Private Members' Business. - Landlord and Tenant Tribunals: Motion (resumed). – Dáil Éireann (21st Dáil) – Wednesday, 13 May 1981

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

The following motion was moved by Deputy Keating on 12 May 1971:

That Dáil Éireann, concerned about many inequities in the present situation offending against the best interest 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.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

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".

—(Minister for the Environment.)

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South-Central): I will be very brief on this motion because, as the Minister pointed out last night, it is ill-conceived at this particular time because the subject matter is before the Supreme Court. I would like, however, to say a few words on it, as Deputy Keating saw fit to place it on the Order Paper. The amendment put down by the Minister answers the case as far as Deputy Keating is concerned. It asks that Dáil Éireann:

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.

That speaks for itself as regards the intention of the Government in the field of rented accommodation. We all know that in Dublin and other cities throughout the country there is a problem in regard to rented accommodation. This side of the House can take pride in always having encouraged the purchase of private houses.

I believe it is the ambition of all married couples to own their own houses. Many householders who bought their homes 15 or 20 years ago realise the wisdom of those decisions today. Even though the cost of houses has increased considerably over the years, I believe it is still the ambition of many married couples to buy their own homes. We must realise that, with the expansion of urban dwellings and the increased number of people moving into the cities, it is not possible for everyone to purchase their own homes. A considerable number of people must get rented accommodation, which is acquired under several headings. We know there are many people living in houses for 50 and 60 years that are owned by landlords. We know there are many people living in flats on furnished flat terms. There are also furnished apartments which are being developed in many parts of the city. All those matters will have to be taken into consideration by the Government at the appropriate time.

We must ensure that a fair balance is applied right across the board. I believe rented accommodation is here to stay. I know that many people in the suburbs who have their families reared and who occupy large houses are moving into flats, which are being made available. Special provisions were made in this year's budget to ensure that this type of accommodation is made available. I hope when the terms are drawn up that the rent will be at a reasonable cost.

I sympathise with people living in rented accommodation because I believe they are at a disadvantage in comparison with the people who own their own homes, despite the fact that the repayments may be expensive in the initial stages. Differential rents are taken into consideration in local authority rented accommodation. One disadvantage which people living in private rented accommodation have, and which will have to be looked at, is that the rent they pay is not taken into consideration in relation to income tax. Many of those people are paying substantial rent for one, two or three rooms. This accommodation can cost them £30 or £40 a week. We must ensure that a certain proportion of this rent is allowable for income tax purposes. The people in this rented accommodation will have to be given the same concession as people buying their own houses. We must also ensure that no person exploits the people in rented accommodation and that when concessions are given to them this will not lead to their landlords demanding more rent. I am sure the Government will take this into consideration because the Minister said in his amendment that all such matters will be taken into consideration when the decision is taken in the Supreme Court.

I believe there are many rented houses in a bad condition because the landlords do not carry out the necessary repairs. Landlords should be encouraged to repair their houses so that this rented accommodation is not allowed to deteriorate further. There are many families in my constituency who have been living in the same houses for 50 or 60 years. Some of those people were young married couples when they moved into this rented accommodation and their grandchildren are now occupying those houses. Special consideration should be given to old age pensioners who are occupying those dwellings. The Minister should ensure that those people are not put in an intolerable situation if the court decision goes a particular way. I do not want to move into this field because I realise this matter is sub judice. I can understand the Ceann Comhairle's position about entering into this area but the Minister will have to take cognisance of the situation if it arises to ensure that people who have lived in certain areas all their lives are protected by legislation.

The Minister and his predecessor were seriously considering the area of rent restrictions, but because proceedings were initiated in 1978 on this issue it was not possible to develop legislation. As the Minister stated in his amendment, we will deal with this matter immediately the decision is known. That is very important. It is the Government's intention to study the problem very closely, because about 300,000 to 400,000 people occupy rented accommodation. That is a substantial number. This is a very important factor and we must ensure that a fair balance is struck for both sides — as regards the landlord to ensure he gets an income which will enable him to keep his property in good condition and as regards the tenants to ensure they are getting fair accommodation at a reasonable rent. These are the facts the Government must face.

