Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Feb 1936

Vol. 60 No. 4

Private Deputies' Business. - Proposed Ground Rent Levy.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That the Dáil is of opinion that local authorities in towns and cities should be empowered by legislation to supplement their revenue by levying a rate upon moneys received by ground landlords in respect of ground rents.—(Deputy Anthony.)

When I moved the adjournment of the debate on Friday last on this motion I was making the point that having regard to the benefits which have been added by the community to ground values that the proprietors of land, particularly of land used for building purposes, were enabled by the addition of that value —a value to which they made no contribution—to secure for their land a very enhanced value. I said that that enhanced value was a factor which entered into the cost of house building and that the provision of houses for our people, being such an urgent problem and it being desirable to keep the cost of providing housing accommodation to as reasonable a figure as possible, it was necessary that steps should be taken by the Legislature through this motion, but preferably through a more comprehensive motion, to ensure that the community was enabled to recover from those who had lands to sell for house building purposes some of the community created assets which at present helped to swell the value of lands for building purposes.

As I pointed out then, the only charge which ground rents at present bear is a charge in respect of income tax. It cannot, I think, be said that the imposition of an income charge on ground rents results in the raking off, from the standpoint of the community, all the additional value which the community's efforts have given to the land which is used for house building purposes. It is well known that the movement of population alone produces an enhanced value in respect to land. If a local authority decides to open up new arterial roads or to extend its sanitation scheme, if a State electrical undertaking decides to extend its lighting scheme, or if it is desired to extend a water supply scheme, every person who has land for sale in that previously undeveloped area is enabled by this muncipal development or by that kind of community progress to secure for his land a price which shows a considerable increase as compared with the former value of the land. The increase in value which has been made possible by community efforts is one which, I think, should revert, as far as the Legislature can ensure its reversion, to the benefit of the community which helped to create that enhanced value in respect of the land. To the extent therefore that it is possible, through the medium of this motion or any action taken upon it, to ensure that the community-created value of lands may be recovered for the benefit of the community generally, I support the motion.

I realise, at the same time, that there are defects in the motion and that at all events it is only dealing with portion of a problem the end of which we cannot at present see. Deputy Anthony's motion suggests that a rate should be levied on money received by ground landlords in respect of ground rents. It may be possible, I think it is possible, to enable the community to levy a tribute on ground rents received by private landlords. To that extent you may recover, in respect to existing ground landlords, a certain portion of the enhanced value which has been given to the ground rents by community efforts. But we are not dealing merely with the problem of ground rents as it exists at present. There is another portion of the problem to be considered, the problem of future ground rents. Any scheme which enables a local authority to exact a levy on ground rents might be easily overcome in respect to any land utilised for building purposes in future, because any landlord who is likely to sell his land to potential house builders would be able, in fixing the rate at which they would let or sell the land, to take cognisance of the charges which would have to be met out of the income which he would receive. If he has to meet 4/6 in the £ in respect of income tax and the local authority is permitted to increase that charge by the levy of an additional 2/6 in the £, we get the position where the ground landlord will be compelled to pay in the form of income tax and municipal tax a sum of 7/- in the £ on land which he lets for building purposes.

With the knowledge that moneys received in the form of ground rents are subject to a charge of that kind, the ground landlord of the future can overcome the difficulty by charging a rent which will enable him to meet without difficulty the charges imposed by the Legislature and by the municipality. In that way the position which Deputy Anthony now seeks to remedy would not be remedied and, in fact, the position might well be aggravated, because the ground landlord would thus be able to overcome any imposition which might be put upon him unless, as I said earlier, it were possible to fix by legislation or otherwise a certain definite price which would determine the value of land, particularly for house building purposes, and more especially for the erection of houses which are in urgent demand by the working-class section of the community. I do not, therefore, think that Deputy Anthony's motion is sufficiently comprehensive. It only deals with the problem as it exists to-day. It does not deal with the future problem in respect of the new ground landlords who may be able, notwithstanding a municipal levy, to escape the penal consequences of that levy in respect of themselves. But I agree that the motion nevertheless has the merit of enabling a local authority to exact from a ground landlord just retribution in respect of the additional value which the efforts of that local authority and of the local community have added to the land. That portion of the motion is one with which I am in complete sympathy.

I think, however, that there is a wider problem and it is the problem of the future ground landlord. In that respect, I do not think the motion is sufficiently comprehensive. If that aspect of the matter is to be dealt with, we must take care, particularly in respect of land which is required for the erection of working class houses, to insure that the ground landlord is not enabled to exact from potential house builders or the local authority an enhanced value for his land—an enhanced value which bears no relation to his own individual efforts, but which is made possible by the efforts of the local authority acting on behalf of the local community. I think that not only would it be necessary, in order to deal comprehensively with this problem, to fix definite standards which would come into play in determining the value of land for house building purposes, but it would also be necessary to endeavour to provide that the sale of land for housebuilding purposes should be effected through the local authority so as to enable the local authority to become the ground landlord. In that way the abuses which are inseparable from the present system of selling land at high prices, when there is a keen demand for land to satisfy the needs of the people in respect of housing, might be overcome and the worst evils of the present system obviated.

