The question upon which the debate was adjourned was that this Bill be now read a second time.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - TOWN TENANTS BILL, 1924. (SECOND STAGE—RESUMED.)
I do not intend to speak at any great length upon this, because I think the Bill has killed itself. I approach this Town Tenants Bill from the point of view of the great scarcity of houses existing all over Ireland. Should this Town Tenants Bill go through, the situation would be even worse than it is, because, as I pointed out when I was last speaking on the subject, should this go through there would be no landlord who would be inclined to let a house to a tenant. And it is because I am interested in housing that I would oppose this Bill from that point of view. There is a clause in the Bill, too, which is very objectionable and which will lead to endless trouble between landlord and tenant, and it is this: In the Bill a tenant will have the right to compel his landlord to come along and do certain repairs, and sometimes, as you know, tenant and landlord fall out, and they are not on friendly terms; and the tenant may demand a very unreasonable repair to his house, and if the landlord refuses, that tenant, according to the Bill, can bring in an outside contractor and get the work done, and send the bill on to his landlord. That will lead to endless friction between landlord and tenant. It is a very objectionable clause. No good landlord will allow his house to go into disrepair or go into ruin. To my mind, it is quite unnecessary to put in a clause of that kind, for any landlord, who will want his house to exist and to be a source of income to him, will not allow it to go into such ruin and disrepair that a clause of that kind will be needed.
I would support a Bill that would include tenants, such as those who would have started a business, and from their energy and ability would have built up a business there and made it a very valuable house. I certainly would support a measure that would safeguard a tenant of that kind, that would give him an interest in that house, so that if the landlord or the owner wanted to dispossess him, he would be recompensed for the ability that he had displayed and the work that he had done in making the house more valuable than it had been when he got it.
Deputy Lyons spoke about certain tenants that he knew whose rents were increased from 5s. to £1 5s. Deputy Lyons would want you to believe that all tenants were absolutely perfect, and landlords quite the reverse. Well, I should like to say something that I know about tenants. I happen to be chairman of a certain council, and under that council there are 750 tenants. In pre-war days the houses of these tenants were let at very low rents, absolutely as low as possible. In the course of time, with the increased cost of repairs and other things, the Council found that there was a deficit yearly of between £2,000 and £3,000, and they thought that it was only reasonable to ask those tenants to bear their part of the burden. They did not like to put all the burden on the tenants, and they said: "We will divide the difference." The councillors thought that it would be well to divide the deficit, and they said: "We will not put it as an increase of rent; we will simply ask the tenants to pay the amount represented by the increase in rates." Those 750 houses are not all of one type. The rents vary from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. and 4s. 6d., and so on; and the increase that we were asking them to pay would, in the case of the cheaper houses, only amount to 5d. or 7d. or 9d., and so on. It was not looked upon as an increase of rent at all; it was an amount equal to the advance in rates, and the council were prepared to go half in the deficit. I am speaking of the facts. A deputation of three was appointed to wait on these tenants, and we certainly thought that they would jump at a thing like that, because it was so reasonable. They turned that proposal down and they would not accept it, they would not pay any increase, they would consider the matter in three months' time; and for six months they never paid a penny to that council, and to-day they owe £6,000. We hear about profiteering. What did we discover amongst those tenants who refused to pay a paltry sum equal to the amount of the increase of rates? We found that where they had houses themselves, and the whole house at a rent of 6s. or 6s. 6d. a week, and where there was a small family who could afford to let a room, they had rooms let at 7s. and 10s. a week each.
A good deal can be said on both sides. Perhaps there are bad landlords, and I think there are also bad tenants. Something must be done, and I think it is a great mistake to introduce a Bill of this kind, because it will not lead us where we would like to get. As I have said, the great cry to-day is for more houses, and a thing like this will certainly put a damper on house building. I would also say that these Rent Restrictions Acts and all those things will prevent house-building. What would regulate the market would be to allow a free hand to speculative builders and people who would be inclined to put their money into house property.
I rise to support the Bill, and I do so in advocacy of this fair rent court which Deputy Redmond seeks. I do not agree with everything in the Bill, but I believe in asking for a fair rent court at which the landlord, the tenant, and the State will be represented. Such a court would mean fair play, and surely no Government and no landlord will object to fair play. I do not wish to put any block on the progress of building. I speak against the existence of what I describe as a tyranny, poor people being forced to live in insanitary houses and men allowed to draw rent from them, which is against Christainity and humanity. The landlord simply takes the rent, is invited in by the tenant, and he can see nothing wrong with the house. There is no sanitation about the place, nothing but misfortune, and through want of proper housing the poor tenant is compelled to live under these circumstances. Consumptives are being taken out of some of these houses away to the sanatorium, or in coffins, and the houses are then criminally let to those who perhaps do not know what was there before them, and the result is danger to the incoming family, every one of whom may be stricken down by that dread disease in a short time. This is the class of house that I have risen to speak against, and that is the class of landlord that I condemn. If men are afraid to build houses there is nothing to prevent the State from saying that this Bill should not apply to future houses.
