PUBLIC BUSINESS. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATES ON SMALL DWELLINGS) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE. – Dáil Éireann (6th Dáil) – Thursday, 23 Feb 1928

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATES ON SMALL DWELLINGS) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.

General MULCAHY

I desire to move the Second Reading of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Bill. In dealing with the incidence of rates, there are two rather important matters that have to be kept in mind. One is in order that the local administration may be responsibly carried out those who vote for the election of representatives will also be persons who contribute to the rates, so that there will be an element of responsibility both in the voters and the elected representatives. The second matter is that for the purpose of facilitating economy in the collection of rates persons who shall be ratepayers shall be people of some substance and permanency of domicile. The Local Government Act of 1898 took cognisance of the first matter when it put primary responsibility for the poor rate on the occupiers of dwellings. In fact certain landlords did continue to pay the rates, either by agreement with the tenant or otherwise. Recently certain developments have taken place which affect very much the second matter. In the first place, the Restriction of Rent Acts prevented landlords from raising their rents beyond a particular point, and the landlords began to transfer to the occupiers of small dwellings the onus of paying the rates. In the second place, a judgment was given in the case of Bradshaw against McMullen to the effect that if even there was a contract that the landlord would pay the rates which were legally due to be paid by the occupier such contract was void. This particular judgment and the effect of the Rent Restrictions Act began the movement by which the landlords allowed to go back to the occupiers of houses the onus of directly paying their rates.

The result has been that rates became due to be paid by very small holders, persons of not very great substance, and local rating bodies have experienced a considerable amount of difficulty in collecting rates from such persons. There has been an agitation on the part of the local rating authorities for the purpose of getting legislation passed to make the landlords responsible for the payment of rates in respect of small dwellings. Quite a large number of rating bodies have appealed to the Minister for Local Government on the matter and the Association of Muncipal Authorities has passed a very definite resolution. It is desirable to facilitate the collection of rates and to make the collection of rates as inexpensive as possible. The Department of Local Government have had to consider the question from the point of view of reconciling the two important principles that we have referred to, and the result is the Department and the Government are quite clear that it would have a very bad effect on the carrying out of local administration if any large section of the people were freed from the responsibility of paying rates, or were allowed to get into a position in which the rates did not matter to them. The present Bill, however, reconciles these two principles, I think. It extends to all rating authorities with the exception of town commissioners. The reason for excluding town commissioners is, in the first place, that in the areas where town commissioners exist there are two rating authorities, the county council and the town commissioners. The rating powers of the town commissioners are small; their rate cannot be more than 2/- in the £ where water is not provided and cannot be more than 2/6 where water is provided. Invariably the town commissioners strike their rate at a different time from the date of striking the rate by the county council. It has been found desirable to leave the town commissioners out of it so as not to complicate the scheme.

I think it might be said in passing that it is inevitable that the whole question of rating will be gone into with a view to simplification. There are very great complications in the whole business of rating at present and it is probable that in any rearrangement of the system of rating, instead of town commissioners being a direct rating authority, matters would be arranged so that they would make their demand on the county council in the same way as the county council makes its demand on the urban district, or in the same way as the Board of Health makes its demand on the county council. However, the town commissioners have been left out of the scheme.

In respect to the other rating bodies, county councils, county boroughs, boroughs or urban districts, this Bill applies. It proposes that owners of small dwellings not exceeding £6 in valuation will be the persons responsible for paying the rates. The figure of £6 has been chosen as being a fair average among the figures that have been suggested to the Department by local bodies. It is taken as rather too low a figure than too high. On discussion of the matter it may be found that in the case of county boroughs it may be desirable to modify the proposals so that a higher valuation can be quoted, but generally £6 is quoted as the most satisfactory figure.

Owners will be responsible for the rates, and in the case of owners not paying the rates before they pass on ownership to a subsequent owner, the subsequent owner can be made liable for the rates with a two years' limit. Where an owner is not now paying the rates and becomes under this Bill responsible for the rates, he is authorised to increase what I shall call the original or contract rent as distinct from the standard rent that is mentioned in the Rent Restrictions Act.

