I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, line 18, to delete "nine" and substitute "fifteen".
I think that amendments Nos. 3 and 4, standing in my name, may be taken with this amendment. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 read as follows:—
In sub-section (2), page 14, line 30, to delete "eight" and substitute "fourteen".
To delete the Table and substitute a new Table as follows:—
"TABLE.
PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN VALUATION TO BE REDUCED.
|
Number of year after increase in valuation
|
Proportion of increase in valuation to be reduced.
|
|
First
|
Fifteen-fifteenths
|
|
Second
|
Fourteen-fifteenths
|
|
Third
|
Thirteen-fifteenths
|
|
Fourth
|
Twelve-fifteenths
|
|
Fifth
|
Eleven-fifteenths
|
|
Sixth
|
Ten-fifteenths
|
|
Seventh
|
Nine-fifteenths
|
|
Eighth
|
Eight-fifteenths
|
|
Ninth
|
Seven-fifteenths
|
|
Tenth
|
Six-fifteenths
|
|
Eleventh
|
Five-fifteenths
|
|
Twelfth
|
Four-fifteenths
|
|
Thirteenth
|
Three-fifteenths
|
|
Fourteenth
|
Two-fifteenths
|
|
Fifteenth
|
One-fifteenths.”
|
"
I shall try to be what most Senators to-day promised to be and were not— brief. I would say that, in the circumstances that the Dáil is not sitting, it is rather pointless to put forward an amendment because I can hardly see the Minister recalling the Dáil to settle my requirements. I should like to refer to last week's debate and to say that I was misinformed in relation to the Minister not receiving a deputation. I have since learned that such was not the case and I unreservedly withdraw my assertions.
I had quite a lot of notes and I intended to elaborate on them but, in fairness to the members of the House who must be tired, as Senator Stanford said about five hours ago—and then went away; to rest, I hope—I shall give just the bare notes and not expect the Minister to waste much time in replying to me beyond telling me what he thinks, as briefly as he likes. I am also conscious of the fact that most of the arguments I have already made could possibly be related to what I have to say now but I shall do my best to sort them out from my previous statements.
The graded ten-year scale set out in this Bill is definitely a change from the old two-thirds for seven years' reduction. It is a change that falls short of being any benefit to anyone and least of all to the tenant-purchaser. In fact, after the third year of application of the ten-year scale, these benefits disappear and, on the eighth year, substantially more has been paid than under the old system and the period finally closes with a fine of £5 or more on the person who is being accommodated.
In submitting this amendment for the consideration of the House, I believe it interprets the feelings of all persons who took part in the earlier discussions, particularly those who think there should be a departure from the previous system. The points stressed by the Minister last week would indicate to me, at any rate, that he himself could easily be converted. However, I may say again that the Dáil is not available to give him his baptism or to finalise his conversion.
The Minister's argument seemed to be tied to the burden placed on existing ratepayers by the extended period involved by a scale taking a longer period than ten years to mature. This argument would be good if individual houses were taken in charge, as they are completed, but, in fact, local authorities only begin to assume responsibility on the completion of each scheme. The developer provides all services except water—which, in any case, is paid for separately—for 99 per cent. of the houses before the local authority take over.
As we all know, these Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts houses are built in groups. In my locality, it is normal to build a scheme of 100 houses. The developer carries on with the building of the houses, makes his sales and allows the tenants to take possession. The only obligation on the part of the local authority, until that scheme is finished, is to supply water to the tenants, as they go in. The developer does everything but supply the water. He puts in the pipes, and so on. Therefore, the developer must submit the plans of that scheme, and the scheme generally, to the local authority to ask them to take it in charge.
By that time, 99 or possibly 100 people are paying rates and getting no service, except the water. Therefore, it is not a burden on the existing ratepayers in the local authority area, but by the application of supplementary grants, this theory may have weight where those grants are made. Where those supplementary grants are in operation, there is then a case that the other ratepayers have a slight burden put upon them, but in the area of Dublin City and Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation, where they do not pay supplementary grants, the argument does not hold water at all.
We in the County Dublin have had a sad experience with supplementary grants because we are developing on the fringe of Dublin. By virtue of that, we had an arrangement with the Dublin Corporation whereby in respect of anybody resident in the City of Dublin who came to the county, we would pay the supplementary grant from the county council, the local authority. Of course, if anybody left the county to go into the city, the city agreed to pay the supplementary grant, always, of course, on a 50-50 basis. The result was that it cost the County of Dublin something like 5d. in the £ to pay supplementary grants to people coming from the city to the county. It cost the people of Dublin ½d. in the £ to pay supplementary grants for the thousands they had housed, both from the city and the county.
