Vol. 436 No. 4
12 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for the Environment the steps, if any, he proposes to take in response to the criticism in the NESC report of November 1993, that local authority management and maintenance of their housing stock is capable of being carried out on a more cost effective basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The council's comments on the need for improvements in the management and maintenance by local authorities of their rented houses reflect issues and concerns which I and my Department have been pressing for some time so as to secure more effective, efficient and economical spending of the significant resources devoted by local authorities to the programme. These matters were included in the comprehensive memorandum which I had issued to local authorities last March to assist them in the preparation of the statements of policy for effective housing management and maintenance which they were required to adopt in accordance with section 9 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992. It is the responsibility of each authority to implement the policies, changes and operational systems identified in their statements of policy to ensure that dwellings are properly managed and maintained. My Department will continue to support authorities by way of advice and seminars on housing management and on other matters as identified by authorities.
Will the Minister accept that increases are being sought by local authorities in their estimates for next year for the repair and maintenance of local authority houses? This does not seem to indicate a move by local authorities to pay heed to the Minister's circular letters or the strident comments by the NESC in its report on the need for more cost effectiveness in the maintenance and repair of local authority houses, bearing in mind the struggle by local authorities in some areas, excluding the area we are in at present, to keep down service charges.
The management and maintenance of rented dwellings is the responsibility of local authorities, to be funded from their revenue resources. In 1991 their expenditure in this area totalled £82 million, £35.5 million of which was spent on maintenance and £46.6 million of which was spent on management. This expenditure, and the manner in which it is spent, are matters for decision by local authorities and do not require my approval or the approval of the Department. The NESC report welcomes the initiatives taken by the Department but suggests that the Department should conduct a detailed analysis of the costs of maintenance and the requirement to ensure that the condition of the housing stock is not permitted to deteriorate further.
As management and maintenance are matters for local authorities, and in view of the widely differing circumstances and conditions applying in the 1987 authorities, such an exercise is best carried out locally. Local authorities were asked to undertake a detailed review of their housing stock as far back as February 1992.
I do not dispute the report's contention that the local authorities' management and maintenance of their housing stock is capable of being carried out on a more cost effective basis. Their analyses of the problem is similar to the Department's view outlined in the memorandum issued last March to assist authorities in the preparation of their statements of policy for the effective management and maintenance of their rented housing stock and the report acknowledges the benefits of the initiatives pursued by the Department.
The adoption of the statements of policy require authorities to review their housing management and maintenance systems and to provide for their development and improvement in an effective, efficient and economical way. The fact that local authorities are increasing the amounts within that programme for maintenance as opposed to management indicates that they are now implementing the policy statements they drew up and submitted.
Will the Minister confirm that there has been a deterioration in the maintenance service in a number of local authorities? Will he agree that the service in some local authority areas is as bad as he alleged about Dublin Corporation some months ago when he talked about a phantom service in relation to its maintenance programme? What action has the Minister taken in view of the threat he made at that time that if Dublin Corporation had not supplied an alternative policy and programme by 31 August he would privatise it?
The memorandum which I issued to local authorities, a copy of which was placed in the Oireachtas Library and which I am sure the Deputy has read, analysed management and maintenance expenditure and practices and outlined areas of concern. It also specified matters to be addressed by authorities when drawing up their statements.
In regard to maintenance, authorities, including Dublin Corporation were requested to outline their broad approach to housing maintenance and set out their proposals in relation to response maintenance, which was the norm, and planned maintenance and the resources required, etc. They were also asked to set out the manner in which the housing maintenance function within the authority is organised; the method by which the authority proposed to carry out the different types of maintenance work, i.e. by direct labour, contract or through a tenants' organisation and the extent to which it is proposed to carry out the various tasks using these methods; the standards which the authorities seek to achieve in their maintenance programme and have the performance by direct labour units, contractors, etc., assessed and monitored to ensure effectiveness of the operation and value for money.
Most authorities have now adopted statements of policy and it is evident they recognise that major improvements are required. I am satisfied with the initiative taken by the Department and by myself — I have given special attention to this area — but I am concerned that £800 million has been spent in the past ten years in this area without the the provision of a good service for the tenants it is intended to serve. I am satisfied that local authorities throughout the country, including Dublin Corporation, have taken this on board and are now changing their systems to allow a more efficient service which will not in future be described as a phantom service which it was in the past.
