As I was saying last night, in this measure it is proposed to modify two existing conditions governing the financial assistance afforded by the State towards the building of new houses by private persons for their own occupation; by public utility societies for their members; the building of new houses for letting and also the reconstruction of existing houses in rural areas.
The effective provisions of the Bill are contained in Section 1, which provides for two amendments of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, dealing with the qualifying conditions for grants for houses built or reconstructed by private persons or public utility societies.
The first amendment is contained in paragraph (a) of Section 1. It extends to the 1st April, 1952, the latest date for the completion of houses, the erection or reconstruction of which was begun on or after the 1st November, 1947, or on or after the 1st November, 1945, in the case of houses erected by persons for letting. The latest completion date at present is the 1st April, 1950.
The second amendment is contained in paragraph (b) of Section 1. It increases the aggregate of the grants which may be paid by the State towards private building operations under the 1948 Act from £580,000 to £1,750,000. The proposed increase in the aggregate amount does not of course involve any change in the amount of the grants allowable in individual cases. When the Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1947, was being discussed in the Seanad it was indicated that an exact measurement of the financial requirements under the Bill was not then possible, and that if the aggregate inserted in that Bill proved to be insufficient a short amending Bill to increase the amount would be introduced.
The position now is that up to the 30th June last a sum of approximately £487,000 has been spent out of the aggregate of £580,000 allowed under Section 26 of the 1948 Act. At the present rate of expenditure, the limit of £580,000 would be reached by the end of August. This is due to the rapid growth in the number of grants allocated and the exceptional acceleration of the administration of the grants in the past 12 months. Up to the 30th June last grants had been approved for 6,292 new houses. Of these, 867 grants had then been fully paid and instalments had been paid in 1,364 cases. As regards reconstruction in rural areas, grants had been approved in 4,247 cases of which 450 were fully paid and 601 had received instalments. The total expenditure under the several sections of the Act up to the 30th June, 1949, was as follows:—
Section 16—Grants for erection and reconstruction begun on or after the 1st November, 1947—approximately £425,000.
Section 17—Erection begun on or after 1st November, 1945—approximately £55,000.
Section 18—Extra £20 grants for reconstruction begun but not completed prior to 1st November, 1947—approximately £7,000.
Sections 19, 20 and 21—Recoupment of letting grants paid by local authorities—Nil.
(In the cases of letting grants applications for between 400 and 500 houses have been made to local authorities who are at present investigating these claims.)
Private enterprise can make a very valuable contribution to the solution of the housing problem and it is therefore desirable that any uncertainty as to future policy in the matter of grants should be removed so as to allow full scope to persons intending to plan for the building and reconstruction of houses within the next two or three years.
The provisions of the Bill are, as I have said, limited to the time programme and the financial mechanism governing grant allocations and payments. There can be no objection in principle to the proposals in this respect. I should have liked to include in the Bill various miscellaneous amendments of the law relating to housing which our experience of the administration of the 1948 Act and previous legislation has shown to be desirable, but the need for obtaining the approval of the Dáil to the provision of additional funds before the present session ends became apparent at only a comparatively recent date.
In the present pressure on Parliamentary time and in the short period available before the summer recess, it would not be practicable nor would it be fair to Deputies or to the other interests concerned to rush through an Amending Bill which might involve matters of major policy. Moreover, the Act of 1948 is not very much more than a year in effective operation and many people may consider that longer experience of its working is desirable before any radical amendments are proposed. I hope, however, that in due course I may be in a position to introduce a more comprehensive Bill reflecting our considered views on various aspects of housing policy.