Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 1946

Vol. 99 No. 7

Private Deputies' Business. - Ground Rents—Motion.

Mr. Davin

I move:

That, in the opinion of Dáil Eireann, the Government should without delay introduce proposals for legislation enabling the owners of dwellinghouses and business premises in cities, towns and villages, to purchase on equitable terms the ground rents to which such houses and premises are subject.

This question of the rights of landlords has been raised on many occasions in this House both before and since the present Government came into office. I raised it by way of Parliamentary Question on more than one occasion, and on October 18th, 1945, columns 389 and 390 of the Parliamentary Debates, I addressed the following question to the Minister for Justice:—

"To ask the Minister for Justice if he is aware that many ground landlords have secured increased ground rents since the commencement of the emergency and that ground rents are being created arising out of speculation in house property; and, if so, if he will take immediate steps to stabilise ground rents at their existing figures until such time as he is prepared to introduce legislation giving power to those concerned to purchase ground rents on fair terms."

The Minister's reply, by which I was surprised, was as follows:

"I am not aware of any recent developments which call for a revision of the law relating to ground rents.

The position in this matter is regulated by the Landlord and Tenant Acts, 1931 to 1943. Under these Acts, on the termination of a lease under which a ground rent had been reserved, the lessor, who was formerly entitled to take complete possession of the property, is obliged to grant a new lease, the terms of which, in default of agreement between the parties, are settled by the court, within the limits prescribed by the Acts.

The suggestions contained in the question, and other suggestions of a similar kind, have been carefully considered by the Government and it has been decided not to promote legislation in the matter."

The Minister went on further and in a supplementary reply stated:

"I would remind the Deputy that there is a motion on the Order Paper dealing with this matter. In view of that, we will be able to go into this matter more fully than I could do now when the motion comes up for discussion. Perhaps we had better wait to debate the matter until the motion comes forward."

In the circumstances of the time, and in view of the fact that this motion was then on the Order Paper, I think it was only right to accept the suggestion for the time being. I am glad to have this opportunity to move this motion, in order to give the Minister an opportunity to tell us in detail the reasons why the Government has refused to take any action. I was amazed by the Minister's reply, and I was certainly greatly disappointed to learn that the Government had taken a final decision on the lines indicated by him. I say that because one cannot ignore the many statements made by the Minister's own colleagues on a discussion of this kind in the Dáil as far back as 1931. I cannot put my finger on any statement made by the Minister, but I am sure he will not repudiate the opinions expressed at that time by his Ministerial colleagues. Speaking on the Landlord and Tenant Bill in the Dáil in 1931, Mr. Little said:—

"A great many landlords in Dublin hold their titles in most dubious fashion. They were granted leases of enormously valuable property at banquets for trivial sums of money."

Mr. Little said a good many other things of interest during the same debate. I ask the Minister to say now if he can now renege the Government's recent decision, as speaking on the same Bill, in reference to ground rents as well as other rents, Mr. Little also said:

"The Bill is very defective, and defective from every point of view. The profit the landlord is getting bears no relation to the money he invested."

Deputy Lemass speaking during the same discussion, in dealing with the position of ground landlords, said:

"Whatever increase in the letting value of the land has been created between the period when the original lease was granted and the date of its expiration has been the result of action by the community."

There is no doubt that the position to-day is as it was when ground rents were originally created, as far back as 1800 or earlier. I cannot remember any earlier date on which I can lay my hand. The policy of the Government— and I subscribed to it with qualification—especially during the emergency, was to use the Emergency Powers Act and the innumerable Orders issued under the Act for the purpose of stabilising the wages of workers, making it extremely difficult for a large section of workers under the machinery of Emergency Powers Orders to get from the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his colleagues what they were entitled to. Their trade unions were put to considerable trouble and expense in getting what in the opinion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce the workers were entitled to get. Under the Land Act of 1881 and other Acts passed by the British Government, and also by Acts passed by the Irish Government, rents of land have been stabilised as far as those who come within the scope of the various Land Acts are concerned.

Profits of industrialists and commercial concerns have been regulated, and maximum figures laid down, although in some cases industrialists, I am sure, as a result of their energy and ability have been able to drive a coach and four through some of the Emergency Powers Orders which were made to limit profits. Farmers have been obliged to put up with guaranteed prices for agricultural produce, but those who know more about the meaning of economic prices of agricultural produce than I do, say that some of these prices are not fair. Prices of agricultural produce were regulated by Emergency Powers Orders and maximum prices fixed. The rents of houses coming under the Rent Restrictions Act were also fixed, but ground landlords, nowithstanding anything the Minister might say to the contrary, have been able to carry on, and to make huge profits by increasing ground rents wherever the law entitled them to terminate leases, owing to the conditions laid down by which leases were renewed since the emergency. Astounding cases can be quoted to show ground landlords have been getting away with that procedure both before this Government came into office, and since it came into office.

I take off my hat to every member of this House whether he sits on the Ministerial Benches, the Opposition Benches or any other bench, who was prepared to sacrifice his life for the purpose of winning freedom for this country, but if I understood the Minister for Justice in those days he was a democrat and a fearless man, and he surely did not go out to lay down his life so that this country could be free for ground landlords in those dangerous days. If every other person who produces wealth finds that his income and his profits are limited, surely there is a good case for pegging down the profits of landlords, whether he be an absentee landlord represented here by an agent or a resident landlord. We have two or three different types of ground landlords. We have the people who orginally got the land by conquest —I am sure that will not be disputed— in some cases, at any rate. We have municipal authorities in some cases receiving a fairly good income from ground rents. We know perfectly well that a good deal of gambling has been going on in ground rents both before and during the emergency by insurance companies and people who have plenty of money with which to gamble. We have also a new type of ground landlord, the person who was able to get into the building of houses on a more extensive scale, who purchased land at a very low figure in urban and municipal areas and who was able to get, as all ground landlords have been getting, valuable services from the local authorities without paying anything in return. Such people have taken advantage of the opportunity, even during the emergency, to buy land and to build houses, to get the local authority to develop the land for nothing, to sell the houses at a considerable profit and to create ground rents for the period of a lifetime. I do not know what the Minister, as a man who was prepared to make the supreme sacrifice for his country, has to say in defence of a policy of allowing ground landlords to get away with all these profits and with increased ground rents and to lay down conditions in many cases—I shall quote some of them—with which it is entirely impossible for ordinary tenants in municipal areas or provincial towns to comply.

