Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 1992

Vol. 134 No. 4

Housing Policy: Motion.

Mr. Naughten

I move:

That Seanad Éireann condemns the Government in relation to its housing policy; and its failure to provide adequate finance to meet the growing, housing lists in each county in the country.

This motion was tabled because of the huge social implications for many families throughout the length and breadth of this country. The Government have totally reneged on their responsibility to provide housing for the many families in need of housing. I have tried to establish, as best I can, the numbers of people on the waiting lists for local authority housing. I reckon there are up to 50,000 families on those waiting lists.

This Government and the previous Government have done absolutely nothing in the past five years to tackle this major social problem. In fact, since John Boland was Minister for the Environment, the allocation for local authority housing has dropped from over £80 million to £40 million and much of the responsibility for that must lie on the shoulders of the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, who seemed to take the callous view that those on the housing list did not count.

I am now calling on the Government, and on the Government Senators, to support this motion. I hope it will reawaken the social spirit of this Government — if they have a social spirit — to make money available to the local authorities to provide housing for families on the waiting lists.

The Government's housing policy is an absoulte disgrace. They were responsible for the abolition of the SDA loans, the mechanism used by many lower income families to provide housing for themselves. Those loans were abolished by this Government or the Government in office from 1987 to 1989. In 1987 the house improvement grants were discontinued. These grants enabled many people to bring old houses up to an adequate standard. The grants which in earlier years had helped to provide water, sewerage and sanitary services were also abolished. As a result, we now have an enormous housing list.

We all know we are going through very difficult financial times. Unless they are in secure employment, people cannot go to a building society and seek finance to build a house for themselves. We are all aware of the huge numbers of repossession orders being taken daily by county councils and by building societies. I came across some figures recently for three towns in the midlands. In Nenagh 16 houses were up for repossession at one court; in Portlaoise there were 15 and in Tullamore, 13. The same situation exists in Roscommon. Unfortunately, people are not longer able to meet the huge loan repayments arising from the rise in interest rates and the abolition of full mortgage relief, by the Government over the past two years. I am now calling on the Minister to restore full mortgage relief immediately.

Many other issues have contributed to the huge housing lists, all of them due to mismanagement by the Government. They seemed to feel the local authorities were not providing a good service. They now seem to think their brainwave with regard to social housing and voluntary housing will meet the needs of the people today. That is not the case. The Minister and his officials know that the shared ownership scheme is not working. It is a failure and the sooner that is recognised the better. It is a sham. Nobody is going to buy half a house and then, ten, 15 or 20 years later, buy the other half, having regard to the increase in the value of the house. If the second half could be bought out later at the original cost, then the scheme might work but despite advice from many Members in this House and in the other House, the Government decided against that.

Voluntary housing schemes might be fine in some areas where there is good, close community spirit, where, for example, there is a sizeable population. It will not work in most of rural Ireland because the structure necessary to put up the capital to get the project off the ground does not exist. As the Minister and his officials know, the scheme is not working.

I am not blaming the Minister. He is quite new to the Department of the Environment. His predecessors in the Department have failed to provide the necessary funding to the local authorities to provide housing for many families who are living in dire circumstances. These are families living in mobile homes and in condemned accommodation, which is damp and unfit for human habitation. Nevertheless, this Government seem relaxed about it and are allowing that situation to continue. They have obviously failed to grasp the major problems facing communities throughout the country.

I will mention some figures to illustrate my point. In County Louth last year only 23 houses were built although there are 1,000 on the waiting list. In Westmeath, where there is a waiting list of 340, 16 houses were built. In Roscommon, which has a waiting list of 180, 13 houses were built. This is callous in the extreme. It is unbelievable that any Government can preside over a situation like that and not be ashamed. They are making no effort to come to grips with the problem.

Voluntary housing is not the answer, shared ownership is not the answer. Many families who are on a housing list now in many counties, including my own, may have to wait up to 15 years to be rehoused. This is an absoulte scandal.

The funding for local authority house building has been reduced from £80 million to approximately £40 million in five years, causing unemployment in the building industry, social hardship for families and the emigration of skilled tradesmen when one realises this is all because of the reckless decision taken by the Government to reduce the funding to local authority housing, one cannot but be shocked. I am calling on every Member to support this motion because if they do, the Government will make the necessary funding available to alleviate the hardship suffered by so many families. If that additional funding is provided, we will see a major pick up in the building industry and in the related service industries. If the Government are serious about tackling unemployment, this is one way they can bring up to 20,000 workers back into the building and related service industries. At the same time, this would provide the necessary housing for many families who are on waiting lists for local authority housing.

The increase in mortgage interest rates has caused great difficulties and as a result of that and repossession orders further large numbers of people will be on the local authority housing list making a desperate situation worse. There are anything up to a dozen repossession orders in the courts each month and many of those people, unfortunately, will lose their homes. This is because of the Government's failure to tackle the huge increase in interest rates and by their deliberate decision to reduce mortgage interest relief.

I appeal to the Minister to seek the necessary additional funding to allow local authorities to get on with their housing programme, as they were doing in the mid-eighties. In 1987, as a result of a decision by the 1983-87 Government over 3,000 local authority houses were completed. In 1989, that figure had dropped to 768, because of lack of funding — these figures were provided by the Department. It is a desperate indictment of this Government that they have allowed that situation to continue. If it were not for the huge emigration from the west, those figures would be even worse. The emigration in the late eighties and early nineties helped to save the Government from an even more embarrassing situation.

This motion is very timely because the Government are now preparing their Estimates for the coming year. Now is the time to take action to give the local authorities the necessary finance. They have the engineering staff, in many cases they have the sites, and they have the expertise to get on with a building programme. All they need from the Minister is money which is vital to create employment in rural areas, to reduce the huge housing lists and to reduce the desperate suffering on many families who, if they go on the housing list now, will not be rehoused for up to ten or 15 years. I appeal to the Minister to accept this motion.

Mr. Cosgrave

It gives me pleasure to second this motion. We are coming to the end of the year and next year's Estimates are being drawn up. In recent weeks evidence has been emerging that many houses will be repossessed. Some of these houses are in private ownership but because of repossessions these people will be back on the housing lists. In other cases due to economic circumstances, people have been unable to keep up the repayments on local authority housing.

The housing lists in each county are getting out of control over the last four or five years. Much of what I am saying is not directed personally at the Minister but it is directed at his party, his predecessor and his Department. We now need to look at where we are going and how much money we need. The amounts provided over the last six years, according to the Department's figures were, in 1987, £77 million, in 1988 £35 million, in 1989 £21 million, in 1990 nearly £34 million, in 1991 £43 million and this year, £41 million. I have rounded the figures up.

In each area, and particularly in the Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown area, our housing lists are growing weekly. The Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown authority, which takes in Dún Laoghaire Corporation and the Rathdown area had a report recently which showed a total of 1,300 local authority housing applicants, between both areas — 700 in the Rathdown area and almost 600 in the borough. What have we been doing? How many houses have been built? The figure of completed houses in 1991 for the whole of Dublin was 72. Senator Foley has been batting well because last year his area was top of the list. This year Dún Laoghaire Corporation have built 14 houses, three houses in one area and another 11 in Rockford Park. So surprised and thrilled were we with our three houses that, at one of the council meetings, one councillor was wondering if we should have an official opening. That goes to show how serious the situation is.

As I said, the housing lists in every area have been growing. Because of the lack of funding, more and more people are being confined to expensive bedsitters or damp and squalid conditions, and in terms of family units in a house, more people are having to double up and treble up. This leads to serious social problems, and friction within families. People come down to my clinic weekly wondering when they can get out of their present hell. What can we say?

In Dublin we have submitted various schemes and we get a report every month. For example, some documents are with the Department since 1988 awaiting sanction or tender. At every step the Department delay some of these applications, they put applications etc. on hold. This is keeping men, women and children in over-crowded, squalid conditions, in unhealthy situations where boys, girls and adolescents are all crowded into one room where people are trying to put children to bed in what is meant to be the livingroom while, at the same time, other people in the same room are trying to watch television or study. I am asking the Minister to get his act together. He is presiding over a crisis that is growing in every county in Ireland.

