Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1931—Committee (resumed).
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50.
Question proposed: "That Section 50 stand part of the Bill."
I want to call attention to this particular section and to ask for an explanation of its meaning. It might be thought by anybody reading it that it was of extreme importance but as it is couched in language of reference to other Acts I would like the Minister to explain these Acts. The Section reads:—
Paragraphs (1) to (8) and paragraph (12) of section 11 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, which amend the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the payment of purchase money, the conveyance of land and other matters shall apply to the taking of land otherwise than by agreement under the Lands Clauses Acts as amended by the Housing of the Working Classes Acts by a local authority for the purposes of those Acts, in like manner as the said paragraphs apply to a district council so taking land for the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1930, with the modification that in paragraph (1) of the said section 11 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, the words "Land Clauses Acts" shall be substituted for the words "Land Purchase Acts."
It will be evident to the Seanad that that is the kernel of the whole Bill. I have read it for the sake of the clarification of the meaning of this Bill. It is so very clear and so easily understood by the most immature mind that it might seem unnecessary to ask the Minister to explain it. For my part, I do not understand it and I would like the Minister to explain it and say whether he could not by some means give it a simpler meaning.
It would be quite easy to give it a simple meaning, but from the point of view of getting the law clearly defined the section as it stands is in the simplest possible way for the technical person who has to deal with it. The object of the section is to enable local authorities to accept a limited proof of title with a view to avoiding excessive expense in connection with the assessment of title to land where the compensation at present does exceed £60. The local authorities are given power to pay compensation over to a person who gave prima facie evidence that he is the person entitled to sell under the Lands Clauses Act and has been in receipt of rents and profits, and if there are mistakes made it provides for the rectification of those mistakes when shown.
It is possible to accept a limited title in connection with the acquiring of land under the Labourers Acts. In order to meet the position that we discussed on Section 48 yesterday, where the Dublin Corporation and others represented to us the great cost of proving titles which had to go back for a considerable period, it is considered desirable to allow urban authorities to take the same kind of simple proof of title that the rural authorities have had.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 51 to 62 agreed to.
SECTION 63.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1930, as amended by this Act, the Minister may under section 3 of the Housing Act, 1929 (No. 12 of 1929), as modified by this section, continue to make grants to private persons erecting houses to which that Act as modified by this section applies.
(2) For the purposes of this section the aggregate amount of the grants made or to be made under the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1930, as amended by this Acts, shall be increased by the sum of twenty-five thousand pounds.
(3) The Housing Bill, 1929 (No. 12 of 1929) shall for the purposes of this section, have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say:—
(a) Paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act shall have effect as if there were substituted therein "£20" for "£45";
(b) Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 5 and subsections (1) and (2) of section 7 of the said Act shall not apply;
(c) No grant shall be made by the Minister under the said Act unless the local authority within whose functional area the house is erected make a grant in respect of the house of an amount equivalent to that made by the Minister;
(d) For rules 2 and 4 of the First Schedule to the said Act there shall be substituted the following rules:—
2. The floor area of a house shall not be less than 500 square feet and not more than—
(a) 950 square feet if such house is erected in a county borough, borough, urban district or town; or
(b) 1,250 square feet if such house is erected elsewhere;
4. The erection of a house shall have been begun on or after the 1st day of January, 1932, and shall have been completed before the expiration of this section.
(4) This section shall continue in force until the 31st day of December, 1933, and shall then expire.
The following amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Senator MacEllin:—
Section 63, sub-section (1). To delete in line 36 the words "private persons" and to substitute therefor the words "Public Utility Societies."
Cathaoirleach
I understand, Senator, you do not desire to move amendment 12 at this stage.
No. I am not moving it as there is a slight mistake in the wording. I will move it on the Report Stage.
Amendment not moved.
Amendment 13 stands in the name of Senator Connolly:—
Section 63, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "or to private persons erecting such houses for their own occupation."
As this amendment is more or less in keeping with the one that I will move on the Report Stage I would prefer if it were dealt with then, if that is satisfactory to the House. If not I will go on with it now.
It is not clear what the meaning of it is.
Cathaoirleach
Perhaps it would be more convenient to take the amendment on the Report Stage if the House is agreeable.
Amendment not moved.
