I move that the Bill do now pass.
INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL, 1926—FIFTH STAGE.
Before the passing of this Bill, I want to make clear my position in regard to the final stage. I look upon it as a bad Bill, which should be entitled "A Bill to empower landlords and owners of houses to raise their rents to any degree after certain given dates." While I feel that it is a bad Bill, I realise that if it is not passed, the evil contained in it, but which, by the Bill, is postponed, would be operative at the end of next month. I, therefore, want to postpone the evil contained in the Bill rather than have it operative in so short a period as the end of June.
It is designed in the Bill that this increase of rent, which is to be allowed to the landlords, shall not have effect until the end of June, 1927, in respect of houses of £40 valuation in Dublin and district, and £30 elsewhere than in the Dublin metropolitan area: and in respect of houses of £30 valuation, in the Dublin metropolitan area, and £25 elsewhere, that evil shall not fall until June, 1928. But after June, 1929, all houses, whatever valuation, shall be free from restrictions. Landlords shall then be allowed to charge any rent they can extract from the tenants.
As I say, I am not opposing the Bill at this stage, because I want the evil postponed, but I give notice that every effort possible will be made by those with whom I am associated to have this Act altered, between now and the coming into operation of its various sections. We will attempt to secure the amendment of this Act so as to continue the restrictions until there are houses available to protect the tenants in the towns from being rack-rented. That is my position. The only justification I can give, for agreeing to the final passing of this Bill, is that it postpones the evil day, which would fall in four weeks time, if this Bill was not passed. But it does give people the opportunity of expressing themselves as to the wisdom of allowing these increases to become effective in a year's time, in respect of the larger houses, and two years' time in respect of the medium sized houses, and three years' time in respect to the smaller houses. I hope by that time a new Dáil will have been elected which will have a better sense of the rights of the tenants to their houses in towns than this Dáil.
One is sorry to hear that Deputy Johnson is opposed, so firmly, to the removal of the restrictions on housing. I thought he was going to come round, like a great many more, to the view that the Rent Restrictions Act was doing very serious injury in preventing the provision of houses so urgently needed. It has been pointed out many times during the discussion on this Bill that unless we can get housing into the position that it occupied in pre-war days we are not likely to get anything near the supply of houses to satisfy the demand for them. Deputy Johnson recognises, like the other Deputies who sit behind him, that the demand for houses to-day is a very urgent one and that we are not providing sufficient houses to make up for wear and tear. We are not even keeping up the supply. That being so, I was sorry to hear that Deputy Johnson is so strongly opposed to the removal of the restrictions that have done so much to bring about the state of affairs I have complained of—that is, the inadequacy of housing accommodation. There is only one way of getting houses. Spoon-feeding by the State will not provide houses. The only way to get houses is to put housing again in the position of an investment, and make every effort to popularise that form of investment. When we do that, we will be on the road towards solving the difficulty in connection with the supply of houses.
The restrictions on house-letting and Government interference with houses, prevent people regarding housing as a wise investment. Those who look upon housing as an investment, except from the point of view of the houses they occupy, are exceedingly few. The reason for that is the restriction on that form of investment, imposed through the medium of such measures as we have been considering. Why housing should be singled out for this treatment is very hard to say. As I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, restriction has reached the stage that it is doing a greater injury on the one hand, than it is conferring a benefit on the other. In other words, the injury caused to a great number of persons is far in excess of any advantage that accrues to those on whom it is supposed to confer a benefit. I had hoped that we would have the removal of these restrictions at an earlier date than is proposed in this Bill. I hope that, in the interest of those who require houses—and they are an increasing number—the restrictions will not continue beyond the period set out in the Bill.
