Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 May 1926

Vol. 15 No. 15

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL, 1926—THIRD STAGE.

The Dáil went into Committee.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

The Principal Act shall as from the 24th day of June, 1926, be construed and have effect as if sub-section (1) of Section 3 thereof were amended as follows, that is to say, by the deletion of the first paragraph of the said sub-section, which paragraph begins with the words "This Act shall" and ends with the words "a dwelling house to which this Act applies" and the insertion of the following paragraph in lieu of the paragraph so deleted, that is to say:

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, this Act shall, in respect of any particular house or part of a house let as a separate dwelling—

(a) apply to such house or part of a house until and only until the 24th day of June, 1927, if either the amount of the standard rent or the rateable value of such house or part of a house does not exceed—

(i) in the county borough of Dublin and the urban districts in the Dublin Metropolitan Area £52, and

(ii) elsewhere £35, or

(b) apply to such house or part of a house until and only until the 24th day of June, 1928, if either the amount of the standard rent or the rateable value of such house or part of a house does not exceed—

(i) in the county borough of Dublin and the urban districts in the Dublin Metropolitan Area £40, and

(ii) elsewhere £30, or

(c) apply to such house or part of a house until and only until the 24th day of June, 1929, if either the amount of the standard rent or the rateable value of such house or part of a house does not exceed—

(i) in the county borough of Dublin and the urban districts in the Dublin Metropolitan Area £30, and

(ii) elsewhere £26;

and every such house or part of a house shall until the date hereinbefore mentioned in respect thereof be deemed a dwelling house to which this Act applies."

Mr. B. O'CONNOR

I move:—

To delete paragraphs (a), (i) and (a) (ii), and to insert in line 44 after the word "house" where it secondly occurs, the words "situated elsewhere than in the county borough of Dublin and the urban districts in the Dublin Metropolitan Area," and to add after the word "exceed," line 48, the figures "£25."

In Section 4, where the Minister proposes that the Restrictions Act shall not apply after June, 1927, to houses outside the Dublin Metropolitan area with a valuation of £35. My amendment is to make it apply only to houses with a valuation of £25. The object of the Bill is to make decontrol gradual. The Rent Restrictions Act was first put in force as a war measure, but now, after eight years of peace, I think it is time that the restrictions should be removed. I appreciate the line that the Minister has taken, that the removal of the restrictions should be gradual. He has spread it over a period of three years, but I submit that with a valuation of £35 this Bill scarcely touches the fringe of the question at all. I am dealing with houses outside the Dublin Metropolitan area. If in Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, or any other town where there is a house with a valuation of £35, it is almost a mansion. In a country place a house with a valuation of £35 has about twelve or fourteen apartments, and it was never intended that such a house should be let to tenants. The people who built them usually owned them, and they own them at present. Therefore I think it is only reasonable that the figure "£35" should be changed to "£25," so that the decontrol will be felt gradually. I think this is a reasonable proposal—I would not like to cut across the Minister with anything that is not reasonable—and that is why I propose the amendment.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It might help in the discussion if we took amendments 1 to 5 together.

Professor THRIFT

I also recognise that the Government may be wise in deciding to bring decontrol into effect gradually, and at the same time that those who have put forward these amendments have, in the main, accepted that as their conclusion, and that the question between the Government and themselves is really one as to the rapidity with which decontrol should take place. Deputy Johnson, on Second Reading, spoke very much in favour of the continuance of control. I think it is hardly possible to discuss any of these amendments without referring to the fact that to many people —to me for one—it seems that the effects of control have been, in the main, harmful, harmful not alone to the landlords, but harmful to the tenants. I have put forward my amendments largely because of a very wise remark of the President's, a real challenge to everybody who is interested in this very important problem to contribute anything to arrive at a solution of what is a pressing question.

This policy of control has been at work for a number of years, and I do not think anybody can argue that its effects have been good. To my mind the effects have never been very good. From all the evidence that I have been able to get it seems to me that the policy of control is very largely responsible for the pressing nature of the housing problem to-day, that because it has killed private enterprise in this matter to a very large extent we are faced with our present difficulties. I quite recognise that the Government may be wise in deciding on gradual decontrol, but it does seem to me that at this stage we might make a much big ger step towards decontrol than this Bill proposes. If I am correct as to the meaning of Deputy O'Connor's amendment, he proposes that houses outside the Metropolitan area, if their valuation does not exceed £25, shall still remain under control. The amendment does not refer to houses inside the Metropolitan area, but I take it that that is covered by his amendment No. 4, that he will propose, as I shall, that houses inside the Metropolitan area should also remain under control if the valuation does not exceed £30. I take it that he means that that should apply to such houses, not alone for the year 1927 but for the year 1928.

I have put figures in my amendments which seem to me to be exceedingly moderate—too moderate—and I am really more in favour of Deputy O'Connor's figures than I am of my own, if I interpret his two amendments correctly. I think it is urgently necessary that we should do something to encourage those who would be disposed to provide houses for others, and that we should encourage those who want to keep their houses in proper repair. I think that this policy of control has contributed to a very large extent to some of our unemployment, that it has caused people to be thrown out of employment, because owners of house property have not been able to undertake the work required to keep their houses in a proper condition. I know very many cases where small owners of house property have suffered most severely from this policy of control. I think we ought to take a very big step in the direction of decontrol to show definitely that we mean to bring control to an end on the termination of this Act. There are some other points to which it may be necessary to refer later, but inasmuch as the amendment before us is simply on this question of reducing the figures for houses outside the Metropolitan area, and implicitly, I think, reducing the figures for houses inside the Metropolitan area, which go from £52 to £30, I will content myself with these remarks at present.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I do not want to provoke a Second Reading discussion on this stage as to the wisdom or unwisdom of control. At the same time I think it would be a mistake on my part to allow Deputy Thrift's statement to go unquestioned, that control has been, in the main, harmful. Before one could subscribe to such a statement as that it would be necessary to envisage as clearly as possible the situation as it would have been without control, to remember that a housing shortage which was chronic in Dublin, at any rate, was accentuated and intensified by almost seven years complete cessation of building. To suggest that it was not the business or the duty of the State to come in under these circumstances and try to keep down rents of houses below what the free play of the factors of supply and demand would bring them to, is a rather peculiar suggestion. Before I would say that control has been, in the main, harmful, I would have to try to envisage that other situation and guage the social reactions of the rents of houses left to the free play of economic factors, soaring widely above the resources of tenants and prospective tenants. I would have to envisage hundreds of tenants evicted by process of law from their houses because of their inability to pay a rent which the landlord deemed the housing shortage would enable him to get in a free and open market. I must differ from the Deputy.

I am aware that control in individual cases produced anomalies, inequalities and injustices, but I am not prepared to say that it has been, in the main, harmful. I can be told that it is a very serious state of affairs when a person is compelled to go on letting his house at a particular figure when, if he could get vacant possession and sell it, the proceeds of such sale invested at 5 per cent. or thereabouts would bring him in very much more than the annual rent. I know that is the position, and that quite genuine cases can be shown of people who are compelled under this restrictive legislation to let their houses at a particular figure, who are prevented from raising that figure and who would, if they were free to sell their houses, realise an amount which, if invested, would bring them in substantially more than the controlled rent. Recognising all that I still strongly query the suggestion that, in the main, control has been harmful. It is impossible to deal with a situation such as that of the housing shortage, resulting from seven years' cessation of building, without inflicting some injury on individuals, but I think this step was necessary for the protection of the general community, and because of the social position which the absence of control would have opened up.