My colleague has given some of the figures. In each year in the mid-seventies 25,000 houses were completed. At times that Government was derided for it. What should we be doing to a Government whose historic figures for house completions are as follows: 1,450 in 1988, 768 in 1989, 1,003 in 1990, and 1,180 in 1991. The figure for the waiting list for Dún Laoghaire at the moment is 1,300 and rising. This is how much this Government care about the people who are in damp, squalid and overcrowded conditions. I ask the Minister to start providing a realistic sum of money. I have already given the figures which show the total lack of commitment in relation to the provision of realistic funds for housing construction and refurbishment.

In this city, in other areas and probably in the Minister's constituency in Cork, there are Victorian houses which lack the basic facilities, with no bathroom or toilet. There are damp houses which, with any sense of decency, should be rubble tomorrow, except where would we put the people? Senator Neville will paint a similar picture in relation to his own county. I am sure Senator Foley will agree with what I say, despite a good performance in Kerry in 1990. We can congratulate him in that. At least he is doing his job in that they were top of the class with 80 houses.

This situation cannot continue. We cannot continue to tell the people who are in severe financial difficulty that they must stay in damp and squalid bedsitters, in flats, paying exorbitant rents, in houses where there is overcrowding leading to the break-up of recently married couples, causing internal friction between families where there are 12 or 14 people in a house which was basically designed for a mother, father and one or two children. This situation exists throughout this country but there has not been any real attempt by the Government to address the situation, to come forward with any real response.

I do not know how Senators on the opposite side tonight can support their Mickey Mouse amendment. I ask them tonight to show the Government they agree with our motion, to show them that in each of their constituencies they are getting the same message I am getting. We are heading into the home straight and, come the next election, the people will deliver their message to the Government.

Mr. Foley

I move amendment No. 1:

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

notes the substantial increase in the number of new house completions in 1992 todate and, in the context of the changing pattern of social housing needs, welcomes the more diverse and innovative response to these needs provided for in A Plan for Social Housing and the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992.

The plan for social housing which was announced just over a year ago is the most important policy statement affecting housing for many years. It set out to change a situation where there was only one answer to every housing problem. That answer has always been to build more and more local authority houses. It was a simple solution that suited simpler times but nowadays we recognise that large-scale, one class housing on a green-field site just does not work from the social or economic viewpoint.

Some people have criticised the social housing plan. It is very easy to be critical but none of the critics has come up with any answers. I find it ironic that the very people who are loudest in calling for local housing building to be resumed on a grand scale also have a high profile in criticising the serious problems of the same estates they hold up as the only way forward for the future.

I am delighted to see a new approach to social housing, one that will give people a real choice, give them the chance to get the sort of home they want and lift them out of the hopeless situation of having no option except the waiting list. At the same time I am glad to know that the more appropriate scale local authority housing programme will still be there to look after those who cannot be housed under the new scheme.

The fact that there will be more completions of local authority houses this year than in the past four years is proof positive, if that were needed, that the Government are fully committed to get everyone into decent housing. The new strategy is good. People who, with a certain amount of help, can house themselves will get that help. Voluntary bodies looking after disadvantaged groups will also be encouraged. Those who have to rely on publicly funded housing can be assured that there is also a clear commitment to look after them.

One of the most worthwhile measures in the plan is the shared ownership system. There is a great desire in most Irish people to own their own houses and this is shown in our high home ownership rate of over 80 per cent. The response to tenant purchase schemes from people wanting to buy out their rented houses is further proof of this desire.

I am delighted that those who could not afford to purchase a house with a conventional mortagage will now also have a chance of achieving their goal through the shared ownership system. Under the mortgage system the repayments remain fairly constant throughout the loan period. The repayments are much the same after 20 years as at the beginning. However, as a proportion of income, they are usually much greater at the start. The fact that the repayment burden is at its heaviest compared to income in the early years, coupled with all the other expenses of buying a house, simply puts home ownership out of the reach of many people in lower incomes.

Shared ownership offers a mechanism which increases the capacity of people on lower incomes to afford to buy a house. It does not necessarily reduce the cost of becoming a home owner. Instead, its spreads the burden in a more affordable way. Independent commentators have welcomed the system and have shown that in the early years shared ownership keeps outgoings at a much lower level than under the ordinary mortgage. The shared ownership system caters for many people who would otherwise need to be housed in local authority accommodation.

I accept that many local authorities have housing problems. Senator Cosgrave referred to my own local authority, the Kerry County Council, which has problems in relation to housing. As a local authority, we have a very serious financial problem with regard to the essential repair scheme and disabled persons' grant scheme. Both schemes have been grounded in Kerry County Council. An appeal has already been made to the Minister, during his recent visit to Kerry, to make the extra essential funding available forthwith. The discontinuation of both schemes is an undesirable development which will save very little money. Both schemes played a major role in retaining the fabric of houses in a very good condition and allowed an aged or disabled person to remain in the family home.

We have a housing problem in Kerry County Council. At present there are 590 applicants listed for rehousing of which approximately 360 are acute. Some 40 applicants are listed for demountable units. Our building programme consists of 70 houses brought forward from 1991 with approximately 56 starts in the current year. We have already made an appeal to the Minister for a further 100 starts before the end of the current year.

Kerry County Council have 2,098 rented houses plus 1,527 on a tenant purchase scheme. The average rent is £10 per week and many are on the minimum rent. The plan for social housing is reasonably successful in Kerry. Shared ownership schemes and the scheme of grants to voluntary bodies for units for elderly persons have also proved very attractive.

The officials of Kerry County Council find that the £10,000 house improvement loan scheme is proving difficult to sell. One of the problems is the technical conditions which must apply when the job is completed. Following a recent meeting of Kerry County Council it was decided to make a submission to the Minister with regard to the reintroduction of the House reconstruction grants scheme but with very definite controls regarding qualifications. I hope the Minister will respond in a very short time. Many local authority tenants are looking forward to the reintroduction of the tenant purchase scheme. Many tenants over the past few years have responded to appeals from the local authority by carrying out their own repairs. For this reason it is essential that the new purchase scheme be introduced as quickly as possible.

Over the past number of months I have been fed up listening to what the Opposition parties would do to provide houses for everyone if only they were in power. It is very easy for some of them, they never have or never will have to face up to their promises. Those who have been in Government did not do well in office——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Foley

They failed to achieve in every aspect of Government and left a legacy of national mismanagement which almost wrecked the economy. They refuse to recognise that the real truth is that where housing achievements are concerned Fianna Fáil have done more to provide decent houses for the ordinary people than all the other parties put together.

Mr. B. Ryan

Used to.

Mr. Foley

A seven year decline in housing output in the mid-1980s has been turned around and we are now back to building 20,000 houses a year compared with only 15,900 in 1988. The plan for social housing is without doubt the biggest step forward we have ever seen and has given everyone a real chance to have a decent home. The plan is a dramatic move away from the previous situation where there were only two options: you could either buy a house or apply to the local authority and wait until they fixed you up with whatever become available. These narrow limits are not acceptable any more.

The plan for social housing is full of new thinking. It contains radical new schemes that will open access to good quality housing for everyone. These new schemes include a system of shared ownership to which I have referred. Housing co-operatives, where a group of householders get together to provide their own houses, will be encouraged. They will now be able to get block loans to buy sites and pay builders. The local authority will also be able to provide sites and technical back-up for them at minimal costs. Local authority tenants wishing to acquire a private house will also be given special help whereby their mortgages will be reduced for the first five years through the mortgage allowance scheme.

Many of us as local authority members will know of voluntary housing groups who have built houses for the elderly. This sector will provide 550 housing units this year with the assistance of generous grants from the Department of the Environment. The voluntary housing concept is now being extended to family-type accomodation with special new grants and subsidies that will cover up the 100 per cent of the cost of building the houses.