I want to make my protest against the sections of this Bill which allow the landlord to increase the rent. This Rent Restriction Bill and the Rent Restriction Act, in force, apply only to pre-war houses. Therefore, all this talk about this Bill and the Act now in force, restricting or interfering with the building of new houses, is so much humbug. It is used merely to create an unfavourable impression of these measures. Deputy Good tells us that the only way to get houses is to remove all restrictions. In other words, the only way to get houses is to allow the landlord a free hand to exploit and to profiteer—to get the highest rent in the market for old houses. Might I remind Deputy Good that Deputy Johnson had an amendment down, which was ruled out of order, providing for the establishment of a fair rent court—a court that would decide what would be a rent fair to the landlord and to the tenant. Deputy Good shakes his head at that.
Would the Deputy invest his own money under such conditions in houses?
I am glad to have that from Deputy Good. It confirms the point I have just made—that the only condition on which the people Deputy Good represents will build houses is, that they be allowed a free hand to exploit the people who are so much in need of houses at the present time. It was set out in this amendment of Deputy Johnson that five per cent. net on the capital value of the dwelling-house would be allowed. We had it from Deputy O'Connor, during the debate in Committee on this Bill, that he would be satisfied, and that the people on whose behalf he was speaking would be satisfied with five per cent. Deputy Good would not be satisfied with that.
Would the Deputy himself be satisfied with it?
I should be very glad to get it.
I can tell you where you will get more if you want to invest money.
The Deputy, I think, would not object to getting a little more.
I have not any money to invest. I wish I had.
The Deputy would not put it into house property if he had.
Here we have the Dáil passing a Bill to increase the cost of living, not only on people whose salaries and wages are being reduced, but on thousands of people who are unemployed. And the number of unemployed is increasing, as was shown by the reply of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the question put by Deputy Norton yesterday. This Bill will also enable landlords of shops, which are covered by the measure, to take over many valuable premises which gained their value because of the present tenants. In many cases they were white elephants before the tenants went into them. By their energy and ability they built up businesses in these premises and thus made the premises valuable. The landlord will be allowed to come along and evict those tenants or increase their rent to as high a figure as he possibly can get. I protest against the sections in this Bill which allow landlords to increase rents, particularly at the present time.
This protracted discussion tends to show what a pity it was to abolish the very useful rural district councils. I think it is unfair to treat the housing of the poor, which is an essential service, as a business problem. The State should take it up and should give authority to the public bodies in the several districts to meet the necessity for houses in their areas. That would obviate to a great extent the debates we have here, and it would avoid the attempts being made by one section of the community to make profit out of the poorer sections, who are dependent on them for houses. The poor should not be left at their mercy. As was promised, I think, twelve months ago, the Government should bring in a Town Tenants Bill, which would cure the whole evil.
The discussion on this Bill on a couple of occasions very nearly exhausted my patience.
That would not be very hard.
This is a measure to deal with what Deputy Johnson calls an evil. What is the evil complained of? To give certain people certain rights which they had in 1908 and every year from that onwards to 1914, and to arbitrate compulsorily on the return they are to get from money which they invested at that time. If some industrial conflict took place and it were proposed to arbitrate compulsorily upon the question, you would hear certain shrieks from certain benches. It is admitted that the necessity for the introduction of this Bill is due to the shortage of houses in the country. In 1922 the Government of the day provided one million pounds for the purpose of providing houses, giving £2 for every £1 put up by the local authorities, and making it a condition of the grant that the local authorities would collect, in rates, one shilling in the £ towards that service. That was really leaving the house at one quarter the cost of production. What happened? Twenty urban councils out of ninety-four refused to take part in that scheme. I presume that most of the speeches that have been delivered here have been delivered on behalf of those twenty councils who considered that two-thirds of the price of the house, as a free present, was not enough.
Why does the President presume that?
Because the arguments were just as weighty and just as suitable and just as constructive as the criticism of this measure.
The councils were manned by your party.
That is right—let the President stand up for the landlords.
I should like to know what the Deputy is doing for the tenants. He is talking for them. They want more. They want houses.
If there are no houses, there will be no landlords. That will solve the whole problem.
And if there were no farms there would be no farmers.
The point that has to be considered is how are houses to be provided?