A licence might be granted which would safeguard those who would build decent houses and let them at reasonable rents. But the houses that the poor people in the villages and towns are forced to live in at present are a disgrace to Ireland; they are a shame to the country, with no sanitation, no comforts and no improvements. The landlord will not spend a penny on them, and, worse still, the sanitary authority will not compel him to do anything. There is one provision in the Local Government Bill regarding the appointment of independent doctors which everyone will welcome. Everyone would welcome an independent doctor or an engineer who would inspect the premises. There is nobody to look after them at present for various reasons. Another point is the right of pre-emption. If a landlord is about to sell a house and the tenant has sufficient money to purchase, I think that the tenant should have a preference in purchasing that house. I do not endorse everything that is in the Bill; I am merely trying to put forward what I think it would be very hard for the Government to refuse, and that is fair play to the tenants as well as to the landlord. That could be meted out to both by an independent court set up by the State. As we know, proper housing is vital to the lives of the people, because upon their comforts and upon their sanitary surroundings depend the people's health and the health of their children—never mind their wives. I think that it is mandatory on the Government to provide that any such obstacles as those in the way of rearing up people who would be able to compete in the future Tailteann Games should be removed immediately. If you want good men you must have good houses and rear the children in healthy surroundings. I take my courage in both hands, and I ask Deputy Redmond to withdraw almost everything in the Bill if the Government would adopt the fair rent court and the right of pre-emption. The Local Government Bill, although it passed its Second Reading, has gone to Limbo for a bit, and you would make a very good Coalition Bill if you were to combine the independent doctor in that Bill with the fair rent court and the right of pre-emption, and clear out the remainder of Deputy Redmond's Bill. If the Government would adopt these three essentials I think we would have a good Town Tenants Bill.
If the suggestion that Deputy Daly made to Deputy Redmond is acted on, I do not know how much of this Bill we would have for discussion. I, too, would take the line that Deputy Daly has taken, not in support of the Bill, but against it. I, too, would ask Deputy Redmond to get a scissors and cut the Bill, beginning at line 39 and ending after Section 4 or Section 5, and then I think we would support it. This Bill, in my opinion, would not only kill the building of houses at present, but would put in his coffin, screw down and bury the speculator in the building of houses for all time.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.
If we want to have houses for future generations the only alternative to doing away with private speculators is to build by means of State funds. You must either have the private speculator or the State. Must the houses for the future be erected by the State? Is that the proposition of Deputy Redmond? Is that the real meaning of this Bill, or its effect? If it will not be done by the State, if private enterprise is to have a chance, what is the meaning of this Bill, and what is the meaning of Section 2? There are grievances; everybody knows that town tenants have grievances, more grievances in the country than in the cities. All the towns and villages in the country are old and have been erected, practically speaking, by the occupiers. The property in most cases has been put up and improved by them.
A case certainly exists for granting compensation to those people for any improvements they have effected, but a different state of affairs altogether exists in Dublin and its townships and some of the cities, where the whole property has been put up by people who build houses—speculators, landlords, call them whatever you like. I call those people public benefactors, and I will continue to describe as such, those who are prepared to build. Comparison has been made between this Bill and the Land Acts. What is the actual comparison and what are the facts? Land Courts were set up to deal with land cases sometime in the early eighties or earlier. Those Land Courts were to take into consideration those who effected improvements—that is to say, those who put up the buildings, who did the drainage and the fencing, who perfected the approaches, and credit was given to whoever did these things. whether it was the landlord or the tenant. In cases where the landlord did those things, rent was charged on the land in proportion to the value of the improvements he made, whether building, drainage, or fencing. Anything the tenant did was put to his credit, and that was the groundwork of the Land Acts. What is the groundwork of the propositions in this Bill? It is to set aside whoever did the work and created the property, and give no compensation whatsoever to the men who put up the property, and did the work. Section 2 begins: "The tenant of every holding to which this Act applies, notwithstanding any provisions in the contract of tenancy to the contrary." Whoever would stand over what is contained in lines 2 and 3 would, to my mind, be devoid of any semblance of equity and fair play. We go on here to sub-section (4), clause 2, and we find that the landlord's interest in this property is valued at not less than 10 or not more than 15 years' purchase. Now, we come down to sub-section (3), section 3, when the tenant's interest comes to be valued, and we also find the same value—not less than 10 or not more than 15.
