The main thrust of what I wanted to say I have said it in relation to thatched houses and the main plea I wanted to make was in relation to thatched houses. I am disappointed to some extent that thatched houses were not specifically mentioned in the report. They are important enough, as part of our heritage, to warrant it, particularly as the report did refer specifically to tourism potential in this regard. I have an unusual interest in visiting old graveyards and reading the tombstones and in the inscriptions on these tombstones it is very easy to read a précis of the history of the people in the families buried in those cemeteries. They are always very interesting, but at the same time I am always conscious that for each individual wealthy person buried there there would be, perhaps, hundreds of people whose families could not afford memorials and I am sure their lives would have been equally interesting and well worth reading about.
The same situation applies with regard to thatched houses. We have people who have championed and spoken in favour of the retention of Georgian and Victorian houses, country houses and town houses and all the other important big buildings; but, like the people buried in the graveyards without any tombstone memorial, the thatched house is equally worth preservation. I make that plea on behalf of the thatched houses.
The report tells us that the preservation of an existing house will often cost less than the construction of a new dwelling and I have dealt with that already. I agree that that may be so. But perhaps in terms of what people want to get out of life and their house it may not be possible to get that with regard to an old house and very often people, in order to extend an old house to get the kind of accommodation they would require, would make it an adjunct to the new building. This is very often undesirable from many points of view. I do not have to go into them at this stage.
The report tells us that the residential aspect of inner urban areas is made up almost entirely of older housing, and an existing infrastructure of roads, sanitary services, schools and shops supports this housing stock but that some of this infrastructure may be in parallel decline with housing. I have pointed out on other occasions that land in the centre of the city is costly and far more costly than land on the periphery in the suburbs.
For that reason it was possible with a certain amount of money to do far more by way of providing houses and housing accommodation for people by building in the suburbs away from the city centre.
Nevertheless, in doing this we have the situation of urban decay. It was a political decision in the first instance — I do not mean a party political decision — that could have some justification. Nevertheless, it was wrong and now there is an attempt being made to right this. We have dereliction in our city and town centres and, of course, as the report says, it affects tourism. One of the things I notice in the few journeys I have made abroad is that the towns are far tidier, that people are far more conscious of keeping their towns tidy than we are. In this respect we should pay a tribute to the Tidy Towns competition and what it has done for this country.
The report tells us, with regard to modern architecture and planning, that the committee was critical of the type of modern architecture represented by the new Civic Offices at Wood Quay and described them as being totally insensitive to and out of harmony with neighbouring historic buildings such as Christ Church Cathedral.
Senator Lynch has specifically dealt with this. I am not going to wrack my brains to try to find appropriate adjectives or metaphorical phrases that would cover it. I would simply say that this is very well covered in the recent treatise by Frank McDonald The Destruction of Dublin which I feel should be compulsory reading for anybody who is interested in the environment and the professionals associated with the environment. It covers all of this in very great detail, sensitively and bravely. I refer to that book in passing and all the good that can come from it. It should be one of the text books in third level educational establishments for the professions involved with the environment.
The report goes on to deal with urban renewal and the schemes which the Government have implemented to help out in this respect. The Urban Renewal Bill will be coming before the House shortly and we can deal with that. The report also deals with the housing reconstruction grants for the improvement of houses. I welcomed those on a number of occasions and I do so again.
Senator Lynch referred to the requirement of prior inspection. On a number of occasions I made a plea to the Minister about this with no results. It is a penal clause. The primary purpose of any improvement grant should be to relate it to the improvement of our housing stock. This has inhibited people in the past and I think it has been used by the Department as a means of avoiding the payment of grants. I say this conscious of the great help and the difficulties the Department have with regard to this area. I say it in a general sense. I think it is wrong. I made a plea for it and the fact that the Minister recently, as Senator Lynch said, sanctioned in the region of 20,000 applications, that these applicants could go ahead without prior inspection. This proves that it is not necessary. If that could be done for 20,000 applications, why could it not be done in a general sense? There could be some restriction by way of reducing the grant or curtailing the grant where a start had been made. A new house can be built and people can be living in it for a year before they apply for the grant and they are still eligible. There is a particular hardship in this area. The Minister said that he was sympathetic in certain circumstances. I accept that but at the end of the day the situation is that many people have lost their grants through starting the work without prior inspection.
