Vol. 624 No. 4
109 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the plans his Department has to encourage so-called empty nesters to trade down to smaller properties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31194/06]
Prevailing house price differentials mean the environment is generally favourable for people who wish to trade down to smaller homes. Ultimately, this is not merely a financial matter, but rather a question of personal choice, depending on a household's circumstances and on connections to wider family and community. Our strategy has and will continue to be to increase housing supply to meet the diversity of demand. The residential density guidelines for planning authorities, issued by my Department six years ago, highlighted the need for a mix of dwelling types. The increased availability of a range of size and types of dwellings in new residential developments should assist people who wish to move to smaller homes in the same neighbourhood.
The Government is committed also in the social partnership agreement Towards 2016 to increasing the mix of dwelling types of good design across all tenures. Investment over the period 2007 to 2009 will enable increased output from social and affordable housing measures. This will include sheltered housing, which is an option for people on lower incomes who find that their accommodation no longer meets their needs. Already a number of local authorities operate "financial contribution schemes" under which private housing is part-exchanged for social rented accommodation specifically designed for older people. In addition, the voluntary and co-operative housing sector may use the discretion available to it under the capital assistance scheme to allocate up to 25% of units in its projects in a similar fashion.
The CSO quarterly national housing survey has shown there are approximately 50,000 people living alone in houses with four or more bedrooms. Obviously they are not all elderly but a significant number is elderly. Many retired people, over the age of 65, are living in homes they can no longer maintain. These people are asset rich but cash poor. I ask the Minister of State to look again at this issue. The supply of housing can be increased if we can find it attractive for people to move to smaller houses. I acknowledge the commitment from some local authorities to assist that process. As many new first-time younger buyers want to get on the market and 50,000 elderly people are in houses of four or more bedrooms there is an inequality in terms of market supply. If more people can be attracted out of those homes and into smaller homes and assisted in whatever way possible, that would be socially just, would be a constructive policy and would increase the supply of housing so that young families can get into the market. That is one of the issues that needs to be addressed. Will the Minister of State consider schemes for retired people over the age of 65 and ask his Department to research this area to make it more attractive for people to trade down?
I know the theory of what the Deputy has said. He did not mention it but he is probably trying to introduce a reduced rate of stamp duty. One can make a theoretical argument for the point the Deputy has made. These things can be done by the carrot and the stick. Some countries might do it by the stick by imposing rates or a property charge on elderly people which would force them out of their homes. Certainly we have not done that and will not do it. We do it with the local authorities under the financial contribution schemes. Much of our emphasis is on the first-time buyer who is going for these smaller homes. While what the Deputy has said is reasonable and I can understand it from one point of view, at the same time I would not like it to be too successful because it might put pressure on the shortage of smaller homes for first-time buyers. We now have a better mix of developments. There is a better range of house-apartment types in new developments. At the end of the day it is not just about a carrot to encourage them to trade down. There are many factors involved. I agree there are many people in four or more bedroom houses and one may ask why they do not trade down. They have raised their families there and it is not always the couple of quid that encourages them. There are other factors. I know what the Deputy is getting at but we would need the support of the Department of Finance to encourage it. If it was too successful I would be nervous of it putting extra pressure on the first-time buyers' market.
I understand the Minister of State's reply but the key point is to assist retired empty nesters to trade down should they so wish and thus make more homes available in the market place. One of the problems is supply and making affordable homes available. I agree with the Minister on the need for a mix in social and affordable housing. Will the Minister of State agree that, perhaps, we ought to ask local authorities to examine the centre of their urban communities, particularly vacant sites that could be made available, and designate them and at the planning stage insist they make more affordable housing available to retired people? That would encourage such people into the centre where the services are located. Also the houses would be cheaper because they would be smaller. That would be socially just and it would be a constructive policy for the Government to look at.
