It would be a reasonable rent, I should say, particularly when one bears in mind what rents are at present chargeable in respect to houses in which more than one family is housed. Now, in regard to the special provisions made in the 1925 Act for public utility societies, it may be mentioned that the actual progress made by these groups did not come up to expectation. This, however, is largely due to the delay which must necessarily arise in creating general interest in this form of house production and, as a lot of the preliminary spade work has now been got through, there is no reason why much greater activity should not result if the new Bill is passed into law. In fact, it is understood that numbers of these societies have now been formed and registered and are ready to begin work. There was a disappointment in connection with the 1925 Act. Trade unions, to include which bodies in the definition of "Public Utility Society" the Bill was specially amended in the Dáil at the request of Deputy Johnson, were not active. Very little work has been done in that connection, but there is a hope that something may be done in the future.
Another interesting feature of the Acts is the amount of money which has been set in circulation and the consequent stimulus to industry and relief to unemployment. Taking the average building cost per house at £450, the 7,297 houses represent an expenditure of £3,283,650, of which £600,000 was provided by the State.
I have particulars of the schemes made by local authorities for supplementary assistance to private persons under the Acts. From these it appears that under the 1924 Acts supplementary grants and loans were given by two county borough councils and two county councils, supplementary grants (without loans) were given by one county council and three urban district councils, and loans (without grants) were given by one county borough council, twelve county councils and ten urban district councils. Under the 1925 Act grants and loans were given by one county borough council and one urban district council. One county borough council, two county councils and two urban district councils gave grants without loans, and one county borough council, eight county councils and eight urban district councils gave loans without grants.
It will be noted that town commissioners of small municipal towns offered no local assistance. Financial weakness was generally the cause of this, and under the 1925 Act provision was made empowering county councils to extend their local assistance schemes to such towns. Generally, local authorities proved themselves anxious and willing to co-operate in making a success of the Acts, and wherever their financial position was sufficiently strong to enable them to afford facility to private persons, good work resulted. In this connection the Irish banks came to the assistance of many local bodies with short term loans, a total sum of £100,000 being made available by them for the purpose. The enormous advantage to private persons of the local assistance provisions of the Acts need scarcely be stressed.
Supplementary cash grants afford a considerable additional inducement to private persons with small capital to build houses, while the supplementary loans have been necessary in many cases to enable building. The activity which resulted in areas where generous local assistance was given was an evidence of this fact. Worthy of note are the cases of Dublin and Waterford cities, where supplementary grants and loans were made available. The houses built by private persons in these areas, in addition to the houses built under the Acts by the local authorities themselves, have given a great relief to the housing demands. The demand for houses is still far from satisfied, notwithstanding the great activity of the past few years, and, unless the present stimulus is sustained, the housing problem will rapidly disimprove. In fact, even if the continuity of the scheme is broken, much greater effort will be required to put house production by private enterprise again under weigh. A stoppage of the subsidy would also mean a considerable hardship to a great number of people who have incurred heavy commitments in anticipation of grants, but who have been delayed in proceeding with actual building work owing to divers circumstances.
The Housing Bill, 1926, proposes, therefore, that the present system of State and local aid under the Housing Act, 1925, be continued without alteration for a further normal period of two years from October next, and that a further sum of £300,000 be made available for State grants. As stated last year when the 1925 Bill was being considered, the extent of the housing problem renders it impossible of immediate solution, because of the high cost of building and the undesirability at this stage of taxing the State with the provision of funds to enable, by way of subsidies and other facilities, house production on a scale sufficiently large to meet the enormous needs prevailing.
Pending more stabilised conditions, some alleviation must be effected in the direction of housing the people, and the system of State aid and other assistance established under the Building Facilities Acts, whereby a small amount is made available for utilisation within a limited period, appears to be the most desirable in present circumstances. These Acts must not be regarded as having provided an adequate and final settlement of the housing question, but rather as part of a series of temporary measures the periodical introduction of which will ensure continuity of house production over a number of years, until eventually the demand is fully met. Legislation of this nature possesses a decided advantage over permanent codes, as it enables the frequent review of the system and its revision, when such is necessitated by altered conditions. Furthermore, no strain of national resources is involved.
