I move:—
Before paragraph (b) to insert two new paragraphs as follows:—
(b) the extent, if any, to which unduly high rents are being charged for building sites and the effect thereof on house rents;
(c) the extent to which rents for housing accommodation in cities and towns are paid out of moneys provided under the Unemployment Assistance Acts and as home assistance, and
My object in moving this amendment is to widen the terms of reference of the tribunal which has been proposed by the Minister. In order to appreciate the terms of reference of the tribunal it is necessary to study very carefully the provisions of paragraph (a) and, if Deputies do that, they will have no hesitation in realising that, so far as the Minister is concerned, he has drawn the terms of reference in a very narrow way and the scope of the tribunal's inquiries, according to the Minister, must be limited to the hardships and abuses arising or capable of arising under the existing law governing the letting on occupation tenancies at occupation rents of houses and parts of houses in cities, towns and villages where the house or the part so let is used by the occupier thereof wholly or partly as a dwellinghouse. The overriding consideration in the terms of reference is to limit the inquiry to the hardships and abuses arising or capable of arising under the existing law. I suggest that is putting on the terms of reference a very narrow interpretation and it is going to limit enormously the task of a tribunal of this character.
The Minister stated that if he were to accept the amendment it would prolong the inquiry. Surely that is not intended to be a serious argument against the amendment? If the Minister had set up a tribunal of this character in 1932, when his Government assumed office, they would have had a report from the tribunal in 1932. But the Minister did nothing in 1932, in 1933, or in 1934 and now on the 13th December, 1935, the Minister tells us he is in a hurry to get the report of the proposed tribunal. He is in a hurry now after four years. He wants to narrow the scope of the inquiry because he wants the House to believe he is in a hurry, having done nothing in the last four years. Surely the humour of that kind of opposition to this amendment strikes the Minister. If the Minister were really in a hurry to get an inquiry into this whole problem, he could have set up this tribunal four years ago, and if he did not take that course during that period, he is scarcely entitled to come into the House now and say, "I slept on this matter for four years, and recently woke up, and I discover I am in a hurry to have this inquiry and I will limit its terms of reference in the narrowest possible way."
I do not think the House ought to listen to that kind of opposition to an amendment of this kind. I do not agree with the Minister that the acceptance of the amendment will unduly prolong the inquiry. One portion of the amendment asks that the tribunal, which is going to deal with the hardships of tenants from the standpoint of their position under the law and from the standpoint of the well-known grievances from which they suffer, should be asked also to ascertain the extent, if any, to which unduly high rents are being charged for building sites and the effect thereof on house rents. Does the Minister deny that the efforts of the State to provide houses for persons living in slums or insanitary dwellings or in overcrowded conditions have given land in many cases an unreal and fictitious value? Land which some years ago might be purchased at prairie prices has now, because of the efforts of the State to provide houses for its citizens, to provide them with good housing accommodation, assumed a value which it never formerly had.
The community and the State have created for that land an enhanced value on a new basis. Because the community requires houses to satisfy its needs, it must, compulsorily, be held to ransom in order that those who hold the land can obtain any value they attach to it. So far as utility societies are concerned they must take any land they require at the landlord's price because they have no means of having a fair value put upon it by any tribunal. The local authorities can acquire land for building houses but the price is fixed by an arbitrator. But, as is well known, and it must be pretty well known to the Minister for Justice, and better known to the Minister for Local Government, where a local authority requires land and the matter has to be dealt with by arbitration, there seems to be a kind of prevailing opinion that since it is the local authority that requires it, the land can be had at a pretty fair price. But the Minister must know that in respect of land required for house building purposes, a most unreal value is attached, and there is nothing for it but to pay the price because it is not possible for the local authority or the builder or the utility society to secure the land at a lower price. I have no hesitation in saying that in the last three years, particularly in cities like Cork, and other cities and towns throughout the country, there has been an unhealthy gamble, from the community point of view, in regard to the buying of such land. That gamble has resulted in the tenants being required to bear an impost which is most unfair upon them, but it is necessary if they are to enter into occupation of houses of that kind.
I wish the Minister would have made himself aware of the prices paid for land for this purpose in Cork by the Cork Corporation, and in Dublin by the Dublin Corporation. I wish he would ask some builders about the prices they were compelled to pay for land here in the City of Dublin. We are in the position, and Deputies know the fact, that there is a gamble in land for those purposes and that tenants have to bear the impost. The Minister for Justice is setting up a tribunal and he proposes to exclude from the terms of reference any inquiry but the simple one as to the unduly high rents that are paid by tenants. I cannot understand on what ground the Minister bases his objection to the proposals in my amendment.
It must be well known to the Minister, as it is well known to members of his Party, and to members of all Parties in this House, that there has been an enormous inflation in the value of land in recent years for building purposes. Here we are setting up a tribunal to deal with the housing problem to some extent. Is it not obvious that matters such as those set out in my amendment should be inquired into by the tribunal so that we might get some information as to what is being done and so that the tribunal would be able to make some recommendation as to the growing evils of that character? With reference to paragraph (c) of my amendment, I am seeking to extend the reference so that the tribunal might inquire into "the extent to which rents for housing accommodation in cities and towns are paid out of moneys provided under the Unemployment Assistance Acts and out of home assistance." I venture to say that there is not a Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party representing Dublin but knows that large amounts of money provided for employment assistance and for home assistance have found their way into the pockets of landlords, and particularly slum landlords, for filthy and insanitary slums that the lower animals, much less human beings, should not be housed in. If I had my way I would make it an offence for any slum landlord to demand rent for insanitary dwellings. It is bad enough for people to be compelled to live in insanitary dwellings and basement cellars; but that landlords should be allowed to extract rent from these people in these circumstances is something that I do not understand.
This House passed the Unemployment Assistance Acts and the Home Assistance Act, and the obvious desire it had in making these contributions was to assist men, women and children in periods of enforced idleness, to procure the necessaries of life so far as the limited benefits given under these Acts could provide them. But there might as well have been a section in the Act stating that, so far as 30, 40 or 50 per cent. of these grants were concerned, they should be paid to landlords for housing accommodation. It is well known to members of the Fianna Fáil Party, particularly those who are members of the Dublin Corporation, that a very large portion of unemployment assistance benefit and outdoor relief has found its way into the pockets of landlords who provide filthy accommodation. I would like to hear Deputy Cormac Breathnach upon this matter.