I move: "Section 63, sub-section (3), to delete paragraph (a)." I am not particularly enthusiastic about the amendment but would like to have it discussed. It seems to me that the amendment would have the effect of leaving matters as they were under the original Act passed in 1929. That Act stated that any person erecting one or more houses would get a grant not exceeding £45 in respect of each house. That would be the most desirable state of affairs from the rural point of view. This Bill would take away any advantage given to the rural areas in the previous Act.
I take it that there is some connection between this amendment and the next amendment "To delete paragraph (c)." Under the 1929 Act a private person building a house in a rural or an urban area got £45, and a certain remission of rates on the lines of Senator Johnson's amendment. The proposal in the Bill is that to a private person building a house there shall be made a State grant of £20 on condition that the local authority gives another £20. There will be a two-thirds remission of rates in respect of the seven years provided for in the Bill.
That point comes under the next amendment.
I take it that in discussing whether we should take out this £20, and have it £45 from the State we want to take cognisance of the other idea as well. At any rate I certainly have to oppose the making of a State grant of £45. The general principle under which we are operating at the moment is that we have practically reached the time when grants to ordinary private persons building houses should cease. We have come to the conclusion that the time has practically arrived when it should cease. We have been unwilling to take the grant away without giving some opening to persons in areas where the local authorities considered the housing position so important, and the general position in that area of such a nature, that private persons ought to continue for some time to get a grant from public funds towards building houses for themselves. We require the local authorities to show us their conviction in that matter by undertaking to give a grant of £20. If they give a grant of £20 the State will give a grant of £20, so that a person who, under the 1929 Act, got a grant of £45 will now be able to get within a limited amount, a grant of £40. I think that is a reasonable step-down in the matter of giving grants to private persons building houses. It is quite clear that the amount of money required to deal with the housing of the very poor, and to deal with insanitary housing, whether in the urban or in the rural areas, is so great that the subsidising of house building by private persons in the ordinary way must cease at the earliest possible moment. We are simply giving this outlet to particular areas where the local authorities are convinced that grants ought to continue for some time.
The Minister has enunciated a doctrine which, presumably, is going to determine Government policy in regard to housing in the future. He indicated again that the time has been reached when public assistance to private persons building houses shall cease. The presumption, therefore, is that henceforth it will not be private persons will be building houses, but public authorities. I do not know whether the Minister intends that, but that seems to me to be the logical conclusion. I can see no prospect, unless there is going to be an all-round advance in wages, of the average workman being able to pay the economic rent—a paying rent—for the house whose standard civilization has set. The expectation the Minister holds out that private persons will build houses for profit for the working classes suited to the wages of the working classes, is, I think, an expectation that will not be realised. To contemplate that there shall be no public assistance given to private persons building houses means, that there will be no houses built for the working class unless the public authorities build them. The conclusion, therefore, to be drawn from the Minister's statement is that the Government policy is, that no public assistance is to be given for the building of houses, and that houses for the working classes must come from the rates.
Cathaoirleach
We are going a little outside the section. This is a question of a subsidy of £45 being given instead of £20 in regard to particular houses. It does not deal with the capacity of the poorer people to pay rents.
May I submit that it deals with the subvention of private persons building houses? It is proposed to make the grant £45 instead of £20.
Cathaoirleach
Yes, but you are making a far larger issue of it as regards the ability of poor persons to pay the rent of houses provided for them.
I would think that that is perfectly germane.
Cathaoirleach
I submit to your ruling, sir. I cannot pursue the argument.
Lest what the Senator has said would prejudice Senators in favour of the amendment, I would like to point out that in Section 64 (1) (e) we make arrangements by which public utility societies building houses are assisted by the State to the extent of 50 per cent. of the loan charges for 20 years, as well as the possibility of getting 75 per cent. of the capital moneys necessary. While reducing the amount of the grant to private persons in the Bill and putting in this condition, the Bill provides for the giving of the facilities of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act to persons building houses in rural areas, so that they will be able to get through the local authorities, whatever percentage of the capital cost of the houses that they require, up to the limit in the Act—90 per cent. of the cost.
I do not agree with the Minister that Section 64 (1) (e) will cover any disadvantage as compared with the old Bill.
I was dealing with Senator Johnson's point.