I do not know whether Deputy Gorey was present on the occasion of the Second Reading when I made my statement on that question. I said that it was never my intention that those figures should be inserted in sub-section (4), and, as far as I am concerned, I am willing to delete them. A mistake arose in a very natural way. Sub-section (4) deals with the question of whether the landlord is purchasing the tenant's interest——
Are we in order? If there is an error in the Bill, should not the Bill be withdrawn, and a Bill put before us which we could understand?
I am dealing with the Bill as I read it.
On a point of explanation, perhaps I may be allowed to tell Deputy Gorey that those figures in sub-section (4) were put there by a natural mistake.
Again I rise on a point of order. If a Bill is not accurate as it is put before us, should not the Bill be withdrawn?
I suggest that is a matter for Committee.
I have no illusions as to what Deputy Redmond meant. I believe he did not mean anything. Deputy Redmond, if he were candid, would tell us he did not stand for a line of the Bill.
I am candid in not standing over this portion.
It is very difficult to deal with this Bill, if we cannot deal with it as it is printed. If we have to deal with somebody else's interpretation of the Bill, it is a different matter. I understood we were giving a Second Reading to the Bill, and not a Second Reading to Deputy Redmond's speech. I am trying to get along with what is in front of me, and I find it difficult to get on. Apart from that, I come to the figures in sub-section (6) to Section 3. I find the very same figures here for the buying out of ground rents. It reminds me very much of the old method we had long ago in a publichouse of calling for "the same again." Here in this Bill it is the "same again," also.
I took the figures in the Land Act.
The Bill appears to me to be a boozers' Bill. I do not know what was in the minds of the people who framed it. That is what I am trying to get at. Does any sensible man stand up here and say that if a speculator builds a house, finds a tenant for it, and in five or six months time his tenant says: "I want not less than 10 years' purchase for my interest," if the speculator wants to get it back, he must pay that?
I find great difficulty in agreeing with any sentence in the Bill. The Bill is so bad that I do not think a decent Bill could be made out of it. The correct thing to do is, I think, to kill the Bill and give us one that the times demand and that a case can be made for. I see here "long leases" and "unexpired leases, either for lives or for a term of years." Those tenancies are not to come into the courts. Statutory obligations in that connection are to hold; statutory obligations in regard to other classes of tenancies are not to hold. It seems to me they want to have it both ways in this Bill. I do not think in justice they can have it both ways. If statutory obligations are good in an-one sense they ought to be good in another; if bad in one sense they ought to be bad in another. I suggest to Deputy Redmond that he should withdraw the Bill and put up one that we can support. I recognise that town tenants, especially down the country, have just grievances that must be met. The man who improves property ought to get 100 per cent. compensation for anything he has done. I cannot, however, stand over a Bill of this description that is not right in equity, justice, or anything else.
Yesterday I voted against a Bill, many of the provisions of which I approved of. I voted against it because the general purpose of it was to centralise local government in a bureaucracy. There are many things very objectionable in this Bill, but the general intention of it is to protect the interests of tenants in towns, to set up Fair Rent Courts to prevent the rapacity of landlords who show rapaciousness, and to enable the tenants of houses, shops, and other establishments to have fixity of tenure. For these reasons I intend to support the Second Reading. The general feeling of the Dáil, I think, is that there should be established Fair Rent Courts for town tenants and that occupants of houses and shops should have fixity of tenure. I am against speculation in land or in habitations. It is, I think, a bad practice and an evil principle to legislate on the assumption that land can be played with in markets and bought and sold for profit, or that houses can be played with in the same way. We know, as a matter of fact, that very many people in towns, as well as in cities, find themselves in the position, having entered into a tenancy, established a business and made the property valuable, that the landlord evicts them or demands a very much higher rental, not for any value he has created, but purely as a closure upon the values that other people have created. We have evidence that very many people are simply waiting in the hope that something may be done to protect occupants of houses, and more particularly of shops, from the confiscation that so many Deputies are afraid of when it comes to confiscation by a public authority for the public good. Here is threatened confiscation purely in the interests of private landlords. That, I think, is a practice that ought to be legislated against, and there is some attempt to do that in this Bill. The question of fair rents is also attempted to be dealt with, and provision is made for the establishment of courts for the fixing of fair rents. That I do not think is at the moment so urgent as it was two or three years ago, except in regard to business premises. Nevertheless, there is need in those cases for a Fair Rent Court so that some equity can be established between the landlord who is attempting to extract the last farthing in a competitive market and a tenant who is bound by his necessity for a living to continue his occupation of a particular premises.