Many people in rented accommodation feel very insecure because they do not know how long they can remain in their flats. If a young married couple have a child they may have to leave their flat. This is the type of sensitive issue which will have to be looked into by the Government. These are very relevant facts and I am sure the Minister will be examining them very closely in the near future.

I do not wish to prolong this debate which the Minister clearly established last night is ill-conceived and ill-timed. It is indicative of Deputy Keating's political immaturity that, at a time when basic aspects of the statute law governing rents and relations between landlords and tenants are under adjudication by the Supreme Court, he should ask the Dáil to demand the establishment of tribunals to deal with these matters. His snide comment about the courts "who are in session now and again"— in other words, working only intermittently — shows his regard for the courts. Apart from the impropriety of debating in this House matters which are still sub judice, the motion must raise doubts about the sincerity of the speakers who moved and supported it.

During the four-and-a-half years the Coalition Government were in office, and when Deputy Tully was Minister for Local Government, not one single item of legislation to deal with the problems affecting landlords and tenants was enacted. The parties' manifestos issued at the time of the last Dáil and local elections contained no evidence of concern or good intentions about the solution of these problems. Last night Deputy Keating accused the Government of not doing anything in this area. These words would be far more appropriate if applied to the Coalition's Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully. He did hardly anything in this area when he was in office.

Deputy Keating and Deputy Tully thundered about the present Government reneging on absolute commitments and undertakings about the establishment of rent tribunals given to the National Flatdwellers Association in Senator Eoin Ryan's letter of 7 June 1977. This is completely dishonest — and less excusable because they both had before them at that time a copy of that letter. They were aware that the letter contained only one firm commitment, which did not relate to the establishment of rent tribunals. It merely stated that the Fianna Fáil Party would be in favour of setting up tribunals.

This Government took office in July 1977. Since then three important Acts governing the relationship of landlords and tenants have been enacted. Considerable progress has been made with further proposals for legislation dealing with aspects referred to in Senator Eoin Ryan's letter and including provision for the registration of rented accommodation. However, actions on these necessarily had to be suspended when proceedings were instituted in the High Court in July 1978 challenging the constitutionality of the Rent Restriction Acts. Once the decision of the Supreme Court is known, work can be resumed on these measures, due regard being had to the terms of that decision.

Deputies will realise from what I have said that the Government intend to proceed along the lines outlined in this amendment. Because proceedings were instituted in 1978 the Government were inhibited from introducing further legislation. When the decision of the Supreme Court is known, legislation will be introduced and this problem can be considered in detail to ensure that a fair and equitable balance is drawn between these sections of our community.

Many people opt for rented accommodation, especially people without children. I believe rented accommodation will be favoured in the future because a substantial number of flats are now being built. In the inner parts of Dublin rented accommodation is at a premium because people want to live near their places of work. Because of our very bad traffic congestion there is great demand for centre city accommodation. When the Minister looks at all these proposals I have no doubt he will take all these matters into consideration.

The Minister should consider allowing a certain amount of rent to be charged against income tax because if people were buying their homes instead of renting them some of the interest repayments would be offset against their tax liability. That is a valid point and should be considered by the Minister when he is preparing legislation in the light of the Supreme Court decision, which we hope will not be too long delayed.

I am particularly concerned about old people in rented homes for the past 30 or 40 years. I hope they will not find themselves in an intolerable situation when rents would be increased far beyond their ability to pay. I ask the Minister to consider that particularly.

Mr. Belton

The motion states:

It is a simple, clear statement of fact. Everyone agrees there are inequities on the side of both landlord and tenant. If evidence was needed it is in the letter written by Senator Ryan, Fianna Fáil Director of Elections, in 1977. In his letter he stated:

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 will still get a fair return from their investment and that they have protection against bad tenants.