The elderly, needless to say, have not been forgotten and they, with the homeless, will continue to be a special focus of Government policy. Overall the new measures brought in by the Government will make signficant progress in meeting housing needs over a wide range of options and not just the old discredited large scale local authority housing schemes.

Mr. B. Ryan

I do not want to take charge of procedures, Sir, but I thought the amendment would need a seconder. Can I begin by lamenting the transformation of the Fianna Fáil Party from a party which believed in public housing. However limited their record might have been — and it could always have been better — I was brought up to believe that some of the reasons my family always supported Fianna Fáil were, among other things, their commitment to public housing and their belief that the role of the State was to redistribute resources towards those who could not afford to do various things for themselves, a belief which brought the party in conflict with many people in the thirties when, it is difficult to believe now, a lot of academics described Fianna Fáil as a Bolshevik party. Many of them, incidentally, would be from Senator Neville's party. They thought Fianna Fáil was a Bolshevik party. They would have no problems now sorting out where Fianna Fáil fit on the political spectrum.

Perhaps the most cynical action of the 1987-89 minority Fianna Fáil Government was their abandonment of public housing. They probably could foresee some but perhaps not the scale of the objections to the health cutbacks. They knew, as any politican knows, that cutbacks in expenditure on housing take a few years to reach down because funds have to be committed essentially a few years in advance. Before I continue, can I ask the Chair's permission to share my time with Senator Norris?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. B. Ryan

The problem with this motion is that it is so obviously true that it is impossible to defend or produce a logical case against it. You cannot provide housing without money. Do I have to argue that case with my friends in Government or in Fianna Fáil? If they wish they can produce numerous arguments as to why we do not have the money. I would deal with those quite happily and will deal with them in a moment anyway, just so that I am not accused of not saying where the money will come from. If there are people on the opposite side or in Government who are going to try to persuade us that you can build houses without money, then there are many people in Irish society who will be delighted to hear how to do it because then they can build their own houses without money. The reality is that if you take money out of housing you reduce the number of houses that are built and I defy anybody to stand up here and say otherwise.

Fianna Fáil, both in their single party manifestation in Government during 1987-89 and their coalition manifestation since, have taken out of the housing market, by comparison with the first half of the eighties, the best part of £1 billion and the consequence is that houses are not built. This is so obvious and so self-evident that it is impossible to believe we can have a serious debate and serious politicians who actually believe the Government have a housing record they can boast about.

The Government have a record of remarkable creativity in the use of very limited funds to give the impression that they are doing a whole lot. That is what the programme for social housing is about. It is about a lot of things that should have been done when we had a great deal of money. They are now being used to cover the nakedness of the Government's housing policy with a lot of creative, imaginative things that, had they been done with resources, would be wonderful additions to the way we look after our public housing, but they are nothing more than cover-ups for the reality that they have effectively come close to stopping putting public money into housing. The scale of funding is the critical issue and nobody in those two Governments has ever addressed it.

Regrettably, it seems that the present senior Minister for the Environment, with his increasing public commitment to the rigidities of Thatcherite economics, is not even going to struggle at the Cabinet table for increasing funding. Because the junior Minister present is a long standing acquaintance — I would venture to say a friend — I cannot turn the sarcasm I am capable of on him with the same enthusiasm, However, I warn him that even our long-lasting friendship will not be a guarantee in the future if the Government continue to try to defend the indefensible. If he comes into this House and says "We do not have the money", I can accept that as a logical if, totally incorrect position. However, to tell the Irish people, or to tell the people on the rapidly expanding housing lists, that we have a serious housing programme which may at some time or other meet their needs is a nonsense. The money is not there. The resources are not there and, increasingly, the commitment is not there.

I have to say that I get a distinct impression that the political leadership of the Department of the Environment is probably relieved to have a lot of this funding out of the way, that it was becoming more of a nuisance then anything else, and that the idea and the principle of public housing would be out of the way. The attitude is, do not let us get diverted into new ways of managing local authority stock through shared ownership and so on. They are all great ideas, but the bottom line is hard cash. Nice imaginative ways to provide a few million pounds for subsidised housing of one kind or another for one or other group in urgent need and in public visibility is very easy, because if you have knocked £150 million or so off the total budget it is easy to produce £5 million or £6 million out of that to deal with the extreme and publicly visible cases.

I am aware of all that has been done in the past in many areas of extreme need. If we had anything like the previous commitment, this Government would deserve enormous praise for the things that have happened on the margins of the housing market where there are areas of extreme need. What we have got here again is a further classic example of a policy that is being pursued by the Department of Health, the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of the Environment for the past five years — a redistribution from the moderately poor to the very poor. That is what has happened here. Local authority house building has largely come to a halt. In its place we have got imaginative schemes to deal with high profile groups of extreme deprivation, which keeps the heat off in the short term, which gives the impression of enormous benevolence in the short term but which, combined with the lack of serious funding, must be seen as essentially an exercise in cynicism. It is a cynical way to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions.

Before I let in my colleague, Senator Norris, may I make the following comment. Having constructed financial rectitude on the backs of the poor, which is what was done in the whole area of housing, this Government if they have any social conscience left, which I am beginning to doubt, must begin to build houses again. The usual question I will be asked is: how? I will tell you how. They should borrow the money to do so.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Staunton)

If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him very briefly, my understanding is that he is sharing some time with Senator Norris. The privilege is his, but there are only two minutes left in total.

Mr. B. Ryan

I will stop this instant and say they should borrow the money to build houses, because housing is a worthwhile, productive, useful investment. It is not wasted money. It is not money down the drain. It adds to the stock and the assets of this country.

Mr. Norris

I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Ryan, for giving me some time. Previous to this 1,500 houses a year were built in the Dublin area. We are now down to 50. There are 50 houses being built at the moment and there are also some developments in Sheriff Street. Across the road from me there is, Avondale House, Cumberland House, Liberty House, St. Joseph's Mansions and Lourdes Mansions — all in desperate need of refurbishment. In the north inner city in the past three years only one refurbishment programme has been undertaken, at St. Mary's Mansions.

The corporation's maintenance officer drafted a report four years ago on a programme as a result of delegations in the area visiting him and targeted specific work that needed to be done to prevent future deterioration to a critical point in these flats. One example, was window replacement, where PVC windows were installed. That means they do not need to be painted, they are also energy efficient, so further down the line it actually saves money. Yet this was not done. It also improves the health of families. The conditions of damp and squalor are not only dangerous physically but they are also dangerous to the health of people, and it is noticeable that once again there is a rise in TB in the inner city.

This is not confined to just the north inner city.

I have here — I have not time to place it on the record — a document from the Marrowbone Lane Residents' Association who demand that their flats be refurbished. Their flats are 53 years old. They are living in uninhabitable conditions from 45 years of neglect — windows falling out, raw sewage on the pavements, inadequate water supply, downdraughts in chimneys, dampness in bedrooms and bad drains. As a civilised society we cannot be happy or satisfied about such conditions.

The housing list, we are told, is not a real problem, that there are very few people on it. In fact, there are 4,500 people on the housing list in Dublin and that does not even reflect the real scale of the problem, because in addition to that 4,500 there is the transfer list, and the transfer list deals mainly with large families living in one bedroom flats. Some 7,000 families are on this list, 7,000 families in substandard accommodation. Some 90 per cent of these families are on social welfare, so the only opportunity they get for some kind of decent accommodation is to be housed by the corporation.

Acting Chairman

If you will allow me, Senator, unfortunately your time has concluded.

Mr. Norris

What can I say?

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. D. Wallace)

In the time-worn tradition of Opposition motions the Fine Gael motion now before this House condemns the Government and looks for more money. This kind of cliché approach is not likely to impress anyone as a constructive or fruitful way of addressing the complex issue of housing in a modern society.

