In my question on 11th November to the Minister for Local Government I asked if he was aware of the growing dissatisfaction — and I said "growing"— among Dublin Corporation tenants at Dublin Corporation's present policy on differential rents in general, differential rents applying in all inter-transfer cases and differential rents applying to occupants of houses for newly weds on compulsory transfer and if he was aware that a similar policy is being adopted by other local authorities and, if so, if he would request a revision of this policy.
In reply the Minister said that, apart from complaints by some tenants organisations to which he had replied recently, he was not aware of dissatisfaction among corporation tenants who in general appreciated that their accommodation was let to them at a fraction of its value — I think that is important — a fraction of the value. He said that their rent is abated if income falls as a result of sickness, unemployment, retirement or for any other reason, and that substantial subsidies equivalent on average to almost £2 per week per house are paid from rates and general taxation to keep their rents low.
He also said that in the Dublin Corporation area where inter-transfers were necessary to relieve overcrowding or were recommended by the chief medical officer on health grounds, tenants were assessed for rent on the same basis as before the transfer. He had no objection to the adoption of this practice in other areas.
We all know the purpose for which differential rents were introduced. As a rents system it was admirable. It served people who were poor. I still maintain that the differential rents system if properly applied as originally intended would be of great benefit to those in need. The original intention was very good but the system has changed out of all recognition. The method now applied means that a tenant has no privacy. He is subjected to repeated form-filling and often finds that he receives a demand note unexpectedly from Dublin Corporation and eviction may follow if he is not very careful. He gets demands when he may be at work to call in to disclose information to the corporation. In many cases officials ask neighbours in adjoining houses for details about tenants. This is completely different from what was originally intended. The present system is completely wrong. The total income of the tenant is taken into consideration, not his net income. The gross income of the family is taken into account. This is not fair; the net income is the important thing.
When a tenant may be remiss in complying with the regulations he is assessed at the maximum rate immediately and it is up to him to prove his innocence, so to speak. This is the corporation's policy. Where a tenant on a fixed rent dies and a son or daughter succeeds to the tenancy the differential rent applies immediately. It often happens in corporation houses that the son or daughter living with the tenant has cared for the tenant for many years and will in fact have been the tenant in that he or she paid the rent, in some cases, for 20 years or more. Yet, they are told they must go on a completely new rent scale. It is very unfair and unjust when this happens. The differential rent system is wrong when it is applied as rigidly as this. It should not apply to cases where the immediate family succeed to the tenancy. The original scale of rent should apply not only to the spouse, as at present, but also to any son or daughter who has been living with the tenant at the time of the death.
I find many people like to inter-transfer with other tenants for many and varied reasons — proximity to schools or work or, perhaps, trouble between neighbours as a result of which one tenant may wish to leave the area. These are sound and just reasons for leaving. Where sub-tenants are on a fixed rent and succeed in getting an inter-transfer they are immediately converted to the differential rent system. This is unjust. The fixed scale applied in both cases when they sought the transfer but because the city medical officer would not give permission on medical grounds, or where there is not real overcrowding, these people must pay the new scale of rents. This is very unjust.
The same applies to normal transfers, creating a further problem. The Minister says he is unaware of any dissatisfaction. I do not know of any tenant who would write to the Minister. Seeing how hesitant he is about answering questions here I cannot see him replying to tenants. Tenants of Dublin Corporation do not write to the Minister. They are concerned with the National Association of Tenants' Organisations or the individual bodies in the housing schemes. It is there they make their complaints. They know these people and they refer all complaints to them or to local Deputies.
I am constantly besieged with complaints about the present system by people who are frightened by Dublin Corporation officials, people compelled to go to an employer constantly asking him to sign a certificate of earnings for the previous six months. This is happening every day of the week: tenants are deprived of their normal rights. Dublin Corporation are the only landlords in the country who can knock on a tenant's door and say: "You earned overtime last week and we are entitled to money out of it." This is exactly what Dublin Corporation are doing. It is most important that we should get back to the original basis of the scheme first introduced by a Minister who was a member of the Labour Party, the late Deputy Tim Murphy. The idea was right. It was good. It was just. Now it is being applied unjustly and I am asking that we should revert to the original idea. Dublin Corporation tenants should not be asked to pay over £6 per week rent for high rise flats.
I know of one particular case. The man is a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair. He has an income of £6 14s and out of that he has to pay Dublin Corporation £2 17s rent. When I first brought up this case everyone said it was impossible. I sent to the Taoiseach the corporation's letter giving me the reasons why they were charging that rent. It is perfectly true that this man is paying £2 17s rent per week out of an income of £6 14s. This is unjust. He and his wife occupy a one-room flat in Inchicore. He did not ask for central heating. This was not taken into account because the system is too rigid. People are paying more in rent than they would have been had they had the good sense originally to purchase their own houses. At the moment they are being deprived of every right. They are dependent on Dublin Corporation for housing and they are crucified under the present system. In view of the widespread dissatisfaction I ask the Minister to have the system examined so that we may get a proper differential renting system. I do not believe it should be abolished but, where people are in need, applying maximum rents is unjust. I ask for an inquiry.