In connection with my amendment?
Cathaoirleach
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment 15, Section 63, sub-section (3). To delete paragraph (c).— (Senator Johnson, Senator MacEllin.)
Amendment 16. Section 65, sub-section (1). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor two new sub-sections as follows:—
"(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 dwelling-house to which this section applies 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 each 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 Fourth Schedule of this Act opposite the number of such year in the first column of the said Fourth Schedule."—(Senator Johnson.)
Amendment 18. New Schedule. Before the Fourth Schedule to insert a new Schedule as follows:—
"FOURTH SCHEDULE.
Proportion of Rates to be Remitted.
|
Number of year after valuation for rating purposes.
|
Proportion of rates to be remitted.
|
|
1st
|
Nineteen-twentieths
|
|
2nd
|
Eighteen-twentieths
|
|
3rd
|
Seventeen-twentieths
|
|
4th
|
Sixteen-twentieths
|
|
5th
|
Fifteen-twentieths
|
|
6th
|
Fourteen-twentieths
|
|
7th
|
Thirteen-twentieths
|
|
8th
|
Twelve-twentieths
|
|
9th
|
Eleven-twentieths
|
|
10th
|
Ten-twentieths
|
|
11th
|
Nine-twentieths
|
|
12th
|
Eight-twentieths
|
|
13th
|
Seven-twentieths
|
|
14th
|
Six-twentieths
|
|
15th
|
Five-twentieths
|
|
16th
|
Four-twentieths
|
|
17th
|
Three-twentieths
|
|
18th
|
Two-twentieths
|
|
19th
|
One-twentieth.”
|
|
(Senator Johnson).
|
Amendment 15 is related directly to amendments 16 and 18.
Cathaoirleach
Would you like to discuss them together?
Cathaoirleach
I take it that the House will agree to that seeing that the amendments are related.
Agreed to discuss amendments together.
I might say that I could probably have produced the same results if I had moved to delete lines in 49 and 50 the words "and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7." Perhaps. That would not have been very clear, so I put down the amendments as they appear on the Order Paper. Paragraph (c) which the amendment proposes to delete states:
No grant shall be made by the Minister under the said Act unless the local authority within whose functional area the house is erected make a grant in respect of the house of an amount equivalent to that made by the Minister.
The subsequent amendments are directed towards securing that private persons building houses, instead of receiving a grant from the local authority of £20 and a remission of two-thirds of the rates for seven years, will get no grant from the local authority but will get a grant of £20 from the Minister, the local authority remitting the rates in the manner in which they have been remitted during the past few years— that is to say, 19-20ths the first year, falling by twentieths to one-twentieth in the nineteenth year. Under this proposal, there will be practically no loss to the local authority. Assuming that the £20 proposed in the Bill as a subsidy were set aside for twenty years at 5 per cent. compound interest, it would, at the end of that period, amount to £53. To put it the other way, the total amount of rates received under the plan of the Bill in twenty years would be £220. If we deduct from that total, which the local authority will receive under the plan of the Bill, the amount which £20 set aside for twenty years at five per cent. compound interest will reach, we will get a sum of £167. I am speaking now of a holding which pays £15 rates. That same holding, under the proposal in my amendments, would give to the Corporation, instead of £167 in twenty years, £157 15s. in the same period, so that the financial effect on the local council would be very small. If there are any advantages at all to be got by the measure, the financial loss cannot be regarded as appreciable. That there are advantages to the corporation and to the community generally is the case that I think has to be made before the amendment will appeal to the House.
I submit that the proposal in the Bill will deter builders and other private individuals from building houses. The remission of two-thirds of the rates for the first seven years is going to add to the annual outlay of the occupant of the house for these first seven years as compared with the previous remission of rates by twentieths, and at the end of the seven years, there will be a sudden jump in the call upon his purse. In the case of the class of house that one thinks of in this connection, the jump will practically amount to 5/- per week. That will come at the end of the seven years, when there will be an annual demand for repairs and renovations, so that the effect of the Bill will be to deter prospective house-purchasers from building. If the deterrent is such that no houses are built, then such income from rates as the corporation might expect during the twenty years will not be received. Consequently, the corporation will be worse off under the Bill, if my anticipation is well-founded, than they would be under the scheme which has prevailed up to the present and which it is now sought to alter.