As regards the amounts of the grants, it is considered that these, having regard to the cost of building, will not bear any further reduction during the period proposed. It is not proposed to alter in any way the general lines of the Act of 1925, as the minds of the people are now educated to the system, and alterations would only tend to confusion and consequent delay of progress. Experience has shown that the maximum period of twenty-two months, provided in the 1925 Act for the completion of houses by private persons, is inadequate. In town areas considerable delay occurs in the preliminary work of obtaining suitable sites, settling plans, etc., while in country areas, where the intending resident ofttimes does most of the building work himself, he has to suspend operations during certain periods of the year to attend to his farming work. This was also the experience under the 1924 Act, and it will be remembered that the period had to be extended for a further four months under an amending Act. For this reason it is proposed to make the 1925 Act period continuous from the date of its passing to the end of the extended period.
Practically the only reason why the reconstruction clauses are continued is to allow to proceed the work of conversion of barracks, workhouses and such buildings into suitable dwellings. Another, and perhaps a stronger, reason for the reconstruction clauses is the possibilities opened up in the conversion into dwellings of derelict barracks, workhouses and such buildings throughout the country. Many of these premises are no longer required for their original purpose, and there does not appear to be any purpose, other than housing, to which they can be devoted. These premises are mostly situated in town areas, and their reconstruction will be undertaken by local authorities. In fact, in a number of districts very good and healthy dwellings have been made out of these premises, i.e., Dublin, where Kehoe Barracks have been converted into 202 flats; Clonmel, where the barracks have been converted into 44 dwellings; Droichead Nua, where 28 good houses have been made in the barracks, and Tipperary, where the barracks have been converted into 36 flats. In other districts similar schemes are under consideration.
A number of local authorities, with a view to providing funds for additional housing schemes, have sold to intending resident purchasers houses already provided in their districts under the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts. These sales have taken two forms. The first, a sale for ready cash and, the second, a sale on the tenant-purchase, or instalment, system. The latter system provides for the payment of the purchase money in weekly instalments over a period of years and in some cases a small cash deposit is required. To the weekly payment is added a small sum to cover such additional charges as fire insurance and administration charges. The sale scheme of the Dublin Borough Commissioners is a good instance of the instalment plan. The houses have been sold on the tenant purchase system with a maximum of forty years, the purchasers paying from 15/- to 16/6 weekly to cover purchase money, rates, insurance and all other charges. The Waterford Corporation sold 20 houses, the tenant-purchasers paying small cash deposits and the balance of the purchase money in instalments over a period of fifteen years. In Ardee the Town Commissioners sold 6 houses, one for cash and the remaining five on the tenant purchase system; Athlone Urban District Council sold 12 houses with a deposit of £100 and the balance of the purchase money payable in ten years and 2 with deposits of £250; An Uaimh Urban District Council sold 4 houses for cash, 3 at £470 and one at £460; Galway Urban Council sold 20 houses at £500 each, £400 paid in cash and £100 in two instalments; Howth Urban Council sold 12 houses at an average price of £500 cash; Killarney Urban Council sold 8 houses at an average cost of £520; Kilrush Urban Council sold 2 houses at £350 cash; Tralee Urban Council sold 16 houses at £500 each. Other local authorities who sold houses are the Urban District Councils of Ballina, Blackrock, Bri Chulainn, Carrickmacross, Clones, Clonmel, Cobh, Drogheda, Dundalk, Dungarvan, Ennis, Kilkenny, Macroom, Pembroke, Thurles, Tralee and Wexford.
It is unnecessary to comment on the beneficial extent of these purchase schemes, or on the extent to which they develop civic spirit and enterprise. In conclusion, in addition to that series of housing activities, the Land Commission, where they consider it necessary, erect new, or reconstruct existing, buildings in connection with the sale of holdings and the division of untenanted land into new holdings or enlargements of existing holdings. Since December, 1921, the Land Commission have sanctioned a sum of £368,000 on the erection or reconstruction of buildings in 2,450 cases. It is not possible without a detailed investigation of the figures to segregate the number of new buildings erected from the number reconstructed.
