Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 13 Dec 1935

Vol. 59 No. 18

Rents of Occupying Tenants—Proposed Tribunal.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Ruttledge)

I move:—

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say:—

(a) Whether any, and if so what, hardships and abuses arise or are capable of arising under the existing law governing the letting on occupation tenancies at occupation rents of houses and parts of houses in cities, towns and villages where the house or the part so let is used by the occupier thereof wholly or partly as a dwellinghouse, and (b) if any such hardships or abuses are found to arise or to be capable of arising, what additions to or amendments of the said existing law are practicable and desirable to remove or modify such hardships and abuses or to prevent the same from arising.

The terms of this motion are clear. It asks the Dáil to approve of a tribunal to inquire into certain matters with regard to the rents of occupying tenants. Various representations have been made to me from time to time, particularly within the last six or 12 months, regarding the grievances or hardships suffered by certain town tenants. I have asked at various times that particulars might be furnished as to the hardships complained of. It was only within the last three or four weeks that such instances or examples were furnished to me. Between 200 and 250 cases of alleged grievances have been furnished to me. While I have no evidence except the statements furnished by the organisations, I regard the matter as one of some importance and sufficiently urgent to be inquired into.

As Deputies will note, the terms of the resolution restrict the scope of the inquiry to what is commonly referred to as the problem of the ordinary occupying tenant. The proposed tribunal will consist of a representative from the Department of Justice, a representative from the Department of Local Government and a representative from the Valuation Office, with either a judge or senior counsel to preside over it. They will have full powers to inquire into this matter, take evidence on oath and compel the attendance of witnesses.

There is an amendment submitted by Deputy Norton. I do not know what case he is going to make for it, but at this stage it appears to me that I cannot accept the amendment. It would widen the inquiry in a way that would delay any report one would expect to receive within a reasonable time. The second part of the amendment is one, I am advised and informed, that even if we were to get some of the information the Deputy proposes to elicit—that is under part (c) in the amendment—it could never be regarded as accurate and it would hold up and delay the inquiry very much. I might say also with regard to paragraph (b) that the vast majority of complaints I have received—there may be one or two things that Deputy Norton has in mind—but the overwhelming number of complaints that I have received are covered by what is set out in the motion I have put down and do not refer to the subject matter dealt with in Deputy Norton's amendment.

Mr. Norton

I move:—

Before paragraph (b) to insert two new paragraphs as follows:—

(b) the extent, if any, to which unduly high rents are being charged for building sites and the effect thereof on house rents;

(c) the extent to which rents for housing accommodation in cities and towns are paid out of moneys provided under the Unemployment Assistance Acts and as home assistance, and

My object in moving this amendment is to widen the terms of reference of the tribunal which has been proposed by the Minister. In order to appreciate the terms of reference of the tribunal it is necessary to study very carefully the provisions of paragraph (a) and, if Deputies do that, they will have no hesitation in realising that, so far as the Minister is concerned, he has drawn the terms of reference in a very narrow way and the scope of the tribunal's inquiries, according to the Minister, must be limited to the hardships and abuses arising or capable of arising under the existing law governing the letting on occupation tenancies at occupation rents of houses and parts of houses in cities, towns and villages where the house or the part so let is used by the occupier thereof wholly or partly as a dwellinghouse. The overriding consideration in the terms of reference is to limit the inquiry to the hardships and abuses arising or capable of arising under the existing law. I suggest that is putting on the terms of reference a very narrow interpretation and it is going to limit enormously the task of a tribunal of this character.

The Minister stated that if he were to accept the amendment it would prolong the inquiry. Surely that is not intended to be a serious argument against the amendment? If the Minister had set up a tribunal of this character in 1932, when his Government assumed office, they would have had a report from the tribunal in 1932. But the Minister did nothing in 1932, in 1933, or in 1934 and now on the 13th December, 1935, the Minister tells us he is in a hurry to get the report of the proposed tribunal. He is in a hurry now after four years. He wants to narrow the scope of the inquiry because he wants the House to believe he is in a hurry, having done nothing in the last four years. Surely the humour of that kind of opposition to this amendment strikes the Minister. If the Minister were really in a hurry to get an inquiry into this whole problem, he could have set up this tribunal four years ago, and if he did not take that course during that period, he is scarcely entitled to come into the House now and say, "I slept on this matter for four years, and recently woke up, and I discover I am in a hurry to have this inquiry and I will limit its terms of reference in the narrowest possible way."