The bland and blanket condemnation of housing policy is attempted in spite of the fact that this year is showing a highly satisfactory level of new housing production. The fact is new house completions in the first eight months of this year totalled about 14,300, which is up 15 per cent on the same period last year. Indeed, the total number of new houses built in the period January to August this year was the highest level for any equivalent period in the past six years.

Total housing completions have been increasing in recent years. This does not happen by accident. We have only to look at the period in the mid 1980s when the proposers of this motion were in office. For the full period of that Government from 1983 to 1987 total housing completions fell consistently year after year. In fact, this serious decline was so deeply established that it took two years after their leaving office in 1987 for the downward trend to be reversed.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. D. Wallace

You are on that side of the House and you will be staying there for a very long time because of the policies you pursued at that time.

Since 1989 I am happy to say that, in marked contrast to the experience in Government of the proposers of this motion, annual housing completions have increased steadily year after year.

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, housing output has been increasing in recent years is the widespread belief that the economic fundamentals in this country are sound. If people have confidence in the running of the economy they will have confidence to undertake the long term commitment involved in borrowing for house purchase. We all know that house purchase is the most significant investment decision taken by most individuals and families in their lifetimes. People need confidence to undertake a mortgage loan with repayments stretching well into the next century.

The recent increase in interest rates undoubtedly represents a setback for housing but the sound economic fundamentals give us every reason to believe that this will be a passing phase. Indeed, trends in the financial markets this week lend considerable support to this belief. I wish to take this opportunity to commend the lending institutions right across the spectrum for their co-operation and goodwill in ensuring that hard hit households are cushioned from the immediate impact of the rise in interest rates.

The motion is also unreal in its implication that it is only by providing more money for local authority house building that social housing needs can be met. No one has informed us how much money or where it is to come from. In today's climate calls from Opposition speakers for more public spending on particular services, however deserving they may be, have no credibility unless the expenditure is quantified and its budgetary implications spelled out. Is the party proposing this motion suggesting that we increase taxes, or perhaps resort to borrowing? If so, are they prepared to face up to the consequences of fiscal laxity in terms, for example, of the effect on interest rates and employment?

There is little credibility in calls for building thousands of extra local authority houses without saying how they are to be financed, because the building and maintenance of local authority housing is an expensive business. The cost of each new local authority house to the taxpayer now stands at about £85 per week. What other services are going to be cut back to provide the estimated £90,000 which the average new local authority house is going to cost the taxpayer over the next 20 years?

All that is not to say that the Government are in any way complacent about housing problems. Within the overall housing system there are, of course, considerable problems to which solutions must be found. These include the provision of accommodation for households on low incomes, the accommodation of the homeless and travellers and the upgrading and replacement of substandard accommodation.

However, if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past we are condemned to repeat them. We must learn from the past and we must also learn from the present. In recent years the very nature of social housing needs has changed completely. The traditional family unit is now in a minority on many local authority waiting lists. These lists have now come to be dominated by one parent families and single person households. The current wide range of social housing needs — from traditional family units to one parent families, single unemployed young people, the homeless and the elderly — require a diverse range of measures to appropriately address them. This is what the Government have put in place through the Plan for Social Housing followed up by the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992.

Households on modest incomes now have an opportunity to become home owners through the new system of shared ownership. We have a new rental subsidy scheme to make available rented housing to low income families at affordable rents. Local authorities can carry out improvements or extensions to an existing dwelling as an alternative to rehousing. Local authorities are enabled to provide cheap housing sites. These are but some of the new ways of addressing housing needs.

All the new schemes were introduced on a developed basis, with full responsibility for implementation on the ground being given to local authorities rather than being administered by the Department. This is in line with the Government's policy of maximising devolution and also recognising that local authorities are in the best position to operate the various measures in an integrated way that will maximise their impact on waiting lists.

However, the success of the many new schemes in the plan requires greater energy, flexibility and creativity on the part of the local authority members as well as staff compared to the relatively straighforward and familiar solution of local authority housebuilding. It is for this reason that sustained efforts have been underaken by the Minister, by myself and by the Department to inform and assist local authorities in the implementation of the plan.

In addition, the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, which came into force on 1 September 1992, provides the legislative framework for many of the new measures contained in the plan. The provision of full legal backing for these schemes should assist authorities in stepping up activity to make the best use of resources available to meet the housing needs of their areas.

While some local authorities have recorded good progress in the implementation of the new measures, nevertheless, in other local authority areas the progress has been disappointing. My Department are arranging individual meetings with the management of these authorities to encourage and assist them to respond effectively to the measures in the plan and to help identify and overcome any difficulties they may be experiencing.

I would like to indicate briefly the progress which has been achieved by local authorities in the implementation of the new measures. Up to 30 June last local authorities had received over 2,300 applications for shared ownership, nearly 900 were approved in principle and 181 transactions were completed. There was in fact a considerable increase in activity under the scheme during the second quarter of 1992. The capital allocation for this scheme is £35 million in 1992.

Under the £3,300 mortgage allowance scheme, over 350 applications had been received with over 190 approved. Under the improvement works scheme 22 houses had been improved under the scheme while work was ongoing to 18 houses at end June last. This scheme was widely welcomed as a good response to circumstances where the improvement of the existing accommodation would provide a quicker and more cost effective solution to a housing need. The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, contains provisions designed to help to remove difficulties or delays relating to non-registration of ownership of houses being improved under this scheme.

At the end of June 1992, 154 sites had been sold under the sale of sites scheme and local authorities had a further 126 sites approved for sale. Again, as in the other schemes, progress has been uneven with some local authorities able to use the scheme to much better effect than others.

The voluntary housing rental subsidy scheme is now showing very good progress — one project in Waterford by Respond, involving nine units of accommodation, has been completed, four projects involving 65 units are under construction and 25 projects throughout the country containing nearly 420 units are proposed or in planning.

As well as promoting and funding the new measures, this Government are committed to maintaining the traditional local authority housing programme at a level that has regard to needs and to the resources available. An additional 1,500 dwellings will be provided by local authorities this year, including houses built and acquired, compared with 1,180 last year. Some 3,400 local authority dwellings will be vacated during 1992 allowing about 4,900 new lettings in all to be made by local authorities. Taking local authority housing, including vacancies, voluntary housing, shared ownership and the other measures in the Plan for Social Housing together, we should be catering for over 6,200 additional households in 1992 compared to around 5,400 in 1991.

The House should be aware that the original overall capital provision for housing in 1992, including both Exchequer and non-Exchequer resources, amounted to some £158 million — up 30 per cent on the outturn figure for 1991. The substantial increase this year was due primarily to the increased take up of the various new measures introduced in the Plan for Social Housing. Specifically the total capital provision for the local authority and voluntary housing programmes amounted to £78 million, an increase of over 3 per cent on the 1991 outturn.

The provision of adequate housing for our people has always been a top priority for Fianna Fáil and that is why we, as a nation, are better housed than many richer countries. I can assure the House that the present Government have the same concern to secure decent housing for every family regardless of their means. To this end we have shown a readiness to try new approaches as well as the traditional ones. Sadly, the drafters of this motion have not shown that they have learned anything from the past or have much to contribute now.

Mention was made of John Boland's house improvement grant which was introduced in 1985. When it was discontinued in 1987, over £200 million was owing which had to be provided by the Exchequer. We are all aware of the letter sent out just before an election advising everybody that they were entitled to a grant. That is on record. When the scheme was discontinued we were paying £5 million per week and up to very recently applications were still coming in. That is the kind of legacy we were left. That is why I say: you are on that side of the House and that is where you are going to stay.

There was a lot of talk about the eighties. Everybody knows that the country was bankrupt in the eighties, and Fianna Fáil were not responsible for it; everybody knows Fine Gael and Labour were. You cannot run away from realities.

Senator Naughten alleges that the SDA loans scheme has been abolished. This is simply not true. Let us get the facts if you want to come in here and make wild statements. When you are not making the decisions you have all the answers; but when they were making the decisions they did not make very good ones. I will give some facts. It is not true that the SDA loans scheme has been abolished. They are available from local authorities when people cannot get loans from other institutions. We should at least be accurate in what we are saying here.

