Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 13 Dec 1935

Vol. 59 No. 18

Rents of Occupying Tenants—Proposed Tribunal (Resumed).

Debate resumed on motion by Minister for Justice.

When the House passed to other business I was speaking on this motion. It is certainly not the desire of this House to hinder or impede the Minister in taking any steps which he thinks will facilitate him in removing a great evil; nor is it the desire to take occasion to paint the horrors of the tenement dwellers of this city or any other cities. They are familiar to any Deputy who has interested himself in that question. On all sides of the House there is unanimity of purpose to abate that evil. But I urge on the leader of the Labour Party that he ought to drop his proposal, because he is going to obscure the main issue, the really pressing evil, which is that of the tenement conditions.

We had a commission in 1897 under Campbell-Bannerman. We had another in 1914 under Birrell. We had another in 1927 under Judge Meredith. This is the fourth. That is self-evidence of how difficult it is to get anything done. The prime purpose is to end the abuse of tenement rents. Let us not imagine that we can go into that question and simply strike 5/- or 6/- off every tenement rent in Dublin, though we might do that to-day. By attempting to grapple with a delicate problem of this kind in that way we might precipitate much graver evils which would require more urgent treatment, if that were conceivable.

What I want the Minister to do is to face the inescapable fact that you cannot deal with tenement rents until you do away with tenement houses. No rent is justifiable for the class of rooms in which the poor of this city are at present housed. Some rooms that people live in are not worth a penny a week or a penny a year. There are many families in this city living in basements which have been condemned as unfit for human habitation years ago and in which it is illegal to live. The Corporation is doing its best to put an end to that. But, when they come to a family in a basement room and say, "You must be out of that this day week," they are met with the reply, "Where will we go; is it any improvement to take us out of a basement to put us on the kerbstone"? Is it any improvement to take a united family out of the poorest basement room and split it up in the Union? The Corporation, naturally, is driven back to the deplorable confession that it is better to leave people in these loathsome basement rooms than to take whatever measures they are physically able to take under existing circumstances. What we want to do is to wipe the tenement house out.

I want this tribunal to concentrate on that issue because when the tenement rent issue is fully examined it will be driven home to every reasonable man that there is only one solution of the question, and that is to abolish the tenements. I do not believe there is any permanent ameliorative step you can take in respect of tenement rents, because if you fix a rent of 2/-, 1/6 or 6d. and go into the room you will be forced to the conclusion that the room whose rent you have just fixed is not worth anything, because it is not a proper place for human families to live. That is the real kernel of the problem. Let this Commission focus attention on that.

I think the Meredith Commission in 1927 sat at a difficult time. Perhaps this House was not fully representative at the time and there may have been difficulties and doubts in its mind. Let this Commission sit in this knowledge, that it is an authoritative Commission commanding the confidence of all sides of the House, and that whatever it recommends as necessary to be done to get the people of this city and the other cities out of tenement houses all sides of the House will co-operate in putting the recommendations into effect. That is a Commission that will be able to do a job of work. We will tell them beforehand that we are ready to do anything and everything necessary to get the people out of tenement houses and to go straight ahead, not with the desire to be extravagant, but with the desire effectively to abate the evil.

Spread the reference into a wide discussion of the taxation of land values and a whole lot of other contentious political questions and the Commission is still-born, because it knows that whatever recommendations it brings in on these highly contentious questions it will simply be for the purpose of having them tossed to and fro across the floor of this House, grave and legitimate and proper dissension arising between Parties in this House on the issues raised, and that the report of the Commission will go into the limbo where hundreds of other reports have gone. Confine it to one point, tell them in advance: "Your personnel commands our confidence as people competent to solve the problem; that being so, tell us what you think it is necessary to do and we will do it."

That Commission is going to get results. It is going to get people out of the slums and to abate the detestable evils that exist. When that is done, and that is the urgent thing, let us sit down then and discuss Henry George. There will be plenty of time for discussing Henry George when we are all dead and buried, and I think there will always be cracked brains in this country, and in every other country, to discuss Henry George, Major Douglas and every other freak in the world with a bee in his bonnet so long as there are deliberative assemblies in existence. These gentlemen, with their theories, may be all right or they may be all wrong. I think they are all cracked. The fundamental thing that we should all be agreed on is that we now have a chance of doing something, and doing it in quick time, to take off the shoulders of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of this city and of the other cities and towns in the country, the intolerable burdens that are resting on them at the present time. We have the opportunity now of doing that promptly and effectively. Let us do that job now.

