Deputy Sherwin seems to be missing and he, I understand, reported progress last week.
Private Members' Business. - Review of Housing Legislation— Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy S. Dunne on the 15th November, 1961:
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that housing legislation should be reviewed with particular reference to the following matters: (a) the hardship caused by the operation of the differential renting system by Dublin Corporation; (b) the need for a scheme of rates remission for S.D.A. house purchasers which will ease their burden for a period of not less than eighteen years; and (c) the need for continued maintenance of county council cottages during the period when tenants are purchasing.
Debate resumed on the following amendments:
1. After "Corporation" in line 3 to insert "and other local authorities".—(Deputy Casey.)
2. To add at the end of the motion the following: "and that the tenant will have the right to refuse to vest the cottage if he is not satisfied with its condition of repair".—(Deputy Desmond.)
Is it possible to allow the Deputy to resume the position he occupied last week if he comes in?
I should not like to set a precedent of that kind.
It has been done before.
It would be a very dangerous precedent to set. I call upon Deputy Lemass.
As Deputy Sherwin is not here, I shall resume the debate. Last week Deputy Dunne told us that he defended the principle of differential rents but opposed any form of inquisition. I do not see how differential rents can be applied unless there is some form of inquisition. In his statement, he repeated the usual grievances. I have had occasion to repeat them myself on the local authority and they have been repeated so often I am afraid that they are almost reduced to what might be called clichés.
The difficulty I see is that Deputy Dunne did not suggest any solution to these problems except that we might set up a committee. This Oireachtas does not decide how differential rents might be applied in any local authority area. The Oireachtas has simply given the local authorities power to bring in a differential rents scheme if they so desire and it is a matter for the local authority in the first instance to propose and introduce amendments which can be enforced subject to the approval of the Minister. I sat on a committee along with Deputy Sherwin every second Friday for about two years and many other councillors and Deputies did the same in the Dublin area. Since then, that committee has been dissolved and another set up which also sat and had considerable and lengthy discussions on differential rents and now I believe a third attempt is being made. I should like Deputy Dunne and other members of local authorities concerned about differential rents to remember that if a committee were set up there should be no councillors or Deputies on that committee because, once public representatives assume duties of this nature, more likely than not political considerations will over-rule sound judgment.
In the first instance Deputy Dunne asks in this motion that housing legislation should be reviewed. He then goes on to itemise particular things which he thinks should be reviewed, but, under the general heading, I think there is a far more serious problem confronting the citizens of Dublin, Dublin Corporation and the elected representatives of Dublin, than the three items listed for particular attention by Deputy Dunne.
I am aware that every alternative year the Minister for Local Government brings in a local government Bill which, in effect, reviews all local government legislation, with particular reference to housing. I am aware that such legislation will be before this House in 1962, provided the usual procedure is adhered to. A few years ago, just about 1957, when the previous Government left office in a hurry, if I might say so, the City Manager was recommending the curtailment of building, on the ground that there were over 1,000 houses being vacated in a Corporation estate of 42,000 or 43,000 houses and that on top of that there was a resistance against going out to the outlying areas, having regard to the high bus fares to which Deputy Dunne refers. By the way, I agree entirely that if people have to pay 15/- or 16/- in bus fares to and from their work, they should receive consideration for that as distinct from the people who live beside their work in the central city area.
I suggested at that time that no matter what curtailment had to take place in the manager's view, which was supported by members of the Housing Committee—the chairman at that time was the former Deputy Larkin of the Labour benches and the vice-chairman was Alderman—then Councillor—Sherwin — regardless of what the situation on that day might be, we should proceed with the development of the Coolock-Raheny estate; that, although the Corporation were expressing the fear at that time that if they built at too fast a rate, they would find themselves with houses left on their hands, they should still carry on with this site development work. I said it would create employment which was badly needed at that time and in the event of a change in the economic situation of this country, that site development would be there and the houses could be built quickly and so avert any problem such as we are facing today.
The problem we have today is a very simple one. To use the words addressed to me privately in the Housing Allocations Department last week by one of the principal officers, five families are coming back from England today to every one that goes away. It is a complete reversal of the trend three or four years ago. These families are to a large extent families who had Corporation houses, had clear rent books and were entitled, according to Corporation policy, to reinstatement in Corporation houses or alternatively if they could not get reinstatement in Corporation houses, they were forced to go into buildings which were condemned or about to be condemned. The Corporation now find themselves having to house a much larger number of people than heretofore.
What I am getting at is this. When I said a few years ago that we could expect a change in the economic trends and that we should go ahead with this site development, I was told I was talking Fianna Fáil propaganda; that I was trying to make capital out of this for something that would never happen. Unfortunately, the people who listened to the Opposition in those days were the officials of the Corporation. They said: "No; this economic expansion is not going to take place." Even year after year as the progress has been increasing and as the demand for housing has been increasing, the Corporation did not act until very recently. They are now developing these sites in Coolock-Raheny. It will be one or two years before we see any substantial increase in the output of dwellings.
It is a great pity that the officials of the Corporation did not see the way things were going in the country and prepare for the situation because now where a family of three living in one room or with relatives in a Corporation house could be offered accommodation in the outlying areas a few years ago, in a very short space of time, the Corporation are now considering only families of six for Ballyfermot.