Mr. CORISH

Will the Minister kindly repeat that?

General MULCAHY

Where an owner is not now paying the rates he becomes under this Bill responsible for paying them. He may increase the original rent payable by his tenants by the amount of the rates. That is, if there is a tenant at the present moment paying rent and rates, that rent is a definite thing; I call it for the moment the original rent. That continues to be the rent, subject to any changes that may from time to time come about as the result of a change of contract. The present occupier is relieved by this Bill of paying the rates, the owner becoming responsible; but the owner can increase the rent by the extent of the rates for the current year. The proposal is that if the tenant is a weekly tenant, after the striking of the rate and for the twelve months following the striking of the rate, the landlord shall charge rent to the tenant which shall be the original weekly rent plus one fifty-second of the total year's rates. If the tenant is a monthly tenant the landlord will charge him for the twelve months after the striking of a particular rate the original rent plus one-twelfth of the total annual rate.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I take it the point which the Minister is making is that after the passing of this Bill the rent of tenants who are affected by this measure—the standard rent—will be then the 1914 rent plus the amount of the rates. That will be treated as the standard rent for the purposes of the Rent Restrictions Act?

General MULCAHY

The Deputy must not complicate the proposal here with the situation that exists and will continue to exist under the Rent Restrictions Act.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Will this be the position, that if a landlord is seeking to take advantage of the Rent Restrictions Act of last year—let us suppose he takes advantage of it next year—he will be entitled to 20 per cent. on the 1914 or the standard rent plus the extra amount which he is paying for rates?

General MULCAHY

A landlord will not be entitled under this Bill to salt the tenants for rates under the facilities given to him in the Rent Restrictions Act and salt them as well under this particular measure. The occupier is safeguarded against being made responsible for a double dose of rates as a result of this Bill being read in connection with the Rent Restrictions Act. The Bill itself proposes that it will come into operation as from the 1st April, 1929. The rates for the current year are in many cases being struck, and in order in the first place, not to introduce complications as a result of this Bill becoming law some weeks or months after the rate for next year has been struck, and to give the landlord and tenants time to make the necessary adjustments with regard to rent, it is desirable that the Bill should not become law or that the incidence of rating would not, under this Bill, begin to take place until the 1st April, 1929. I think that will be regarded as reasonable. Where at the present moment for any reason—the cases will be few— there are cases in which there is an agreement of any particular kind by which the occupier of a small dwelling is paying both the rent and the rates in one sum, the Bill provides with reference to the rates for the year beginning on the 1st April, 1928, that a deduction will be made from what the tenant is now paying so as to arrive at the current contract rate. So that where the tenant is at present paying rent and rates, the Bill makes an arrangement by which the definite amount of the current year's rates is taken from the present payment in order to arrive at the contract or basic rate to which his payments for future years will be referred.

I have stated that in the case of the rate for any particular year being struck the deductions will extend over the complete twelve months. That is weekly or monthly payments in respect of rates by the tenant will extend over a complete twelve months. But it may happen that if one year's rates are struck by a rating body a month or six weeks either before or after the date on which the previous year's rates were struck, there will happen, in practice, cases where, say, a weekly tenant may be paying for two or three weeks the basic rent, plus the amount in respect of, say, the year A, plus the amount in respect of year B. The simplest arrangement that we could come to was an arrangement by which the rating amounts would be spread over the whole twelve months, whether the twelve months overlapped or left gaps for the space of a week or two. There is another part of this Bill which makes arrangements with regard to unoccupied premises. The position at the present moment is that different classes of rates—the poor rate, the town rate, the borough rate, special local rates, of which a large number exist—fall in different ways on unoccupied dwellings. It is desired to clear up that particular position. Section 6 makes an arrangement for that. In fact, while the Rent Restrictions Act continues in force, the position will not be materially affected by the proposals here. But except fresh legislation is brought in—and nothing that I am saying now prejudices that position one way or another —the present Rent Restrictions Act expires in June, 1929. If it does expire in June, 1929, it is considered very desirable that the position with regard to unoccupied houses and their rates would, so far as small dwellings are concerned, be uniform, simple and clear. This Bill makes provision for that. Here and there the Bill looks a bit complicated, but that is simply for the reason that rating legislation generally is comlicated at present, and the Bill has to make reference to that. But I feel certain that the working of the Bill will be simple, easy and uncomplicated. We will, in fact, get rid of certain complications. I move that the Bill be read a Second time.

