Private Members' Business. - Landlord and Tenant Tribunals: Motion. – Dáil Éireann (21st Dáil) – Tuesday, 12 May 1981

Private Members' Business. - Landlord and Tenant Tribunals: Motion.

Mr. Keating

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, concerned about many inequities in the present situation offending against the best interests of both tenants and landlords, demands the setting up of independent tribunals to consider questions relating to rent and conditions, to which both landlord and tenant may have recourse.

In my remarks I intend to show, firstly, that the whole area of landlord and tenant legislation is in need of urgent attention, secondly, the unparallelled shallowness and inertia of the Government's attitude so far to this housing echelon and, thirdly, precisely what this party intend doing about it, given the opportunity. There is no doubt at all about the fact that this area of the housing accommodation sector may genuinely be called the Cinderella of housing policy. There are almost 400,000 people living in private rented accommodation in this country whose needs have not been dealt with by this Government. On the contrary, it has been policy to invest resources, scarce resources at that, in every other element of the housing spectrum except this one.

We would say it is time that the private rented sector, the problems of tenants and indeed of landlords were recognised as being genuine and in need of attention and support. Accordingly I intend to put forward a six point programme which I believe would deal with that. Underlining our concern in this area is the fact that Fianna Fáil, this time four years ago, gave very specific commitments to the people concerned in this area, the tenants. Those commitments were explicit and comprehensive. Not one of them has been implemented. I challenge the Minister for the Environment, who is here this evening, to spell out why the promises given at that time have been ignored and have not been implemented despite repeated attempts by the Opposition parties to bring to the attention of this House and the country not just the prevarication but the complete disinterest by the Government in this area.

On 7 June 1977 the then secretary of the National Flatdwellers' Association, a body which has done exemplary work in representing the interest of tenants, received from the then National Director of Elections, Senator Eoin Ryan — and one could say in parentheses that it is perhaps ironic that the Minister here this evening apparently will be National Director of Elections in the coming election——

Minister for the Environment (Mr. R. Burke)

Like most things the Deputy says, he has got even that wrong.

Mr. Keating

The trouble with the Minister's party at present is that they cannot make up their minds about anything. Therefore, I am not surprised if they change it from day to day. We will fight that one in due course. But I would like the Minister to answer the question we pose here this evening, if he can.

That letter was quite explicit — I trust I am getting this right and the Minister is welcome to a copy in case he has mislaid it — written on Fianna Fáil, The Republican Party, notepaper, addressed to A. Cassidy, Esquire, Secretary, National Flat Dwellers' Association, 9 Anglesea Street, Dublin 2. It reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Cassidy,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 31st May.

Our Party stand on Landlord and Tenant law relating to flat dwellings has been very fully set out by our Deputy Leader, Mr. Joseph Brennan, in an address to the Solicitors Apprentice Debating Society and reported on the front page of The Irish Times.

It is our view that legislation should be enacted to provide protection for tenants of flats or houses, but at the same time to ensure that landlords do get a fair return on their investment, and that they have protection against bad tenants.

We fully appreciate that the private sector provides a large part of the rented accommodation in the city of Dublin. We would not favour a situation where these people were restricted to such an extent that they were discouraged from investing in this type of project. We would like to see a fair balance, and would like to see the private sector being encouraged to provide good accommodation, with certain minimum standards, and at a rent that is fair to the tenant and fair to the landlord.

We would be in favour of setting up tribunals, to which the Landlord and the Tenant could have recourse for the purpose of fixing fair rents, and deciding disputes between the parties.

We would stress, however, that the rents should be fair, and we would not like to see a return to the old situation, where rents were restricted on such an extent, that landlords simply allowed their property to deteriorate to such an extent that in cases the properties became totally uninhabitable.

It is in the interest of those seeking accommodation that the people providing that accommodation are encouraged to provide it to a high standard.

Regarding the illegal eviction and harrassment of tenants, we are totally opposed to this but are aware, however, that it does happen. However, the Courts at the moment have power to re-instate tenants, and in fact have done so, and if a tenant is interfered with physically by a landlord, a criminal offence is committed. We feel that in this respect a better knowledge of his rights on behalf of the tenant is the answer, and not the creation of any further criminal offence.

We are also totally opposed to discrimination against tenants on the grounds of marital status, colour, religion or sex.

We are accordingly basically in favour of your suggestion for the charter of rights and we are prepared to introduce appropriate legislation in this field.

We trust that this answers your letter satisfactorily and I would be glad to answer any queries which you have regarding our Party's attitude to this problem.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Eoin Ryan,

National Director of Elections.