There is little difference between this motion and that statement by Senator Ryan who went on to state:

We fully appreciate that the private sector provides a large part of the rented accommodation in the city of Dublin but 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. We would like to see the private sector being encouraged to provide good accommodation with certain minimum standards, with a rent that is fair to the tenant and fair to the landlord.

The motion calls for the setting up of an independent tribunal, and Deputy Fitzpatrick has just doubted the wisdom or the use of founding such a tribunal. I would point out to him that Senator Ryan in that letter advocated setting up a tribunal to which landlords and tenants could have recourse for the purpose of fixing fair rents and deciding disputes between the parties. This motion does not call for any more or any less, and we may be pardoned if we wonder why in the intervening years that party, who were returned with a clear-cut majority, did not try to put into effect the terms of Senator Ryan's letter. Instead of the pious platitudes then expressed we have not got any action of the sort.

We on this side realise fully the deplorable shortage of housing in Dublin because of lack of finance. Dublin Corporation have schemes on which they are anxious to embark but their efforts have been curtailed or postponed because of limitation of housing finance. We are told that we get a certain percentage increase each year, but if you judge it against the rate of inflation it means a cut-back in finance and, even with the best will in the world, Dublin Corporation are being prevented from building houses. They have to utilise the moneys made available to them in priority areas which will yield the best results, and private housing has become the Cinderella of the whole housing programme. We have been told that about 400,000 people are living in private-rented accommodation, but the amount of public funds directed to this area is negligible despite all the statements of the Government party prior to the last election. They have either competely ignored those pious promises or they have forgotten them.

We know the unsatisfactory conditions prevailing from the point of view of rented accommodation and we appreciate that both landlords and tenants in some cases find themselves in a difficult position: some tenants are exploited by unscrupulous landlords but there is compete lack of support for law-abiding landlords.

Many years ago when I was canvassing I spoke to a lady who pointed to a house across the road which she had let at £3 or £4 a week and which she could not increase because of rent restriction law. She said she had rented the house to a person and that that person occupied a flat in the house but had sublet two flats at £4 or £5 each. She told me she had brought this to the notice of the present Taoiseach — I do not know if he was even a Parliamentary Secretary at the time — and he told her that there were more votes on the other side of the road than on her side.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting into the area of the Supreme Court appeal. It is cases like that which are subject to the Supreme Court pending appeal. This leaves the Chair in an awkward position as well as Deputies.

Mr. Belton

However, there is lack of support for one side of the road because there were more votes on the other side.

Another thing that should be abolished completely is any discrimination by landlords against tenants on any grounds of class, creed or colour. Too often we hear of young married couples who have become private tenants and are in the premises a short time, but as soon as the first baby arrives they are ordered to get out by the landlord. In many cases they are unjustly and illegally evicted. All these matters are in urgent need of special examination. We could do that by establishing these tribunals and allowing tenants and landlords to have recourse to them. In that way we could avoid all this exploitation by private landlords who are charging as much as £20 per week for one room in some areas which are not the most select areas and are often in very dingy surroundings. The landlords, for their part, are only allowed a very small amount for repairs, and if this tribunal were established the landlords could then make a case for necessary repairs and we would thus ensure that private rented accommodation would be of standard to meet the requirements of tenants.

We also entirely oppose illegal evictions. In many cases landlords have gone in and, without any approval from the courts or otherwise, have changed locks on doors so that the tenants have come back to find their belongings left out on the street. They could go to the Garda and get back in again, but a lot of these people are unaware of their rights and in many cases they are afraid that, if they go back in, life will be made unbearable by the landlord cutting off water or electricity. There are several means which landlords can apply to make life a misery and make sure that the tenant will leave as soon as possible. We are asking in a fair-minded way for tribunals to be set up as soon as possible. It is not right to say that we are only now advocating the setting up of tribunals. Four years ago the people on the opposite side of the House stated in a letter to the National Flatdwellers Association that they were in favour of setting up tribunals. We are asking them to, even now, implement what they favoured at that time.