I appeal to the Leader of the Labour Party to withdraw his amendment, but in no sense to abandon his intention of submitting it on another occasion. But let us have a unanimous vote now that we want a commission to consider the problem of these town tenants, and let us have a recommendation from that commission as to what is necessary to be done. Let us be unanimously in favour now that we will be ready to do whatever they tell us to make an end of that abuse, and that whereever we will get the money we will undertake to find it: that even, if necessary, we will end the economic war in order to find it.

The appeal that Deputy Dillon has made to Deputy Norton to withdraw his amendment does not come with any force from him because it is only a week or ten days since, in this House, he advocated the total removal of all existing rent restrictions. The reason he gave for that was that he believed the existing rent restrictions, limited as they are, were holding up building work in the country and keeping down the price of house property.

Will the Deputy allow me to intervene for a moment? I do not want him to be under a misapprehension. I earnestly meant that I want unanimity on the proposal I have put to the House. The Deputy may have honestly misunderstood me. The point that I made on the Expiring Laws Bill was that I wanted the provision in the Rent Restrictions Acts, which provides that if a tenant can prove that it is more inconvenient for him to be put out than for the landlord to do without the house, removed, because I thought it was defeating its object by postponing building. I wanted the Government to tell us when would the housing schemes that are going forward all over the country have reached the point when it would be legitimate to remove the Rent Restrictions Acts, because I believed that when these Acts were removed the Government would get from the private builder a much bigger volume of assistance in solving the problem than they are at present getting. That is all I said.

That is a diplomatic attempt to qualify the very definite statement which the Deputy made on the Expiring Laws Bill. On that occasion the Deputy started off by advocating the total removal of existing rent restrictions. There is no doubt about that. I invite him to look up, in the Official Report, the speech that he made on that occasion.

And I invite Deputy Davin to quote me.

I am sure that the Deputy's speech on that occasion caused such consternation amongst the back benchers of his own Party that he has probably been told off in the meantime, and I take it that explains the qualification that he has just made.

I stand over every word that I said, and again I invite the Deputy to quote me.

The appeal that has been made, coming from a Deputy who advocated the removal of the existing rent restrictions, does not carry any great force or conviction to the Deputies sitting on these benches. I admit that there is urgency in the matter of facing up to the question of the rents charged by slum landlords in our cities and towns. There is a necessity for that, even from the point of view of educating the Minister and his colleagues in regard to that particular matter. I heard the Minister for Justice state here that a certain interDepartmental committee made it clear, from the information made available to them, that the average rent charged for rooms was about 3/-per room. We had the statement made in this House by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he sat on the Opposition Benches and when speaking on the Landlord and Tenant Bill of 1931, that the rents charged to the occupiers of slum dwellings in this city were as high as 17/- and 18/- per room. I submit that there is a need for educating the members of the Ministry in regard to this particular matter. I agree that it is a matter of great urgency.

The members of this Party welcome the establishment of this tribunal if for no other reason than that of getting more information and so as to enable us to deal with this pressing problem. Are we to understand from the Minister for Justice that the establishment of this tribunal is merely a step taken for the purpose of evading the Government's obligations in regard to the long-promised town tenants Bill? There is no doubt whatever that President de Valera, previous to the 1932 General Election, gave a public pledge in a public place that one of the first Bills to be introduced by his Government would be a town tenants Bill. Are we to understand that the setting up of this tribunal marks the extent to which the present Government are prepared to go at the present time, and that they do not mean to fulfil the promise they made to introduce a town tenants Bill during the lifetime of this Dáil? I am prompted to put that question and to ask for a definite reply, because of a statement that was made last week at the Ard-Fheis by the Minister for Finance. Resolutions were sent forward by various branches of the Fianna Fáil organisation throughout the country, and these were opposed by the Ministry. The Minister for Finance went so far as to state quite definitely that there was no intention, on the part of the Government, to bring in a town tenants Bill because in his opinion—I suppose it is the opinion of his colleagues also—to do so would be to injure the public credit. I would like to hear a further explanation of that from the Minister for Finance, and, in his absence, from the Minister for Justice as to what the Cabinet mean by that particular statement. How can they justify it?