Apart from the general tone of being against sin contained in the letter, there are three specific undertakings given. I want to know this evening why, in four years, we have seen neither sight nor sound of even the first steps in doing anything about the specific and unequivical commitments entered into, I am now going to suggest, for nothing else but the most shallow of political expediency, as no doubt we will see repeated over the next few weeks. Indeed, we have had already evidence of that, when measures are proposed to be introduced without even an indication of what they cost.

Where is the undertaking that legislation should be enacted to provide protection for tenants of flats or houses? Where is that? Where are the tribunals they were in favour of setting up? Where is the undertaking that they were prepared to introduce appropriate legislation in this field, that is in relation to the charter of rights for tenants? Where are they? They are not with us this evening. Instead, what do we get? We get the most mealy-mouthed evasive and downright dishonest amendment I suppose I have seen in the last four years in this House, when an attempt to introduce some progress in this area is met by a Government amendment which says:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute:

"takes note that important aspects of the relationship between landlords and tenants of private rented accommodation are at present before the Supreme Court and is satisfied that the Government will take whatever action it deems necessary in the light of the terms of the Court's judgment"

There are two points I want to make about that amendment. First of all, it is indicative of the attitude of this Government to give an undertaking that they will take whatever action they deem necessary in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment without having the slightest idea of what its implications might be — another attempt to sell people a pig in a poke. More importantly, it evades every one of the issues in our motion. The House will note in the motion that we do not refer to the issue at present being dealt with by the Supreme Court because, we suggest, it would be wrong to do so — that is, of course, the question of the constitutionality of the Rent Restrictions Act. We specifically exclude that. What we are talking about in the motion is the setting up of independent tribunals to consider questions in relation to rent and conditions to which both landlords and tenants would have recourse, and which was promised four years ago but about which nothing was done. You tried to fool this side of the House and the country into thinking, by some vague generalisation in the direction of the Supreme Court, that you could duck responsibility. This will not happen. You gave promises and have not delivered on them. Why have you failed to set up the tribunals which prior to the last election you said you would set up?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please speak in the third person?

Mr. Keating

Why have the Minister or the Government not set up the tribunal which they undertook to set up? The Minister and everybody else knows that this area requires immediate attention. Surveys carried out by the National Flat Dwellers Association indicate, and any Deputy who has the pleasure of working in city constituencies realises that the problems of people in private rented accommodation are very serious and that the present situation is unjust for both the tenant and the landlord. This area has been neglected for years and the reality is that many people living in private rented accommodation are living in conditions unfit for human habitation. The premises are in some cases owned by landlords who have not the resources and have not been encouraged to put in the resources to improve the premises. In other cases because the return on the houses is woefully inadequate there is no input and in some cases it is because the people involved are landlords by mischance. I know of cases where people are living in conditions which are not just unfit for human habitation but into which the average farmer would not put his stock because he would worry about the effects of weather and exposure to the elements. We are putting up with a situation in which people are living in these conditions. It is no consolation to such people to have a very small rent or to be told as they were told on a previous occasion by Deputy Barrett that they have recourse to the courts. Anyone with any knowledge in this area knows that to refer the average tenant, perhaps a young married mother with two or three children, to the support of the courts which are in session now and again and who may not be in session when her need is greatest is nonsense and is completely unrealistic and naive.

We need a number of measures urgently. I am conscious of the fact that in the early seventies the Department of the Environment had in their posession a comprehensive report in which they at least began to come to an understanding of the problems implicit in this area. The real vacuum exists in the four years since 1977 when people, presumably having investigated this situation before they made commitments, made specific promises to do something about the problem and since then have done nothing except evade their responsibility.

I ask for a completely new deal for tenants and landlords which will recognise any area which houses between 300,000 and 400,000 people as being a legitimate and central part of the housing spectrum, which endeavours to do justice to both landlord and tenant and which sees that investment in that area, be it of direct advantage either to the landlord or tenant or to both, is good investment. The alternative is for people either to be in the private housing sector where they find that every move by the Government does nothing more than add to the price of the new houses or else to add further to the local authority housing lists where the going rate in Dublin city, for example, to build one of these houses is £35,000 or £40,000, due again to the inaction and oblivious attitude of the Government to the problem of the cost of housing. I am for investing in the private rented sector for people who believe that their housing need is best met in that respect by recourse to private rented accommodation. The options should be encouraged. If people wish to buy their own homes they should be encouraged, if they believe that a period on the local authority housing list is appropriate they should be able to avail of it and so on. I cannot understand the blind spot we have in relation to tenants.