I am not dismissing the Deputy's idea. I know the idea and have often talked about it. It is done under the financial contribution schemes where, certainly in the city, people are selling their houses back to local authorities at prices ranging up to €450,000. The scheme exists at that level. Depending on one's age one makes a financial contribution. Currently the scheme does not exist for houses valued at more than €450,000. Under the new partnership agreement, a working group is being set up to look at more integrated living for older people which would provide care plus housing. Various aspects of it are being examined. The voluntary sector will be involved in that side because there are older people who want to move into accommodation with independent living in the shorter term but which might have options for care. Different ideas are being examined and expanded on. Given that a working group is to be set up under the new partnership agreement to look at that aspect I do not dismiss what the Deputy says.
It needs to be examined further.
One would need to tread carefully because the whole market is finely balanced. If it was too successful, one could solve one group's problems but create a shortage in another area.
110 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of dwellings completed and handed over to date for affordable housing under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31183/06]
Up to end June 2006, 1,837 affordable homes were acquired under Part V, while 2,373 dwellings were under construction and 3,012 were proposed on foot of agreements with developers.
In addition to the number of affordable housing units acquired under Part V, the end-June figures also indicate that 950 social units were acquired, with 1,428 under construction and 1,097 proposed. Some 51 land transfers to local authorities have been completed involving 40 hectares. A further 259 partially or fully serviced sites have been transferred to local authorities and voluntary housing bodies and €38 million has been received in lieu of land. This output reflects the use of the various flexible options now available to satisfy Part V obligations.
It is important to stress that not all housing output in the State is subject to Part V. Regularly, the mistake is made that in viewing output under Part V one simply applies a percentage to the total overall housing output to determine the Part V contribution, but that is not the case. Part V is restricted to multiple housing developments on land zoned for residential use, or a mixture of residential and other uses. Therefore, not all housing developments are subject to Part V. It does not apply to planning permissions granted prior to the introduction of Part V, many of which are still being built on. It is estimated that just over 10,000 units of the total housing output last year was subject to Part V.
I have no doubt that Part V will play an increasing role in the delivery of social and affordable housing in the future. However, it is not intended that Part V should be the only mechanism for the provision of social and affordable housing. The main local authority housing construction programme together with the voluntary and co-operative construction programme and the various affordable programmes continue to be the major contributors to the national social rented and affordable housing stock.
It is envisaged that approximately 8,000 social and affordable units will be delivered under Part V in the next three years.
When commencing the Planning and Development Act on 31 October 2000, the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said it was not an exaggeration to say that Part V of the Act would bring about the most fundamental changes in how local authorities plan and provide for housing.
Since the Act came into effect, approximately 400,000 private houses have been built. The Minister of State has said that 1,837 have been delivered for affordable housing and 950 for social housing. We were supposed to get 20%, but the figure he announced today is not even 1% of the total number of private houses built here since the Act came into effect. It is barely 1% of half the number of houses built. The only exaggeration here is the degree to which the Government exaggerated its promise. It promised 20% but delivered only 1%. That is the Government record on social and affordable housing under Part V, seven years after it was announced, six years after it was enacted and five years after it came fully into force.
Whatever the Minister of State may say about the Government's role in terms of house prices and the housing market, delivery on Part V was the one thing it was supposed to achieve. It was supposed to deliver 20% of the private housing output for social and affordable housing. It has delivered less than 1%. This is a monumental failure on the part of the Government and the Minister of State with responsibility for housing.
The changes being made and those that will come from the legislation will have a fundamental effect.
When? The Government has had seven years to do it.
The figures I gave demonstrate that almost 3,000 units have been delivered.
The figures are 1,837 and 950.
Right, 2,787.
Less than 1% of the total.
Over 3,800 are under construction and agreement has been reached for 4,000 more. I consider these figures fundamental. I am blue in the face saying that, as we all know, Part V applies to new planning permissions, not to unzoned land——
Because the Government changed the law.
