much more helpful and preferable because the opportunity is there for the man in the street to go into his local authority, or lift the telephone, and find out how his grant is going rather than having to ring the Department in Dublin or get TDs or Senators to find out what progress is being made in regard to his grant. Apart from that matters are simplified generally. Engineers from local authorities spend much of their time on the road going to various towns and villages within their local electoral area. They can bring with them files relating to grants and find out what has happened, what progress is being made, whether the work has started and so on, rather than having somebody being paid to travel from Dublin or from some other distant part with that information. Therefore this duplication would help to speed up matters and would provide a more efficient and less costly service.
One of the features of the present grant scheme and one which I find many people are not happy with is the date of commencement clause. There is room for a change here. Many people unfortunately have been left without their grant because they were not aware of what should be done regarding the commencement of the scheme and therefore were caught very badly in that respect.
The disabled grant area is one that should be examined, too. We all know that the cost of adapting a house to suit a disabled person can be very expensive. The grant at the moment in that respect is something in the region of £4,000. That is not adequate. The essential repair grant of £600 is not adequate either. Basically we should endeavour to have a new scheme which is adequate to attract people to carry out work that is necessary and that scheme should be for the people who need it most. This is an area one could speak on at length but I understand there are other speakers and I do not wish to prolong the debate unduly.
A worthwhile grant scheme, well organised, well controlled with obviously increased benefits would be utilised by the people for whom it should be intended and not for people who are well off and can afford to pay for any repairs to their homes. If such a scheme were available many people in houses which are at present in disrepair would find that the future for them would be brighter than they find it at the moment. We should agree to this proposal which is to revise this important home improvements scheme.
I rise to support the amendment which reads:
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.
I should like to welcome the Minister's contribution and to compliment him on the continuing work he is doing in this regard. I, like other speakers, believe it is important that every effort be made to retain our housing stock. The older houses add a great touch of character to many of our towns and villages.
There are a few points that should be made. Other speakers have mentioned them and I should like to support those views. For instance, the essential repairs grant should be more liberally granted, especially for roofs, with particular regard to thatched roofs. The crib I have with the reconstruction grant is that if any of the work has started the inspector says he is just powerless to do anything. I believe that particular provision is necessary for good planning but if somebody has a thatched house and it needs repairs then whenever the person can start on the work he should be able to do so. There is certainly no difficulty in the inspector assessing the amount or the extent of the repairs necessary. This aspect should be much more flexible. I should like the Minister to pay particular attention to that condition.
I would like to see also the decentralisation of the administration of grants and perhaps there could be a tie-up with the planning offices at county level so that the planning officer, on reviewing the plans or carrying out an inspection, could possibly at that stage as an agent of the Department give the go ahead for work to start. That would be a help. In the reconstruction or house improvements grant there must be a stronger element of conservation and I hope that in any review that the Minister might make that element would come out more strongly and perhaps for houses in certain age category that house grants would be made available in order to conserve that category of buildings and to repair the roofs.
In most other countries in Europe, or even in the UK, there is not the same percentage of new houses and bungalows across the country as one sees here in the Republic. That people invest so heavily in new homes is a compliment to them. Nevertheless, it ties down so many young people to heavy mortgage repayments — which I am glad to see have come down in the last year. If it were fashionable for people to spend more money on conserving and making their older houses more comfortable and perhaps finding ways of damp-proofing walls 100 or 150 years old and if the Government grants were aimed at that, it would make many of our villages much more interesting. Indeed, thatched houses have become quite scarce across the country now and I hope that if the Minister gets an opportunity of introducing new regulations he will give considerable thought to embarking on conservation policy, with enhanced grants to enable people to maintain thatched houses, which cost more to maintain that perhaps modern buildings.
Nevertheless, the Government and the Department are doing a substantial job. The inspectorate, certainly as far as our constitutency is concerned, have a lot of work to do and I am confident that they do their best. Nevertheless, there is a backlog of applications to be dealt with. I would hope, as our amendment states, that our Department would keep in mind this important problem. It is essential not only that people have comfortable homes but also that they be assisted and encouraged to provide them at the most economic cost. I support the amendment.