I have heard a good deal about the position of ground landlords in and around the City of Dublin. I have lived in the Dun Laoghaire borough area for a period of 22 or 23 years. There is one well-known ground landlord in that area. The agent for that ground landlord, in giving evidence before the Town Tenants Tribunal in 1927 admitted, I presume on oath, that the income from ground rents of these two lords—he was agent for two lords —in 1804 was £17,641, in 1886 it was £83,000, and at the date he was giving evidence before the tribunal it had risen to the very high figure of £150,000. There was increased building activity in the area which was accountable for portion of the increase, but the major portion of the increase, as far as I could find out—I do not say I am infallible on this—was brought about by the action of the landlord in increasing, doubling and trebling, rents when the leases under his jurisdiction expired.

I should like to hear the Minister defending that position, especially in view of the fact that the two ground landlords concerned do not spend any money as far as I know in this country. The local authority, the Dun Laoghaire Borough Corporation or its predecessors, created the letting value of the property from which these ground rents were collected and they made it possible for the two ground landlords concerned to get this huge income. They improved facilities in the area by providing water supplies and other amenities and as a result of the community effort which was made in this area— and other cases can be quoted—these two landlords are in receipt of a yearly income from ground rents of £150,000 a year in the borough area whereas the total rates collected by the corporation do not exceed £100,000—£150,000 for the ground landlords and £100,000 for the people who created the letting value of the property, the corporation. If the ground landlord, any ground landlord, is going to continue to get facilities from this Government and if the Minister is prepared to defend the existing position, surely he will agree that where a ground landlord is entitled by law to increase the ground rent and to impose very severe conditions, whenever and wherever that ground landlord is given that facility, he should make some contribution to the local authority out of the increased ground rent. I put that to the Minister as a reasonable proposition.

When I raised this question some time ago, some time previous to the 18th October, I stated at the time that I did so for the purpose of imploring the Minister to stabilise ground rents at their existing level during the period of the emergency. I do not think that was an unfair proposal. I stated that there are numerous glaring cases to show that ground landlords—and I shall quote some cases, the details of which I know to be absolutely correct—have imposed impossible conditions, so impossible in some cases that the existing tenants were obliged either to surrender their houses on the expiration of the lease or in some cases were actually evicted. I have correspondence in connection with the case of one old person, a widow from a certain date, a lady named Mrs. Johanna Cummins, who owned 12 cottages at Magenta Place, Dun Laoghaire. The facts are these and I shall produce some correspondence in the handwriting of the lady concerned to prove them. These 12 houses were built by Patrick Aird, the lady's father, in the year 1862. The total ground rent at that time was £1 but when the lease expired the landlord refused to renew the lease unless the owner agreed to put a second storey on each cottage and to expend altogether about £2,000. Mrs. Cummins' rents from these cottages was then about £112. She was unable to meet the estate demand and I think the Minister will agree that it was an unreasonable demand. The cottages were then taken over and the estate are collecting the rents without any further expenditure and without putting up the two storeys on the houses on which Mrs. Cummins was called upon to put these two storeys. It is understood that the total rent from these cottages now amounts to more than £200 per year.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

Was this before the passing of the 1931 Act?

Mr. Davin

It was before the 1931 Act.

Mr. Boland

I thought so.

Mr. Davin

The Minister, if he has been reading up the files in his Department, will find a number of cases that have been cited in correspondence by a certain organisation that has been in direct communication with the Minister. I understand the Minister received a deputation some time ago from the Leaseholders' Association and this is one, I think, of the many cases quoted at that interview as not an uncommon case and it was subsequently confirmed in writing. That is regarded as a very bad type of case. Another case arose recently in Blackrock where a tram driver on the expiry of his lease was informed that before he would be granted a renewal of his tenancy the landlord would require him to pay a rent increased from £3 to £8 and to expend £150 on improvements on his house, a small house which when built 100 years ago did not cost more than £150 to build. I could quote innumerable cases in the Dun Laoghaire area on the Longford De Vesci estate where, to my own knowledge, that kind of racketeering in ground rents has been going on for a long period.

There is another case—the owner can give the address of this one—of eight small houses in Dun Laoghaire, where the lease would not be renewed unless and until an additional storey were added to the houses. The landlord is letting these houses, although he has not expended a penny upon them, and of course they remain single-storey houses as in the other case. The Minister surprised me when he stated in his reply that he had not received any recent cases that would justify action being taken by the Government in connection with racketeering in ground rents. I have here a copy of a letter which was sent to the Minister and to all the Deputies in North-West Dublin, to myself and other Deputies. This is a most glaring case, and refers to a large number of tenants of the middle-class type, with limited incomes, living on the North Circular Road. It is dated 11th May, 1945, and is as follows:

"On behalf of some of my neighbours as well as on my own account, I am writing to you and the other Deputies for this constituency to draw attention to a serious injustice with which we are threatened in respect of the renewal of our leases, due to expire September next.

