Housing Bill, 1929—Money Resolution. - Housing Bill, 1929.—Committee.
The Dáil went into Committee.
SECTION 1.
(1) In this Act save where the context otherwise requires— the expression "local authority" means and includes the council of a county, or borough or urban district, or the commissioners of any town, or a board of health and public assistance or a board of public health, or the council of a rural district in the county of Dublin; the expression "public utility society" means a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913, or a friendly society registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896 and 1908, or a trade union registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1913, whose objects include the erection of houses for the working classes.
I move:—
In line 26 to add after the word "classes" the words "or a company of philanthropic intent with honorary directors and whose Articles of Association limit its annual dividend to four per cent. as a maximum."
I am not tied to the words I used in putting down the amendment. It is an attempt to bring under the scope of the Bill certain societies which are to all intents and purposes public utility societies, but which are attempting in approximation to an economic way at any rate to build houses. Under the terms of other Acts and under this Bill they would only receive the same subsidy as would be given to a private person. My wish is that they should receive the same help to enable them to continue their programme of building houses for the poor which other public utility societies would get under the Bill. The societies I have in mind are not very numerous. In fact, I am not aware that the amendment would cover more than two—there may be others.
One for example is the Association for the Housing of the Very Poor, which, as we all know, is really a philanthropic society, but which under this Bill would only receive the same subsidy, I understand, as a private person. Under previous Acts this particular Association, and others I have in mind, for instance, the Cork Model Dwellings Association, received the subsidy which a private person got, and in carrying out building under these Acts they incurred rather a serious loss which has crippled and prevented them from carrying out a further scheme of building. If they got the additional help which is given under this Bill to public utility societies I believe they would be able to undertake immediately a further programme of building, and as that building is for the help of the very poor it is very desirable that we should assist them under this Bill. I have tried to tie up the amendment as much as I could so as to make perfectly sure that no societies would get in except those which are purely philanthropic, but I will be prepared to accept any words which the Minister suggests, if he thinks we are more certain to secure that object.
I wonder could the Deputy give some more information as to these societies—I do not know if he mentioned the names of the three— and if we could get some idea of the class of work they have done in the past. Personally, I would be inclined to favour the idea in the amendment, but I think that from a legal point of view the amendment would want to be made water-tight. I have not had an opportunity of seeing any kind of case put up for this amendment, and I have not had any information as to what class of work has been done by these societies, either recently or in the past. It would, therefore, be desirable that the Deputy should give us some information as to the extent of the operations of any such society.
I quite expected that the Minister would say that he would want to tighten up the amendment more, and I accept that. I only know two societies that would be covered by the amendment, one is the Association for the Housing of the Very Poor, and the other is the Cork Model Dwellings Association. The only information I can give the Minister at present is that under the 1919 Act the first Association actually lost £1,100 on the houses that they erected, and they have not since recouped themselves for that loss and would not be in a position to undertake any further building under this Bill if they were only to be regarded as private individuals. They did make an attempt under that Act to have themselves registered as a public utility society but they were informed that that was not possible, and I think correctly so under the terms of the Act. If the Minister would undertake to look into the matter I will undertake to get such information as he desires as to the work they have done.
I am anxious to meet the Deputy as far as it is possible to do so, but I am also anxious to get this Bill through as early as possible, because we have been refusing certificates, as money is not available. I should like to get the remaining stages of the Bill to-morrow if possible, if we can so deal with the matter in Committee that there is nothing very particular left over. If the Deputy would arrange to discuss the matter with me or some of my representatives this afternoon, and if we could get a clearer idea as to what liability we would be shouldering, and what kind of help we are likely to give to such societies, without opening the door very wide to, perhaps, objectionable proceedings, I would be very glad to meet the Deputy with an amendment on the Report Stage.
Under these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas—
(a) to any person erecting one or more houses to which this Act applies a grant not exceeding £45 in respect of each such house;
(b) to any public utility society erecting one or more houses to which this Act applies a grant not exceeding £60 in respect of each such house;
(c) to any local authority erecting one or more houses in pursuance of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister, a grant not exceeding £60 in respect of each such house;
(d) to any local authority erecting one or more houses in pursuance of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister, a grant not exceeding £50 in respect of each such house.
* * * * * *
I move:—
In sub-section (1) (a), line 45, to delete the figures "£45" and substitute therefor the figures "£60."
On Second Reading I pointed out that under Section 3 (a) private individuals are penalised under this Bill. Such individuals get a subsidy of £45 for a house as against £60 given to public utility societies and local authorities. I also pointed out that you were penalising those who ought to be encouraged, even to the extent of giving them a preference. It is agreed by all who have studied the problem that it is the duty of a Government to encourage citizens to own the houses in which they live. It is an incentive to good citizenship and stability. Under this Bill these individuals are penalised, and I hope that the Minister in the meantime has had an opportunity of looking into this. I propose to get over the difficulty by raising the amount of the subsidy to the individual to the same rate as that given to public utility societies and local authorities.
There is another section of the community that it is also very desirable to encourage, and that is the speculative builders. The speculative builder is a considerable asset in the way of providing houses. In most cases he is a man with a small amount of capital, with two or three sons. These people build one house after another and dispose of them. The speculative builder has been found to be a considerable asset on the other side of the Channel, because, as I pointed out, nearly 50 per cent. of the houses erected since the armistice in Great Britain were erected without any assistance from either the State or local authorities. For these reasons I think it is highly desirable that this encouragement should be given both to the private individual and to the speculative builder.
For once I find myself in agreement with Deputy Good. I think that agreement would be more whole-hearted if the Deputy had tried to induce the Minister to increase the total amount. I was rather struck with one of the statements made by Deputy Good in support of his amendment. He said it was the duty of the Government to enable people to become owners of their own houses, that it made for stability and for good citizenship and gave them an interest in good Government. I hope the Deputy will keep that in mind when the Town Tenants Bill comes before the House in the next month.
There must be no confiscation in order to obtain it.
I was afraid there was a snag in the Deputy's statement somewhere. I agree this amendment would be an improvement in the Bill. On the Second Reading I voiced my objection to the reducing of the amounts and I am only sorry that it is not within the province of a private member to move to have the total amount of the grant increased. I think, seeing that the Government has refused to do what I consider to be a better thing and what I believe in the end would be a more economic way of getting houses built, that is, by giving long term loans to local authorities, that this amendment is probably the next best thing. I am satisfied that before the end of three months the Minister will find his £200,000 will have been absorbed in the building of houses and that is all to the good and for that reason I support the amendment.
I rise to oppose this amendment. At the present moment in the city of Dublin housing is in an exceedingly bad way. The type of house that has been built in the past has been erected at such a rent that the ordinary common or garden individual in nine cases out of ten was unable to avail himself of one of these houses. Under the Bill as now framed it would appear to me that every incentive will be given to build a smaller and cheaper house. Representing the north side of Dublin as I do I hear regularly from time to time very bitter complaints about the high rents and how people are unable to pay these rents. Now this Bill as far as I can see will tend to encourage the building of three-roomed houses. It would appear that three-roomed houses are not in favour with certain sections of this House. But as far as the city of Dublin is concerned smaller houses are the urgent need of the moment and I hope the Minister will remain firm in keeping the subsidy in the Bill at its proper level. Some considerable time ago I drew attention in this House to the fact that the ordinary Dublin artisan received no consideration under the various housing schemes carried out in the city of Dublin. If under this Bill a small type of house will be erected and let at a lower rent that will certainly be to the good. I notice that the Labour Party want four-roomed and five-roomed houses in the country.
Mr. Byrne
I regret very much that there is no Labour representative for the city of Dublin on the Labour Benches, for if there was then at least some one amongst the Labour Party would have the courage to get up and say that the Labour Party, representing as they do mainly rural areas, want to carry such Bills in this House at the expense of the ordinary people in the city of Dublin. I notice in reading over the report of the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill——
Mr. Byrne
I notice that Deputy Anthony rebuked us for referring to the needs of the city of Dublin. Speaking personally, I must say I find Deputy Anthony a very levelheaded man, but I say that the remarks he made as regards the city of Dublin on this Bill had no justification, good, bad or indifferent, and it appears a pity that there is no Labour representative who would voice the needs of the ordinary Dublin working man. I say what we need in Dublin is smaller and cheaper houses to be let at lower rent.
