asked the Minister for Local Government on what authority and for what reasons Dublin Corporation imposed a 7s 6d per week rent retrospectively in respect of sub-tenants living in corporation houses.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Corporation Sub-Tenants.
27.
The authority for the charge to which the Deputy refers is section 58 of the Housing Act, 1966. Prior to the making of the Housing Authorities (Loan Charges Contributions and Management) Regulations, 1967, on 13th April, 1967, a tenant of a local authority dwelling who kept a sub-tenant in the dwelling was acting illegally and stood in danger of having his tenancy terminated. Under Article 6 of these Regulations, a tenant is permitted to keep a sub-tenant, but in order to ensure proper control and to prevent housing estates built up at such cost from deteriorating into new slums through overcrowding or other abuses, the consent of the local authority is required.
By circular letter H.5/67 of 14th April, 1967, local authorities were advised to make the consent the subject of an agreement between the authority and the tenant and that the terms of the agreement should provide for the payment by the tenant of a sum in addition to his ordinary rent.
Dublin Corporation publicly announced and applied these arrangements in July, 1967 to sub-tenants and lodgers whose occupation commenced on or after 1st July, 1967. The arrangements meant no change for tenants on differential rents to whom a similar charge had applied since the inception of the differential scheme in the early 1950s. In the case of fixed rent tenants, however, the corporation applied a charge of the same general order as in the case of differential tenants, but in this case subject to a maximum rent of 7s 6d a week. The charge applies only to sub-tenants and lodgers in the wage and salary earning category and does not apply to a tenant bringing dependants to live with him.
I may add that the arrangement is associated with the new arrangements under which subsidy at the higher rate may be paid, on the usual terms, for the re-housing of corporation sub-tenants or lodgers. Only houses provided for new sub-tenants or lodgers authorised not less than three years previously by the authority may normally qualify for this higher rate of subsidy. It is, therefore, in the interest of every sub-tenant or lodger who thinks he will, at some time, be seeking a local authority house to ensure that his occupancy is authorised by the authority.
Would I be right in assuming that sub-tenants were permitted to reside with tenants because of the housing crisis and does this latest move imply that the crisis is over?
No; it does not imply that the housing situation is not still of substantial proportions. This is to change the previous position under which sub-tenants were illegally there and the tenant who had such sub-tenants could have his tenancy terminated. This is to bring that matter under control and to give these people some rights in the house.
Is the Minister aware that this clause about sub-tenants being illegally in occupation was waived due to the crisis and the reason there are sub-tenants is that we still have a crisis and these people have no means of getting accommodation? To impose this latest penalty is completely wrong; it is morally wrong.
It is not a penalty. It is——
The Minister is implying that the crisis is over and that there is no need for sub-tenants.
No; I am not implying that the housing situation is not still a serious one but it is an improving situation, and this is a reasonable and sensible arrangement.
Will the Minister not agree that the housing situation in Dublin at present is such that neither he nor the local authority should take any steps that will worsen economically the position of these sub-tenants, all of whom are living in the greatest need of rehousing? This is the kind of vexatious——
We cannot have a debate on this matter.
I am not debating it. This is a most important matter and there are hundreds of families involved. It is not just something to be brushed aside after one or two perfunctory remarks. Will the Minister take steps to have this unnecessary penal charge removed until the housing crisis is brought to a reasonable position, until it has been solved, and we achieve, if we ever do, a normal housing situation wherein subletting might then be deemed to be undesirable?
I do not look upon it as a penal charge. It is only right that in cases in which corporation houses are sublet, some extra amount should be paid. That has always been the position in regard to differential rents.
I am calling question No. 28.
Just one more question.
I have already allowed five supplementary questions.
Much longer time has been given to far less serious matters.