Let us consider what this might lead to in a few years to come. You need four children to be considered for a house in Ballyfermot today or, alternatively, be cleared out of a condemned dwelling or put out of your house through no fault of your own. At the last survey, it was found that there were sites in Dublin at the present density of building for 6,000 houses. If the output of houses were to be restored to what it was some eight years ago, of 2,000 dwellings in the year, in three years, every site and every dwelling would be built but if the present economic trend continues —and we have no reason to believe it will not—we will then be faced with the situation that we have nowhere to build houses and we will again return to the situation we had when the Housing Act was first introduced in 1933, that is, the situation in which families of seven and eight live in a room rented to them in a Corporation house—through the goodwill of the parents of the married children.
I am suggesting to the Minister that, when he is considering his legislation in 1962, he will examine the present method of paying subsidy for Corporation house building. In June, 1959, it was decided, on the recommendation of the City Manager and his technical advisers, not to build at a greater height than five storeys on the central city sites. The reason for this largely arises from the present method of paying the subsidies. I am not suggesting that the Minister should pay additional subsidies. What I am suggesting is that he should revise the system of paying the subsidies, particularly in respect of Dublin or, perhaps, all urban areas and to revise them in such a way that it will pay the local authority to build to heights greater than five storeys in other words, to get more than 6,000 dwellings on the sites available.
In a report to the Housing Committee dated 30th June, 1959, there was a summary of estimates by outside consultants and Corporation officials as to what it would have cost to build a nine-storey tower block in Dominick Street. It was estimated by Mr. Fitzgerald that the cost in a nine-storey block would be £38 per flat higher. At the other extreme, we were told the cost would be up to £500 per flat higher. I am absolutely satisfied that the situation now demands building in tall blocks to a level of 15 storeys. In 1950, a group of Dublin Corporation councillors and aldermen went on an inspection of these blocks in England. They made comparisons of cost and administration and recommended unanimously that the Corporation should build a certain percentage, at any rate, of tall blocks. In the following year, on the recommendation of the manager, that was turned down. The next council, elected in 1950, also pressed to have a tall block built. One was, in fact, designed and tenders were received. That was in Dominick Street.
On a point of order, would the Deputy tell us what this has to do with the motion?
The motion states that housing legislation should be reviewed generally.
With particular reference to certain matters.
As I read this motion, it asks for a general review of housing legislation but lays particular emphasis on three parts of general housing legislation. It asks for a general review.
I do not read it that way. I read it that housing legislation should be reviewed with particular reference to the separate matters set out in the motion. This is not a motion to review all housing legislation. That would take it very far.
I accept your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle. I hope the Deputy appreciates what I have been saying and will bear it in mind in regard to what may be usefully done in his job as public representative. This House, as I have said before, is not the place where amendments to the differential renting system can be made.
It is a bit embarrassing here.
These are made by the local authorities. If the Deputy paid attention to the actions of various councillors in regard to differential rents—and I have all the records—he would find it is not embarrassing for me or for Fianna Fáil councillors, for that matter, whose joint effort was turned down by a council on which Fianna Fáil have not a majority.
There is just one other thing to which I should like to refer in relation to the motion, that is, part (b). I will not deal with part (c) because I have no experience of the county council administration. It seems to me that part (b) was put in by the Deputy as a face-saver after he put in part (a). From reading his speech, it would seem to me that the Deputy wants housing legislation amended in some way that would result in an increase in rates and then come along with part (b) and says we will give an 18 years' period of rates remission to the poor unfortunate ratepayer who has to bear the burden.
Certain of the rate-payers—not all of them.
New ratepayers, I think.
People living in houses built under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. If the Deputy read the speech, he would have seen that.
Yes. Up to the 1960 Local Government Act—perhaps 1958—the rates remission was twothirds over a period of seven years. There was an association of combined residents' associations which met Deputy Burke, Councillor Mullen, myself and a few others.
And everybody else.
I seconded a motion put down by Councillor Mullen suggesting that this be changed to a ten year period. The amount of relief in rates is exactly the same within £5 over ten years on a £20 valuation as it was before but it is spread out in a different way. To go further, to my mind, would have the immediate effect of being to the disadvantage of the ratepayers in S.D.A. houses at present by delaying the period where people would come on to the full rate and thus take their full part of the cost of providing public services. I have, as the Deputy said, dealt mainly with something he did not want me to deal with at all.
I just did not want the time wasted. There is very little time left for this motion. I did not want it wasted on extraneous matters.
I am not surprised.
The Deputy should put down a motion on that matter and we will deal with it.
I am not surprised the Deputy is anxious. As I read the motion it is that housing legislation should be reviewed, and then it goes on to deal with different items.
Do not be out of order now.
I have dealt with something which the Deputy obviously did not wish me to deal. I am not surprised, particularly in view of the part his former colleagues in the Labour Party played in bringing about this situation in the Dublin Corporation in 1958.
Deputy Dr. Browne.
