I move the Second Reading of this Bill which extends the existing law to the 31st of December next. We have come to the conclusion that in dealing with this housing in towns problem it will be necessary to deal with it in two parts; one, the town tenants, and the other the rent and mortgage question. We propose to carry the matter on to the 31st of December next and if it is necessary to carry it on any further—the matter will depend upon future development— it can be done by putting it on the Expiring Laws Continuation Act rather than by bringing in annual statutes.
Public Business. - Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, 1930—Second Stage.
Needless to remark we will support the passage of this Bill but we regret very sincerely the necessity for doing so. We had hoped that by this time permanent legislation dealing with the position of town tenants would have been introduced into and passed by the Dáil. In fact there is no single thing about which more definite promises have been given from time to time by members of the Government than the introduction of a Town Tenants Bill and every single one of these promises has been systematically broken. The Minister for Justice made a definite statement eighteen months ago that a Bill to give effect to the Government's recommendation arising out of the Report of the Town Tenants Commission would be introduced in the Dáil before June, 1929. It was not done. In the autumn of that year the Minister for Justice made an equally definite statement that the Bill would be introduced before Christmas, 1929. It was not introduced. At the beginning of this year he made an equally definite statement that the Bill would be introduced before Easter, 1930. It has not been introduced. Later in the year the Minister made a definite statement that the Bill would be introduced before the end of the session—that is, before the end of June; but last week he told us that that promise like all the others was going to be broken.
In order to prevent our criticising him too severely I notice a suggestion contained in the "Irish Independent" this morning that if we wait until the autumn he will give us not one but two Bills dealing with this subject. I suggest that promise is as valuable as all the others preceding it. Of course there is a by-election on. I hope, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, you will not object to my making a reference to a by-election in this connection. I think the only reason why there is reference to a Town Tenants Bill in the autumn is because there is a by-election on and when the by-election is over, no matter what the result, the Town Tenants Bill will recede into the dim and distant future. It is quite obvious that the Government are not serious. They have given no evidence of being serious with this problem which is a pressing problem. A Bill was introduced in 1924 and was defeated by six votes. Another Bill was introduced in 1926 and would have been passed by the Dáil if the President had not promised to establish the commission which was afterwards set up and to act upon its recommendations without undue delay. That Commission reported in 1927, but in the year 1930 we are still considering a Bill to continue temporary legislation while living upon the promises of the permanent Bill which the Minister will, no doubt, repeat to us before this debate is over.
I read an announcement in the paper that the town tenants' organisation had communicated to the Minister—shall I call it a threat?— that if he did not produce his Bill within one month they would draft and arrange for a Private Members Bill upon the subject to be presented to the Dáil within that period. That statement by the town tenants' organisation may make the Government move. On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. I think I can definitely promise that whether the Government Bill is introduced or not the town tenants question will be considered in this Dáil before the end of the year. If the Government Bill is not forthcoming a Fianna Fáil Bill will be. The Government's desire to side-step this question is going to be frustrated. They have got to face up to it whether they like it or not. We think that the frivolous way in which they have dealt with the demands for this legislation renders them unfit to be considered as a responsible body. This Bill has to be passed, but I hope it is the last time that such a Bill will have to be passed. The Minister does not appear to think so, as he mentioned that he will probably have to include it in the Expiring Laws Bill at the end of the year. Apparently it is his opinion that at the end of this year we will be in the same position as we are at the present time in respect of the permanent Town Tenants Bill. The Government has failed in many things, and failed dismally, but in respect of town tenants their failure is most outstanding. We hope, when the time comes, the Dáil will give expression to its opinion about that failure by treating whatever measure the Government introduces in a critical manner in order to force them to toe the line whether or not they want to.
Mr. Byrne
If there is any member of the House who can speak with some authority on the question of town tenants I think I can claim, without egotism, to be that member. If there is any man who has done more recently here for the town tenants movement I have not yet met him. If there is any man who stands more firmly behind the claims of the town tenants here than I do I have not yet met him. I had the honour to represent the town tenants before the Town Tenants Commission. With the advocacy that I was able to use on behalf of the town tenants I succeeded in the main in obtaining the recommendations embodied in the Commission's report. I think I may safely say that as far as the interests of the town tenants are concerned there are Deputies on this side of the House who stand as well behind the town tenants' claims as any member of the Opposition.
