Under the 1925 Act, in the city of Dublin, 350 houses are being provided. Of these, 49 represent cases of private persons; 89, public utility societies, and the remainder, 212, are the work of speculative builders. We have often heard of speculative builders being characterised by the thoroughness of their methods, and it has been an accepted proposition that the activity of the speculative builder is the main contribution which you may expect towards the solution of the housing problem. These 212 houses are being built as a matter of business, for sale on a margin of profit, and it remains to have a case proved that we should devote extra moneys out of our limited resources towards increasing these profits. As was mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill, some delay has been occasioned in the initiation of schemes by public utility societies.
Under the existing law these societies receive the same grants as local authorities. If they are now to be placed on the same footing as private persons they will find themselves somewhat stultified, and the labour of initiating these societies, which is very considerable, will be largely negatived. The formation of these societies is necessarily complicated and takes time. The fruits of their work, namely, the formation of schemes under the Act, would only begin to operate from now on. Very considerable efforts, especially in Dublin, have already been made by a small number of public utility societies. This, as Deputy Good well knows, is one of the most commendable forms of public service. As I have mentioned here on many occasions, the duty of the State in this matter is to encourage the provision of houses at the smallest possible cost, featuring the word cost in this respect, as borne by the State, the municipality and the person requiring the house. The construction of fifty houses and upwards under a single contract is a much cheaper proposition than the building of separate houses by individuals.
The policy of the Government in relation to housing needs has been to eliminate waste, to cheapen cost and to hasten construction. To increase the grants where there has been such a remarkable response from the speculative builders and individuals would certainly discourage the founders of the public utility societies, and I need not stress to Deputy Good the fact that the aim of modern business is large-scale production. Deputy Good has informed us that a very considerable number of houses has been built in England without any subsidy, that is, without grants of £45 for a three-roomed house, £60 for a four-roomed house and £75 for a five-roomed house. He also said that a large number of such houses were working-class houses and that such houses, to some extent, were being produced on an economic basis. I presume that he regarded the construction of houses in England without a subsidy as a marked national advance. I fail to see any leaning towards that national advance when he recommends still greater subsidies for individuals than experience has shown us has been necessary during the last twelve months.
Where grants are given in England the cash value of the Government subsidy is approximately £78. The local authority in England is enabled to supplement this. In certain cases the supplementary advantage brings the total value of the grant to £100, and in certain other cases to £120. In the Saorstát the local authorities can give, and in certain cases have given, an equivalent grant to the grant afforded by the Government. The total amount, then, in this case, comes to £90, £120 and £150, together with a remission of practically fifty per cent. of the rates over a period of twenty years, that is, averaging the remission permitted by the Act, which runs in the first year to 95 per cent. down in the 19th year to five per cent.
Very great care was exercised in considering the housing problem previous to the introduction of these Acts, and the amending Act which followed the introduction of the first Act of 1924, indicated the result of our experience in the working of it. The policy has been to share the burden between the State, the local authority, and the individual. The failure of any one of these three parties to bear a share would place a heavier burden on the other two. The resources at the disposal of the State are in this, as in many other services which it must furnish, limited. The other two parties to the construction of houses must bear their burden. Experience has shown that in the majority of cases they are prepared to do so. The amendment, if passed, would involve a bigger State contribution, to relieve either one or two of the other parties. From the course of the discussion which arose on the Third Reading it might have been inferred that there was a difficulty in the formation of public utility societies. That may be. But there is no difficulty in joining a public utility society which has been formed and partaking of the advantages which these societies enjoy under the provisions of the Act, namely, larger subsidies.
The amendment puts a further premium on individualistic activities. This problem cannot, and will not, I think, be solved without co-operation. There are facilities for co-operation in the Bill, and they ought to be availed of. It may be that we will find that even those Acts are even too expensive for the solution of this problem. If carried this amendment will make the solution more expensive. We must remember that without giving the local authority the maximum grant and getting its co-operation, it may find its resources insufficient to meet the huge demands which it will be called upon to satisfy, in order to make a general improvement in housing. In this as in other services we have to consider the greatest good of the greatest number, and the best work in that connection would not be done by giving unlimited advantages to a relatively small number of persons.
