I do not intend to go into close detail as to my reasons for moving that this Bill be read a second time. Deputies are generally familiar with the circumstances which originally led to the introduction of legislation interfering between the contractual relations of landlord and tenant. During the war the ordinary activities for providing houses, and production generally, were diverted towards making munitions, and, consequently, large numbers of people were brought into towns. In towns the accommodation existing previous to their introduction was limited, and in many towns in Ireland the accommodation would have been much more limited but for the class of house which became vacant owing to the change which took place in social conditions generally. During the war the provision of houses was practically stopped. House building may be said to have stopped in 1914 or 1915, and no real contribution was made in that direction until about the year 1920 or 1921. At that time the cost of providing houses was prohibitive. Unless to people who were more than ordinary well off, the construction of houses at that period, and to some extent since, was out of the question. I would like to stress that particular aspect of the question, namely, that the provision of houses at fairly moderate prices is, perhaps, more important than the regulation of the relations between landlord and tenant. It will be within the recollection of the Dáil that very considerable subsidies have been voted by this House towards the provision of new houses.
The sum which was first given amounted to £1,000,000, and since then sums have been voted to the extent of £600,000. The total number of houses that have since been built is in the neighbourhood of 10,000, but it must be remembered that for four or five years practically nothing was done, and that the houses that have been provided since would only compensate for the numbers that went out of commission during the last twelve years. A considerable number of houses was constructed under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Fund, and I expect that a considerable number still remains to be constructed by means of that agency.
Last year the Dáil passed the Local Government Act, and in that measure there was a provision which entitled houses constructed since the year 1920 to a considerable remission in rates. I mention that to show that the real problem is a shortage of houses. To some extent that shortage is contributed to by the fact that people whose business it was to build houses have been affected very considerably by the Rent Restrictions Act. They have been affected by these restrictions, and they have not concerned themselves with what was formerly their main sphere of activity—namely, the construction of houses. An Act was passed in 1920. That was the first Act dealing with this matter and its course was three years. In June, 1922, we introduced a Bill here further limiting the control of increases of rent and mortgage interest for a period of three years. The fact that these Acts had a three years' life intimated that the subject would be reconsidered at the end of three years in each case. The Bill with which we are now dealing marks a little more strongly the fact that control must ultimately cease.
It will be observed that Section 4 prescribes that up to June, 1927, houses whose valuation is not greater than £52 within the Dublin Metropolitan area, or £35 elsewhere, will be controlled; up to June, 1928, the corresponding figures will be £40 and £30, and up to June, 1929, £30 and £26. The average tenant, so far as this Bill is concerned, learns that control, at any rate, will exist up to 1929, because by far the largest number of people occupy houses of a valuation from £26 to £30. Those occupying houses at higher valuations would not so severely feel an increase of rent which might be occasioned by not continuing the previous Acts in respect of them. The 10 per cent., which was the added or standard rent, is increased in this Bill to 20 per cent. This is a measure which must, I think, be considered in relation to the general problem, and that problem is the shortage of houses. That is the only solution, and, if and when that solution be found, there is bound to arise in connection with its discovery what is called an economic house.
The present cost of providing a house is probably 200 per cent. in excess of what it was pre-war. In other words, a house which cost £200 pre-war costs now, approximately, £600, and that is the real trouble in connection with this matter. It will be at once apparent that people who now require houses are faced with the problem of making up the difference between the pre-war cost and the present cost. The State, as I have said, has come in to shoulder portion of that burden, and the local authorities, in most cases, also share a portion of it. I presume that before the provision in the Local Government Act of last year expires, the Minister for Local Government will consider some remission in respect of houses built after the year 1926 or 1927, or after whatever date is fixed in the Bill. I am, I think, on fairly safe ground when I say that the remission cannot be continued at the same percentage as it is in the Act of 1920. The increase in the bonus from 10 to 20 per cent., although it may mean a few pounds in a particular case, is, I think, a just increase. If there is one particular service in the community more than another which has suffered by reason of the war it is the service for the provision of houses. Practically every other commodity has increased in price very much round the cost of living figure, but in this case the increase amounted to only 10 per cent. or possibly 12½ per cent. on the pre-war income. It will be seen, therefore, that a person having an income from that particular source must have been very severely hit by reason of the limitation of the increase in that case. Sections 4 and 5 of the Bill, read in conjunction with Section 2, which says that the Principal Act, that is the Act of 1923, shall continue until the 24th June, 1926, represent the backbone of this Bill. Section 6 deals with the point covered by a decision in the well-known case of Smith v. Christie, and Section 7 deals with the matter covered in another case, that of Kerr v. Bride. In the case of Smith v. Christie, which was decided in 1922, it was held that where a landlord and tenant agreed as to the rent to be charged—we will assume that the rent agreed on was in conformity with the Act—the increased rent was not valid unless notice of the increase was served by the landlord on the tenant. That was a technicality, and I presume that Parliament when it was passing the Act of 1923, had not in mind that a technicality of that sort should operate to the advantage of one party to the bargain or to the disadvantage of the other. Now, although Section 6 validates the increase made in such circumstances, though no effective statutory notice had been served, it has no retroactive effect in those cases where amounts were recovered by the landlord. The other case which was decided by the House of Lords occasioned very considerable confusion because the lower courts had decided that notice to quit was not necessary. That was a case in which it was decided that before any increase could be granted notice to quit should be served, and much the same sort of thing occurred there.
The Act of 1923 was believed to have covered these points, that is where tenants had paid rents of a permissive amount nothing in the Act of 1923 gave them the right to recover on the technical ground that originally no notice to quit was served. Doubts had been raised, and it is thought well to remove them. Section 7 makes it clear that people cannot avail of a technicality to achieve what most people would regard as unfair and unreasonable, and again in this case a time limit is placed to prevent retroactive effects. Briefly the Bill provides for a continuance of the 1923 Act for three years only as regards houses whose valuations do not exceed £30 in the metropolitan area, and £26 elsewhere. Larger houses will be controlled for a shorter period, some for two years and some for one year. Premises with a valuation exceeding £52 in Dublin, or £35 elsewhere, will be outside the scope of the Bill altogether. The other point in the Bill is that the bonus, which was originally 10 per cent., is now increased to 20 per cent. I think it will be admitted that a real attempt has been made to deal with this question apart from any leanings towards one side or the other. The original leanings were certainly against the landlord. The necessities of the time demanded that it should be so, but we must assume that within the next few years the provision of houses will render the situation less difficult to solve in 1929 when the legislature will have to consider this matter again. I accordingly move.