We should draw up a comprehensive programme of landlord and tenant legislation which would give tenants and their landlords a new deal, which would embody a number of central elements one of which would be to allow those tenants to have offset against their income tax some portion of their rent if not all of it. Such a step does no more than introduce the same standards of equity as presently obtain in other areas of the housing sector, notably the interest concessions in relation to mortgage repayments in the area of private house building or the sensitive and good principle of the differential rent system which takes a person's ability to pay into account. The concessions and the sensitivity in both those areas are not at present matched in the private rented sector and I do not see why they are not. There should be a substantial grants package of not less than £35 million available to owners of private rented accommodation conditional on their maintaining their property in accordance with proper standards and existing by-laws and depending on that property being registered.

At the moment certain properties are supposed to be registered but understandably there is a massive evasion of registration. It was completely predictable, so much so that in Dublin city where the main problem exists the question of evasion is considered by the local authority only as a matter of statistical interest. The sooner we get around to a situation where the by-laws cán be implemented the better. If they were implemented either landlords would have to close down tomorrow because of deficiencies in respect of their implementation or else there would be such a massive need for investment of resources that it just would not happen. Obviously there would be a mass exodus from the private rented sector and the local authority housing lists would become even longer than they are. In the context of making available to this sector substantial grants packages we should take full cognisance of the fact that the alternative costs which would be necessary to accommodate the number of people at present in private rented accommodation by the local authority would be prohibitive.

It would seem on paper at least that we are at one with the Government in this except that they have been in a position during the last four years to do something about this and have not. An independent tribunal or tribunals should be set up, and will be if there is a change of Government, to oversee fair standards of rent, conditions and interpretation of general standards in this area. Both tenant and landlord should have recourse to these tribunals and they should not merely be about rent.

The registration of all private rented accommodation should be obligatory and should be enforced. The excuse at present is that any such crackdown, as it were, would simply precipitate large numbers of people out of that sector because the standards which are expected and are implicit in registration are not obtaining in general. There are, as there always are in these situations, very many superlative landlords who give a very fair deal for reasonable rents. I like to think, because of a positive view of human nature, that they are in the majority but I do not know whether they are or not because nobody is counting. Certainly registration of such rented accommodation would be feasible under the propositions which I am outlining and would be capable of being implemented by the local authorities without fear or favour, because they would know that there would be no fall-back on their own housing lists in the event of someone unable to match up with the standards and evading registration being brought to heel.

Fifthly, this comprehensive Landlord and Tenant Bill should outlaw discrimination on the grounds of colour, class, creed or other basis. Another discrimination which the Bill should consider as a matter of urgency in that context is what I think is reasonably called the unChristian attitude which I believe exists in many cases to people with young families. It is almost impossible for a husband, wife and young baby to get private accommodation, presumably because children are expected to create problems in terms of noise or detrimental effect to the walls of the flat, or whatever, which the absentee tenant, out all day at work and out all evening at play — does not create. I recognise the difficulty and it must be recognised. It should not, however, be met by slamming the door on the faces of these people but by meeting the problem as it exists and giving to the landlord a fair return and, if necessary, the right to compensation in some circumstances where there is such impact for the worse on their property.

The corollary of this, of course, is that the local authorities are totally submerged in worrying about and contending with the burden of social housing, as it is called, and many of the problems associated with that. It is not just a question of landlord and tenant legislation: it is good for our society to have the mix. It is good for our economy and the economy of the housing sector to encourage this diversity, rather than perhaps appear to be fostering the mentality of the ghetto by dividing local authority estates from privately rented accommodation. In fairness, much progress has been made in that respect and I am of the view that local authority housing at present is, in terms of construction and design, superior in most cases to the private dwellings built by the private builders, simply because there are more tiers of surveying and examination analyses to be gone through and because of cost, although that is not necessarily an indication of quality. In Dublin city, for example, there is reason to believe that the numbers of people competing for such tenders is unusually limited. Perhaps it is worth looking into.

I do not want to go into it in detail because it would be improper to do so, but I have no doubt that the Rent Restriction Act should, and I expect will, go. It was seen for a long time that the prevailing attitude in this area was somehow a protection for tenants. There are tenants who are scared to death of what would happen if and when that occurred. The idea was that tenants would have the defence of some mechanical formula for ensuring that the maximum rent which they would pay would be supervised, as it were, by law. What has, in effect, happened is that such accommodation has been allowed to deteriorate in many cases. There are houses in our city where the rent would be in the order of £ a week and in some cases less. Every member of this House has had people in to see him or her about those conditions. Our response would be——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry, but I am afraid the Deputy is getting into the area of the Supreme Court appeal. I would ask the Deputy to keep away from that subject. That is the understanding that we have.