On a point of order, I think if the Deputy had read my speech——
But that is not a point of order.
On a point of correction, if the Deputy had read my speech he would find I said that three-roomed houses would be better than living in slums.
Mr. Byrne
Mr. Byrne
The point is that if the amendment of Deputy Good were carried the tendency in that amendment would be that a bigger, larger and more expensive type of house would be built than if the Bill was carried as it stands at present, and I think I am keeping close to the subject when I say that, representing the city of Dublin, I stand for smaller houses at lower rent, as far as the area that I represent is concerned. I think there are representatives of the city of Dublin in this House who ought to take a non-party view on a question of this kind. We have been told that the affairs of Dublin monopolise the time of this House, but as far as I have seen the affairs of Dublin take up a very negligible portion of the time of this House.
Deputy Good in moving this amendment talked in pathetie and moving terms about the righteousness of enabling the ordinary citizen to own his house, but when Deputy Morrissey came to deal with that he found a snag in it. Deputy Good was keenly interested in the ordinary speculative builder. I can say safely that I have as much experience of the speculative builder as Deputy Good. I have earned my living among speculative builders. and I know what decent men they are and what they will do when properly encouraged. But I have yet to learn that the ordinary speculative builder comes into the same category or into the same terms and rank as the ordinary private individual. The ordinary private individual or ordinary people working through a public utility society do a great deal of good for the masses of the people. Everyone knows the ordinary speculative builder is not building for any philanthropic motives, but rather that he is going to get as much profit as he can. The public utility society is building for an entirely different purpose. I am living in an area where some of those public utility societies have functioned, and, knowing what they have done, I think the Minister is perfectly right in giving them every encouragement he possibly can to help those people, even though, as Deputy Good has said, that help is given at the expense of the speculative builder. The whole point at issue in this amendment in my opinion is this, namely, if the Bill as now framed is carried we will have a smaller and cheaper type of house built for the citizens of Dublin. I think that that is eminently desirable and very necessary. As I have said, the ordinary artisan in the city of Dublin—I feel sure I have his interests as much at heart as Deputies on the Labour Benches —has been cut out from enjoying the amenities of houses that have been built up to the present. If the amendment is carried there can be no doubt that we will have a repetition of the building of high-rented houses for which people in this city cannot pay.
Deputy Good said recently in a speech that the economic factor generally rules the type of house that is built. The economic factor here means that if there is a higher subsidy given than that proposed in the Bill the cost of houses will be considerably higher and, consequently, the rents will be considerably higher. If smaller houses are built it will mean that people who hitherto could not send in an application for a house with a rent of 14/- or 15/- a week will now have a chance under this Bill. I think that the Minister is further justified on the economic principle to which Deputy Good referred. Deputy Morrissey referred to the question of town tenants and, of course, we heard the word "confiscation" immediately mentioned. The country is aware that for a considerable time decontrol of property has been going on rapidly. Within a few months that decontrol will cease, and if it has been brought to an end far too speedily, why should not a reduction in the subsidy be based on the same principle and be automatically brought about in the same way as the control of property has been dealt with? Deputy Good said that across the Channel since the Armistice there were about one million houses built, and that the speculative builder had been responsible for almost half that number. I wonder what are the profits of the speculative builder in England, and how do they compare with those of the speculative builder in Ireland. In Lancashire some years ago I had experience of two men who started building without practically a pound capital, and at the end of four years they enjoyed a profit of £4,000. They charged a ground rent of £5 a house, and each house was sold at the actual cost of building. I suggest that we have a very important factor here which would enable the Irish builder to turn his activities in this particular direction and to build if he were so minded. We have heard a great deal of criticism about the failure of the Government to do this, that, and the other. If the housing question is ever to be solved it will only be by the united efforts of the people engaged in the building trade. From my knowledge of the building trade, I suggest that neither Labour nor the builders have pulled their weight to solve this question.
We will never finish the Committee Stage of this Bill if we go into the question of capital and labour in regard to housing. The Deputy should have referred to that on Second Reading when, unfortunately, it was relevant.
Mr. Byrne
I will not go further into that point now, but I say that there is a good deal of lip-talk about this amendment.
You have done a good deal of it.
Mr. Byrne
I hope that the Minister will stand to his guns so that the cheaper houses, so badly needed, will be built despite the protests of the Labour Party, and despite the remarks of Deputy Anthony that we are turning this Chamber into an ordinary council.
I am only anxious to intervene at this stage to bring the House back to this particular amendment as I do not want it to be passed with any misunderstanding arising out of a discussion on the whole principle of this Bill.
It is about the amendment that I want to speak. I just want to point out that the argument of the last speaker is utterly unsound. If a house cost £300 and if the subsidy is £45 it means that the builder has to bear approximately six-sevenths of the costs, whereas if the subsidy is £60 he has only to bear four-fifths of the cost. Is he not far more likely to build a smaller house than a larger and more expensive one on which he will only get a subsidy of £60?
Mr. Byrne
Is it not obvious that in the past exactly what Deputy Thrift says has not occurred, that it was the larger and not the smaller type of house that was built?
Because there was a larger subsidy. Surely the thing is obvious to anybody.
We are talking about the extent of the subsidy to be given to a private person who builds or who arranges to build a house for himself. Since 1925 a private person who built a three-roomed house got a grant of £45, a private person who built a four-roomed house got a grant of £60, and in the case of a five-roomed house the grant was £75. In addition to that, he probably got from the local authority concerned some other class of assistance, either a similar grant, loan, or remission of rates. I quoted figures on the Second Reading showing the reduction in building costs that had taken place as indicated by the reduction in the cost of houses built by local authorities, these being the only class of houses for which we could get reliable and comparable figures. I showed that in Dublin on a five-roomed house the reduction from May, 1926, to September, 1928 was 14.6. In Cork on a five-roomed house from May, 1926, to May, 1928, the reduction was 25.5, and was as high as 29.1 for a four-roomed house. In Limerick and Tuam reductions amounting to about 10 per cent. took place, and, arguing that there has been a general reduction in the cost of building, we are now applying a reduced grant all round. In the case of private persons, instead of getting a £45 or a £60 or a £75 grant, it is proposed that every private person building a house which comes within the terms as to size and specifications laid down by the Minister for such subsidy, will get a grant of £45, and, in addition, will get a reduction in rates of a varying amount over a period of twenty years. Deputies have suggested that this is a hardship on private persons and speculative builders. I would like Deputy Good to discuss in connection with his amendment the extent of the responsibility which the State has for assisting a private person of the middle class who is able to build a house of his own or who is able to get credit to enable him to do so. That is very different to the responsibility which the State and local authorities have to build houses for the poor. If Deputy Good is going to say that a private person should get as big a grant as a public utility society, then the way in which he should get the people saddled with the responsibility of building houses for the poor to do that would be to put down an amendment to the effect that a public utility society should not get more than a private person. The amendment should be to reduce the grant to a public utility society and not to increase the grant to a private person. I fail to see where injury or injustice to the speculative builder comes in.
Since 1922, £2,100,000 of State money has been put into housing in order to get the speculative builder on his feet, to enable him to do his business, while at the same time the Government has been approaching nearer and nearer to providing houses for the poor. Many people have argued that the building work that has gone on under the recent Housing Acts has not meant housing the poor. It has not, but we have done a certain amount in providing houses for the better class of artisans. We have done a certain amount in assisting private capital to be employed in housing private citizens, and we have done a considerable amount in putting the speculative builder in the way of organising his business for a number of years. Now we are getting down to the problem which is the problem of the State and of the local authority, and we are proposing to make the best use of a limited amount of money to go towards the housing of the poor. In these circumstances we are continuing the grant to private persons, but a reduced grant because of the fact that we are getting nearer to doing the work that is our own responsibility, and because of the fact that there is a considerable reduction in building costs. The Deputy has spoken of what has taken place in Britain. If he put down an amendment which would give private persons greater assistance than utility societies——
Does the utility society in Great Britain get more than the private person?