I do not think I need to say very much more. I am sure any Deputy in the Dublin area who is conversant with the problems facing tenants, and the desperate plight that people seeking reasonable accommodation are in, will tell the Minister that there is a need for some type of tribunal, some court where people can meet and talk. It is a regular thing for any Dublin Deputy to find people who are chasing around Dublin looking for accommodation. I know of several instances where people are paying as much as £35 and £40 a week for reasonable accommodation, for just a couple of rooms. In many cases even a single room will cost £20 to £25. These people have no other accommodation and are compelled to pay these amounts of money. The Government should automatically agree with this motion and hasten the setting up of tribunals to give a fair hearing both to the landlords and to the tenants.

Mr. B. Desmond

I could bring any Member of this House to Abbey Road, Monkstown, where about 30 three-storey houses have been converted to flats. Each house has been converted into three flats and the garage has also been converted. In this instance I am talking about a flat comprising of one bedroom, a sittingroom and an annex kitchen and the rent chargeable is £35 per week. I could bring the Minister to the workers in Warner Road, Lambert Road and Pottery Road whose take-home pay is £75 per week out of a gross wage of £100 a week and who pay £35 per week to live in that kind of accommodation. The houses in question are owned by people who are speculating in property. Very often they are not wealthy people; they move to another house while they get rent of £105 per week from their other property.

I hold the view that we should have some system involving an appeals tribunal which would enable a tenant to go to the tribunal and to explain the kind of accommodation he has and the rent he pays for it. There should be some way of assessing a fair and reasonable rent. I do not think it is beyond our capacity to devise such a system. We can afford the National Prices Commission, the Restrictive Practices Commission, we can afford sanction for motor vehicle insurance and a national insurance system whereby we pay pay-related social insurance.

Apparently when it comes to renting a house, the sky is the limit. Landlords can say as they have said to tenants in my constituency: "I have just sold that house. I told the person I sold it to that I would give him vacant possession. You are on a week to week tenancy. The rent is no longer £25 a week. It is now £45 per week as from next week. Out you get". The tenants say: "I am sorry. I have nowhere to go". The landlord then proceeds to evict the tenant through the normal judical process. The local authority say: "We cannot house you because we do not house people for non-payment of rent". In effect, the landlord can do what he likes.

I accept that there are protected tenancies where individual landlords need a degree of relief. Due to protected tenancies some landlords are losing money. There should be a fair and equitable system for landlords and tenants. The current system is a joke. It is a disgrace. At the end of the life time of this Dáil, we have 15 Cabinet Ministers and a clutch of Ministers of State swanning around the country for the past two-and-a-half years doing God only knows what, apart from admiring their profiles in front of a Mercedes and obviously producing no legislation. This Government have introduced no legislation in this area. People are being exploited. People are in dire distress. Through no fault of their own some individuals have not been able to buy their own private domestic accommodation on the open market. Therefore, they must have recourse to ordinary rented accommodation.

I can give the Minister a very simple case. A constituent of mine who became redundant in the UK had council accommodation in Dagenham. He lost his job in the motor vehicle industry. It was a very good job but it was strictly a motor vehicle production job in Fords. He came back to Dún Laoghaire and he could not get a job. He was 55 years of age and he had pay-related social welfare for himself and his wife of £55 a week. On arrival in Dún Laoghaire he had no option but to go into accommodation at a cost of £30 a week.

There is nothing unusual about the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. The same situation applies in Harolds Cross, or Fairview, or Clontarf, or any other part of the north side. That left him with £25 a week. He has had no employment for the past 18 months or two years and I have seen him and his wife visibly fading away. Do we give a damn? We do not. I have a house. The Minister of State has a house. The vast bulk of Deputies have privately owned accommodation. There may be a unique one among us who lives in a local authority house but if he does he has probably bought it. Because we all have our own accommodation the vast bulk of the electorate could not care less about tenants. The problem does not impinge on their daily lives.