I do not think the House ought to listen to that kind of opposition to an amendment of this kind. I do not agree with the Minister that the acceptance of the amendment will unduly prolong the inquiry. One portion of the amendment asks that the tribunal, which is going to deal with the hardships of tenants from the standpoint of their position under the law and from the standpoint of the well-known grievances from which they suffer, should be asked also to ascertain the extent, if any, to which unduly high rents are being charged for building sites and the effect thereof on house rents. Does the Minister deny that the efforts of the State to provide houses for persons living in slums or insanitary dwellings or in overcrowded conditions have given land in many cases an unreal and fictitious value? Land which some years ago might be purchased at prairie prices has now, because of the efforts of the State to provide houses for its citizens, to provide them with good housing accommodation, assumed a value which it never formerly had.

The community and the State have created for that land an enhanced value on a new basis. Because the community requires houses to satisfy its needs, it must, compulsorily, be held to ransom in order that those who hold the land can obtain any value they attach to it. So far as utility societies are concerned they must take any land they require at the landlord's price because they have no means of having a fair value put upon it by any tribunal. The local authorities can acquire land for building houses but the price is fixed by an arbitrator. But, as is well known, and it must be pretty well known to the Minister for Justice, and better known to the Minister for Local Government, where a local authority requires land and the matter has to be dealt with by arbitration, there seems to be a kind of prevailing opinion that since it is the local authority that requires it, the land can be had at a pretty fair price. But the Minister must know that in respect of land required for house building purposes, a most unreal value is attached, and there is nothing for it but to pay the price because it is not possible for the local authority or the builder or the utility society to secure the land at a lower price. I have no hesitation in saying that in the last three years, particularly in cities like Cork, and other cities and towns throughout the country, there has been an unhealthy gamble, from the community point of view, in regard to the buying of such land. That gamble has resulted in the tenants being required to bear an impost which is most unfair upon them, but it is necessary if they are to enter into occupation of houses of that kind.

I wish the Minister would have made himself aware of the prices paid for land for this purpose in Cork by the Cork Corporation, and in Dublin by the Dublin Corporation. I wish he would ask some builders about the prices they were compelled to pay for land here in the City of Dublin. We are in the position, and Deputies know the fact, that there is a gamble in land for those purposes and that tenants have to bear the impost. The Minister for Justice is setting up a tribunal and he proposes to exclude from the terms of reference any inquiry but the simple one as to the unduly high rents that are paid by tenants. I cannot understand on what ground the Minister bases his objection to the proposals in my amendment.

It must be well known to the Minister, as it is well known to members of his Party, and to members of all Parties in this House, that there has been an enormous inflation in the value of land in recent years for building purposes. Here we are setting up a tribunal to deal with the housing problem to some extent. Is it not obvious that matters such as those set out in my amendment should be inquired into by the tribunal so that we might get some information as to what is being done and so that the tribunal would be able to make some recommendation as to the growing evils of that character? With reference to paragraph (c) of my amendment, I am seeking to extend the reference so that the tribunal might inquire into "the extent to which rents for housing accommodation in cities and towns are paid out of moneys provided under the Unemployment Assistance Acts and out of home assistance." I venture to say that there is not a Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party representing Dublin but knows that large amounts of money provided for employment assistance and for home assistance have found their way into the pockets of landlords, and particularly slum landlords, for filthy and insanitary slums that the lower animals, much less human beings, should not be housed in. If I had my way I would make it an offence for any slum landlord to demand rent for insanitary dwellings. It is bad enough for people to be compelled to live in insanitary dwellings and basement cellars; but that landlords should be allowed to extract rent from these people in these circumstances is something that I do not understand.