Mr. CORISH

Anybody who has been identified with a local body within the last five or six years in this country will welcome this Bill. As the Minister for Local Government and public Health has said, the rating system in this country generally is very complicated, and I do hope that the Bill we have before us to-day will not make it more so. One knows quite well what the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is aiming at, but his interpretation of the various sections of the Bill has not made it very clear to me at any rate. For some considerable time past I have been advocating a Bill of this kind, and I am rather sorry that the Minister has not brought in a Bill to enable it to be put right from the beginning of the financial year, commencing in April next. In connection with the question of valuation, the amount mentioned (£6) is, so far as old houses are concerned, reasonable. The Minister knows that very few houses that have been built since this Government came into power— since 1922—are under a valuation of £8. These houses have been built to a great extent at the cost of the Government, and the President has repeatedly told us that he could not recommend that the valuation should be lowered more in accordance with normal times. I think that in this connection there should be some differentiation made as between houses built since 1922 and houses built previously. Houses built since 1922 have a valuation far and away greater than the houses of an equal size or equal capacity built before 1922. I ask the Minister to give some consideration to that aspect of the situation. That is to say that this Bill should apply, say, to houses built before 1922 and of a valuation of £6, and that for the new houses built since 1922 that figure should be raised to £8. It may lead to some complications, but I think the President will agree that it is a matter which certainly needs attention.

There is also another matter and that is the question of labourers' cottages in rural areas. As the Bill stands I do not think it would apply to these cottages because the county councils or the county boards of health would be both landlord and collector of the rates. I think it would be welcomed in the country areas by farm labourers if the county boards of health would adjust the rent to enable the rates to be collected in the rent. I ask the Minister to have some section inserted in the Bill to make it mandatory on county councils to have this done. I think it is under Section 4 of the Bill that power is given to the landlord to increase rents, but I am not very clear, even after the Minister's explanation of the section, as to what is intended. The position in this country is this: up to the year 1920, in most if not all the urban areas in the country, the landlords paid the rates direct to the local authority. I think it is correct to say that because of the fact that Sinn Fein got into power in that year, the landlords immediately ceased to pay the rates direct to the local authorities. We must assume that up to the year 1920, when the landlords paid the rates direct to the local authorities, they were collecting the rates in the rents— that is to say, the rates were included in the rents—from the householders. What I want to know from the Minister is, if under this section the landlord will have power to demand an increase in rent to cover the rates—that is to say, if he will be entitled to take the rent that the tenant is paying now and to demand an increase on it commensurate with all the rates that have to be paid: poor rate, water rate, borough rate, and all the rest, and add all that to the present rent. I think it is only right that that question should be answered more satisfactorily than the Minister answered Deputy Morrissey's question. We are entitled to assume that up to the year 1920 the rates were being collected in the rent as landlords have not been so foolish in this country as to pay something they never got themselves. I would like to see something more definite and specific inserted in the Bill than the section as it stands, so that both landlords and tenants would be able to have more guidance in the matter. What makes me think that the Minister has not paid due attention to that particular aspect of the matter is the fact of his having quoted the case of Bradshaw v. MacMullen. If that is the basis upon which he is working in connection with Section 4 of this Bill, then I do not think the tenants have much to gain. As one identified with local bodies for a great number of years, and therefore being in a position to realise the difficulties which public bodies generally have had to contend with in the matter of getting in the rates, I certainly welcome the Bill. In a great many cases since the year 1920 landlords have given up paying the rates direct, especially to urban authorities. In conclusion I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will give us a fuller explanation with regard to Section 4.