Therefore, there is a need to set up a system of independent tribunals to pronounce on questions relating to rent and conditions to which both landlord and tenant may have recourse. I am glad the Supreme Court judgment is awaited. It will bring matters to a head in relation to protected private rented accommodation. We will welcome that. I prefer to deal with the broader general issue.

The letter from Senator Eoin Ryan the former national director of elections for the Fianna Fáil Party, has been trotted out and has now become part of the folklore of this issue. That is the letter of 7 June 1977 when all the promises were made about two weeks before the election when the National Flatdwellers Association's votes were attempted to be bought. I know Senator Eoin Ryan personally and I regard him as an honourable and competent person. I presume he wrote it at the behest of whatever committee was dishing out the promises. It was a classic election promise but nothing was done about it as soon as the election was over.

Senator Ryan stated quite bluntly that it was their view that legislation should be enacted to provide protection for tenants of flats or houses but, at the same time, to ensure that landlords got a fair return on their investment and they had protection against bad tenants. Those are laudable sentiments. The letter goes on to say that the Fianna Fáil Party 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 to decide disputes between the parties. That was an absolute commitment. What happened? As soon as the election was over it did not merit the status of toilet paper in the Custom House. That is a cynical and disgraceful abuse of election attitudes.

I have no doubt that, in the course of the election campaign we are now facing, if tenants berate Government Ministers on the doorstep they will get the same quota of bland assurances about what the party stand for. If Fianna Fáil are returned to office they will do absolutely nothing about it. While such tenants represent a number of votes they do not as yet represent such a powerful block of votes as to exercise an emphatic influence on the social policy of the Fianna Fáil Party.

I am in favour of this motion. I feel very strongly about it. We often hear of investigative journalism. It has a happy penchant of being investigative about everything that is not relevant to the social and economic spectrum. I wish that all the journalists, all the political correspondents, all the media cameras would concentrate on the kind of abnormal social conditions in which young people getting married have to live for perhaps three, four, five or ten years — in miserable, unsanitary flats, sharing a bathroom, sharing a toilet, sharing a shower, not to mention not having hot water in their own room but sharing those conditions with two or three other families and all the tension, aggravation and annoyance that can cause all the tenants of a particular house.

Because the vast bulk of politicians are middle-class, as are the vast bulk of media representatives, people who have their own homes, who have never suffered the deprivation of lower incomes which many people have had to suffer in terms of private rented accommodation, I wish that they had to queue up in the Jervis Street Housing allocation section of Dublin Corporation, or in the Town Hall in Dún Laoghaire, queue up for hours on end in the housing section of Dublin County Council, week after week, month after month, hoping against hope that they might be sufficiently lucky at the end of five or six years of misery of literally having to pay £20, £25 and £30 a week rent to get a local authority dwelling. The politicians of this House should have to undergo that exercise, be almost compulsorily evicted from the comfort of their homes, and see their own children go through it and then they would appreciate the kind of misery and suffering experienced by a very small but nonetheless discriminated against sector of our society.

If I have spoken in such harsh terms it is because any politician, no matter how long he or she has been in this House, cannot but be moved by the discrimination and exploitation that goes on in relation to private rented accommodation. Any elector in this country cannot but be absolutely cynical about politicians who make promises that they will do this, that and the other about rent tribunals and so on and then swan their way through the lifetime of a Dáil doing absolutely nothing about that kind of operation. At the end of the lifetime of this Dáil, as far as I am concerned, on this issue we can collectively, Government and Opposition, but more particularly Government, hang our heads in shame because we have done nothing in this area.