I think it ought not to be impossible to devise a scheme by which any potential house builder having decided upon a site which he desires for house building purposes would be enabled to approach the owner, and to have the value of the land determined in some reasonable way, but bearing in mind the necessity for taking cognisance of the community— added value in respect of that value and that the local authority should then be enabled to effect the sale of the land between the builder and the ground landlord through the local authority in such a way as to ensure that the local authority would become the ultimate ground landlord. Any rate which it might fix in respect of ground rent ought to be a reasonable rate, and even if there were a surplus realised by the local authority from the sale of land to a potential house builder, that surplus should at least be used for the benefit of the whole community. Instead, at the present time, any enhanced prices which are paid for land for house building purposes do not benefit the community in the slightest. They are pocketed by the individual ground landlord, and, not merely does he put into his pocket the value of the land, but he puts in a substantial addition to the normal value of the land.

On a point of order, are we dealing with ground rents or land values?

Nobody knows, and least of all Deputy Norton.

It is much more germane, I suggest, than the arithmetic of house building to which Deputy Belton treated us on the last occasion.

I treated you to the matter of the motion—ground rents. The Deputy is talking of the potential value of land on which there are no ground rents at the present time.

Not at all. You are not able to understand the discussion at all.

The Deputy does know what he is talking about.

The Deputy now finds himself uncomfortable in his opposition to this motion. He finds himself in a strange gallery with the Minister for Finance. It is about the only thing upon which they have agreed in a long period of potential companionship.

I would rather be with the Minister for Finance than with Moscow.

The Minister for Finance did not think that when he expelled you from the Party.

That is clearly not in the motion.

They did not expel me.

Oh, indeed, they did.

What about Deputy Anthony and expulsions?

Everybody over there was expelled.

We did not go to Moscow—the new Socialist combine.

If the Deputy went to Moscow, he might get some ideas much more beneficial to him than the immature ideas to which he frequently treats the House, particularly on this matter.

That is an interesting allocution.

That is an interesting admission from the leader of the Labour Party—a tribute to Moscow.

A Senator from the Fine Gael Party was over there recently.

I am interested in the motion. I am not a bit interested in Moscow.

Have they any ground rents in Moscow?

Of course, they have.

Deputy Norton on the motion.

I am not allowed, of course, to comment on the fact that a Fine Gael Senator was in Moscow recently.

The Deputy is trying to get in a great deal about it.

I think the ultimate solution of this problem in respect of ground rents will be found in making the local authority the ground landlord, so far as that is possible, and if the local authority, as the ground landlord, realises a surplus on the sale or letting of land, we have the assurance, at all events, that that surplus value will revert to the community, and that is something that does not happen to-day. I know, of course, that any proposal of that kind will be assailed by everybody in the community who is enabled to charge fancy ground rents for land. I know that everybody who is able to rake off a substantial surplus in respect of his ground—the difference between the low price at which he bought it and the high price he charges to tenants of the land on which houses are built —will bitterly assail any motion having this for its object, but, even though proposals of this kind may be assailed by people who want to continue to exact exorbitant ground rents from tenants, that is not a reason why the Legislature refuse to implement a piece of legislation so necessary in the interests of the tenants, even if it should happen to be uncomfortable or financially unprofitable for those who at present derive such a substantial income from ground rents.

It is very difficult to follow the Deputy. He seems to be talking about two proposals at once.

I am sure the Minister would be a model of clarity on this matter as he was on coal.

I do not think the Deputy was here to listen to my burning words on coal.

Unfortunately I was.

What piece of legislation does the leader of the Labour Party contemplate?

The legislation which Deputy Morrissey is supporting in this motion. Talk to Deputy Morrissey and ask him what he had in mind.

I should like to hear the leader of the Labour Party explain the piece of legislation he was referring to which was going to transfer ground rents to the local authority.

What way is Deputy Dillon going to vote?

I have been explaining that I believe there are two problems to be dealt with. One is the problem of taxing the existing ground rents which, in my opinion, and particularly the ground rents which have been created during the past 20 years, have been unduly high and which do not bear an adequate share of taxation. A motion which is designed to provide municipal taxation on ground rents of that kind is one which I am prepared to support and which Deputy Morrissey of Deputy Dillon's Party is also prepared to support, since he is one of the sponsors of this motion.

Giving municipalities the right to exploit?

No, the right to levy a tax on ground rents. That is one portion of the problem. The second portion is the position of future ground landlords who may be able to circumvent the existing income tax imposition and the municipal levy by taking cognisance of these charges upon ground rents in fixing the price for future ground rents. I say that problem is one which will not be effectively dealt with by the terms of this motion. I was making the point that I think the problem of future ground rents can only be dealt with by devising a scheme for enabling the local authority to become the owner of ground which is sold by a ground owner to a potential house builder, and having the transaction a third party transaction into which the local authority would enter. The local authority would then be enabled to let the land to the potential house builder.

Who would develop it?

If there was any difference charged by the corporation to the potential house builder, representing a surplus on the price which the corporation paid for that particular ground, then we would have the satisfaction at least of knowing that that surplus would be utilised for the benefit of the community instead of, as at present, going into the pocket of the private ground landlord with no portion of this community created asset reverting to the municipality or to the local community. In other words, if there is to be any surplus realised in the letting of ground for house building purposes, it is much more preferable that the surplus should be realised by the local authority which will use it for the benefit of the whole community instead of having that surplus yielded up to a person who will use it not for the benefit of the community but for his own benefit.

Hear, hear!

It took a long time to draw that endorsement from Deputy Belton.

Will the Deputy now say who will bear the cost of development?

I will if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle allows me.