If the Deputy wants to put down an amendment reducing the grant to utility societies from £60 to £45, we can understand that and we can debate that. What we are debating now is that the grant to a private person should be increased. The grant to a private person in England at present is £50, and so far as we can see it is going to cease entirely from September of the current year, for the reason, too, I believe, that in Great Britain they are coming down to a point in building development and in the organisation of building when they can turn their money and their organisation to the housing of the poor. The very same complaint exists in Britain—that recent housing operations have not housed the poor to any extent, but have housed the better class and the better class artisan. By this amendment, in the opinion of the Government, you are giving subsidies to private persons and the middle classes to a greater extent than is necessary and you are going to take away from the small pool of money that is available to assist in housing. You are going to take away money that ought to go towards building houses for the poor, if the amendment of Deputy Good is carried.
My friends and I being primarily interested in the housing of the very poor, oppose this amendment. The amendment of Deputy Good does not find favour with us. It would perhaps get sympathetic consideration if we understood, at the same time, that the total amount of money available would be increased proportionately. Seeing that the amount of money is so limited as it is and so small, that the problem is so great, and that the really urgent matter is to provide houses for the very poor over the whole area of the Free State, we think that the amendment would not help what we have in mind. We therefore propose to vote against it.
I take the same view of this matter as Deputy O'Kelly. I might be inclined to agree, if the proposal were that the subsidy be increased in so far as the person doing his own building was concerned, but so far as the speculative builder is concerned I am entirely opposed to the amendment unless the Minister were to make it mandatory on the particular person who receives the grant to pass on the benefit to the person who would eventually occupy or buy the house. I agree with Deputy O'Kelly, that having regard to the amount of money available, the amendment would mean robbing the people for whom we want to cater, that is the very poor. I therefore oppose the amendment.
The Minister in speaking on this amendment seemed to imply that this Bill was going to encourage the building of houses for the middle classes. I do not know whether any other members of the House have such an idea. There is no idea in my mind that this Bill is going to encourage the building of houses for the middle classes. In the previous Bills of a similar character, notably the 1925 Act, we had a different subsidy for different sized houses. In view of what Deputy Byrne has said, I would just remind the House of the reason why large houses were built under that Act. Under that Act a private person building a three-roomed house got £45, for a four-roomed house he got £60 and for a five-roomed house he got £75. The same proportions practically, to an increased amount, were given to the utility societies. The untility society got £60 for a three-roomed house, £80 for a four-roomed house and £100 for a five-roomed house. It is quite obvious as I pointed out several times in the discussion on this Bill, that the larger the house the cheaper the room from the point of view of construction. Consequently the schedule gave an incentive to the building of larger houses. That is why larger houses have been built. Now the Government find that there are too many of the five-roomed houses being built in proportion to the other houses and they are anxious that the incentive to build large houses should cease. The method they propose is a reasonable one, to give an equal subsidy for all houses.
Not as regards private persons.
An equal subsidy to private persons, to public utility societies and to local authorities.
I just want to correct a false impression which might be created by the Deputy. When we speak of moving towards a point at which smaller houses will be built, we mean smaller houses by local authorities. We do not mean that private persons who get the subsidies are going to be invited to build three-roomed houses.
The Bill is quite clear. I need not read it. Every Deputy can read it for himself. I will take clause 3, which says:
To any person erecting one or more houses to which this Act applies a grant not exceeding £45 in respect of such house; to any public utility society erecting one or more houses to which this Act applies a grant not exceeding £60 in respect of each such house; to any local authority erecting one or more houses in pursuance of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921, in accordance with this scheme, approved by the Minister a grant not exceeding £60 in respect of each such house.
Any one of these three, the private individual, the public utility society or the local authority is quite free to erect a three-roomed, a four-roomed or a five-roomed house provided it is approved of by the authorities. It is quite clear in the Act and I am quite satisfied that the effect of this Act will be to encourage the building of the smaller houses, that is of the three-roomed houses. That is quite obvious because as a man gets the same subsidy for erecting a three-roomed house as for a five, naturally he will erect a larger number of three-roomed houses in order to get a larger amount of subsidy. It is also equally obvious that a three-roomed house is not a house that could, in any sense, be described as a house provided for the middle classes, so that, as far as this Bill is concerned it is not going to do anything—let us be quite clear on it—in the way of providing houses for the middle classes. It is going, like its predecessor, to provide houses for well-to-do artisans. My objection to all the Housing Acts brought in by this Government has been that that is the section of the community that has been getting all the advantages from the Housing Acts. I have urged that those in the slums have not been touched by any of our Housing Acts, not even this Act, and I have urged that consideration should be given to their claim and that a measure should be brought in in order to deal with them. That, I am satisfied, is a problem that does not come in under this particular Bill and is not affected to any material extent by it.
It has been pointed out by those on the Labour Benches that we are not wise in encouraging the speculative builder. I do not agree with that. The speculative builder in the larger number of cases is a working man belonging to the particular union that the Labour Party represent or ought to represent. Now we are told by that Party that represents that particular individual that he is not to be encouraged. I think it ought to be the duty of the Government to encourage anybody who is anxious to assist in the provision of houses, whether they be speculative builders, other individuals, or whoever they are. Anybody who is prepared to put his capital into that particular industry and help to solve that particular problem ought to be encouraged by the Government. Therefore, I say in discouraging, as this provision discourages, a private individual, a speculative builder in contrast with the encouragement given to the utility societies and the local authority, that Bill is not in the best interests of the State.
What is the effect of the discouragement? An individual gets £45 as against £60 given to the public utility society. The local authority, under which the private individual erects a house, is at liberty to give a further grant to that individual not in excess of the Government grant. So all the local authority can do is to give another £45, provided it is so willing, to the private individual as against £60 to the local authority. Then there is a further provision in the Act which enables the local authority to make grants to public utility societies and to private individuals of sums not exceeding double the amount of the Government grant.
Loans; you are quite right. That is, the local authority makes a loan to the builder of the house not exceeding double the amount of the Government grant. Take these three provisions together. For the private individual, you have £45 first of all a Government grant and you have £45 given to him by the local authority, assuming they give the full amount they are empowered to give. Then you have the local authority granting a loan of £90, a total of £180, adding all three together, to the private individual. Take the public utility society; it gets £60 for the same house as a grant from the State, £60 from the local authority and a loan of £120, a total of £240 as against £180 given to the private individual, or an increase of 33? per cent. I say that is unfair and unwise, and I hope the amendment will be accepted by the House.
I thought we would get some reason for this amendment when Deputy Good introduced it, having regard to his long and intimate knowledge in connection with housing, but I never heard a weaker case than that which has been put up by the Deputy. He is a sufficiently sensible business man to know that in connection with the provision of any commodity, no matter of what sort or kind, the larger the number of commodities required the cheaper will be the cost, and he seeks, notwithstanding the fact that he has that before him, to make the single individual who is building a particular house the subject of special consideration. What is the reason for special consideration being shown in this measure to every local authority or public utility society except that everybody realises at once that here is a particular service that requires a maximum effort on the part of everybody concerned to provide something that is needed, and, knowing that, the Deputy comes forward and says you must give exactly the same privileges and rights to the private individual, whether or not he be one of those that require the special consideration of the State and of the local authorities. You must give him the same assistance as you are giving the unfortunate person who occupies, perhaps with five or six in his family, a single tenement room in the slums, and the Deputy goes on in the course of his case, which ought to be made in respect of the private individuals, to attack the Government for neglecting persons in the slums. What is his proposal in connection with those persons in the slums? No one knows better than he that all this talk about solving the housing question, in so far as houses in the slums are concerned, is all gallery talk.
There is no gallery talk about me.
Very good, then, we ought to have a solution. Who is going to pay for it?
I will give my assistance when the proposal is put up from the State.
What the Deputy means is when the money is put up from the State, because it really comes to that, and nobody knows that better than the Deputy. When the State and the municipality are prepared to come forward with more than 50 per cent. of the cost of the provision of the houses, then the Deputy will talk. I can understand persons interested in politics, interested in scoring off any Government in office, but Deputy Good, the business man with an experience of 40 or 50 years of housing, when he gets up and tells us that we have not solved the housing problem in the slums, knowing that it is a problem which cannot be solved by us or by anyone else, is wasting his own time and that of everyone else in the House.