With regard to the grants, I made a plea on the Adjournment, to the Minister about the do-it-yourself people. In my view very many of the grants availed of in the past were possible only because the people did most of the work themselves. Even in Britain this is accepted and in the regulations which were published last May "Home Improvement — A New Approach", there is specific provision for the Do it Yourself Builder. It states on page 9, section 41:
Local authorities will still be able to approve assistance for do-it-yourself work where they believe the applicant is competent to carry out the repairs or improvements to a satisfactory standard. DIY work will attract help only towards the cost of materials used.
I ask again if the Government are all that concerned about the improvement of houses. As there is such a need for it why is specific provision not made for people who can do the work themselves? With second level education and with the vocational schools and technical colleges, I think the people who have passed through them are far more competent now to carry out this work themselves than in the past. Yet the Government have specifically brought an end to that. They have said "no, under no circumstances". That is wrong and both of those conditions, the prior inspection and the do-it-yourself builder, should be looked at again. While I have accepted the Minister's intention to take these works out of the black economy, I think there are other ways of doing it. There are other ways of encouraging this work. Nothing from my experience would change my view that both of these conditions are wrong. They are penal.
It would be interesting, too, if the committee had given us some costs with regard to houses. The cost as regards local authority houses are high for the State. The case has been made many times that it would be cheaper to build these houses and hand them over to the people who qualify for local authority houses without the collection of rents or rates or whatever. It would be cheaper to do that. With regard to private houses, I am sure the cost to the State is much the same when we take into consideration the grants, the rebates on loans and so on, and it would be a useful exercise and something I would have liked to see the committee doing.
I would be in favour of the suggested programme of environmental improvement by local authorities by way of planting trees and providing other amenities. Another area which is getting publicity at the moment is litter control. It is very difficult to comprehend that so many people are concerned. This takes up a considerable amount of time on the popular radio programmes at the moment. Litter is thrown along the sides of the main roads, bogs and in cities. People are just not concerned with tidiness. It is difficult to understand it. It is not taught in civic classes in the schools and people are not taught in their own homes to be sensitive with regard to tidiness.
The black economy has been covered in considerable detail and rightly so. There is an extract from a UK magazine which tells us, that home owners are used to two different prices being quoted by builders depending on whether it is a cash job or otherwise. This is a tax evaders' paradise. From my experience I would not concur. I have heard stories of works being carried out by people who are drawing social welfare payments. I have heard a few complaints but I have not witnessed any of them. I believe that in this situation there should be some way of pinpointing the areas where there is a big problem.
The report tells us; "Most significantly, however, firms who engage workers as unregistered subcontractors are not required to have any evidence of the workers' true identity and it is, therefore, possible for a worker to be engaged as a non-registered subcontractor under a fictitious name while drawing Social Welfare Benefits in his own name". I do not believe this can go on on a very large scale. People have their books audited every year. I am sure there must be some way of ensuring that no fictitious names are used. I have some difficulty in believing that this could be carried out on a wide scale. Perhaps that is so on big schemes in urban areas, perhaps, in the city area, but certainly in my experience, and I say this honestly, it is not carried out on a wide scale in rural areas.
The report tells us further that "It is not unusual to have a decorating job, an extension or a re-wiring of a house costing £8,000 or £10,000 and to find that it is not done by a contracting firm at all. It is being done by a couple of lads `on the Labour'. This is what is putting us out of business". This was based on evidence to the committee from the Construction Industry Federation. It goes on to housing, could I say that I would reckon there are as many as 3,000 houses being built through the black economy. I am not sure there could be that many. There must be some basis for this statement. I am not sure if there would be very many jobs costing £8,000 or £10,000 to be carried out "by a couple of the lads". What kind of jobs would they be and where are they being carried out?