This House passed the Unemployment Assistance Acts and the Home Assistance Act, and the obvious desire it had in making these contributions was to assist men, women and children in periods of enforced idleness, to procure the necessaries of life so far as the limited benefits given under these Acts could provide them. But there might as well have been a section in the Act stating that, so far as 30, 40 or 50 per cent. of these grants were concerned, they should be paid to landlords for housing accommodation. It is well known to members of the Fianna Fáil Party, particularly those who are members of the Dublin Corporation, that a very large portion of unemployment assistance benefit and outdoor relief has found its way into the pockets of landlords who provide filthy accommodation. I would like to hear Deputy Cormac Breathnach upon this matter.

Mr. Belton

Will the Deputy prove these allegations? We have a sanitary authority in Dublin to deal with these matters.

Mr. Norton

Is not every basement in Dublin insanitary?

Mr. Belton

Then the sanitary authority is not doing its duty.

Mr. Norton

These houses have been condemned, but where are the people to go to?

Mr. Belton

I will answer that.

Mr. Norton

Surely Deputy Belton knows that numbers of people are condemned to live in one and two rooms in Dublin. Surely he knows of the filthy blocks of slum tenement dwellings that exist in various parts of this city, and that have been condemned as insanitary. Does the Deputy not consider it right and proper that we should raise our voices in protest against the amount paid in unduly high rents for accommodation of that kind? I thought that Deputy Belton would have supported me in my demand for an inquiry into these matters. But, whether the Deputy knows it or not, it must be known to a number of Deputies representing this city, and especially to those Deputies who are members of the Dublin Corporation, that a very large proportion of the moneys paid by the State, in the form of unemployment assistance and home assistance, finds its way into the pockets of slum landlords, thereby thwarting the original purpose of such legislation, and, in my opinion, constituting a very great evil.

The State proposed to secure these people against want and destitution, from the point of view of food and clothing, but the people who have gained most since the Unemployment Assistance Acts and Home Assistance Acts were passed, are the slum landlords. The tenant now has a weekly income, a very small income, it is true, in the shape of unemployment assistance benefit. He had not that income previously in many cases. He now has a regular weekly income from the State, and even though it is small, the one person who has exacted his pound of flesh, the one person who has been able to collect his levy, the one person who has been able, as Deputy Belton would say, to impose his sanctions, is the slum landlord. His rent is a safer income to him now than it was before the Unemployment Assistance Act was passed. I want to ascertain the extent to which that particular evil prevails, the extent to which this House, by passing the Unemployment Assistance Act, has helped the slum landlords by making it possible for them to collect their rents through the medium of the unemployment assistance benefit provided by this House. There is a well-known tradition, particularly with working-class people, that they measure their income in a peculiar manner. They say they have £1 per week, and after 4/-, 5/- or 6/- has been paid in rent, they have only 14/-, 15/- or 16/- left. Deputies, I am sure, are familiar with the type of letter they get from people who say that their income is very small, and that by the time they have paid rent there is only a certain small sum of money left to buy all the necessaries of life and clothe the children. Showing that amongst tenants there is a strong disposition to pay rents out of any kind of income which they get. The rent seems to be set aside; that must be paid at all events, and every other article of domestic requirement must be found out of what is left. As a matter of fact, the attitude of working-class tenants towards rents has been one of faithfully observing many of the unfortunate bargains they entered into. I for one, do not appreciate that kind of honesty in dealing with some of the gentlemen who are charging exorbitant rents for slum and insanitary accommodation, but the fact remains that there is with working-class people a long tradition to pay the landlord first, and try to provide all the necessaries of life out of what is left.

If there is that fidelity on the part of tenants towards the paying of rents, if there is that ingrained desire to pay tribute to the landlord in the first instance and try to get food afterwards, then we ought to know to what extent fidelity of that kind is being utilised by the landlords to try to exact their pound of flesh through the benefits provided by the State under the Act to which I have referred. Those are evils which exist. Those are problems which exist. Those are abuses which exist. If the Minister does not know that, I am sure the members of his own Party know it. The Minister cannot have made any very exhaustive inquiry as to the extent of those evils in this and in other cities; otherwise I feel that he would gladly accept an amendment of this kind. The object of the amendment is to ensure an inquiry comprehensive in character, to give the State a picture of the evils which exist, and I would strongly urge that the Minister should consider and accept the amendment. It is put down to help to get a proper inquiry into the problem. It is put down to assist the Minister in getting that inquiry. It is put down for the purpose of ensuring that those evils will be investigated so that the State may have information on the extent to which those evils exist, and be able to provide a remedy for those difficulties.