Mr. O'KELLY

I cannot agree with Deputy Corish, that the principle underlying this Bill is a good one. My own opinion, and I would have thought it would have been his too, is that the main principle underlying the Bill is entirely undemocratic. Instead of doing everything we could to interest individuals who have to pay rates, by seeing that they pay them directly, this Bill takes the contrary course, and enables the local authority to get at the owners of small as well as large dwellings and get the rates from them. In my opinion, that does not tend to encourage the occupiers of small houses to become as interested in the administration of local affairs as they ought to be. If they had to pay the rates themselves they would know that at certain times of the year the rate collector was going to call on them for payment of the rates. If they are put in that position they will naturally be inclined not only to examine and scrutinise the particulars on the rate, but also its administration. They would be likely to do that to a far greater extent than if the payment of the rates is not extracted from themselves individually. Therefore, in my opinion the principle of the Bill is wrong. It is not one that we, who are supposed to be a democratic people, ought to encourage.

Deputy Corish is a member of local bodies and I realise the difficulties that exist: that the rate collectors have a great deal more trouble in collecting the rates by having five or six or maybe more ratepayers on their books than would be the case if this principle were adopted. They would not have so many names on their books, or so many people to collect the rates from, if the principle that is sought under this Bill to be introduced is allowed to go through. If the principle be adopted, who knows but that in a year or two the valuations of the houses in respect of which this principle is sought to be carried into effect would be increased perhaps by £10 and in a few years later by £20. In my opinion, the principle is entirely undemocratic and one that we ought not to stand over in this House. As I have said, there are difficulties undoubtedly, but there should be some other way of getting over them, of getting the rate collector's work done and of getting the rates in, than by adopting the undemocratic principle set forth in this Bill.

I agree with Deputy Corish that Section 4 in the Bill is not clear. It does not state definitely that the landlord or owner of the house is not entitled to increase the present rent on the tenant. In my opinion something more clear and definite in connection with that will have to be put into the Bill in order to ensure that tenants coming under the Bill will not find, when the measure starts to operate, that power has been given to the owners of their houses to increase their rents to some extent at least. Another point in the Bill, the principle of which I do not care for, is the relief in respect of unoccupied premises. To my mind, the amount of relief to be given in the case of unoccupied premises and unoccupied houses at the present time should be the minimum. There are too many people looking for houses, small, large and all kinds of houses, and there are too many who are unable to find houses or parts of houses or flats. Despite that, we know that there are houses all over the country, small and large, that are unoccupied and that ought not to be unoccupied and that would not be unoccupied if there was some penalty attached to the keeping of these houses unoccupied for a long period. Under present conditions, I would be in favour of penalising people who own houses and allow them to remain unoccupied unless they get exorbitant rents for them. The relief that is sought to be given here may not be very great relief from the payment of rates, but I think that if at least half the rates were demanded from the owners of unoccupied houses they would be very much more inclined to let them and to relieve the present pressure on housing authorities generally.

There are too many houses vacant, large and small. The larger ones could be divided up, and if the relief set out in the Bill were not granted, landlords and houseowners would be much more inclined to let houses on reasonable terms. The principle is not one we could stand over. I do agree that local authorities have grievances; that they have difficulty in getting in their rates, and that the rate collectors are pestered; but another method should be found to deal with the situation. Above all things, we in a democratic institution such as this should not stand for an undemocratic policy such as is set out in the Bill.

