asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he has refused his sanction to leases signed by the occupiers of houses on the Marino Estate of the Dublin Corporation, and, if so, if he will state in what respects the leases were unsatisfactory.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - MARINO ESTATE LEASES.
TOMAS MAC EOIN
TOMAS MAC EOIN
asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether any revised form of lease for signature by the occupiers of houses on the Marino Estate of the Dublin Corporation has been submitted to him for approval by the Dublin City Borough Commissioners; whether he has yet signified his approval thereof; and whether he has been, or will require to be, satisfied before giving approval that the occupiers of the houses have been consulted in respect of any matters in which the new lease may depart from the terms of the original lease or the published statement upon the basis of which applications were made for the houses by the present occupiers, and in respect of any matters, such as repairs and maintenance of joint water and drainage services, ornamental grounds, insurance against expensive external repairs, etc., which it may be necessary or desirable to provide for either in the lease or by supplementary agreement.
I am answering the Deputy's two questions on this subject.
The provisional agreements entered into by the tenants of houses provided by the City Commissioners under the Housing of the Working Classes Act at Marino terminated on the 31st of March last. Leases, the terms of which were approved of by me, were entered into with the tenants from the 1st of April last and the covenants therein are alike to those in the provisional agreements, save that provision has been made for the collection weekly instead of half-yearly of the purchase money and other charges (interest, rates, etc.). This alteration was made at my request, as I was not satisfied that the leases used in previous schemes safeguarded the Commissioners sufficiently against loss through non-payment by the purchasers of their annuities. There has been no other departure from the published statements upon which the houses were offered for sale. The water and drainage services and ornamental grounds are, so far as I am aware, to be maintained by the Commissioners. The repair clause in the lease is that usually contained in such instruments and merely requires the purchasers to maintain the premises in proper sanitary condition and repair.
Is the Minister aware of the fact that in the original arrangement the lease was drawn up so that the houses should be let and not purchased; that the consequence of the change in the terms of the lease is that there is a common water supply, common scavenging and sanitary arrangements and, yet, an individual ownership; and that the general proposals of the new agreement have not been submitted to the tenants or purchasers? Further, will the Minister agree to advise the Dublin Corporation, or the Commissioners, to enter into consultation before the purchasers are asked to sign this new agreement?
My information is not on the lines stated by the Deputy. So far as I am aware, the only change in the lease is that instead of having to pay half-yearly the arrangement is to pay weekly, which is a better arrangement from the tenants' point of view. As, however, there seems to be some difference of opinion on the matter I shall make further inquiries.
I suggest to the Minister that it is very desirable that he should do so, as this question is creating a great deal of anxiety and ill-feeling amongst the occupiers of the houses.