I think it is a good suggestion to deal with all these amendments bearing on the figures together. The position which I have reached, after considering these amendments and discussing the matter with deputations, is that I am not standing pat on the figures in the Bill. I make this offer to the movers of the various amendments, maintaining the idea of breaking the period of the Bill's operation into three parts. Under the Bill the figures in Dublin are: for the first period a valuation of £52; for the second period, £40; for the third period, £30; and I offer instead, £40, £30, and £25. For instance, I recognise that the houses that would be above £52 valuation in Dublin are not very numerous, and that there is rather an apparent than a real decontrol in the first year, at any rate, if I were to adhere to the figure of £52. At any rate it is something more substantial to take a figure of £40 in the first year, £30 in the second year, and £25 in the third year. The figures in the Bill elsewhere than Dublin are £35, £30, and £26, and I am prepared to make a bargain with those interested on a basis of £30, £25, and £20.

I got from the valuation office some tables bearing on average residential districts in Dublin, Pembroke, Rathmines, and so on, and some tables on typical provincial towns, such as Carlow and Kilkenny, and, as a result of a study of that kind, I came to the conclusion that the amounts prescribed by Section 4 of the Bill were rather on the high side. Decontrol can only be brought about by coming down the scale of valuation in this way over a period. It may be that whoever has the responsibility in 1929 will be able to face the situation on the basis of not legislating further in this way, and I think we should leave the position open to be considered in that time. But, in the meantime, I think the proposal as to valuation over the period of the Bill's duration, is, perhaps, the wiser course. That is my proposal over the period, Dublin £40, £30 and £25; elsewhere, £30, £25, and £20. It is a considered proposal, and it is put forward in that way and in that spirit. The fact that I am putting it forward may be taken as indicating that I will oppose the amendments if they are pressed.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I may state that I accept the proposal of the Minister.

Professor THRIFT

I also am quite ready to agree to and accept the Minister's proposals. I think he has met us very fairly. I want to make one comment with reference to his criticism of my remark. I intended to say that experience had shown that the working had led to evils that could not have been foreseen at the time the Acts were passed. I did not intend to suggest that the Government in introducing those Acts had not been more or less constrained to pass them by the situation that existed. My argument was that when those Acts were passed the evils which followed in their train had counterbalanced the advantage.

Mr. JOHNSON

I wonder whether Deputies who have put down those amendments on their own account have considered the effect of their amendments or of the Minister's proposals. A case has been made on the Second Reading of the Bill that restrictions have prevented building. I want to have some explanation of that, because there is nothing to prevent any house-builder or owner from getting whatever rent he likes for any new house in the present Act or in this Bill. There is nothing in this Bill to deter builders from building houses, but with reference to the interval there is no information available in any Government Department indicating how many houses in the Dublin area either in the city or townships are at present vacant and available for tenants. So we may take it that the proposals in the Bill are not based on any recognition of the supply of houses or are not going even in the direction of meeting the demand. The demand is greater than the supply, and consequently the prices are high. People are forced, if they have any means at all, to pay more rent for their houses than they can afford, and the evidence of sub-tenants is to the effect that they are prepared to pay exorbitant rents for rooms. That is a proof to me of the necessity for building more houses and having very many more built before you begin to remove restrictions, but by these proposals in the amendments to the Bill we are going to impose upon the occupier or tenants of the larger houses that are at presen controlled the obligation to pay a heavier rent than they are paying now or of getting out. The middle-class section of the community—and perhaps this applies to a greater extent in Pembroke, Rathmines, and Dun Laoghaire—are occupying houses in the area which the Bill affects and will be obliged to pay a rack-rent or quit possession. Their demand for smaller and cheaper houses will raise the cost and the rent of the houses upon the poorer section of the community. By this very removal of restrictions you are imposing a greater pressure upon the poorer section in respect of houses whether as purchasers or renters than there exists at present, and that pressure is very heavy at present.

As will appear when we are discussing later amendments, every removal of restrictions, whether in the Bill as presented, in the amendments moved by Deputy O'Connor or Deputy Thrift or in the compromise the Minister has now offered is going to have the effect of raising the rent of the larger houses and if the tenants of those larger houses cannot afford higher rents, it is going to put those tenants into competition with the poorer people who are applicants for the smaller houses, and you are consequently raising the rents of such houses as may be let under the operations of the present Bill. To my mind the proposal in the amendments is to worsen still further than the Minister's proposal the position of the tenants whether they are actually tenants of those houses or applicants for smaller houses against whom those tenants who are being displaced will come into competition. I will oppose the amendments, and I regret the Minister has gone as far as he has gone to meet the case which is being made on behalf of the landlords.

Mr. GOOD

Deputy Johnson expressed some doubt as to whether the restrictions on rents have prevented the building of houses. I thought we all had arrived at this stage, eight years after the War, that we were satisfied that the one result at all events that was obvious from the Rent Restrictions Act was that it prevented us getting houses. I think there are very few Deputies here who participate in the view expressed by Deputy Johnson.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Question.

Mr. GOOD

As it has been questioned now, let me explain how the Act stops people from building houses. Take any road in the city or outside Dublin. You will find on one side of it what are known as houses which come within the Rent Restrictions Act. That means that under the Act as enforced the landlord cannot charge more than ten per cent. of the rent as it existed in pre-war days. That is what is known as the standard rent. On the other side of the road, let us picture in our minds a large, vacant building site. Many people are anxious that houses should be built on that site opposite these restricted houses. The houses built on that side of the road cost from two and a half to three times the money which the restricted houses cost to build. Consequently, anybody who builds in such circumstances is compelled to charge from two and a half to three times the rent that is allowed to be charged under the Rent Restrictions Act for the houses on the other side of the road. In such a condition of things it is obvious to anybody that if you can get accommodation on one side for one-third of what it is going to cost you on the other side, the whole tendency will be for people who are compelled to live on the dearer side to watch for a vacant house on the other side and rush into it. Naturally, one says: "Why should I invest my money in a class of property that is going to cost three times that of similar accommodation on the other side of the road?" Who is going to invest under these conditions? Somebody has said that foolish people erect houses for wise men to live in. Generally there is some truth in these old proverbs, and that is obvious from the condition of affairs, as we find them to-day. Deputy Johnson would lead one to think, though he did not say so, that the restriction on the cost of housing was, to some extent, responsible for the high cost of building. One would infer that from what he said.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not know why.

Mr. GOOD

The cost of building to-day is not due in any sense to the Rent Restrictions Act. The absence of houses is more due to the Rent Restrictions Act than to any other factor, because it shakes that confidence that is essential to the investment of money in house property. Houses will never be produced until we get into the minds of people that they are a safe and desirable investment. Does anybody consider, with the Rent Restrictions Act in force, an Act which has shaken and weakened that confidence in houses as an investment, that you are likely to get what a large section of the community wants, namely, houses? Therefore, though it may be desirable from the Minister's point of view to continue the restrictions for a further period of three years, you may take it from me that until those restrictions are removed and until we have a clear statement on behalf of the Government that they are removed and that people may look on housing in the future as an investment that will not be interfered with any more than any other investment, you will not get houses except by the means you are adopting at the moment, namely, by largely subsidising those who put money into houses, both from national and local funds. The Minister, in making his proposal towards meeting the views of those who put forward the amendments, referred to the necessity for control. I admit that during the War period it was necessary that there should be control.

Mr. JOHNSON

Why?

Mr. GOOD

The reason why it was necessary that there should be control was because across the water—the same conditions did not exist here— housing was practically stopped because labour, normally engaged in building houses, was commandeered for other national purposes, but as soon as that factor ceased to exist there was no longer necessity for control. The same point occurred not alone in connection with housing but also in connection with materials, food-stuffs and all other items controlled during that period. There was necessity for control then, but that necessity no longer exists. Things that are desirable during a period of crisis may become a serious hindrance later, and I am satisfied that control in the matter of housing has now become a hindrance rather than a help. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to support any proposal that will get rid of control at the earliest possible moment, and I am in favour of any proposal that will lighten that burden of control during that period. Control, as has been pointed out, confers a benefit on a privileged few, on those few who happen to be tenants of those controlled houses which derive benefits under the Act. But we are rapidly reaching the stage, if we have not already reached it, in which, in order to confer a benefit on a few we are doing an injury to an enormous number, because the number of applicants that we find amongst all classes to-day for houses far outweighs the benefit that a comparatively small number, speaking generally, are deriving from control.