Mr. Morrissey

I am rather sorry that Deputy Norton moved those amendments or put them down, not because I am not in agreement with the amendments, but because it seems to me that he is rather playing into the hands of the Government by helping to confuse the real issue and the main issue, that is, the question of the rents paid by tenants, particularly the rents he has stressed so much—the rents paid by the tenants in Dublin. As one who has had some years' experience of town tenants' organisations in this country, I have no hesitation in saying that this motion on the Paper in the name of the Minister is a completely and absolutely dishonest motion. It is an attempt to put off the whole matter, and avoid what is, I admit, a very difficult problem. I would invite any member of the House who is interested in this matter to compare the wording of this motion on the Paper with the terms of reference of the Meredith Commission of 1927-28. Word for word it is the same, except that the Minister uses the word "abuses" in the motion instead of the word "anomalies" used in the original terms of reference. Deputy Lemass, as he then was, speaking in this House on the Landlords and Tenants Bill, 1931, said: "The Town Tenants Commission was set up not to rectify the grievances of town tenants, but to meet the exigencies of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party." I think those words, if you substitute "the Fianna Fáil Party," meet the situation perfectly. The Minister at one time claimed to have personal interest in this matter of the town tenants. I am informed that on one occasion he himself was chairman of a town tenants' branch.

Mr. Ruttledge

You are misinformed.

Mr. Morrissey

In any case the Minister and his colleagues knew enough about the problem to make a very definite promise, on the information at their disposal then, that one of their first actions if returned as a Government would be to introduce legislation to remedy the grievances of town tenants. Instead of legislation we get the old dodge—when you are up against a difficulty, postpone it. That is the Government's way out of it. This is a question of sending the fool further. This Government has no intention whatever of introducing a Town Tenants Act.

Mr. Donnelly

Sez you!

Mr. Morrissey

Says the Minister for Finance at the Ard-Fheis.

Mr. MacEntee

Was the Deputy there?

Mr. Morrissey

I quote the Minister, and the Minister can deny it if he likes.

"Mr. MacEntee said that the State had difficulty enough in completing land purchase, for which they had undertaken big responsibility, without attempting a purchase scheme for town tenants, which they would not have the slightest possibility of carrying through."

Mr. Donnelly

A purchase scheme.

Mr. Morrissey

Am I to understand then that the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fianna Fáil spokesmen never promised a purchase scheme to the town tenants of this country? Do they deny that?

Mr. Dillon

It was only a statement!

Mr. Morrissey

Do they deny that they ever promised that?

Mr. Ruttledge

By whom was the statement made?

Mr. Morrissey

The statement was made over and over again.

Mr. MacEntee

By whom?

Mr. Morrissey

By every spokesman of the Party opposite.

Mr. MacEntee

Can you give the name of one?

Mr. Morrissey

I take it that the Party opposite repudiates another promise? I take it that they say they never promised a purchase scheme any more than they promised complete derating?

Mr. Donnelly

Could you work in the economic war?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is full of sympathy for the town tenants when he is down in the towns of his own constituency, and so is every other Deputy on the far side. Here you are up against a straight problem, and I contend that in this report of the Meredith Commission, a report on terms of reference at least as wide if not wider than the terms of reference now before the House, you have all the information you need if you want to act on it. I suggest that you do not want to act on it. I suggest that the Minister was treating the matter flippantly when he suggested to a deputation of town tenants that they should go back, make up their own minds, and let him know what they wanted. If the Minister is not satisfied with the Town Tenants Commission report of 1927, will he read the speeches made by his colleagues, and particularly by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the Landlords and Tenants Act when it was going through this House, and the speeches made on the Rent Restrictions Act. Let him read those for Deputy Donnelly. I again quote from the Ard-Fheis: "Mr. Leonard said the majority of town tenants thought the Government was not sincere in considering their demands." That was one of the truest things said at the Ard-Fheis. He went on to say that 300 cases of hardship had been submitted to the Minister. They thought the Government were not sincere in considering their demands; even their own supporters do not believe in their sincerity. A resolution dealing with the question of town tenants was turned down by the Ministers at the Ard-Fheis. Fairly strong pressure was exercised afterwards when the delegates to the Ard Fheis had recovered from the shock of Ministers——