For the reason that the Bill does make some attempt to move in that direction I am going to support the Second Reading. But there are defects in the Bill even from the point of view of fixity of tenure. I find, unfortunately, that the Bill is drafted so as to exclude from its provisions the great majority of the people who might be termed town tenants. In Section 1, for instance, I find (I am dealing now with the case of the weekly tenant of a house) that the tenant shall not be compelled to quit his holding except in consequence of a breach of certain conditions. The first condition which he must not break, on pain of being compelled to quit, is that he shall pay his rent at the appointed time. I suggest to those responsible for the Bill that that simply says to every weekly tenant, "If you fail to pay at the beginning of every week, then the protection that this Bill is intended to confer will not apply to you." Nearly every tenant of a weekly holding is supposed by the terms of his agreement to pay in advance, but he seldom does. If he fails to pay his weekly rent on the Monday morning, then he is no longer protected by the provisions of Section 1. That in itself proves that the interests of the householder are not the primary interests thought of in the drafting of this Bill, but rather the interests of the shopkeeper and business premises occupier. The provisions of Section 2 and the consequential sections have been criticised very severely, and very rightly criticised. I think they are quite impossible, but I am not criticising from the point of view of the landlord. I am criticising them from the point of view of the tenant.
I say the effect of Section 2 would be, simply, to impose on all the present occupiers of houses the liability to pay compensation, if ever they wanted to remove. For instance, if a person lost his employment in Dublin, and had to seek it in Cork, it is impossible to get a house in Cork without paying £10,£20, £30, £40, £50 or £150 to the occupying tenant. As a matter of fact, this section of the Bill should appeal to the economic sense of Deputy Hewat, and Deputy Good particularly, and also to Deputies who are so insistent on the rights of private property. Here you have an attempt to create new properties for the benefit of the individual. Deputy Good and Deputy Hewat should be delighted to support a Bill of this kind. I have a record here of a resolution that was supported by Deputy Hewat which testifies to the accuracy of my contention. Deputy Hewat suggested that an inquiry should be instituted into the possibility of solving the housing problem by utilising the State's inherent right to control and issue credit. The Bill is founded on the assumption that occupancy of houses and premises creates the value. That is, that the demand for premises and houses creates the value. Deputy Hewat, and I assume that Deputy Good thinks with him in this matter, obviously takes the line that it is the occupier creates the value because, as I say, he suggested the Government should make this inquiry into the possibility of utilising the State's inherent right to control and issue credit. The whole philosophy behind the resolution, which the Deputy supported so eloquently in opposition to this Bill, was strongly at variance with his speech. This section in the Bill is based on the assumption that it is the occupier who creates the value, and that, therefore, it is to the occupier compensation should be paid. Unfortunately, the Bill does not differentiate as to the amount of value which the occupier is supposed to have created. If he has been in occupation for one month he has created as much value as if he was there for twenty years. When Deputy Lyons and other Deputies gave illustrations of persons who had occupied houses for many years, and paid rent upon rent without being any nearer ownership of the houses, I sympathised, but unfortunately that view is not embodied in any way in this Bill. A person who occupied a house for three days is in an equally good position with the person who occupied a house for forty years.