Our landlord, the late Miss Reigh, died some years ago and the property is now in the hands of her executors, who reside in England and are represented here by Messrs. J. Walsh & Company, Solicitors, Ormond Quay. The leases are for 99 years from 1946; the present ground rent being £4 on each house. Under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, we are entitled to new leases, but the terms we are offered for these renewals are little short of confiscatory.

My own case will serve as an illustration. My house is situated with the others in a terrace at the Phoenix Park end of the North Circular Road; a quiet district of no present or potential importance. It is a three-storey building of the basement type on a plot of about one-eighth of an acre, poor law valuation, £23. I bought it in 1934 for £575, but it was then a wreck, and I had to spend £400 on essential repairs. It has now a letting value of £100 per annum, partly because of this expenditure and partly as a consequence of the housing famine. The ground rent of £4 is, however, barely equitable by comparison with the general level in the district. I can instance some houses of a better class, with a poor law valuation of £37, in the immediate neighbourhood, which are held in perpetuity at £6 per annum. I was, nevertheless, prepared to meet a reasonable demand for an increased rental, but on approaching the landlord's solicitors I was quoted the staggering figure of £25 per annum for my new lease. Furthermore, I discovered to my dismay that Section 48 of the 1931 Act sanctions this imposition. Under this section the landlord is entitled to assess the new ground rent at one-quarter of the letting value of the premises so that, in effect, I am to be compelled to pay him a substantial annual premium on my life savings which I have spent on the property. Surely such a glaring injustice was never envisaged by the Oireachtas."

I am sure he is right there.

"The factual position is that the sites and the sites only belong to the landlord; the houses and out-offices were built and are maintained at the sole expense of the tenant. The value of the site, and only that, should, therefore, be the determining factor in assessing the ground rent; to base the assessment on the value of the tenant's property is unsound both morally and socially.

It is said that the Government are contemplating fresh legislation, but there is grave danger it will come too late to afford any relief to us, and probably hundreds of other leaseholders similarly affected. For this reason we would ask that you urge the Minister for Justice to deal with Section 48 of the 1931 Act specially and at once or, if this is not feasible, to impose a standstill Order in respect of all ground rents pending the introduction of an amending Bill.

I would emphasise that we seek only the right to renew our leases on terms which will be fair alike to the landlord and ourselves. Our case will, I feel, have your wholehearted sympathy, your constituents will be grateful for your assistance in bringing it to a successful issue."

Now, I think that the Minister and Deputies of this House will admit, from the conciliatory and moderate tone of that letter, that the writer and those for whom he is acting are not Communists or Bolshies or anything of that kind. Is the Minister prepared to stand up here and defend the action of the ground landlord in that case? I suggest that if he is not defending the action of a ground landlord of that type, who is endeavouring to use the machinery of the law as it exists for the purpose of increasing the existing ground rent of £4 to £25 to tenants whose wages or salaries are stabilised under the Emergency Powers standstill Order, he should take some definite action to prevent that kind of thing happening. I am not charging the Minister with being prepared to sit down there and defend ground-rent racketeers of that kind. I wonder has the Minister really got information about the activities of that particular type of ground landlord, that particular type of citizen—I would not like to describe them as good citizens, because they seem to be able to get away with racketeering activities more than any other section of the community. Of course, I know that the Minister will get up and quote the 1931 Act and show that the landlord will have to renew the leases, but on what conditions? If, as a result of an appeal to the court by the landlord, the court should decide that the tenant must go out, then he must go out and leave in the possession of the landlord a house of this type for which he paid £575 and upon which the tenant himself has expended £400, in the hope that his family and his descendants for all time would be happy in the possession of that house.

I could quote a number of other cases, but what I am asking the Minister to do is what I asked him to do two years ago, and that is that until such time as this whole question has been carefully examined by the Minister and his advisers there should be a stand-still Order in regard to ground rents, just as there is a stand-still Order applying to every other section of the community that I know of. I think that that is reasonable. In any case, the claim made by the Leaseholders' Association, who represent a large proportion of the leaseholders, particularly in the municipality, is fair and just, that there should be some guarantee for the leaseholders of fair ground rents, by prohibiting the creation of new ground rents and unfair ground rent renewals. Is the Minister prepared to defend the case that a landlord should be entitled under the existing law to compel the tenant concerned to expend more on the reconstruction or repair of the house, when the lease expires, than the amount which was originally paid for that house, and is he defending the action of ground landlords—with the permission of the court in some cases, but without going to court at all in very many cases—to add four times to the ground rent on the expiration of the lease? If the Minister is not prepared to defend these people, then the only thing he can say is that these cases are worthy of more careful and full consideration than has been given by him and his advisers up to the present time.

If, for instance, as the result of an appeal to the courts by a tenant on the expiration of a lease, the court, in its wisdom, decides, for good reasons given by the ground landlord, that the tenant must get out, surely there is a case for the payment of some reasonable compensation to the tenant who bought the house at the full market value at a particular period, who expended a particular amount on its repair, and who has to hand over that property with an enhanced value to the ground landlord. I think there is a clear case for a renewal of the lease without any of the impossible conditions which have been applied by these ground landlords in recent times. Conditions should also be laid down by the Minister in an Emergency Powers Order for fixing a fair rent and not allowing these racketeering landlords to treble or quadruple the rent after having their property considerably improved, in some cases by money borrowed by the tenant.