The Minister has indicated that it is the view of his Department—I am speaking now of the Dublin area—that there should be some intermediate stage between the houses likely to be built by the corporation and the £800 to £1,000 houses which are being built. He hopes to bring about the building of houses costing £600 or £650. I think that that hope is not well-founded. Under the proposal made by the Minister in the Bill, it seems to me that there is no prospect at all of a house valued by the corporation valuers at £600, the remission of rates being based on that valuation, being let at less than £1 a week or thereabouts for the first seven years, the rent increasing by about 3/- per week after that. A man who can contemplate paying £1 a week as rent ought to have a better house than £600 will provide. The experience of experts on this subject, I think, is that the person who can pay a rent of about £1 per week will look for a bigger house than £600 or £650 will provide. There is not any great likelihood of this class of house being built by speculative builders or public utility societies under the proposals in the Bill. I fear that there will be a considerable reduction in the number of houses built by private persons as a result of the new scheme as set out in the Bill. I fear that the campaign of house-building which is hoped for through the clearance of sites and the provision of dwellings for the working classes will not be got under way within the next six months. Therefore, we have to face the prospect of a fall in the production of houses of the more expensive kind— costing from £800 to £1,000—without any concurrent production of houses of the cheaper kind. During the next twelve months there will be, in my opinion, a slackening-off in house-building. That slackening might be mitigated if the plan of the recent Acts were revived—that is to say, if the inducement of remission of rates for twenty years were held out to private builders, speculators and public utility societies building on the lines on which they have been building up to the present. That would be much more attractive to them than the scheme of the Bill. As the proposal in the amendments will not have any adverse effect on either State finances or municipal finances—it will be actually beneficial to municipal finances—I think the case for the amendments is complete and I hope the House will support my proposal.
Senator Johnson and I have been thinking along the same lines with regard to the deletion of paragraph (c), but I view the matter somewhat differently from him. My reason for moving the deletion of the paragraph is that I think it would be inoperative in the country. Local authorities would not, I think, avail themselves of the opportunity of making grants, not because they are not anxious to assist in the building of houses but because these grants would involve an increase in the rates. We have coming up here constantly Bills which involve an increase of some sort in the rates. The innocent statement is made from time to time that such a Bill will only mean a penny in the £ additional on the rates, and that that will not be very much. We may be told that a penny in the £ will implement the provisions of this Bill. That does not look very much, but we must remember that during the past six months we have had half a dozen Bills in respect of which the same suggestion was made—that 1d. or 2d. in the £ on the rates would not matter very much. We have had the Vocational Education Bill, the Tourist Traffic Bill and the Agriculture Bill, in respect of which there was the same underlying suggestion. That is why I object to this sort of legislation. I feel that on account of this paragraph the Bill will not be made operative by the local authorities. That will mean that no grants will go to the rural areas and that all assistance will be done away with. We have had quite a number of Commissions appointed to take charge of local areas. I have no doubt that the Commissioners will give effect to the Bill. It will cost them nothing.
These are the main reasons why I move the deletion of this particular paragraph. I ask the House to give serious consideration to the two particular suggestions that are coming up here in this Bill. I ask the House to turn down definitely this method of getting Bills passed, and I ask the House to refuse to implement Bills for the benefit of people other than for the benefit of people who are asked to pay more.
There is a tremendous readiness on the part of Senators and Deputies in general to embark on works that require money as long as the Minister for Finance is the person who has to go and find it. But there is a reluctance on their part, as members of local bodies, to shoulder and carry out works where they themselves have to be the instruments for imposing the taxation.
If there is on the part of local bodies a reluctance to raise money for housing, then, I think, there is being created by pressure of one kind or another on the members of the Executive Council something designed to create for them a false conscience in this matter. If our housing conditions are such that they ought to be remedied by the application of public money to them, then those who are in charge of local government ought to be as sensitive to the necessity for that as those who sit elsewhere.
The Minister is not dealing with my point at all. It is not dealt with in a parochial way down the country.