The figures are adding up and will continue to do so. In the future Part V will be seen as a significant means of providing social and affordable housing. There is no doubt that it takes time to deliver the dividend, but it is coming. The figures indicate that and each quarter they are on an upward graph. Part V is and will be a fundamental delivery mechanism for social and affordable housing into the future.
Given that, seven years after this measure was announced, which promised that 20% of private housing would be social and affordable, less than 1% is delivered, will the Minister of State tell us how many more decades of Fianna Fáil rule will be required before we reach the 20% target?
The Deputy fully understands the rules relating to Part V, but he continues to try to mislead——
The Government has had seven years, but less than 1% has been delivered.
——by selectively quoting figures. We know Part V does not apply to existing planning permissions, to unzoned land, one-off housing or schemes of under five units. However, Part V will be a significant contributor——
When?
Now, today, and next year.
Some 1,800 out of 400,000——
The Deputy knows that planning permission lasts for five years and many of the houses on sale this weekend got their planning permission five to seven years ago. No one action can be taken overnight to ramp up the delivery of affordable units. However, as the old planning permissions die out, the dividend in the future will be considerable.
That is rubbish. The Minister of State knows as well as I do that a planning permission has a five-year life. Any planning permissions developers got before this Act was published in 1999 have expired. Anybody who had a 1999 planning permission would have to get new planning permission. Therefore, what the Minister of State has said is rubbish. The Act should now be fully operational. The problem is that the Government, which has been in office for almost ten years, promised the people, including all the young people trying to get houses, that a social and affordable housing scheme would deliver 20% of the private housing development.
The figures the Minister of State gave us, the 1,837 affordable and 950 social units, have made up less than 1% of the total private housing output of the country since the Act came into effect. No matter how he spins it or what excuses the Minister of State offers, this is a monumental failure on the part of Government and an absolute betrayal of all the people who are trying to provide a roof over their heads while mortgage rates are rising and after ten years of rising house prices.
I suggest it is Deputy Gilmore who is putting a spin on the situation. Many of the housing units currently on sale are still exempt.
That is because after 2003 the Minister of State made them exempt.
The Deputy knows well also that many of the big developments, particularly in the Dublin area, got ten-year planning permissions from the local authorities. The dividend on affordable units is delivering and coming forward——
It has delivered less than 1%.
Not alone have we got Part V, there are other schemes. Last year these schemes, including Part V, delivered nearly 3,000 units. This will increase to 8,000 over the next couple of years. The dividend from Part V will be considerable, not to mention the good work the affordable homes partnership will do and the different land swaps that will be made. The Deputy will always try to make something look small. If the Deputy wishes me to add all the schemes——
The Minister of State is good at double addition.
——I can do so and the figures will look much more impressive. Part V is and will be a very good source of affordable houses in the future as the old planning permissions die out.
111 Mr. J. Breen asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if in view of the fact that the network designed and approved under the preliminary report for the Scarriff, Feakle, Quilty and Mullagh sewerage schemes and also the pricing policy report submitted by Clare County Council continue to be under discussion with his Department with a view to extensive rationalisation of the network, he will provide the housing figures and commercial margins used for each area to determine the figure of €8.8 million allocated; the way this amount was sanctioned without prior approval of the pricing policy report for the combined design, building and operation scheme; when he expects the capital allocation to be drawn down and used for the actual construction of the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31184/06]
I hope I will have less contentious news for Deputy Breen.
Discussions between my Department and Clare County Council in respect of this scheme have been satisfactorily concluded. My Department has approved the council's revised proposals for the scope and scale of the new infrastructure to be provided in each of the locations involved which, I understand, do not involve any significant reductions in the areas to be served by the scheme. My Department has also agreed the overall funding arrangements for the scheme with the council.
