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.