I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate but before I address myself to the motion I want to take up a point made by the Minister when he spoke a few minutes ago. He stated that local authorities have been given facilities to buy houses and to renovate, let or sell them off. As I understand the situation, if a local authority buys an existing or an old local authority house — that is, a house that was originally built by a local authority, even though the local authority may have subsequently disposed of that house under the house purchase scheme, no subsidy is given to that local authority. A local authority should be empowered to purchase a modern or an old local authority house if such a house is suitable to their needs. Roscommon County Council, of which I have the honour to be chairman, submitted a resolution to the Department some time ago asking that this regulation be changed and that the subsidy be paid to the local authority in a situation where the local authority would buy an old local authority house or one originally built as a local authority house. I would ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to that.
I support the motion calling on the Minister for the Environment to revise, as a matter of urgency, the house improvement scheme. I do not think anybody can deny that the existing grant scheme is urgently in need of revision. The level of grants which are available is far too low. Certain works have no grants available for them. The only works which qualify for ordinary house improvement grants are the provision of a water supply, the installation of sewerage facilities, the building of a chimney and the provision of a fireplace in a house without a chimney, the provision of a bathroom where none exists, the building of one extra bedroom to relieve overcrowding and major necessary works to the basic fabric of the house, mainly roofs, walls and floors. Works which do not qualify for a grant include internal alterations, kitchen extensions, or the extension of living accommodation, window and door replacements, porches, rewiring, attic insulation, decoration, maintenance, the replacement of seriously defective plumbing or fittings, or the installation of a heating system.
The grants which are available are so low that they are totally unrealistic. They bear no relationship to the actual cost of the materials or the labour involved in carrying out the work in question. The grant for the provision of a water supply is £200. If such work involves the boring of a well, the provision of an electric pump and the installation of the plumbing for that supply, then £200 is very meagre. In fact, it is totally useless in relation to the total cost of providing a water supply. The £200 grant for the installation of sewerage facility is also very low when one considers the cost of digging for and installing the septic tank, providing the piping and doing all the plumbing involved. Even the £600 grant for the provision of a bathroom, and the £600 grant for the provision of an extra bedroom, as Senator Fallon has already said, are totally unrealistic when one considers the cost involved in the building, the purchase of materials and the fittings and plumbing. You will have a very modest bathroom for anything less than £2,000. In fact, I do not think it is possible to provide a bathroom for less than that. The combined maximum grant is £1,000 for the provision of both a bathroom and an extra bedroom where the provision of an extra bedroom is approved.
All the previous speakers mentioned the level of the existing grants. They are so low that they are of little use to a person undertaking a house improvements job. Previous speakers and also the Minister in his speech referred to the second scheme. The introduction to the explanatory memorandum of the housing application form states that it is an absolute condition of eligibility under the house improvement grant scheme that work be not commenced before the Department's inspector visits the house. Applicants are advised not to start work immediately after the inspection but to wait until they receive the certificate of approval showing the amount of grant which they will obtain for the work. I do not totally disagree with the condition of prior inspection but it should apply only to the carrying out of the actual improvement work or building involved and there should be some flexibility in relation to the preparatory work which could be carried out in advance of the inspector's visit. For instance, if a person has to bore a well in order to provide a water supply it may be that a well-drilling contractor may be working in that person's area and may be moving out of the area before the housing inspector calls. If the person can have the well bored while the contractor is operating in the area, then the work will be done at a lesser cost than if the contractor has to be brought back into the area specifically to bore that well. That is one situation where there should be flexibility.
In the same way there should be flexibility in relation to prior inspection in the case of the digging of a septic tank or of foundations because most of that work is done by machinery nowadays. In some instances a machine operator may be working in the area and the householder who proposes to carry out the house improvement work can get him to do the work in connection with the septic tanks when he is in the area. In this way the work could be carried out more cheaply than if he has to wait until the Department's inspector calls and approves the work. In situations such as this there should be some flexibility in relation to the prior inspection condition.
Time will not permit me to deal with every aspect of the existing housing grants scheme. Therefore I have to confine myself to a comment on those sections of the scheme which are most urgently in need of revision. It is a major flaw in the scheme that there is not a grant available for the replacement of windows and external doors. As I understand the situation, the purpose and objective of the house improvement scheme is the preservation and improvement of the existing housing stock, thereby reducing the demand on local authorities for houses, with a resultant saving to the Exchequer. If we are serious about the preservation of existing houses, there should be a scheme of grants available for the replacement of windows and external doors because a house with seriously deteriorated windows and doors will quickly become dilapidated and unfit for habitation. The grant which is available for major works to the building fabric of a house specifically excludes the replacement of windows and external doors and in all cases the cost of such replacement can be pretty considerable.'
As a public representative I recently came across the case of a widow in poor health with two school-going children. She has no income other than her widow's pension and the windows and doors in her house are in urgent need of replacement. She applied for a house improvement grant and was told that she was not eligible for such grant because that was the only work that needed to be done to her house. She was advised to apply for an essential repairs grant. She applied to the county council for an essential repairs grant but was told that she was not eligible for that grant because she had two young children living in the house. She was in poor health so she was advised to apply for a disabled person's grant, but apparently her medical condition was not sufficiently serious to entitle her to that grant and again because she has her two children living with her she is not entitled to assistance under the special housing aid for the elderly. So she is in the unfortunate position that she simply will not be able to carry out the work that is vitally necessary as far as preservation of her house is concerned. The windows and external doors in her house have seriously deteriorated and since she is not in a financial position to replace them, the house will very soon come to the stage where it will no longer be fit for habitation. She will then apply to the local authority and the local authority, at considerable expense to the Exchequer and the taxpayer, will provide a house for her. For that reason, it is a flaw in the scheme that there is no grant for the replacement of windows and external doors.
I will move on to the disabled person's grant now. Under this scheme a grant may be paid by a local authority for the provision of additional accommodation or for the carrying out of other structural works that in the opinion of the authority are necessary for the proper accommodation of the physically disabled, or severely mentally handicapped, or severely mentally ill person. I understand that in order to qualify for a disabled person's grant the person in respect of whom the work is being carried out must be substantially and permanently handicapped. This scheme, I assume in all cases, is implemented by the local authority and the local authority in order to assess the eligibility of the handicapped person for a disabled person's grant seeks a report from the director of community care. I have known of cases where persons such as those suffering from arthritis applied for the disabled person's housing grant and even though their medical condition was deteriorating progressively, at the time they applied they were not considered by the director of community care to be sufficiently substantially handicapped to qualify for the disabled person's grant. As time went on, they did reach that stage and some years later they were considered to be eligible for the disabled person's grant but during the years in which their medical condition was reaching the stage at which they were considered eligible for the grant they suffered considerable inconvenience in living in houses without facilities. In a situation where a person has a physical disability which is progressively deteriorating there should be quite a considerable degree of flexibility in the interpretation of the medical conditions in respect of the disabled person's grant.
The grant for essential repairs is paid, as the Minister said, only in rural areas and where the house cannot be made fit for habitation in all respects at a reasonable cost and the repairs are necessary in order to prolong the life of the house. The local authority have some discretion in relation to the amount of the essential repairs.
I might point out that the speaker is on borrowed time.
I shall finish now. I would suggest to the Minister that the essential repairs grant scheme should be expanded to include the provision of sanitary facilities. The building industry is going through a severe recession at present with thousands of building workers unemployed. A revision of the housing grants scheme would result in increased activity in the building industry and would generate employment for many of the small building contractors and workers who are unemployed. For those reasons I would ask the House to accept the motion.
I wish to make a few brief points in favour of the amendment. It has taken a measure of temerity on the part of Opposition Senators to introduce this motion. The point has been made before, and I wish to make it again, that in 1980 the Fianna Fáil Government abolished all house reconstruction grants. That was a major retrograde step. For the previous 64 years, in the history of our independence throughout more bad times than good times the State was able to afford house reconstruction grants. That retrograde step was taken by Fianna Fáil. It would appear it was taken as part of Deputy Haughey's seeing of the light when he became Taoiseach late in 1979. We might argue that he was not seeing very much light when he initiated that measure. His sight of that light did not seem to continue for very long, but that is another point.