I have read some articles on this matter which have been written by a leader writer on the Irish Times newspaper, as well as articles which have been published in some other papers. I have come to the conclusion that the gentleman who writes the leading articles for the Irish Times has a big say in shaping the financial policy of the Government. His words are actually repeated parrot-like, as happened, for instance, in the case of the Conversion Bill, by the Minister for Finance. I do not know whether that gentleman has converted the Minister for Finance to his point of view, or whether the reverse is the case: that he has been converted to the point of view of the Minister for Finance. Certainly, the point of view of both is not the point of view that was held by the Minister for Finance when he sat on the Opposition Benches in this House, when he and his colleagues made promises in connection with the town tenants Bill. If Deputy Dillon was serious in speaking on this motion, I would put this question to him: what is there to prevent this tribunal from bringing in an interim report as soon as possible in connection with the matters set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the motion, and then let the commission continue their work in the manner outlined in the amendment suggested by Deputy Norton? There is no reason why the commission should not be asked to bring in an interim report dealing with the subject matter of the proposals put forward by the Minister, then continue their activities and bring in, at a later date, a report or recommendations based on the amendment suggested by Deputy Norton. I should like, however, if the Minister would make the point of view of the Cabinet quite plain, once and for all, as to whether this is an attempt to evade the public pledges, given by the President and his colleagues, to introduce, during the lifetime of the present Government, a town tenants Bill, making provision for the reasonable claims put forward by town tenant organisations.

Mr. Ruttledge rose.

Is the Minister speaking to the amendment or to the motion? Will the amendment be discussed first?

We have been discussing both.

Is the Minister concluding now?

Yes. A point made by Deputy Morrissey was that there was no necessity for any inquiry like this, as all the particulars were available from the report of the Meredith Commission. The Deputy also stated that there was no difference in the terms of reference in the motion and the terms of reference of that Commission. If they are compared it will be found that there is a difference, and that what the Meredith Commission was asked to investigate was the general question of the relationship between landlords and tenants. This motion deals with a more specific problem which is considered an urgent one, one that has been discussed in the House. Reference has been made to promises made to introduce a town tenants Bill. It seems to be regarded by some Deputies, and also by some town tenants organisations, that it is quite a simple thing to introduce such a Bill. Since I went to the Department of Justice that was put to me from time to time, and I think it was fairly reasonable that I should ask those who came forward asking to have such legislation enacted, to make suggestions so that they might be considered. I have been trying for a good while to get suggestions from people who claim to be representatives of the town tenants. I asked them to submit cases showing hardship, and not vague cases that might exist. I know that there are two or three towns where there are extraordinary anomalies, where, I agree, hardships exist. I asked the organisations to submit examples showing where these hardships exist. I think that was perfectly reasonable. It is only within the last four weeks that I got them. On going through them I saw that they would be of no assistance to the Commission or anyone else. The particulars could not be described otherwise than vague, and without following them up, and inquiring into all the circumstances, no one could say whether there was hardship or not. It took all that time to get these from people who claim that grievances exist.

I undertook that as soon as these cases were submitted they would be impartially examined by the Departmental Committee. Its recommendations were of very little, if of any, assistance. The only one was the recommendation that it might be easier to separate the valuations. At the present time people in tenements can go to court and get the valuation segregated in order that they might come within the provisions of the Increase of Rent Restrictions Act. It was suggested by the Departmental Committee that an easier, a cheaper and a more direct way might be brought about. They pointed out that they could only go on the basis of what was before them, by examining the Meredith Report and the evidence submitted, as well as the law as it existed. They pointed out that without evidence being submitted and witnesses examined they were not in a position to make any further recommendation. We have not been neglecting or shelving the question. It is quite simple to come here and say that a Bill should be brought in to deal with the position of town tenants, as if it was quite a simple problem.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government said the same thing five years ago. They were surprised it was not brought in.

Was not a Bill brought in in 1931 to implement the report of the Meredith Commission?

Did it do it?

It did to a considerable extent. Amendments were suggested by this Party when in Opposition. I put it to Deputies that if I brought in a Bill to carry out what is proposed in the amendment, would the Opposition be satisfied?

Do not bother about them.

A very different problem has been put up now.

What is it?

When that commission was sitting there was no claim that purchase provisions should be brought into any Bill. At present town tenants throughout the country are claiming the right to buy out their houses. As far as the evidence went —do not mind the recommendation— before the Meredith Commission, some witnesses suggested that preference should be given to occupying tenants.

The three F's.

No. If the Deputy examines the evidence he will find that that was as far as the evidence went. There was no evidence given before that commission that a scheme should be brought in whereby tenants could buy out their houses. To-day the claim is made that there should be a scheme put in operation whereby tenants could buy out houses and own them. That is not an easy problem. I know parts of the country where small house landlords are very much poorer than some of the occupying tenants. It may be true that in certain cases landlords are living out of the country, and that they are peculiar people. I have cases in mind where some people have nothing to rely upon except the little rents they get from four or five houses. If Deputies look into the matter in their own areas, they will find cases like that. It is all right to talk about extortionate rents, about people living out of the country, and about money going out, but there are two sides to the question. This motion is not brought in as anything final to deal with this problem. It is not being brought in for the purpose of shelving it, or as a stop-gap to further legislation. It is meant to deal with what has been represented to me as an urgent problem, and is only an instalment, leaving the door open when this is disposed of, to look into other matters. That is as far as I can go.