Once again we have a Government saying, "We cannot do anything because the Supreme Court is about to pronounce". When it comes to contraception the Supreme Court runs this country. When it comes to family law reform the Supreme Court runs this country. When it comes to income tax assessment between the State and individual families the Supreme Court runs this country and, when it comes to the landlord and tenant relationship, now the Supreme Court is also expected to run this country. What have we got a Dáil Éireann for? Do we have to hand over every socially desirable advance in the community to the Supreme Court? As far as I am concerned this is an abject rejection by the Dáil of our responsibility to do something in this area. We can bring it to the President, we can ask him to sign the Bill. If he does not want to sign it then he can consult on the matter and, ultimately, the Supreme Court can judge whether or not it is constitutional. But now so brazenly incompetent and incapable of reading a Government memorandum are two-thirds of this Dáil, Government and Opposition, so bereft are we of any spark of simple legislative imagination we cannot sit down and spend a couple of hours together, particularly around the Cabinet table and say there is a serious problem obtaining, let us try to do something about it.

As in the case of the Supreme Court issue, where there are protected tenants who are paying in some instances miniscule rents, in respect of which landlords are demanding some relief and, where in other instances, there are landlords who want to go the whole hog, getting everything for themselves; where, above all, the vast bulk of tenants in this country who are not living in what could be described as reasonable rent conditions, surely it is not beyond the comprehension or capacity of this Dáil to bring about a remedy in the national interest, in the best interests of both landlords and tenants.

By and large every country in Europe has managed in one way or another to come to grips with this issue under far more pressing and difficult conditions. Whether it be Holland, Belgium or France they have reasonable recourse under law to reasonable protection for landlords and tenants. In this country we are so busy participating at official functions it has almost reached the stage now at which Ministers of State are going about at such a rate that somebody, some day, will produce an Oireachtas envelope, there will be an official opening of that envelope, and there will be a script describing how that official Oireachtas envelope was opened. There will be photographs taken of Ministers of State standing in front of Mercedes cars officially opening the Oireachtas envelope. It has virtually reached that stage because, with respect to the Cabinet, that is about the limit of their capability. Even then they would have to be provided with a bloody big scythe to open that official Oireachtas envelope, making sure they would not cut their heads off in the process so incompetent are some of them.

This motion has great urgency. I make one positive commitment on behalf of my party at the next general election, that I will state here now quite categorically — and I have discussed the matter with Deputy James Tully, a former Minister, who tried his damnedess to convince some of his then Cabinet colleagues on the other side——

Mr. Keating

Mentioning no names.

Mr. B. Desmond

——but we nearly did it, and we will do it yet — to introduce that legislation because, as the Minister knows——

Mr. Connolly

And they did nothing about it.

Mr. B. Desmond

The memorandum was written in the Department of Local Government and was brought in by Deputy Tully, who very nearly scored a goal. Instead all he got was a fairly miserable fifty, and he did not fail to score a point on that issue.

We know now what we have to do. Certainly I give a commitment on behalf of my party. I am delighted Deputy Keating moved this motion. I am quite sure he has given a commitment also that, in the event of an alternative Government coming in here, one of the first things we will do is introduce that kind of amending legislation.

Mr. Keating

Hear, hear.

Mr. B. Desmond

There is an absolute need for it. Therefore I give that commitment with a heart-and-a-half, and it will not cost a great deal of money. All it will cost is the printing of the White Paper and memorandum, the subsequent White Bill and then the Green Bill. Therefore, I am very pleased to support this motion.

Mr. O'Keeffe

It is very appropriate that this motion should be before the House at this time. It is appropriate because of the merits of the motion and also in the context of an imminent general election. It recalls to all our minds the fate of those foolish enough to believe in election promises made by Fianna Fáil.

At this stage it is quite clear that this motion exposes an absolute brazen breach of promise by this Government. It is clear to me at this stage, as a relative newcomer, that the whole area of politics of promise has been thoroughly debased by Fianna Fáil. It is very important that the people be reminded of that because already we have the promise machine cranking up with no doubt in the very near future, many more such promises falling from the Fianna Fáil election machine like autumn leaves.