Mr. Naughten

What the Minister did not say is that before you can get an SDA loan you have to prove yourself literally unworthy of a loan from any other institution.

Mr. D. Wallace

The Senator must make up his mind. He is saying that the resources of the State have to be used for those most in need. The fault with the 1985 scheme was that everybody, a millionaire or a pauper, could apply for a grant to build an extension to a residence or a guesthouse. We could have built many houses with £200 million.

We have a major housing problem and let us put our heads together and work on it. There is a limit to our resources. We should use them as best we can as we are doing in the Plan for Social Housing. I commend amendment No. 1 to the House.

Mr. Costello

I want to propose my amendment.

Acting Chairman

The Senator cannot formally move amendment No. 2 as amendment No. 1 has already been moved by Fianna Fáil. As the Senator knows, only one amendment can be moved at one time.

Mr. Costello

I will then read it into the record. It says: "and further condemns the Government for its failure to provide adequate funding to ensure that the existing stock of public housing is maintained....

Acting Chairman

The Senator may make a speech but not read the amendment.

Mr. Costello

The amendment is part of what I have to say. It continues: "and the tenants enjoy decent, hygienic and healthy living conditions." I fully support the motion from the Fine Gael Party. My intention was that the Labour Party amendment would cover not only the finance required for the housing policy but also deal with maintenance.

I would like to take the Minister up on his misleading and inaccurate speech. He said that for the full period of the Government from 1983 to 1987 total housing completions fell consistently year after year and that this serious decline was so deeply established that it took two years after their leaving office in 1987 for the downward trend to be reversed. That is rubbish and I will quote figures from Dublin Corporation's record for that time.

In 1983, £70 million was spent on building 1,753 houses. In 1986 before Fianna Fáil came into office £41.6 million was spent on 1,014 houses. That is as much as Fianna Fáil built in all of last year. That was by one local authority and does not include Dublin county area. In 1987, the figure of £41.6 million was reduced to £18.7 million because Fianna Fáil did not give the rates support grant to Dublin Corporation. Some 446 houses were built in 1987 compared with 1,014 in 1986; that is less than 50 per cent. In 1988, the £18.7 million was reduced to a £2.75 million capital allocation when 148 units of accommodation were built and in 1989 no unit of accommodation was built nor was funding provided. Last year 74 units of accommodation were built. This year we expect to have 100 units, 50 of which will be new and 50 which will replace existing stock being de-tenanted in Sheriff Street.

The Minister said that the serious decline was so deeply established it took two years for the downward trend to be reversed. What does he mean by "reversed"? The Minister does not know what direction he is going in if that is the manner in which he describes it.

Mr. D. Wallace

My direction is very clear.

Mr. Costello

The reason for a slight reduction between 1983 and 1987 was because the quantity of housing supplied exceeded demand. In the mid-eighties there was an enormous housing shortage which began in the sixties, continued through the seventies but by the mid-eighties the Government who came to power in 1983 had provided sufficient housing so that demand was less than the supply.

The situation has now been reversed and we are in a new crisis. There was no housing crisis in the mid-eighties but there is a crisis now in the early nineties which will take a Government other than this to address. At present there are 23,000 applicants for houses and the Minister puts the maximum figure of houses that can be provided by all schemes in 1992 at 6,260. In the Dublin area one house is being built for every ten people in need of housing. I ask the Minister, how he can say the schemes being proposed will cater for the people who are traditionally the recipients of local authority housing? How can a private form of housing manage to house the 80 to 90 per cent of people dependent on social welfare? How can these people pay a mortgage or contribute to the shared ownership scheme? It is not enough for the Minister to say it is a wonderful scheme. It may be a wonderful scheme but it is of no use to persons without an income. How can a recipient of social welfare avail of these schemes?

The bottom line as members of local authorities know is that public housing must cater for people who are unable financially to obtain accommodation for themselves. It is no use saying that people should have money to pay for some semiprivate scheme. They do not and the situation will get worse as the unemployment queues lengthen.

Tremendous work has been done by voluntary housing schemes already in existence. I have no problem with the shared ownership scheme or with the mortgage assistance scheme but they are not sufficient on their own. They do not cater for those on the bottom rung.

We had an excess of accommodation in 1987 and now we have a considerable housing shortage. Some 4,377 people in the Dublin Corporation area are in need of housing at present. The maximum number of vacancies this year is 1,400. There is leeway to be made up here before any talk of transfers. A few months ago the transfer list numbered 6,000 people. Now 7,000 people in inadequate accommodation are seeking to transfer to better or more hygienic accommodation.

We have heard of the position with regard to hostels. The annual report from Focus Point revealed that hostels for the homeless are 97 to 99 per cent full at all times. That reflects the inability of local authorities to house the homeless. Bed and breakfast accommodation is increasing at a scandalous rate. Last year £40,000 was spent on bed and breakfast accommodation by Dublin Corporation; this year it will be in the region of £250,000 to £300,000. Families are being put into bed and breakfast establishments because there is no other accommodation for them. The Minister tells us that the matter is being dealt with adequately. We cannot accept that.

There is a housing crisis now which did not exist five or six years ago and the crisis is worsening in every local authority area. The measures the Minister mentioned in his speech are not adequate to cope with that crisis and the Government must face up to its obligations to accommodate people unable to accommodate themselves. A person with, say, a 25 per cent mortgage obtaining mortgage relief over a 25 year period, will receive £25,000 in subsidy from the State; effectively, a private home purchaser will receive a subsidy from the State equal to the value of the mortgage. Yet the Government will not consider funding housing accommodation for those unable to fund it themselves.

Mr. E. Ryan

I have listened to a number of speakers and to the Minister. We are all responsible to a certain extent for the current housing problem. No Government, Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael-Labour Coalition, has ever pushed the voluntary housing sector sufficiently. I am surprised that some of the Independent Members, like Senator B. Ryan, who often gives examples of social conditions in countries such as Sweden and Holland — where voluntary housing is a success — did not mention this. One of the reasons for our present crisis is our past failure to push voluntary housing.

The Fine Gael motion refers to two areas. We must look at the Government's housing record and at new measures being introduced, many of which are working well. The problem is that local authorities do not promote them. On the point raised by Senator Costello, 17 houses were recently completed in Ringsend. Approximately ten local authority tenants will give up flats to take up those houses; most of them on the shared ownership scheme. That is great; it is not enough but it is definitely a start. We are beginning to change people's perception of how they might get housing. That is an example of ten flats becoming available because people are moving into three-bedroomed houses on the shared ownership scheme.

Mr. Costello

Some people do not have an income.

Mr. E. Ryan

I agree. What we must do is what they have done in other countries. They have removed people who can afford houses from their housing list. There are many people on our housing list who, with the incentives available in the Government's programme, would be able to leave the list, allowing local authorities to spend the allocation on the people Senator Costello is talking about, the people who really need housing and who do not have money. That is where the emphasis should be placed. People who can afford to use one of these schemes should be encouraged to do so and the Government's policy allows for that.

This is a new beginning which will help everybody regardless of what party is in power. We cannot go back to the old way of spending huge amounts of money on greenfield sites. Social problems were caused by the old schemes and Fine Gael and Labour are responsible for the building of these houses also. We must adopt a different approach to housing, and full recognition should be given to the Government's housing programme.

In 1987 in one area 150 dwellings were built by voluntary housing and in 1991 600 dwellings were built; I gather that in 1992 the number will be even greater. We are not paying sufficient attention to these sources of housing. At planning committee meetings in my own local authority there are one or two planning applications received per month for some kind of voluntary housing. I welcome that. It would be easy for us to argue about it here but that would do nothing for people in need of housing.

The country needs to look again at how it has built its houses and at its housing policy. The Government's programme is doing that. I have no doubt that if we were removed from power tomorrow other parties would continue with our policy with minor changes perhaps. We have made a long overdue new start.