I wonder has Deputy Lemass read the recommendations of the Town Tenants Commission. Does he know what they involve? Is he of opinion that the recommendations will deal with the aspect of the question dealt with by the Rent Restrictions Act? These are phases of the subject that, if he professes to speak as an authority on town tenants, he ought to have given some consideration to. I fear a great many of the town tenants are living in a fool's paradise if they think the recommendations of the Commission are going to give them fixity of tenure, purchase of property, and a thousand other things of that kind. The sooner the recommendations of the Commission are properly studied by the House, and the sooner it is realised what the recommendations mean, the better it will be for the House.
Two questions arise, and one of them is dealt with by the Rent Restrictions Act. The recommendations of the Commission deal with entirely different aspects of the question. They may be briefly summed up by saying that they deal with business premises and the redemption of ground rent. If the members of the House think the question of dwelling-houses and all that has been dealt with in the recommendations of the Commission, then they are making a very grievous error, indeed.
Speaking from this side of the House, I have no hesitation in saying that the recommendations of the Town Tenants Commission will be carried out, and will be embodied in legislation. If one might go a little bit further, I might add that although the Government has been somewhat dilatory—and nobody can deny that they have been dilatory— the recommendations of the Commission will be embodied in law before the present year has run its course. When the Minister comes to deal with the matter in reply to Deputy Lemass's remarks, he will be in a position to confirm my statement.
For the fifth or sixth time I want to say I am disappointed with the Minister, and I think it is about the first occasion on which I have to charge the Minister —I do not like to say this, but I have to—with definitely breaking his word to the House. The Minister for Justice, on more than one occasion, promised that the Town Tenants Bill would be introduced. The Government were forced to set up the Town Tenants Commission in 1926, four years ago. Evidence was given before that Commission by representatives of the houseowners the landowners, and the tenants, although one would imagine from what Deputy Byrne has told us that he was the only representative of the tenants.
Mr. Byrne
I never made any such statement. I know you were there yourself.
And so were many others.
Mr. Byrne
You got very little, though.
Perhaps that is because our influence is not as great as the Deputy's influence, and I suppose I may take it that it was owing to the Deputy's influence the political correspondent of the "Irish Independent" was able to announce yesterday that the Government's Bill, when it did come to be introduced, would deal only with business premises, and therefore would be dealing with only a very small part of the problem. Even so, I hope when Deputy Byrne made the very definite statement that legislative effect would be given this year to the recommendations of the Commission he was speaking with the authority of the Minister.
Mr. Byrne
I said I hoped he would confirm it.
The Deputy did not say any such thing. The Deputy said: "Speaking from this side of the House, I have no hesitation in saying that effect will be given to the recommendations of the Town Tenants' Commission by the Government this year." I want the Minister to confirm or deny that statement. I want to suggest to the Minister that it is most unfair to many householders, and in particular to the class in which Deputy Byrne is interested—the business people—that this delay should take place. The Minister is quite well aware that houseowners have been taking advantage of the position for the last three or four years. The Minister is well aware that in many cases where leases expired the landlords have demanded three times, and in some cases four times, the existing rent, and if the tenants refused to pay they were evicted. That is a matter that is of much more importance to the House, and it should also be to the Minister of much more importance than Bills such as the Wild Birds Bill. It is of much greater importance to safeguard the families in this country than it is to safeguard wild birds. If the Minister's Department has sufficient time to deal with Bills concerning wild birds——
Surely the Deputy knows that my Department had nothing to do with the Wild Birds Bill.
If the Minister's Department had nothing to do with it, then I do not know which Department had.
No Department had; it was a Private Member's Bill.
The Minister devoted much more time to the Bill than the member who introduced it. I only wish the Minister would give to the town tenants question even the time he gave to the wild birds.
I gave very little time to it.
Deputy Lemass referred to a resolution passed recently by the Executive of the Town Tenants' Association, of which I happened to be a member. I must say that the Executive of the Town Tenants' Association were perfectly justified in passing that resolution. They agitated originally for a Commission to investigate this whole question. The Commission was set up. They have waited for over three years for the Minister to make a move, but he has refused to move. The Minister and the House are aware that on two occasions Town Tenants' Bills were introduced by a private member, and they were beaten on each occasion because the Government stated they were going to deal with the matter. It is my opinion that if the House at that time were not informed that it was the Government's intention to deal with this matter, these Bills would not have been defeated. I ask the Minister and the House to face up to this question. It is a very important question. I am prepared to admit, from my own slight knowledge of the matter, that it will be very difficult to frame a Bill that will give satisfaction and deal out justice to both sides. I realise that difficulty, but the Minister has faced much more difficult tasks and has brought them before the House in very much less time than he has taken to bring forward the Town Tenants' Bill.
I would like to say in conclusion that I hope he will be able to confirm the very emphatic and very definite statement made by Deputy Byrne that it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission before the end of this year.
There was a great deal of noise at the moment the Minister was speaking and I could not catch exactly what he said. Perhaps he would be kind enough to repeat his statement.
I said there were two questions which were closely allied to each other. One was the increase of rent and mortgage interest with which this Bill is dealing and the other was a Town Tenants' Bill, the consideration of which did not arise upon this Bill, but which is closely allied to it. I stated to the House that at one time I thought it was possible that the two questions could be dealt with in the same Bill, but I have now come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to do that.
I must thank the Minister for repeating his statement, but I cannot say that it is a very encouraging one. One would have expected that the Minister would have made some concession even to Deputy Byrne; that he would have told us he was going to deal in some way or another with the whole problem of the town tenants. On no occasion has he told us the reason of his difficulties. We are left to imagine what the reason for his difficulty in this matter is. After all, the House is not unreasonable, and if he tells the House frankly what the difficulties are and why he cannot deal with the Town Tenants' Bill which from time to time he thought he could deal with and promised to deal with, it might be a fairer thing. Until he does give us the full facts he must not be dissatisfied if we point out that he has been spending public time on such Bills as the Wild Birds Bill, which he followed to the Seanad, and the Game Protection Bill, which he cannot deny he followed up.
A most valuable Bill.
However important the Game Bill may be I suggest it is not as important as the question of the conditions under which human beings live in houses. Even at this late stage I hope that the Minister will give us seriously the reasons why he finds it impossible to introduce a Town Tenants' Bill. We are left to imagine a reason—that it is because of certain powerful influences represented by persons who give donations to the party funds which make it impossible for the Minister to bring in a Bill.
That is a nice extension of the scope of this debate.
Every time a Bill like this has been introduced it has raised the very germane issue of the whole question of town tenants.
No; the relevant issue is the delay in the introduction of a Bill dealing with town tenants, but if the Deputy raises the question of party funds it would widen the scope of the debate.
Because if it were to lead anywhere——
It leads everywhere and gets us nowhere.
The only reason I raised this was because I was trying to imagine the reason why the Minister had not carried out his promise, and as he himself had not given the reason I think that we are entitled to get the truth. I hope that the Minister will explain where the real difficulty arises.
This House in its wisdom seems to hold up at intervals certain classes of persons to what I might call public odium, and one of those unfortunate classes seem to be those known as landlords. The poor landlords seem to have no friends here at all and seem to be the common object of attack from all sides of the House.
There has not been one word said about them in this debate.
I heard landlords referred to by a Deputy behind me, possibly in a different connection, but if they have not been as much abused on this occasion as they have been on other occasions I have heard them made the subject of very strong language.
They have not been abused on this occasion at all.
One is glad to see, even in that respect, a distinct improvement in phraseology in reference to landlords.
There was, I think, not even a reference to landlords in this debate.
I am glad to hear that.
That is an obsession with Deputy Good.
I quite admit that there are good landlords and bad landlords. We hear a good deal about bad landlords, but we seldom hear much about good landlords. But my experience—and I have met both of them—is that the good far outweigh the bad. If we have good landlords and bad landlords we have also good tenants and bad tenants. If we hear of landlords possibly taking advantage of the situation created by the removal of rent restrictions I might refer to what is happening widely at the moment. The tenants are taking advantage of the Rent Restrictions Act to get rent reduced to a nominal figure, a figure very little in excess of pre-war days, but those very same tenants are sub-letting a number of rooms in these houses at exorbitant rents and in addition to living free, they get three or four times the rents of the houses. Deputies who are in touch with this question will know the truth of what I am stating—that sub-letting is becoming a very serious evil. I know that Deputies want to try to deal fairly with this problem as they deal with other problems, but what is happening at the moment is really unfair to landlords in a great many cases. When you get, as there are in some of those houses, four or five families it means that the wear and tear, caused by the larger number of inmates, has increased to an enormous extent, and as a result of that wear and tear the cost of maintenance has gone up out of all proportion. I only want to point out that there are difficulties on both sides of this problem, and when Deputies are dealing with it I would like them to bear in mind the difficulties that exist on the other side. If there are tenants who suffer hardship, there is an equally large number of landlords who, through the Rent Restrictions Act and the abuses that have arisen under it, are suffering very severe hardship.
I do not purpose to deal with the sins of omission and commission of landlords and tenants or with the woes of either, but I think that the delay of the Government in introducing this Town Tenants Bill may be due to the difficulty of financing it. We have not been told that. Also, as Deputy Byrne said, tenants should not expect to get what were called the "three F's" in the days of the land war under this Bill or under the report of the Commission. But there are certain grievances that the Government could, and should, have remedied before now. For instance, they could have dealt with the question of expiring leases, with derelict sites, and with rates on vacant houses. While the legal definition of fair rent is, I believe, a very difficult thing to arrive at, I suggest that it should not be so hard to define what an unfair rent is. It may seem a contradiction, but I think it would be easy enough to state what are unfair rents. Deputy Good has referred to the burden on landlords owing to wear and tear, and I believe that what he said is true.
About twelve months ago, when coming up Amiens Street I was approached by two or three small shopkeepers whom Deputy Byrne probably knows, whose rents had been quadrupled, who had no remedy, and with whom the Justice expressed the greatest sympathy. He said that as the law stood they had no remedy, that they had either to get out or pay the quadrupled rents. It is to be hoped that at least the point that I referred to will be remedied in the first Bill to be introduced by the Government in the autumn, and we would like the Minister's definite assurance that Deputy Byrne had his authority for stating that that Bill will be law before the end of this year.
This has been rather an interesting discussion from some points of view. Possibly the most interesting thing about it is the fact that this is a Bill dealing with the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Act, and that with the exception of a little of what Deputy Good said, nobody has dealt with that question at all. I do not know whether it was a real or an affected ignorance on Deputy Lemass's part that caused him to speak as he did, because the Deputy seems to have got elections on the brain just at the moment, and whether he spoke as he did for election purposes or out of pure ignorance I do not know. But certainly he did not seem to understand the difference between the Increase of Rent Acts and a Town Tenants Act, and if he would like to know, I consider that the increase of Rent and Mortgage Act—and I think everybody else does, except possibly the Deputy—is, in its nature, temporary, that control must come away from dwellinghouses at some period. I think everybody is agreed as to that. The particular time when control is to come off will depend upon the condition of housing, but some time or other, if we are going effectively and finally to deal with the question of housing, we must have a free market for houses—that is to say, some time or other the supply of houses will catch up with the demand for houses, and as soon as that condition of affairs arises there will be no necessity for an Increase of Rent Act, which would do harm all round.
So much for the matter which is germane to this Bill. I pass on for the moment to the question of town tenants. I quite admit, in answer to what Deputy Morrissey has said, that I was a little sanguine in my hope of the time at which I would be able to introduce a Bill dealing with the town tenants question. I did state definitely my opinion that I would be in a position to introduce a Town Tenants Bill by a certain time. I found that I was not, that I had made a mistake in making a definite statement, which I afterwards found I had made in an over sanguine mood. I do not wish to tie myself down now to any particular period of time for the introduction of a Town Tenants Bill.
Would the Minister say ten years?
I do not tie myself down to any period of time.
Twenty years?
In answer to Deputy Little, I do not think it is impossible to frame a Town Tenants Bill. I never said it was impossible, but I say it is a difficult question and that it requires very careful consideration; that it is not a matter that can be dealt with hastily. Again, I do not think that all other legislation should be held up and that nothing should be dealt with except a Town Tenants Bill, because that is the Deputy's view. I recognise that it is a very important question which must be dealt with carefully, because a Town Tenants Bill will be permanent; it will regulate the relations of a certain class of landlord with a certain class of tenant for all time. It will differ from an Increase of Rent Act which, as I say, in its own nature is of necessity temporary. This will be a Bill which will regulate for all time the relationship between landlord and tenant, and a satisfactory Bill dealing with the principal problems which outstand between a certain class of landlord and a certain class of tenant is not impossible to produce, but it requires very great care indeed in its production. To hold the scales evenly between the owner of that class of premises and the tenant of that class of premises is not an easy task, but again I say, it is not insoluble.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Friday, May 30th.