They made an attempt to solve it in Great Britain and a successful attempt. I advise the Government to make a start.
The Deputy cannot have real anything on the subject.
The Deputy is aware of the attempts that we have made to solve the question, because the slums in this city, or in any other city, do not house purely and simply the submerged tenants. In so far as wage earners are concerned, you may have a person occupying a room in a slum, who is earning very good wages, unable to get a house, anxious, as the Deputy is, or as anybody would be, to get a house, but unable to get it. We have during the last seven years taken considerable numbers of those people out of the slums and put them into self-contained cottages. We have not been able to do all that we would like to do, but what we have done is work that is creditable, and the Deputy and those who have criticised it could not have improved upon it. It is work which would not be helped by the passing of the amendment which the Deputy has tabled. If I interpreted Deputy Good correctly on the housing question during the last few years. he would do away with all subsidies; subsidies are a mistake and we ought to get away from them. He now comes forward to help the private individual, as he calls him. Who is the private individual? The private individual, apparently, is a person who requires a house. You can divide private individuals into three orders: the economic, the uneconomic and the border line. As regards the economic persons, we have no liability towards them. The State has no liability towards them and the municipality has no liability towards them. They ought to be honest enough to make an effort to house themselves. Is it for that person the Deputy moves his amendment? Obviously not, because he is a person who ought to be able to provide for himself. Then it is for the uneconomic person, or for the person who is occasionally, economic and occasionally uneconomic.
In respect of that person we believe that the policy of the Government during the last few years has been to do everything that was possible to enable the local authority or the public utility society to build. Is he better looked after in group or bulk by either of these two methods or is the Deputy's method of treating him as a single unit the better way? I believe it would be much cheaper per house to get a contract for ten houses than for one. I believe that the contract for even one hundred houses would provide houses relatively cheaper than a contract for ten houses. That has been one of the main planks in the policy which has been adopted by us during the last few years. The ordinary individual who wishes to build a house for himself, fashioned after his own liking and built in respect of conditions and specifications that he would supply, and who is able to put down the money for that house, has not the same claim on the State or on the municipality as the person who is badly housed in insanitary areas, whether in the slums or elsewhere, and the policy that has been devised in respect of every Act that we have passed here for the last few years has been to treat the uneconomic person or the person who is barely economic in a way which puts as slight a burden as possible on both the State and the municipality.
The reduction in the cost of building in the last few years justified this reduction in the subsidy. I should say that within the last three years it has come down about twenty per cent. Building when those Acts were first introduced was practically at a standstill. It is now a thriving industry in the State, and it has been sufficiently helped during those years to enable its activities to be carried on under the reduced subsidies. The persons in respect of whom Deputy Good made the major claim, the uneconomic or those barely on the economic line, are served better both by the local authority and the public utility society than they would be served by the speculative builder. I have myself great respect for the work that has been done by the speculative builder during the last five or six years. Even under the provisions in this Act—£45 for a single individual—it is possible for the speculative builder to form a public utility society and to get the full subsidy that is given to a local authority or a public utility society. In view of that fact, I say the whole of the case that was made by Deputy Good falls to the ground.
I would like to say a word on behalf of a large class of individuals who have benefited in the past by those housing grants and who hope to benefit in the future, that is the small farmers and rural dwellers generally. We have heard a good deal during this discussion about the city slums. but I think there is no one living in a rural area but knows that we have also rural slums and that the housing conditions in many of our rural districts are very undesirable and ought to be improved as soon as possible. I am not interested in the speculative builder, and I am not particularly anxious, in regard to this amendment, whether he should get the full amount that Deputy Good claims or not, because, outside the cities and perhaps a few of the large towns, the speculative builder may be said not to exist. For all practical purposes he does not exist. The small farmer in a country district could not avail of the advantages of these public utility societies, and usually his local authority is not going to embark upon a scheme of building for his particular benefit. If a house has to be put up it has to be put up by an individual, and many small farmers during the past few years have availed of the housing grant to build houses. They have contributed very largely by their own efforts to provide the houses. The materials may be provided locally, and much work of an unskilled nature is done by the man's own family. In this way they are able to build. Sometimes they get a loan from the Land Commission. That is a class of individual that ought to be encouraged to put up a house for himself and his family. I believe the reduction of the subsidy to £45 will just make the difference which will prevent many members of that class from embarking on the building of houses. I propose to support the amendment by Deputy Good mainly on account of the benefit it would be to the class of individual I have mentioned. I am not, as I say, concerned whether it is extended afterwards, if it is passed, to the speculative builder or not, but I do believe that in the case of the small farmers and rural dwellers the subsidy ought to be fixed at £60.
It is obvious if a certain sum of money is set apart for this purpose that we will have a smaller number of houses built on the £60 subsidy than on the £45 subsidy. Consequently I think that the people who say they want more houses built and at the same time say that they want the subsidy raised are only deceiving themselves.
There is one point that I would like to mention arising out of the last speaker's remarks. To be consistent, Deputy Brennan should move an amendment to this section of the Bill to reduce the subsidy to £5 per house. If the Deputy's argument is to hold water at all he should get many more houses built with a £5 subsidy per house than with a £45 subsidy. I would like to make my position as clear as possible. I agree with a good deal of what the President said. I have no wish whatever to refuse the credit that is due to the Government for what they have done with regard to housing during the last few years. I believe they have made an earnest effort. Our objection is that they have not faced this as a national problem, and they might have done more. Speaking personally, I may say my anxiety is to get houses built in the country because there is a great necessity for them. In order to get them I am prepared to move or vote for any proposal which will make building sufficiently attractive either for private individuals or public authorities.
I think the Minister will be able to tell the House, from the figures which he must have at his disposal, that under previous Acts passed here most of the money paid out by his Department was given, not to speculative builders, but to individuals who have built comfortable homes for themselves in the towns and in the rural areas. Those houses in most instances would not have been built were it not for the Government subsidy. I am aware that considerable numbers of thrifty workingmen, by taking advantage of the grant given by the Government, have built comfortable homes for themselves and their families. It is for that reason I am prepared to vote for this amendment. The President made a good deal of play regarding the provision in the Bill which would enable County Councils and other public authorities, if they so desired, to give a grant not exceeding the amount given by the State. We know that in practice very few, if any, public bodies have given those grants.
I think it was Deputy Good dealt with that point.
Deputy Good and the President dealt with it, and both of them were wrong. I agree with many things the President says, but I think his speech was rather against giving any subsidy whatever to a private individual, just as Deputy Brennan's short contribution tended. I say that if Deputy Brennan were to be consistent he should follow up his statement with an amendment to reduce the subsidy to £5, £10 or £20, instead of leaving it at £45. I do not wish the attitude of myself and some other members of the Party who will probably vote for the amendment to be misconstrued in any way. We want to get the houses built, and we are prepared to vote for sufficient inducements to get them built.
I do not think that the few words I contributed were illogical, as Deputy Morrissey seems inclined to think. I said that if the sum of money allocated were sufficiently attractive—I put in that reservation—that it would be applied for.
I rise to oppose Deputy Good's amendment for reasons already outlined by more than one Deputy. The amount of money available is limited. The particular clause to which this refers is a clause that will be availed of in the main by people not of the really necessitous class. The fund will be depleted to that extent and I would not like to see any encouragement given to such persons, because by giving a large amount of money to them we would deplete this fund. I think in the main this fund should be applied to the provision of houses for persons catered for by public authorities and public utility societies. On those grounds I intend to oppose this amendment.