Are you committed to the Ard Fheis decision to do nothing?

That was not the Ard Fheis decision. The Ard Fheis decision was about ground rents. Deputy Norton in the amendment asks about the high prices being charged for building sites affecting house rents. I do not claim to know everything about this, but from what I have seen and from inquiries I have made as to the position around Dublin, where building is going on, I understand what happens is that some gentleman may own a holding or a portion of land which at one time was not as valuable as it is to-day by reason of the city spreading out. I know of one case where two acres of land were sold for something like £3,000. Undoubtedly, the spread of the city and the building going on has increased values, but, so far as the examples I have seen are concerned, it does not relate to high rents. I have in mind certain estates convenient to Dublin, and, as I am informed, what happens is that the houses, when built, are put up for sale at prices like £900, £1,100, and £1,200: a deposit is paid and the rest is paid by instalments, but you cannot relate it to rent. There may be exceptions to that, and there probably are, but so far as building by speculative builders is concerned, that is what is being done. They dispose of the houses in the great majority of cases and do not let them for rent. There are ground rents, but, as we all know, they are very small in connection with the building that is going on.

There is another aspect of the matter which has to be looked to. It is that one has to be very careful not to do anything that will discourage the speculative builder. I have to be very careful that something I might do in my Department is not going to hold up the policy of the Local Government Department in going ahead with housing. No matter what anybody says, there is one solution, and one solution only, for this tenant question, and that is the old matter of supply and demand. If there was not trouble in that respect, there would not be talk about uneconomic rents and competition would adjust itself. If any action were to be taken by the Government that would frighten people from speculative building. I am afraid it would have a reaction which would not be very good for the people whom you are trying to serve in the matter of housing.

Mr. Kelly

Speculative builders do not build for the poor.

I know. The Corporation has to deal with that other problem of building for the poor so far as the city is concerned. There again the only solution is building and more building, houses and more houses. The slum problem is a difficulty in this city, but one which I believe the Corporation are doing their best to deal with.

It was suggested here that I was misinformed in regard to this price of 3/- a room. There were two clearance areas made in the City of Dublin, one being around Gloucester Street and that district, by the Corporation, and the average price for those two areas was 3/- per room, as shown by the statistics in the Department of Local Government. There are, I know, exceptions. I know that there are cases in which 17/- has been paid for a room. We do not dispute that at all, and, in fact, we have received letters about it, but in those two clearance areas—the only place in respect of which we could get statistics —as shown by the statistics in the Department, the figure was 3/- per room. That is where I got the information from. There is a difficulty there in that many of these slum landlords will, if they are interfered with, probably put us in a difficulty and bring about a position in which these houses will be allowed to remain vacant. They have put up the case that it is all right to charge 3/- or 5/- for a room, but that they only get the rent once in three weeks, because tenants go off and leave arrears.

There is no solution for that and there can be no solution found by any Government in the nature of a rent adjustment except a temporary solution. Nothing along the lines of settling rents can be anything but temporary. The one and only solution is to get the people out of the houses and into decent houses, and I think that is being done as well as it can be done by the Corporation and by the Local Government Department. This proposal will deal with extortionate rents, and I hope we shall have the report in a very short time and that we will get some means of dealing with the problem.

With regard to the other suggestion in paragraph (c) of Deputy Norton's amendment that the tribunal should inquire as to the extent to which rents are paid out of moneys provided under the Unemployment Assistance Acts and as home assistance, that would entail a good deal of trouble, delay and difficulty. I do not believe that when you had got all the details you possibly could get, they would be anything like accurate or capable of quotation with reliance. I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I think the motion I have tabled is urgent, or at least it deals with a more urgent problem.

In the course of the debate, Deputy Davin purported to quote what I said on the Second Stage of the Expiring Laws Bill. I have since passed the Official Report to Deputy Davin and I now invite him to say if he is prepared to repeat his paraphrase of what he thought I said on that occasion.

The Deputy has just sent the Official Report around to me. I notice that, when speaking of the Rent Restrictions Act, he said:—

"I think it has contributed very considerably to a continuance of the housing shortage in the country. I am wondering when will the time come when the removal of those restrictions on rents will become possible as well as the removal of the restriction on ejectment proceedings which provides that if a tenant can prove that it is more inconvenient for him to move than it is for the landlord that he should remain indefinitely in another man's house provided he pays the agreed rent. The result of that proviso is that a great many people who would be building houses, and thereby helping to relieve the housing shortage, are not building."

He can see from that that he was advocating the removal of the existing restrictions, but I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept his word that that was not his intention.

Amendment negatived.

Resolution put and agreed to.
Top
Share