The council is now updating the tender documents for the three new treatment plants. These will be procured as a single contract to optimise cost and construction. How quickly work will start on the treatment plants will largely depend on progress made by the council with the tender process. I have instructed my Department to request the council to submit the updated tender documents for the waste water treatment plants for approval as quickly as possible. They will be dealt with urgently by the Department on receipt with a view to allowing the council to invite tenders with the least possible delay. I insist on the least possible delay because these schemes have been going on for a long time. I am hopeful that construction will commence in the latter part of 2007. In the meantime, the council may proceed with the work on the collection systems without any further reference to my Department in accordance with more streamlined approval procedures I introduced earlier this year to accelerate progress under the water services investment programme. At that time I reduced from four to two the number of stage approvals which local authorities are required to obtain from my Department for schemes costing less than €5 million. Following approval of the preliminary report in such cases, local authorities may now proceed to construction without any further approval from my Department, provided they remain within budget.
Last month I eased the approval system further by dispensing altogether with the need for local authorities to obtain clearance from my Department to award traditional contracts, irrespective of cost. At the same time I introduced a standard scale for calculating the contribution to be made by the non-domestic sector towards the capital cost of new schemes. This will obviate the need for local authorities to produce detailed water services pricing policy reports and should lead to quicker progress with less bureaucracy for these schemes.
After 26 years of broken promises, I welcome the allocation of €8.8 million for the Quilty, Mullagh, Scarriff and Feakle schemes. However I ask the Minister to explain the purpose of a pricing policy if an allocation can be made without the policy being finalised. How has the magic figure of €8.8 million been arrived at?
Labasheeda and Carrigaholt are small villages in the west of Ireland which are crying out for sewerage schemes but are being held back indefinitely because of the pricing policy. What criteria were used here to raise the magic figure of €8.8 million? The contract documents were submitted to the Department two years ago. Why have they not been finalised? I welcome the allocation but I cannot envisage this scheme going ahead for a long time.
The Minister hoped to save money by asking the county council to trim the schemes in the case of Mullagh and Quilty and to trim by nearly half in the case of Feakle. How is it possible to ask the councils to trim the schemes once the allocation has been made? Why was this not taken into consideration by the Minister before he made the allocation? He has given them money on one hand and told them to trim the schemes on the other hand. Those four towns are looking for a sewerage scheme but some houses will be unable to tap into it. Will the Minister change the pricing policy? Labasheeda and Carrigaholt are small villages which cannot be developed to their full potential and because there are so few houses the price per house is enormous. It is all right to have a pricing policy where there is an existing sewerage scheme but in those cases where there is nothing, will the Minister ease the pricing policy?
The Deputy has referred to schemes which are not the subject of his question.
I will deal with the water services pricing policy and specifically with the point made by the Deputy about Feakle, Quilty and Scarriff. When the preliminary reports for Feakle, Quilty and Scarriff were approved in 2000 and contract documents were received in late 2004, it appeared on the basis of the information available in the Department from the Deputy's county council, that the cost per existing house in Feakle would be €33,134, €18,587 in Scarriff and a massive €56,410 in Quilty. The Deputy well knows that a householder could provide a proprietary single house treatment plant for a fraction of those figures. It would have been a disgrace to proceed with such a scheme. This House and the Committee of Public Accounts would have been justified in asking the Minister of the day how a scheme costing €56,000 per house was agreed to. We have a responsibility to tend to the interests of the taxpayers as well as the interests of the residents of those areas.
I am surprised at the Deputy's response because the news I have given him today is extraordinarily positive. In the case of Quilty, Feakle and Scarriff we have made extraordinary progress in containing costs.
It is not conceivable that the Deputy could come to the House and expect any Minister, irrespective of whom the Minister was, to stand over a scheme costing €56,000 per house to make a connection. This would be grotesquely unfair to taxpayers.
With regard to the water services pricing policy, reports are calculated at the proportion of the capital cost of the infrastructure which must be paid by the non-domestic sector if it is charged on a country-wide basis as part of the non-domestic consumers' water services charges. We do not apply water charges on the domestic sector.