Will the Deputy tell the House, in greater detail, how the local authority is to enter into the transaction?

And will be say if that is part of the scheme in the Labour Party's programme?

The Deputy should be familiar with Party programmes. He has been in a number of Parties in his time, but he did not stick to any of them very long. I am not going to burden him with the details of any more programmes.

What Party programme have I not stuck to?

The Deputy began as an Independent, he was then in the Centre Party, the Cumann na nGaedheal and the Fine Gael Party and now he is back again as an Independent.

All that is as far away as Moscow from the motion.

Would the Deputy allow me to put a question to him so as to make the position clear? He speaks of letting in the local authority as the ultimate ground landlord and of making an agreement for the purchase of land for the building of houses a tripartite agreement. Does he mean by that that if I want to build a house on his land and if I go to him to open negotiations for the purchase of a plot of land, that as soon as he indicates his readiness to deal with me I can go to the Dublin County Council and ask them compulsorily to acquire his land, pay him an arbitrary sum as compensation, and that having done so it becomes my ground landlord? If he does mean that, does he mean that any citizen can come in and compulsorily acquire his neighbour's land if he happens to covet it? If so, will he say how he would restrict the covetousness of any individual citizen who wants to build on land that the owner does not want to sell?

How would be make sure that somebody else would not get that plot?

And is the person who builds the house going to be free to sell it at whatever profit he can get for it?

The Deputy is wound up now.

If I want any advice in wriggling I will see the Deputy about it.

If you want any advice about building I will see you.

According to your own statement, your experience in that respect was such that bankruptcy was not far away.

What is that?

Read your own speech. Did you not tell us that you were an unsuccessful house builder?

It is not to the Deputy I will go for money if I want it. I do not make my living by manipulating others to work for me.

You have done it very successfully I think.

Let me hear Deputy Norton on the motion, and no more interruptions.

If there was any profession in tomfoolery the Deputy is well equipped to occupy the position.

Is that a big individual in the Communist Party?

Perhaps it is undergoing a change.

Not for the better.

Deputy Norton on the motion, and no more interruptions except on points of order.

Deputy Dillon asked the question whether my proposal meant that a certain person who wanted to acquire a particular site for the purpose of building a house on it would be enabled to go to the local authority and ask it to compulsorily acquire that site for him, the local authority becoming the ground landlord. No, of course, my proposal did not involve that at all.

It is the law at the moment and it can be done.

Not in the case of one individual versus another. If I want land I have to go to the owner of it. I can negotiate an agreement with him by which I can become the owner of the land or secure the land on lease. I am not suggesting that if one avaricious citizen wants to secure land held by some other person that he should be enabled to invoke the aid of the local authority, automatically, to change the first citizen and let the second citizen in. At present, of course, as Deputy Dillon knows, a local authority, if it requires a particular site, may take steps compulsorily to acquire it. My proposal would not mean disturbing that practice, nor would it establish the practice of enabling one citizen to utilise a local authority for the purpose of compulsorily acquiring land owned by another citizen. But I say that where a voluntary transaction is entered into, or where there is the possibility of entering into an arrangement between one citizen who has land to sell and another citizen who requires land for house-building purposes, that voluntary arrangement should be executed through the local authority in such a way as to make the local authority the ultimate ground landlord. I think that is the only effective way, so far as I can see, by which a local authority could become the ultimate ground landlord. In that way we can have some assurance that if there are profits made, or surpluses realised, in respect of the letting of land for house-building purposes, the local authority, at all events, will garner the profits or surpluses and utilise them in the interests of the community.

I do not understand the Deputy's proposal.

May I put the Deputy a question, because I would like to have this stated clearly?

Would it not be better if the Minister made his speech later?

He could not be induced to make one the last day, but he is bubbling all over to make one now.

I want to see what exactly the proposal is. The Deputy's statement to the House was not very clear.

Will the Deputy allow me to intervene for a moment? The importance of this point is this: that Deputy Norton has practically said that the motion as it stands is nonsense, that it does not get us anywhere, and that something supplemental to it would need to be done in order to get us anywhere. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that he should make clear what he thinks it is that ought to be done.

Did I understand the Deputy to take the case of two individuals: one has land, the other wants to build a house on it. The man who wants to build the house arranges with the man who owns the land that he is going to purchase the land from him, and having purchased it he is then to hand it over to the local authority which is to be the owner for ever. Is that the proposition the Deputy has put to the House?

I did not make that proposition to the House at all. I shall despair of ever being able to get the Minister to understand the proposition.

I must admit that I do not understand it either and I listened with close attention to the Deputy.

I do not suppose the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will allow me to go over the explanation again. I have already explained the proposition, which is that the local authority should come into the arrangement between a man who has land to sell and a man who desires to sell land in such a way that the man who has land to sell will dispose of it through the local authority and be remunerated by the local authority.

Then, it is the local authority that buys the land?

The Minister is beginning to see now rather reluctantly.

The local authority would acquire the land from the man who is disposing of it and, in that way, would become the ground landlord to the potential house builder.

What machinery is there to fix the purchase price of this land?

The proposition stated by Deputy Norton is that which I put to him a few moments ago.

No. Deputy Dillon asked, in his first question, if my proposal involved a citizen being able to go to a local authority and say: "I want that particular piece of land; please get it for me." My proposal becomes operative only when the man who has the land to sell indicates his willingness to dispose of the land to the man who wants to buy it. The arrangement would be of a kind which would enable the ground to be purchased by the local authority.