Mr. B. O'CONNOR

Deputy Johnson asked had I considered that houses built since 1914 are not controlled, and had I that in view in moving my amendment. I know well that houses built since 1914 are not controlled. He stated that by removing control of houses of a valuation of £30 and upwards the people living in these houses would have to clear out. I think it would be pretty good if they did, because it is hardly fair to house-owners that tenants living in those good houses should have them at much less than their value, and if they are asked to pay a rent equal to their value or a fair rent that will give a fair return of interest to the owner, it will be an inducement to those well-off people to build houses themselves, and it will create employment which is much needed in the country. It will certainly stimulate building. Take the class of tenant living in houses of a valuation of £40, or even of £30 and upwards. Take the North Circular Road, a fairly decent, residential street, or St. Lawrence Road, Iona Road, or Iona Drive. Those are very nice residential streets. In those places it is surprising what a low percentage of houses are valued at £30. In the Pembroke area, take Waterloo Road, Marlboro' Road, and Morehampton Road. These are residential streets. Look up the directory and see the valuation of those houses. It is surprising the few of them that have a valuation of over £30. Still, we are told if we raise the rents of those houses we will throw the tenants out in the streets. I say that people who live in such houses are well able to build houses. The proposal we have made in regard to the houses that control would be removed from will not touch in any way the class of people that Deputy Johnson has in mind, that is, the working-class people who live in houses of a valuation of well under £16. If Deputy Johnson will look up the directory he will learn that what I say is true. Therefore, if we decontrol houses with a valuation of over £30 we will not in the least be injuring the working-classes and we will be inducing tenants who live in those good houses to build houses for themselves. This will create employment and there will be houses for all.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I heard a good many cures proposed for unemployment but I think the one just suggested by Deputy O'Connor is a new one. Listening to Deputy O'Connor, and particularly Deputy Good, what appears to be hurting them is the fact that the builders and the landlords for whom they speak are not allowed a free hand to fleece the people who are looking for houses at the moment. Deputy Good spoke of the great number of applicants for houses at the moment. He emphasised that. I think what is really at the back of Deputy Good's mind is that here was a very fine market for the landlords who wished to get the highest possible rents for their houses—the fact that thousands of people in this country are without houses and that they would be allowed to charge any rent that they could get. Let us consider what actually happens when a house becomes vacant. The house, we will say, was let at £25 a year. The landlord has perhaps 20 applicants for the house, each applicant doing his or her best to get it and prepared to offer any rent in order to secure it. We know that what actually happens is that one applicant offers a higher rent than another with the result that in many cases, if we had not the Rent Restrictions Act in force, the landlord would not only be getting the value of his house but he would be getting a rent out of all proportion to the value of the house.

With regard to the point made by Deputy O'Connor that workers do not live in houses of this valuation, I think Deputy Johnson showed pretty clearly that if people in houses of a higher valuation have their rents increased to figures that they cannot afford to pay they will look for smaller and cheaper houses and as the result they will be in competition with the poorer people for these houses. I know very well that both Deputy O'Connor and Deputy Good are authorities on this matter, and I suppose it is rather dangerous for a novice in the house-building or landlord business to enter into the matter, but it seems to me to be perfectly clear that what Deputy Good and those for whom he speaks want is to get a free market wherein they can command the highest possible rent for the houses they are going to let.

Mr. LYONS

I share the views of Deputy Johnson in regard to these amendments. To my mind the Bill was introduced at the direction of the landlords in the Saorstát. In 1923 I was completely against the Rent Restrictions Act. I wanted the Dáil to allow the people in the Saorstát to form themselves into an organisation——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We are not discussing the principle of the Bill.

Mr. LYONS

I am discussing the amendments. If those amendments or the amendments by the Minister for Justice are accepted what will we find in the city and in the smaller towns? We will find according to these amendments, that the landlords of houses rented at £25 or £30 will be allowed to charge probably £40, notwithstanding the fact that the tenants in many of these houses cannot afford to pay even the standard rent at the present time. As regards the statement of Deputy Good that the Rent Restrictions Act has prevented building, the President stated on the Second Reading on the Act that from 1914-15 to 1920-21 there were practically no houses built, and that from 1920-21 there were about 10,000 erected. In the face of that I think it is absolute nonsense to say that the Rent Restrictions Act has prevented building. From the landlords' point of view it sounds like logic, but from the workers' point of view it is a ridiculous statement to make that the Rent Restrictions Act prevented people investing money in houses.

I would like to point out that houses erected in 1914 or 1912 and costing, perhaps, £200—I am speaking of the country districts—were let then at a rent of from 2/6 to 3/- per week. The same class of house will cost, perhaps, £600 to-day, but what is the rent? Twelve and sixpence per week. Then we are told the landlords are not profiteering, or that they do not want to profiteer, that they would not be guilty of such a thing as profiteering. It is a well-known fact that houses erected here in the city of Dublin since 1916 have been let at 250 per cent. above the rent at which houses which were erected in pre-war days were let. Are the landlords or the builders serious at all, or do they want to get an absolutely free hand, so that all the unorganised citizens of the Saorstát may be victims in their grasp? To my mind that is what is wanted by the landlord section of the community. I think if the Dáil agrees to accept the amounts, even suggested by the Minister for Justice, that they will not be acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people of the State, that they will be acting, in fact, quite contrary to the wishes of the majority, but acting in common agreement with the minority, the landlord section. I certainly will oppose the amendments from No. 1 to No. 5, and if no division is called, I will guarantee to call one.

Mr. NAGLE

I was rather surprised to see amendment No. 1 down in Deputy O'Connor's name, and I would be very much obliged if we could get a reason for the change in his views as between now and about three years ago. About three years ago when the question was asked of Deputy O'Connor as to what he would think would be a reasonable figure for the city of Dublin as the valuation of controlled houses, his answer was £70. Now he has gone down to almost one-third of that figure. I am sorry I did not hear the Deputy when he was moving the amendment; perhaps he gave his reason on that occasion. If he has not done so I would certainly like to hear the reason, because if I got the reason —and he must have some reason—perhaps I might be induced to vote for the amendment.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I have no recollection whatever of making that statement.

Major COOPER

Deputy O'Connor was not in the Dáil three years ago.

Mr. NAGLE

It was made before the Departmental Committee which considered the expiry of the old English Act and before the Government brought in the 1923 Act. I was a member of that Committee and Deputy O'Connor gave evidence before it. It was there he made the statement I refer to. I was rather interested to hear Deputy Good. Deputy Good, of course, can prove anything he wants to prove to his own satisfaction. He made a peculiar statement regarding a man who would build houses on one side of the street and who would find that to get a decent return for the money he expended he would need to charge two and a half times the rent that is being charged now under the Rent Restrictions Act for houses on the opposite side of the road. He went on to suggest that as soon as the houses opposite became vacant all the tenants of the new houses would be rushing for them. Does the Deputy not think that it is asking us to draw on our imaginations or stretch our imaginations a long way to suggest that any of the houses opposite would become vacant? I certainly think that he might wipe that out as a reason why he could not build houses on the opposite side of the road. I think the argument for the abolition of the Rent Restrictions Act from Deputy Good's point of view is really an argument for people to invest money in houses, because if people were found willing to pay the rents that would be charged after the Act were abolished, then I see no reason why the man who wants to build new houses should not do so. If the people are willing to pay these rents for houses on which the rent is at present restricted, they should be willing to pay more again for houses built now or in the future.