On a point of order, I understand that when other business finishes, you carry on with Private Members' Business but I rushed in from a function I had to attend, so as to be here before 9 o'clock, as I had moved the adjournment. I did not know that business would finish so early. I came in about nine miles. I left a function I had to attend in order to be here on time to resume my speech and in the circumstances I should like to finish my speech.
I cannot abrogate the Rules of Order.
I am even dressed up in a monkey jacket, as you can see.
The Rules of Order bind me as rigidly as they bind any other Deputy.
I should like you to appreciate that I came in to resume my speech.
I am calling on Deputy Dr. Browne.
I want to support the motion and I am particularly concerned with that part of the motion dealing with the hardship caused by the operation of the differential renting system by Dublin Corporation. Of the two phrases more hated than any others, it would be very hard to decide in the city of Dublin, which is the more hated—the blue card or the differential renting system. With a considerable amount of justification, the average person in the city is certainly at the end of his patience with the many anomalies and injustices which are perpetrated in the name of this differential renting system operated by the Corporation. I do not think we are out of order in the suggestion made here, as Deputy Lemass has implied, because, as he said, the Minister must accept any proposal put forward by the housing authority. He must consider it and, for that reason, he can be helped by the discussion we hold here. Therefore the discussion could be a valuable one.
Listening to Deputy Lemass and his talk about the emigrants flocking back to the city of Dublin, it was difficult to believe the factual reports of the last census which showed that there was a drop of 3 per cent. in the population. He is seeing things through distorted spectacles if he thinks the country is filling up instead of emptying. The idea of a differential rent system is a good one, in so far as it is based on the broad principle that those in distress should be helped by those who are well off, reasonably well off, or more fortunate than they are. It is part of the typical double talk of the conservative politicians that they should accept the validity of the idea but only for other people. That principle applied generally to the country would have the whole nation taking responsibility to provide money for better educational services for everybody's children and better health services for everybody who fell sick. What has happened is that they decide that in a particular housing area, where a person is disabled by an injury or other act of God, or becomes an old age pensioner, or is unemployed, he shall in effect be subsidised by his more fortunate comrade who does not suffer in that way. Therefore there is this variation in rent arising out of the changing circumstances of the individual. I accept the general principle that those who are well off must look after those who are not. I accept that only when it is extended to the whole of our society.
One of the points made by Deputy Lemass was that there would be increases in the burden of rates and taxation if we were to change this system too much in any significant way. He believes that would be a very undesirable thing. I think the Corporation Councillors to whom I listened seemed to be inextricably tangled up in the complications of the existing differential system. The general air of helplessness, which they showed when discussing it, seems to me to show that they have thrown their hats at the proposition that it could be improved and that they do not intend to make any serious improvement in it. I believe it is wrong that an individual, the father of a family, should find himself, if he is unemployed, supported by one of his children who is paying a substantial part of the rent.
I think the case has been made by many speakers on the Government benches in regard to the rights and responsibilities of a father to provide for his children much more frequently than I have made it. They have made the case that the father is responsible for providing the essential needs of the family and that this responsibility should not be taken from him. Yet, under this differential system, the means of the whole family are assessed and a certain portion of their income is taken. That has very undesirable repercussions, as Deputy Dunne and other Deputies pointed out, because there are cases where young people, a young boy or girl trying to save up to get married, find that a considerable portion of their income has to be handed over to pay the family rent. This leads to a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the family. It is undesirable that any scheme devised by us or the local authorities should lead to such dissatisfaction.
Time and time again we have listened to Government and Opposition speakers making pleas on the Budget and at other times that the industrialists and businessmen, our own or imported ones, simply cannot work at their optimum unless they are given the particular facility of tax concessions, that production will not be increased and that the only incentive they really understand is more money in their pockets. That again is never applied when it comes to the worker here. When a worker asks for an increase in his wages he is told about its inflationary implications but the profits the businessman wants to make do not affect inflation.
Equally, when a father or a whole family decides to take part in a drive to increase production, and in that way increase their income by working longer hours, or overtime, or by taking on extra jobs at night to try to help the family, to educate them or whatever the purpose may be, they are penalised because of their initiative. Because they attempt to increase their income they are penalised but the wealthy person is relieved by a reduction in his taxation or by tax free profits. The money is taken from the worker and in that way the incentive to work harder, to work longer hours, or overtime, is reduced.
Deputy Lemass made a suggestion which I have often heard other speakers make. That is that these people are not paying an economic rent, that their rents are being subsidised and that even if they are paying the maximum rent they are not paying an economic rent and that it is paid out of taxation and the rates. What people seem to forget when they are discussing housing, health or education, is that the ordinary worker pays very considerable tax into the Central Fund and that, if he is getting a subsidy, he is merely getting his own money back. Everybody pays indirect taxation on food, drink, tobacco and all the other commodities on which new taxation is imposed in every Budget. Whatever money the worker gets out of the Central Fund is merely his own money. It is not just surtax which is providing these low rents; it is the worker himself.