When we found ourselves in difficulty, we went to the Dublin Corporation to see if some alleviation could be got from them. Dublin Corporation, as the House knows, have always been anxious about the ratepayers of the city. They refuse to consider one-eighth of a farthing which would have solved the difficulty. We then communicated with the Minister. I should like the Minister to consider legislation in the future whereby the local authority which has housed a person should get some sort of reward, particularly if the person housed is from another local authority area.
Let us take the case of Dublin and Dublin County. It is my view—I am sure it is the view of every right-thinking person—that the Dublin Corporation should pay the supplementary grant in respect of a person living in Dublin City who comes into the county and gets a house and who would otherwise have to be housed by the ratepayers in the city. I think that is a fair request for the Minister to consider. When we went to the Minister, he said, in effect, "a plague on both your houses" and left it to us, with the result that we had not the money to continue supplementary grants in Dublin. The position now is that on one side of a road in the fringe area supplementary grants of £137 10s. are being paid, while a similar house in the same scheme but on the other side of the road, which happens to be in the county, gets no grant at all. In those circumstances, the Minister should consider that aspect of supplementary grants.
My personal view is that the day supplementary grants were introduced into this whole matter of building was a tragic day because they pumped prices up to the sky and made everything artificial. With this grant, that grant and the other grant, most of the people who defaulted in their repayments were completely confused and in the end did not know whether they got the grants or not. In my view, benefits accruing from a cumulative or grading solution over 15 years are of immense value to the tenant and are in turn socially important to existing tenant-ratepayers because of the gradual development of rate responsibility over the longer period to the less stable newcomer to the area. Those who know local authority work are quite well aware that it is a sad story for the complete little community if you have 20 or 30 houses with six or seven vacant.
I know that the 15-year graded cumulative system which I propose in this amendment cannot possibly be implemented. Nevertheless, we are talking about it and it is nice to talk. It is a pity that Senator Stanford is not back to see that we are able to talk without throwing things at one another. It is fair to say that at no time during the years envisaged in the 15-year scale will the new dwelling constitute a burden on anyone, unless, as the Minister says, a supplementary grant is paid. May I say here that if it did not constitute a burden on the ratepayers in the year 1925, when money was three or four times more valuable, I cannot imagine it will constitute a burden today.
The table suggested in this amendment has another quality and this quality is an important one. It preserves the resale value of the house which is the subject of a Small Dwellings Act loan. Heretofore, councils found difficulty in disposing of houses that were on their hands through the loanee defaulting in the sixth or seventh year with the full rates about to be imposed. If the full rate were on, it was nearly impossible to sell them. The adoption of the 15-years cumulative approach to full rates would give the local authority a better chance to dispose of such houses and also secure their true value and, as the Minister used the word "impact", it would lessen the impact as the years go on. I do not want to cross swords with him as to when that impact comes. I say it does not come until the fifth or sixth year when the children come along but the Minister said it comes much earlier. I am not so certain that the Minister is a bachelor because of that reason.
The Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts are applied by the county council and by Dublin Corporation. They are also applied down the country, I suppose, but I am aware in the fuller sense only of my own council's activities. Just under £9,000,000 has been applied to the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act type of house in County Dublin. In the corporation, they have applied something over £9,000,000 to the same purpose. All over the County and City of Dublin you have thousands and thousands of happy families because that money was spent not by a particular Government but spent since we got a measure of freedom in 1922.
Eighteen million pounds have been spent on this. It is being spent well. No money is being lost when it is being put into the building of houses for families. Our Constitution, the 21st birthday of which we will celebrate soon, is based upon the family. A sum of £50,000 in default for housing out of £18,000,000 or £19,000,000 is a negligible percentage. The Small Dwellings Act has been an outstanding success with successive Governments and councils. We should do nothing to impair it.
Over the past few years, we have suffered an economic setback which resulted in a certain amount of emigration and unemployment. In my experience, it is a fact that the small dwellings owner—the man who has bought his house under the Small Dwellings Act—who is forced to emigrate keeps his home and sends money back to his home because he owns a piece of property in his native land. The fellow who goes away with his family has no responsibility because he owns nothing in the country. Senators may check those facts with any local authority. They should not be forgotten.
I want to emphasise the desirability of changing this ten-year cumulative solution to my 15-year period. We cannot do that now. We would not ask for the recall of the Dáil, but I appeal to the Minister and his senior officials to examine the matter. I believe they are losing by not doing so. It would give satisfaction to hundreds and thousands of people in the future and, furthermore, it would give an impetus to the building of better type houses. At the same time, the money released from the Local Loans Fund would be applied to something of value in the future, rather than to the creation of derelict houses in the suburbs of the City of Dublin. I believe that the Minister and the House want everybody in this country to own his home. The only feasible way for the ordinary working man to own his home is under the Small Dwellings Act. We should protect that Act. Every person who acquires a house through that Act should be nurtured to the full of the Minister's ability. I thank the Minister for listening to me and I do not expect any lengthy reply.