So far as I know the City of Dublin —I do not know too much about some of the other cities, but I know some of the provincial towns—leaseholders generally are a body of thrifty people who have saved money to purchase the houses which they occupy or very often borrowed it to purchase these houses at the market value. Every thrifty person of that type regards it as an obligation upon him to keep the house in a proper state of repair. The house is the castle of the average citizen who thinks fit to buy his house and to put all his life savings into it or to borrow money for the purpose. This democratic State should not give the right to a ground landlord to put these people out of possession by enabling them to get away with impossible conditions for the renewal of the lease. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this whole matter, not on the basis of the information I have given in this brief statement, but on the basis of the much more reliable and detailed information that I know he has in his Departmental files. I ask him to consider the matter sympathetically and seriously at the earliest possible date and to make an emergency standstill Order fixing ground rents at their existing level until such time as he is able to introduce detailed legislation dealing with the whole matter.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I formally second the motion.

Mr. O'Connor

I have listened with great interest to the speech of my friend, Deputy Davin, but, while he was making the speech, I searched through the Order Paper, as I understood this was motion No. 2 on it. Certainly, I cannot connect Deputy Davin's speech with motion No. 2, which requests the Government to introduce proposals for legislation enabling owners of dwellinghouses and business premises to purchase ground rents, that is, to bring ground rents to an end. But the whole speech of Deputy Davin seemed to me to deal with a different subject altogether. He seemed to me to be dealing with the rights of lessees or tenants to obtain renewals of their leases and with fixing the rents for such renewals. So far as I could ascertain, he did not even attempt to make a case for purchasing.

Mr. Davin

The language of the motion makes the case.

Mr. O'Connor

I am speaking of the Deputy's speech. I imagine that what has happened to this motion is that someone, perhaps my friend, Deputy Norton, must have worn out a few blue pencils on it before it finally got into the Clerk's office. It is about the most mild and tame proposal in regard to ground rents that I have ever heard of. No one can object to a proposal to enable tenants to purchase ground rents on equitable terms; that means terms favourable both to the man who pays the ground rent and the man who receives it. That is a proposal we would all approve of. Most of us, I think, will be specially touched by it, as most of us are in the position of having to pay ground rents, and we can have a special sympathy for any proposal which would enable us to purchase those rents on equitable terms. But Deputy Davin dealt almost entirely in his speech with the position that exists when a lease expires, and he quoted several cases. He did not deal with the point that, when premises are sold, the number of years that the lease has yet to run is a very vital factor in determining the price. Very often a man gets a house or other premises at much less than the market value because the lease has only a few years to run. He knows that the position is uncertain as to what will happen when the lease expires. He knows it is uncertain as to the conditions which may be imposed. He knows it is uncertain as to the rent that may be imposed by the landlord.

Deputy Davin mentioned the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1931, Section 48. That section deals with the position that will arise when a building lease expires. Under that section, the owner of a rent is entitled to increase the rent to not more than one-fourth of the letting value of the house. I am in complete agreement with Deputy Davin's views in regard to that section. I think that the limit is much too high. Whilst giving the landlord an increase, there should be some middle course in regard to the increase to one-fourth, particularly in the case of a building lease. In a building lease we can be satisfied that the owner of the premises did not expend the money on the building. He merely gave a lease of the ground and got rent for it, and the building was put up by some other person and not the owner of the rent. That is a matter which, I suggest, might be considered; that is, to modify in some respects the amount of rent that may be charged.

With regard to the conditions as to expenditure on a house, I think that the provision where the landlord insists upon money being spent on a house if giving a long lease is just as much for the benefit of the tenant as for the landlord. Deputy Davin mentioned a house built 100 years ago. I should imagine that there must definitely be an urgent necessity to spend money on a house built that number of years ago. If the tenant or the lessee expends the money, he gets the benefit of it in having the ownership of the house. So much for Deputy Davin's speech.

I will now speak about the motion, which is different completely, as I have mentioned, from the speech made by Deputy Davin. I would be in complete sympathy with any proposals by which the owners of houses—dwelling-houses, particularly—would be enabled to purchase their rents on equitable terms. I would not be so worried about the owners of business premises, because it is a well known fact that business premises are generally held on short leases at high rents. Generally, people in business prefer to be paying a rent and, if given the right to buy, they would prefer to take a lease, even at a high rent, than buy out. For that reason, I am not much concerned in regard to enabling the owners of business premises to buy out the rents. The first point I see that would arise on any proposals regarding ground rents would be to find out exactly what is meant by the term "ground rent". Which of the several rents that may be payable in different circumstances out of premises do you mean when you say "ground rent?"

The popular notion of ground rent is where the owner of land gives a lease, with the condition that the lessee will build premises on it, and he fixes the rent by reference to the value of the premises that will eventually be put on the land. We have several cases, particularly in country towns, where landlords built houses and rented them or leased them at low rents, but in those cases we will still call those rents "ground rents". The Dublin Corporation receives a huge income in rents, but it would be difficult to get information as to how much of those rents are ground rents, as you cannot clearly define what is meant by a ground rent. When the builder of a house, having got a lease at a small rent himself, gives another lease at a greater rent, which of those rents can you call the ground rent? The Leaseholders' Association referred generally to leasehold rents, but that is not the term used here. I suggest there will be considerable difficulty in arriving at a definition which will explain or cover exactly "ground rents" In fact, it would be necessary to consider every circumstance under which a leasehold could arise and to make out separate provisions for each such case.

With regard to "equitable terms", that phrase suggests to me that not only would the payer of a rent be satisfied with the amount he would have to pay to redeem it, but that the landlord must be satisfied with the amount he will get. The law does not contain any obstacle in the way of purchase and sale of rent on such terms. There is no need for any legislation to enable that to be carried out, if the parties are agreed regarding the price, and there is no need to make any other legislative provision. However, when you get down to the basic principles of the purchase of ground rents, it is obvious that some compulsion will be necessary. It would be impossible to carry out the proposals to purchase all the ground rents in the country without at least compulsion on one side, that is, compelling the owner of the rent to sell. Whether you would compel also the buyer of the rent to purchase, if he did not want to do so, I do not know, but it would definitely be necessary to bring in these provisions with regard to the owner of the rent.

