When dealing with this matter on Wednesday last I gave instances of other methods which, to my mind, at any rate, are to be preferred to the method proposed in this motion by which the unfortunate leaseholders who are paying exorbitant ground rents could be relieved of that burden. I pointed out that through men who realise the heavy burden under which the leaseholders are groaning to-day and who succeed in getting these people to meet one another far more benefit can be conferred than would be conferred by this motion. I have given specific instances of the manner in which that was done in at least one town in my constituency. The Minister for Finance stated on Wednesday last that that was not a job for Deputies, that it was work that should be done by legislation. I am quoting from volume 16 (2), column 592, of the Official Reports.
Private Deputies' Business. - Proposed Ground Rent Levy.
In reference to this matter?
Yes.
In the debate on this matter?
Yes. I should like to point out to the Minister that the people of Cobh, for instance, have been waiting ever since legislation was guaranteed to them by the Minister for Justice on the 12th July, 1932, in this House, as reported in volume 43, column 762, of the Official Reports, when he stated that the Executive Council intended introducing legislation to deal with the grievances of ground rent tenants. I should like to point out to the Minister that ground rent tenants have waited from 1932 to 1936, and if they continued waiting we would be as far away from the matter as ever. It is only by the efforts of public men in their own constituencies in working to relieve these grievances that we can get them relieved. If we were waiting until Bills were put through this House and sent to the Seanad and held up for 18 months and then sent back again we would be a long time waiting. The only manner in which it can be done is by action of that description. The Minister for Justice on that occasion definitely pledged himself to the introduction of this legislation. He stated:—
"I tell the tenants of Cobh and elsewhere something that they can absolutely rely on—that the Government drawn from the Party that espoused their cause so warmly in opposition will not forget them on these benches and that everything in reason that can be done for the tenants of Cobh and the tenants in the other towns of this country to remedy substantial grievances and to restore all the equities as between two parties will be done at the earliest opportunity by this Government."
That was the statement by the Minister for Justice. It was only when we realised, in my constituency, at any rate, that the people could not continue to bear that burden that Deputies from both sides of the House had to step in and successfully remedy that grievance by getting a reduction amounting to 33? per cent. of the ground rents. I grant that is not sufficient—that the burdens on the people of Cobh will have to be relieved to a far greater extent.
Since I spoke on Wednesday last I had the cases of the tenants of the town of Charleville brought before me where a whole bundle of writs for the Circuit Court were lashed out without any consideration whatever. However, by timely interference the lawyers were deprived of the fat they were going to draw from landlords and tenants in these cases and the matter will, I hope, be settled by arbitration. I can quite understand the difficulty of the Government in dealing with a matter like this and the anxiety of the Minister for Finance in reference to it. There is a large revenue derived from income tax on ground rents. I suppose that has something to do with his anxiety about it.
But Deputy Anthony would now add another vested interest to the vested interest that the Government would naturally have in ground rents from the viewpoint of revenue. Deputy Anthony would now add to the other vested interest. The local authority who would be deriving a rate on moneys received from the ground landlords if this motion were accepted and passed into law. Naturally in such circumstances the local authorities would not have any anxiety whatever in seeing these ground rents reduced for their rates would also be reduced. That is what would happen if Deputy Anthony's motion were accepted. To my mind the town tenants have already enough to fight without fighting the local authority.
Some remedy should accrue to the town tenants but this motion is going the wrong way to remedy what undoubtedly is a crying injustice. Down in my constituency we have taken, I admit, rather a crude way of remedying it, but it is a fair way. A number of men met around the table and they settled the matter by arbitration. At all events it has proved successful. Naturally with the law against our taking any untoward action, we are in the position that our hands are tied, so to speak, and we have to accept what we get. I do not consider that a reduction of 33? per cent. on those ground rents was too bad to receive. In every case where that reduction was got it was passed on directly to the occupying tenants. As a matter of fact in one instance I gave here a considerably larger reduction was passed on. I would give other instances showing that not only was the reduction passed on but far larger reductions were given by the arbitration court to the occupying tenants.
I suggest to Deputy Anthony that if he has in Cork City any particular cases like the ones I have mentioned he should endeavour to settle them by the same means that we have settled them. I suggest furthermore that he should endeavour to find some other means of helping the unfortunate town tenants besides raising up another vested interest which would undoubtedly tell against the tenants in the future. I mean the vested interests of the local authority. I want to point out to you, Sir, and I submit there is every reason for believing it, that what has told against the introduction of legislation in this matter up to the present is the fact that income tax is drawn by the Government on every £ of ground rent. That is a matter that must naturally be considered by the Minister for Finance. Every £ paid in ground rents means 4/6 or 5/- to the revenue. If you are going to add to that the power and influence of the local authority towards protecting its rates and its revenue, you are going to raise up another bogey against the town tenants.
I submit that the grievances are such that the Government should find an immediate remedy. This matter can be very easily settled by setting up fair rent courts. The section of such a Bill is already there in one of the old Land Acts. This would be a court in which the leaseholder could bring in the ground landlord where the matter would be threshed out before the judge. I admit that I have found a more effective and speedier way than any other, but I would point out to Deputy Anthony the danger that is before him. If he is going to allow a body like the Dublin Corporation, the largest ground rent landlords in this country, to get an interest in these rents, he will make the case worse for the town tenants. I would remind him of the statement delivered here in the Dáil by a responsible member of the Dublin Corporation. That will show him the danger of making use of a matter like the ground rents to enable a body like the Dublin Corporation to dabble further in real estate and to reap enormous profits. We had it in the debate last week that they buy land at £200 an acre and sell it at £9,000. If the Deputy is going to give a body like that the right to levy rates on ground rents, he will find that they will be the strongest opponents of the town tenants and the most conservative force towards keeping those unfortunate tenants down for ever. That is one of the dangers I see in Deputy Anthony's motion. I do not wish to delay the House further beyond just putting those facts fairly before them.