With regard to the houses on the black economy, I gathered from the budget speech of the Minister for Finance that it was intended to have the same regulations with regard to new houses that only registered builders would be accepted. Again, in my experience, many of the people who built new houses were able to do so only because they did much of the work themselves. They were in a position to organise the work. They were in a position to order materials. They worked hard and they succeeded in building houses. I hope the same condition will not be brought about as regards new houses as applies at present to improvement works. In the case of houses, usually once off houses, built with the assistance of State grants, the person from whom the house is being built may use direct labour without any deductions for tax, PRSI, or other levies. Again, provision could be made for this.
Some time ago I made the case that the old system of stamping cards was much easier for people who would be in that position. Where people employed labour they could put on the necessary stamps. That should be introduced again in some way to cover all these contributions. The people who build these houses are decent, honest people working hard trying to improve themselves and have a decent home for their families. That is something which the State should encourage and the State should be with them all the way in trying to provide their own houses. The State does not have to do it. Many of them would qualify for local authority houses. It would be a retrograde step if the same condition applied to the new houses as applies to improvement grants at present. I would urge the Minister to ensure that does not happen.
The report then says:
However, the Construction Sector itself could do much more to promote a real awareness in the community of the risks attached to employing "cowboy" builders. The average person's main investment is his dwelling, much more should be done to make him realise the greater risks and real costs of poor workmanship and consequent lack of legal redress.
This is true and very many of those people who would build their own houses would not be conscious of the importance of some structural elements, for example, the foundations, the walls or the roof.
Many of them would be more concerned with finishes, plaster or skimming on walls, something that could be remedied at any time not realising that if something goes wrong with the foundations or walls or roof they have a serious structural problem. Of course, this is important, The building regulations, the Department specification and the inspections by the Department tend to ensure that this does not happen on a large scale.
With regard to Structures, Management and Practice, the report tells us that "ease of entry has always been a feature of Construction". Of course, this is true. In the past it was easy to get into the construction industry. Little capital was needed. We hear of the old days where the building contractor might have been a man with a bicycle and a ladder and half bag of cement on the back. That day has gone. I am not sure that "ease of entry" is the same now as it was then.
The report is opposed to imposing controls on entry to the sector... I, too, would be opposed to very strict controls but I do think that some kind of grading is necessary, some kind of examination where a builder would be able to show that he could build to a certain standard. This is necessary and it would be a different aspect and it could very well be employed. The report goes on further to say that the committee is of the view that:
larger firms employing 30 to 50 and more would be more capable of identifying and responding to new market products, techniques and utimately of developing an export capability.
This is true. At the same time, it would be wrong to overlook the importance of the small builder. The small builder has done an enormous amount of work in the construction area. The small builder has worked hard himself. He is a knowledgeable man in many areas. In most cases, too, he has borne the brunt of the financial problems where bridging loans were difficult to get, where loans were delayed, there was a delay in the grants. Very often the small building contractor was the man who had to carry the can. This should have been spelled out in this report. Our indebtedness to the small builder should have been stated quite clearly in this report while I do agree with the importance of the big and medium sized contractor. The report goes on to say that:
...there is a strong case for closer technical liaison and integration between the design and construction phases for larger projects and that earlier involvement by the contractor during the planning stage would improve effiency and communication, and reduce cost.
Senator Lynch has gone into this. I would agree in general with what has been stated. At the same time, there is a limit to what can be done. At present in most cases we are close enough to that limit. There has been a considerable improvement.
The report deals with the costs of works and the changes in costs, the changes in design which increase the costs and has made some suggestions. It states that:
Changes in design are often caused by the client changing his mind as he sees the reality of the building emerging during the construction process.
This is always a problem with people who are not used to drawings. The report very rightly suggests that models would be a help. Models, indeed, are a help but, unfortunately, models are very costly. A very good case could be made for a course in model-making in our vocational schools. This is an area where there is room for considerable scope. To the best of my knowledge to get a model of a small house at present would cost in the region of a minimum of £500. To suggest models to a husband and wife who are scraping hard and having difficulties and who in most cases have to work to pay the mortgage, is unrealistic. I realise that the report does not deal specifically with housing but with all kinds of buildings. Fair enough, that recommendation could be accepted in big schemes.