The next consideration is that it would be necessary to provide financial assistance to enable most of the buyers of these rents to buy out on any terms. I submit that it would be futile and unfair to make simple provisions regulating the price, or regulating it so that these provisions would be available only to the more wealthy tenants or lessees who could afford the money needed to pay off the amount. The second great difficulty we come to is the complete absence of statistics in regard to ground rents. I think my friend, Deputy Davin, was endeavouring to get statistics some time last year, when he thought it would be quite an easy matter to find out how much rent was paid in a certain class of case; but he was assured by the Minister for Finance that it would involve a considerable amount of administrative work on the part of the Department and that it could not be done.

Mr. Davin

It might not be wise to give the figures.

Mr. O'Connor

I am giving the answer, and I think the Deputy accepted it.

Mr. Davin

I had to.

Mr. O'Connor

We have no idea of the total amount of rent involved. We have no idea of the financial assistance which would be needed from the State and we have no idea of the size and the cost of the Department that would be needed to carry out a proposal of this kind. It seems to me, that from the administrative side alone, you would need a Department as big as the Land Commission and the Board of Works put together. I do not want to frighten anybody by suggesting that we could possibly have another Land Commission, but I do not know how the proposals would be carried out otherwise, without a Department to work on the same lines as the Land Commission; and I cannot form any idea whatever of the cost of the administration of that Department.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Or how long it would take?

Mr. O'Connor

No. Land purchase has been going on for a long time, but the Land Commission was established as a temporary Department. I think it has almost come to be regarded as a permanent Department. The idea that it will at some time complete land purchase seems to have gone out of our minds completely. In the absence of definite and precise information on all those subjects, I could not possibly support this motion. I am certain the Deputy proposing it thought of these arguments against the motion. They are matters of common sense, which would have been kept in mind, but I think they were nicely and skilfully ignored, so as to get an opportunity here to talk about ground rents, in the pretence that the Party was putting forward a proposal to help the people who paid those rents. That is not the case. They merely put in a motion suggesting that the owners should be enabled to purchase on equitable terms, without giving any details, without making any provision for the items I have mentioned, which must necessarily be dealt with before this question even can be considered.

Deputy Davin made some remarks regarding the more modern ground rents, that is, those collected by people who build and develop land. He says the local authorities give the valuable service of developing the land and then allow the builder to take it over and charge a rent. Deputy Davin can scarcely believe that. He must know that, when land is taken over for development, the builders have to provide roads, sewers and street lighting. They have even to pay for the name plates put at the end of each street. The only service that is provided free that I know of is water. If Deputy Davin knows of any provision whereby those services may be obtained free and the owner able to get them without having to spend any money, I would be glad to have more details from him, as I would be very interested.

Deputy Davin mentioned the inevitable "absentee landlord" and the name of a certain estate in Dún Laoghaire. A part of the agitation dealing with ground rents has been that most of the rents are payable to people who do not live in the country There, again, we are completely without statistics. But I would say, as far as I can ascertain, in a rough way, that it is a very small percentage of our ground rents that goes to people outside the country. In the City of Dublin, so far as I can ascertain, the biggest ground rent owner is the Dublin Corporation. It is well known that ground rents are owned extensively by religious and cultural organisations of all denominations throughout the country, and it is well known also that in recent years many people have invested their money in ground rents so as to provide them with an income. Practically all that was carried out by people who live amongst us, and not by foreigners.

Deputy Davin mentioned the gamble in ground rents. The two subjects do not go together. The man who has money to invest, if he is a gambler, will invest it in some industrial security or some ordinary shares likely to increase in value. He certainly will not invest in ground rents. An investment in ground rents is the opposite of gambling. It is an investment made by a person who wishes to be sure of a reasonable income, and the income obtained from an investment in ground rents is generally very small, only a little more than might be obtained by an investment in Government securities. On the whole, it could scarcely be described as a gamble.

To carry out the proposals suggested in this motion would create a good deal of disruption, first, to the Dublin Corporation and its financial arrangements; secondly, to the State, which is also a large owner of ground rents, and it would also affect many religious and cultural organisations that are in receipt of ground rents throughout the country.

I cannot see where the urgent necessity to do what is proposed arises at this particular stage. The people with leases are the most fortunate people in the country to-day. They have leases and the law protects them. The law provides that they can hold their premises for the balance of the term indicated in their leases against all comers, and if anyone tries to dispossess them the law will take a hand and put them back into possession. The law allows them to sell their leasehold interest and the law does not put any restriction upon the price they may ask for that interest.

Deputy Davin did not suggest it would be an equitable thing that such a restriction should be made. It is well-known that the price of houses has increased to a great extent. It has more than doubled, particularly in Dublin City within the last few years, but I have not heard any suggestion, nor would I be in favour of it, that there should be any restriction on the price that the leaseholder may ask for his house if he wants to sell it. We have had suggestions that there should be restrictions in regard to ground rents but the ground rents that the leaseholders speak of are fixed; they are all long leases and the landlord can never, under any circumstances, increase the rent throughout the term of the lease.

That is the great value of the lease —the protection the law gives to it. The law compels the landlord to accept the same rent throughout the entire term and prevents him increasing it or imposing any conditions on the lessee which are not contained in the lease. In the last century or so, the law has developed so as to prevent the landlord doing anything of a harsh nature, even through the lease may allow for it. The law prevents the landlord from unreasonably refusing to allow the lessee to assign. All the legislation since, I think, the year 1860, has been putting brakes on the landlords and preventing them from doing anything harsh against the tenant.