I would be glad if the Minister in his leisure time—if he has any leisure time, which I very much doubt—would read the statement made by the Circuit judge in Cork when those ground rent tenants were before his court. I would suggest to the Minister that he would read the appeals made by the judge to the landlords to have at least a little Christian charity and to realise that in grinding down those unfortunate tenants they were killing the goose that laid the golden egg. I suggest to every Deputy in the House to read those statements. They would then realise what an intolerable burden is being borne by the town tenants. In the majority of cases this money is going to landlords living outside this country altogether, men who never spent one shilling to help those people out of whom they are drawing their large revenues. These men let a piece of rock or a piece of virgin soil, as Deputy Belton put it, to the unfortunate people who built the houses on it. People must get somewhere in which to live. This landlord let a piece of virgin soil in Cobh for £10 or £12 at the start. A man came along and built £9,000 worth of property on that piece of ground. As soon as the lease fell in the landlord came and grabbed the whole of that property. If that is not confiscation, I do not know what confiscation is. Any means of compelling that landlord to deliver up that loot is, to my mind, at any rate, justifiable; it is justifiable by any means. We saw down in Cobh cases that were so glaring that the Circuit judge adjourned the cases three times and made an appeal for a settlement. That was because he realised that the unfortunate tenants could not pay. It was up to somebody who had the interests of his constituents at heart to step in and see if he could knock anything off that landlord. Then we hear Deputies like Deputy MacDermot speaking softly here and accusing me of using intimidation in order to cut down these ground rents. As reported in column 593, volume 60, No. 2, of the Official Debates, Deputy MacDermot said:
"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."
That was the opinion of Deputy MacDermot, in his abyssmal ignorance, of the joint action of Deputy William J. Broderick, chairman of the Cork County Council, and myself. That was his opinion. That shows how much Deputy MacDermot knows of the people of this country, or how they live, or where they live.
Or how long they live.
Or how long they live. That was Deputy MacDermot's challenge. I submit, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, that when you are faced with this condition of affairs, when you have cases adjourned time after time by the Circuit Court judge, who realises that the people cannot pay, as the burden is too heavy for the people to bear, and when Deputies step in to relieve that burden to the best of their ability, I think it is very bad taste to get this kind of thing from a Deputy like Deputy MacDermot. I consider, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, that the grievance is one that must be remedied, and remedied at once. I respectfully suggest that this matter of ground rents is one which should be immediately taken in hands by the Executive Council, and that legislation should be introduced to deal effectively with it. I, for one, realise that the actions of a Deputy—hand-tied and hog-tied as this matter is by law and legal proceedings, and all the rest of it—are very small and must be in the main ineffective. You cannot get all you want from those people. If, for instance, we got any kind of fair justice from the gentleman who grabbed and robbed the tenants of Cobh out of £12,000 worth of property, we would bring him back to the old £12 for which he originally let the property, but we realise our inability to secure that at the moment. I consider that steps should be immediately taken to remedy the position. I do not think that Deputy Anthony's motion as it stands here is a step towards remedying it. I grant this much—that Deputy Anthony's motion may relieve the general community in that particular town of some of the burden in the shape of rates, but at the same time it is going to set up, in the shape of that local authority which gets its rates in that manner, another vested interest against any reduction in ground rents for the unfortunate tenant. It is going to do that. I would suggest that the matter of ground rents is one which should be dealt with quickly by the Executive Council. I do not wish to delay the House any further, except to say that the quicker it is dealt with the better, before the people are driven out of house and home in many cases by rents that were put on at periods when the people had no redress. Now that we have a national Government in power here it is their duty, and their bounden duty, to relieve them, and to relieve them at once.
Probably at my time of life, and with my experience, I should not be surprised at anything, but I was surprised this night week at the wild west speech of Deputy Corry, more especially at his remarks concerning the Dublin Corporation's transaction in buying an acre of land for £200 and selling it for £9,000. Every time he mentioned that—and he mentioned it five times in his speech —he looked over fiercely at me, as much as to suggest that I am sitting on the £9,000 here. The gates of the City Hall were scarcely open the next morning when I was down there. I was losing no time. I went to the officers who had charge of this matter of the city estates, and I told them of the remarks made in this Assembly on the previous night by Deputy Corry, quoting a speech made by Deputy Belton, in which he stated that an acre of land was bought for £200 and sold for £9,000. He emphasised that by telling all and sundry that he was chairman of the Estates Committee and knew what he was talking about. I think I am quoting him absolutely accurately.
I will give the Deputy the Official Report if he wishes.
Mr. Kelly
I have since read the Official Report. That was the statement I made to the officers concerned with the management of the city estate. I asked them if they had got the newspapers and they said "We have only one." I replied, "You had better get the other two." They got them, and I am sorry to say, Sir, that there was scarcely any reference whatever to Deputy Corry. I regretted that very much indeed, because I think it was a matter of great public interest and that it should have been reported. But it was not. As it was not reported I said, "We will only have to get a copy of his speech." On Saturday morning the Official Reporters favoured me with a proof copy of Deputy Corry's speech, which I duly handed over to the proper officers to digest.
On Saturday morning?
Mr. Kelly
Yes.
Their half day!
They had the week-end for it.
Mr. Kelly
I am giving in detail what happened. On the previous day I read in the Irish Press—a paper I would advise everybody to read——
Why?