As regards planning and the environment in big schemes it should be mandatory and compulsory to prepare models so that people would see what a particular scheme would turn out like. People in a particular area should be taken in at the early stages of planning and have their views considered. Nothing should be imposed on them and they should be given an opportunity at the tail end to appeal to An Bord Pleanála or through any other means to prevent a building going ahead. When something is being done in a particular town the local community should be brought together and have their suggestions taken and considered at an early stage. They should be kept abreast with what is going on and with what is decided as the project goes along.
The report in dealing with the legal and administrative environment tells us that smaller firms find the regulatory environment increasingly complex. The growing numbers and variability of conditions attaching to planning permissions, the imminent introduction of building regulations and tax gathering requirements with the Revenue Commissions all refer to them. I mentioned before with regard to builders registered for VAT that a contractor whose turnover does not exceed £18,000 to £20,000 does not have to register for VAT. There is no specific allowance made for that in the regulations. I understand from the Department that in the situation where the application is returned because the name of a registered contractor is not given anyone who is working under that clause is allowed to do the work. I think the amount of £18,000 to £20,000 is too small and should be increased with regard to building contractors.
There are many middle-aged contractors who do not want to fill up VAT forms weekly along with all the other returns. They do not want to enter into that area. They have great experience and expertise in the building area. It would be a pity to lose that. Many of them do not want to become registered simply because they have to cope with all these forms. For that reason and the reason that when we consider the building regulations and how difficult they are, even for students and for people starting off, the Minister should consider concessions. He should increase the amount whereby people whose turnover does not exceed, say, £50,000 which would be realistic for a builder would not have to register for VAT. By not registering for VAT the State is not losing out in any way. I have gone into that in great detail previously with the Minister.
The report tells us that Ireland is unique in Europe in having very few national standards. Indeed, this is true. In making specifications reference is usually made to British standards. There are many people who ask if it is totally necessary to have standards of our own and having to go to the high cost of preparing standards on specific materials when we have those available in Britain and which we can use. The same has been said about building regulations. A considerable amount of money was spent on preparing those regulations which still have not come into force. By and large, these regulations were copied from the UK. There are people who say could we not have made some kind of arrangement to pay the UK for the use of their standards rather than having to go through this costly exercise. I am not making a judgment one way or the other but I am saying that we are deficient in standards. While we are, it is no great drawback because we have the UK standards to use.
The report in its recommendations deals with roads in some detail. Our roads are a big problem — main and county roads. Of course, our roads were mainly designed for the horse and cart. The foundations, alignment and the whole planning of our roads are far behind. The foundations of our roads are unsuitable for modern traffic. Certainly, this is an area that should be concentrated on.
I would like to say with regard to the national sanitary services plan that on another occasion I referred to the method of dispersal of raw sewage into Dublin Bay. This is wrong. Only treated sewage should be allowed to be diverted out to sea.
It is important that this problem should be looked at when we talk about the national sanitary services plan. Specifically in relation to Dublin and the disposal of raw sewage into Dublin Bay I take this opportunity of saying once again that this is unacceptable. Senator Lynch has dealt with the private sanitation programme. He pointed out with regard to domestic piped water services that there have been major improvements nationally. By 1981 some 90 per cent of households had internal piped water supply but in rural areas 25 per cent of houses were without a toilet, 30 per cent were without a fixed bath or shower and 20 per cent were without internal piped water. This is unacceptable.
The report goes on to say that many of the residents of these houses are dependent on social welfare and do not have the resources to install basic facilities, even with the aid of existing grant schemes. I am sure that in this situation especially with our big unemployment problem that some scheme could be developed whereby the unemployed could be used to help with these provisions. I know there would be a problem, say, where the value of the house would be increased but that could be recouped by the State when these houses are sold.