There, again, I am afraid I am copying Deputy Davin in speaking away from the motion. I am speaking about the rights of the lessees on the expiration of their leases and that does not come within the terms of this motion.

It is well-known that at the present time the attention of the Government must be very fully occupied with immense problems in relation to houses. There is the immense problem of slum clearance and the problem of providing houses for the people to live in, particularly the urgent need in the city to provide houses for young married people. There is also the problem of the increase of our public health services and the building of a large number of hospitals. I do not think the Government would be justified in by-passing any of these problems in favour of this proposal to enable the owners of houses to purchase ground rents.

I suggest that before we get to that stage, putting first things first, we should endeavour to create more and more owners of houses, to give houses to the thousands of families in the city who are looking for them. Whether they are to get leases and pay ground rents or pay ordinary rents does not matter so much; the main thing is to put the people into the houses. Taking first things first, I would not be prepared to support a proposal that the Government should now embark on the setting up of the huge organisation that would be required to carry out the purchase of ground rents, and for the reasons I have given, even if the motion contained the sensible and vital proposals that it should contain if it was seriously intended, I still could not support it.

Mr. Corry

Listening to the debate to-night, my mind was taken away back to when we were beginning as a Government and when I heard the very selfsame declaration from the Minister's predecessor, Deputy James Geoghegan. I am going to start my statement with a quotation. It is taken from the Parliamentary Debates of 12th July——

Mr. Norton

A good date, too.

Mr. Corry

It is from the Official Report of 12th July, 1932, column 762. It is a statement made in reply to me during an Adjournment Debate on ground rents in Cobh. This is the statement:

"The Deputy can rest assured that the grievances of the tenants in Cobh will receive the earnest attention of my Department, the earnest attention of my colleagues as a Government as soon, and just as soon as they can devote attention to it. I will not feed the people of Cobh up with false fancies by saying to them that ‘you will have in the autumn of this year a Bill' of this kind. I will not do that. I tell the tenants of Cobh and elsewhere something that they can absolutely rely on—that the Government drawn from the Party that espoused their cause so warmly in Opposition will not forget them on these benches and that everything in reason that can be done for the tenants of Cobh and the tenants in the other towns of this country to remedy substantial grievances and to restore all the equities as between two parties will be done at the earliest opportunity by this Government, but that this Government while weighing the many pressing needs of our community will see that the more grievously laden will be relieved first and that in the fullness of time we hope to give the community a programme which will, perhaps, not merely adjust contractual liabilities as between people in Cobh but may and will, I hope, lead to such better times as will lessen the gulf between what the tenant is able to pay in Cobh and what the landlords should exact."

That is the statement made by the first Minister for Justice of our Government on 12th July, 1932. This is February, 1945.

Mr. Norton

1946.

Mr. Corry

Later still, and it is high time for every Deputy here to ask the present Minister for Justice when is he going to implement that. It is about time we got down to business here. I lost faith completely in them when they were doing nothing some years after and I had to go to the town of Cobh myself and I had to do what the Minister failed to do. With my colleague, Deputy Broderick, I had to go down to Cobh, and, for a couple of years, we were judge, jury and executioner. As a result, we got the rents of the town tenants of Cobh reduced by 33? per cent.

My attention was very forcibly drawn to this matter by the condition of affairs which arose in Midleton, a town in my constituency, during the past month, and my only regret to-night is that my esteemed colleague from Cork City, Deputy William Dwyer, is not here. The ground landlord of Cobh, Lord Midleton, an absentee gentleman, offered 25 years' purchase to all his tenants. There were nine acres of land with a house attached on the outskirts of the town, held by Major Watt when he was master of the United Hunt, at £100 per annum. It was idle for some years, and during the Emergency the Army took it over at £80 a year. Lately, an opportunity arose of having an industry started in the town. Deputy Dwyer went down to look for a site, and, after careful examination, came to the conclusion that these nine acres would be a suitable site. He offered the 25 years' purchase which the ground landlord was demanding, in hard cash, a sum of £2,500. The ground landlord immediately demanded £5,000. He was offered £3,000 and he again refused.

This ground landlord who lives in Britain and who derives his money out of the unfortunate town tenants of Midleton was quite satisfied to see the young men and women of that town leaving this country to get employment elsewhere. He was not going to give the nine acres required for that industry in Midleton. When that condition of affairs is allowed to continue, a condition of affairs in which an absentee landlord can refuse facilities for starting an industry in any town, can refuse to give the ground because he or someone belonging to him got it from Cromwell in other days, there is something wrong with the Government which allows it. We had to put in three or four days' hard work before we were able to find an alternative site, but the fact remains that if that alternative site had been in the hands of a ground landlord, the young men and women of Midleton would still have to go abroad to seek the employment denied to them at home. I have read a statement by the Minister for Justice 14 years ago and it is time the present Minister implemented the promise then made by his predecessor.

I will quote a few of the causes which gave rise to this position. If I had known this debate was to come on, I could keep quoting them for a month. I certainly could quote sufficient cases to occupy the entire three and a half hours allotted to this motion. In the case of 25 holdings in the town of Cobh, when the first lease expired, the landlord claimed the property and raised the rents on the holdings from £100 to £1,862 and compelled the tenants at their own expense to rebuild according to the specifications of his architect. In another case, the land was leased at £12 10s. per year. The people who took it erected buildings at a cost of £12,000, of which they had to borrow £5,000 from the bank. When the lease expired in 1902, the landlord refused to renew the lease, either to the tenants or the bank, and the premises were let to other tenants at a rent of £415. In one case, the ground rent was raised from £100 to £1,862, and in the other from £12 10s. to £415. As I say, we succeeded in getting this reduction of 33? per cent. and we put a clause in the arbitration agreement by which those who got the reduction were required to hand it over to the occupying tenant.