Mr. Kelly
—— a letter from Mr. M. A. Harvey, Hon. National Secretary, Irish Leaseholders' Association, 29 South Terrace, Cork. He stated in that letter that his executive had noted the recent Dáil discussion on ground rents, and would draw public attention, particularly leaseholders' attention, to some points therein. He goes on to say:—
"Deputy Anthony's suggestion for the implementation of local revenue would seem to be nothing more than another `5-4ths valuation,' described recently by a Government Minister as a `tax on ground rents.' This suggestion, if adopted, would be of no assistance to leaseholders, if it did not actually worsen their position."
He further stated that the leaseholders decided they would ignore the Dáil and concentrate upon organisation.
Where is that letter from?
Mr. Kelly
From Cork. I regret very much that those statements were made concerning the corporation. It has been a mark for abuse, insult and defamation for years and years, but there never has been yet, in my experience of it at any rate— and that experience extends over nearly 40 years — a definite charge proved against them. All sort of corruption and deception and all that class of thing have been insinuated over and over again, but never proved. When the corporation was suppressed some years ago by the late Government a great outery of joy took place in the English journals. Several of them were sent to me at the time and this was their general opinion: "There you are. We have held this corrupt corporation up to public odium for years, and when their own people get charge of the government their own people vindicate our opinion by suppressing them." The Government had established a public sworn inquiry into the affairs of the corporation previous to its being suppressed, but they never published any report or gave any justification for their action. We ought to remember that Dublin is the capital city of Ireland, and any reflection cast on it injures it. It is the only place now to which young men and young girls, especially from the Free State, can look in order to get decent positions. Emigration to America is finished with, I am glad to say, but where else can young men and young women look to for positions except Dublin? The land, even though it is well worked, cannot afford to support all of them. These young men and young girls must look to some place to get positions and, surely, Dublin is the proper place to look to. As a matter of fact, thousands of them do get decent positions here, so that anything that is stated against the city injures it, and should not be stated unless it is absolutely true and can be proved.
Dublin is on the map since the year 180. Where was Cork then? It is supposed to be the largest county in Ireland, according to the map, but who made the map? Mediæval mapmakers came over here, whether from Holland, Italy, France, England or Germany. If they happened to find their way into a place now known as Cork and met Deputy Corry with his arbitration committee, and were asked: "What are you doing?" The reply would be: "We are making maps." If asked: "What are they for?" the reply would be: "To show the extent of your county."
I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but I am anxious to find out from him what was the result of the inquiries he made from the officials of the corporation in reference to Deputy Belton's statement that the corporation, having paid £200 for an acre of land, sold it and got £9,000 for it.
That is a disorderly interruption.
I do not think it is.
Mr. Kelly
Deputy Corry and his arbitration committee put enough of Cork on the map, embracing parts of Waterford and Kerry. That is how they got the largest county in Ireland. Here is the position so far as Dublin is concerned. There is a city estate and there is a sub-committee of the corporation appointed to manage it for the time being. The control of the city estate is just one of two or three items of municipal government that is in the hands of the members of the corporation and that is not in the hands of the City Manager. They control it. The city estate consists of ancient revenue given to the corporation after what is known as the Reformation took place. When the suppression of the monasteries took place, Henry VIII gave the lands of All Hallows Monastery to the Dublin Corporation and, in the reign of Elizabeth, the Dublin Corporation presented to the newly-founded College of the Holy Trinity some of the finest and most valuable land in Ireland. The city estate—the All Hallows possessions— extends away all over the County Dublin, embracing Clonturk, Drumcondra, Baldoyle and quite a large amount of land all around the county, all of which is vested in the corporation and could not possibly be sold under any circumstances except by legislation. The corporation cannot barter a single acre of that land. It must always hold it for the benefit of the citizens and, consequently, Deputy Belton's statement that an acre of city estate was sold or bought—whichever way one likes to put it—for £200, and then sold for £9,000, is absolutely inaccurate. There was no such transaction in connection with the city estate.
There are only two instances of city estate being sold. One was at Baldoyle where, under some Land Act or other, it was necessary to part with some land for the purpose of enabling a cottage to be built, or something of that kind. There were some acres of city estate sold there. The corporation got £60 for an acre of it. There was just one other instance. Portion of the lands of Clonturk was sold to the parish of Fairview, of which the late lamented Canon Flanagan was the parish priest, for the erection of a church and two schools on Griffith Road on the Marino Estate. Four acres of that land was sold for that purpose, and the parish of Fairview paid £375 an acre for it. That is a long distance away from the £9,000. Evidently, what Deputy Belton had in his mind when speaking of this matter —his figures I may say were quite wrong, and if he were present in the House I could ask him about it—was the housing estate which is under the control of the City Manager, and of the Housing Committee which is only an advisory body. All these transactions of the City Manager in connection with the housing estate are very often brought before that committee simply for advice, so that the acre of land that probably Deputy Belton spoke of would be an acre of land, or a less quantity, sold at Crumlin for the erection of shops.
The Crumlin Estate consists of 224 and the one-tenth of an acre. The corporation paid £47,300 for it. They developed it at a cost of £260,000, so that the total cost of the estate at Crumlin comes to £307,300, the average cost per acre to the corporation being £1,371 per acre. The corporation disposed of one acre and the one-eighteenth of an acre of that estate to the Dublin Building Operatives at a total annual rent of £74 15s. 0d., or £70 16s. in all, to the acre. That gives the value of the rental, taking it at 16 years' purchase, at £1,133. That is the only sale of an acre of land belonging to the corporation that I can find any record of, and upon that is built a charge of corruption. There is no such thing. We have other lands which were set for similar purposes. There is a great deal of competition for these sites when the corporation takes virgin soil and creates new small towns, if you wish. I would remind Deputies that Crumlin is going to be as big a town as Drogheda. In fact, it may be bigger. It will possibly be as big as Dundalk. We have already 1,000 families there in possession of houses. When there are 2,000 or 3,000 more families there it will be a regular town in which you will have three schools and a church. The strips of land there, which cannot be worked into the corporation housing scheme, are very valuable and much sought after by people who wish to erect shops with dwelling-houses attached. That was the competition that Deputy Belton had in his mind when he made his foolish statement here, a statement which he emphasised by saying that he was chairman of the estate committee.
