I move:
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(9) Sub-section 3 of Section 69 of the Principal Act shall be amended by the deletion of the words "the Housing of the Working-Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1883-1919," and the sub-section as so amended shall apply as from the passing of this Act to any house erected under the aforesaid Acts."
This amendment is for the purpose of dealing equitably with people who occupy similar types of houses. There seemed to be some confusion in the minds of members of the House yesterday when I spoke on this particular subject. In order to try and make myself perfectly clear in the matter it will be necessary for me to go into some details. First I have to call the attention of Senators to the Housing (Building Facilities) Act, 1924. Under Section 2 of that Act provision was made that the Minister for Finance would have power to grant from moneys out of the Exchequer a sum of £100 to a local authority, or to a private individual, or to a public utility society, who would build houses of a certain type. In addition to that under Section 6 of the Act the local authorities were empowered to make a grant equivalent to the grant that was made by the Minister for Finance to a private individual, or to a public utility society, for the purpose of erecting houses that would comply with the requirements of the Act.
In addition to that, under Section 7 of that Act, power was given to the local authority to grant remission of rates spread over a period of twenty years, commencing with the payment of five per cent. of the total rates in the first year, and increasing by five per cent. each year, until at the end of the twentieth year the remission of rates disappeared. Under Section 3 of the 1925 Act provision was made to make similar grants by the State to a local authority, a private individual, or a public utility society to build houses. Under the second schedule of the Act the amounts stated were: to a local authority, £100, for the building of a five-roomed house; to a private individual, or speculative builder, £75, for a five-roomed house; to a public utility society, £100, for a five-roomed house. Under the 1925 Act, as under the 1924 Act, local authorities were empowered to make similar grants to private individuals, speculative builders and public utility societies, as those given by the State. In addition, under the 1925 Act the remission of rates was continued over a period of 20 years. Then we come to the Local Government Act of 1925, and as was explained yesterday, on the Report Stage of this Bill a section was introduced which gave power for the remission of rates on new buildings, but it deliberately cut out houses built under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, and the Building Facilities Acts. I am afraid that Senators yesterday did not clearly understand the position or the sense of my amendment, and I want to state clearly and frankly what I seek to achieve—that there shall be the same equity and justice for the class of people I am pleading for as is being given to others. Before I sit down I hope to be able to convince the House of the reasonableness and justice of the case I am putting forward.
When the new section was being introduced into the Local Government Act of 1925, I tried to make a case that justice was not being done all round. There was misapprehension on the part of some Senators with regard to the point I endeavoured to make. Apparently, Senators at that time thought, and are still of the opinion, that the people who occupy the houses built by the local authority under these Building Facilities Acts, are in a similar position to that of tenants prior to 1922. I want to point out that people in occupation of houses built by the local authority since 1922 are not in the position of tenants at all, but of owner-occupiers. They are in an identical position with the tenant farmers who bought their holdings under the various Land Acts. They did not enter their houses as weekly tenants, but they entered after signing an agreement to purchase the house for a specified sum, and whether they pay weekly or monthly or annually their payments are annuities and not rents. The Dublin Corporation, before the Commissioners came into being, fixed the price of those houses and told the tenants they would have to pay so much per week or per month or per annum for repayment of principal and interest, and, in addition, the current rates on the proper valuation of the houses, as well as the ground rents, and also be responsible for maintenance. After 40 years they will be the owners of those houses, just like the tenant farmers who bought under the Land Acts, when they have their annuities paid.
Under the 1924 and 1925 Acts the local authorities were given power, and it was mandatory if the Minister so desired, to grant remission of rates, and I venture to say that in every case, practically, since 1924, where a house has been built either by a building speculator, a private individual or a public utility society, the remission of rates has been given, as well as the subsidy. I want Senators to get out of their minds that the occupier of a house built by the local authority has got the subsidy and that that is his share. I want to point out the distinction that was made in connection with the occupier of a house built by a private individual, a building speculator, or a public utility society, who also got the subsidy. The public utility society houses got their subsidy of £200. The tenants of houses built by a local authority got the benefit of the subsidy when the purchase price was being fixed. The argument is that if you give to one set of tenants a remission of rates for twenty years on a similar type of house built under similar Acts, it is unjust if you do not give the occupiers of the houses built by the local authority the same remission.
I shall give the Seanad a concrete case. At Marino the municipality have built over a thousand houses and the occupiers of those houses have got the benefit of the subsidy, but have not got the benefit of the remission of rates. A public utility society, with the establishment of which I had something to do, and which was formed by a trade union, has also built houses at Marino, and got the subsidy for them, and the occupiers of those houses get the benefit of the remission of rates. So that you have on one side of the road occupiers of houses getting the remission of rates as well as the subsidy, and on the other side occupiers who got the subsidy but do not get the remission of rates.