When I was elected to Dublin County Council in 1985, one of its problems was the boarding up of houses that had been wrecked because too many had been built. We need to keep a closer eye on how we build and we must ensure that local authorities push housing schemes. I do not believe that Dublin Corporation is pushing the flat sales scheme. Not one flat has been sold recently. Deputy Ruairí Quinn said last week that the tenants of Ringsend and Pearse Street are tired of being told that they will be sold their flats; four and five years later they have not been sold.

A new attitude must be adopted and it is up to us, as members of local authorities, to put pressure on the local authorities to enact many of these schemes. We all know of the in-built opposition to voluntary housing in Dublin Corporation. They have said publicly that they do not favour it. The former Assistant City Manager said that they had a few bad experiences with it and have been stuck with them. If we are to tackle this housing problem and encourage people to buy their own houses we must push this new plan for voluntary housing.

The Labour Party motion refers to refurbishment and I agree that some of the conditions in which tenants live are unacceptable. This was the case when the Senator's party was in power also and nobody did anything about it then. I am not being party political about this because I deal with this issue every day. I would love to see more money spent on the refurbishment of some inner city dwellings. I have no doubt that bad housing conditions exist all over the country, with people in accommodation without indoor toilet and proper washing facilities. The Government have started to tackle that problem in some of the worst schemes in Dublin's south and north inner city. We have identified the worst cases and I would like to see this done more quickly.

I can understand the frustration of people living in flat complexes where there is a good community spirit and where responsibility is taken for some maintenance when flats that have been allowed to run down get refurbished first. I have spoken to the Minister on a number of occasions about the possibility of a plan under which people who look after their flat complexes would be rewarded. A stitch in time saves nine. Windows should be put in for people who will then keep their flats in good condition. The flat complexes in worst condition are being done — they should be done — but the flats that are well kept are not being refurbished or at best, very slowly.

We need a new attitude towards public housing and the Government's programme is a start in that direction. The Minister for the Environment would love to announce the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds on building new houses. All politicians like to announce good news but, unfortunately, the money is not there. We are trying with limited resources to be as effective as we can.

A new attitude to housing is required in the long term. It will benefit everybody when people who want and who can afford to buy into a housing co-operative or a shared ownership scheme come off the housing list. Then we can identify the deprived and those who cannot afford other schemes and we will be able to house them properly. I agree that the housing waiting list is very long but there are people who, with a little incentive, would leave the list enabling us to tackle the problem of those who really need public housing.

Mr. Neville

I support the motion and agree that the Government have reneged on their housing policy and that we are facing a crisis. Everybody involved in local government, in a county or urban council, knows that this is a growing problem. I am amazed that the Minister does not recognise the extent of the problem. Senator Foley did not admit that there was a problem. Senator Eoin Ryan was more open and honest in his contribution. We must immediately embark on a plan to correct the situation. There are too many people in inadequate housing as I notice every day, and do other councillors. People live in caravans and in over-crowded conditions. I know of one family with plastic bags covering their caravan to keep the water out. I know of another family of four sharing a three bedroomed house with 15 people. This is totally unacceptable. In a recent letting adjacent to me, one house became available. In excess of 40 families applied for that house, an indication of the gravity of the situation. We cannot and should not tolerate it.

In Limerick there are 320 families on the present waiting list. Last year, according to official figures there were 19 completions. At that rate of completions it would take almost 20 years to satisfy the present demand. In Cork, the Minister's county, in excess of 600 families are on the waiting list and 200 of those are in chronic acommodation. Waterford has a housing list of 650 families, in effect, 1,300 people there are without a home. The Minister, Deputy Smith, was made aware of this last week. In Galway there are 440 on the city and 380 on the county waiting lists, yet the Minister says it is not a crisis. In Clare, 1,000 are on the waiting list; in Kildare and Louth the figure is also 1,000, yet the Minister says there is no crisis. Donegal has 1,500 people on a waiting list. Something must be done about this problem. In Dún Laoghaire, there are 1,300 on the waiting list. If something is not done about this problem we will have a social crisis. As councillors of all parties we should promote a proper housing policy. In Dublin there are in excess of 2,020 on the waiting lists. The housing list figure for all of Dublin, county and city, is 4,500. In south Dublin not one family on the housing list has been housed since last February. If that is not a crisis, I do not know what is.

The situation has disimproved for many reasons, one of which is the high level of unemployment. Many people are not in a position to buy houses or to get a mortgage. They do not have the required income to pay off a mortgage nor are they in a position to apply for council or other loans. They are caught in a trap where the local authority cannot afford to house them and they are not in a position to obtain a loan because they are unemployed. That is the worst situation for any family to be in. Part of the response to the present crisis in employment should be the recognition that it creates a crisis in housing. We should tackle both problems.

The Minister referred to the shared housing scheme and noted that 22 houses had been improved under the scheme and work was ongoing in 18 at the end of June last. On a national basis that scheme is not working. It was a good concept and I spoke to the Minister about it in the debate on the Housing Bill and asked him to look at the difficulties arising there. Most houses concerned in this scheme are in very poor condition. They may need the addition of a bathroom, kitchen and bedroom but £10,000 is insufficient often, to bring them to the standard laid down by the Department of the Environment for inclusion in the scheme.

Houses in need of improvement are not always eligible. A new house requiring an extra room would be eligible but most houses in need of repair are in a condition where £10,000 will not bring them to the level required by the Department. I ask the Minister to look at that. In the Limerick area many old cottages have been passed down from family to family and consist of two rooms and a kitchen. Occupiers frequently try to add a bedroom and a bathroom but because £10,000 of an investment will not bring an old cottage up to the standard of a new house, the scheme cannot be availed of. The Minister's statement that 22 houses only have been improved since the inception of the scheme proves that point.

I am concerned about the provision of proper accommodation for travellers. We must have a national plan for the provision of halting sites for travellers. At present each county tries to pass on the problem to the next county and each town tries to pass it on to the next town. Travellers are being moved from one area to another. It is naive to expect each county to devise a programme to provide an adequate number of camp sites.

Mrs. Honan

We look after them so well in Clare that they come in from Limerick.

Mr. Neville

If the Senator wants me to talk about what Limerick is doing for travellers I can talk about what Rathkeale is doing where half the population are travellers. There are in excess of 750 travellers living there. Nobody can tell me how to deal——

Mr. D. Wallace

All the wealthy ones are there.

Mr. Neville

There are poor and wealthy among travellers. Social problems abound in the traveller community. Senator Honan has activated my mind now and I ask the Minister to look at the special plan for Rathkeale designed to improve the area identified as needy by the council, by the Departments of the Environment, Health, Education and others and ensure that adequate funding is provided.

I was amazed recently to learn that a proposed training centre for travellers in Rathkeale was turned down because there is one in Newcastlewest and one in Abbeyfeale, both of which are targeted for rationalisation. Rathkeale, where half the population are travellers and many of them very young travellers who are anxious to obtain training, were told by FÁS that it was almost certain we will not get it. I could not believe what was said. We are trying to improve the environment for the settled community and for the travellers but we will not get a training centre.

In Limerick in 1986, 137 houses were built; last year 19 houses were built. Surely that is an indication of a change in policy over that period. In 1987, in excess of £77 million was spent nationally on housing; in 1991, in excess of £43 million was spent. That is an indication of the absence of a housing policy and I am surprised Senator Foley did not recognise it as such.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Cuireann sé an-áthas orm labhairt ar leasú an Rialtais ar an cheist seo mar is mór an t-iontas gur chuir an Freasúra síos rún ar an ábhar seo. Maidir leis an polasaí a pléadh anseo nuair a cuireadh an Bille leasaithe faoi bhráid an tSeanaid díreach roimh an tsaoire, cuireadh beartais úr nua, réabhlóideach i bhfeidhm ar dearadh títhíochta sa tír seo do na blianta atá ag teacht. Go bunúsach bhí coincheap nua leis an rud a bhí an Rialtas á dhéanamh. Tuigeann siad go bhfuil éagsulacht i measc na daoine atá ag tóraíocht tithe agus dheineadar iarracht freastal ar an éagsúlacht sin. Mar sin, cuireann sé an-áthas orm tacú leis an méid atá ráite sa leasú ata curtha ar aghaidh ag Fianna Fáil maidir leis an ábhar seo.