I may say to Deputy Corry and others who advocate doing away with these excessive ground rents that I am in sympathy with them. I think this leaseholders' organisation have done very well by saying that they will not trouble the Dáil at present, but that they will go on with their work and show, if a remedy can be applied, how it should be done. Deputy Belton said that the Dublin Corporation were the largest possessors of ground rents in Ireland. They are no such thing. There are larger possessors of ground rents than the Dublin Corporation. Let us look at the other side of the picture, and see what the Dublin Corporation have to pay themselves for the benefit of the people in those areas about which we had so much discussion here this evening—the slum areas. Listen to this: Mary's Lane, where three acres were acquired for clearance, the average price paid by the corporation was £4,448; in Hanover Street, where six acres were acquired, £4,580.
Is this per acre?
Yes, per acre. Cook Street, seven acres, £3,418; Railway Street, four acres, £4,082; Townsend Street, 2 acres and 23 perches, £5,240; Benburb Street, three perches, £2,128; Bride's Alley—the worst of the lot— two acres 2 roods and 37 perches, £11,520 an acre.
You could hardly beat that in Cork.
No, as the Deputy says, you could hardly beat that in Cork or anywhere else for that matter. I can read out ten more cases, all averaging in or about £4,000 an acre for slum clearances. Just imagine what the citizens of Dublin have to pay for these improvements, and when we are able to get some rents from people who want to take the ground for speculative purposes, if they have to pay a substantial price for the portions we do not use or could not use, can you blame us? Just consider what we have to pay ourselves. Then, take the virgin soil sites that I have already given. Crumlin cost £1,371 an acre. In Kimmage, a site of 11½ acres, the price was £802 an acre. In Drumcondra the price was £884 an acre, and so on. Here are these awful prices that have to be paid in slum areas where the Corporation have to buy out head rents that are perhaps six deep, beginning with the original owner perhaps two or three hundred years ago, who may have got it for nothing, and who then let it to somebody else, who let it to somebody else again, and so on down through the centuries; and when the corporation have to buy them in order to wipe out the rotten slums and buy decent houses for the people, we have to pay these enormous prices principally to redeem these head rents. That is a position of affairs that should not exist, and how can we expect to get rid of the slums, especially in Dublin, when such excessive prices have to be paid?
I think I have explained, as well as my abilities will allow me, the exact position of affairs, and I think I have made it plain that Deputy Belton was not right in the statement he made. There is no such transaction in the city estate as he mentioned. There were transactions of the nature I have disclosed in connection with our housing schemes, but there was nothing at all in connection with the city estate. I only wish to repeat what I said before, that we, in our capacity as legislators and representatives of the people, ought to be very careful in making statements in connection with our local bodies. I have been associated for a long time with the local bodies of the City of Dublin. I know that they are human—very human. I know that occasionally men get in there who are "on the make." I know that. I think that that will always continue, but I know also that the great majority of the men I have met with in a representative capacity within the local council here were men who were not "on the make." The great majority were decent, upright and honourable men, who tried to do their best under tremendous difficulties, and very few know the difficulties that have to be met by the representatives of Dublin on the local Dublin Council. The same applies to the local councils all over the country. The great majority of their representatives will always be upright and honourable men who will try to administer the trust given to them in the best possible way for the people they represent. I believe that, and therefore I have never made, and will never make, any reflections on the integrity of the representatives of local bodies, because anybody who knows the work they do will realise that what should be given to them is credit for their excellent work under great difficulties rather than insinuations with regard to their honesty.
I think it is rather a pity that this debate should have followed the line it has followed from the beginning. This is an important matter—a very important matter— although on the day the debate on the motion was opened the Minister for Finance did not seem to consider that it warranted his serious attention.
In what way? I was here when the leader of your Party was absent, and he has not been here in the House during the debate.
It is the Minister's duty to be here, and he is paid to be here as Minister.
I was here, and the Deputy is paid to be here just as well as the Minister is paid to be here.
There is no necessity for the Minister to be getting excited or losing his temper, and if he is told a few home truths by some of his own back benchers, he ought not to be losing his temper when he hears a few home truths from this side of the House.
The Minister does not lose his temper with Deputy Morrissey any more than with old boots.
If the Minister wants to make a speech on this matter he can make it. We are waiting for the last three days, or since this debate was opened to hear from the Minister what he has to say.
We are waiting to hear what the leader of the Deputy's Party has to say.
We will hear Deputy Morrissey on this motion without interruption except on matters of order.
I said, Sir, that the Minister apparently did not consider this a serious matter, and he has questioned that statement of mine, but he immediately proceeded to prove that he is not prepared to consider the matter seriously by the conduct he indulged in just now. This is a serious matter, and a very serious matter, and I can tell him that, if he does not consider it a serious matter, most of the members sitting behind him think that it is serious, and most of them have given voice to their views on this matter down through the country. There are men sitting behind him who have committed themselves on this matter, and some of the men who sit on the Front Bench with him committed themselves, and committed themselves to far more than what Deputy Anthony or I have in mind with regard to the problem. Now, I suggest to the Minister that Private Members' time is given in this House in order to enable ordinary Deputies, who are not members of the Government, to bring before this House, and to ventilate in this House, matters which they consider are of great public importance. When Private Members of this House, in carrying out their duty to their constituents, go to the trouble of putting down motions on the Order Paper— and waiting sometimes for two years to get an opportunity of putting their views before this House — they are entitled to be treated with respect, even by the Minister for Finance; and if he does not agree with the views put forward by any member of this House, he can at least listen to them and then state his own views in opposition to them when it comes to his turn. That is the least we are entitled to from the Minister or any other Minister in the House.