If anybody is burdened down with rates and taxation, it is the ordinary worker. The other person is in our society the privileged person—the wealthy businessman and the industrialist who is offered in every document and brochure put out by our State these remarkable concessions time and time again. I believe the ideal arrangement for the provision of any of these sort of social welfare benefits is that they should come from the Central Exchequer funds or the rates, or both. None of us likes the fact that we have to pay taxes, but in that way at least the taxation is collected as fairly as possible from each according to his means and his ability to pay. In assessing the equity of any scheme for health, education, housing legislation, or whatever it may be, there is no simpler method of assessment than the ability to pay the income tax assessment of the Revenue Commissioners. I do not see why it is necessary for us to set up, as we have set up in respect of these other social services, a separate bureaucracy in order to keep these absurd and horrible means tests in operation.
Deputy Lemass said there was no way it could be done without an inquisition. He knows that there are inquisitions and inquisitions. There is the inquisition we all have to go through in filling in our income tax returns. It is unpleasant, but it is a very much less unpleasant operation than the one which these ordinary people have to undergo in the Corporation estates—the repetitious inquisitions which their children have to undergo, which all the residents in the particular house or flat have to undergo at each change in their incomes.
There are ideological objections, but one of the biggest objections put forward is the unnecessary cost of operating these schemes and the complexity and difficulty of operating them fairly and, at the same time, appearing to operate them fairly. One family thinks another family is getting concessions or, in fact, knows they are getting concessions and is annoyed that they are not able to get them. If there is any case at all for the retention of differential systems, there is none at all for this particular one where all the members of the family are included in it.
I do not see why it should not be possible to provide for the desirable objectives of this scheme. I suppose it is what Jim Larkin had in mind when favouring this idea that the old age person, the disabled person and the generally underprivileged groups would be looked after in respect of their rent payments. I do not think it is impossible to devise a scheme whereby that could be done. It should be possible to fix the rent as a percentage of the income of the main breadwinner, the father of the family, and to provide that the income of no other member of the family should be taken into consideration at all. I suppose that would mean the inquisition to which Deputy Lemass referred, but I think it would be a less frequent inquisition. With the widespread use of P.A.Y.E., it should be possible to get that basic income quite easily. The average man would then be spared the necessity of getting documents from his employer and documents relating to every person in the family. It would remove a considerable amount of the dissatisfaction that exists in respect of the present operation of the differential renting system.
I would also favour in that type of case that, where there were children, there should be a percentage reduction in the rent to be paid by the family, particularly in respect of children under 14, and that the parents should be assisted and not penalised because of the size of the family.
In respect of the disabled person, the old age pensioner and the unemployed person, a proportionate part of their income—I am not sufficiently expert to know what would be the right amount—could be paid as rent. In each of those categories, it is quite simple to tell who is an old age pensioner, who is an unemployed man, and who is a disabled person. As I said, it would be relatively easy to find out the income of the parent, the breadwinner. It is where one moves off into finding the income of the other members of the family that I think the great dissatisfaction arises in the operation of the differential renting system. I do not agree with Deputy Lemass that the politicians should not be on committees to consider this matter. It seems absurd to suggest we are not capable of an objective examination of this question. I also do not share the view of another Deputy that we could not alter this system because it would mean a considerable increase in the rates. If we are to take that attitude about this particular service, then it says a number of things. First, it means one is not going to change any of our social amenities, whether they are health, education or housing, because of an increase in the money to be paid by the big ratepayers. I presume you are concerned for the big ratepayers. Secondly, it seems to me to presume that it is impossible for the State, the Central Exchequer, to step in and provide for the local authority, if the rates burden is considered too high for the average ratepayer.
It seems to me that this is a complete admission of failure, a complete negation of the suggestion that we have plenty of money coming in, that the national income, about which Deputy Lemass was so cheerful, is so buoyant, if we are unable to get from the Government a subsidy for the easement of the rent in the case of Corporation householders and the underprivileged classes within that group.
One other Deputy made the point that our whole problem would be greatly eased if we did not have to pay the fabulous interest rates which we have to pay in respect of the money borrowed from the banks. That also seems to me to be one other way in which it would be possible for the Minister to ease the difficulties of the local authority. One of the most depressing things—and I have listened to experienced councillors and aldermen who have spoken in this debate—is to hear or read their admission of failure and their refusal to face facts. If they really want to, through the Central Exchequer, an increase on the rates, by a reduction of the bank rate or some other source, it should be possible for them to devise some system whereby the present grossly inequitable differential rents system could be dealt with in a very much more equitable way.
If our society is generally interested in helping the unemployed man, the disabled person, the old age pensioner or the worker with a large family, there is no use in throwing up our hands and saying it cannot be done. If we are so hard up, if we are so near destitution that we cannot, it is an indictment of the economic system which continues to be practised. They must then concede that the economic system in which they believe has failed, or they must concede that they are unable to help these people. They should not transfer their burden to a small minority within the community. The burden of responsibility for the old age pensioner, the disabled person, or the unemployed man must not be transferred to a minority within the community, while they try to do their charitable work on the cheap at his expense.
The Minister has offered. I am calling on the Minister for Local Government.
Listening to the debate since it opened, certainly the first part of it does not give any qualms to anyone, and least of all to me. The motion reads: "That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that housing legislation should be reviewed..." I dare say the House is aware that a review is called for once every two years. That has been the position since 1948 under various Governments and various Ministers for Local Government.