I was surprised after we had a debate on the Bill for social housing just before the recess that this subject came on the agenda of the Seanad so swiftly. The matter was thrashed out then and it was proved that the policy decisions made in the Plan for Social Housing were radical and would fundamentally change the structure of social housing in this country for years to come.

There seems to be an obsession in some quarters with the building of county council local authority houses. We all know that there are major drawbacks to such a simplistic approach to the complicated individual circumstances of different people. In the first place, we know that the cost of providing houses in that system is exhorbitant. The second issue that arises from such a procedure is that we tended to build estates, particularly large estates, where one social class predominated. There was also the problem that when people bought their own houses they tended to move out of those estates and as a result there were huge social problems. It did nothing for the people in the middle who could not afford to take a mortgage but could make a reasonable contribution towards funding their own houses.

The shared ownership option has opened up great opportunities for these people and our job as politicians is to sell the scheme to the people. Since the shared ownership option became available in Galway there has been a reasonable take up in both city and county. I understand that in the city it has been so good that they are now seeking further allocations from the Department. In rural areas couples with young families and those who are getting married but have low paid jobs, under the shared ownership option scheme, can build their own house to their own design and not be saddled with an impossible debt.

I was very pleased last week when somebody, who one year ago had despaired of getting a house in the short term because they had reasonably good accommodation in a mobile home, achieved through the shared ownership option the dream of a lifetime and had their house built as far as the roof. That was worth more to them than the county council providing them with a new house. The cost to the State was only a fraction of what would have been involved if the county council had provided the same house. What are we doing by being innovative? We are providing houses for people who could not otherwise afford them at a cost that leaves more resources for the council or corporation to provide houses to those whose means are so low that they could not be expected to provide their own housing.

Another innovation has been the development of social housing. As politicians we must encourage communities to avail of the grants and schemes and ensure that they are taken up particularly in areas where we have problems regarding, for example, demountable dwellings and old people living on their own some distance from services, doctors and shops. In my area the social housing scheme has been developed to its potential. It solved a minor problem we had when old people were living in very bad conditions in an isolated area. When we build six or ten small houses together we do not have the problem of centralised bureaucracy in maintaining them. There is local control and we can ensure the continuity of tenancy.

It is very important to limit the amount of bureaucracy involved in getting such a scheme off the ground. Well organised and developed communities are availing of this scheme, but these schemes need to be started in less developed communities. Resources should be made available to local authorities to advise groups about how to get these schemes off the ground.

In rural Ireland we have often spoken about the policy of taking people out of very poor housing and putting them into demountable dwellings. This happened because there was no adequate scheme to provide them with a reasonable sum of money to develop their existing house. Many of these houses lacked electricity, sanitary facilities, insulation, etc. Under the repairs in lieu of social housing scheme, an opportunity has been provided to ensure that inadequate substandard housing can be brought up to standard, and the only quibble I have with that scheme is that £10,000 is too little and at a future date the Minister might consider raising that ceiling. I accept that this amount is considerably lower than the cost of a new house but £10,000 is proving to be a little restrictive for the type of work some of these dwellings need.

Overall, there has been a move towards inventiveness towards looking for value for money and, more importantly, towards continuing what was traditionally a Fianna Fáil ideal — that as many people as possible would own their own home which would be built to their specification. In an absolute way, very few people own their house because the building societies own our houses but we all accept the concept of ownership: it is something one designs and has control over. The Government have made that available to a huge section of the population who would not have enjoyed that privilege if it had not been for the radical changes in the social housing plan.

Dá bhrí sin, cuireann sé an-áthas orm an leasú atá curtha síos ag an Rialtas a mholadh agus tréaslaím leis an Aire agus leis an Aire Stáit, atá i láthair anseo, as an obair iontach atá déanta acu ar an ábhar seo.

Pól Ó Foighil

Ní raibh ar intinn agam dada a rá faoi seo, ach bhí mé ag éisteacht leis na cainteoirí eile ar an monatóir agus chuir sé iontas orm an méid a bhí le rá, go mórmhór ag Fianna Fáil, faoi cheist liachta sa tír seo. Níl le déanamh acu ach dul siar go Conamara agus feicfidh siad lena súile féin cé chomh dona is atá ceist na tithíochta faoin tuath. Go deimhin, tá an scéal go dona, agus, dá chomhartha sin, ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do na tithe — más féidir liom tithe a thabhairt orthu — a dtugtar demountable homes orthu. Tá 120 díobh ann, tithe ar féidir iad a bhaint óna chéile, agus tá seandaoine ina gcónaí sna tithe sin, idir fhir is mhná, ach is daoine iad a caitheadh isteach sna rudaí seo a chuir an Rialtas seo agus an Rialtas a bhí ann rompu ar fáil. Is í an bhliain seo chugainn bliain na sean, bliain na n-aostach, agus tá súil le Dia agam go dtabharfaidh an Rialtas seo, nó cibé Rialtas a bheidh ann, aird ar an chaoi a bhfuiltear ag caitheamh le seanmhuintir na Gaeltachta, agus le seandaoine lasmuigh den Ghaeltacht.

Ní raibh Comhairle Chontae na Gaillimhe sásta a admháil go raibh an scéal chomh dona sin go raibh ar chuid againn cailín a raibh dioplóma i réimse sóisialta aici a fhostú le fiosruithe a dhéanamh ar thithe ó cheantar Chois Fharraige siar go Carna, agus níl anseo ach sampla de chuid den tír. Más iad sin na tosca sa cheantar sin, is amhlaidh an scéal sa tír uilig, ó thaobh shaol na tuaithe de.

Fuaireamar amach go raibh drochthithíocht ag 340 duine, agus go raibh 80 faoin gcéad díobh siúd cáilithe, dar linn, faoi Acht 1988 le tithe cearta a fháil ón rialtas áitiúil. Thugamar an t-eolas sin don chomhairle contae, ach bhí an t-eolas seo faighte acu cheana féin ó Bhord Sláinte an Iarthair. Bhí an scéal chomh dona sin gur thug mé móid an t-am sin go raibh mé ag dul a chinntiú go gcuirfí tine faoi, go loscfaí gach demountable home a bheadh fágtha i gConamara, go mbeadh tithíocht cheart ag na seandaoine ansin, nach mbeadh siad caite i dtraipisí ag an Rialtas, is cuma cén Rialtas atá ann. Tá an scéal seo ag dul siar rófhada; tá na seandaoine fágtha sa riocht seo i bhfad rófhada.

Maidir leis an scéim a dtugtar tithíocht shóisialta air, nó an social housing programme, cuirim an-fháilte roimhe seo mar feictear dom go gcabhróidh sé sa chás áirithe seo le rud dearfach, cinnte a dhéanamh ar son na seandaoine seo, agus daoine eile a bhfuil ganntanas tithíochta ag cur as dóibh. Braitheann sé orainn uilig dlús a chur leis an obair seo lena chinntiú go n-éireoidh leis an scéim thithíochta seo. Ní leor bheith ag caint faoi, caithfear gníomhú agus beart éigin a dhéanamh. Ba chóir dúinne agus don Rialtas ár seacht ndícheall a dhéanamh chun a chinntiú go dtiocfaidh grúpaí deonacha le chéile le feidhm a bhaint as na deiseanna agus an chóras oibre atá ann chun go dtógfaí tithe do na seandaoine seo. Tá géarchéim thithíochta ann agus níl aon mhaith don Rialtas ná don Aire é sin a shéanadh.