There was one remark which Deputy Good made, though I may not have understood him correctly. He said that in England, but not in Ireland, there was a reason for the original Rent Restriction Act. That was that a great deal of labour in England was commandeered for war purposes, with the consequence that there was a reduction in the number of dwelling houses that were being built. That certainly did not apply to Ireland. Most of the building tradesmen from Ireland were engaged on war work in England, with the exception of some very few small jobs, one of which Deputy Good himself had control of. I did not see even before the Rent Restrictions Act was introduced here a great deal of activity in house-building in this country. Certainly there was not much activity in Dublin, and I would like Deputy Good, as he is so anxious to get the support of Deputies for his point of view, to explain to us the difference between the number of houses built in the last four or five years, apart from the houses built under the 1924 and 1925 Acts, with the number of houses that were built in the days prior to the imposition of the rent restrictions. If he can prove that there is a big difference between the number built during the last four or five years and the number built prior to the imposition of the restrictions, then certainly he might be able to convince a good many that there is a reason for his views on this matter.

I was speaking to a friend of mine only a fortnight or three weeks ago in regard to this question. I happened to accompany a visitor to the houses built on Tenter's Field on the South Circular Road. We happened to pass a number of houses built 20 years ago. We met a man there, and he said that if there was a possibility of one of these houses becoming vacant, even the small houses, the three or four-roomed cottages, the outgoing tenant would get a dozen or more offers of sums of money ranging from £20 to £25 for the key of the house in order to get in there. I think that is a scandalous state of affairs. It just shows how much people would be willing to pay to get a house in the present shortage. If people are willing to pay money like that in an illegal manner certainly it shows that they would be willing to pay an economic rent for houses built by private speculative builders, even though the rent did not compare in actual pounds, shillings and pence with the rent paid for similar houses in the neighbourhood controlled by these Acts.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. NAGLE

There was one thing Deputy O'Connor said that surprised me very much; he must have said it without thinking. He said that, in his opinion, it would be a very good thing that some people should be compelled to clear out of the houses they are living in. I think it would be a very bad thing to compel people to do so; it would be bad not alone for the people who would have to leave the houses, but for the Government that would allow such a state of affairs to exist. I am in favour of the clause as it stands in the new Bill. I will not hold Deputy O'Connor down to a £70 valuation. I think a £52 valuation for Dublin City is a reasonable figure. Most of the houses over £50 valuation are houses owned or rented by people who can afford to pay a decent rent.

Mr. O'CONNOR

In what streets are the houses of £50 valuation?

Mr. NAGLE

I have not looked up the Directory lately. As I might make a mistake I will refrain from mentioning the streets. In regard to business houses there was a demand on the part of some people for their inclusion under the Rent Restrictions Act. There is a lot to be said for it. I remember at the wonderful Departmental Committee at which we heard so many injudicious statements made one gentleman gave evidence to the effect that it was desirable that business premises should be included in that Act. He instanced one house in Grafton Street which, prior to 1914, fetched what everybody will agree is a fairly decent rent—£200 per annum.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am wondering whether the Deputy is in order. It is scarcely relevant to the amendment to talk on the subject of whether business houses should or should not come under the Act.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I was wondering whether the Deputy would be in order even on the Second Reading.

Mr. NAGLE

I have not much more to say. In 1920 that same house was rented for £1,400 per annum. That is profiteering, if you like.

The PRESIDENT

Is the tenant still in occupation at that rent?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Are we taking amendments 2 to 5?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It was understood we would take the amendments which seek to change the figures in Section 4 together, and I have made a proposal in regard to that, that we would take amendments 2 to 5.

Mr. JOHNSON

If the amendment had reference only to the houses valued at £52 I would not have very much to say, because I realise, with Deputy O'Connor, that there are not very many and the probable effect of releasing these houses from any control would be that some of them—there are not very many—would be reconstructed into flats. That will probably give some work to joiners and carpenters and will relieve certain people who have sufficient money available to pay rents such as flats are commanding. I am not very much concerned with the few houses that are affected by the first portion of this section; that is to say, the houses of £52 valuation or standard rent. I am not very much concerned even if that section were extended to houses of a valuation of £40. The other amendments which we are discussing along with this come down to the houses at present valued at £30, and according to the Minister's new proposal, we would come down to the house with £25 valuation.

I realise that a large number of people—it is impossible to say how many—in the city and in the urban districts around the city are living in houses of this type and are paying rents which are the utmost they can bear out of their incomes. If in three years' time you release these houses from restriction you are immediately inviting a very big addition to the rent because of the excessive competition for those houses. Consequently, you are going to place a burden on a very large number of people in Pembroke, Rathmines, Ranelagh and other districts as well as in the city of Dublin, a burden which they cannot bear and which is practically a gift to the landlord at the expense of the tenant. That is more than an economic rent, because it then becomes a rack rent.

We had some discussion a day or two ago in reference to the necessity for control of other commodities which might be short in the country, in view of emergencies that were then feared. There was unanimity that it might be necessary to control articles of necessity of which there was a shortage in the country. Why? Because the owners, without control, would be tempted to seek the highest prices they could get for those necessities. Therefore, it was proposed even this year to control the price of those necessities. Here you have a necessity—houses.

Mr. GOOD

Is not the control of houses producing a shortage?

Mr. JOHNSON

Here you have the necessity of houses. The demand is very much greater than the supply. Deputy Good can speak with authority on this. In those circumstances, given no control, prices would rise to the limit of the capacity to pay and people will pay for housing accommodation far beyond their real ability to pay, even though they have to deprive themselves of the normal needs of our civilization. We know that is a fact, because the people are doing it to-day. They are paying exorbitant rents— Deputy Good himself has complained of exorbitant rents—as sub-tenants for meagre accommodation. But they must have somewhere to sleep in—some house in which to live. It is now proposed to cover the £25 valuation.

I say that the principle that ought to guide us in this matter is that decontrol should be regulated according to the supply of houses and not the other way round. I think it is pretty well accepted that if there is a five per cent. shortage of any commodity, the price of 95 per cent. of that commodity will rise. There may be 10,000 occupiers of houses paying a given rent to-day, but if control is removed, even if there is only another 1,000 people clamouring for houses beyond the number of houses available, the price of everyone of these houses occupied by the 10,000 tenants will rise. By these proposals, having no regard whatever to the supply of houses available, you are simply imposing a burden quite incalculable at present, but certainly an additional burden, of many pounds a year upon the whole of the community, at the end of this period of control. I feel that while for large houses, of which there are quite a few in and around the city of Dublin, it does not matter very much, but when you come to the smaller valuation houses in question there ought to be no departure from the proposals of the Bill, and I hope the Dáil will not agree to any alteration in the proposals originally put forward apart from the £52 valuation, which I do not think matters very much.

The PRESIDENT

I do not know that Deputy Johnson has been altogether happy in the analogy he has drawn between control, in the case of certain commodities, and in the case of houses. In the case of commodities there were two reasons for control: one was shortage and the other was to prevent profiteering. Now it is very doubtful that any question of profiteering is likely to arise here. Certainly it will be a gradual procedure if it comes at all, and I do not see that profiteering by landlords is likely to come.

Mr. JOHNSON

Why the Bill then?

The PRESIDENT

Deputy Johnson really put his finger upon the reason for releasing houses of £52 valuation. I think we ought to be honest about this question of houses. It is a question that will require all the honesty that we can muster in order to solve it, and I think we had better admit pretty frankly between one another that we cannot afford in the future to be housed as we were in the past.

Mr. LYONS

I can give you a solution.

The PRESIDENT

If the Deputy has got a divine solution for this the sooner he delivers it the better. Everybody is looking for it.

Mr. LYONS

I will give you a solution all right.