At present this review is under way, and the results will see the light eventually when the present housing legislation comes to an end on 31st of next March. I should say at the outset that in regard to this review, any and all practical proposals whether emanating from individual Deputies, groups of Deputies, or Parties in the House, will be welcomed so far as I am concerned, and will get every consideration during the course of the review which is now, as I say, under way in my Department.
Dealing with the three matters specially mentioned in the motion, the question of differential rents appears to have occupied the minds of most of the speakers, and the greater part of their speeches to-night and last Wednesday night. I want to state again that while various views were expressed on the method of operation of the differential renting system, little indeed has been said against the principle of differential rents. Not all Deputies who condemn the operation of the system in the Dublin Corporation area likewise condemn the idea or the principle of differential rents as such.
Whether they condemn the principle or the detailed working of the system, this is the system which was adopted by Dublin Corporation, put to the then Minister in 1950, and sanctioned by him. There was no reason then, nor is there any real reason now, why another form of differential rents, or the application of the differential renting system, should not be proposed by Dublin Corporation or indeed by any other local authority throughout the country which is at present operating a scheme of differential rents, not all of which—in fact I doubt any of which—are completely comparable with each other.
From listening to the debate here, I feel that the bitterest complaints from those who have spoken hinge on the methods of inquisition, the methods of calculating the accurate income on which the rent is based. That is the objectionable feature. If it is so objectionable, a remedy should be found in Dublin Corporation, or in any other council chamber, and the objectionable feature removed.
It is suggested also that there was a £2 million income, approximately, in rents to the Dublin Corporation during the current year, or last year—I think it is the current year. I do not dispute the figure of £2 million. That is true, but it is not the net income coming from the rents. From that £2 million, the entire rates bill in respect of these houses must be deducted and in fact is deducted from each housing account before it becomes income to that housing account.
After that, to our knowledge, this year £470,000 is being spent on repairs and improvements of the housing stock in the Dublin Corporation jurisdiction. When you take the rates, the maintenance and repairs moneys from this £2 million, you will find that the income then remaining is not anything as great as the all round figure of £2,000,000 here suggested. When we get the residual figure, we find that the rates general account has to add this year over £700,000 to help carry on the outgoings of the general housing account of Dublin Corporation.
Added to that £700,000, another £700,000 is paid by my Department to Dublin Corporation in respect of that same housing stock, and goes into that same account in order that it should be able to carry on. To get the thing in its proper perspective, the Central Fund is paying at the moment to the Dublin Corporation account over £700,000. The rates pool of the Corporation is paying over £700,000 also. Out of the income of £2 million approximately, almost a quarter is being spent on maintenance of the same houses, and from the remaining £1,500 odd, rates in respect of the houses in the ownership of Dublin Corporation must be deducted.
As a matter of interest, from a table of figures which I have here, the net rent in quite a number of houses let in Dublin Corporation estates in fact represents a loss or a deficit. If we take a one-roomed flat of £4 valuation on the minimum rent, the actual rates are 8d. more than the rent being paid. If at the other end of the scale, we take a five-roomed flat on the minimum rent of 7/6d. there is an actual loss, after rates are deducted, of 4/3d. in respect of that type of house.
I give these figures merely in order that the House will appreciate that it is not all a one-way traffic. In fact, this idea of differential rents has certain points which have not been brought out, favourable to its acceptance and operation. I should say also that there appears to be a general idea expressed here that because some person is paying more for a house than another person is paying for a similar house, it follows automatically that the person paying the higher rent is subsidising the person paying the lower rent for a similar house. That would be so if money were being made on these transactions, but when we set it against the background that none of these houses is in fact let at a very economic rent, and that there is in fact subsidisation on all houses and on every house, then this whole argument of the subsidisation by one tenant of the rent of another tenant in the same scheme falls to the ground.
All of these houses are being subsidised and it is not true to say that if a person pays 33/- for a four or five-roomed house and his neighbour pays 10/-, that if there were no differential rents and if there were graded rents, both of them would be paying 17/6d. It does not follow again from that that the person now paying the 33/- is subsidising the person who is paying the 10/- when all houses, both the 33/- a week and the 10/- a week houses, are being subsidised and subsidised very heavily.
As I have said at the outset the differential rent system will find its detractors. Objectionable occurrences may be quoted, without proof in many cases. That they may exist I do not doubt but that in itself should not blind us to the fact that differential renting, if operated in a reasonable way, means that people who are less well-off can get their houses at the lowest possible rents and at the same time not add a burden that the local authority is not prepared to carry on the rates. We should not condemn the system because of the anomalies that have been of our own creation within the administration of the scheme, a system chosen by the respective local authorities, put to the Department and the Minister for Local Government of the day and sanctioned as the wishes of that local authority.
There is nothing sacrosanct about any of the differential renting systems at the moment in operation. There is no reason why they should not be reviewed and changed. There is every reason why any objectionable features that have arisen from experience over the years should be removed so as to make them more acceptable. There are many things that can be done in that direction, far too numerous to mention here in the short time that remains for the conclusion of this debate. However, I would say seriously to all members here who are members of local authorities or members of the Dublin Corporation especially that they should review in a very comprehensive and detailed manner their renting system.