Who fixes the price?

Who fixes the price at present?

Will the price be fixed by private negotiation?

By private negotiation.

Does the Deputy seriously suggest that the local authority is to buy land from all and sundry at a price to be fixed by two other parties and that the local authority is to pay a price in the arrangement of which they have had no voice?

I have not said that.

It means the buying of ground rents.

Who do you say will fix the price?

I have already made clear that it would be necessary, in any comprehensive settlement of the ground rent problem on these lines, to devise an arrangement by which there would be certain definite standards for calculating the value of land for house building purposes so as to ensure that the valuable additions made to the land by the community's efforts would revert to the community. Nobody should be allowed in circumstances in which a famine exists for houses to rake off for his own personal advantage, not merely the normal value of the land but any enhanced value it has got as a result of the efforts of the community.

Where will these standards be laid down — in a Schedule to a Bill?

The Labour Party are devising them.

No standard I would devise would be more inequitable than the famous standard devised by the Minister in his Budget last year —increasing the value of houses for income tax purposes by a purely arbitrary figure without the slightest inquiry.

That was a tax on rents and the Deputy opposed it.

Because it was a tax upon working class people.

Then all rents are payable to working class people.

The Minister should know, if he is not altogether in the air, that a lot of working class people have been compelled to buy their houses from the local authorities. These people will be affected by the Minister's Budget proposal. That was a purely arbitrary and unscientific proposal, which had no basis whatever in equity.

Should a man who has to leave Dublin to find work in Cork not be allowed to let his house in Dublin?

That is worse than the Minister's coal explanation. I am in agreement with this motion so far as it will enable the local authority to recover for the community the enhanced value of land which is due to the efforts of the community. To that extent, I support the motion, though it does not deal with the problem of ground rents in a comprehensive way. I think that the problem of ground rents must be dealt with in a comprehensive way, though if one is to regard the declaration of the Minister for Finance at the recent Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis as representing the Government's viewpoint on ground rents, we shall wait many a day before the evils arising from profiteering in ground rents are seriously attacked. However, this problem must be tackled some time. The legislature has enacted legislation to prevent profiteering in a variety of articles of public use. Under that legislation, there has been an inquiry into the price of house-building material—a clear recognition of the fact that the State thinks it is desirable to prevent profiteering in the elements which go to determine the cost of a house and the rent of a house. In respect of ground rents, there has been no inquiry as to the extent of profiteering. There has been no inquiry and no legislation designed to check the very obvious profiteering that has taken place. There has been no attempt in any legislation to prevent ground landlords renewing leases of houses at substantially higher ground rents than those which formerly obtained. Owing to the circumstances in which the tenants are placed, these ground landlords are enabled to exact almost any kind of tribute they choose to fix. So long as ground rents and the cost of land enter into the cost of constructing a house and the rent charged for the house, it is necessary that the legislature should be vigilant in respect of any profiteering. Indeed, inquiry into the whole problem and the most effective way in which it can be dealt with has long been overdue. There are some very obvious evils in respect of the inflated rents which are charged for land which do not require the prolonged and careful consideration which the Minister for Finance spoke about on another occasion. One of the methods by which the problem, as it is being felt immediately by all sections of the people, might be dealt with is that set out in the motion. The motion, as I have said, is not drafted in such a comprehensive way as would enable the problem to be dealt with as a whole, but I regard the motion as one which makes an effort to recover for the community assets which the community have created and the value of which is now being pocketed by individual landholders. It is because the motion seeks to recover a community-created asset for the use and benefit of the community that I am supporting it.

Some Deputies opposite commented when this question was previously before the House on statements made by Deputies down the country who are in favour of some steps being taken to deal with ground rents. Some rather extraordinary statements were made here at a previous sitting, and Deputy Belton gave a large amount of enlightenment which works out rather peculiarly. We heard a lot about confiscation and Deputy MacDermot also passed some remarks.

I never said a word about confiscation.

I have not spoken yet.

You passed some comments.

Not a word.

I have all your learned references here. I wonder what kind of confiscation, what I am going to relate will be thought, where a piece of bare rock in a country town in my constituency was taken over on lease for £12 a year. The rock had to be excavated and houses were built upon it costing something like £12,000. In order to do that £5,000 was borrowed from the bank. When the lease expired the ground landlord who owned the rock refused to renew it for the unfortunate man who had invested £12,000 in buildings or for the bank that had advanced £5,000 on loan, but he relet the houses that he had confiscated for £415 a year. That is just one little case of confiscation by one of these ground rent landlords in whom we are all so interested.

That type of ground landlord?

I will deal with Dublin Corporation as landlords later, all in good time. The others showed the road and I must say the Corporation were good pupils. In another case a ground rent of £100 was divided between 25 tenants. An enormous amount of money was spent on buildings. Remember that all these tenants got was the bare rock on which they built 25 houses, each tenant paying his own part of the ground rent. When the lease fell in in that case the ground rent was increased from £100 to £1,862, and not alone that, but the tenants were compelled to rebuild and to alter the houses at their expense to the satisfaction of the ground landlord. These are two cases that indicate the manner in which absentee landlords dealt with one unfortunate town in my constituency.

What town was that?

