I mentioned when this matter was raised in the Dáil—it was not raised in exactly the same, but in much the same, way—that the cost of building a particular house was usually a little bit higher than the cost of building a number of houses. In the case of a private person building a house we have had the experience of the last two years in connection with the Housing Acts. In the year 1924 the sums asked for in this amendment were provided, and last year in the case of private persons the sums were reduced £5 per room. A three-roomed house, under the 1924 Act, had a subsidy of £60; a four-roomed house, a sum of £80, and a five-roomed house, £100. Last year these sums were reduced to £45 for a three-roomed house; £60 for a four-roomed house, and £75 for a five-roomed house. Our experience during the year was that much the same degree of activity prevailed even though there was a reduction in the amount, and the policy which we have adopted is that public utility societies and other organisations of that character would build these houses and partake of the higher subsidy. They cater for a class which was unable to undertake the building of a house unaided, and the local authorities were able to give practically the same sum as is provided under the 1925 Act and also under the 1924 Act. It is not considered a good policy to depart now from the sums which were provided under the 1925 Act. Quite a number of persons started on the work of building and were perfectly satisfied with the amount provided, and to interrupt that now and to give a larger subsidy to persons who had not the initiative or the courage of those who started under the Act of 1925 would, in the opinion of persons very closely identified with housing proposals for a great number of years, not be considered advantageous. It is quite possible that they might say, "Well, if there is no great fear of activity during this year, then, next year a larger sum must be provided." In that connection as in all others, we have got to consider the various other services in the State which have to come under the consideration of the Minister for Finance. We have also got to consider the fact that these Acts are now only two years in operation, and that something like 8,000 houses are either under construction or have been already built. That is a very considerable character to give the proposal.
As regards the English subsidy, there the Government gives a sum equivalent to about £78. They give an annual sum, but capitalised, it amounts to about £78. The local authority is enabled over there to add sums which bring the £78 up to £100 in some cases, and in other cases, to £120. Our contribution here, compared with that, is much more generous. Apart from these grants themselves there is the advantage here which, as far as I know, is not in operation over there. There is a scale of rates for property for a period of 20 years. A person who builds under this Act gets practically the equivalent of 50 per cent. of the rates remitted. Starting in the first year there is a remission of 95 per cent., going upwards by 5 per cent. each year, reaching in the 19th year practically the full thing. In the twentieth year the full rates are charged. The incidence of charge there in respect of rates is much easier in the earlier period when a person is called upon to distribute the largest amount of money and when he is building his house. All round, I should say that the total advantages derived by a person building under the Acts here are approximately 50 per cent. in excess of what is allowed in England. When we are discussing the Minister for Finance and the sums of money which he makes available for housing or any other service, I think we must certainly make up our minds that we are not in the position to give 50 per cent. greater advantages here in respect of public services than they are in England. There is a larger sum given to the local authority and the public utility society, and the reasons for that are as I have stated: that they deal with classes in the community less able to help themselves, and the burden on these bodies would be greater than they could bear if it were not that these larger subsidies were made available for them. A very considerable amount of activity has taken place in this matter. Owing to the short period that has elapsed since the first Act was passed and the greater advantages that are given to public utility societies and local authorities under last year's Act, the full advantage of these public utility societies has not yet been felt. I observe from a publication which has been issued that this matter is now becoming much more under the notice of persons and that a very considerable amount of activity is taking place. I notice in one church it was mentioned that quite a number of utility societies have been formed. Here is a quotation from a leaflet dealing with the matter:—
"Members of your Committee helped in the formation of the Linenhall Public Utility Society, Ltd., which has been organised by members of St. Paul's, St. Peter's and Grangegorman parishes and is providing 63 houses on the site of the old Linenhall Barracks. The Dublin Commercial Public Utility Society (with 12 houses), the Civil Service Public Utility Society, Bray Public Utility Society, are also executing plans for the erection of houses for special groups. The St. Barnabas' Public Utility Society completed 62 houses last year, and has a further 73 in the course of erection.
Your Committee would like it to be widely known that investments are urgently required for the several public utility societies, and for the Association for the Housing of the Very Poor. A member of the Jacob family has given a munificent donation of £1,000 for the association."
That is an organisation that has certainly done excellent work in the city of Dublin. Quite a number of other such societies are in the course of formation, or have been at work already, and until the full effect of the work of these public utility societies has come into operation I think it would be unwise to consider the extension of the grant. We want to see some real co-operation through other bodies in the city than municipalities in the solution of this housing problem. Unless we get that, and they are prepared to bear a part of the burden the great task will lay before the Government and municipalities. I think, on the whole, bearing in mind that 212 houses were constructed by speculative builders in 1925 in the city of Dublin that is evidence of the fact that it is a commercial proposition. Full information concerning these Acts has not yet been widely disseminated, and it would be unwise to alter the incidence of the subsidy. Studying Acts of Parliament is not the forte of the speculative builders, and I think we will leave them to develop still further the work they have done during the last year. Consequently, I do not feel justified in accepting the amendment.