If we have not a parochial conscience then we cannot have a national conscience. I do not believe we can have a national conscience, particularly in this question of housing, if that is the position. It seems to me that the standard of housing that the people can afford is very closely allied to the whole of their economic life. You cannot take an area, say, in Connacht and establish there a false standard of housing based upon a false conception of the amount of money that there is in Dublin to apply to housing. I think we are working on very sound lines in passing from the position in which we can provide persons in particular circumstances with direct grants from the State. In passing from that position we give local bodies an opportunity of seeing how much reality, from the point of view of their own particular circumstances, there is in this general demand for providing that persons building houses ought to be assisted from the public funds. The whole policy of the Government would be to drop the grants for private persons right away if there was not evidence on the part of the local authorities from the facts that lay around them that they were prepared to stand for the idea, for some time to come at least, that private persons should be assisted from the public funds. So much with respect to the cutting out of local authorities from these schemes.
On the point raised by Senator Johnson that the old scheme of remission of rates should apply and that the State grant of £20 should be given, I want to say that the remission of rates proposed in the Bill is two-thirds remission for seven years. This is two years in excess of the remission granted to ordinary building under the Local Government Act of 1927. If you take a house in the City of Dublin with a valuation of £22, and assuming a rate of 16/- in the £, the capitalised value of the remission of rates in the Bill would amount to £68. On the scheme of remission proposed by Senator Johnson the capital value of the remission would be £125. If we pass over to the remission of rates on a sliding scale for twenty years, for what purpose are we going to do that and how long are we going to continue? It seems to me that we ought only do it on such a scale for the purpose of off-setting the high building costs. If we are being driven by our general circumstances, financial and otherwise, here to the conclusion that we cannot go ahead with the present standard of housing at the present building costs, then we are only widening the hole in our pocket and we are going to be up against a serious financial situation as well as a serious social situation by encouraging people to expect, from a certain amount of effort, housing conditions of a kind that they cannot expect to continue.
The sooner we clear the ground around the building costs and around the standard for building and the capacity of the ordinary people, I think the better it will be. When I speak of the capacity of the ordinary people I am not speaking of the poorer classes of the people and of the people who live in insanitary houses. What we are proposing for them is that we will advance them loans if the parochial bits of the national conscience think that they ought to get a lump grant from the public funds. If the local conscience thinks so they will get that grant. But we are arranging as a kind of standard that persons of that kind, building houses, will get two-thirds remission of rates for seven years.
In the Local Government Act of 1927 it was arranged as an amendment to a previous Act that ordinary new building would be entitled to two-thirds remission of rates for five years. That Act was expiring in 1930 after three years. I must say I was astounded when I found that that Act was being allowed to lapse without any person connected with any part of the building industry in this country drawing attention to the fact that it was lapsing and pointing out that they did not want it to lapse. No approach good, bad or indifferent was made on behalf of the builders or on behalf of anyone dependent on the builders, protesting that that Act was going to lapse, although it represented a two-third remission of rates for five years in respect of every class of building that was not getting it under the Housing Act.
It seems to me that there must be a terrible amount of obscurity and of waste in building costs if those who are so vitally interested as the builders and others, can afford to ignore the possible dropping of an Act like that. It was really in a most casual way that I extended the Act. I extended the Act because I thought it was reasonable that it should be extended. It is reasonable that for such a small number of years in respect of new building that that remission of rates should be given.
We propose in this Bill to give a remission of rates for seven years for that class of house. I think it is better that that remission of rates should be given in a concentrated way over the seven years than that the total value of what would be given would be allowed to drag out in a scattered way. I know if there were any rapid development of housing in any area it might very easily be a source of very great trouble to the local authority that these rates on a fairly large number of houses were not being paid up, and that at the time when we expect that local authorities will be called upon to bear fairly heavy burdens in connection with the provision of houses for the poorer classes and the removal and clearance of insanitary areas. It will thus be seen how necessary it is that this remission period should not be too long drawn out.