As I say, this is a very important matter. It has been shown in this debate that it is a matter that extends very widely, a matter that affects a very great part of the people of the country. It is, perhaps, one of the most important matters that could be considered by the House. That consideration is all we ask for, and when we ask for that, I want to enter my protest as a member against any sneer from the Minister, or from anybody else. If the Minister does not agree with the case made for the motion, he can state his views on it. Deputies have commented on the wording of the motion. Some say it is too narrow, and other that it is too wide. Still more say that it calls for immediate legislation. So far as I am concerned, I am not terribly concerned with the method adopted to deal with the matter, provided we can convince the House that it is a matter that should be dealt with, and that the Government should provide the machinery. So far as I am concerned—and I am sure I can speak for Deputy Anthony also—all I want is to have the matter ventilated, and to endeavour, as far as I possibly can, to convince the House that here is a case that needs investigation and legislation to put it on some sort of proper basis. I do not want to make the discussion very wide. I know it is a very wide subject, but I do say that a case can be made that those who are getting very large sums out of property which has been made valuable by money spent out of local rates and by services provided out of local rates, should contribute at least something towards these local rates.
The Minister, by way of interruption, expressed surprise at certain cases that were given. He asked for specific cases. I am informed on very good authority that a few years ago the Pembroke Urban Council reclaimed part of the foreshore from Sandymount to Irishtown. What happened? Immediately the lord of the soil, after the foreshore was reclaimed and roads were made, proceeded to lease different parts of the reclaimed foreshore, to the reclamation of which he had never contributed a penny, for the building of houses. I do not know whether the Minister knows anything about that. I do not know whether he will say that it is unfair to ask the gentleman who gave these leases on the part of the foreshore reclaimed, to contribute to the local rates.
Does the Deputy know whether that is true or not?
I say I have been informed on reliable authority. The Minister will agree that nobody can have personal knowledge of everything. The Minister has to depend on information given to him very often.
The Deputy could give his authority.
I am mentioning the facts, and I am stating the name of the district where it happened. If the Minister is interested, and if he wants to ascertain whether it is true or not, it is quite easy for him to do so, and he ought not to question me, if he has some doubt as to its truth. I got the information and I accepted it as absolutely true from the gentleman who gave me the information. Is the Minister aware that in and around the City of Dublin and in other towns through the country, when leases fell in, in the last few years, leases under which the rent was £5, the landlords would not renew these leases until, in the first place, there was a considerable amount expended on the property, and then the rent demanded for the renewal of the lease was not £5, but £25? Is the Minister aware that that is quite a common thing, that it is happening in the City and County of Dublin, and that information to that effect can be got by the Minister or anybody else interested? Is the Minister further aware that it is quite general when leases fall in, and when people go to seek a renewal of the leases, they are immediately asked to spend so much money on the property? Very often these people cannot do it because they have not got the money. It might not be so easy for a man to get a couple of hundred pounds to spend on property. In many cases they are asked to do this by people who never put a brick on the property themselves. The ground landlords or their predecessors simply let the virgin soil to some person to build houses on it and develop the site.
Deputy Belton spoke as if every landlord was a man who had developed the site and built roads on it himself, whereas the Deputy knows, or should know, that very few of them have done so, that it is only in very recent years that has been done by ground landlords. We know quite well what is responsible for the very high rents for building leases. While I agree with Deputy Tom Kelly that Dublin Corporation had to pay high rents, I do not agree with either Deputy Belton or Deputy Kelly that the corporation or any other body has a right to take advantage of the shortage of houses and the difficulty of getting proper sites to make a profit out of anybody who wants to build a home in this country. If the Minister for Local Government were here he would agree that the difficulty at the moment, so far as housing is concerned, is that in rural areas, in towns and villages, you have not houses of a certain type built by private people, houses in which they could live themselves, because if they look for a site for these houses, they are asked a price which is out of all reason. There is no Deputy who does not know that is true.
I do not want to overstate the case. I do not want to talk about confiscation or anything of that kind. I do not believe in that, but I do say that this is a very serious matter that affects the whole country. It is unquestionable, as far as these ground landlords are concerned, that their property was made valuable, not by any action of their own, but by the efforts of the community to whom they have contributed nothing. That being so they ought to be compelled to give something back to the community. The Government may say that they cannot accept the motion, that it deals with a very big matter. I admit it does. It is a matter that embraces a great many interests. You might have, as Deputy Kelly pointed out, different interests concerned in the one piece of ground, but if the Government are prepared to say that they are willing to have an investigation without delay into this whole matter of ground rents, that they are prepared to do something towards the protection of householders, and that whatever commission they appoint to inquire into it will not be merely a commission to hold the thing up I, for one, would be perfectly satisfied.
I see that it would be a difficult matter for the present Government or any other Government to introduce forthwith legislation that would deal with this problem in any satisfactory way. As I say, the main purpose of the motion is to have the matter ventilated, to give us an opportunity of putting our views on the matter before the House and to try, if we can, to convince the Government that it is a matter that should be tackled and tackled fairly soon. If the Government has any desire to deal with the matter then, as I say, I am satisfied, but I do submit that here is a problem which should be approached in a serious way. This is a matter that affects tens of thousands of people in this country, and it is only fair to those people, if not to those who have raised the matter here, that it should be brought up in this House, and treated in a serious way. I am just saying to the Minister——
I will read the Deputy's speech.