As regards any suggestions they may wish to make to the Department, where we come into it, we shall be only too glad to help. Finally if they come up with a new scheme that has obviated all the objectionable features they have found during the past 10 years, everybody should feel a little more happy. However, it is not reasonable merely to condemn the system when it is the creation of the local authority itself and to ask for legislation—I think that is the intention. Legislation for what? Legislation to change the system, to abolish the system, legislation without any alternative being proposed.
To change the Act of 1948, No. 1 of 1948, whereby it came into existence.
In other words to abolish it?
Yes.
That is why I say— and I do not mean this as a reflection on the sponsors of this motion—that instead of merely suggesting the abolition of the system, there should be a more positive approach. I am certainly at this stage not convinced that the system should be abolished but I am open to being convinced if the arguments can be and are put forward.
In regard to the second part of the motion, the need for a scheme of rates remission for S.D.A. house purchasers which will ease their burden by extending remission over a period of 18 years, you could make a good case for a person who has purchased a house, particularly a married couple whose family is growing up, as to why they would need help up to 18 years and I could make an excellent case also as to why they should get help for a further 10 years. However, we must study the background to this matter. Up to 1958 the remission of rates was two-thirds for seven years. At that stage in deference to members of the House that system was changed and the remission was spread over a period of 10 years, rising by one-tenth a year after the first year of completion on occupation of the house.
If it is merely a question of spreading that same relief over an 18-year period rather than a 10-year period, it is quite possible that no serious objection need be raised to it but the substance of this second part of the motion suggests that there should be greater relief over an 18-year period. A case can be made for that, too, but we have to consider the clamour in regard to rising rates. We have cases being made that they should not be allowed to rise, and from all directions there are suggestions that the State should step in to a greater degree in order that we may continue to expand our general services through the local authorities without the rates bearing any additional cost.
That is a fairly general argument and certainly is a very popular one. But in regard to adding further to the rates burden by giving longer and greater rate remission, we should remember that, as far as house building is concerned, the great majority of our local housing authorities are paying supplementary housing grants. Those are coming from the rates pool. If we are to continue to get this voluntary effort by the local authorities of giving these supplementary housing grants, we certainly would not be encouraging them if we say to them: "You will have to wait much longer to gain any benefit or any worth-while benefit from the new rating being created by virtue of new houses being built." It has taken many years of encouragement to get counties to pay supplementary grants at all.
We have been encouraging them also in some cases to expand. If we were now to come and say after all this: "We shall expand the rates remission period to 18 years," I know—I shall not say I am afraid—there are county councils and local authorities who at their next review, which in most cases is due next March, would say: "If we are not to get anything from the ratings here and our rate valuation over the entire local authority area will not increase, then we can no longer afford to give these somewhat generous supplementary grants." That aspect could defeat the very purpose which the sponsors of this motion have in mind to try to help people, to encourage them to build their own houses and to enable them to pay for them without unduly straining their resources.
That is an aspect of it. The general aspect is the clamour against the rising rates throughout the country over the years. Taking the two things together, I do not feel convinced at this stage that the suggestion contained in the motion could indeed be sponsored at this time.
Then there is the third and final special mention made of the need for continued maintenance of county council cottages during the period when tenants are purchasing. At the moment, when tenants purchase and when they become vested, they are given certain concessions. The payments are reduced to 50 per cent. of the rent they were paying up to the time of vesting. That, no doubt, was given first of all as an encouragement to get people to come to own their own houses and, secondly, no doubt also much in mind was the fact that once tenants become purchasers they have responsibility, the same as any other owner of property, for maintaining that property and that maintenance will cost money. Therefore the reduction of the rent and the conversion of half the rent into a repayment figure I think made sense.
It would be wrong surely to say that this concession should be made and this encouragement should be given and that people should be given the right of ownership without the obligations, in order that the last argument that might have been used should be taken away, the argument that people who were in vested cottages and who were purchasing these cottages were debarred from getting the normal repair and reconstruction grants. That was true until 1958. Since then, these people are entitled to apply for these grants the same as any other householder and many of them have done so.
I think it is true that, overall, the people who get these cottages vested in them are, in the majority of cases, very proud owners of their property and tend to care for that property in a manner befitting that which belongs to themselves. I do not quite agree with Deputy Dunne when he seems to imply by this term of his motion that owners of these houses are not house-proud and are not glad to have their own houses and to look after them. I believe the experience is that these people look after their houses very well. Indeed, in many cases, before they have come to purchase them at all, some of them look after the houses as if they were their own and naturally look after them even better when they become their own property and are given full title to them.
On this matter, Deputy Desmond raised the question that cottages or houses when handed over to tenants are not always in the repair which the local authority are by law obliged to keep them or in which to hand them over. I would say to Deputy Desmond that over the last three and a half years Cork County Council raised £430,000 by way of loans to do just this job of repairing cottages prior to vesting. If the job is being done or has been done as badly as he has asserted, then there must be something wrong with the Cork County Council and the sooner he would bring to my knowledge just what is wrong—he being a member of it, so far as I know—the better I should like it because there certainly would be something very wrong if all this money were entirely being wasted and houses handed over to tenants in an unfit condition.