Mr. Donnelly

Is that a Press report?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Morrissey

It is a Press report. Would the Deputy like to know the name of the paper?

Mr. Dillon

Would the Deputy observe that the President has fled?

Mr. Morrissey

The President has about as much interest in the town tenants as any member of the front bench.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Dillon is full of sympathy for them.

Mr. Morrissey

Deputy Lemass, speaking in 1930 on the Increase of Rent and Mortgage (Restrictions) Bill, said, "They would support the passage of the Bill but he regretted the necessity for doing so as he had hoped that by this time legislation dealing with the position of town tenants would have been introduced and passed by the Dáil." Apparently, the Minister for Industry and Commerce thought five years ago that there was sufficient evidence available to justify the introduction of a town tenants measure. If there is one problem in this country outside the rent problem or demands and claims with which the Government should be conversant, they are demands of the town tenants. Remember that the town tenants of this country have been clamouring to have their demands met, not since the present Government came into power, but for the last 30 years.

Mr. McMenamin

Longer.

Mr. Morrissey

For at least 30 years, and the Government cannot get away from the fact that they did make a definite promise and obtain a very large measure of support from town tenants as a whole. I have no faith in this motion, because I believe this motion is largely intended to send the fool farther. The Minister's only excuse for setting up the Commission is that he has not sufficient information. I venture to suggest that he is not going to get information which will be any more useful than was given before the Meredith Commission. If he wants any further information he could not go to a better authority on the matter than the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. If he wants to do something for the town tenants, there is a very eminent legal gentleman who has lately been appointed a judge in this country, who was very conversant with the position of the town tenants. I would suggest his name for the consideration of the Minister as chairman of this tribunal.

This tribunal is not going to be even, from the point of view of the town tenants, nearly as valuable in regard to its personnel as the Meredith Commission. A tribunal! It is an Interdepartmental Committee, a Committee composed of officials to be presided over, we are told, by a judge or a gentleman of legal standing. The whole thing is camouflage. Whatever the Government may think about it, or whatever members sitting behind the President may think about it, the tenants of this country know that quite well. If they do not know it now, they may wake up to the fact in two or three years' time that they will not get any Town Tenants Bill that will be of any use to them from the present Government.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Morrissey has told us that he has years' and years' experience of the town tenants' organisation, and he has told us that the town tenants have been clamouring for. I think, 30 years to have their grievances remedied. He has expressed, apparently on behalf of his Party, an attitude of opposition to the Minister's motion, and yet not one hint did he give as to what fault he had to find with the motion. He did not hint for a moment what particular grievance of the town tenants this motion will not cover.

Mr. Morrissey

It is dealt with already. Has the Deputy ever read this report?

Mr. Moore

Why could not the Deputy mention at least one particular point in that report that he requires the Government to deal with and that is not going to be dealt with by this Commission? Why could he not at least point to the defects of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1929 or what it was that was left undone by the Land-lord and Tenant Act that he thinks should now be done? Presumably Deputy Morrissey would agree that the method of dealing with this matter will be by taking up every existing grievance where the Landlord and Tenant Act left off, by suggesting additions to the legislation that was then enacted, and by dealing with the grievances that were not then dealt with. All Deputy Morrissey has done is to talk round and round the subject. Not a hint has he given us as to what he himself has in mind or what the Town Tenants' Organisation has in mind with regard to their grievances.

Mr. Morrissey

It is all in the red book.