The Minister will read my speech?
Yes. I have not heard any argument yet from the Deputy.
I was just saying when the Minister was talking—Sir, are we to be treated in this absolutely discourteous way? The Minister turns his back on a Deputy addressing the House—he turns round to speak to a Deputy behind him. It is a scandal.
The Deputy is supposed to be addressing the Chair, not the Minister.
The Minister is here as the person representing the Government, and he refuses absolutely to listen; he insists on carrying on a conversation with another member of his Party.
I have often seen the Deputy conversing when I have been speaking in the House.
The Minister is not alone showing discourtesy to me but to every member of the House and every person in the country affected by this motion; he is showing discourtesy to every leaseholder who was cajoled into voting for the Minister and his Party by the false promises they made at the elections. The Minister, of course, is notorious for the way in which he treats people, certain people in this House, and we know the reason for it. The Minister will have to face up to his responsibilities. He says he is not here to listen to my speech and that he will read it. He is the only member of the Government present, and he is here to listen to the arguments put forward by members elected to this House.
I have been hearing nothing but abuse from the Deputy— no argument.
The Minister may have whatever opinions he likes about my speech, but as a person elected to represent the people here I am entitled to make my speech.
Make it.
And the Minister, who is paid for it, is entitled to listen to it; he is paid for that.
The less the Deputy talks about pay the better.
Will the Minister tell us exactly what he means by that?
I think it would be better if he did not. It would be better if Deputy Morrissey were allowed to make his speech without interruption. I hope any matter that is to be raised by interruption will be purely a matter of order and nothing personal—there is no necessity for it. Deputy Morrissey is quite relevant and in order up to the present. I hope the debate will be conducted along that line.
The Minister has made a remark which certainly seems to me to contain a very serious innuendo. He says "The less you say about pay the better." I submit to you, Sir, that Deputy Morrissey is entitled to have that cryptic remark explained. I suggest there should be a ruling in regard to that matter.
What did the Minister mean by that particular remark? Will the Minister get up and say what he means by it? Has he the courage, or is he going to show the yellow streak that he showed when he got the train to Fermoy?
What of the Deputy when he was running round with the Black and Tans in 1921?
There is no need to introduce heat into this debate.
Who introduced it?
I do not know what the Minister means by the expression. I have no idea what he means. If it is an innuendo I am not supposed to understand innuendoes. If a definite statement is made with reference to a Deputy's character or reputation I will act, but I cannot understand an innuendo.
But surely a remark of that nature must mean that Deputy Morrissey has received pay for some improper purpose or from improper sources. It can mean absolutely nothing else, and I suggest to you, when a charge of that nature is brought by a responsible person in this House, a member of the Government Front Bench, it should be dealt with by the Chair. If it has not that meaning, if it was meant as a simple inane remark, let the Minister say so.
May I explain? I referred to the Votes which Deputy Morrissey gave on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges eight or nine years ago.
That puts me into the position to ask the Minister to withdraw that statement.
What statement?
The statement he made "The less he says regarding payment the better." How that can be related to what the Minister says, I do not know; I cannot see the relationship except as a breach of order.
What does the Minister mean? I want to get his point; it is not very clear.
Will the Minister withdraw that statement with reference to whatever Deputy Morrissey did on the occasion he refers to?
In deference to you, Sir, I withdraw that statement, but Deputy Morrissey knows what I mean all the same.
That is qualifying the statement.
Deputy Morrissey does not know what the Minister means. Does the Minister mean that I got payment in respect of a certain Vote on the occasion?
The Minister says he withdraws the statement. If it is withdrawn, I cannot allow it to be discussed further. That is obvious.
Did the Chair also hear the statement that Deputy Morrissey knew quite well what he meant?
If that is considered a qualification of the Minister's withdrawal, I will demand an unqualified withdrawal with reference to the statement about Deputy Morrissey.
I have already said that, in deference to you, I withdraw the remark.
So we may take it the Minister is just repeating his usual performance.
It would be well to let the matter pass.
With regard to the Minister's other statement, let me say that it is absolutely untrue and I defy the Minister or any other member in the House or outside it to prove that charge. I could prove far greater——
Now, that incident is closed. The statement is withdrawn and I cannot allow Deputy Morrissey to refer to a matter the Minister has withdrawn.
I am referring to a distinctly different matter, the second charge the Minister made against me. I am not making references to the first charge. The Minister is quite reckless; he is throwing charges all over the place. There is as little truth in his second charge as there is in the first charge. When it comes to any question as to my standing in this House or outside it, it is not to Mr. MacEntee, the Minister for Finance, I am going to go. I have gone before better and higher tribunals.
Better come back to the motion.
I am entitled to reply to the despicable charge he has made.
There was one question, one innuendo made against Deputy Morrissey which was construed into a charge. I directed the Minister to withdraw that. Deputy Morrissey must now proceed to the motion and deal no further with that charge.
Very well, Sir. As I was saying on the motion, it is the Minister's duty in this House to listen to debates and to the various speakers. If Ministers and members of the Opposition were to listen only to what they considered good speeches, this House would be very often empty and perhaps never so empty as when the Minister himself would be speaking. I think that would be nearly the unanimous decision of all Parties. But when the Minister refuses to listen to me or any other member of the House, he is refusing to listen to those people who are leaseholders in this country. I am trying, however badly, to put their case in this House and as a representative of the people I am entitled to a hearing. The Minister may have his own opinion about myself, but that does not matter. It is as a representative of the people that I am entitled to a hearing from the Minister; I am entitled to be treated in a courteous manner, treated to the same courtesy as he would extend to any other member of the House, because of my representative capacity. As to what he thinks of me personally, that is neither here nor there. Perhaps I would prefer the Minister should hold his present opinion of me.