I object to the second section also, because quite apart from the amount of compensation, which Deputy Redmond is now inclined to throw over, this section says that the tenant of every holding shall be entitled to sell his interest. That is, to go directly contrary to the Act we passed last year prohibting the right to demand key money. In view of the present and future shortage of houses, key money simply means that the person who is better off is going to have all the advantages against the person who is less well off. Key money is to be perpetuated by the adoption in this Bill of Section 2, quite apart from any question of the amount of compensation the tenant is entitled to sell his interest for. I think that is entirely wrong. I do not think the tenant, by mere occupancy, has a saleable interest in his holding. On the other hand, I think if he is to be removed by the landlord he is entitled to be recompensed for removal, or preferably that he should not be allowed to be removed except with his consent. The Bill, in its effects, would be unfortunate for that very large number of people who are tenement dwellers in Dublin and other cities. I put it to Deputy Redmond, what is to be the position of these persons? Supposing a great acceleration in the house building schemes of the Government came to pass, and that the tenement dwellers might look forward to the occupation of houses, there would be a general movement from house to house. Houses that were hitherto occupied would be available for tenement occupiers to remove into. Unfortunately the Bill simply says to the tenement dweller:"Unless you can find key money or compensation money to purchase the existing tenant's interest we are not going to allow you to get out of your tenement." That in itself, I say, is a blot on this Bill. I do not know whether it is Deputy Redmond or Deputy Lyons, when collaborating in the production of this Bill, who is responsible for this particular section. There is evidence throughout the Bill, I think, of collaboration. I am sorry to see that so much of this Bill seems to be badly drafted, and in its present form is not worthy of being passed without considerable amendment or alteration. However, I feel that it is desirable we should indicate that we believe in the general intention of establishing fair rent courts and giving fixity of tenure to town tenants. If it does nothing more then tell the Government that it is its duty to bring forward a measure of this kind, and to do it quickly, the Dáil will be justified in giving the Bill a Second Reading. To adopt a phrase of the President, let us give it a conditional Second Reading. I have no doubt that that is a procedure that may have to be adopted on many occasions. It is something novel, and perhaps one of these accidental strokes of genius that might be applied to this case.
I ask the Dáil, on the lines I have indicated, to support the Second Reading of this Bill, conditional upon Sections 2 and 3 being dropped, and conditional upon the Government, not after a Commission has sat, producing a Bill to establish fair rent courts and to give fixity of tenure to tenants of town holdings.
I regret, as one who has an interest in housing and in the building of houses, that for the credit and dignity of this Dáil this measure should ever have been introduced into it. I agree entirely with the criticism of the Minister for Justice on this measure when he stated, in a sentence, that the Bill was an attempt to legalise the confiscation of property. The Minister proceeded to argue, and I think argued correctly, that housing is an investment. If we want houses, and I take it the view of Deputies is that we ought to do all in our power in view of the crisis that we are faced with, then we ought to encourage the building of houses. The only argument that we can use in order to encourage those who have money to put it into houses is that it is a safe investment. Now, in view of this Bill, and the drastic terms of it, can anybody say or urge that housing is a safe investment? Why, I ask, should housing as an investment be treated differently to any other investment? We are all agreed, I think, with the Minister for Justice when he said that housing is an investment, and that is the only basis on which we can encourage housing. Having settled that point as a preliminary, the next question I ask is, why should housing be treated, as an investment, differently to any other investment? The Minister of Finance some months ago called for a national Loan, which, I am glad to say, was largely over-subscribed. If the Minister for Finance were to say to the people who invested money in the National Loan: "I have received your money, and I am now going to make a claim on that money, and I tell you if you want to sell that you can only sell to me. The price I will give you for your interest in it is not less than ten years, and not more than fifteen years' purchase"—it is an easy matter to figure out what the Minister for Finance would pay on that basis to those who invested money in the loan. This Bill attempts to legalise procedure of that kind. There is no difference between investing money in house property and investing money in the National Loan or in any other security that you like. It is an investment. This Bill attempts to give to the person with whom the money is invested the right to purchase the principal at a sum not less than 10 years' purchase and not more than 15 years' purchase. Would anybody, supposing the Minister had to issue a further loan and that he had confiscated the property of the investors in the first loan on a basis similar to this Bill, invest any more money in a further loan? Would anybody, even a member of this Dáil, be inclined to invest money in a further issue? On that basis I hold that it is a fair and reasonable argument. If this method is adopted for confiscating investments in house property, will anybody invest a penny in house property after this Bill goes through? Would anybody, I ask, invest in the National Loan if the same treatment had been adopted? Nobody would. Then we are agreed on this conclusion, that this Bill will kill housing as an investment. If we cannot get the public to invest in houses, if it is not safe for them to do so, the only alternative is for the Government to invest in houses. But, I ask, will the Government invest in houses? Again, I ask have any of the Deputies here ever considered that problem or the magnitude of it? I say as one who knows a little about this question that the problem is beyond the ability of any Government to solve. Governments much stronger financially than ours have found that such a problem is beyond the ability of any Government to solve, so the conclusion is that the alternative is not a practical solution of the difficulty. We are forced back then on the original question of how you can make investment in house property a safe and profitable investment. Houses are urgently needed, not alone for the working classes but for all other classes, because, recollect, houses are decaying property and must be renewed. They do not stand in perpetuity, and there must be a certain number of houses built each year if we are to keep up even to the present level.