Mr. CAREY

Speaking on behalf of Southern urban councils, I welcome the Bill. We never found much difficulty in the urban districts in collecting the poor rate, but we found it very difficult to collect the general rate. The levying of the whole of the general rate on the tenant is not fair, and I would suggest to the Minister that he should allow the landlord to recoup only half the rate. I think that would meet the case fairly, because some of the tenants in the urban districts are occupying these houses for the past 20 or 30 years, or perhaps longer. They are paying 2/6, 4/- or, some of them, 5/- per week for these cottages, and it is with the utmost difficulty that we can persuade the landlords to instal proper sanitary arrangements, even though there may be a perfect system of sewerage. We find that many of the tenants complain of bad doors, falling ceilings, and defects of that nature. They come to us with their complaints, but, of course, it is up to the doctor, who is the official responsible, to see that the houses are fit for human habitation. We have no remedy in that respect; but I do say that it is too much to allow the landlords to recoup the whole rate. I suggest to the Minister that he should put a clause in the Bill allowing the landlords to recoup only half the rate. Of course, I understand that if the rates are reduced by the different urban councils, that could be adjusted between the landlord and tenant, but I fail to see how the Increase of Rent Act of 1914 would come into operation at all in these cases. I would like the Minister to make it perfectly clear that under no circumstances can that Act come within the provisions of the Bill that he is now bringing forward for the ratification of this House. The greatest hardship that can be found is in the collecting of the general rate. It is only right and just that this measure should be brought forward for the relief of tenants occupying houses under £6 valuation.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Notwithstanding what Deputy O'Kelly stated about this measure being undemocratic, I desire to say that I approve of the principle of it. I could understand Deputy O'Kelly's argument if there was a clause in this Bill relieving tenants altogether of the responsibility of paying rates, but as a matter of fact, if I read this Bill correctly, by its passing through this House it will make it obligatory, and I might say make it possible, for people in this country, to pay rates who have been unable to pay them up to the present.

General MULCAHY

It will make it obligatory.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Yes, obligatory. It is all very fine to talk about people paying their rate directly and in a lump sum, but we know very well that the average tenant of the type of house which is dealt with by this measure will find it very difficult at the end of half a year to hand over £2 or £3 to the rate collector when he comes along. It would be much more convenient if they were able to fulfil their obligations by paying so much per week. Let me give a case in point. I am a member of a local authority and we are losing at the moment in irrecoverable rates roughly 1/3 in the £. That means that other ratepayers, the people who pay the rates, have not only to pay rates for their own houses but have to pay 1/3 in the £ extra to make up for the people who are not able to pay their rates. It must be remembered that this measure will make landlords responsible for the rates, and the landlords, it will be found in most cases in the urban districts throughout the country, are the type who have a lot of slum property. I think it is a good idea to make these landlords responsible for the payment of rates and not be making other ratepayers in the towns who have no interest whatever in slums or other property pay rates for them. If this measure is passed through the House and the rates are collected and paid to the local authority of which I am a member, that 1/3 in the £ would help us to finance a very nice housing scheme for the town.

On the other hand, I want to agree with some of the criticisms that have been expressed on the measure both by Deputy Corish and Deputy O'Kelly. I would remind the Minister with regard to Section 4 that prior to the passing of the 1898 Act the landlords were responsible for the payment of rates on all houses under a valuation of £4. In order to meet that obligation the landlords in fixing the rent included the rates in the rent, and while it is true to say that many landlords, even after the passing of the '98 Act, continued to pay rates, many of them—I think I can safely say the majority of them—took advantage of the '98 Act and refused to pay rates but did not give any corresponding reduction in the rents. If this section is put through as it stands it will mean that many of the landlords will be getting two additions to the rent in order to meet the rates. What Deputy Corish stated with regard to 1920 is I take it known to every member in the House who was either at that time or since a member of a local authority. It was quite noticeable around 1920, when there were very drastic changes in the personnel of local authorities, that many of the landlords who had until then been agreeable to pay the rates refused to pay them, and the result was that the amount appearing under the head of irrecoverable rates steadily increased from year to year.

One matter that I would like to get clear on—I am afraid I was not able to follow the Minister on it—is with reference to sub-section 4 of Section 4, which mentions the Increase of Rent and Mortagage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923. I would like the Minister to deal with this point when replying: Are we to take it that a landlord will be entitled to add to the standard rent imposed, the amount of rates which he will have to pay, for the purposes of the Rent Restrictions Act—in other words, for the purposes of obtaining the percentage of the free bonus which is allowed under the Rent Restrictions Acts of 1923 and 1926? If that is so, this section would need to be re-drafted, because it is sufficient that the landlord should be allowed to increase the rent by the exact amount of the rates, and I do not think he should be allowed to make a profit on it. While I personally do not wish to be unjust to landlords more than anybody else, I put it to the Minister and the House that landlords should not be allowed to increase rents twice over. If it can be shown that a landlord did not increase the rent in order to cover his obligation for the rates, he should be allowed to increase it now. On the other hand, if it can be shown that a landlord some years ago increased the rent to meet his liabilities for the rates, he should not be allowed to increase it again now. I hope the Minister will look into that point.