To simplify the process, a standard percentage contribution will now be applied to schemes where the non-domestic capital contribution has yet to be determined. This is fair and reasonable for the county councils because it is very difficult for them to deal comprehensively with the contribution or with the take up from the non-domestic sector. This approach obviates the need for elaborate water services pricing policy reports which are costly, which take a lot of time to prepare and which are contentious by their very nature. This course of action could still be the final solution. However, in the case in question, a group of schemes which were tied up in red tape for years have now been released. I think a smidgen of support from the Deputy's side of the House in recognition of this would not be uncalled for. I accept his frustration that these schemes were tied up, considering the schemes for Feakle, Quilty and Scarriff were first approved in 2000 and the contract documents arrived in the Department in 2004. I suggest if the Deputy has a query about that period he should address it in Ennis, not in Dáil Éireann.
The Minister did not listen to what I said. I welcome both the schemes and the progress made. I wish to ascertain how the Minister arrived at the figure of €8.8 million. How many houses were included in the make-up of the amount? Why did the Minister ask for the scheme to be trimmed after the €8.8 million had been allocated? I welcome the scheme with open arms and I will help the Minister in every way to progress it. I was trying to achieve this during my 26 years as a county councillor in Clare County Council without success but I am here in this House now and I want to help the Minister in every way I can.
Even if the Progressive Democrats pull out.
Is dona linn an briseadh seo. I just wish to know the number of houses and the reason the Minister asked for the scheme to be trimmed.
I think the Deputy will accept that the figure of €56,000 per house is not acceptable. A further calculation was carried out with the county council to achieve the €8.808 million Exchequer grant. This was agreed in July 2006 and approved by the Department in August. It allows €10,000 each for 99 existing houses in Feakle, 372 existing houses in Scarriff and 351 existing houses in Quilty. An additional allowance of €4,000 will be made for 23 future houses in Feakle, 62 houses in Scarriff and 62 future houses in Quilty. This works out at 40% and is a quick rule of thumb to allow for further expansion in those areas. In the circumstances, a figure of €10,000 per house plus a 40% rule of thumb for expansion is generous.
112 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the imbalance between Dublin and the rest of the country identified in the EBS-DKM affordability index published on 28 September 2006 that shows that while first-time buyer couples nationally are spending up to 25% of their joint disposable income on mortgage repayments, working couples in Dublin are spending up to 37% of their income on mortgage payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31195/06]
Increasing house prices and mortgage interest rates mean that a greater proportion of disposable income is now needed to meet mortgage payments. Despite this affordability both nationally and in Dublin remains within the affordability limits now typically applied by lending institutions in deciding mortgage applications.
My Department's affordability index reflects the position at the end of March this year for a couple on a combined income of just under €76,000, based on the average industrial and non-industrial wage. The mortgage outgoings of such a couple represent about 29% of their disposable income. This ratio would in fact be lower if account is taken of the longer loan periods which are now on offer from the lending institutions.
The Government has taken a wide range of actions to maximise access to home ownership. The success of these is demonstrated by the fact that over 45% of new house loans last year were taken out by first-time buyers. First-time buyers pay at least 13% below the average price for a new house and significantly less for second-hand houses. Some 90% of the houses bought by first-time buyers cost less than €350,000 nationally and 75% cost less than €350,000 in the Dublin area. The availability of new financial products such as longer-term mortgages has also assisted in keeping mortgage repayments relatively affordable.
A key feature of the Government's housing policy is to promote an adequate supply of housing to meet demand. The delivery of more than 500,000 new homes since 1997 has enabled an unprecedented number of first-time buyers to access home ownership during the period. Last year 81,000 houses were built and the figure this year will be higher again — the current rate is 20% up on last year.