Therefore, I say that we must move along a different line altogether to the line proposed in this Bill. This Bill, I hold, is going to kill any further investment in house property. There can be no doubt whatever about that, and I do not want to press the argument any further. The Rent Restriction Act, and the other measures passed recently, have had the effect of tieing up the hands of those who invested money in houses, and have tended to depress house property as a security. If we want to build houses we must get rid of all these troubles, and we must inspire confidence in those who have money to invest in houses. That is the line, and the only line, along which we will be successful. Therefore, I say that even the consideration of such a Bill as this is has done an infinite amount of damage.
I wish as briefly as I can just to give the views of the members sitting on these benches. Deputy Gorey asked me to mention that when he spoke he spoke only for himself, and I am supposed to be the exponent of the views of the Deputies sitting here near me. We contend that this Bill, in some respects, can be supported. We say there is nothing revolutionary in the doctrine that fixity of tenure should be given to the occupying tenant. We agree with that doctrine, but we disagree with Section 2 for the reasons given by Deputy Johnson and also by reason of the fact that the restriction of Rents Act forbids the owner to raise the rent, and forbids him to take advantage of the scarcity of houses. We think that the tenant should also be forbidden to get advantage from the scarcity of houses, because if there were plenty of houses he could not ask for key money. It was the war brought about the scarcity of supply, and the tenant should be debarred from taking advantage of it.
Now, with regard to the question raised by Deputy Good, I would point out to the Deputy that men investing in house property do not merely get 5 per cent. for their money; they get from 7½ to 10 per cent. for their money on an average.
No, no.
And I might point out that it would be very easy to change the number of years purchase from 15 to 20. We are reasonable people; I can see nothing wrong in giving the occupying tenants the right of pre-emption; that is not revolutionary. It is freedom. I know houses that were purchased in the city of Dublin in pre-war days for £300 and that were let for £40. The rent was increased under the Rent Restrictions Act up to £50, and, under this Bill, if such a house was sold at 12 years' purchase it would realise £600. There is nothing confiscatory in that. Deputy Good can contradict that statement if he likes, but I know it is a fact. Clause 1 we stand by, but Clause 2 we do not stand by. We agree with Clause 3, and Clause 4 is covered by existing legislation. There is no such thing at the present time as raising rent; no one can do that until 1926.
That is only for small houses.
But there is the question of disturbances under the Rent Restrictions Act. Clause 4 brings in the provision that fair rents may be fixed. Rents cannot be raised until 1926, and I am sure the Government will see to the condition of things then, and will make the necessary changes in the law if required. For these reasons, and without occupying any further time, I say we agree to give this Bill a conditional Second Reading, on the understanding that the pre-emption clause will be amended, that clause 2 will be obliterated, and that clause 4 will be amended.
Many years ago, when I was editor of a monthly review called the "Lyceum," we published a series of three sonnets in one issue by the late Dr. W.P. Coyne. Unfortunately—for accidents of this sort happen even in the best regulated printing establishments—the headings got interchanged, and what ought to have been a sonnet on Millais' Angelus was headed a sonnet on quite another topic, and it had to be explained to some readers in the next issue that it was a printer's mistake. A little later another sonnet appeared, and some inquisitive reader wanted to know if it also was a certain sonnet or whether it was a printer's error. I am reminded of that little bit of autobiographical incident by the strictures of Deputy Johnson on the present Bill. He has discovered that it is not merely as regards Section 2 a printer's mistake, but that practically the Bill is a huge printer's mistake. As I mentioned Deputy Johnson, perhaps I may, for the sake of artificial unity, pursue the line that he followed. I am not quite sure that he really holds that the fact that a tenant occupies a house adds a value to that house which hitherto it did not possess.
I did not say that; I rather took the other line.
Deputy Johnson lived too long in Belfast not to know the pleasant ways of the speculative builder in that beautifully progressive city. A road of little houses is run up hurriedly. The character of the building is represented by the comment that the dweller in one of these houses can hear the lodger in the next houses changing his mind. I know actually, though I do not expect it to be believed, that a man who had drunk too much collided with one of those rows of buildings, on a certain Saturday night, and knocked down three of the houses. He was not an auctioneer. These houses were run up hurriedly in the most approved form of jerry building. Tenants were inveigled into them, some by paying no rent, and after they were all occupied, and blinds and curtains on the windows, they were auctioned as being in occupation of most desirable tenants. The unwary buyer, when he came to collect his rents afterwards, discovered that there was no contract for rent. Now, undoubtedly the occupation of a house by a tenant does add a great deal, to its selling value, and if he is a desirable tenant it will add enormously to it because he will attract others to the locality.