I put it to Deputy O'Kelly that the position in the country is very different from that in Dublin city. In Dublin I understand the rate collection is almost one hundred per cent. Unfortunately, that is not the position in the country. In some urban districts that I know of the rate collection varies from seventy to ninety per cent., and in very few cases is it as high as ninety-five. Somebody has to make up the differnce. Our point is that if the difference has to be made up, those who should make it up are the landlords who are drawing rents from slum property upon which they are making no outlay.

Mr. GOULDING

I am inclined to agree with Deputy O'Kelly that on the face of it this measure looks undemocratic. But, like Deputy Corish, I have had some experience of the difficulty of collecting rates on small dwellings in the country. I think his estimate of the rate collection on small dwellings in country areas is too high. The Council with which I am connected have had time and again to strike off as irrecoverable a considerable amount of rates that could have been paid if the people were allowed to pay in small instalments. Where I disagree with Deputy O'Kelly is that I would charitably assume that the Minister had no idea of being undemocratic when he introduced this measure. If we are simply transferring the rates from the tenant to the owner, so as to make it easier for the tenant to pay the rates, it is the tenant who is all the time paying the rates, but in another form. I know it would make it far easier for the councils concerned and their employees to collect the rate in this form. I also know that the occupiers of small dwellings will welcome such a measure, because it is a comparatively simple thing for a person of small means to pay 2d. or 3d. a week, when he might find it extremely difficult to find a lump sum of 15s. or more. For that reason I would be inclined to support the Bill.

In connection with the rates on unoccupied dwellings, there is one very serious aspect, and that is, that in many cases farmers have bought farms other than the ones on which they reside. On these farms very often there are fairly good dwellings that could be made habitable with very little repair. As a result of the rating of unoccupied dwellings the farmers have been compelled to reduce these buildings to ruin. We are all aware of the terrible shortage of housing, especially for the labouring classes, and in this way we are practically compelling people to destroy houses. That is one of the unfortunate results of the rating of unoccupied dwellings. Some way should be discovered to prevent these people destroying houses which are so badly needed.

Mr. G. WOLFE

This Bill seems to be a very simple one, but when you come to consider it, it seems to have a very confusing effect on the mind, and I am bound to say the speeches I have heard have confused me altogether. Before the Act of 1898 was passed landlords, I believe, paid the rates on dwellings under £4 valuation. That Act provided that the occupiers should pay, no matter how small the valuation, no doubt with the idea that Deputy O'Kelly has put forward, of spreading the responsibility down from the top to the bottom. The idea was, no doubt, extremely good, but, as far as I can understand, it has not worked in a great many country districts. There has been very great difficulty in getting rates from the small occupiers. A great many rate collectors complain bitterly about it. A large number of property owners have been paying the rates from the very beginning on the houses, whether occupied or not, in order to save themselves trouble, as they did not think it worth while to fight the matter. Of course, circumstances have possibly changed, and it is necessary apparently that some alteration should be made. If there is an alteration made, it is right, if the landlord has to pay the rates, that he should be allowed to add a certain extra proportion in the cases where the tenants have been paying. It is not easy to understand the matter, but as the discussion proceeds perhaps we will understand it better. I think the payment of the rates by the landlord is the simplest way, although I agree that it is not the most democratic way. But you cannot always get perfection, and it is the way of least resistance. However, I think the matter will have to be considered in more detail on the Committee Stage.

Mr. COLOHAN

There are one or two points that I would like the Minister to make clear. The definition of the expression, "small dwelling" in the second paragraph, Section 1, is "a hereditament or tenement separately valued under the Valuation Acts, whereof the valuation under those Acts does not exceed £6 and the whole, or any part of which is actually used or is adapted for use as a dwelling."