Certainly from the point of view of many tenants, the house maintenance service they have been experiencing has been of a phantom nature. Was the Minister's threat earlier this year in regard to privatising the house maintenance service serious or was it just one of the "top of the head" statements we have now become accustomed to from him? Is he serious about privatising the house maintenance services or does he intend to comply with the Programme for Government which did not envisage privatising these services?
I assure the Deputy that what I said at that time was clarified in great detail in a Seanad debate on the housing area. I was referring to the restrictive practices operated by members of trade unions in Dublin Corporation's maintenance area that go back almost one hundred years and are of such a nature that they do not allow the workers, the members of the union, to work. I was advising the members of the trade unions, of which I am a member, to change their practices because the public, the corporation management or the Government would not continue to tolerate a situation where in Dublin city £40 million was being spent per annum on house management and maintenance without a service being provided. I think they have taken that very solidly on board and I am glad to be able to tell the House that there have been discussions since then between the management of Dublin Corporation and the trade unions with a view to removing these restrictive practices. That does not represent all the problems in that area, there are also management problems and new management systems are required. I am satisfied by the statement of policy emanating from Dublin Corporation that the management have also taken that on board and that change is being implemented on both sides in this regard which should result in a better service and better use of the very large sums of money available to Dublin Corporation to provide services for its tenants which is its responsibility.
Will the Minister give specific examples of the improvements carried out with which he is now satisfied in local authority areas other than Dublin in response to the circular and criticisms highlighted in the NESC report and by others?
The improvements we are talking about are contained in the detailed policy statements drawn up by the local authorities which indicate major changes by them in their practices. The main change is an area respond system which is being organised in many local authorities, particularly in urban areas, as opposed to the fire brigade system where the officials and staff were stationed centrally and simply responded to calls from tenants. There is now an organised system of maintenance being put in place in accordance with the wishes I expressed to them through the memorandum and I am satisfied that will have the effect——
In each local authority area?
They are not all as good as I would like them to be but there are some very good examples. We are following this up with a series of seminars for staff and tenants to enable them to become positively involved. All the indications are that local authorities now provide a large amount of the money available, namely, 100 per cent of rents and 40 per cent of the revenue from sales. That is the money available for housing management and maintenance and a greater amount of it is now being allocated to the maintenance of the housing stock and the areas surrounding it.
Deputies Flanagan and G. Mitchell rose.
I want to move on to other questions to be fair to other Deputies. I ask for brevity from the Deputies offering. I call Deputy Gay Mitchell.
Is the Minister aware that I agree with his views in regard to the attitude to maintenance in Dublin Corporation?
Yes, the Deputy has discussed that with me.
Is he aware that the tenants of local authorities and the Comptroller and Auditor General are very concerned about this problem? Is he aware also that more money is spent on maintenance in Dublin Corporation than is collected in rents while, at the same time, within the canal areas, 9,600 flats are in need of major refurbishment according to the Lord Mayor's Commission on Housing? This money, if spent properly, could be used to finance the refurbishment of those flats. Will the Minister agree that the Lord Mayor's Commission on Housing, which highlights this matter and which has been commended by his Department, has made a major contribution? Will he support its full implementation?
Indeed, I compliment the Deputy, who, when Lord Mayor, initiated the Lord Mayor's report on housing in Dublin. It was an excellent report welcomed specifically by me and my Department. I share the concerns expressed in the report and elsewhere, I have also expressed them. I am now satisfied that there is change, part of that change was brought about by the adoption by the corporation of the Lord Mayor's report which ensured that there were changes in policy. The way forward is direct management involvement of tenants in the decisions that affect them, the removal of restrictive practices and new management systems. All those are contained in the new policies being put forward in the Lord Mayor's report and in the policies adopted by the corporation.
Does the Minister of State support its implementation?
I do.