Mr. Moore

The organisation supported by Deputy Morrissey adopt the extraordinary method of coming to the Minister and saying: "We have undoubted grievances, we have overwhelming grievances, but you will have to define them for us." That is a new method for a national organisation to adopt, and naturally any Minister would find it very hard to take them seriously. They have great resources. They get considerable support from the country, and I am prepared to believe they have substantial grievances, but I have always been at a loss to know why they could not pay a competent person, a lawyer, or some other qualified person, to define these grievances.

Mr. Morrissey

They have done so already.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Morrissey has resorted to the good old method of Cumann na nGaedheal when they used to say that Fianna Fáil told the farmers that they would never have to pay their annuities, and that they should not pay their annuities. He uses the same method now when he states that the Fianna Fáil Deputies told the country that when Fianna Fáil got office they would undoubtedly institute a Purchasing Bill for town tenants. There are no facts to support that statement, no facts whatever. It is just as unreliable as their dishonest and very contemptible statement that Fianna Fáil told the farmers they would never have to pay the annuities.

I thought that the speech of Deputy Norton was largely a speech which dealt with a very bad social problem of this country rather than a speech designed to make a case for the amendment of the Minister's motion. He mentioned, for instance, the extent to which rents are paid out of moneys provided under the Unemployment Assistance Act. I think we are all pretty satisfied that there is a good deal of that going on, but how it would affect the town tenants' problem is another question. My own opinion is that it is a question that would not be relevant to a town tenants commission. It is a problem in itself—a problem that can be dealt with apart from the general question. How far a commission could go into that matter, unless they took a sort of census of every town and city in the country and of the means of each family, I do not know. I do not know that the information gained would be very valuable, and even if it were correct at the moment it was ascertained, it might be much less correct by the time the commission had reported.

The amendment further asks that the Commission should report as "to the extent, if any, to which unduly high rents are being charged for building sites and the effect thereof on house rents." There again there is not much information required. We all know that the building boom of the last few years has increased the rents of sites, but I would rather think that is a separate problem also. Further, I am sure there is nearly sufficient information available already to suggest a solution, if any solution be practicable. It is not a question on which I think the Government should spend money in getting information, seeing that the facts are already pretty familiar to most people. On the whole, I, at least, am satisfied that no case has been made against the motion, and Deputy Morrissey certainly has not made the shadow of a case for opposing the motion put forward by the Minister.

Mr. Belton

I certainly do not see that any harm could be done by having this inquiry, provided that there were definite limits to the time it would occupy. If it is simply for the purpose of taking the matter up, a matter on which the Government is pretty well informed at the present time, then it would be, as Deputy Morrissey said, a case of sending the fool farther. If a limit were put to the time that this inquiry would be allowed to continue its investigations, then it would serve a useful purpose.

I understand there is a limit to the time for the discussion of this matter, and I will not go into the matter, therefore, in the way I otherwise would. There is a lot of talk about the price of sites having gone up, and the increased rents that imposes. If you fix the price of sites what happens? Pals will get them, and there will be another grievance. Sites at present are let in the open market to the highest bidder. I am sorry the Chairman of the Corporation Housing Committee has left the House, but there are members of the Corporation here who are aware that at present the Corporation have 200 or 300 acres of land within the City of Dublin advertised for building purposes. How are we to dispose of that land for building purposes except to the highest tender? If there is any other way of doing it, let us know. Deputies Breathnach and Traynor are here, and they know that as well as I do. By a matter of accident, I happen to be Chairman of that Committee, and I see no other way of handling the problem except in that way. If people give too much for the land, they give it with their eyes open, and it is their funeral.

I think Deputy Norton should have modified his statement when he talked of people living in insanitary dwellings in the city and throughout the country. I do not know about throughout the country, but surely we all admit that there are people living in dwellings in the city that we would not have them living in if we had the wherewithal to build houses and build them quickly. But, to say that there are people living in insanitary dwellings in Dublin suggests that the medical authority of the city is not doing his duty. If we accept that for the sake of argument, what is the next step? We want money to build houses. Does not Deputy Norton, the Minister for Finance, and everybody here know that the whole problem of housing is a question of £ s. d.? If this tribunal is going to be of any use—practically all that they are asked to inquire into we know already —the material matter to inquire into is, where will we get sufficient money at a fair price to tackle this housing, the next thing will be a shortage of plasterers. I hope Deputy Norton will not come along then and say, "We will not allow plasterers to be brought into the City of Dublin."