I intend to oppose the amendment, not because I am out of sympathy with the class for whom Deputy O'Connell has spoken, but because as a representative of Cork City, where the housing question is very grave and where the shortage of houses is keenly felt, I believe under this Bill a greater inducement is held out to local authorities to build on a large scale. I was impressed by the President's speech in that particular respect. As against a speculative or other class of builder who would be prepared to build four or five houses because of the £45 subsidy or the £60 subsidy, I would far prefer to see blocks of houses run up by the hundred. The sub-section here says, "A local authority erecting one or more houses." We do know that when local authorities embark on a building programme they do so on a fairly liberal scale. So far as the speculative builder is concerned, undoubtedly he has contributed to a partial solution of the housing problem. On the other hand, the houses which the speculative builder erected have been rightly described by Deputy Good as houses for the middle-class people or well-to-do artisans. It might be a subject for enquiry to ascertain who has got the benefit of the Government subsidy and who will in the near future get the benefit of the subsidy paid to the speculative builder. In every case I know of, and I know some dozens, the speculative builder, having got the subsidy either from the Government or the local authority, sold the house and did not give the purchaser the advantage of the subsidy. I have a fair experience of some of these transactions, and I know the person who got the advantage was the speculative builder and not the person who was seeking a house. That is an important point, and before subsidies are given on any large scale to the speculative builder, I suggest the matter should be made the subject of enquiry by the Minister for Local Government as to who is being served by the subsidy. In my view, the speculative builders get the biggest portion.
Again we find that, even with the grant which has hitherto obtained given to the local authorities, for the reasons mentioned here by some Deputies, the houses are now let to people who could well afford in many cases to build houses themselves. Even the well-to-do artisan for whom Deputy Good has such a great affection and regard cannot afford to pay 16/- to 20/- a week for a house. I do not know that the well-to-do artisans, or those of them whom I know, can afford to pay practically one-fourth of their wages to the landlords. This Bill is, in my view at any rate, a fair attempt at solving this housing problem, though I do suggest that the Minister might have taken a bolder step. That is the only portion of Deputy Good's speech with which I feel myself in sympathy, that is where he suggested that a more serious attempt should be made to deal with the slum problem. So long as there is housing shortage, so long will you have the slum problem. But no matter how liberal the attempt made to solve the slum problem you will still in this country, as in every other country, have what is described as the Submerged Tenth. That class of the community will never be reached by any Government in any country. At the same time there is a class of our people who, up to the present, have not been reached by anything that this Government has attempted to do in the way of housing.
The class of person to whom the best efforts of the Minister should be directed by way of relieving the house shortage is the person of industrious and steady habits who has, undoubtedly, because of this shortage, to live in insanitary or slum areas. It is not because many of those people are housed at the moment in insanitary areas, and not because they are living in tenements, that they should be classed as the Submerged Tenth. They are not, and many of those respectably poor and industrious people would reject the idea of being considered one of the Submerged Tenth. I know that they are in many cases people in precarious employment. You have hardworking labourers—hard working when they can get it. You have hardworking artisans—hard working when they can get it. But these people, because of the precariousness of their employment, are not people who can readily afford to pay from 14/- to 16/- a week for a house. And that is the class of thing that has happened under the legislation in force up to the present as an attempted solution of the housing question. I am opposing the amendment for the reasons I have indicated. I believe, notwithstanding that, there are some things that I can say in criticism of this Bill; the Bill is a fair attempt and I do hope it is a forerunner of something on a more liberal scale in the near future. I do suggest that when the Minister finds, as I hope he will find, that this Bill will meet with success, or, at least, with partial success, he will be a little more liberal in the next Bill which will, I hope, be introduced in the next session.
Deputy O'Connell has reminded me of a class of people in the country who unfortunately are not able to avail of this subsidy at all. It has struck me that perhaps we should do something to meet their case. There are in the rural areas, and in the congested districts, particularly, a number of small farmers who build their own houses but who, unfortunately, cannot build them in accordance with the specification of the Local Government Department. These people are amongst the most deserving class of persons in the country. Very often as a result of the house being very old or through a heavy storm or some accident it becomes practically uninhabitable. These people rebuild the houses themselves but not being in a position to afford to use slates for roofing the houses, they roof them with corrugated iron, line them and make them quite warm and comfortable. Owing, however, to the fact that they have not complied with the specification required by the Department, they are not entitled to any subsidy at all. It is a pity that some effort is not being made to help them. I know that this is outside the amendment altogether but it struck me that this would be a good opportunity to raise the case of these particular people.
I have listened carefully to the debate and the question as it appears to me is that we have a limited sum of money available for subsidising the building of houses. The question this amendment raises is as to the best means of distributing this limited sum at our disposal so as to build as many houses as possible. There have been three channels suggested through which this money should be distributed—the private builder, the speculative builder and public utility societies or public authorities. The question we have to decide is really through which of these channels would most houses be built. I have definitely come to the conclusion that public utility societies, by getting a large proportion of this grant, would be enabled to build a larger number of houses than if a similar proportion were given to either of the other two classes I have mentioned. It is desirable that private individuals should be given as great an opportunity as possible, but, as the President said, one cannot get away from the fact that it is cheaper per house to build ten houses than to build one. Similarly it is cheaper per house to build one hundred than it is to build ten. I have come to the conclusion that it would be more advisable in the interests we all have at heart—that is, the erection of as great a number of houses as possible—to give a larger proportion of this subsidy to public utility societies and public authorities than to either the private individual or the building speculator.
While agreeing with most of what the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the President said in connection with the Bill, I believe the House should pass the amendment. Most of the President's speech dealt with the conditions that obtain in Dublin, and Deputy Anthony's speech dealt with conditions in Cork. Anyone listening to this evening's debate would imagine that the £200,000 was intended only for those two cities, and that country constituencies would get nothing at all. I disagree with that. I hold no brief for the speculative builder. He does not trouble us very much in the country. I do not think we have any interest at all in the speculative builder, because in the country there is no work for him. The men who will benefit by those grants will not assist tradesmen very much in the country, because in the building they will utilise their own labour. I want to see the people in the rural areas getting a fair share of the money. Under this section as it stands £15 per house is being taken off, and that, with the £15 which would be granted by the local authority, would mean a reduction of £30. We all know that if the public utility societies and local authorities in Dublin and Cork put their heads together and say that they will get as much of this money as they can there will be very little left for the other 24 counties. In fact, I do not believe we will get half a dozen houses built in each county. That is the position as I see it. I believe we should help the man in the country town who has a little money to build his own house and not handicap him by having a loss of £30 on his house, while you are giving the money to public utility societies and local authorities in the cities of Cork and Dublin. Of course, Deputy Anthony, like the President, was speaking for his own city. As I said before, some people in this House think that these two cities are the whole State. We should think a little about the County Kildare, for instance. In Kildare we have not got very much money in the last few years under any of the Housing Acts, and there is not much chance of the local authorities in Kildare helping us, with the exception of the County Council. If the subsidy is to be reduced from £60 to £45, I say that our County Council will not give an equivalent grant—they will not vote any money for housing, as they will say it is not fair. I want to make a strong protest, so that I can go to the County Council and say that I have made a protest on behalf of my county.
As regards the effect of the reduction in the building grant and its application to the rural population and the small farmer that Deputy Anthony referred to, I would not at all agree with him that the best interests of that class will be served by maintaining the rate of grant at the higher figure, for the reason that he stated, namely, that most of the work is done by the small farmer and his family, and, consequently, the outlay is small. A much greater benefit could be secured for that class of the community in making the grants by taking into consideration the local circumstances, as most people in the rural areas have already made provision for their own housing. Improvement in the housing conditions is necessary, however, but that improvement can only take place according to the amount of money the farmer can afford to spend. He will have to be facilitated in improving the building that he already possesses. It is not possible for the small farmer to undertake the building of a standard house, as set out in this Bill. By reducing the amount of the grant to £20 a good deal of very useful improvement could be carried out by the small farmer. Up to the present no provision has been made in any of the Acts to deal with the condition of the existing slums in the poorer parts of the rural districts. Nobody can say that there has not been serious neglect on the part of the Government in dealing with that class of the community and in overlooking them to the extent that they have. We have heard a lot about the condition of the workers in the cities and towns and the necessity for providing them with better houses. We who come from the country districts realise that necessity and are prepared to give every possible assistance in solving the problem. At the same time, we must stress the fact that the Government have not done their duty towards that section of the community that I speak for, namely, the small farmers. They have not done anything in regard to improving the housing conditions of the small farmers. I know of instances where farmers attempted to take advantage of the provisions of previous Acts, but because they utilised some of the side-walls or other portions of existing buildings, that it would have been waste to pull down, they were disqualified from receiving the grants. The only explanation that could be put upon the attitude of the Government in that respect was that they did not want to give any of those grants to the rural areas. If that section of the people are to be taken into account, I am convinced that the best service that could be rendered to them is that the grants should be reduced even further and facilities given so that the small farmers can improve their dwellings in proportion to the amount of the grant-in-aid.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
In sub-section (1) to add at the end of paragraph (c), line 54, the following proviso—
"Provided that where a local authority for the purposes of this section levies a special housing rate of not less than one shilling in the pound the Minister may with the like consent make a grant not exceeding £72 in respect of each such house."