Mr. Keating

I just wish to refer to the difficulty being experienced by many tenants who are presently apparently entitled, as their only defence, to seek the protection of the law in cases where the property is not maintained. It is completely unrealistic to expect perhaps an elderly person living alone, with a very small income, pitted against perhaps a fairly substantial property owner, or a company which is waiting for vacant possession of the property, to be able to take effective action against such people. It does not work. Accordingly, we have people living in conditions which few of us would tolerate for very long if they were our own. The traditional perception of this Act as the mechanism of protecting tenants has not operated. At the same time, it is important that, whatever new situation might come about, the reasonable fears of tenants presently in accommodation, perhaps in controlled rental situations, be allayed by the Government at this stage — and I trust they have been doing something about it, although I am not particularly heartened by their ignoring of the other problem — and that the Government would be able to act immediately if that arose.

The sum total of those six central steps alone — although other reforms are also necessary — would bring about a major wind of change in the area of landlord and tenant legislation. I give an undertaking that our party in Government will introduce this kind of change, based on the principles to which I have referred. I would not feel so annoyed about all this if, firstly, I did not have the experience every week of meeting people presently living in intolerable and unbearable conditions about which we all know and, secondly, if this Government had not so cynically and so sickeningly given those undertakings. In those circumstances, they could perhaps plead for time to investigate, or perhaps argue that they had not made the commitments and that they were not bound. They are bound and there is no need for further study.

The performance of the former Coalition Government in this respect, with their attention to an honest and complete analysis and investigation of the privately owned rented dwelling accommodation sector was thorough and laid the ground for action by the Minister, but nothing happened. It is very likely that, despite evidence to the contrary during the mid-seventies the popularity of the private rented sector will remain as a fairly essential ingredient in housing policy. It has, particularly among young people, a high degree of popularity. It is therefore reasonable that we should not pretend that somehow the problem will go away.

At the other end of the scale we have many families living, born and reared in and likely to live on, in such privately owned accommodation. One of the most worrying aspects of all this is that this part of our housing stock has been deteriorating. Unfortunately, the enlightened grants policy which obtained and which at least allowed people, for example, who might be willing to extend or modernise or improve their dwellings to do so, modest as it was, was done away with and although we got a vague promise in the context of the sweltering euphoria of the recent Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis that there would be a package of reform embodying some new deal in some circumstances — presumably indicating a reversal of previous policy when these grants were done away with — the reality is that nobody knows, except perhaps the Minister, what precisely is going to be introduced, if anything at all. It is only as late as yesterday that the local authorities got their first glance of a scheme which they are going to be asked to introduce. Not one Member of this House has failed to receive numerous phone calls in recent weeks asking what the Government are going to do about this famous grant——

Mr. R. Burke

Does that not show the interest of the people and how attractive the scheme is, that the Deputy is getting so many inquiries?

Mr. Keating

The fact that the Government rush into a pre-election package of promises and have the neck, on the same day or within 24 hours, to say, "We do not know what it will cost because we do not know what the demand will be." affects their credibility. Clearly they have not done their homework because, even on inquiry from managers, they are not able to give local authorities the most meagre information. Neither are they able to answer questions in this House as to when the legislation will be introduced. That is another sad and sickening indication that the cynicism embodied in their letter to the National Flatdwellers Association of 7 June 1977 is to be repeated all over again. Apparently this Government believe that one can buy one's way all the time. If that is their belief as to how this country operates, I am confident that the people will tell them very soon that they are not as shallow or as gullible as the Government think they are. The voters will not be fooled a second time.

If the Minister were to take a walk through flatside — Rathmines, Rathgar and so on — and to ask any of those who, prior to the last general election, received from Fianna Fáil a very explicit and colourful pre-election leaflet setting out what that party would do for the private rental sector, he would be made aware of how those people regard the promises made then. The letter written by the Government is a damning indictment of the cynical, unprincipled and cheap approach of this Government towards buying and bartering their way as they have been doing in the past four years throughout the whole economic and social spectrum.

All thinking people will reject in the coming weeks the approach of the Government. Even in the area of uncontrolled, furnished as well as unfurnished dwellings there are once again specific problems, all of which are known to those who have the responsibility for doing something about them. There is no reason for further delay and inaction in this respect.