I would like to know from the Minister what does the expression "separately valued" mean. Does it mean a building that is held by a tenant by itself or does it mean a building that is held jointly with a small holding of land? Because, upon the demand notes, buildings are valued separately and a rate is struck on the building and a rate is struck on the land. If it is the intention to include the rates on the land it will cut out a lot of small people. If it is intended that the rates on the land should be included we want to know to what extent. We know that on some of the buildings attached to farms of one, two, three or perhaps twenty acres, the valuation would not exceed perhaps £3 or £4. Would such buildings as these be included under the term "small dwellings" as defined in the Section?

I welcome this Bill because I know it will facilitate local authorities in the collection of rates. I also know that the people who live in these small holdings would be only too willing to pay their rates weekly instead of having to pay half yearly, when they would have to meet perhaps a demand of anything from ten to twenty or thirty shillings. For that reason, I welcome the Bill, and I believe it will be welcomed by all the small holders in the country.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I congratulate the Minister upon the clarity he displayed in introducing this particular Bill. The Bill has received general welcome, and I think it is a very good thing indeed for those concerned that the owners for the future will be liable for the payment of rates instead of the occupiers. I do not agree with Deputy O'Kelly that the Bill is undemocratic. I do not think any member of this House should encourage any section of the people to avoid the payment of rates, especially in view of the fact that those who do not pay rates escape at the cost of the people who do. The only section of the Bill to which I wish to refer is Section 6. I find myself in complete agreement with Deputy O'Kelly's argument adduced on that particular section. I believe that some restriction as to amount of relief given in respect of unoccupied premises should be inserted in the Bill. In transferring the liability for rates from one owner to another, the Minister has been careful to insert in the Bill a time limit. But in the case of giving relief for unoccupied premises, no such time limit appears.

My experience of country districts is not very great, but one Deputy has told us, and the statement remains unchallenged, that owners in the country have allowed houses to fall into disuse for, I presume, the reason that they were looking for higher rents. Speaking with some little knowledge of the question in Dublin, I do feel that landlords have availed themselves to an extent to which they are not entitled of the relief of unoccupied premises. In Dublin, I know of my own knowledge, houses remained unoccupied for periods as long as three years, because the landlords or owners of these premises demanded extortionate rents. The city of Dublin is losing something like £12,000, and that figure is almost static. If unoccupied premises which are referred to only in one particular clause were let at a reasonable rent there would be immediate relief in the rates by 2d. in the £. If it was thought well to set a time limit for the liability to rates in the cases of various owners of property, I do appeal to the Minister to take into view the fact that there should also be a time limit as to the amount of relief to which any owner of property should be entitled and I respectfully suggest to him that he should fix that time limit at six or twelve months, but certainly some time limit should be inserted in the Bill.

Mr. GOREY

I rise to challenge the statement made by Deputy Goulding, and I challenge it on behalf of the rural districts. Everybody knows that owners cannot find tenants for the big houses in the country because the cost of upkeep of these houses would be too great, and because these houses are removed from the direct channel of rail communication and from the towns. You cannot find a tenant for this class of house no matter what you do. When the Deputy suggested that some farmers have two farms and let down their houses because they cannot find tenants, he is either misinformed or he has made a vindictive statement which is also untrue. The suggestion is, why not let the house inside the farmyard to a labourer. That could not be done. You do not want a labourer who is not working for you on an out-farm when you cannot dispossess him.

Mr. KILLILEA

It is being done.

Mr. GOREY

What is being done?

I am sorry that the word "ill-informed" does not seem to the Chair to be so objectionable.

Dr. WARD

I do not think that this Bill is so undemocratic when one examines it closely as it may seem at first sight. The occupiers of those small holdings do not appear to be deprived of any of their civic rights. A large percentage of rates on holdings under £6 valuation have proved to be irrecoverable. These houses are occupied very largely by the poorest section of the community, who cannot really afford to pay rates at all, and who certainly cannot afford to pay the rates in a lump sum. I think if they are able to contribute towards the rates at all that the contribution collected weekly by the landlord will be the form of contribution that will be most suitable. Under the Bill the landlord will, of course, have power to increase his rent by an amount corresponding, roughly, to the rates but I certainly think that, while he will have power to increase the rent, he will not get an increase equivalent to the amount of the rates for the reason that he cannot in many cases recover the present rent without any increase at all. The actual effect of the Bill will be that rates that are irrecoverable at the present time will become recoverable, and as a result the rates on the general ratepaying community will, to that extent, be reduced. I do not think that on close examination it can be found to be a very undemocratic principle to transfer this liability for the rates from the small occupier to the landlord.