Would the President tell us what great activity there was in the building of houses prior to the Rent Restrictions Act? Was there any activity outside the city of Dublin then, when materials and labour were cheap?
They were not cheap. Materials and labour were not cheap since 1916.
Take pre-1916.
They were not even cheap in 1916. There was a very considerable rise in the curve of cost that year.
Take building pre-War.
It was not exactly economic, if you take the years 1913 and 1914. If you want proof of that, you will find it in the Local Government departmental report, in which the solution proposed was that money should be lent at £2 1s. 7d. per cent. I want to put this question to Deputies on the opposite side: Taking the working classes as one unit in the population, in any part of the country, and putting on to the price of any house constructed only the cost of the wages, I want to know whether or not they will subscribe to the assertion that they could pay that amount by way of an economic rent.
Will the President face the fact that we are dealing with houses built pre-War.
I am facing that fact, and I hope Deputy Johnson will face the other fact, that the working classes are not in a position to pay a rent which would only discharge the liability of the wages.
That is exactly our case—that the people are not in a position to pay the rents which you are enabling the landlords to put on.
Why?
Because there is a famine in houses.
There is more reason than that, much more—because the burden is sought to be placed on those who provided houses before 1914. They are asked to carry the burden and to carry a heavier weight. Everything else can go up. The cost of bread, meat, trams, railway transport, clothing, and every conceivable item—even the valuable business Deputy Morrissey referred to can increase its turn-over and its profits—but here is a thing in which a man put his money, and he is not allowed to increase the charge.
What is the Government doing to stop profiteering in the things the President mentions?
They are doing just as much as the Deputy is doing— and a little more. We are doing more than talking about it. We are prepared to do more if the Deputy will give us some valuable advice on the subject. I cited before the case of one particular organisation in the City of Dublin—the Artisans Dwellings Company. That company was started very largely on philanthropic grounds as far back as 1878. The shares, when issued, were £10 each. Later, by reason of its success, and by reason of the fact that much lower dividends were at that time being earned by public companies, they were paying five per cent. Five per cent. was considered, at that time, a very high return on money. The cost to Government for money at that time was about 3 per cent.—perhaps even less. The company issued some shares at a premium of £2. A ten-pound share was issued at £12. What is the price of that share to-day? That is a fair question. This is the one company in the whole of the country which has done a real service to the working-classes. What is the market value of that share? Seven pounds. Deputies want to know from us why people do not build. That is the reason. There is no other reason. They have not built houses since 1908——
Might I ask the President if it is his opinion that the only way people in this country can be encouraged to build houses is to give them an absolutely free hand in taking advantage of the present shortage and exploiting the people who require houses?
I should have expected a much more sensible question than that from the Deputy.
The President has got all the sense.
I ask the Deputy, in view of the facts I have put before him, if that is not a particularly silly question to ask.
It is particularly difficult for the President to answer.
If all the things that have been mentioned by the Opposition are true, those shares should be bounding—absolutely bounding. They should be worth £14.
Will the President answer my question?
That is the answer to it. In the first place, it is a silly question. In the second place, in view of the facts I have given, and in view of the statements made by Deputies Johnson and Morrissey—that here is an opportunity to those people to exploit —I ask what is the effect on the stock market of the great exploitation alluded to by the Deputies? The shares have not advanced a single sixpence by reason of the passing of this Act. And those people are capitalists! When Deputy Johnson and Deputy Morrissey do as much for their people as those people, who are capitalists, do for the working-classes of Dublin, I will take off my hat to them.
Would the President say if this Bill only applies to Dublin. He seems to be able to think only of Dublin.
I dealt with those twenty local authorities who would not take £2 for every £1 they were putting into houses. It is open to the Deputy to bring up facts and figures. I stated here on the last day that in respect of new houses built, three times the number were valued in 1925 that were valued in 1924, showing that three times the number of houses was provided in that period.
I hope that the country will recognise the arguments for this Bill.
Start another Artisans' Dwellings Company and we will take off our hats to you.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.