What is more, he usually makes improvements. Though it is alleged there is no parity between the occupant of a farm and the occupant of a house, I think when you come to consider improvments, where there are improvements, that there is a measure of parallelism which must not be ignored. It is possible, more particularly in the case of a shop, for the occupier to acquire, or it ought to be possible for the occupier to acquire, a saleable interest. Deputy Good spoke in defence of the speculative builders. There are speculative builders and speculative builders. There are those of the type I have spoken of who are notorious in Belfast. There are others in the better sense of the word who build houses by way of investment, or build houses for investors to let to tenants in the normal course of business, but that is very often accompanied by an evil. This building is in conjunction with building estates. The building estate is a piece of ground which is to be exploited. The consequence is that the space allotted for human habitation will be limited by consideration of the profits that can be extracted; the size of the house, the size of the rooms of the house will be limited in view of that.
The amount of land, if not the backyard or garden, will be conditioned by that, and you can have hopeless congestion with invitation to disease and immorality. You can have the warrens of the poor created in the name of speculative building and the development of eligible building estates. In connection with the building estates there is also the infarmous leasehold system. Is it fair to a man who has created business in a district, by opening a shop, and who brings others there who also open shops in other lines of business, and develops what had been a backward little quarter of a city or a town into a business centre, that the value that accrues to the neighbourhood should be altogether the house-owner's, and that the community whose joint action, and the occupiers of the shops whose enterprise contributed so largely to the creation of this value should have no share in it whatsoever? There has been talk about confiscation. Undoubtedly in Section 2 of the Bill, perhaps by a printer's mistake, there is confiscation naked and unashamed, but let us not forget that there is confiscation secret, but not necessarily ashamed, confiscation of a most indefensible kind of values that belong to the municipality or the community and not to the individual house owner. One of the most infamous things sanctioned by law and by custom at the present day is the fact that a man becomes a tenant of a house or a shop for a term of 25 years, let us say, and the conditions of his tenancy set down in the contract are that at the end of 25 years he is to re-build the whole front and to expend not less than £1,000 on improvements and his rent will then be increased by £275 a year or £300 a year.
Deputy Good talks about the inhibition of building enterprise. What about the restriction of development and enterprise due to that? If there were something in this Bill that dealt with some reformation of the leasehold system I should commend it. But to my amazement, when I read the Bill, the very people who are exempted from the operation of the Bill are the leaseholders. That I confess is a First Reading amazement, for when I read it the second time I realised that the framers of the Bill intended to break such contracts as I have illustrated, and their purpose was to instal, at the termination of his lease, a leaseholder on the new conditions set up by the Bill, so that that merely postponed relief to the leaseholder rather than denied it to him altogether. Such a proposal to break contracts must be very shocking to Deputies in this Dáil. The law is so sacred and the traditional rights are so reverent! I say this, not in support of the Bill as it at present stands, but in support of the spirit which I detect as having led to the production of it. The spirit indeed was willing but the hand of the draftsman was weak. The intention I think was sound; it was to reform obvious and glaring abuses. There is one thing also that inspires the Bill to which Deputy Good is altogether deaf. That is the nature of a house as a home. Deputy Good asked the question directly: is there any difference between a house as an investment and National Loan? It seems to me the answer to that is exceedingly easy. There is an enormous difference. I quite agree that thrift should find an outlet for investment in house property equally with any other property. I believe, contrary to Deputy Johnson, in the rights of private property but I do not believe in any divine right of private property to do what it likes to the community. We speak of those rights nakedly as if they were unconditional and absolute when they are really limited and conditioned by the relations in which all the individuals stand to each other and the duties that arise with respect to others out of these relations.
You agree with me.
Deputy Johnson and I disagree, perhaps, on the fundamental point, but as regards collaterals we are agreed. There is a vast difference between my becoming a hirer, say, of a piano on the hire system, and becoming a hirer of a house as a tenant, because there is the natural instinct to convert that house into a home, and certain affections and sentiments begin to arise with regard to the bare walls.
No Irishman needs to be told of that, when we realise how hard it was to evict tenants by brutal force from wretched hovels that were not fit for the habitation even of a dog. There is that natural sentiment, furthermore— the desire of the man to transmit his house, which he has improved and with which he has family associations, to his children and their children. That sentiment can be rudely cut across by the owner saying: "I own the house, and I will do what I like with my own. You must go unless you pay me increased rent, because certain people have begun to covet the house," seeing how beautified and improved it has been by this tenant who loves it as a home. Those are abuses, and those abuses should not be permitted to flourish any longer than can be helped.