This amendment is designed to carry out a suggestion I made on the Second Reading that encouragement should be given to local authorities who are willing to make an effort themselves to expedite building by giving them an increased grant. Accordingly, I put down the amendment to provide that where a local authority raises a rate of not less than 1/- in the pound for the special purpose of housing, an increase of 20 per cent. in the amount of the grant provided for in the Bill should be given. I am very glad to see, from the amendment which follows on the Paper, that the Minister approves of that suggestion, so that it will not be necessary for me to elaborate it to any extent. I think that some local authorities, at all events, are beginning to rouse themselves to the fact that some further effort is required from them than they have made in the recent past to provide houses more expeditiously for the working classes and the poor. If this amendment is accepted by the House it will, I think, result in a considerable increase in the building of this class of house in the near future. Take what will happen in the City of Dublin alone. On the valuation of the City of Dublin, if this provision is put in operation by the Commissioners, my calculation is that it will mean that in the next year you will have built in the City of Dublin, in addition to the ordinary programme of building going on at present, about 200 houses. No doubt Deputy Anthony, or some of the other Deputies from Cork, might be able to give a calculation of what it will mean in Cork, as I have not the figures available, but as regards Dublin it will mean an increase in one year of 200 houses. As I say, I believe that a number of the local authorities are awakening to the fact that something of this kind might be done. I am in a position to say, as regards the City of Dublin, that if this amendment is accepted the authorities are prepared to adopt this proposal as to a special housing rate on condition that this additional grant is given. For these reasons I commend the amendment to the House. The Minister's amendment, which follows, contains not only this provision, but a further provision, and if the Minister is prepared to carry out this proposal of his, and it is approved of by the House, I shall withdraw my amendment in favour of the Minister's.
The amendment standing in the name of Deputy Rice gives no safeguard at all as to the extent to which the local bodies will shoulder this burden. For instance if they struck a rate of 1/- in the £ they might apply that in such a way that the local contribution might be £10 towards the building of a house and the State contribution £72. I take it the Deputy does not mean that but that the local authorities shall shoulder their definite responsibility as they must if the housing problem that exists for the poorer classes is to be solved in any way by the provision of sufficient houses at reasonable rents. I do not know whether the Deputy has withdrawn his amendment and whether we are dealing with the amendment in my name but I suppose that we can deal with it on Deputy Rice's amendment.
The amendment that stands in my name proposes exactly what Deputy Rice's amendment proposes, that is, where the local body strikes a local housing rate of a shilling in the £ in respect of a scheme of housing to be created under this Act, an increased grant up to 20 per cent. or £72 in respect of each house instead of £60. But it is necessary to make provision that the local authority will contribute, say, more than £10 where the State contribution is £72. You have to take certain steps to have a more equitable distribution of the burden, as I said before, and there will arise even out of this in the consideration of any particular scheme for which the local authority is striking a rate and an increased grant is expected from the State—a question as to what rent is to be charged to the occupants of the new houses. A fourth factor then comes into consideration, that is, the number of houses to be built under any particular scheme. So that in connection with the scheme where the local authority proposes to strike a housing rate of this kind and looks for an increased contribution from the State the question of the number of houses to be built so as to enable them to be let at a reasonable rent to the occupier will arise for consideration and will come under examination as part of the matter to be examined by the Department before the Minister can agree that an increased grant should be given.
On the Second Reading of this Bill I stated I considered there was a danger that the giving of an increased grant by the State and the making of a definite arrangement to get an increased grant or a definite contribution from the local authorities would keep up the cost of building. A very careful scrutiny will have to be made of every scheme submitted in this particular way to see that the cost of building is not unnecessarily being kept up by the fact that rather larger contributions are being made by the State and by the local authorities towards the building of houses for the working classes. That I am satisfied will come under review when we consider in connection with each scheme the rents at which the houses are to be let, or alternatively the price at which the houses are to be sold in cases where the local authorities are disposing of houses either by direct purchase or by a system of purchase rent—the rent that will be charged or the cost, together with the number of houses that will be included in any scheme to be approved of.
Is the Minister accepting amendment No. 3 or is it withdrawn?
I understood that Deputy Rice was willing to withdraw it in favour of my amendment.
Amendment 3, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 4.
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
A local authority erecting one or more houses in pursuance of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister, may undertake with the Minister that every such house shall not be disposed of by way of sale or lease save at such price or rent and subject to such conditions as the Minister shall approve, and that such local authority will either in the local financial year in which this Act is passed or in the next subsequent local financial year raise for the purposes of such scheme a rate not less than one shilling in the pound and will apply the proceeds of such rate towards meeting the expenses of the execution of such scheme; and where a local authority so undertakes in respect of any such scheme it shall be obligatory on such local authority to carry out and fulfil such undertaking, and the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas a grant (in substitution for and not in addition to a grant under the foregoing sub-section of this section) not exceeding £72 in respect of each house erected in pursuance of such scheme.
I certainly appreciate the action of the Government in this connection, but I am wondering what is the position of a local authority which has already struck its rate for this year but which was anxious to go ahead with a rather large housing scheme, or a comparatively large one at any rate. So far as Wexford Corporation is concerned, we have struck a rate since the last adjournment which includes 6d. in the pound for housing. We might have put in a shilling if we knew there was such an inducement as this. It is very hard, of course, to get ratepayers to agree to increased rates for this or any purpose. I want to know what is the position of a local authority that has struck a sixpenny rate already in an effort to help the Government to solve this problem.
Do I understand the Deputy to say that the total rate for this is 6d.?
In Wexford the rate of 6d. was struck for housing since the adjournment.
Is that a housing rate that covers repairs, the cost of collection of rent, and all that, in respect of houses built a long time ago?
No. This 6d. is for a new scheme of houses.
What is the total housing rate struck?
That I am not able to say. There would be about 3d. for repairs on existing houses, I suppose, so that it would be almost a shilling if you take everything into consideration. What I am speaking about is 6d. for a new scheme of housing to be built within this year as apart from everything else.
The only thing that comes in under this Bill is a scheme of housing to be put up under this Bill, not houses put up previously under other Acts.
That is the reason that I raised this question. Apart from schemes that have gone before, the Wexford Corporation, in an effort to do something this year, struck this 6d. rate in the last fortnight. Because I took it that the Minister was not satisfied that local authorities were doing all they should do, I induced the Wexford Corporation to strike this 6d. rate, that is, for houses that we were expecting to be built.
There can be no question of a rate struck in connection with past schemes applying in this particular way at all. We will say that a new scheme is put up by the Wexford Corporation this year under this Bill when it becomes an Act, and that it is quite clear on examination of the present rate in Wexford. The rate in Wexford, if what is conveyed or suggested is correct, will be found to cover the old scheme and old commitments, such as rent collection and so on, and repairs and some margin. If what the Deputy suggests is correct, that is not applicable to anything in the past, but is new money for the new scheme.
The sixpence is new money for the new scheme.
If there is sixpence clear for putting into the new scheme, then I will be prepared to say that that sixpence will be regarded as part of the shilling to go into the scheme and that the other part of the shilling would be made up next year.
I am quite agreed to that.
Most of the rates have been struck, I know, and, to a certain extent, I hope they have. A certain amount of pressure has been brought to bear to get people to strike rates up to time. Any new schemes not before us would likely take six weeks or more to be put up. I would not encourage the withholding of the striking of the rates for such a period in order to include a rate in this way, except there are special local bodies in a particular position that could conveniently do it. That would mean that in two months the scheme would be examined and passed. The amendment provides that a shilling rate could be struck next year for a scheme that will be passed, and in the great majority of cases the councils would only require the money in respect of the scheme passed in this way. I do not want to commit myself to too big a hope that there is lying in the Wexford rate struck for this year a spare sixpence.
I would be glad if there was.