The report makes a reference to listed buildings on page 34, which presumably means buildings listed in the five year development plan. I am not too sure if these have any great value and I would like the Minister to elaborate further on the value of having buildings listed.
There is a fairly lengthy section in relation to tourism, leisure and community facilities. Like Senator Daly, I agree that there is a strong case to be made for investment in these areas. The report tells us that investment should include indoor leisure facilities, restoration of historical buildings, industrial architecture, for which there is a big area to be looked after, development of marinas, facilities for pleasure craft users and swimming pools. In relation to swimming pools, we have the position in County Meath, which I am sure applies to every other county, where we have three swimming pools which have to be closed for six months of the year. Swimming pools are not of much use when they have to be closed down.
Fishing could have been included in that list. Damage has been done to the environment by drainage schemes. I realise however that farmers and the agricultural area have rightly cried out for an improvement of their land by drainage schemes; but cases have been made many times in respect of areas which have been reclaimed and in which we had wildlife, fauna and flora, which would have cost many millions to put there in the first place if we did not have them naturally. The preservation of those areas, boglands and areas of that nature which are under threat from development, should be considered. I mention that in passing.
Regarding loans, the report deals with the Housing Finance Agency as one of the other areas where finance is available for housing. The Housing Finance Agency have helped greatly in this area. A big problem with the Housing Finance Agency is that in the earlier years of the loan the amount outstanding increases. People who would have to sell their houses in that situation would have an enormous problem. While I appreciate the value of Housing Finance Agency loans, this is a serious drawback. Very many people would not avail of these loans if there were any other avenues open to them. Very often it is the last coach and they have no other source to turn to.
I would like in passing to pay tribute to the work of An Foras Forbartha and the contribution they have made over a long period of time in many areas. The report goes into the development of Irish standards. I shall deal with this very briefly and there is no point in going any deeper into it. Standards, of themselves, are not the solution. For example, specifications regarding rafters and timbers should refer to the moisture content, and timber having a moisture content of more than 20 per cent for carpentry should be rejected. I have often gone around with a moisture meter prodding it into timber to see what the moisture content was. Surely, as far as possible it should be under the 20 per cent. A situation arises, when those timbers are being erected, that the house is left for very many weeks during which we have very inclement and very wet weather as a result of which the timbers are saturated. I have never seen a situation where a builder has been asked to dismantle a house because the carpentry timbers were in excess of 20 per cent moisture.
The standards of themselves are not the whole answer. The report refers to standards in the national interest and to firms who supply building materials. I have referred to some of these firms in the recent past. For example, Gypsum Industries, unfortunately had a serious fire not too long ago but are still continuing. This company had very serious problems with regard to the dumping of plaster board.
Senator Lynch resented that the Minister hijacked the report by incorporating recommendations. Of course I can see his point. At the same time, it is something that I would very much like to see done on a very large scale. This is the whole point of reports, that the Government would put into effect the recommendations. I would look on that as a backhanded compliment by Senator Lynch in this regard. Senator Lynch also referred to disabled persons' grants for which I would appeal for an increase. They are generous enough in many instances. The maximum is £5,000 by the local authority. In some cases it might be necessary to have bigger grants and the Minister should consider this. Local authorities, where disabled persons' grants are given, should consider providing plans for people who qualify because very often they have a problem with regard to drawings and sketches. Dublin Corporation, as far as I know, provide drawings for people qualifying for these grants. Perhaps the Minister would be able to do that on a large scale.
With regard to solar energy, some incentives should be given to those who are anxious to avail of this. The ESB have carried out very big schemes and have had favourable results. A mandatory maximum floor area of 1,346 sq. ft. for a new house is required to avail of the grant. Some provision should be made for people who want to build a sun lounge or solar porch but who are not eligible for the grant. The Minister should consider this. Special grants should be available for the provision of installation.
This is a very worthwhile report. It is a report that we could spend a lot of time on. It is a report that, although only published at the end of November last, has had some of its recommendations adopted. This is very desirable and to be commended. In conclusion, I want to thank once again the members for their hard work in preparing the report.