Do this Government party, who are temporarily in office, ever consider the damage they are doing to the whole democratic process by conducting themselves in this fashion? Are the Government not aware that the whole basis of our democratic system is consensus, the feeling of trust and reliance, and that by carrying on in this fashion this party are digging out the very roots of democracy. The result of a continuation of this policy will be an electorate totally disillusioned and cynical. In case members of the Fianna Fáil Party might think I am overharsh in this, I could run through a list of dozens of similar type commitments made at the time of the election. The one closest to what we are talking about is the famous abolition of ground rents. Hundreds of thousands of people were taken in by that promise.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should deal with the motion before the House.

Mr. O'Keeffe

The relevance of this motion is that it totally exposes the falseness of the present Government party in making promises for election purposes without the slightest intention of fulfilling them. It is essential for me as a member of the Opposition to point out the damage that that kind of approach does to the democratic system. I will not go through the endless list of promises made in 1977 which were not fulfilled, but I promise the Government that they might hear more about those in the near future.

How can the Minister's Government now pretend that that is an issue even open to doubt or question, when the Minister gave that commitment in June 1977? Is the Minister suggesting that, depending on the possible announcement of a decision by the Supreme Court, what he said then might not be implemented? The truth is that the Minister is evading responsibility in this area, as he and the Government have done in many other areas. I reiterate that, whatever response the Government could reasonably have made in the circumstances, this was not one of them. I defy the Minister, or any spokesman on the far side, to show me where, in the motion as tabled, there is reference to any matter presently under consideration by the Supreme Court. It is not there, because we respect the courts and would not seek to pre-empt their deliberations on this matter. We were concerned about the serious problems of hundreds of thousands of tenants who, in some cases, live at present in hovels and in respect of whom the Government made clear and unequivocal promises and have done nothing about them.

The National Flatdwellers' Association, the Irish Landlords Law Reform Association, individual landlords and individual tenants, and every public representative in this House, know full well that the present situation obtaining in the private rented sector is fundamentally most unsatisfactory. It is in need of major review. We on this side of the House outlined last night the principles on which action in our case will follow, given a change of Government. I unequivocally assure those who may be concerned about that matter that when we say that we will do something, we mean it. Perhaps we are fortunate that some of the issues at the very heart of this debate, like the setting up of the tribunals to which I referred incidentally not just tribunals in relation to rent, which need not necessarily be successful, but in relation to rent and fair conditions, to which both sides may have recourse — are not matters which any Government or Minister for Finance, beleagured and beset as they are to try to find a few bob to get themselves out of the trouble and mess into which they have got themselves in the past number of years, have to worry about. It is a matter where we honestly sit down with all sides and say "There is a problem here. Let us introduce the mechanics, the formula to deal with that problem".

We have also suggested — although the Minister in his discussions on the Finance Bill this afternoon did not exactly rise to the occasion with enthusiasm — that the tenants should be entitled to offset at least part of their rent against income tax. The Minister's concern this evening hinged on the fact that tenants at, we will call it, all levels of the social spectrum would benefit therefrom. I find that frankly amusing, coming from a Minister who, not two months ago, introduced into this House a budget which gave massive handouts to people about whom, with all respect, it can be said that they do not have to worry certainly where the next meal comes from. If social justice is to be the grounds of prevarication on that side of the House, I am deeply dubious and deeply suspicious. The truth is that we have invested and are investing hundreds of thousands of pounds annually — millions in certain areas of the housing sector — in the private housing sector and local authority housing sector and I am pleased that we are doing that. Investment in housing is an investment in our future and that of all our children to come. What we have not done is looked at the existing needs of young families, perhaps couples with a child or two who find themselves pinioned, perhaps for ever, in private rented accommodation where they are paying a rent which is exorbitant in respect of the accommodation supplied, who are unable to put together the increasing deposit which is now necessary to get themselves out of that mess, and find that the cost of housing is now soaring beyond bounds which any of us involved in projection three or four years ago would have deemed to be incredible.