The Minister has evidently not faced the probability that the house-building campaign would slow down, or perhaps he has faced it and looks upon it with unconcern. If he thinks that the whole of the efforts of house builders should be concentrated on building houses for the clearance of and the re-housing of slum areas, and that that is going to be ensured, I have no fault to find with the proposals of the Bill, but I fear that the present circumstances are such that that campaign of re-housing slum areas will not be undertaken with the avidity which everyone hopes because of the expectation of costs, the monetary difficulties and the inability to get down to the figure of £450 per flat that the Minister has set out. If the local authorities had arrived at the conclusion—I am speaking now of the Dublin authority—that at all costs, even at the cost of an addition of another 5/- in the £ to the rates, that they would proceed with the re-housing of slum areas, then the chance of any subsidy from the local authority to assist or supplement the State subsidy of equal amount for private builders goes. The chances of both those moneys being raised by the local authority are very small indeed. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to give the House the assurances that within this next six months there will be a very wholehearted campaign for building houses for the re-housing of the slum dwellings in Dublin and whether the present prospects are such that we can look with confidence upon that being undertaken. The Minister asks for what purpose would this larger remission of rates be embodied in legislation. The whole purpose is to ensure the building of houses. It has been the Government's policy up to now, and I have supported it for one, that even though we are not building houses which do house the working classes, that every house which is built is easing the pressure and making it possible for a little less crowding to take place in the working class areas. If that were well founded at all it would still continue if the houses of a better type are built, and so long as we are not asking the State to subsidise, to any greater degree than they are at present the building of that class of houses, so long as we are not asking the local authorities to pay any more money than the Bill contemplates, then I think the Minister's objection falls to the ground at once unless his policy is to prevent, so far as he can, the building of this better type of house. Apparently there is no hope of the Minister accepting these amendments, and I suppose there is no strong opinion in the Seanad in favour of them, but I shall be very agreeably surprised if we do not hear by next May that there has been a great falling off in the house building campaign in and around Dublin.
Amendment 15 put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 17.
Tá.
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Michael Duffy.
- Thomas Foran.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Seán E. MacEllin.
- Colonel Moore.
- Séumas Robinson.
- Séumas Ryan.
Níl.
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- The Countess of Desart.
- James G. Douglas.
- Michael Fanning.
- Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
- Sir John Keane.
- James Moran.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- M. F. O'Hanlon.
- L. O'Neill.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Michael Staines.
- Richard Wilson.
Tellers:— Tá: Senators Johnson and MacEllin; Níl: Senators Wilson and O'Hanlon.
Amendment declared lost.
Cathaoirleach
There is a new amendment which has not been circulated. It is to Section 63 (3).
SECTION 63.
(3) The Minister shall not make any contribution under this section towards the expenses incurred by local authorities or public utility societies in the erection of any houses in respect of which grants have been or undertaken to be paid by him under the Housing Acts, 1925, to 1930.
I move:
Section 63, sub-section (3). To delete lines 3-6 inclusive of paragraph (d) and to substitute therefor the following:—
4. The erection of the house shall have been begun on or after the 1st day of October, 1931, and shall have been completed after the 29th day of February, 1932, but before the expiration of this section.
It makes a change in the date.
Houses begun subsequent to 1929 and finished before 29th February, 1932, get a grant of £45. If a house were begun, say, in the month of November and not finished before the 29th day of February, 1932, with the date January in, that house could neither get a £45 grant nor the grant that would be available if the twenty plus twenty were made available in any particular area. This sets back the date January to the 1st October, 1931. It is impossible to set a date back so far that houses beyond the estimated number of houses would come in between the date which we fix here and the 29th February next. I am told that it would be possible to begin a house, not now, but say on 1st December, for the purpose of completion under this Act to earn the £45. It is not possible to extend the date back in my opinion, beyond the 1st day of October, but we are extending it so that if any houses escape they will be a small number of houses. If they escape getting a grant they will escape it because of some radical difficulty in carrying out the work on the part of builders.
I think this is an amendment of which we should have notice, because it makes a considerable alteration so far as I can see. As between the provisions of the Bill and this amendment there are twelve months in one case and there are four months in the other, ending on 29th February, 1932. I cannot quite understand the Minister's statement which was made while we were trying to read the amendment and collate it, and I am not satisfied that we should insert this amendment without notice. I think it would be better to defer it until the Report Stage.