Mr. SHAW

Many of the clauses in this Bill will be of considerable benefit to holders of small dwellings, particularly owing to the fact that they will have an opportunity of paying the rates weekly or by instalments, which is very important, because owing to unemployment and the fact that a great many of them are poor, when a demand is made on them for 30/- or £2 in a lump sum it is undoubtedly a great hardship. Therefore, I regret very much that areas, such as Mullingar, where town commissioners function, and where there are a large number of small holders of slum dwellings, will apparently be excluded.

General MULCAHY

Only to the extent of the town rate, which is very limited.

Mr. SHAW

Then an area where town commissioners are functioning is not excluded?

General MULCAHY

It is not excluded in respect of that portion of the rate which is collected by the county council.

Captain REDMOND

My contribution to this debate will be very brief. I welcome this Bill, and I welcome the coming to light of the Minister and his Government. I put forward a similar proposal in my Town Tenants Bill, which they thought fit to reject. I did not perhaps go quite as far as the Minister, because I placed the limit under £5, and here it has been advanced to £6. I think that the principle is a good one, and one that should be supported from all sides of the House. Undoubtedly if the rent is raised—and I presume in most cases it will be— owing to the payment of rates by the landlord, no tenant will like to have what he considers his rent raised. Would the Minister consider the advisability of segregating in some way or other. for the information of the tenant or occupier, the amount that he will be asked to pay in rent and the amount that will be due to the repayment or recoupment of the rates paid by the landlord. I think that would be a good thing from the point of view of making the tenant see that his rent is not actually being increased, but that the increase is due to the rates having been paid by the landlord.

Mr. HOLT

I quite realise that this method of collecting the rate will benefit town tenants, but I would like to see the landlord made solely responsible for separate charges,—that is, for water rents and cemetery charges, so that no portion of the amount should be charged to the tenant. With respect to labourers' cottages, the rates will have to be paid by the county board of health. I should like to know before we pass the Bill if it is the Minister's intention to bring in a Bill to sell these labourers' cottages to the tenants. I would like to see the rates charged on unoccupied houses. Houses are left unoccupied by landlords to get high rents, and I think it would be a good thing if the rates were charged on them and the landlords made responsible.

General MULCAHY

In reply to Deputy Corish's point, as I said, the £6 is selected for discussion as being a figure that is rather too low than too high. I have come to the conclusion that £6 is the better figure, the arrangement here being rather experimental. But in county boroughs I admit that we could, perhaps, go further. However, if the Deputy is prepared to support this figure of £8 by convincing arguments we will see how far we can go to meet him. As far as the labourers' cottages are concerned, I think the provisions of the Bill will be such that the county board of health will take the rates weekly or monthly, or according to whatever arrangement is made, from the tenants in the same way as it is contemplated that they will be taken from the general small dwellings holders. With regard to the rent, remember that we are dealing here with small dwellings, that they all come under the operation of the Rent Restrictions Act, and that under the Rent Restrictions Act of 1923 there is a definite way of determining what the standard rent is. The small-holders are protected by the Increase of Rent and Mortgage (Interest Restriction) Act, 1923, with regard to their standard rent. Certain increases over a previous rent or over the original rent are allowed under the Act of 1923 when making up the standard rent, and one of these increases allowed is an amount not exceeding the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of the rates charged and which, but for certain provisions, would be chargeable to the occupier.

The PRESIDENT

I do not, and I would advise the Deputy to give us the exact figures. A rent of 4/- weekly and 1/- rates in 1914——

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATES ON SMALL DWELLINGS) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Feb 1928