The town of Cobh. Four other houses were let on lease, the ground rent being £4 on each house. When the lease expired the rents were raised to £50, £50, £42 and £35, respectively. I want the House to remember that the ground landlord did not lose as much as 5/- on the buildings, except to pay the collector, probably on a commission basis. That is the manner in which that property was confiscated. In that unfortunate town 26 shops are closed because the people could not pay the rack rents that were put on when leases expired. There are two hotels closed there because the unfortunate tenants could not pay the ground rents levied upon them. We have heard a great deal about decent ground landlords from all the benevolent societies that have been formed. I would like to get down to bedrock on this question, and I would like some Deputy to give his opinion of the benevolent type of landlord that lets a piece of rock at £12 10s. a year, and when the lease expires confiscates buildings worth £12,000 upon it, and then demands £415 a year from the new tenants. That is not confiscation at all! That is business! It is something of the same class of business that Deputy Belton mentioned in connection with the Dublin Corporation where £200 was paid for the ground, and £9,000 charged to the purchasers.

I made no such statement and I do not want that to go to the public. Deputy Corry does not take into consideration the cost of developing the land, and neither did Deputy Norton. The price of the land is a bagatelle.

You made your speech and you can explain it later. I will read what the Deputy said from the Official Debates. He was after dealing with some resolution from Letter-kenny, and at page 412 of the Official Debates of February 5th he said:—

"...Now, it is well to know at the outset that the largest ground landlord in Ireland is the Dublin Corporation, and if the Dublin Corporation give £200 or £300 an acre for virgin soil for building houses, they get £9,000 or more an acre for land let to private individuals. I am chairman of the Estates Committee of the Dublin Corporation and I know what I am talking about. ..."

Yes, that is when the land is developed.

You talked enough.

Let us have the third person in future when speaking here.

Certainly, but I would like to stop these ignorant interruptions. Deputy Belton stated here that virgin soil purchased for £200 an acre was let for £9,000 an acre. That may be a very good proposition for the Dublin Corporation. It may be taken that about 15 houses would be built on the acre, and that interest has to be paid on the money. I suggest to Deputy Belton that it is not the people of Dublin alone who have to pay that money and the enormous salaries that have to be paid to Government officials who are compelled to reside in Dublin. They are paid by the people of the country at large, and if the Dublin Corporation farms out land that it buys at £200 at £9,000 an acre, on which 15 houses are erected, that £9,000 is not paid by the citizens of Dublin. That enormous profit is made according to the chairman of the Estates Committee of the Dublin Corporation. That money is paid by the ordinary people, and it affects the cost of living bonus about which we hear so much. It comes from the unfortunate people, and it enables officials to live in Dublin and to pay the rack rents that have to be paid, because the Dublin Corporation charges £9,000 for an acre of ground on which houses are built by private individuals. I do not care whether they are absentee landlords, as in the case of Cobh, or rack-renters, as in the case of the Dublin Corporation; it is all one to me. The ordinary people have to pay.

We will have to look into the matter.

How much do plots for labourers' houses cost in County Cork?

You would be very lucky if you get £20 to £30 an acre. There is a wide difference between that and £9,000. Now let me go back to Cobh, in which I am most interested at the moment. I am merely giving facts and I have told you where certain people bought land for £200 and sold it for £9,000.

Who told the Deputy that these were facts? There are members of the Corporation who do not subscribe to these figures.

You will get your own turn; it is mine now.

Is the Deputy offering any of his own holding for £20 an acre?

I suggest I should not be interrupted any further. I am sorry the Lord Mayor of Dublin is not here.

You might pair with him if he were.

In my constituency we have little ways of dealing with those things that Deputies do not appear to realise. We deal with these matters ourselves and we do not wait for the Dáil to bring in legislation.

This is a Cork motion and why bother the House with it?

On the Rushbrooke estate down there we dealt with 320 tenants. The rental was £9,000. We gave the tenants a reduction of, roughly, 33? per cent. of their ground rents, or £3,100. We wiped out £4,500 arrears, all in a perfectly peaceable and orderly, constitutional manner. I might say that 150 of the leases which were not dealt with were held by the bank. That will show you the condition of affairs into which the people were driven by the drain of ground rents. Then we dealt with the Barrymore estate and we gave the tenants there practically an equal reduction. It was all done by arbitration. We had to tackle a bigger problem still, and that was to bring the reduction to the ordinary man living in a house, just as when we deal with the £9,000 Deputy Belton's Corporation are collaring, the people will have their houses cheaper by £30 a year.

They are not paying that much.

I am stating the facts and I am taking the word of the Chairman of the City Estates Committee for it. To go back to my own constituency, in one instance we had a lady paying a ground rent of £14 17s. 6d., which was reduced by the arbitration court to £10. We then took her two sub-tenants in hands. They are living in houses——

The Deputy seems to be developing an argument for the reduction of ground rents.

I am endeavouring to prove that a particular reduction can be brought to the benefit of the ordinary dweller.

It seems to me that the Deputy is developing an argument for the reduction of ground rents rather than for a tax on ground rents.

Deputy Belton was able to talk about sewer pipes and waterworks.

Deputy Belton was entitled to discuss the cost of the development of a site.

Surely I can talk about how a reduction from £14 17s. 6d. to £10 benefited the ordinary occupiers of houses?

It is the community Deputy Anthony wants to help by means of the tax.

I submit with all respect that Deputy Norton apparently favoured Deputy Belton's plan of paying £200 for land and shoving up the price to £9,000 for the benefit of the community. That is evidently the plan Deputy Norton was developing.

The Deputy is misrepresenting me. I did not support any proposal of that kind.

Great confusion seems to exist.

I listened very patiently to the discussion here and I believe I have as good an understanding as the next and what I understood clearly from Deputy Norton was that he suggested that when a plot of land was for sale the corporation or the local authority should buy it and if any surplus arose it would go to the benefit of the local authority and through them to the community. I take it that is the plan Deputy Belton, as Chairman of the City Estates Committee in Dublin, was also working on—buying at £200 and selling at £9,000. In the case of the lady to whom I was referring, one of the sub-tenants was being charged £110 a year for a house.

How much was the person paying whose ground rent you reduced?

The lady's ground rent was £14 17s. 6d., reduced to £10. We reduced that sub-tenant to £85 and wiped out 12 months' arrears.

Why had he to pay more than his share of the £14?

You will understand it when I am finished. We came to the second house and reduced the occupant from £48 to £31. We took £43 off the lady for the benefit of the two sub-tenants.

According to your theory she ought not to receive more than £14 from the two of them. How do you justify the inconsistency?

She built the houses in this particular case and she was paying £14 for the ground on which they stood. We considered it a fair and equitable distribution of justice to take £43 off her for the benefit of the people who lived in the houses. We are now going to deal with the second town that is left in my constituency after the carving it got here—the town of Midleton. We have taken it in hands, and I hope to be able to report next year that equally satisfactory results have been arrived at, and that without bother.

Who are "we"?

The Deputies who should be doing that job instead of being half asleep here——

That is not a job for Deputies. That is a work that should be done by legislation if Deputies want to do it in the right way.

I can quite understand the Minister when we have people of the mentality of Deputy Dillon who want to do away with these arbitration proceedings altogether so that the lawyers can get fees out of the unfortunate people. We do not believe in that at all, at least we do not in my country.

I do not quite understand what Deputy Corry is discussing.

Hear, hear!

I cannot relate what the Deputy is saying about the reductions in ground rents to the motion before the House.

I submit, Sir, that what Deputy Corry is saying is perfectly relevant — he is opposing this motion and pointing out that intimidation would be much more effective.

I am sure Deputy MacDermot with all the impertinence of a newcomer to Irish politics and Irish life, will not charge the Chairman of the Cork County Council, Deputy Broderick, with intimidation whatever charge he makes here against me.

Deputy Corry must get back to the motion. He must relate his remarks to the motion before us.

Certainly, Sir, but I would wish first of all as my colleague in this business, Deputy Broderick, is not present, to protest emphatically against such an assertion as was made here through the impertinence of Deputy MacDermot. I can quite understand Deputy MacDermot making a charge of intimidation against me——

Deputy Corry is too modest.

To come back to the point raised by An Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to point out that he allowed Deputy Norton to develop a plan here by which the community might benefit——

The action of the Chair must not be questioned even by implication by any Deputy.

I entirely agree, but the manner in which I am trying to relate my remarks to the motion is this: In my opinion the work that is suggested to be done here could be far better done if Deputies in their own constituencies went into those problems themselves, considered them themselves, sat down around a table and worked them out together.

Is Deputy Corry available to take an engagement elsewhere?

No; the people of my constituency demand my whole time and attention in these matters and I deal with them with complete satisfaction.

When finished with Midleton, will the Deputy be ready for anything else?

Of course I would consider it my duty to my constituents to investigate very closely the gross profiteering—far worse than the profiteering in coal—that has apparently been carried out by the Corporation of Dublin and for which my people have to pay to the tune of £30 a house. I have the facts here in this book.

We do not admit that. Deputy Corry need not mind the book at all now.

I will have to read this particular statement again in order that it may sink in.

We cannot have any repetition.

I do not like too much repetition, but I would wish to refer to the particular portion of Deputy Belton's remarks. He talked about the Dublin Corporation being the biggest ground landlords in Ireland. I would like to refer to that so that Deputies, if this debate continues for another night, may have an opportunity of refuting my statement if they can. The position I find is that we have a community of ground landlords as was stated by Deputy Belton getting £9,000 or more for an acre of land let to private individuals. We have it that the private individual must start from scratch at £9,000 an acre if he is to build a house in Dublin and let that house afterwards to the unfortunate official or worker who goes to live there. Just imagine £9,000 an acre! That would be more than £30 a house for interest alone.

The Deputy is making a case against himself.

This money goes to the ground landlords——

Did Deputy Belton say that £9,000 an acre was for working class houses?

The point I am making is this: That these houses are let to Government officials and that this £30 has to be paid not by the citizens of Dublin but by the unfortunate people down the country. It is paid to the officials in the form of bonuses on their salaries.

The Deputy must get back to the motion.

If I may enlighten Deputy Corry this £9,000 an acre is for business houses and not for working class houses.

Deputy Belton could work up an excuse for the devil.

Deputy Corry is mixed up in his arguments.

Deputy Corry ought to be allowed to make his speech without interruptions.