Yes. There is very definitely a housing rate of sixpence, and there is a scheme ready for building sixteen houses. The money is to be used for that purpose. What I want to know is that, having struck only a rate of sixpence, we would be debarred from getting the facilities which this amendment would afford.
Nothing authoritative can be said on the matter until the rate has been examined.
There is a question in regard to the wording of the amendment which I would like to ask the Minister. It is stated that "every such house shall not be disposed of by way of sale or lease save at such price and rent and subject to such conditions as the Minister shall approve." That wording would give the ordinary casual reader the idea that it was not the intention of the Government to encourage local authorities to dispose of these houses. I suggest that the same effect might be obtained in a different way. I am glad to know that it is not in the Minister's mind to discourage the sale of such houses, but I think that it should be more clearly expressed.
If you take the rent, where we give a special grant, where the local authority has struck a special rate, and where the object intended to be served is the housing of the poor, Deputies will understand that we will take steps to see that the rent charged is appropriate. I admit that when you come to the sale of houses where money can be put down, there will be, on our part, a desire to get in as big capital sums in the disposal of houses by sale as it will be possible to get. Although that may, to some extent, work against what we have in mind, namely, the letting of those houses at a low rent, we want to control the situation, where it is possible to do so and where the general circumstances permit it, so that the amount charged will be neither too high nor too low.
You are doing that already.
I think that there is nothing sinister or nothing that can be misunderstood in the wording of the amendment. It gives us the power in order to balance in any particular scheme the State grant, the money provided by the local authority, the number of houses, or the rent charged, and we must have power to approve of the rent or what is analogous to that, the selling price, and it is only by analogy that the selling price comes in.
The only suggestion that I have to make is that the wording gives the casual reader the impression that it is not the desire of the Government to dispose of these houses. I suggest that instead of putting it in this negative way it should be stated in positive form and that after the word "house" you put in such words as these: "may be sold or leased at such price or subject to such rent and conditions as the Minister shall approve."
I will consider that point as to the positive and negative way of stating that. If necessary we can make an amendment on Report.
I do not think that this amendment is going to achieve very much. In principle it is a good amendment and I would like it to achieve a great deal. I would like to see municipal and urban councils all over the Twenty-six Counties in a position and being willing to strike a special rate of 1/- in the £ for the purpose of housing, but I am afraid that it will not be done. I am afraid that the number of local authorities which you will get, even by holding out an inducement of an increased grant, to put on an extra shilling in the rates will be very small. It is, however, a move in the right direction, and it is showing local authorities that so far as this House is concerned it is prepared to dip deeper into the State's pocket if necessary to encourage such local authorities to do likewise and get over the difficulty regarding housing. I hope that anybody who can influence, or who is a member of such authority, will try to induce them to make use of the powers given in the amendment and take advantage of the extra grant that is offered. Unless that is done this question of housing, which is so urgent and pressing, will drag on for a long time. I do not know if Deputy Rice is responsible for the idea, but it is a good one, and I certainly approve of it. As I say, I hope that everything will be done to induce local authorities, where they can afford to do so, to strike this extra rate, if not this year, next year.
There are just a few points in regard to the amendment that I would like to have cleared up. If all the money voted here under this Bill were availed of a certain number of houses would be built. Now, however, with the additional inducement offered under this amendment, to local authorities to get an extra grant, the Minister might find himself in the position that a smaller number of houses than that originally intended would be built. The Minister has probably some information on the matter and he could probably tell us whether Deputy Rice is correct in stating that if an extra shilling in the £ were put on for building purposes in Dublin, 200 extra houses would be built. Personally, I do not believe that the citizens of Dublin would be satisfied to have 200 extra houses built in exchange for an extra shilling on the rates. So far as I can calculate, there would be between 4,000 and 5,000 houses built if the full amount of money voted was availed of. If all the local authorities were now to avail of this extra grant the number would, in my opinion, be reduced to about 3,000. Is the Minister prepared to say whether that is so and, if we get a boom in building throughout the country, will he introduce a Supplementary Grant during the year? I do not know in what position Dublin would stand but I have an idea that it would not be concerned in this particular matter as the Commissioners here can raise money in the ordinary way to build houses, and they would probably find that it would not be a profitable return to build houses by putting an extra shilling on the rates. Has the Minister any figures that would tell us what amount of money would be realised by the imposition of an extra shilling in the rates in Dublin and what number of houses would be built out of that extra rate?
A shilling in the £ would raise approximately £57,000. The Deputy will understand that there is a question of rent involved in this. It is not contemplated by me, at any rate, that a housing scheme in Dublin with a rate of a shilling in the £ going towards it and this increased grant, would involve the rents that are charged at the present moment for four-roomed houses built under the old conditions. That requires very careful consideration before we can say how many houses would be involved. I do not know where the figure of 200 comes from.
Deputy Rice introduced the figure of 200.
I will not make myself responsible for it, but the Deputy will understand that this question of rent could, as I said, only be considered for a definite scheme. Dublin city will get such advantages as are enshrined in this particular amendment, if it cares to take advantage of it, and I see very good reason why it should.
I do not think that this amendment will be acceptable to the general body of members here inasmuch as it is a clear incitement or encouragement to local authorities, such as you have here in Dublin, where there is necessity for building houses, and where you have in charge of the administration a Commissioner who feels that his main work is to provide houses for the workers, to strike such a rate. He is not very much troubled as to what the feelings of the ratepayers generally concerned are or whether their attitude is favourable or unfavourable. I mean he is in a different position to that of a county council which is responsible for the administration of a county. The members of a county council are directly in touch with the people, and I feel that when they are asked to strike a shilling in the £ they are asked to do something which is not feasible, and the Minister knows perfectly well that they will not do it. The object of the amendment, in my opinion, is to give better opportunities——
The amendment does not apply to county councils. It applies only to urban councils.
If you take a case where there are no urban areas the county councils have to deal with this matter of housing. There you have a case in which the county council is implicated. Under this amendment you give facilities to larger corporations or to county councils that are well situated financially, by striking a rate of a shilling in the £ to raise such a sum of money. The result of it will be that you will increase the number of houses built in one county or in an urban area to the detriment of poorer areas. In the case of Dublin here, a rate of a shilling in the £ brings in about £50,000. If you take the average cost of a house at £400—I think it is something over that—that means that something like 140 houses will be built, and if you give an additional sum of £12 for each house it will mean that an additional sum of £1,680 will be taken out of this total grant of £200,000. To my mind this clause will undoubtedly lead to certain authorities in the country getting a far larger proportion of the grant than they are entitled to. They will get a larger share of the grant than would be ordinarily allotted to them while councils which are financially embarrassed and which cannot afford to strike a shilling rate will be deprived of that share of the grant which they would otherwise receive. I am opposed to the amendment because I think it is most unfair in a general way to the community.
I have again to point out that the proposal only applies to the urban districts. In reply to what Deputy Briscoe has said, I can only say that if this money is used up, a new Housing Bill will be brought in. If I could give consideration to the matter overnight and if I saw that the money provided under the Bill should be increased rather than that we should have to look forward to a new Housing Bill at an early date, I would perhaps deal with it, but as the matter stands, the only effect of having the money used up will be that a new Housing Bill will have to be brought in at an earlier date than was anticipated.
The Minister's statement answers a question which I intended to put to him. If most or all of the local authorities decide to strike a rate, what guarantee would they have that the money will be available, because the amount provided in the Bill is very small? If Dublin strikes a rate of a shilling. Dublin will absorb practically all of this money under this Bill. If all councils outside Dublin decide to strike a rate of a shilling, what guarantee have they that the money will be forthcoming?
We are voting a very substantial amount of money here, and if schemes are proposed in such rapid succession and in such volume as the Deputy says, we will have to face that question, and it is a question that will be faced.
Will the Minister say whether it is intended to give facilities under the Act for the building of cottages in rural areas for labourers?
There is a grant of £50 in respect of labourers' cottages.
In this clause under discussion will there be any provision for increasing that grant to local authorities who strike the rate that the Minister mentioned?