Deputy Wilson rightly remembered the parallel between the agricultural labourer and the ordinary wandering pursuer of trade, who goes from place to place to find his occupation. There was a time when the agricultural labourer was, if anything, worse than the serf of the medieval period, because if he was to have employment with anything like constancy and any hope for the education of his growing children, he was obliged to live where he could get a roof near the employing landlord's estate. And the noble landlord, not infrequently, took advantage of his necessity and paid him what he pleased in return for that accommodation. It was impossible for the man to improve or for his children to have access to the facilities of improvement.
Therefore, he was bound to that estate as much as if he were one of the trees rooted in its soil. Deputy Wilson remembers the great service done to civilisation and freedom in this country by the Agricultural Labourers Act, which provided decent homes for casual workers as distinguished from small farmers. We have all seen with unspeakable satisfaction the enormous improvement in the country side in the last 25 or 30 years. Anyone who goes along the country roads on Sunday will see well-dressed, well-cared, happy-looking children, and will see people with a decent sense of self-respect, because they are living human lives under distinctly human conditions. Why is the town dweller to be obliged to live in squalid back streets and worse— noisome lanes—and have no pride in his home? We lecture about patriotism and civic duty and a sense of civic responsibility and, at the same time, we are willing to sentence hundreds of thousands of city dwellers to conditions of living that make it an absolute impossibility for them to develop not merely civic pride, but home sense or anything that belongs to decent civilisation. So long as there are those facts, to which we are all unfortunately only too much alive, I sympathise with the town tenant advocate who, aware of these evils, vaguely and blindly strives after some measure of amelioration, tries to formulate a Bill which, if carried into law, would make life better for so many people, would give security of tenure to the decent family who are willing to pay a decent rent for the house they occupy, to turn it into a home and to make it a better asset if, at any time, it comes about the they have to leave it and transfer to others. But this Bill does not satisfy the requirements. This Bill sins, as Deputy Johnson pointed out, both by excess and defect. It attempts to do what it should not do. It reminds me of the confession in the prayer book: "We have done, and that which we ought not to have done, and we have left that undone which we ought to have done." If Deputy Redmond would withdraw his Bill and allow a measure animated by the same beneficent spirit but more carefully drafted, to be brought in, I think the House and the country would be willing to concede that in ventilating this question in the way he and the backers of the Bill have done, they have done a decided service to the State.
Will the debate conclude now?
The House must adjourn at 8.30.
I do not know what the view of the Dáil is, but I am perfectly willing to adapt myself to the general view of the House. If any of the Deputies desire to continue the discussion, I do not know whether the President would be in a position to allot another day during the remainder of the session. I would like to hear his views on that.
I cannot say. I have not looked into it. I thought it would be finished this evening and I had intended saying just a few words on the measure. I would probably be able to say to-morrow if we could allot another day for the discussion of the Bill.
Perhaps within the few minutes at my disposal before 8.30, I might supplement Deputy Magennis's suggestion by saying that if the President could see his way to give an undertaking that a Bill embodying the principles, but not necessarily the actual terms of this Bill, would be introduced by the Government at the earliest possible date, I would certainly, in accordance with Deputy Magennis's suggestion, withdraw the Bill.
I have given notice of something like forty Bills to come before the Dáil. There are ten and possibly more, in the incubation stage. I am informed by the heads of the various Ministries that these are important measures. That is the position in which I am, and in answer to the question, I am afraid I would have to say that owing to the very large number of important measures that have got to be considered, I am not in a position to make a promise. As a matter of fact, I have not brought it before the Executive Council.
Would the President be prepared to say he will consider the matter?
Certainly. But I can only consider it to this extent: Deputies from all sides of the House know that the legislative programme is enormous, and I cannot give such a measure prior place. From what I know of the needs of the Government and of the various Ministries, there is legislation sufficient to occupy the whole of the time until the adjournment, also after the assembly in October up to the Christmas recess and for some time after that. For instance, there is the Defence Forces Act which is only coming into operation for nine months. There are 246 sections of it. Another measure dealing with the Defence Forces must be brought in and passed before 31st March next, and I do not want Deputy Redmond to be under any misapprehension in the matter.
Will the Minister give us an undertaking that no evictions or increases of rent will take place until the Bill is introduced?
That is a different question.
Question put: "That the Bill be reada second time."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 36.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Conlan.
- John Daly.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Darrell Figgis.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seosamh Mag Craith.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál R.O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- William A. Redmond.
- Nicholas Wall.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhair O Conghaile.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S.O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh S.O Guaire.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Seámus O Murchadha.
- Séan M.O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Seán Priomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
Motion declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.40 p.m.