May I say how much I welcome the Minister of State's assurance that a change is coming. It is badly needed. I hope that the recommendations in respect of which he has given credit to the former Lord Mayor are implemented. Why is the Minister of State sure that the facts he has given about grants are somewhat more accurate than those to which he referred in a recent radio programme when he spoke about £8,000, which everybody is now contesting and cannot be substantiated? I have here an article, the caption of which read "Stagg Lashes Corpo House Repair Service", which appeared in the Evening Herald of Thursday, 13 May 1993, when an assurance was given that if the Dublin Corporation policy had not changed by 31 August steps would be taken to privatise the maintenance section. I take it from what the Minister of State has said that he has today given this House an assurance that the necessary steps have now been taken so that we can look forward to a speedy improvement in the maintenance performance of Dublin Corporation.
I hope so. Of course, management and maintenance are the responsibility of the elected members of Dublin Corporation in so far as they draw up a policy which is implemented by their management people and by the staff of Dublin Corporation. I should say that my good offices will continue to be available to Dublin Corporation, and to other local authorities, to ensure that these policies are implemented. I will blast any local authority again, including Dublin Corporation, if I deem it necessary to do so, if and when they fail in their duty in this regard. The responsibility lies first with the elected members of all local authorities whose responsibility it is to draw up policy for maintenance and management and not leave it, as many elected members of local authorities do, to their officials simply to rubber stamp it.
Operating under the guidance of the Minister of State, the biggest slum landlord in all Ireland.
I am calling Deputy Flanagan.
I think I should deal again with this slur cast by Deputy Currie for about the fifth time. I am not a landlord of any dwelling in this country so I cannot be a slum landlord.
The Minister of State is the Minister for housing.
Local authorities are the owners of their own rented accommodation, not the Minister or the Department. They have full responsibility for the maintenance and management of their housing stocks, not the Minister or his Department, and they probably have more than adequate resources to carry out their functions in this regard.
Yet the Minister of State claims credit for any perceived improvement in performance.
While welcoming what the Minister of State has said regarding such changes, I implore him to implement them as quickly as possible. As far as maintenance is concerned, is the Minister of State prepared to apologise to the elderly, and indeed to the owners of nursing homes throughout this State, for a very dangerous scare-mongering comment he is reported to have made at the weekend, to the effect that many nursing homes are corrals of death? I put it to the Minister of State that if there are such corrals in this country they are to be found in the public housing estates that the former Lord Mayor and my colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell, spoke of here this afternoon. The Minister of State's comments were disgraceful in the Year of the Elderly and did nothing but engender fear and trepidation among the elderly in residential accommodation.
The Deputy is off on another tangent which is irrelevant to the question before us.
It is relevant to the people.
I am calling Deputy Harte for a final supplementary.
Is the Minister of State prepared to respond to my question?
If the Deputy will put down a question I will.
Is the Minister of State prepared to withdraw what he said about the elderly?
I have called Deputy Harte.
It is a disgrace, particularly coming from a Government Minister in charge of housing.
If the Deputy will table a question I will answer it.
So much for the social policy of the Labour Party.
I will take no lectures from the Deputy on that.
I have been endeavouring to make sense of what the Minister of State has been trying to tell the House. Is he aware that we are talking about people who are living in houses in which toilet bowls are cracked and need to be replaced, in which windows and doors, floors and ceilings have to be repaired, water taps repaired and so on? Were I living in one of those houses, I would have to say that the Minister of State is speaking a language I do not understand. When will the Minister provide money to have these things done? A constituent approached me at 10 o'clock last evening, after a constituency meeting in Letterkenny, pleading with me to have some repairs carried out to a local authority house in the town of Letterkenny, where there is no money available for such purpose. The same applies throughout County Donegal. Will the Minister of State begin talking a little common sense?
A slum landlord who is scaring the elderly.
I should point out that £82 million were spent in 1991 on housing maintenance and management on a relatively small stock of houses, approximately 100,000.
It is the Minister's job to have it properly spent.
I am telling the Deputy that it is the responsibility of each local authority to spend 100 per cent of the rents they collect, plus 40 per cent of the purchase moneys they collect, on the maintenance and management of their housing stocks. I am seeking to change the proportions in which that money is spent — £46.6 million on management and £35.5 million on maintenance. I want to see a major shift within that budget towards maintenance, away from wasteful management systems.
That would make sense if the Minister of State were sitting on these benches.
The sum of £800 million in ten years has been spent on management and maintenance. I am asking local elected representatives to ensure that this money is properly managed.
The Minister of State is still a slum landlord, the biggest in the country.