A number of measures to assist those who cannot access affordable housing without assistance have been put in place. These include the shared ownership scheme, the affordable housing scheme and affordable housing under Part V of the Planning and Development Acts. Eligibility and subsidy levels under the various schemes were increased in January.
I presume the Minister of State does not believe the script he has just read. He would not want to be influenced by what lending institutions might give because they have their own agenda. Is the Minister of State aware of another report published in the past month, which shows that key public workers, including gardaí, teachers and nurses, are being priced out of the housing market in four of the five largest cities in the State, Dublin, Cork, Galway and Waterford? I ask the Minister of State to consider establishing a special unit in his Department to deal solely with this issue and not to read out the irrelevant details he has just given us.
That unit should tackle changing the stamp duty regime whereby first-time buyers buying houses costing more than €317,500 are subject to the full amount of stamp duty on the houses. This adds considerably to the dilemma and hardship of first-time buyers. Between all charges, those buyers are paying the Government up to 50% of the cost of the house. Stamp duty alone adds from €20,000 to €40,000 to the price of a house for a first-time buyer. Does the Minister of State agree with the Tánaiste, who believes that the Government no longer wants the €2 billion it raises from stamp duty? Would he consider abolishing stamp duty for first-time buyers in accordance with the Fine Gael policy?
Many studies have been carried out by different financial institutions. However, first-time buyers are key buyers in the market. As I said, 45% of mortgages for new homes taken out last year were by first-time buyers, which shows they are buying. Different people can play around with figures. The survey by Halifax mentioned by the Deputy was very selective in its prices. It used the average price of all houses, which includes big second-hand houses that might have development land adjacent. It used particular salary levels — in the case of a nurse it used the salary in her first or second year. It is possible to play around with figures to get the maximum effect. However, first-time buyers represent a very large proportion of the market. Some 45% of new houses are bought by first-time buyers. The average house that a first-time buyer buys costs 13% less than the average new house bought by others, mainly people trading up. Relating what the first-time buyer pays for a house to the average price of a second-hand house is irrelevant, because we all know that second-hand houses include many fancy houses in the leafier parts of the city and elsewhere.
On affordability, house prices have increased in recent years.
Really.
The affordability index is more important. While that has also increased it is still not as bad as it was for a period in the early 1990s. Affordability comprises the price of the house, the tax rate, the interest rate and the average take-home pay. While affordability has worsened, many people have got over it. While, sadly, I might give out about it, many affordability indexes are based on either a 20-year loan or, in some cases, including that of DKM, a 25-year loan. In reality people are now getting 35-year mortgages, which considerably decreases the percentage of the net take-home pay spent on mortgage repayments.
The Minister of State said that 45% of mortgages are taken out by first-time buyers. While that may be a fact, and I take his word for it, they are taken out to buy houses on which the Government is charging those first-time buyers stamp duty. How many people in that 45% are buying houses costing more than €317,500? While I do not know if the Minister of State has such experience, I have experience of this because my daughter is a nurse in Dublin trying to buy her first house. As she cannot get a house for less than €317,500, she will be obliged to pay the Government €40,000 or €50,000 for buying the house in the vicinity of where she works or on the outskirts of the city.
Is the Minister of State aware that the recent census showed that the population of Dublin city rose by only 2% between 2002 and 2006? However, there was a huge growth in the neighbouring counties of Fingal with a 22% increase, Meath with a 21% increase and Kildare with a 14% increase. This clearly shows that first-time buyers must go considerably outside the city and away from where they originate and work to acquire a house at a reasonable price. If the Government increased the threshold for stamp duty or abolished it altogether for first-time buyers it would be doing the first-time buyers a service rather than paying lip service. Of course it is true to say that first-time buyers are buying houses for 13% less than the average person because he is comparing them with people who have traded up. In any case most first-time buyers buy flats or apartments.
The stamp duty rates are set by the Department of Finance and there is no point in us going into that. Generally speaking first-time buyers are more inclined to buy new homes than to buy second-hand ones. When we reduced the rates two years ago it shifted the balance and brought a far greater number of first-time buyers into the second-hand market.