Tá bealach oibre ann anois, dar liomsa, agus má tá fonn ar dhaoine teacht le chéile ina bparóistí féin agus comhoibriú leis an chomhairle contae agus an rialtas áitiúil, éireoidh linn. Tá an deis tugtha dúinn anois chun cuidiú leis na seandaoine seo. Ní dea-thoil amháin atá i gceist, mar maidir leis an Rialtas tá an dea-thoil ann agus tá siad ag cur céad faoin gcéad den airgead ar fáil ach braitheann gach rud orainne a bhfuil cónaí orainn i measc pobail den chineál sin, na seandaoine, cromadh ar an obair chun a chinntiú go dtógfar na scéimeanna tithíochta seo, faoi mar tá á dhéanamh ag cuid againn cheana féin.

Níor mhaith liom, bheith ag breathnú siar an iomarca, mar b'fhearr dúinn breathnú romhainn agus cur le chéile. Má tá fonn ar dhaoine, ina gceantair féin, cúnamh a thabhairt don chomhairle contae nó don rialtas áitiúil, tá an deis tugtha dúinn, agus molaim an deis sin.

Mr. Naughten

I thank all Senators who contributed to the debate even though I may not necessarily agree with all of their statements. My colleagues and I put this motion before the House because we are extremely concerned at the major social problems caused by lack of adequate housing and the huge number of families who are on the housing waiting lists. That is the reason this motion is before the House tonight and I ask all Members of the House to support it.

If this motion is adopted, it will create an awareness in Government of the need for additional funding for local authority housing. As I stated already, the social housing scheme is not operating throughout Ireland and neither is shared ownership. I listened very carefully to the Minister's figures and at one time he mentioned 21 houses in one of the new schemes. That would be equivalent to a housing list for a small town. The Minister knows and I know that the scheme is not working. It has failed. Part of the problem with that scheme — I pointed this out when the Housing Bill, 1992 came before this House — is the question of title. If the Minister remembers, at the end of Second Stage, he said that he was looking into that matter. However, that is only one part of the huge problem facing the people at present.

We have a major housing problem. It is a scandal in this country when one considers the huge numbers of people seeking local authority housing. The Government have turned their back on the people who are on the housing lists, huge numbers in every county in Ireland. The Minister said we had a major problem and I am glad at least that he realises that. I am asking him and the Minister for the Environment to procure adequate moneys to put into operation a proper local authority housing programme for the coming three to four years which will allow us to tackle with confidence the huge housing problem.

The Minister did not refer to the number of housing applicants throughout the country. As I said earlier, I believe that figure is in excess of 30,000 families. That is an utter scandal. Those people have no hope whatsoever of getting housing in their lifetime. That is a tragedy.

Mr. D. Wallace

That is not a genuine figure.

Mr. Naughten

The figure was not given in the Minister's speech. From the information I have——

Mr. D. Wallace

There are 23,000 families.

Mr. Naughten

It depends on what case we are talking about because the list is growing daily.

Mr. D. Wallace

I am quoting official figures.

Mr. Naughten

The Minister referred to the house improvement scheme which was introduced by the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland. When I referred to the then Deputy Boland, I referred to the huge amount of moneys he was pumping into local authority housing and to the fact that in his last year, 1987, he gave upwards of £80 million to the local authority housing programme. Last year this Government gave £43 million. These are departmental figures. They indicate a halving of the finance given over the past five years to the local authority housing programme, hence the huge waiting lists. The Cathaoirleach and I know that in our own counties we built 70 and 80 houses in the mid-eighties in Westmeath and in Roscommon but now the number is down to 15 and 16. That is the reality.

I referred to the question of SDA loans being non-existent. Last year Roscommon County Council gave out three SDA loans when normally they would handle anything up to 100 and 120 loans, simply because people must prove themselves financially unworthy both to the banks and the building societies before they can be considered by the local authority. That is the bottom line. That was one method by which many families used to house themselves and if those loans were still in place I believe we would not be faced with the huge housing lists we have today.

The removal of the new house grant in the past five years has caused major problems for many families and young people wishing to build their own houses. All they were getting back was the VAT they paid on the materials. It is a disgrace the scheme has not been reintroduced right across the board. There should be no need whatever to get a contractor to build a house in order to qualify for the £2,000 new house grant.

Mr. D. Wallace

The Senator wants to promote the black market.

Mr. Naughten

I am talking about people building their own houses. All they were getting back was the VAT they paid on the materials. The house improvement grants were also removed.

Senator Ó Foighil referred to the number of demountable houses that are scattered not just throughout Connemara but, indeed, right throughout the west. It is a scandal to see many of these houses in very bad condition. The old people should be adequately housed in accommodation for the elderly in towns and villages. Unfortunately, we have no money to do that.

The Minister also referred to the fact that for the first eight months this year there was a 15 per cent increase in the number of houses built. It is very easy to increase from a nil base. As I pointed out earlier, in 1987 we built 3,074 houses, this year we are building 1,500 houses but the startling figure for 1989 was 768.

Mr. D. Wallace

I will correct the Senator. I am talking about houses built nationally. I am not specifically relating to local authority housing.

Mr. Naughten

I am talking about the local authority house building programme and that is the way the figures have gone. That is why we have huge housing lists today. I appeal to Members to support this reasonable motion.

The Minister referred to the increase in house building over the past couple of years. That is not so. It is not a reality and no Member of this House will believe his statement. What has happened is that the local authority house building programme which was the engine of the housing industry throughout much of rural Ireland has collapsed totally bringing with it much unemployment and leaving people in very poor housing conditions.

The Minister said that if people have confidence in the economy they will have confidence in undertaking the long term commitment involved in borrowing for house purchase. The Minister knows that in this climate nobody could have confidence in the economy. Factories close down day in, day out.

Even Aer Lingus are under tremendous pressure and they were reckoned to be a secure employer. Several factories who depend on exports to Britain are now in great difficulty. We see even in the Government the huge difficulties between the two partners in Government where they cannot agree on the wording for a referendum.

Mrs. Honan

Stick to houses.

Mr. Naughten

That is the reality and Senator Honan knows that what I am saying is true. In another passage in the Minister's speech he refers to the goodwill of the building societies in not raising mortgages. I share the Minister's view and I compliment them for what they have done.

Mr. D. Wallace

I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Naughten

It was a different attitude to that of the Government when in 1987 the former Deputy MacSharry reduced mortgage interest relief to 90 per cent. The following year he reduced it to 80 per cent. I appeal to the Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach to immediately restore full mortgage interest relief. At least it would stimulate confidence in the building industry.

I appeal to Members to support this motion to try to get the necessary finance to eliminate the huge housing lists which are causing major social problems. It would stimulate the whole building industry if we were able to get the local authority housing programme into operation. Builders' providers and those engaged in the sand and concrete business would be able to provide jobs instead of letting people go.

Mrs. Honan

This is a speech for the Roscommon seat.

Mr. Naughten

As our Environmental spokesperson I appeal to the Minister to make the moneys available that are needed to meet the local authority housing programme and create the jobs we need. If the Government are serious about job creation, they could create a huge number of jobs immediately by making money available for the local authority housing programme. I would point out to the Minister that this would be an investment in the future and in our young people. It would provide them with adequate housing and not, as Senator Cosgrave pointed out, leave them living with two and three families in one house, with children being put to bed in living rooms while other people are watching television. I appeal to all Members to support this motion.

Mr. D. Wallace

May I make a strong appeal to the Senator and his colleagues to support the Government in their efforts to deal with this very serious problem.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 17.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Dardis, John.
• Doherty, Sean.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Joe.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• Ó Foighil, Pól.
• Raftery, Tom.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Staunton Myles.
• Upton, Pat.

Tellers: Tá, Senators E. Ryan and Haughey; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.

Amendment declared carried.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 17.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Dardis, John.
• Doherty, Sean.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Joe.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• Ó Foighil, Pól.
• Raftery, Tom.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Upton, Pat.

Tellers: Tá, Senators E. Ryan and Haughey; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Wright

It is proposed to sit again tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.