In addition, he has advocated that the applicant for vesting should be given the right to refuse the vesting at the last moment. He and his colleagues in the Labour Party actually supported and accepted the change brought about in the law, I think in 1956, by the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy O'Donnell whereby the full title of these vested houses came to be reposed in the actual tenant-purchaser.
It is said that the county council do not carry out the repairs. It is said further that the concession, as he describes it, of having these houses repaired is being flouted and that the inspectors from my Department are not doing their work; that the applicant for vesting or the person in whom the house is being vested is not getting a fair deal and, in fact, that the work prescribed by our Department and my inspectors, on investigation following appeal, is not being carried out. I fail to agree that that is so.
I would also say to Deputy Desmond that if he has made this charge, other than making it as a debating point, he should consider sending to me, as he suggested he could give us, the 18 to 28 out of the 20 to 30 cases he knows of where this flouting of the law has taken place, where the tenant purchaser has been done down, where he has been handed over a house in an unfit condition and contrary to the law. Let him send me particulars of the cases he said he was aware of: I can assure him of a full and complete investigation. This is a serious charge and one which should not be treated lightly by him or by me.
By and large, this third part of the proposal mentioned here is one which I think, in all the circumstances, does not convince us when we come to look at the full facts. There are grants available to those tenant purchasers. They are the owners. Their purchase annuity, their weekly repayment for their houses, is only half what their rent had been in the year prior to their taking over. With that ownership, there is given the concession in outgoings per week to enable them to keep their houses. Side by side with that, since 1958 there are available the ordinary grants applicable to the ordinary householder throughout the country. Taking the two things together, a fair effort is being made at present to meet up with the entire situation. Again, as I said on the differential renting system and on the second part of the motion, on all these parts of the motion and, indeed, in general on housing legislation I should be very glad to get from any member or members or Parties in this House any practicable suggestions which would get full and complete consideration between now and the introduction of the 1962 Housing Bill.
The debate on the motion ends at 10.15 p.m. Deputy Dunne is entitled to 15 minutes to conclude.
Mr. Ryan
I think I have 30 seconds to speak. I should like to say this if Deputy Dunne will allow me lest it be said afterwards that I was not willing to speak. We believe the Dublin differential rent scheme is in need of radical improvement, particularly as regards basic allowances and overtime pay. We had hoped that the Minister would deal with a very vital matter that had been raised: why is it that the urban tenants have withdrawn from them, if they go to purchase a house, the subsidy which is still available for people in rural areas? That is something that I have never understood, something I consider socially unfair and undesirable.
Could you tell us, Sir, how many minutes the mover of the motion has to reply?
Fifteen minutes.
The procedure is I understand, that three hours are allowed for the motion, forty minutes to make the case and fifteen minutes to reply. There seems to be no regulation as to how long the intervening speeches may be.
Might I point out to Deputy Dunne that intervening speakers have half an hour.
They should not be allowed to repeat themselves.
I am not criticising any intervening speaker. I am merely explaining this for the benefit of my colleagues. At the outset I want to say that I accept the amendments moved by Deputy Casey and the addendum moved by Deputy Desmond. This has been a very interesting debate because it revealed the minds of at least some members on this vital question, a question that is vital at least to 18,000 families in this city, the question of differential rents, among other matters.
We had a performance from Deputy Sherwin in which the differential rent tenants were variously described as "the mob", as "liars" and their children, particularly their daughters, as "touchy," and "elegant". No doubt the language could be considered by some to be entertaining. It certainly would be considered by me, representing the biggest working class area in Dublin as insulting, untrue and unfair. I consider that the people of Dublin, those who live in the new housing schemes—to a great extent, in large numbers they were taken from what were formally the slum areas— are the hearts blood of this city. They are decent people and, by and large, they can be depended on to be more truthful in their everyday lives, as well as in matters relating to Dublin Corporation, than other elements of our society. I do not think, on a matter of this kind, a debate which sinks to the level of abuse of a type such as was used in respect of these people is edifying in any degree. It is not helpful; I think it is wrong.
I brought this matter up not as one with a few short years experience of Dublin Corporation, not as one with any illusions about owning the Corporation or having the sole right to speak on behalf of Corporation tenants, but as one who in a fairly short lifetime has been over 20 years in public life in various public bodies— county councils, corporation and in this House—and as one who, as I indicated at the outset, defended the principle of differential rents when it was very difficult to get people here or outside to accept it. I defended it because I believed in it sincerely and because I was associated with the people who initiated it, particularly with the late James Larkin, who I think was one of the first to bring it to public notice, to suggest it and help to put it into effect. I believed in it because I thought it was going to do good. When it was first brought into existence by the Fianna Fáil Government by the first Act of 1948, provision was made to enable differential renting schemes to be introduced by any county council or local authority. I believed that it was going to help the needy in our population, the less fortunate, the old pensioners, the sick and the widows and that it would not, on the other hand, in any way worsen the already difficult position of the remainder of the working class population.
But what has happened? Let any member of this House go to Ballyfermot and try to defend differential rents and see what the reaction of the people is. I ask are they all wrong and one or two people here right? Are the entire population, the 5,000 families in the area of Ballyfermot, wrong when they say that the differential rents scheme is bad and wrong, that they hate it and dislike this weekly or monthly inquisition into the most intimate details of their lives? I do not think they are wrong. I think any law which meets with such a reaction must in itself be wrong. That is my fundamental objection to this scheme, that it has worked out in practice contrary to all that was hoped for and to my mind it should be abolished altogether.