It was particularly regrettable that the grants should have been abolished at that time when there was massive interest in the scheme. I do not have the exact figures of the number of applications that were coming in for 1979 but, up to that time, they had been at an all time high. We might look at the relevant figures given by the Minister in his speech a fortnight ago. At that time there was a total of 38,000 houses in the State that had no water supply at all. There were a further 49,000 houses that had an external water supply only. There were 43,000 houses that had external sewerage facilities only; that is in addition to the figures I have already given for water supply. I take it that external sewerage facilities meant something like only having an outside toilet. In addition to this there was a further 98,000 houses that lacked any sewerage facility or connection of any type. That was the situation in 1979 when those grants were abolished. Those figures speak very eloquently for the retention of the grants.
The first Coalition assuming office in 1981 reintroduced the grants very quickly, it having been an election promise in October 1981. No scheme is absolutely perfect. But that scheme was particularly imaginative in that it gave grant aid for a whole range of categories of house improvements a householder might want to carry out. There was the £600 grant for the provision of an extra bedroom where the need arose on account of family size or whatever, a separate grant for the provision of water, a separate grant for the provision of sewerage, a grant for the provision of a chimney where a chimney did not exist. That existed in many cases because of the rather foolish, almost asinine, policy which was pursued in the 1960s — when we had cheap oil — of building houses without any chimney at all.
This scheme has the inbuilt flexibility of allowing householders to use it in a phased way if, say, a household budget only allowed it to be done that way. For economic reasons a person might be able to construct only a bathroom this year, an extra bedroom the following year and so on. This scheme provides that within a three-year period a householder can undertake a major reconstruction of his or her house. That kind of flexibility did not exist in the previous scheme. That is another reason why I describe it as being imaginative.
The maximum amount of money available for the whole range of improvements that one can carry out under the present reconstruction grants scheme is £2,400. I would love to see it increased, to see it doubled, but I recognise the financial constraints within which the Government have to operate. We agree about its inadequacies but, in real terms, it is greater than anything offered before. Because of the recession in the building industry house prices have not greatly increased. In real terms therefore the grant can buy almost as much today as it did in 1983. The regrettable aspect is that very often a recession leads to a freezing of prices and very often a downward trend in prices. But houses can be built today for as much, or as little — depending on how one views it — as they could be built in 1982 and 1983. A house costing £25,000 in 1983 can be built for around the same sum of money today. The same thing goes for reconstruction. Therefore one can argue that the grant assistance given then has almost held its value to date.
Speakers on the Opposition side have made great play of the recession in the building industry. Undoubtedly there is a major recession in the industry, but things are not that bad. I reinforce that argument by putting forward these figures. If we take just the house reconstruction grant applications, 700 extra grants were paid out in 1984 as opposed to 1983. Eleven thousand, five hundred grants were approved and paid out in 1983 and in 1984, 12,200, an increase of 700. All the indications show that there will be a 20 per cent increase in 1985 because it is expected that the number of applications approved and grant-aided by the end of this financial year will be in excess of 15,000. I submit that that is as a result of a growth in the building industry and a lifting of the recession as it affects that industry. One must compliment the Government on having provided the extra resources to provide in excess of an extra 3,000 reconstruction grants this year as opposed to last year.
In the new house area things are not that bad. For the years 1983 and 1984 the number of house grants approved was somewhere in the region of 11,500 over each year. Granted there was no growth in grants between 1983 and 1984; possibly there was a slight decline. By the end of this year there may be 12,000 new house grants paid from State funds. That indicates an improvement in the situation. In addition to this the Government have by their anti-inflationary measures effected a major impact on the house mortgage situation.
Since we took office a householder with a loan of £20,000 will have saved £90 per month on his mortgage repayments. That is an incentive to the building industry and to a person buying or building a house. A £20,000 loan might be taken as the average. The saving to such a householder is something of the order of £70 per month, constituting another major contribution toward an improvement in the building industry. These measures have emanated directly as a result of courageous policies pursued by the Government. What we got in 1983 and 1984 were the knock-on effects of high inflation coming to us from 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981. These things take a long time to filter through to the ordinary builder or consumer. Much of the then recession was occasioned by the enormous cost of mortgages, of money borrowed from banks, building societies and so on. Happily, as a result of our measures, the trend now is very much in the other direction.