The PRESIDENT

The Deputy was at a loss, a few moments ago, to know the difference between a house in the country that cost £200 pre-war and that costs £600 now, and that for which only half-a-crown rent was charged in pre-war and for which 12/6 is charged now. If the Deputy went carefully into the figures he could find the reason. I will tell him the reason. The house erected for £200 pre-war in the country was erected on borrowed money at £2 1s. 7d. per cent. The price of money for the same house to-day is over 5 per cent. The difference between twice £2 1s. 7d. and five times six is very much more than the difference between two and six.

Mr. LYONS

Is it as great as the difference between 2/6 and 12/6?

The PRESIDENT

I will try to explain it a little further. Twice £2 1s. 7d. is £4 3s. 2d. and five times six is thirty. The difference between four and thirty is very much more than the difference between two and six. I hope that point will in due course penetrate the Deputy's mentality. Now, with regard to the house of £52 valuation. That class of house in my opinion will not be built in the future. I do not think that anybody can afford to pay for the building of a house the valuation of which in the future will be £52. Apart from the cost of building, the cost incidental to the upkeep of a house of that sort will be beyond the income of anybody except a plutocrat.

The next question is, on whom really is the principal burden of rent falling at the present moment? It falls more heavily upon the small wage-earning people. Rent to them forms a greater proportion of their outgoings than it does with persons who have incomes. A man with £500 or £600 a year can afford to pay one-fifth of that in rent without depriving himself of many of the necessaries of life. whereas to the other people one-fifth would be a very considerable proportion of their earnings.

In 1919 in the county borough of Dublin it was calculated 22.000 houses would be required to deal with the housing problem. From the year 1922 up to date something like 2,800 houses have been built under the various housing facilities provided by the Government during those four years. That is a pretty considerable contribution, but as far as the balance of the 22,000 people are concerned who are not being provided with houses they are faced with the certainty of having to pay what Deputy Johnson has described as a rack-rent. What is the reason for that? The reason is, that the cost of building has increased beyond all contemplation, certainly beyond the cost of anything else to the community, and while Rent Restriction Acts and Bills may be palliatives in connection with the matter they are not an end, but a means to an end, and the means can be abused to a very considerable extent. If there are people living in houses who cannot afford to pay the rents charged, the houses are not going to be destroyed. They are still there for somebody, and the relief from control in certain cases may not mean actually a crisis in connection with housing accommodation. There is a crisis in housing accommodation at the present moment. There are people paying for portion of a house of a valuation of £25 and under rent far in excess of what would be charged for one of those houses for which subsidies are provided by the Government. So the regulation of supply and demand has not been even reached at the present moment.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is my case.

The PRESIDENT

How are we to reach it? Every possible inducement is given to the local authority and private individuals to provide houses. Now the contribution from private persons in the last four years is very small compared with what has been done by local authorities. That is one of the faults we have to find in connection with this business—people looking too much to the State and to the municipality to do the work. In the county borough of Dublin 450 houses have been built by private persons under the facilities provided under the Building Acts. That number ought to be greater. Persons ordinarily interested in house property have not come into building in connection with this matter. I am not going to follow either Deputy

Good or Deputy Johnson as to the reason for that. The fact of the matter is that they made a big contribution towards the solution of provision of houses before 1914, but so far they have not come into play.

It has been alleged that these Rent Restrictions Acts have operated to some extent in keeping them out. Now if it be possible to bring them in very good work will have been done. There is only one answer to this question of rent restrictions, and that is the provision of more houses. In looking over a list supplied by the Local Government Department I find that there are extraordinary disparities in various counties as to the number of houses that have been built under that Act, and I do not think it would be possible to follow any particular line of reasoning with regard to it. It may be that there is a shortage in particular counties, and that it is not so marked in others. It is rather extraordinary that County Kerry built something like thirty times the number of houses built in other counties. One county got only two built. It is possible that the question of supply and demand came in there. The only other matter which, I think, Deputy Johnson or Deputy Nagle raised was, what was the proportion of houses that had been provided during a few years past as compared with a few years pre-war? I got figures for one particular year, and as far as I could gather the number of houses provided in 1925 was three times the number provided in 1914. The only other remark I have to make in connection with this matter of rent restriction is, that whether we like it or not, within the next ten or fifteen years, practically every working-class family in Dublin will be faced with having to pay the rent of some new dwelling. The older habitations in which they are at present housed will have passed out of commission. New accommodation of some sort or other must be provided, and no matter how one controls rents during the years that will elapse between now and that particular time, these people will be faced with having to go into newly-constructed houses, the cost of which will be practically three times what the pre-war cost was, and no amount of control will lower the rents that they will be called upon to pay. Some contribution must come from three or four parties to the transaction: the State or the municipality or the builders or the persons engaged in labour on the building.

Professor THRIFT

I want to ask how we stand exactly. Amendment 1 has been moved, but Deputy O'Connor expressed himself as being satisfied with the response of the Minister for Justice to his amendment. In view of the offer made by the Minister for Justice, I do not propose to move amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8. We are discussing I think five or eight amendments at the same time. I would like to know how we stand exactly in the matter of procedure.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We seem to be discussing the Bill. Amendment 1 would not need to be put if the other amendments were being moved. Everything that is in amendment 1 is in the other amendments. It seems to me that the best amendment to take the discussion on is amendment 6, which seeks to have control for a longer period than is contemplated by the Bill, and then to take the Minister's amendment on Report unless the idea is to propose the Minister's amendment now instead of these amendments.

Professor THRIFT

If the Minister is prepared to put forward his figures on Report Stage, and if Deputy O'Connor agrees to withdraw amendment 1, I will not move amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, or 8. Amendment 6 would then be the only one left.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Shall we take amendment 6 now?

Mr. O'CONNOR

I am agreeable to that. I ask for leave to withdraw amendment 1.

Amendment 1, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I will bring up on Report Stage an amendment embodying my proposals.

Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 not moved.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We will now take amendment 6.

Mr. LYONS

On a point of order, I would like to know how it is that amendments 1 to 5 have been withdrawn without the leave of the House?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

They have not been moved.

Mr. LYONS

Is the Minister for Justice moving an amendment in place of them?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Amendment 1, which was moved, has been withdrawn by the leave of the House. Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 have not been moved. The Minister for Justice has given notice that, on Report, he will move certain amendments. That is the position.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move amendment 6:—

In page 3, line 11, to delete the figures "1929" and substitute the figures and words "1933 or such earlier date as may be determined as hereinafter provided."

The proposal in my amendment will not touch the figures that are in the Bill down to houses of a value of £30 in the Dublin metropolitan area, but in respect of all houses under £30 valuation—that is to say, the great majority of houses which are occupied by people who earn their living as wage-earners or salary-earners—there would be no removal of the restrictions until the year 1933 unless the Minister were satisfied, and as will appear by a later amendment, the House were prepared to approve of an earlier date for the removal of these restrictions. The idea is that at least we shall have one other Parliament completed before any removal of these restrictions is decided upon in respect to the great majority of houses in the country. The factor which would determine whether it was wise to remove the restrictions would be the existence of house accommodation to meet the demand. The President made a contribution to the discussion which goes far to prove the case that I am asking the House to agree with. He showed us that in the city of Dublin, in 1919, there was estimated to be 22,000 houses required to meet the existing demand. There is no sign of a decline in the population of Dublin.

There has been no movement away from the city. Perhaps by 1933 with the operations of the Shannon electrical supply we may have a springing up of industrial activities in other parts of the country, drawing off from this congested city a proportion of the population. But so far there has been no sign of a decline of population—rather the other way. If in 1919 22,000 houses were required that will give an indication of the pressure of the demand for houses.