Two small surveys were carried out in 1975 by the then Department of Local Government for the purpose of eliciting information about the rents paid for furnished accommodation. The findings were interesting because they showed a very erratic situation. For instance, in some cases rents were disgracefully exorbitant. People might pay, based on updated figures, £20 for a small room, or even more, while at the other end of the scale somebody might be paying one guinea a week for a whole house. In such cases houses might be expected to be falling down around the occupants because nobody could be expected to roof a house, for example, while in receipt of such a rent. To do such a job would probably cost the equivalent of 400 weeks rent.

There is a need also to consider the degree to which such rents should represent a certain proportion of a person's income. This is a matter to which the tribunal that will be set up if there is a change of Government will have regard. It is reasonable to suggest that people should not be expected to pay more than a certain percentage of total income by way of rent, whether by way of mortgage repayments or in terms of any housing cost. If people are being put to the pin of their collar, particularly in the private rented sector, to pay for accommodation we are going into the situation in which there is exploitation of young people particularly and of young, newly married couples but, what is worse, we are depriving those of the chance to raise the increasingly substantial deposit necessary to provide themselves with homes of their own, if that be their wish. The concept of paying a percentage of one's earnings in outgoings on housing costs has been for months the policy of our party and it is a concept which will be favoured sympathetically in the context of rent overhaul in this area. It is something that will be welcomed by those who will recognise an honest attempt to deal justly with the real problems they are experiencing as opposed to the gimmickry to which they were subjected four years ago.

Another problem which is serious is that of student accommodation which, though seasonal in nature to some extent, is a cause for concern. An imaginative and, in the literal sense, resourceful approach by the Government in this area would be to facilitate the local authorities in providing student accommodation in blocks of flats, in some cases in flats that are obviously unsuitable for the families who are expected to live in them, sometimes as high up as the eighth floor. If students were accommodated in such places in return for economic rents, local authorities would be facilitated to some degree in involvement in areas outside merely the area of social housing. In that way they could begin a process of a total housing policy. This would involve their being facilitated in using resources in a way which up to now has never been their right, funded as they are from year to year without any real idea of what is coming next year except, perhaps, the firm belief that what they get will mean less in real terms than it meant in the previous year, if the experience of the last three years is anything to go by.

The deterioration in the housing stock, particularly in the Dublin area, is to be deplored. I appeal to the Minister to restore and to improve on the facilities which owners of accommodation have in terms of improving that housing. I ask the Minister to consider urgently this matter and to apply the resources in that area. Investment in people's homes, whether in the private rented sector or otherwise, is investment in the future of all our people and will help especially children who are obliged to live sometimes in conditions which their parents are not able to do much about because of the aids not being available to them either to accumulate the necessary resources to improve their lot or to acquire their own property. The problem is serious and it will not go away. Even the most conservative estimates regarding the projected need for private rented accommodation, such as those outlined in the input papers for the draft development plans for the city of Dublin, show clearly an increasing gap between the supply and the demand for rented accommodation during the coming years unless steps are taken to increase the supply.

There are many measures we could take to bring about improvements whether they be the anticipated provision of control of rents, measures to bring about a certain sense of justice and equity into the area as I have outlined, measures which would ensure that there would be an increase in the overall supply of rented accommodation by positive investment of resources into an area of the housing policy which up to now has been a Cinderella, with a view to ensuring that there is in the housing area a permutation of possible homes for people of varying needs.

The evasion of responsibility in respect of private rented accommodation over the last four years has been as startling as has been the increasing evidence of the disgraceful conditions in which many people in that category have to live. It is not too late for the Minister to redeem himself, and the Government, and stand over the undertakings given so easily in the fervour of an election campaign four years ago. The Minister should do as he said he would do, enact legislation to provide for "protection for tenants of flats or houses". The Minister should provide legislation in favour of "setting up tribunals" and to give evidence of his undertaking in relation to his preparedness to "introduce appropriate legislation in this field". The answer in the last four years has been one of inertia and silence in this respect. I can only conclude that the document I have referred to was one of the cheapest and most cynical attempts to buy the votes of a vulnerable section of our people that we have ever seen. It is a shame on the Minister.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. R. Burke)

I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute:

I must start by expressing my surprise that this motion should be chosen by the party opposite for discussion just now. This is hardly a particularly appropriate time for such a debate, as I will demonstrate. One must question the motives behind their action. One cannot fail to detect a shameless effort to exploit at this juncture, for cheap party advantage, a particularly sensitive social area.