I am endeavouring to make my case as fairly as I can. As I have stated, we had to deal with that problem ourselves down in Cork and we did it after making repeated appeals here that got us nowhere. On one occasion I had to hold the Minister for Justice here on the adjournment in order to make a case for the unfortunate town tenants of Cobh. We are not satisfied that we got enough. After dealing with Cobh we took over the unfortunate town of Passage recently which was in the territory of the Deputies for the City of Cork. On account of some representations that were made there as to what would happen to that particular ground landlord we found he was prepared to put his hand into his pocket to help to start an industry in the town so as to keep up the value of his property in Passage and to enable the tenants to pay the ground rent. In Cobh we found the unfortunate tenants were paying a sum of practically £18,000 a year in ground rents. This sum was taken out of that town by two absentee ground landlords who thought they had their duty discharged to the unfortunate people of that town when they sent a cheque for £25 to the St. Vincent de Paul Society at Christmas. That cheque had made everything right for them, as they thought, and they were benevolent benefactors to the town. They never bothered as to whether the people of Cobh were hungry. All that troubled these absentee landlords was to get their rents. However, that was stopped. We met in Cobh, we sat around a table and the whole matter was subjected to arbitration with satisfactory results.

Deputy Corry must come to the motion or discontinue his speech. Certainly, the terms of the motion before the House do not include anything about making arrangements between landlords and tenants in the matter of ground rents.

I would like to point out with regard to the terms of the motion that what I am saying is related to it.

Read the motion.

That the Dáil is of opinion that local authorities in towns and cities should be empowered by legislation to supplement their revenue by levying a rate upon moneys received by ground landlords in respect of ground rents.

I am submitting, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, that it would be of more benefit to the community to get those reductions direct.

There is not a word about reductions in the motion.

There is not, but there is a question of the community benefiting to the extent of a certain fixed amount, I take it, by a rate levied. The rate is to be levied, I presume, for the benefit of the community in the particular district where the ground rents are being charged. I am suggesting that it would be far more beneficial to the individuals themselves — instead of having that rate going to the local authority and being transmitted to them again; very little of it, perhaps, reaching the particular individuals concerned — if they got this cut direct; if they got their 33 1/3rd per cent., the same as the tenants of Cobh got, instead of having it passed through the rates and all the rest of it. If the corporation is anything like the Dublin Corporation, God alone knows whether or not the tenant will get any benefit at all.

Are we to take it that the Deputy is opposing the motion?

When Deputy Dillon was associated with Deputy MacDermot there on those benches, you never knew whether he was opposing a thing or not; you would never know what I would do either. I am suggesting that this would undoubtedly be a more direct method of approaching the problem, and would be of more direct benefit to the tenants concerned.

Does the Deputy think that his method is a fair alternative to the one proposed in the motion?

And I consider it would be a fairer one still if the Executive Council would consider the introduction of legislation to provide a fair rent court which would deal with this question. I can assure the Minister that when that is done my tenants will be anxious to take the benefit of that court and to get further reductions.

The Deputy would like the Cork County Council to come under the heading of this motion?

I consider that the Cork County Council is a benevolent society as compared with the Dublin Corporation, judging by Deputy Belton's statement.

You should not attack the Dublin Corporation by what Deputy Belton says, Martin.

On a point of order. In an excess of affection Deputy Briscoe has developed the habit of addressing Deputy Corry as "Martin." I do not question his right to adopt this familiar form of address in the Lobby, but I suggest that it is not a practice which should become common in this House.

It is quite disorderly. Members of the House, when referring to other Deputies, should refer to them as "Deputy." Deputy Corry must come to the motion. He has not said anything relevant to the motion since he got on his feet.

In regard to the personal remark——

The Deputy has nothing to do with the personal remark. It is a matter for the Chair.

All the indulgence I would claim is that Deputy Dillon should never take that much advantage of me. As regards the motion, I have suggested an alternative which in my opinion would be of more benefit to the community concerned. If I may take Deputy Belton's statement here as correct—and I have heard no denial by Deputy Belton that those were the words used—I certainly would feel inclined to support the motion, in view of the fact that the Dublin ratepayers would be enormously relieved if rates could be levied in cases where £9,000 an acre is charged.

He is quite right there; he is Chairman of the Estates Committee and he ought to know what he is talking about. He said they bought land for £300 and sold it for £9,000.

The other members of the Corporation did not agree. We will see all about it later on. The motion will not be decided to-night in any case.

Deputy Belton also stated that the moment the leases lapsed they increased the rents.

Generally.

For business premises.

He never said a word about business premises.

I am telling Deputy Corry now.

Deputy Briscoe should drop the habit of interrupting Deputy Corry in that fashion.

It is very hard to speak to a motion when you get so many interruptions. I am merely pointing out that Deputy Belton said nothing whatever about business premises. He is Chairman of the Estates Committee. I think I had better quote his words on this matter again.

Deputy Corry has now read the same extract five times. You have already ruled, Sir, that he is irrelevant, repetitious and disorderly. I submit that, unless Deputy Corry is now prepared to bow to your ruling, order will be gravely interfered with.

Is not Deputy Corry entitled to quote from a speech made by a Deputy of this House?

Deputy Corry has already quoted and paraphrased Deputy Belton ad nauseam.

I am quoting another portion of Deputy Belton's speech in this particular matter, where he stated that his Corporation increased the ground rents when the leases lapsed. Here is what he said:

"Leases have lapsed in the Corporation. They are lapsing every day. It is only this morning I posted a few orders that had been sent to me as Chairman of the Estates Committee. We actually increase the rents when the leases lapse. We will not relet them even subject to an increase without a guarantee of expenditure on capital outlay towards rebuilding, renovating or reconditioning."

This is as bad, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, as the gentleman whose case I quoted a while ago; he not alone increased the ground rent from £100 to £1,862, but compelled the unfortunate tenants to renovate and rebuild.

Would the Deputy quote the portion of my speech where I say that the Local Government Department thinks we did not increase them enough?

Deputy Belton made his own speech and I am quoting extracts from that speech. He went on to say:

"We have authority in the powers given to the Corporation to do that on our own. Sometimes certain technicalities come into it and when those operate we have to get the sanction of the Local Government Department. When we suggest an increase in the rents, the Local Government Department does not disagree with us in imposing the increase. They have held that we have not increased the rents enough."

That is the Government the Deputy supports now?

The Government which Deputy Daniel O'Leary supported a few years ago when his Party were over here. We can quite understand this in Dublin, particularly when it is the unfortunate people in the country that pay the tax.

Might I interrupt the Deputy? The Deputy is confusing ground rents with the rents of houses and of business premises. There are no civil servants occupying premises in Grafton Street which are Corporation property. Consequently, any increase would not be borne by the Deputy's constituents.

There has been no statement up to the present made by any Deputy that these are business houses. We have the statement of Deputy Belton in connection with this. He says that according as the leases lapse they increase the rent automatically.

Of business premises.

That is not stated. There is no question of business premises.

I will supplement that by stating that they are business premises or offices.

The point in connection with this is a very serious one for the people concerned and for the people in my constituency. These might be Government offices.

The Government will not even pay us the rates.

I hope Deputy Corry will not be in Cork when we come to reply to him, but that he will be here.

He will be as near to the House as the Deputy was last Friday.

Mr. Kelly

I was here on Friday.

Not when this was on.

Deputy Belton referred to what he called development. I have some experience of that as a member of the South Cork Board of Health. That Board of Health are compelled to do the sewerage that the Deputy was speaking about.

To what point of development?

The Board of Health are compelled to do it. I know that the unfortunate farmers in South Cork have paid through the nose for it in Cork City suburbs.

The Deputy must not have read all my speech.

I do not think that even the Deputy would inflict on me the reading of all his speech.

You read some of it. I read none of it.

It was purgatory enough for you to make it. I know very well how the development portion of this building is carried out. They build two lines of houses in a field and throw 40 or 50 loads of stone in the middle of it and say the road is made. They then call on the county council to take over the road. They usually have a pull with the local councillors.

You mean in Cork.

Or in Dublin.

It is a noted wirepulling area.

They make good concrete roads and footpaths in Dublin.

What do we usually find in connection with this vaunted development that, according to Deputy Belton, increases the cost of an acre of ground from £200 to £9,000? As to sewerage, the person concerned generally comes along to the local councillors or to the medical officer and says he has built four houses and intends to build five more and that he wants an extension of the main sewerage. In that way, by making it an extension, they are able to make the unfortunate farmers, 20 miles away from where the houses are being built, pay for the development that Deputy Belton speaks of.

The builder does it himself.

That is done for the benefit of the builders who Deputy Belton says are entitled to the cost of development.

The builder puts in the sewerage.

He puts in a water closet and a pipe leading from it to the main, a distance of five or ten yards.

He puts in the main too.

I have never seen it done. I can say honestly that I know that the cost of the extension of sewerage in the South Cork Board of Health area over a period of six years has been at least from £25,000 to £30,000, if it stops at that.

We are talking about the city.

These are the suburbs of the city. As to the road that enterprising builders construct between lines of houses, they put about 40 loads of stones, that are too small to be used in building and too awkward to be used for anything else, in the middle. They may run the roller over them once and then they say the road is made. Then they generally get some enterprising councillor like Deputy Belton to put down a notice of motion that the road be taken over by the county council and the road is taken over. That is another phase of the development work.

Is the Minister aware of that corruption in Cork?

Deputy Norton is just as well aware of it in Kildare.

I never heard of it before except from Cork.

Deputy Belton is aware of it in Dublin.

You will not find it in Dublin.

The Dublin Corporation was so corrupt they had to get a City Manager to manage their affairs.

Is it in order to say that the Dublin Corporation is the most corrupt body in the Free State?

A corporate body cannot be said to have a reputation.

Are these statements in order? Can they be replied to?

A corporate body cannot be said to have a reputation.

I am asking is the statement in order, that the Dublin Corporation is the most corrupt body in the Free State, because, obviously, somebody may desire to reply to that remark. Can it be discussed?

If it applies to the Cork Corporation we will leave it.

It cannot be discussed as it is not relevant to the motion. The question for the Chair is whether it is relevant to the motion or not. It is not. The second point is whether it transgresses the rules of order as referring to the reputation of some individual. It seems to me that a corporate body cannot be said to have a reputation that can be defended in that way.

Is it a permissible statement in an Assembly of this kind with reference to the capital city? This speech may be reported throughout the Press of the world.

Will the members of the Corporation present have any opportunity of defending themselves?

The Chair is only concerned with protecting individual Deputies, whether members of a corporation or not.

Is not the suggestion conveyed that members of this House are members of a corrupt body? That is the effect of the statement made— that Deputy Belton, Deputy Kelly and Deputy Briscoe are members of a corrupt body. How they can be members of a corrupt body and not be individually corrupt I do not know.

To ease their minds I will withdraw it and say that I regret I made it.

You should withdraw it unconditionally.

Will the Deputy move the adjournment of the debate?

I move the adjournment of the debate. It can be continued on Friday.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Thursday, February 13th, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share