What is wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with that. Generally first-time buyers buy new houses rather than second-hand houses. The Deputy mentioned the census figures. There are four local authorities in County Dublin. Dublin city is almost fully built up. Naturally the population of the city will not increase in the same way as Kildare, Meath or north County Dublin. It goes back to the point Deputy O'Dowd made earlier. Some of the middle-class, middle-range suburbs of Dublin now have many three and four-bedroom homes containing only two adults. In a large swathe of Dublin, in areas such as Clontarf, Glasnevin, Rathmines and Clonskeagh, the populations are falling. There is a logic to Deputy O'Dowd's remark that it would be sensible to recycle some of those homes but the opportunity for building new homes in Dublin does not exist other than in the docklands, Pelletstown and other such places. While affordability has worsened slightly, the fact that people are now taking out 35 year mortgages means the percentage of net take home pay being spent on mortgage repayments is no greater than it was when the Deputies opposite or I bought our houses.
113 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the fact that fire doors have not been installed in local authority dwellings in which lifts were constructed to facilitate people with disabilities; and the plans he has to introduce specific regulations to rectify this fire safety risk. [31268/06]
The question of installing fire doors in existing houses adapted by the installation of lifts in order to meet the needs of people with disabilities will be considered in the context of the next review of part B, fire safety, of the building regulations. Local authorities have an overall role in ensuring local authority dwellings meet the needs of tenants and safety is an important consideration in this regard. In cases where remedial or improvement works are being undertaken, these will generally seek to enhance fire and other safety aspects. My Department will consider submissions from local authorities on such matters and will support appropriate remedial measures as required.
I welcome the Minister of State's announcement of a review of the policy but can he indicate when that review will take place? A standardised system is lacking among local authorities and I am seeking to have such a system introduced. A man in whose home a lift was installed because of difficulties he had with mobility recently asked me what he should do in the event of a fire. He would not take the lift because he was warned that the electricity supply would probably be interrupted. There are no fire doors beside the lift in that man's house, so he would literally be trapped. If a fire door was installed, he would at least have some time to escape a fire. For many years, chair lifts were the main form of lift but other types are now being installed inside the house itself.
I contacted the fire services, which are aware of the situation and the dangers involved, but was told they do not get involved in local domestic matters, although they would certainly look for fire doors in respect of apartment or office accommodation.
People have enough to worry about with regard to poor mobility, so I ask the Minister of State to prioritise the matter. An accident is waiting to happen. Significant amounts of money are already being spent on disabled persons grants and other grants and, if local authorities were obliged to install fire doors, the additional expense would not be huge. Addressing the issue may require thinking outside the box but that should not be impossible.
Deputy Crowe is correct that the current building regulations do not require the installation of fire doors in ordinary one and two storey houses. Most doors can contain smoke to a certain level and, when combined with a smoke alarm, will provide a degree of fire safety. However, even where fire alarms are installed, 30% are not working. We are trying to send a message to people not only with regard to the necessity of installing fire alarms but also to ensure the alarm batteries are not dead.
In themselves, fire doors can cause significant problems for children and people with impaired mobility because they are heavy and difficult to open. Self-closing doors have the potential to cause injuries by shutting on people. Where fire doors are required, such as in nursing homes, they can give rise to a number of problems for residents. In many cases, doors are held open by magnetic devices and only close when a fire alarm is triggered. We will consider the issue in the context of ongoing review of the building regulations, the first stage of which has been completed.
The matter was drawn to my attention by someone who had personal experience of it. I am not trying to scaremonger but concerns exist which need to be properly addressed. I am aware of the weight of fire doors but lighter options could be considered. I am also aware of the cost factor involved but safety should be a priority. The last thing we want is to cause families to worry about their loved ones in the event of a fire.