As my amendment records, certain important constitutional aspects of the occupation of private rented accommodation affecting the relationship between landlords and tenants of controlled dwellings are at present under consideration by the Supreme Court. Clearly there cannot be a meaningful debate on the motion in the absence of a decision by that court on the constitutional issues that have arisen.

Mr. Keating

The Minister has some neck.

Mr. R. Burke

Mr. R. Burke

The two Acts, as I have just mentioned, removed further categories of houses from control. As a broad statement, a substantial proportion of unfurnished rented accommodation is subject to control. Rents of "controlled" dwellings are set at the levels that prevailed in June 1966. It should be remembered that in many cases the 1966 levels were themselves controlled rents. Certain additions to the original rents have been allowed by the Rents Restriction Act, but these increases bear little relationship to increases in living costs. Side by side with the control of the rents, the Acts give security of tenure to the tenant and his dependants. A tenancy, of course, can be passed on from one generation of a family to the next indefinitely.

— and that the appropriate course is for the Dáil to adopt the amendment in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr. Keating

The Minister should be ashamed of himself.

There are three or four different categories of people who are affected by this. First of all, there is the tenant who is living in accommodation and is paying not too much but very much too much. There are cases I know of where people are being asked to pay outrageous sums for accommodation which may be all right as accommodation goes and may be reasonably good accommodation but the price being charged is outrageous. Then there are those who are living in appalling accommodation and, no matter what they are paying for it, they are paying too much. In many of those cases these people are paying much more than they should and those mostly affected by it are the unfortunate people who are trying to rear a young family or who have got married and are about to start a family. The accommodation is given as if there was something special being done for them; often it is accommodation into which one would not put an animal, and very excessive sums are being charged for it.

There are the young people coming up from the country who are going to work in the city. This is a problem that relates to the whole country but the worst of it is in this city, in Cork and Galway and other cities, and in the towns. People are coming to work and they desperately need accommodation and pay £8 or £10 a week for a single room with a gas cooker on the landing. After a couple of weeks the landlord comes in and says that he undercharged the tenant and puts £5 on to the rent. In another month after that he comes in and says the same thing and eventually the rent is £20. Then the unfortunate sister or brother of the tenant, or a cousin or somebody they know, may be coming up from the country and they go into the same accommodation. The landlord says that he will oblige the tenant by allowing the extra person in and he doubles the rent. He charges the same for the additional person. In some cases I know of three people are in a room that could possibly accommodate one, and they are paying three times the amount of rent which was originally agreed upon. This is the sort of thing which should have been dealt with and I would have dealt with it if I had been in the Department of Local Government for another six months. But the present Minister and his predecessor just had not the time and could not care less.

There is yet another section. Early in the century there were people who owned a nice house in this city and elsewhere and who, because they had alternative accommodation, let their house for what could then be termed a reasonable rent, 15s, £1 or 25s. a week. The people who were living in the house at the time were paying what they considered to be a reasonable rent. But as the years went by the people who were living in the house possibly may have died, their descendants taken over, and the same thing may have happened in the case of the landlady or landlord. Thirty or 40 years later the descendants of the landlord or the landlady may find themselves living in a hovel somewhere, maybe on an old age pension, and the original tenant's descendants living in the house are still paying 15s. or a £1 or 25s. a week although their family income would, by then, have risen to £200 or £300 a week. That aspect has to be dealt with just as the other aspects have to be dealt with. It could and would have been dealt with but for the fact that this sort of a confidence trick was played on the unfortunate tenants when they were persuaded that the people who would deal with the matter were Fianna Fáil when they got in. But they did not deal with it. They just sat back and I am sure they had a good belly laugh at the people who were foolish enough to accept their word.

The ordinary tenants of local authority houses got the same treatment. How many more people got the same treatment? They were promised by Fianna Fáil, "We will look after you; anything they can do, we will do better". When they took over they simply dumped the whole lot and let everyone stew in his own juice.

This whole situation is outrageous. A Minister who comes in here with the lame duck excuse which we have listened to from the Minister for the Environment, is in the same position as the Minister in relation to whom I said the other evening that the Taoiseach could do with somebody else to do the job. I do not know what a Minister who just does not bother with important matters in his Department is doing there at all. It is not a question of this Minister not having the ability. I believe he has plenty of ability and if he had turned his mind to it he could possibly have succeeded in doing a good job in relation to this matter. But the reason that he and his predecessor did not do anything is that they do not like to be unpopular and because people might be asking for money by way of compensation and the State might have to pay a subsidy to tenants who, if they had to pay a reasonable rent, might be unable to pay that rent to the private landlord; the State might have to pay the difference in cash out of some fund. In order to avoid that they just forgot about it; they pushed it to one side and left it there.