I put this net point. At the present moment a house begun since 1929 and completed by the 29th February, 1932, will get the £45 grant. We are providing in the section as it stands that a house which is begun on or after 1st January next and completed before 1933 will get a £20 grant, plus £20 from the local authority, if the local authority are giving it. As the matter stands then, the house that was begun on 31st December, 1931, and was not completed before the end of February, 1932, could neither get the £45 grant nor the £20 grant, and the amendment is to change the date, 1st January, back to a more reasonable date, so that if a house was begun on 1st October or later than 1st October, and was not completed by 29th February, 1932, it would lose the £45 grant, but under the section would get the £20 plus £20 if the local authority were giving it. That is the purpose of the amendment.
If the Minister would agree to make the date 31st May instead of 29th February, to give a longer period, then I could understand the value of the amendment.
The Minister's statement seems to be clear enough, but at the same time it does not show that there is any necessity why this amendment should be taken now. We do not understand its terms except in so far as we have heard the Minister speak of them. Of course, we accept every word he has said, but we do not fully understand all the bearings of the amendment. There is apparently no reason whatever why the amendment should be put to the House at this stage, and I think it would come in more conveniently on the Report Stage this day week. I cannot see any possible objection to that. I do not say that there is anything involved or hidden about the amendment as far as I can see. The only thing that would make us believe that there was something in it, which it was not desired we should know, is that the amendment should be put to a division now when there is no necessity for doing so seeing that it can be brought forward on the Report Stage.
In reply to Senator Johnson's point, the power of the local authority to give grants in respect of houses begun after 1st April ceased until it was included in this Bill. We had to undertake to make provision by which houses begun after 1st April and completed by the end of February would get a grant equivalent to the grant available before, £45. There has been full notice in respect of the terminal dates in respect of that. Really the normal terminal date was extended by four months, from October to 29th February. What Senator Johnson would look for would be an extension of the date that would allow more houses to come under the £45 grant. This amendment is simply shifting back the date in order that in the in-between period houses begun between 1st October and 1st January would not fail to get the new grants.
In that section, will houses started in September be covered?
They will not be covered at all because houses started in September would be expected to be completed before February.
That is one of the difficulties. A house is begun on 15th September and it is not covered, but if the building started on 1st October it will be covered. The unfortunate man who happened to start a few men on the job in the middle of September, not knowing the date which was to be fixed, must lose this subsidy.
You must get a dividing date some time.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Section 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed: "That Section 64 stand part of the Bill."
This section gives in detail the intentions of the Government regarding the financial provisions.
I want to have set down fairly and clearly what the intentions of the Government are so that we will be enabled to see at some future time whether these intentions have in fact been carried out. On the previous stage of the Bill the Minister told us that the £400 house built by a local authority— that is to say, a house which was not intended to replace those in the slum areas but an ordinary house built under the ordinary provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts outside the slum area—could be rented at 9/- per week plus rates, the rates being from 20 to 25 per cent., a total charge of about 11/- or 11/3 per week. Then the £350 single family house which it is intended shall be built to replace slum residences will be able to be rented at 5/10 plus rates, and the £450 flat, again for slum residents, will be able to be rented at 7/6 inclusive of rates. I want these figures to be noted, because I cannot see the likelihood that the £400 house is going to be let at 9/- per week plus rates in view of the experience of artisans who have taken houses under previous schemes. I have in my hand a copy of a tenant purchaser's account for a £400 house, and the purchase money, interest and capital repayment, amount to 9/6 per week, and the balance, things other than capital charges, comes to about 6/- per week.
I do not know whether the period over which these tenant purchasers will have to pay and the price at which the corporation will be able to borrow money is going to make all the difference, but the cost to the purchaser of this particular house is 15s. 6d. a week. The difference between 11s. and 15s. 6d. is so considerable that I very much doubt whether the probabilities of the Minister as to being able to let a £400 house at 11s. a week, or so, including rates, will be realised. If they are realised, then I anticipate the occupants of Dublin Corporation houses will have something to say to the Corporation as to why they should have been placed in so disadvantageous a position compared with those who will be tenants of Corporation houses under the new scheme. I hope the Minister's expectations will be realised.
Section agreed to.
Amendment 16 not moved.
Sections 65 and 66 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move Amendment 17, Second Schedule. Part 1. Paragraph 3. To delete sub-paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on the change that was made in the Dáil in respect to compensation for clearance areas. It also gave rise to amendments that were inserted in the Seanad yesterday to Section 10.
Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Amendment 18 not moved.
Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