I had the case of one hero who had something like 120 houses in an area known as the Naval Dwellings, Cobh. He refused to look for or to accept the 33? per cent. reduction which his ground landlord had to give him and refused, therefore, to reduce the rent to the tenants. The tenants were dragged into court and the district justice gave a decree, but, luckily enough, we had then a Circuit Court judge in Cork whose memory will be revered for many years in Cork, the late Judge Tom O'Donnell. He sent the landlord out to settle, with the result that we got that 33? per cent. reduction from the landlord and were able to get the settlement made a rule of court which that landlord is at present trying to upset under one of the Rent Restrictions Acts, God save us, passed here.

That is the kind of thing which we are allowing to continue—this draining of life blood, for I can call it nothing else, because of this power which no individual should have. I hold that no man should have, in this year of 1946, the power to say of any town: "You shall not get here any site for one of these factories in which to employ young men and women whose only other outlet is emigration." That condition of affairs must end in fairness to the people of this country who, from 1916 onwards, fought to end it. I wonder, if you were to ask anyone who went through the Black and Tan trouble, if he ever dreamed that, in 1946, an absentee ground landlord would have power to tell the people of Midleton: "You shall not have a factory in your town," what would he say?

What would they say to the Governments that we have had here if they allowed that state of affairs to continue? I appeal to the Minister to bring in a Bill to deal with this question. He is not so rushed now and has plenty of time to do it. He has no Blueshirts, Blackshirts or Brownshirts to deal with, and can put his back into the work and bring in a Bill that will put an end to the present condition of affairs. Since 1934 the tenants in Cobh are, I grant you, paying reduced rents. That has been the position since Deputy Broderick and myself got them fixed, but while that is the position in Cobh there are people in plenty of other towns in the TwentySix Counties that have not a Deputy Broderick or a Deputy Corry to look after them, and they are still groaning under the payment of full rents. They have got no 33? per cent. off their rents. I suggest to the Minister that Deputies should not be put in the position of endeavouring to upset what, I suppose, he would call the law of the land. The remedy that I am suggesting should come under laws passed here in this House and Deputies should not be obliged to take other methods to have grievances remedied. I am suggesting to the Minister now that he should get his legions around him and bring in a Bill to deal with ground rents and town tenants that will be a credit to a national Government and a national Party.

Why should any individual have the power to let a piece of rock and get a ground rent out of it? We know that is the position in Cobh, where you have nothing but rock. People there had to quarry out a site for a house, go to the bank and borrow money to build and then, when the leases fell in, you had in the two cases I mentioned an increase in one case of from £100 to £1,800, and in the other from £12 10s. to £400. These are just two isolated instances in that town which reveal the present condition of affairs there. In the case of another individual, who owns a town, he is in the position of being able to say: "There shall not be any industry started in this town and there shall not be anything done in this town", his idea, I suppose, being that it shall be reserved as a sort of refuge for the Army and the Navy of another nation in a time of emergency. As I have said, it is time that that kind of thing should be put an end to. The Government that allows that sort of thing to continue is not, I submit, facing up to its responsibilities to the people. Finally, I appeal to the Minister to get to work now. He is not very busy at present and it will not take him long to prepare the Bill. He has not any particular organisation to watch at the present time, so that he can put his back into this job. As I have already pointed out, his predecessor gave me a guarantee in this House in July, 1932, that he was going to look after the interests not only of the town tenants in Cobh but in other parts of the country. It is time, I think, that the present Minister carried out that guarantee that was given to me 14 years ago.

Major de Valera

After listening to Deputy Corry's rather eloquent speech, I suppose it seems hardly fair to throw a little cold water on the proposal in this motion, in view of the rather nice case that he has made for it. But, in all seriousness, the point before the House is this: what exactly is the proposal in the motion? It does, on the face of it, express sympathy with leaseholders who have to pay ground rents, and with the people in that category who may, in some instances, be suffering certain injustices, a thing that undoubtedly has happened. But if the motion were merely a matter of sympathy, and if a division were taken on it I am sure we would find that one Lobby would be full and the other empty, because I feel certain there is not a single Deputy who would not sympathise with the people in the category that this motion is aimed to better. But, it is one thing to express sympathy and another thing to do something, and if you look at this motion from the point of view of doing something I am afraid that its content is nil. It says that the Government should, without delay, introduce proposals for legislation to purchase on equitable terms the ground rents, etc. Well, I think it would be just as reasonable if I were to bring forward a motion suggesting that the Government should introduce legislation with the object of abolishing all the diseases to which the people of this country are susceptible. That, I say, would be just as reasonable, because, of course, we would all sympathise with the aim in view. It would be a very laudable thing to do if we could abolish all diseases, but the trouble is how to do it.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Geoghegan, when he was Minister for Justice, promised to do this.

Major de Valera

I do not accept that. I have heard nothing from the quotations already given that he gave any particular promise to do anything. There was a promise of sympathetic consideration, yes, but a promise to do something, no. In so far as the motion is an attempt to clarify the issue and an expression of sympathy with the difficulties of certain classes of people, we are all with you, but then we come back to the movers of the motion and say: "All right, we are with you as far as you have gone, but how are you going to do it?"

Mr. Davin

That is the Government's job.

Major de Valera

The Deputy says: "That is the Government's job". That is a very easy attitude for the Opposition to adopt. It is, unfortunately, the attitude adopted by certain Parties in the House. I am not going to be specific on that point, but I do say that I am afraid it is a little weakness to which all Opposition Parties are subject. They have no responsibility, and it is very easy for them to point out a difficulty and say what should be done, but it is a totally different thing to show how to do it. That is the problem.