I am glad the motion is before the House tonight. The Taoiseach may decide to have a general election in three weeks time or he may hang on for another 13 weeks as he can and, between you, me and the wall, he would be a wise man if he did. But if he decides to let the country decide, this is one of the things that will be hanging around the neck of Fianna Fáil when they come to meet the electors.

Without a doubt, something has to be done about rented accommodation. Somebody will have to have the courage to do it. I believe there is nobody in Fianna Fáil at the moment with that courage. They must as a party and as a Government have decided they would not do anything about it, that they would leave things as they are. The Minister spoke about the encouragement he is giving to people who will provide additional rented accommodation. He spoke about the budget and what was included in the budget a few months ago. He was talking about a speculators' charter.

The Minister spoke about alternative accommodation for private renting and about modest rents. When the Minister for Finance was asked about the rent he did not say it was a modest rent. He said the Government would have no control over the rent which would be charged for this new type of accommodation. He said, in fact, if the right people build it, if they have no conscience and they charge enough for it the Government will not interfere. Fianna Fáil never interfered with the speculators. They always did well out of them and they looked after them. They are doing it again now. It is an insult to the intelligence not just of the people in this House but people looking for rented accommodation for the Minister for the Environment tonight, and for the Minister for Finance, to suggest that it is anything else but a speculators' charter.

The Minister referred to the Finance Bill and said that the Labour Party tabled the same amendments this year as they did last year. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are certain financial matters which cannot be amended in the budget and it confines the Finance Bill very much. The reason we put in the same amendments this year as last year is that things are as bad this year as they were last year. The Finance Bill needed the same amendments, which were not accepted. It reminds Fianna Fáil that those things have not been forgotten and that what they did last year and are doing again this year will be judged by the public.

A suggestion was made about giving an allowance for income tax in relation to rent. It might not be an easy thing to do but it is more logical than giving an allowance in income tax to people who are purchasing their houses and are paying the money back by way of annuity. There would have to be very tight regulations to ensure that a landlord — there are some very good landlords and there are some terrible landlords — who was unscrupulous enough to overcharge was restricted and would not attempt to get back off the tenant whatever the tenant got back by way of income tax remission. That will have to be looked at. I want to assure the House and the public generally, who are affected by those things, that if we have a part in government after the next general election we will proceed with the matters which were started when I was Minister for Local Government and we will try to arrange that there will be the necessary legislation to cover the points I have made here tonight.

There is no use in anybody talking about giving £4,000 to encourage people to build their own houses. My sympathy is with the officials of the Department of the Environment who are dealing with housing matters. I do not know what would happen if they were down the country and were recognised. It is amazing the number of people who have said to me in regard to the Minister: "What is he talking about £4,000 for? We are waiting over 12 months for the £1,000 grant and we cannot get it". People will not be codded any more. They were codded in a big way before the last general election. People now look at matters in a very different way.

I am quite satisfied there is no way in which Fianna Fáil can get out of the difficulty they are in tonight where a solemn promise made four years ago has been reneged on and the Minister who is responsible for seeing that it is carried out comes into the House and says that there will be a Supreme Court judgment and he would not like to do anything which would upset it or cause any trouble. He has had over three-and-a-half years before the matter of a judgement came up. What did he do? What did his predecessor do? They did nothing. There is no use saying that it is all right, we should give them time and they will be better the next time. Everybody now realises that the racket which Fianna Fáil operated the last time is now coming back on their heads.

I want to deal with this city in relation to rented accommodation because it affects other areas where the Minister for Finance suggested the building of flats like rabbit warrens. Flats are being built, one on top of the other, with a common entrance at the bottom. I do not know how people would get out of them if a fire occurred. Those are to be found throughout the country and excessive rents are being charged for them. If people want accommodation the State must take a hand in this. If they do not want to do it themselves they should through some arrangement with the local authority or a private individual, arrange to have the necessary accommodation provided.

During my time as Minister I was considering doing something about a place like Ballymun. The top of some of the high rise accommodation in Ballymun may be no use at all as accommodation for unfortunate people with young children. There is no future in places like that for people who have to climb many flights of stairs when the lifts are out of order, or have to go up in lifts with young children. If they let them out to play and they look out of their windows and see them on the ground with somebody bullying them there is nothing they can do. Shantalla in Galway is the same; no lifts are provided and unfortunate people have to drag prams, children and goods up and down four flights of stairs.