It has been suggested that my attitude has just been destructive and that I have not made any proposal for an alternative. I was in a house in Dún Laoghaire Corporation area today. It was a five-roomed house and the man there tells me they have a graded rent system in the area. His house has three bedrooms, kitchen, living room and bathroom for 19/- odd per week. There are houses at certain rents and houses somewhat larger have somewhat higher rents—that is the graded rents system. This system is also used in other counties I understand, such as Wexford. That would be better than what we have now. We have a huge staff in Dublin Corporation who are looking after the files and whose job it is to watch and guard against the possibility of any working class family getting away with anything when it comes to rents. It is the nearest thing this country has seen to a Gestapo system. I am not saying that in criticism of the individuals who must do their job; I say it in criticism of the whole system as it has been used.
I speak on behalf of the people I represent and they rejected this scheme. If the system were even ameliorated and if, as Deputy Dr. Browne suggested, only the father of the family could be levied in respect of rent, there would not be such danger as has been suggested. There would, in fact, be no danger of a wholesale campaign of deceit and lies as some members of this House have suggested would be the case. On the contrary, these people, being decent people in the great majority of cases try to tell the truth and to rear their families to tell the truth, and they would work the scheme in an honest, decent fashion but if we are going to operate any scheme on the basis of thinking the population of the country or any part of it are a crowd of liars there is no hope for it. There is no hope for this Dáil or for this country if that is the attitude and outlook we have.
I want to say to the Minister that in the calculation of the economic rent of the houses I am informed, and informed by a very reliable authority, that the State subsidy given in respect of each house built by the corporation is not taken into account. In other words the tenants do not get the benefit of the State subsidy. To what other purpose the subsidy is put I do not know but that is the position, as I am informed of it by high officials of the corporation.
It would be impossible to reply to this debate in the short space of time at my disposal in any kind of detail but there was one thing I noted. Deputy Lemass said he was speaking to an official of Dublin Corporation in the housing allocation department and the official said—to quote Deputy Lemass: "There are five families coming home from Britain today for every one that is emigrating." The only comment I can make on that is that the official knew the person to whom he was talking. That is the only answer. It is very difficult to understand how anybody could believe that.
I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the idea of an 18-year remission of rents for S.D.A. beneficiaries. I think they are people who should be encouraged and there is no doubt that financial considerations always create thorny problems. I touched lightly upon one solution to that and I hope that in the future the only real answer will be sought out. The interest rates operated by the private banks—and they are private banks which are there to serve their own private purposes—create an intolerable load for local authorities and for people trying to purchase their own homes under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, so much so that if somebody had a house built for £1,500, over a period of twenty-five years £4,500 would have to be paid for it though the cost originally was £1,500 and less than that amount of loan was afforded by the banks.
It is unfortunate that the Minister did not see fit to take active steps. He did, I must say, try to approach it in as reasonable a manner as he could from his own point of view but that is not enough to meet the terms of the motion. He suggested that when tenants of labourers' cottages become owners they should assume the same responsibilities as other owners of property. How can he compare a labourer, a farm worker or a road worker living in a labourer's cottage with other property owners? He lives—barely lives—from one week to another and is not in a position to save money. Property owners as a general rule become property owners because they have a certain amount of money, a little more than is required to meet the everyday needs of life and for that reason the propertied classes are usually privileged people in a better position to deal with repairs than the tenants of county council cottages. The tenants of county council cottages have no chance whatever of dealing with repairs.
The Minister said there was a grant of which a tenant might avail to reconstruct his house but is it not true that there is a limit, a certain figure for repairs? In other words unless the amount of the repairs exceeds £50, I think, the grant will not be made available. The amount required in cases such as this usually runs about £20 to £30. Even if the Minister could help by reducing that limit to something approaching the sum the average tenant would be seeking, in a certain number of years we might have got somewhere but we seem to have got nowhere with the motion. However it has given us an opportunity to say what is in our minds and I hope the future will bring something better. As far as I am concerned, I shall continue to press this matter and I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the terms of the motion.
Amendment No. 1 put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 put and agreed to.
Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.
Am I not in order in moving the adjournment now?
The Chair is not accepting the motion. Motion No. 18, in the name of Deputy S. Dunne. If it is not being moved——
The position is that business which was ordered for today has, in fact, been dealt with. We think it unfair that business, which has not been ordered, should now be discussed and we ought not to propose to proceed with it. If the House will bear with me for about three minutes, I can get the brief and go ahead with the Agricultural Wages Bill or the Housing Bill.
We have already postponed both of those. We are now going on to the next motion— No. 18—in the name of Deputy S. Dunne. As Deputy S. Dunne is not present, the motion cannot be taken.
The point is that Deputy S. Dunne was not informed that items Nos. 16 and 17 would not be taken. He took it for granted that his motion would not be reached.
The Chair could not have informed him because the Chair was not aware that these items would not be taken. Let us take Motion No. 19, in the name of Deputies Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan.