One very important section in the Rent Restrictions Act of 1923 is very unfair to town tenants. Section 2 deals with the determination of the standard rent. Any tenant who thinks that he 2is being charged an unfair rent is entitled under that section to come before the court and make the best case he can. In order to prove that he is being charged an exorbitant rent under that section, he is compelled, I understand, to produce a rent book or rent receipt or other documentary evidence showing the rent he was paying in August, 1914. A very important test case dealing with the application of that section was tried before Judge Shannon in the Circuit Court. This is known as the Donnelly case. Judge Shannon, in giving his decision against the tenant in that case, said: "Where the rent payable in August, 1914, cannot be proved, the court cannot, in my opinion, assist the tenant." He also said that he arrived at that decision with regret, and hoped that a higher court might be able to decide otherwise. I suggest to the Minister for Finance and his colleagues that cases of that type should be carefully and sympathetically considered, and that in any amending measure dealing with the Rent Restrictions Act of 1923, it should be made clear that the onus of disproving the statement regarding the rent paid in 1914 should be placed upon the landlord. The landlord must, in such cases, be in possession of documentary evidence as to the agreement arrived at with the tenant, and he should be in a position in other ways to show what rent was paid him by the tenant in occupation in August, 1914. The onus in such cases should be placed upon the landlord, because, if there are many cases similar to that decided by Judge Shannon, a great hardship is being imposed upon tenants who are being charged exorbitant rents by slum landlords and other houselords.
Another section of this Rent Restrictions Act enables, with subsequent amending Acts, landlords coming into possession of houses over a certain valuation to charge double the rent of these houses or of separate rooms in these houses. I give all the credit that is due—everybody of impartial mind will do the same—to the Minister for Local Government for the way in which the Housing Act of 1932 is being administered and for the way in which many of the slums in our cities and towns are gradually disappearing.
I would, however, warn the Minister for Local Government that new slums are being brought into existence in other parts of our cities and towns. We have houses in Baggot Street, Mount Street and other fairly respectable streets in this city, and in cities and towns throughout the country, which the owners have turned into self-contained flats, and there is no restriction whatever under existing legislation on the rents that can be charged by these new slum-owners to the tenants who must occupy these flats because they have no other suitable accommodation. I appeal to the Minister for Local Government to look into that matter because it is going to create a problem in the course of the next few years. I think that people who turn houses of £20, £30, or £40 valuation into a number of self-contained flats should be restricted in some way as regards the exorbitant rents charged by them to-day.
I understand that the Minister for Justice was good enough on a recent occasion to grant an interview to a deputation representing the town tenants' organisations. Having heard their grievances, he took up the very peculiar attitude of suggesting that these organisations should unite and submit for his consideration typical cases of hardship. Indeed he went so far as to suggest that they should submit six typewritten copies of every case of hardship they could lay their hands upon. This is a new method of discharging the responsibilities of government by pushing the responsibility on to some other body that has not the same machinery or perhaps finance at its disposal to do work which can only be done in a proper way by a Government. They are to go round this city and every other city and provincial town and pick up the story of every town tenant who thinks he has a grievance. They are to do that without having at their disposal information which only the landlord can give or be compelled to give. That is not, I suggest, a serious way of dealing with the grievances of town tenants. If there is any desire on the part of the Government to deal with the grievances of the town tenants they should make up their minds that the only people who can deal with these grievances in a proper way are the Government, who have the power to do it if they have the will to do it.
The Minister suggested that these two bodies set up a committee of five, and he said that he should be presented with a statement in writing, drawn up in suitable form and vouched for as correct by some committee representative of town tenants generally, setting out in detail, with names and addresses, exact figures and dates, a large number of cases, distributed as widely as possible over the country, which could be relied upon as typical examples of the hardships complained of. He also said that it would be well that the statement should be typewritten and that six copies should be presented. Surely no responsible Minister can suggest that bodies such as the town tenants' associations can do the work which the Minister requires to be done in this way. They have not the machinery at their disposal, even if they had the will to do it.
I cannot do better than remind the Minister and his colleagues of the promise made by President de Valera at a public meeting in Castlerea in 1932. I have reason to know, from a limited knowledge of the President's attitude in these matters, that the President is very particular about carrying out his promises, and I hope it will not be necessary for those of us who may take a passing interest in the grievances of town tenants to remind the President personally of the promise made in Castlerea in 1932. At any rate, that promise is certainly not being carried out by the attitude recently adopted by the Minister for Justice in making these suggestions to the deputation from the town tenants' associations.
I could, of course, deal with many other matters affecting town tenants contained in the measure which we are now asked to re-enact. I hope the Minister for Finance and his colleagues will not come to this House again and ask us to re-enact the powers contained in the existing Rent and Mortgage Restriction Act of 1923 and the subsequent Acts which amend in some respects that measure. I hope they will have the courage and the pluck to face up to the promise made by the President at Castlerea and realise that there are genuine grievances from which town tenants, particularly in the slums, are suffering, and that, before it becomes necessary to pass another Expiring Laws Act, a genuine Town Tenants Bill will be passed, and that, therefore, there will be no necessity in 12 months' time to re-enact a measure of this kind, which to my knowledge imposes considerable hardships on the poorer section of town tenants.