As regards the subject-matter of this motion, it is a matter which in my opinion should be investigated. So far as the debate has gone, and considering we have had only a few speakers, I think we have at least established that there is a case to be investigated. I would be sorry to think that the Minister's attitude here conveys a true impression of the Government's mind on this matter or the mind of the Fianna Fáil Party. If we were to judge the mind of the Fianna Fáil Party and the mind of the Government as a whole from the exhibition given by the Minister, I would be very sorry to believe that that accurately represents their attitude. I do not believe it does. Therefore, I hope the Government will take action and, if they decide to do so, if they agree there is a case to be investigated, then we are quite satisfied to leave the machinery in the hands of the Government. I agree that it is a big problem, but if they are prepared to investigate it I am perfectly satisfied, and that is all I have to say about the motion.
Candidly, I am disappointed with Deputy Morrissey's speech. I came into the House this evening hoping to get enlightenment on this subject because, like my friend and colleague, Deputy Tom Kelly, I lean with very much sympathy towards the attitude of Deputy Morrissey on the matter of ground rents. I think it is a pity that an otherwise interesting speech was more or less spoilt by some of the interchanges which took place. I am disappointed from another standpoint. Surely, if this question has been three years before this House, some facts ought to have been ascertained during that period, and the seconder of this motion should have provided himself with these facts and given them to us this evening. I rose more or less out of compliment to Deputy Morrissey, but he gives a brilliant example of courtesy in this House occasionally, too.
I beg your pardon. I was just making a point to Deputy Anthony.
That is the worst of losing one's temper occasionally. One does the thing one ought not to do when in that mood.
It is the way in which it is done and the purpose behind it.
I do not know if Deputy Anthony, when closing this debate, will have any more data than Deputy Morrissey. He referred simply to one particular estate, the Pembroke Estate, but anyone living in Dublin could get the kind of general statement that Deputy Morrissey submitted here. I should have thought that he would have a long list and that he would have been able to back up that list with facts and data that could not be answered except in some direct fashion. The extraordinary thing, however, is that most of the detailed statements came from this side. Deputy Kelly produced his facts here and read them. Deputy Corry produced his documents here and read them. Any real contributions that have been useful in this debate have come from the Government side. Deputy Morrissey said a moment ago that if the Government undertook to have a committee appointed to investigate this matter, "we would be satisfied." I presume he is referring to the proposer of the motion and himself, but there is one Deputy in the House whom I should very much like to hear on this question of ground rents. I am sorry he is not here, because he is an authority on the subject. I should like to here a speech from the leader of the Opposition on ground rents, particularly as applying to the City of Dublin, because we might then get some valuable information.
Like other Deputies, I recognise that this is a serious matter. I recognise that we might be striking at some fundamental if hasty legislation were introduced. While recognising that, I agree with those speakers who pointed out the amount of cash that is extracted from the people and put into the pockets of people who have made no effort to make the lands valuable and who reap a harvest thereby. It is an awkward position for anybody to be in and it is an awkward state of mind in which to find oneself. All the enlightenment that can be given on this subject before any legislation that will meet the Bill could be put through is absolutely essential, and, as I have said before, I do not know anybody more capable, anybody with better general knowledge of the subject, than Deputy Cosgrave. Personally, I would be delighted if he came along, as he will, I am sure, and took part in this debate. We will then have his views as leader of the Opposition on this important matter. It is one of the things for which I am waiting and for which I hope I will not wait in vain.
After all, any of us could take up one of these Official Reports. Deputy Corry did so and he read an extract from a speech made by Deputy Belton to the effect that land bought for £200 in Dublin was valued for £9,000 later on. That is a wild and sweeping statement and I know that if Deputy Belton were making his speech now he would not make that statement in view of Deputy Kelly's reply to it.
He did not make that speech at any time.
Advantage has been taken of those remarks. Deputy Kelly described them as the foolish remarks of Deputy Belton—to create a wrong impression, to create something that otherwise would not have existed. I hope that when Deputy Anthony is closing this debate he will not act as Deputy Morrissey has acted. I understand from a source I have reason to believe that certain documents are pouring into the House from various parts of the city dealing with the Pembroke, the Fitzwilliam and other estates. I hope we will hear something about these famous documents. I am certain that my authority would not tell me an untruth about it, and I should like to hear something myself about head rents in connection with the Fitzwilliam Estate in Fitzwilliam Square. I should like also a little more information about the Pembroke Estate. I happen to be slightly interested in that matter, and before a Deputy makes a statement, such as Deputy Morrissey has made here, he should have gone a little farther and got for us details proved beyond yea or nay. The only front bencher present at the moment is Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney. He was Minister for Justice and there is no better authority, if he does not mind my saying so, in Ireland to-night on the question of head rents than he. Can we have any contribution from Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney? Deputies like myself, to whom this subject is more or less foreign, look to him and to Deputy Cosgrave, even though we disagree with them in Party politics, for advice and enlightenment on this subject.
What about your own Front Bench?
I know the views of the Executive Council on the matter, or, at least, I think I do. I know what each member of the Executive Council thinks, or I believe I do, but I should like to hear the House being informed by the Opposition Front Benches as to their attitude towards these ground rents. That is not an unreasonable request and I expect we will get that information. I see no reason why we should not. Frankly, I am in the position at the moment that I sympathise to a great extent with the motion, but believe it is not going to get us anywhere. Even at present, Deputy Morrissey is running away from the motion. When it was tabled three years ago I take it that there was a keener public opinion on the matter which inspired Deputy Anthony as proposer and Deputy Morrissey as seconder to get it on the Order Paper.