If we see any sign that boards of health are faced with such a problem and that county councils are prepared to strike a housing rate, we can deal with that particular matter. I think the Deputy will hardly suggest that there is any sign of that at present. It is only in urban districts that we have been given hope of a housing rate, and I think it is premature to give any consideration to the matter of what might be done in a case where a county council is prepared to strike a housing rate, in respect of labourers' cottages.
Would the Minister not consider that the best way to encourage that would be not to make it compulsory on the council to strike another shilling rate, but to leave it optional to the council to strike a smaller rate where a smaller rate would meet the requirements of the district?
You will not get the county council to strike a rate of one shilling in the £, but if they got certain privileges of striking a rate of threepence or sixpence where the area of charge is fairly large, and where the rateable valuation is large, it would encourage them. Would you not leave the county council power to strike a smaller rate?
When we come to consider the possibility of the county councils moving in this particular matter we can consider the question of a smaller rate. Here we are dealing with urban authorities whose rateable valuation is very small. Nothing less than a one shilling rate would be of any use, considering the housing requirements of the urban districts. The county council does not come into the matter of this particular scheme at all. My information on the matter is not such as would make me suggest in connection with this particular Bill that a similar provision such as we are making in the urban districts—an increased grant where there is a housing rate— should be introduced in connection with the counties.
We may take it that the Minister wants to discourage applications from the county councils generally to take advantage of the building scheme.
In other words, all these Housing Bills are only intended to serve towns and cities.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
One of the unsatisfactory features of this Bill is that it is proposed to make grants on a flat rate quite irrespective of the type of house for which the grant is to be given. On a Second Reading of the Bill we indicated that our opinion was that the four-roomed house was the house that the local authorities at any rate should set out to build in the main. I was sorry when I heard the Minister say that he was anxious to get this Bill through immediately, because it was our intention on the Report Stage, when further amendments on the section were dealt with, to bring in an amendment changing the flat rate to one which would give some slight preference to the four-roomed house over the three-roomed house. As it stands it is obvious that what is going to happen is, as Deputy Good pointed out in the case of the private builder, there will be a definite inducement to build three-roomed houses rather than four-roomed ones. The proportion of the cost is, I understand, something about 4 to 5. In that case it seems to me that grants ought to be roughly in that proportion. Our intention was to propose that the rates should be £45 and £60, leaving £60 to four-roomed houses and five-roomed houses, and making no distinction between four-roomed and five-roomed houses, and £45 for the three-roomed houses.
Is that in respect of houses built by the local authorities?
In the case of the private builder we would not propose to reduce his amount lower but to leave in the case of three-roomed houses the inducement there to the private builders and to have a direct inducement to the local authority to build four-roomed rather than three-roomed houses.
I think that position is fully safeguarded by the position in which the Minister for Local Government is placed in regard to schemes of houses to be put up by the local authorities. All schemes put up under the Working Classes Act have to be approved of by the Minister, and naturally the whole circumstances of the district and the objective of the local authority's scheme will be very carefully considered before approval is given to the scheme. The Ministry would not be prepared to approve, to any large extent, of the three-roomed house, that is of the one living room and two bedrooms type of house, but there might be cases in part of a fairly large scheme where it would be desirable that a few houses of that kind might be provided for. As some of the Deputies have explained, the cost of the three-roomed house is relatively greater than that of the four-roomed house, and there is a case for not reducing the grant for the three-roomed houses in the isolated and really few cases in which such houses would be sanctioned, but the Department's whole housing policy is to control what will be done. There is full control in the Department over what is done in the matter of preparing the schemes and the type of houses they will approve when provided by local authorities. So I would not be prepared to accept a proposal that there should be a smaller grant for the three-roomed houses. It might be desirable that the grant would be the same, and there is full power in the Minister to prevent the building of houses of too small a kind.
The difficulty is that we have no control over the policy of the Ministry. We do not know very definitely what is going to be the policy with respect to the three-roomed house and the four-roomed house, and we think we should have some definite guarantee that there is a special inducement to build a four-roomed house rather than a three-roomed house. The policy of the Ministry may change from day to day. We have no control over it, and I think we are justified in seeing it down in black and white and in seeing that it would be effective in the Bill and we would like to have an opportunity of having an amendment discussed by the House if the Minister is not prepared to meet us.
I would suggest to the Deputy that there is nothing terribly wrong in leaving the matter open. It is only a question of having the matter wrong for a period, say, of twelve months, and the matter can be further considered then, but in the meantime I think we ought to be free to allow the local authority to build a certain number of three-roomed houses, if necessary. I personally would not be prepared to agree to it as a kind of general practice, or be prepared to agree that there is any other type of houses which are required for the working classes than the four-roomed house with the one living room and three bedrooms.
Have we a definite assurance with respect to the policy of the Ministry in this respect? I am not quite clear what the policy of the Ministry is. Is it a fact that the policy of the Ministry is that four-roomed houses should be the rule and that three-roomed houses should be built only in very exceptional cases by local authorities?
We are dealing with a very large number of urban areas, and the circumstances in each area have to be considered in connection with each particular scheme. Schemes which are put up from time to time under these Acts in connection with these cases are only a picked out part of the problem, a contribution to the solution of the whole. I would not be prepared to say that only four-roomed houses should be allowed, just as I would not be prepared to say that there should be only three or five-roomed houses. You have families of the poorer classes to be considered with large and small families. You will require a certain amount of discretion in that matter. Any discretion that will be exercised as between having three, four or five-roomed houses will be a discretion exercised jointly by the Minister and the local authorities with the controlling power in the matter in the hands of the Minister. But usually, I think, local authorities know their requirements and act rather reasonably as regards the type of house they are providing. The type of house that has mostly been provided in recent months is a four-roomed house. At any rate, if we do allow three-roomed houses in this particular Act to be built, it will mean that we will gain a certain amount of experience, and I think local authorities and the Ministry are looking for that experience. It may be that there is not very much at stake, except such schemes as will be put up within twelve months or within nine months.
While I am not objecting to this Bill going through as it is, it is quite clear that this particular attitude with regard to housing is an indication that the Government are putting the responsibility of providing houses definitely on local bodies as distinct from the Government taking responsibility on their own shoulders. In calculating this thing it would appear that the extra grant that the local body has to put up is to be twenty times greater, and it is quite clear that it is not going to improve the situation at all.
Do I understand the suggestion to be that where for a particular house £72 is put up, the local body has to put up twenty times 72?
If they did not avail themselves of striking this rate they would get a certain amount per house from the Government. In order to get the extra amount they have to strike a rate of 1/-. In Dublin City for 300 houses they would have to strike a rate of 1/-. That would realise £57,000, and for £57,000 they would get from the Government £21,000. If they did not strike the rate they would be able to get £18,000 for the smaller houses, so that by striking a 1/- rate to raise the £57,000 they are only getting £3,000 extra.
What the Deputy is suggesting is that the Ministry would agree to a scheme for 300 houses in respect of which the Corporation would provide £57,000; that is to say, a scheme in Dublin would be approved for which the Government would provide £72 a house and the local authority would provide £200. The residue only would be found from the tenant in the matter of rent. I cannot imagine, being put the problem right off, that it would mean any such thing.
Does the Minister not agree that in the City of Dublin if they did not strike that rate they would not be entitled to the increase?
And, therefore, the striking of 1/- rate would mean that they would only get £3,000 extra from the Government. That is the position.
It is a very imaginary one.
Section 3 put and agreed to.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 7.
(1) Each local authority having power to levy rates shall, in every of the first nineteen local financial years after the valuation for rating purposes of a house in respect of the erection of which a grant shall have been made by the Minister under this Act to a person or public utility society, remit a portion of the rates leviable in respect of that house in that year by the local authority.
(2) The amount of the rate leviable in any such year as aforesaid which shall be remitted by a local authority under the foregoing sub-section shall be the proportion of such rate specified in the second column of the Second Schedule to this Act opposite the number of such year in the first column of the said Second Schedule.
(3) The provisions of Section 12 of the Local Government Act, 1927 (No. 3 of 1927) shall not have effect in the case of any house in respect of which a grant is made by the Minister under this section.
I move:—
In sub-section 3, line 4, page 5, to delete the word "section" and substitute therefor the word "Act."
This is only a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Sections 8, 9 and 10, First and Second Schedules and Title agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Friday.