The Cinderella of the housing sector, private rented accommodation, needs to be brought in out of the cold. This should be done on the basis of the principles which I outlined at some length last night: firstly, the introduction of the offsetting of some part of the rent against income tax on the part of tenants of private rented accommodation: secondly, the giving to landlords of a substantial grant package, not less than £35 million, to ensure that they could genuinely introduce modernisation and improvements to their property, as long as it was kept as part of the housing stock; thirdly, the setting up of the tribunals we referred to, which the Minister's party swore that they would introduce but which have not been introduced — tribunals to which landlords and tenants could have recourse on any matter of dispute between them; fourthly the introduction of legislation which would outlaw discrimination on the grounds of colour, class, creed, or any other form of discrimination which would be seen to be unjust.

One of the abiding shames of this country, which is supposed to be Christian, is that a mother and father with a young child will either be evicted from private rented accommodation, or will not be able to get it in the first place. The biggest fear of many young couples who may be looking for their own home and unable to buy a house is that the wives would become pregnant. We have all known of cases where that mother-to-be has had to hide that pregnancy, lie, cheat, and be deceitful about it in order to get a home. That is wrong and if it needs legislation to outlaw that, let us have it; fifthly, there should be registration of all private rented accommodation. This is at present obligatory in many local authority areas, but is ignored. Local authorities are afraid of their lives of what would happen if that were to be insisted upon. It would mean a massive precipitation onto housing lists of couples all over the country who are presently living in conditions which are illegal, unlawful and, in some cases, unfit for human habitation. What are the Government and the Minister doing about that? They keep their heads down and duck responsibility and pretend that the matter is being considered in the courts. That is deceit, also.

We expect and anticipate in relation to the Rent Restrictions Act, which is the subject of the Supreme Court deliberations, that there will be a clearing up of that, one way or the other. It will, at least, pave the way, because presumably it will remove the political excuse — though, who knows, perhaps another excuse, perhaps a commission on landlord and tenant legislation, or a review body, or some other reason for inaction will be invented.

Mr. Keating

That is what this debate is about. It is about the evasions by the Government, not of aspirations for political progress in respect of which we can all agree, but in respect of specific undertakings given in June 1977 on Fianna Fáil notepaper to the National Flatdwellers' Association — to gullible members of the public who believed them then. They will not believe them on the next election day.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 31.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Kit.
Andrews, David.
Andrews, Niall.
Aylward, Liam.
Barrett, Sylvester.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Conaghan, Hugh.
Connolly, Gerard.
Coughlan, Clement.
Crinion, Brendan.
Daly, Brendan.
Davern, Noel.
Farrell, Joe.
Filgate, Eddie.
Fitzgerald, Gene.
Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
Fitzsimons, James N.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Fox, Christopher J.
French, Seán.
Gallagher, Dennis.
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
Herbert, Michael.
Hussey, Thomas.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Raphael P.
Callanan, John.
Calleary, Seán.
Cogan, Barry.
Colley, George.
Collins, Gerard.
Keegan, Seán.
Kenneally, William.
Killeen, Tim.
Killilea, Mark.
Leonard, Tom.
Leyden, Terry.
Loughnane, William.
Molloy, Robert.
Moore, Seán.
Morley, P.J. Murphy, Ciarán P.
Noonan, Michael.
O'Donoghue, Martin.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Leary, John.
Reynolds, Albert.
Smith, Michael.
Woods, Michael J.

Níl

Barry, Peter.
Barry, Richard.
Belton, Luke.
Boland, John.
Bruton, John.
Burke, Joan.
Byrne, Hugh.
Cluskey, Frank.
Collins, Edward.
Conlan, John F.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Cosgrave, Michael J.
Crotty, Kieran.
D'Arcy, Michael J.
Deasy, Martin A.
Desmond, Barry.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Griffin, Brendan.
Harte, Patrick D.
Horgan, John.
Keating, Michael.
L'Estrange, Gerry.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Toole, Paddy.
Taylor, Frank.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.
White, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 14 May 1981.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 13 May 1981

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

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 May 1981