We were building on the promises you made at that time.
It is nearly time you began to recognise that we did anything at all. You used to say the same about housing and you swallowed that very gracefully this evening too. When this motion was put on the Order Paper I do not know that there was a keener public opinion on the matter than possibly there may be now, and, what is more, I know that even quite recently a number of people went to a sale in the city where head rents were being auctioned and broke it up. There is a feeling against them and for that reason it is a serious matter. If legislation is to be introduced it must be on proper lines, and there is no use in Deputy Anthony or Deputy Morrissey trying to get a little popularity by tabling motions such as this and then practically running away from them. Why not try to introduce private legislation in connection with this matter, if you are in earnest about it?
It would not be in order.
Get your Party to back it and get some responsible front bench member to support this motion now. Deputy Morrissey has asked for nothing.
Will I get what I ask for?
Let me finish. Deputy Morrissey has asked for nothing. He has simply said to the Government: "If you will guarantee a full investigation into this matter, we are satisfied." That is all Deputy Anthony and Deputy Morrissey want. Does Deputy Morrissey represent the views of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney on this matter? Does Deputy Anthony? Does either one or the other represent the collective or individual views of that Party on this matter of ground rents?
I did not consult Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney when putting down the motion.
That is what I am saying. Is this a Party matter or a matter between two Deputies?
I am not a member of any Party.
It is a matter for this House.
Deputy Morrissey is one of the members of the official Opposition. Deputy Anthony is a free lance and can do what he likes. Presumably, he can get somebody to introduce private legislation. He is amenable to no whip, but it would be pleasant if three postmen had to go to his door in Cork to-morrow morning with cards of congratulation, when all this talk of elections is in the air. I will go so far with Deputy Morrissey as to say that he might steal some of our promises in the hope of getting back. I am giving you that to console you to-night for the awful, wretched exhibition you have made of yourself in putting a resolution down and then running away from it. That is what it amounts to. The two Deputies concerned are perfectly well aware that legislation will not be introduced as a result of this. Did you not know that before it was tabled? Yet Deputy Morrissey, who put himself down as the seconder, gets up without any authority whatever from his own Party to create—and I do not use this phrase in any offensive way—a false impression in the House.
The Minister should let the Deputy make his own speech.
I can assure the Deputy that I do not expect to get any pats on the back from the Minister when I am done. In dealing with this matter I hope I have come much nearer to the question of finding some remedy for the grievance of people in connection with ground rents than has Deputy Morrissey. But I want to hear something definite in connection with this matter. I want to hear some of the leaders of the Opposition give their views on the subject. I should like, for instance, to hear Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and to learn what his attitude is. I am very anxious to hear him and so I shall conclude in order that he may be able to give his views to the House.
I am not in the least bit afraid to express my views on this question. Deputy Donnelly has been very kind, and courteous, to me in the course of this discussion. He told us that he was very disappointed with the speech Deputy Anthony made. May I, in all gentleness, say to Deputy Donnelly that I was frightfully disappointed in the speech he made. We all saw that he was not making a speech of his own. We saw the pump handle working when the Minister for Finance was pressing Deputy Donnelly to make the speech that he, the Minister, would like to have made. I was waiting, and was on the qui vive, to know what was the speech that was to be made, that is the speech that Deputy Donnelly was put up to make, the speech that he was forced to make. What did I get as a result? Nothing. He simply said “I am a poor ignorant fellow. I do not know the first thing about this and I should like to get somebody to put me right”.
And then I got the Deputy up.
Yes, and I have got up without the least bit of reluctance because this matter of town tenants legislation is one that I have gone into, perhaps more deeply than any other member of the House. I spent a very considerable number of months, when I was a Minister, dealing with one of the most thorny questions that any Minister could be asked to deal with and that was the relation between landlord and tenant in the matter of ground rent property. I introduced a Bill which was debated and carried through this House with fewer divisions than any Bill of its importance that was ever passed. That Bill, dealing with a large and thorny question, my successor in office has left completely and entirely untouched, so that I can apply to myself some of the nice things which Deputy Donnelly said about me, believing that that piece of legislation was as good as could be introduced. It dealt, to a certain extent, with the problem of ground rents.
Before I go any further in this discussion, I should like the House to understand what a ground rent is, because it is pretty obvious to me that Deputy Kelly was using the term in a different sense from the sense in which a ground rent is usually and properly used. Deputy Kelly talked of seven or eight different interests that had to be dealt with when the corporation is purchasing land. There may be seven or eight, or 50 or 100, interested in a ground rent, but there can be only one owner of a ground rent. A ground rent is a rent payable for the soil, as distinct from the house that is erected on the soil. The fee-simple owner of the soil is the owner of the ground rent, and there can only be one fee-simple owner of the soil at a time. When I say there can only be one fee-simple owner I want to make that clearer. There may be five or six joint owners, but there can only be one fee-simple interest. There may be joint interests but there can only be one owner. There may be joint tenants but there can only be one interest.
When dealing with the question of ground rents the first thing we ought to consider, and bear in mind, is that a ground rent means a rent paid for the soil upon which a house is built and has nothing to do with the value of the bricks and mortar erected upon that soil.
Before the Deputy moves the adjournment of the debate, may I ask him to address himself to the question as to whether it is ground rent, in that sense, that Deputy Anthony and Deputy Morrissey referred to?
I am taking the motion before the House and which the House is asked to pass. I take that motion in its proper and ordinary meaning. I am taking the motion and dealing with it as I would deal with any other motion in the proper and ordinary meaning of the terms in which it is framed. I take it that Deputy Anthony and Deputy Morrissey meant by ground rents, the ordinary and correct meaning of the term, that is, rent payable out of the soil.
I move the adjournment of the debate.