The Minister also told us that since 1922 up-to-date, which in effect means from 1919 up-to-date, for practically speaking no houses were built from 1919 to 1922—2,800 houses have been built in the city. At that rate of contribution, apart from any question of any increase in the demand for houses in the city, it is going to take 21 years to overcome the demand by the supply. The President also informs us that in the period of 15 years from now there will be a falling in of the present habitations, increasing the need for houses enormously, so after 1929, which this Bill refers to, there is to be no control of houses or of rents, but there is to be free trade in houses, the supply being very much in excess of the demand. The consequent conclusion to that operation would be that every house in the city, once decontrol comes, will rise in rent, and be dependent upon the ability to pay, and the extent of the demand will be the amount of that rise. I have given the date as 1933, because it will at least give time for the next Parliament, and the one after that, to consider the situation afresh in the light of the circumstances then prevailing. As it is desirable to give a date I gave the date 1933, with the proviso that if, in the meantime, there is any sign that the demand does not exceed the supply, and that there is something really economic in the matter, not a rack-rent, not a squeezing of the people to the utmost by the operations of this law of supply and demand that is so often invoked, there might be some justice done to the people who rent houses.

I cannot understand, notwithstanding Deputy Good's attempt at explanation, how the operation of rent restriction has prevented house-builders from building when that restriction does not apply to houses at present being built, or to any houses built for the last few years. The extension of the period during which this Rent Restrictions Act will apply will not prevent the building of a single house, but whether that is so or not, I maintain that unless we are prepared to say to the average workman or workwoman in the city, or the county, or the country towns: "We are prepared to raise your wages by the extent of the rise in rents," we ought not to place on these people the necessity of having to pay higher rates for their house accommodation. The President said there was no analogy between the control of commodities under the Emergency Powers Bill, and this question of the control of houses and rents. As far as I can understand the situation it is an absolutely perfect analogy, and I entirely dissent from the President's statement that there was not and could not be any profiteering in houses. This Bill proposes to invite every house owner after 1929 to enter into competition for profit. It is an invitation to profiteering after 1929, as I say, without regard to the supply of houses. Whatever case may be made for controlling the price of bread in the time of shortage, for controlling the price of milk in the time of shortage, or for controlling the price of any necessity in time of shortage, that case applies to the control of houses in time of shortage.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Amendment 6 is before the Committee. Amendment 12 arises.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Johnson that whatever case arises for the control of a necessary of life in time of shortage such a case arises and exists for control of houses in time of shortage, but it is a question of the acuteness of the shortage. I at least would take the view that only a very acute shortage, creating a situation fraught with the gravest social reactions, would justify the interference of control—something that is. after all, like other commodities simply the product of labour and capital. We have said, and despite the expressions of views to the contrary I think rightly and wisely said, that for the last period of four or five years houses should not be allowed to fetch that price in the market which the free play of factors of supply and demand would make for. Now that we have made at least some inroad on the housing shortage, we are beginning to face towards decontrol. Taking a period of three years, we are beginning to come down the scale of valuation, and to fix periods at the close of which a certain number of houses come out from under the pressure of our legislation. Deputy Johnson says our period is not long enough. He wants an extension of it to 1933. I think the three years' period is as long as this Dáil should attempt to look ahead. After all, we passed an Act in 1923 which will expire on 24th of next month. We did not attempt to pierce further into futurity than that. In 1923 we were prepared to leave it to the Government and Oireachtas of 1926 to say whether or not any continuation of control legislation was necessary. I ask the Dáil to take the view that it is not wise now in 1926 to look ahead any further—that is in a practical way —with our legislation than 1929. We may well leave it to the Government and Oireachtas of 1929 to deal with the situation as it is then found to be. Many things may happen between this and 1929. There may be changes in the sphere of housing. There may be, for instance, a change of heart in trade unions. It may be realised that lower prices and lower rates and increased output would be found to be the true economy even from their own point of view. We may have the steel house, which is so much discussed elsewhere, and discoveries of one kind or another may take place which will revolutionise the position with regard to houses. But from whatever source relief comes for the housing problem, if relief does, in fact, come, we are dealing with the position that we see and that we know. We are finding time to legislate on that position. It is not too much to ask that the Government and Dáil of 1929 will find time to deal with the situation as it is then found to be. It will be for them to decide whether they will simply allow this legislation, which we are now considering, to expire, resulting in total decontrol of housing, or whether they will consider it necessary to continue to any extent legislation restrictive of rent or houses. We cannot forecast the 1929 position, and I think we are doing just about all that we can wisely do in legislating for a period of three years. To attempt to go further, as Deputy Johnson asks us in this amendment, and in amendment 12, to legislate as far as 1933 or, at any rate, to make an Act of the kind that can be extended to 1933, if necessary, is really unduly pessimistic. I wish to be taken as asking the Dáil, further, not to accept these amendments, and to rest satisfied with the proposal embodied in the Bill that it shall have effect until 1929, and that it shall then expire, leaving the situation to be met and dealt with by the legislature of that date.

Mr. HEWAT

I think that the position has been put fairly well before the Dáil by the Minister. In this Bill to ask a further extension of time to 1933 would not, in my opinion, be in the interests of the situation that is disclosed by Deputy Johnson's demand, that a large number of extra houses are still to be erected to meet the needs of the people. The figure of 22,000 was given as the number of houses required. One must imagine, at all events, that that is a very exaggerated figure. But the very fact of the growth of these new houses is accentuating the different treatment meted out to householders as between two sets of buildings, the new houses and the old houses. That very difference with the greater growth and the larger number of houses erected is going to be exaggerated in the direct ratio of the building of new houses. Because you have all over the place your working men living side by side, one man paying, say, 15/- for a new house, and the other man paying, say, 4/6 for a house practically as good, and possibly a great deal better, because a good many people think that the older houses are better constructed than the new houses. Even from the workers' point of view, continuance of that situation is going to create difficulties even amongst the working men themselves.

I put it forward as the main argument for the discontinuance of this Bill at the earliest possible moment that this course would be in the interest of house-building and would tend to increase the number of houses to be erected. Thereby, it would get over whatever reason there was for the restriction of the rents of the older houses. It cannot be overlooked that the Rent Restrictions Act has brought about a state of affairs in which only a very small fraction of the houses being built are being built for the purpose of letting. One finds on looking around that the houses being built with the aid of subsidies supplied by the rest of the community are being built with the deliberate intention of sale as soon as erected. Under no circumstances would those houses be put up for renting. That is the class of growth that is being fostered by this subsidy for houses. Under former conditions, blocks of houses were put up at a certain cost which were estimated to yield a certain rent. The people responsible for the building were willing to invest in these houses as an ordinary investment, for which they expected a return. That class of business has disappeared and will not return until the industry is free from restrictions. The inclination of people with money to invest has turned from house property, for the time being. The best contribution we could make towards house supply and the resumption of old conditions as regards house-building would be to give everybody to understand that house property is not going to be the plaything of Ministers and that the position under which a person who owns a house has no control over it and no control over the rent he is going to receive will not continue. The sooner that condition disappears the better for the industry. More houses will be provided when the people recognise the determination of the Government to terminate the present state of affairs within a reasonable time. If Deputy Johnson's amendment to extend the operations of this Bill to 1933 were accepted, it would do more damage as far as house supply is concerned than could be calculated. Even if the report got about that it was the intention now, or was likely to be the intention, to extend at the end of the period in 1929 the restrictions in this Bill, it would have a deterring effect on anybody about to invest money in house building.

Mr. JOHNSON

In my view and in the view of many other people there will be a necessity for extending this period after 1929, and all the evidences are that this Bill, or some copy of it, will be before the Dáil in the year 1929. There should be no mistake about that and people should not be deceived by thinking that this is to be the final Bill dealing with the restriction of rent. It is just as well there should be no misunderstanding on that point. It is not only members of the Labour Party who have the conviction that there shall be a Rent Restrictions Act after 1929. Eminent members of the Conservative Government in England have stated in respect to England —it can be repeated in respect to Ireland with emphasis—that house-building for working people is never again going to be an economic proposition. Unless there is a revolution in the minds of the employers generally as to the rates of wages they are prepared to pay, there is no likelihood, while the price of money remains anything like what it is at present, that houses will be built for letting to wage earning people as an economic proposition. Deputy Hewat instances the case of one man paying 15/- per week for a new house and his neighbour paying perhaps 4/6 for a similar house. That is the position. The difference may be even greater. But there are 30,000 householders on one side and there are 3,000 on the other side. I wonder would Deputy Hewat, Deputy Good and Deputy O'Connor, who desire these restrictions to be removed, think that the 30,000 people should have their rents raised to the 15/- because the 3,000 are paying 15/-? I can understand the logic of the case if they say "yes." That is going to be the effect of this Bill as soon as the restrictions cease. I want these Deputies to tell us whether it is their desire that the restrictions shall cease so that the owners of the existing houses shall be able to charge the rates current for new houses.

The Minister in his opposition to the amendment asked us to consider the possibility of a revolution in the position with regard to houses—new methods, the possible extension of the steel house to this country, produced no doubt at a much cheaper rate than it is being produced and being much more satisfactory than it promises to be. He says that I am unduly pessimistic when I state that this revolution may not take place before 1933. Supposing the revolution took place before 1929—suppose the supply of steel houses was available in 1928—the Minister's proposition would not allow any freedom for charging rents until 1929. My proposition quite clearly states that if the revolution takes place at any time between now and 1933—if this supply of steel houses is available even at an earlier date than 1929—the restrictive period may come to an end. The Minister seems to be, not unduly pessimistic but unduly optimistic, if he thinks that the whole situation regarding the supply of houses is going to be remedied before 1929. If you go to the people with a Bill of this kind, intimating to householders and prospective tenants that their period of restriction will cease in 1929 rather than intimating to them that there is no likelihood of its ceasing in 1929, then you are placing those people in a false position.

Unless we have some reason for believing that the supply of houses will be available by 1929, we ought not to suggest to house-owners that they will be free at that time to draw any rent they can out of their tenants.

Mr. HEWAT

There will not be many houses left by that time.

Mr. JOHNSON

That makes the position even worse. I suggest to Deputy Hewat that it would be a very important matter for him, in view of what the President has said, and what he has now suggested, that he should consult with his colleagues of the Chamber of Commerce, and consider whether it would not be better generally to increase the ability to pay, and then you might have some reason for releasing house-owners from these restrictions.

Mr. HEWAT

Does Deputy Johnson imagine that if wages were increased to-morrow there would be any more inclination amongst working men to pay increased rents?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That question is irrelevant.

Mr. JOHNSON

I wonder would my reply be irrelevant.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am afraid it would.

Mr. JOHNSON

Well, it is relevant to say that there is a very practical relationship between the ability to pay and the rents to be charged, and if at the end of 1929 you are going to add a charge upon the wage-earner in general by an inevitable increase of rent, then you are laying up for yourself trouble, and I think it is inadvisable to prepare for it so long in advance.

Mr. O'CONNOR

Deputy Johnson asks if it is the intention that rents should be increased on houses that it is proposed to now decontrol to the level of houses built since 1920, and I say it is not. If that were the case the rent should be increased three times, or at least two and a half times, because it now costs between two and a half and three times more to build a house than in pre-war days. It is not our intention that the rent should be increased two and a half times.

Mr. JOHNSON

How would you prevent it?

Mr. O'CONNOR

It is our intention that people who own house property should get a fair profit for the money invested in the property. I would say that a fair profit would be five per cent. on the value of the house, or that the rent charged would be equal to a dividend of five per cent. on the present value of such property. I say that would be a reasonable rent. I think that meets his point. Control and interference with house property is detrimental to the building of houses. Not very many years ago people invested money in house property because it was looked upon as a very safe investment. I knew a man who had money invested in other business, but he watched the stock and the money markets so closely that his health broke down. He suffered from insomnia. His doctor advised him to give up that business and to put his money into house property. He did so, and invested £40,000. I built a good deal of property for him. Perhaps he is suffering from insomnia to-day.

Mr. GOOD

He is dead.

Mr. O'CONNOR

The point I want to make is that with the rent restrictions there is no inducement to people to build houses to-day. The sooner we allow free play in this matter and make the building of houses an attractive investment, the better it will be for the tenants and for those looking for houses. As I said, it is not our intention that the rents of old houses should be increased to those of new houses.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Deputy O'Connor mentioned five per cent. Does he mean to restrict the house-owners to five per cent.? If so, how does he propose to do it?

Mr. O'CONNOR

The point I was making was that if a house becomes vacant, and if it is sold, the money on investment would realise five per cent., or a much higher profit than the rent.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Deputy propose to control the landlords to the extent that they should only receive five per cent.?

Mr. O'CONNOR

I say that house-owners should be allowed at least a profit of five per cent. on the value of the house.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Deputy want to limit them to five per cent.?

Mr. GOOD

When we are going into other questions as to what other controls ought to be put in force, we are getting into some difficulties that Deputy Johnson does not see. So far we have only discussed control from one point of view. There are other sides to it on which very much might be said.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Will Deputy Good answer the question about the five per cent.?

Mr. GOOD

If we have one question we may have another

Amendment put.

The Committee divided:—Tá, 9; Níl, 49.

Tá.

• Seán Buitléir.
• David Hall.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.

Níl.

• Earnán Altún.
• Pádraig Baxter.
• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• Séamus de Búrca.
• John Conlan.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• James Dwyer.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Good.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• John Hennigan.
• William Hewat.
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.
• Séamus O Leadáin.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
• Séan Mac Curtain.
• Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Mícheál O hAonghusa.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Parthalán O Conchubhair.
• Máirtín O Conalláin.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon O Dúgáin.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.
• Séan O Súilleabháin.
• Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
• Caoimhghín O hUigín.
• Liam Thrift.

Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Morrissey and Nagle. Níl: Deputies Sears and B. O'Connor.

Amendment declared lost.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That disposes also of Amendment 12. Amendments 7, 8 and 9 are not moved. Amendments 10 and 11 appear to be directed to the same object, and I think 11 is the better amendment. I would like to hear Amendment 11 first.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I move—

To add at the end of the section the words—"Provided always that where a dwellinghouse to which the Act applies becomes vacant by reason of the surrender or other determination of the tenancy, the Act of 1920, the Principal Act and this Act shall cease to apply to such dwellinghouse as and from the date of such surrender or other determination of the said tenancy."

The object of this amendment is to decontrol a house when it becomes vacant. I think it would be wise and advisable, in the interests of those looking for houses to rent. if the owners of such houses were allowed to let them at reasonable or fair rents, rents that would bring them the equivalent of five per cent. on the money that they would get for the sale of the houses. I think that that would be wise, and I am sure that the House will agree with the amendment. If we are heading for decontrol—and that is the object of the Bill—I think this would be a good way to aim at it, and it would then come gradually. There would be very few houses vacant from time to time, and this would be a good way to meet decontrol and to prepare for its arrival.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I oppose this amendment. It seems to me that Deputy O'Connor in this matter is only thinking of the city of Dublin and perhaps some of the townships, but if this amendment were to be passed it would impose a great hardship on people in small country towns, because small houses, particularly the class of house in which poor people live, are not usually sold when they become vacant; another weekly or monthly tenant, as the case may be, is put in, and if this amendment is passed, with the present demand for houses, it will mean that in many cases rent will be increased a hundred or perhaps two hundred per cent. People are so anxious to get houses, and are so much in need of them, that they would be prepared to pay such rents and would outbid each other in order to do so. Therefore, I submit if this amendment is passed it will impose a great hardship on the poorer tenants in the country.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