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy endeavouring to fix the rents of those prospective houses?

Mr. Belton

In conclusion I wish to say that if this inquiry is to go on the most material matter to inquire into and get suggestions upon is, where we will get the money to tackle the housing problem. If you do not do that you are leaving out the part of Hamlet.

Mr. Dillon

I think Deputy Norton is making a mistake in asking for the widening of the scope of this inquiry to include the whole question of land values, for this reason, that the tribunal as proposed to be constituted, is bound to give the major part of its attention to the appalling scandal of slum rents in the city. The Deputy may say, "Why not go farther afield?" What has resulted already from commissions that inquired into that question? Deputy Morrissey went back as far as the Meredith Commission. What about the Campbell-Bannerman Commission? We have been fighting on this subject of slum rents in the City of Dublin for 40 years and we have got nothing done yet. The President will remember that in my salad days of long ago, when I was a law student, I asked him to do me the honour of speaking at an inaugural debate which we had on the question of the slums. Public business made it impossible for him to attend on that occasion, and Mr. Gavan Duffy took his place. I may say that Mr. Gavan Duffy was, perhaps, the most enthusiastic person on the platform for my view—and I depart from orthodoxy when I say this—that slums are a problem which ought to be disposed of without counting the cost. I suppose I shall be regarded henceforth in the public life of this country as financially unsound, but I take the view that you ought to dispose of the slums and count the cost afterwards.

It is just because the Minister for Finance, and indeed the Executive Council and the Fianna Fáil Party have not that kind of courage, that they do not get the general support which they are always clamouring for. They will embark on an economic war without counting the cost. I am not going to refer to that further, but I want to make this differentiation, that that is embarked upon without counting the cost, just as the Kaiser in Germany, the Duce in Italy, and the dictators of some other countries will launch a nation into war without counting the cost. But surely, as the President knows, and as we all know, more people are dying in the slums of our big cities and in big cities in England and other countries from bad housing than are killed in many wars. If the Executive Council of any Government took its courage in its hands and asked all sides to help them in marshalling the resources of the community to dispose of slums, they would get what help they wanted.

Mr. Belton

That is counting the cost.

Mr. Dillon

No. Of course, common prudence demands that every sensible step should be taken to try and estimate the cost, but I would allow no consideration of conservative finance to compel me to refrain from taking whatever steps are necessary to end the slums. It is all very well for Deputies to say that slum rents constitute the present scandal.

Mr. MacEntee

Then the Deputy will vote for the next Budget.

Mr. Dillon

Slum rents do, on the surface, look to be a very shocking scandal, but when you start investigating closely the question of the whole system of rents for tenement rooms, the problem is much more complicated than appears at first glance. In fact it will emerge that we cannot house the poor of Dublin or any other considerable city at an economic price. It will require some kind of State subsidy or municipal subsidy to house the poor of this city or any other city as we want to see it done.

Mr. Belton

The Deputy should look for £1,000,000 to house the poor, and then he will see what the problem is.

Mr. Dillon

I am not going to be drawn into a discussion to-day as to the reasons why we have peculiar difficulties to surmount in this problem at the present time.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy has concluded, the question might be put.

Mr. Dillon

That is a grossly disorderly and insolent suggestion to make, and I respectfully submit that it calls for a rebuke from the Chair. The Minister ought to have some respect for the procedure of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Might I inquire whether there is any likelihood of this debate concluding in ten minutes?

Mr. Dillon

There was.

An Ceann Comhairle

If there is a possibility that it will conclude in ten minutes, perhaps that time might be conceded. Otherwise it must be adjourned until another item has been disposed of. That is the position.

Mr. Dillon

Certainly, if that suggestion had been made civilly and decently two minutes ago there would have been agreement, but in the existing circumstances the matter will have to be adjourned.

Debate adjourned.