In regard to ground rents and having sympathy with leaseholders, if it is a question of what the intentions of the Legislature are on these matters, Deputies, of course, are aware that a good deal of legislation has already been passed dealing with rents, so that one can say that something practical has been done in pursuance of that sympathy. Where as I might agree, and would agree, that if a proper course could be adopted it should be adopted, my difficulty is to see what the course is. It is no answer to say that the Government should do it.

Again, to come back to my first simile, the House is in this position: that suppose I were to come in with a motion proposing that the Government should introduce legislation to abolish all disease, I would be laughed out of the House. It would be no answer for me to tell the people who were criticising me for bringing it in that it is the Government's business. That is no answer at all.

To get back to the content of the motion. First—"should introduce proposals"—perfectly indefinite; and then "enabling people to purchase on equitable terms". What are "equitable terms"? There precisely the whole difficulty originates if it does not lie completely along that line. I think I heard Deputy O'Connor say that there were other rights involved as well as the rights of leaseholders. My friend, Deputy Corry, used the phrase "got from Cromwell". The problem would be relatively simple if it was a case of paying ground rents to the direct successors and immediate assignees of Cromwell, but the trouble is that so many years have elapsed from whatever time the plantation was or the gift was that may be objectionable on those grounds and perfectly innocent people, people belonging to the class that Deputies would wish to help, have acquired as an investment a large proportion of the rents in question here. That is only one point. You have, therefore, a difficulty in defining what specific thing you mean by "ground rent". It is very easy to say that there is an absentee landlord, that he is no good to the country, that he is getting rents here at the expense of good useful citizens of the State. It is easy to say that; it is easy to show it and, when the case is shown to us, we all sympathise and all agree that perhaps there is something that we should do something about. On the other hand, somebody else may come along and say, "Yes, but there is Johnny So-and So" or worse still—it often happens this way—"There is that poor widow woman: her husband, who was a hard-working industrious man, made a few hundred pounds; he invested that money in such and such a property; she is solely dependent on the revenue from that source". In other words, when you come to framing a legislative proposal to deal with it, you must be able to draft it in such a form that it will cater for the evil you are aiming to eradicate and, at the same time will not injure innocent parties.

I say to the movers of this motion: "Yes, there is a large element of sympathy, but there are very great difficulties." I am too young a member of this House to be able to say from experience or knowledge gained elsewhere whether this problem has been examined or not but I would be very much surprised to hear that legislation in regard to housing and other things of that nature was passed through this House without the Department in question giving at least some cursory consideration to this particular problem of ground rents. I would ask the movers of this motion to consider that it does cause great difficulty when you have a situation such as I have envisaged, when you cannot get a clear cut problem for which to legislate.

The motion is, perhaps, excellent in intention. I do not say that it is a motion that should not be brought before this House. It is a good thing to have such problems brought before us and I do not criticise the movers of the motion from that point of view. But, on the other hand, I think it only right, when such a motion is brought up, that the vagueness of it should be commented on, and not from the point of view of attacking or criticising the movers of the motion, but rather from the point of view of grasping the fact that inherent in the problem there is a difficulty of definition, as is proved by the very terms of the motion. I do not know whether it is the proposal merely to go no further than to discuss it but, as far as I am concerned with the motion, I recommend it; let us discuss it but, until somebody brings into the House definite, positive suggestions on a matter like this, it is hardly competent for us to go much further than discussion.

There are further problems in it. For instance, are you going to apply a motion of that nature for the benefit of leaseholders who are in possession and also for the benefit of leaseholders who are out of possession? Straightway, if I am a man occupying a house and paying ground rent to an absentee landlord, prima facie there is a case for enabling me to purchase my ground rent but, look at the other side: supposing I have a lease and I am not resident, I am an absentee, is there any particular equity in depriving one absentee for the benefit of the other?

There is another problem that arises. There is the question of compulsory acquisition. If you are going to have compulsory acquisition of ground rents, it is perfectly obvious it will have to be done on the basis of paying. We are not going to the extent of saying: "I am just going to acquire somebody's right and extinguish it." That is justified only in the very extreme of necessity. In other words, it must necessitate in normal conditions a purchase system. Somebody has to buy out the ground landlord. It will not be the leaseholder—that is just what he is talking about; he is not prepared to put down a lump sum. Look at the history of the Land Acts and land purchase and see what is involved in that. For our purpose here it is sufficient to know that what is involved is the raising of certain capital moneys to finance the scheme. What would be the proposal of the movers of this motion in regard to the capitalisation of such a scheme? Not only have they not defined to us precisely what the scope of their motion is but they have not defined what is involved in the capitalisation of the scheme. If you have compulsory purchase from the landlord on the one hand, are you going to compel the leaseholder to buy on the other? Remember, there is a number of leaseholders who will be very anxious to have ground rents bought out from the landlord but if you should say to them: "Yes, but you must, at such and such a rate, buy out that ground rent," you will hear a very different tune. That is just another difficulty that arises.

The question of urban land, of course, is a difficulty, admittedly. There are places in Dublin that do require attention. The subject of ground rents is one that has given most people who are interested in public matters considerable room for discussion. I sum up what I have been trying to say, in this way: There is a large amount of sympathy with the ideas that lie behind this motion but the difficulty is, how are you going to do it? What are the concrete proposals? Let us see what is proposed to be done. Let us have it in a form that you can say, "yes" or "no" to it. What is the concrete proposal? Then we can talk about it.

Mr. Norton

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 14th February.