It might not be a bad idea if those places were converted to accommodation for single people and if, with the income from that, decent housing was provided for those who need it. I am quite sure that everybody in the House and most people outside it are aware that there is a desperate shortage of local authority accommodation. There are more people living with in-laws now than there were after the last war. This is only four years after we reached the stage where people on the Government benches now, said that we were building too many local authority houses, that 75 per cent of those looking for accommodation from local authorities consisted of two or less in a family. Now we are in the position where over the last few years the number of people on the waiting list in Dublin Corporation has risen by 2,500 and people cannot get any type of accommodation.

Let nobody tell me about the treatment which young married couples get when the first child is born. I have had personal experience of this. They live in flats and when the child is born and the wife is in hospital the landlady pushes a note to quit under the door or, worse still, she has a key, opens the door and goes in, as often happens when landladies go in to see if the tenants have something they did not know about. It is shocking for a couple, when they are starting a family and arranging their future, to come across something they have not bargained for — no housing, no place to go. Bethlehem is re-enacted very often in this city and in other cities for many people who have their first child.

I met numerous people who tramped around Dublin city looking for accommodation. If they are single and have money everything is all right, but if they are married they will have to give certain information before they are considered for that accommodation. If they have one, two or three children there is no way they will be considered. We are told this is a great Catholic country. It is a pity we do not have more Christians in it.

The kernel of this problem is that more people are looking for accommodation than there is accommodation available. I and most other Deputies would like to see anybody who wanted rented accommodation and was prepared to pay for it get such accommodation. There are many cases of young people living in, say, a two-roomed wooden structure. These people can be found in our villages and towns as well as in Dublin city. These wooden structures have electricity and power supplied by an illegally connected meter from the landlord's house. This structure is illegally built in the back garden and a man, wife and their children live in that accommodation. I know of a family who had to move from the so-called bedroom into the so-called kitchen/sittingroom because there were three rats in the bedroom and they were afraid their baby of a few weeks old would be eaten or that they would be bitten. This is the situation in 1981. That man has been in that area for only a few years. He is in the Army and because he is not a native of the area he finds it very difficult to get on the housing list. This means he has to wait until something happens and he gets accommodation which will provide him with a room for himself and his wife and another for the children.

This housing shortage is the result of the failure of this Government and previous Government to face up to a problem which was difficult to solve. At least we attempted to do something. We started the ball rolling. We made the change from the Department of Justice — who could not be blamed for not caring; it was not in their bailiwick — to the Department of Local Government, now the Department of the Environment.

As Minister for Local Government I would not have been happy to see such a problem left to one side for a further four years if I had been in office. It had been my intention to deal with the matter within a period of 12 months. It might not have been the ideal way to deal with this problem but suggestions could have been made in this House to improve the legislation. This problem will never be solved if the Minister for the Environment sits back, shrugs his shoulders and says that because of something or other there is nothing he can do about it. I want to assure him that if we have something to do with government we will do something about it.

Mr. Mitchell

It was a pleasure to hear Deputy Tully's contribution. He has shown clearly not only his grasp of this matter but he has also shown that he has ideas how to resolve these problems in a fair and compassionate way. In comparison with the Minister's lamentable performance, Deputy Tully's contribution can only be considered as a tour de force.

In so far as I have made a charge against any Member of this House I will willingly withdraw it, but I would ask you to point out what——

An Leas-Cheann Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has withdrawn the charge and he may continue his speech.

Mr. Mitchell

I said "in so far as it relates to any Member of this House". A letter from Senator Eoin Ryan, director of elections for Fianna Fáil, making a solemn commitment in this area has been read in this House. Time has shown that that commitment is not worth the paper on which it was written and I do not think there are many people who would not make the same deduction about the standing of Fianna Fáil in this matter.

Deputy Tully highlighted the situation very well from both the tenants' and landlords' points of view. He pointed out the anomalies where tenants are being overcharged for their accommodation. He highlighted cases where the heirs and successors of previous tenants are being undercharged and, perhaps, enjoying very good accommodation for very little money, while the heirs and successors of the original owners are often living in less comfortable accommodation. These are two extremes but there are many other anomalies. There is no reason why the independent tribunal referred to in the motion could not be set up speedily. Four years ago Fianna Fáil gave a written commitment to set up such a tribunal. It is still not too late to try to resolve the whole mess involving landlords and tenants.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 12 May 1981

Private Members' Business. - Landlord and Tenant Tribunals: Motion.

An Leas-Cheann Cheann Comhairle

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 May 1981