There is also the other measure we introduced and announced in the national plan, that is, the incentive to local authority tenants to vacate their houses and return them to the national pool of local authority houses. People participating in that scheme are given an extra £5,000 to build or buy a new house. There is another major fillip given by the Government to the building industry. Of course that will have its effect next year, the year after and, no doubt, is having its effect this year.
I would agree with many of the speakers across the House in regard to the inflexibility of the rules for reconstruction grants. We are all public representatives. We have all had dozens of people come to us who genuinely were caught by starting their house improvement works without having the prior approval of the Department's inspector. I would submit to the Minister that most people who were caught in that situation were caught for genuine reasons. The tradition was that one could proceed with one's work and then inform the Department, fill out one's application, when it would be accepted. The precedent applies to date even in respect of new houses. One can build a new house and live in it for almost a year before one needs to apply for a new house grant. That is the kind of thing that leads many people into making the mistake of not applying for their reconstruction grant in time. Like my colleague, Senator Mullooly, I can agree with the principle of the need for a prior inspection. But I would suggest that in cases where planning permission has been sought — the first thing most people know they have to do — a local authority engineer visits the site, and sees the house, its shape and size before any work is undertaken. A certificate from such an official or engineer should be accepted as proof that the work described by the applicant in his application form is the work that has been undertaken. That is reasonable and I would ask the Minister to take it on board.
I have pleasure in supporting the amendment to the motion. I am proud of a Government that have done so much in the past three years to assist the building industry, which we found, on assuming office, to be in the very depths of a deep recession.
I wish to support the motion calling on the Minister for the Environment to revise, as a matter of urgency, the house improvements grant scheme. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this. There appears to be some misunderstanding in connection with the number of applications. Senator Connor mentioned the number of people who received grants. That was not accurate. Here I might quote from what the Minister for the Environment had to say in this House, as reported in the Offical Report, volume 109. No. 3 at column 313:
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.
These were the applications, of course, that were submitted. But there is no indication from the Minister or the Minister of State present what has been paid out. My difficulty — something mentioned here by several speakers — is how to go about getting a grant. First one must await the arrival of an inspector once one's application is received in Dublin. It is then sent to the local engineer. It takes weeks, months and in some cases years in my area before an engineer appears on site or any inspection takes place. I have evidence to prove this. In some cases over 12 months have elapsed before an engineer arrives on the site. Until he issues his approval indicating on paper that a grant is available, there is no way one can start building to qualify for a grant.
That has nothing to do with figures.
Senator Connor quoted application figures instead of grants paid, so they were not actually grants paid out.
Perhaps the Senator showed the figures—
I am quoting from the Minister's figures. I understand there was much criticism of the termination of the grants during our time in office. That was a tidying-up operation. It was necessary to tidy up the reconstruction grants at that point. A new scheme was in the offing but then we did not remain long enough in Government to implement it. In 1975, when the Coalition were in Government they paid £2.4 million. In 1976 they paid £2.8 million which figure reverted to £2.4 million in 1977. That was during the three years of Coalition Government. In 1978 the figures rose to £6.4 million and continued to rise to £16 million in 1979 and to £18.5 million in 1980. In 1981 the relevant figure was £19.4 million. Therefore in the three Coalition years there was a drop from £19.4 million in 1981 to only £4.4 million paid in 1982. That was a drop of £12 million. In 1983 it fluctuated again to £6.4 million and in 1984 to £6.7 million. The graph from 1975 to 1977 and from 1982 to 1984 indicates that in our term of office we gave substantial grants for reconstruction purposes and the building of new houses. The kernel here is the attractiveness of the grant and there is a need and urgency for reconstruction because we have roughly 250,000 houses over 60 years old, one-quarter of our housing stock. It is clear that a substantial house improvement grant must be made available to maintain and to reconstruct the 250,000 houses where necessary. If the grant is left at the same level as it has been over the last three years — if inflation has not hit Roscommon it definitely has hit the rest of the country——
Floods.
Do not encourage interruptions.
The price index rose by 146 points over the last three years but the grant has not risen at all.
It is better than nothing.
There was an increase of 5 per cent in VAT on materials. The Minister for the Environment increased new house grants from £1,000 to £2,000 when that was introduced, but there was no question of increasing grants for reconstruction, essential repairs, the disability grant or any of these grants.
This motion is to impress upon the Minister the need for revision. I know there are financial constraints, but householders should be encouraged to reconstruct and maintain their houses. The cheapest method of providing housing is to ensure that the existing stock is kept at a very high level of reconstruction and that new stock is of the highest possible reconstruction standards. The recurring expenditure will be kept to the minimum if one builds a good, solid type house that will stand the test of time. The recurring maintenance on a good type conventional house will stand the test of time but that can be achieved only by giving reasonable grants to people who wish to choose their own sites and to build houses of their own design in their own locations. Any encouragement that can be given should be given to these family units, whether by loan or by grant and one way of relieving pressure on the Government would be by the provision of houses by local authorities. If applicants were given a substantial grant, they would go about their own business and build their own houses. That is what we must encourage and the standard will be very high because they will ensure that they get the best work done.
The more houses that are built and the bigger the stock of houses, the greater will be the number of houses, coming on stream for maintenance and if we continue to increase our housing — we have a good record for providing new houses — the maintenance and reconstruction grants must also be increased. That has not been done. As 250,000 of them are over 60 years old we should provide a fairly substantial grant with the minimum amount of harassment to the applicant. Contractors or handymen have to be booked to do the reconstruction and it is not easy to engage them as soon as the engineer decides to approve the project. It is unfair of the Department to reject people who have not even started digging their foundation but who have merely had excavation work done. I know of several cases of shortsighted decisions by engineers on sites. It is very unjust that genuine people who wished to go ahead with building had to stop because they had not sufficient finances to go ahead.
There is positive proof from the applications that there is need for review. I am asking the Minister to match that with the introduction of a new scheme to show the need for grants to be paid and which would also indicate the sincerity of the Government in tackling the problem. The building industry is in a critical condition and many of the firms who supply building materials, furniture and so on, are no longer in a position to give employment. New houses are not being built and for that reason I ask the Minister to review existing grants. I do not want to be parrot-like talking about £200 for water and £200 for sewerage; it is only a pittance today. It would not be a down payment to any supplier for the amount of equipment that is needed for the installation of water and sewerage and indeed might not be accepted for the installation of water and sewerage. Nobody could build an extra room for £600; that is no incentive to reconstruct the windows and doors in any house at present day prices.
I appeal to the Minister in his wisdom — I know he is caught financially — to review the whole system as soon as possible. People by their applications have indicated that they are willing to take on the job if sufficient finances are provided for them. I appeal to the Minister to put this in train right away, taking into account the cost of material and to cut out the red tape involved in trying to secure a grant for reconstruction or installation of water and sewerage facilities.
In case anybody might misinterpret me, I know there are islands off the coast that have not seen an engineer and may not see him next year if the weather is not fine. There should not be any discontinuation of grants. People have been waiting and have experienced hardship trying to carry materials to the islands. They need to plan ahead more than the people on the mainland and I appeal to the Minister to give special consideration to people living on islands. I also appeal to him to give increased grants and to ensure that engineers visit the islands, carry out inspections and give the go-ahead to the applicants. There is a large stock of old houses on many of these islands which are in need of repair. I would ask the Minister to give special consideration to island dwellers off our coasts who have more than double the hardship of people living on the mainland. The Minister must review the situation and grants must be increased.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Belton, Luke.
- Browne, John.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Conway, Timmy.
- Daly, Jack.
- Durcan, Patrick.
- FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- Lennon, Joseph.
- MeAuliffe-Ennis, Helena.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McGonagle, Stephen.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Magner, Pat.
- O'Leary, Seán
- Quealy, Michael A.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
Níl
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Ellis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Honan, Tras.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Smith, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Belton and Harte; Níl, Senators de Brún and M. O'Toole.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.