This amendment has been urged on me and amongst other arguments used in support of it is the one that a provision, identical with or similar to this, is contained in the British legislation. I take it that Deputies would not consider that an all-sufficient argument, and that they would not wish to ask themselves, quite apart from that, whether it is a proper provision or not. My objection to the amendment is that it runs counter to what we may call the philosophic basis of such legislation as exists. It runs counter to the principle underlying the 1920 Act and our own Act of 1923, because what we aimed at in that legislation was not so much the protection of existing tenants as the control of houses. We did not advert merely to the position of the tenant in occupation at any given point of time. We were considering all tenants, prospective as well as existing tenants, and the basis of the legislation was this: owing to the war and causes incidental to the war, there had been a complete cessation of building activity for a period of from five to eight years. There was here, at any rate, quite apart from that, an almost chronic shortage of houses. That shortage was, of course, accentuated by the cessation of building activities, and if houses were left to their natural market price, the price they could fetch if no such restrictive legislation as this were introduced, they would rise beyond the reach of the pockets of the people, and we said, with regard to houses built prior to April, 1919, built back in the cheap period before building costs rose to or beyond their present level, there would be a restriction and a limitation on the amount of rent that could be charged. That was the basis of our legislation. It may be challenged, and it may be said it was unwise to interfere at all. I do not agree with that. It was not protection of individual existing tenants, but restriction and limitation which could be charged to any tenant, existing or prospective, that was aimed at. Is it consistent with that view, apart from the question whether control is right or wrong, wise or unwise, to say, as we are asked to say, by this amendment, that let a house once fall vacant, it shall come out from the pressure of control and soar at its letting price to whatever level may be determined by the factors of supply and demand? I do not think it is, and to accept this amendment would be mixing our principles, a bad thing to do in legislation. A particular philosophic basis, I may revert to the word, exists for the 1920 and 1923 Act, and we propose to continue that kind of legislation, not identical legislation, for a further period of three years. Are we to say that if by accidental circumstances a house falls vacant it shall be released from control, and shall rise from its letting price to whatever may be determined by the free play of the factors of supply and demand?

There is this aspect to which I should like to draw the attention of Deputies. A provision of this kind would create a serious temptation to a householder, to harass his tenants, so that he could secure vacant occupation of his house because thereby his house, by the fact of falling vacant, would be released from control. When I put that point to a deputation of people interested in this matter, I was met with a retort a pertinent reply, that there was always an inducement, since rent restriction came, for a landlord to struggle hard for vacant possession of his house, so that he might sell, because selling, and I am quite satisfied that this is so, in a great many cases, he could realise an amount which, if invested, would bring him in a larger sum than what he is allowed to charge by way of rent without any of the worry and anxiety which the possession of house property, I am told, involves. He could put it into National Loan or any other investment to bring him in five or five and a half per cent. and, without any trouble, secure an income from that greater than he could charge by way of rent. I am satisfied that is so.

There is just this. The number of people who could buy their houses is limited in contrast to the number of people who, we may assume, are anxious to rent houses, and it is a question of difficulty. If the temptation were there since rent restriction came along, for a landlord to struggle by a variety of methods, to secure vacant possession of his house, he cannot deny that, to accept this amendment, would increase this temptation because if he could secure vacant possession, his house is free not merely from the competition of those who can buy houses but also free from the unrestricted competition of the very much greater number who are anxious to rent houses. It flies out from under our control pressure and rises to whatever level the competition of prospective tenants can bring it to. For those two reasons, for the reason that I thin it conflicts with our principle of legislation, and for the reason that it constitutes a very serious temptation to a landlord to secure possession by any means in his power, or, as was said long ago, in a particular connection, by the most effective means, I hesitate to accept this amendment and I ask the Dáil to take my view on the matter.

Professor THRIFT

I had an amendment down in somewhat different words, but preserving the same principle. I have no love for my own particular words, but I think the principle in this is quite against the Minister. I do not feel at all as if he had justified his objection to this amendment. He says that the amendment is based against the idea of control in the Act. In what way is that so? The control under the Act is in the hands of the tenants, and we know that the way in which it works out is that really the tenant and not the owner controls the property. If the house becomes vacant that principle of course lapses. There is no hardship on any individual, but there is a definite hardship removed from the owner of that particular property. It works out in this way, namely, that the owner will become more anxious to let a house to a tenant than to sell it. If this amendment is not passed you will have a continuance of what occurs to-day, namely, that a house is not offered for letting but is sold, and in many cases the selling of that kind of property leads to the loosening of the bond between the owner and the property, and it frequently leads to money going out of the country. We want to encourage the letting of houses, and the refusal to accept the amendment means a definite refusal to utilise in a certain small number of cases that opening that would arise by the offering of property to rent. That is what we want to encourage. One of my objects is that we should, as far as possible, put an end to this persistent selling of houses. Whenever an occasion arises the owner will offer a house for sale, instead of offering it for rent. That tells against would-be tenants, as unless they put up the money they cannot get a house. Though they could pay a reasonable rent per annum they do not get a chance of renting a house. What we want to aim at, I take it, is to get more and more houses offered for rent, and this amendment is a simple way in which that could be secured in a small number of cases without doing hardship to anybody.

Dr. HENNESSY

I think there is a good deal to be said for the principle of the amendments put down in the names of Deputy B. O'Connor and Deputy Thrift. As Deputy Thrift has just said, the great grievance of would-be tenants is that they cannot get a house to rent, and that the landlord, from one reason or another, either from fear of the Rent Restrictions Act, or from the offer of a better investment, is disposed to sell. Another point is this, namely, that when a house becomes vacant there is often a question of internal repairs. The house has to be kept in repair by the tenant, but we all know that in practice he generally leaves the house in bad repair, and it is not practicable to make him responsible for the repairs. The owner of a house very often has to spend on internal decorations and repairs as much as £150, and if he is subject to the Rent Restrictions Act, I do not think that that is a paying proposition for him. He will adopt the better paying alternative, and sell the house. Nearly all of the newly-built houses, which have been erected by State money, have been sold by the builders, but the purchasers are not at all pleased with their bargain because they have had to borrow money at 7 or 8 per cent., and have had to pay a higher rent than they would have to do if the houses were decontrolled. I would ask the Minister to give the amendment favourable consideration, as it is as much in the interests of those who want houses as of the owners of house property.

Mr. JOHNSON

We learn as we go along. We learn from Deputy Doctor Hennessy that owing to the great need of houses people are induced to buy houses at a price far more than they are worth when put in the market for sale. We know that people who buy houses, even under present favourable conditions, pay more for them than they can afford. I think that the discussion of this amendment has to be related, not merely to the situation in the city and county of Dublin, or rather, in the adjacent boroughs of the city of Dublin, but in the country as a whole, and to the conditions of the tenements in Dublin. If we were only considering the townships I think I could be brought to support this amendment, but I realise that many people are inhabiting dwelling houses, as defined by the Act with which we are dealing, that include part of a house which is let as a separate dwelling.

Mr. GOOD

Would the Deputy tell us under what conceivable circumstances this could apply to a tenement house?

Mr. JOHNSON

If the front and back rooms on the third floor in a particular house in the city of Dublin are vacant, they constitute a separate dwelling and the landlord is then free to get any rent he can.

Mr. GOOD

It would not be a vacant house within the meaning of this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

If the Deputy would listen to what I am saying and read the Act which we are dealing with he would learn that the Act applies to any part of a house let as a separate dwelling as well as a house, so that all the tenements in the city of Dublin, when they become vacant, would be free and the owners of those tenements could get whatever rent they could squeeze out of the incoming tenant. So it is with small houses in small towns in the country. We do not hear in those places of the practice that takes place in Dublin and in the townships about Dublin where, as soon as a house becomes vacant, it is sold at an exorbitant price. The small houses in the country are not sold in that way. They are re-let and there is no possibility or probability of their being sold. If this amendment is carried the owners of small houses now let in the country districts at 3/-, 4/- and 5/- a week, when they become vacant, will be able to extract any rent they wish. The houses will not be put into the market for sale. They are not even now under the Rent Restrictions Act put into the market for sale. They are re-let at a standard rent plus such additions as are allowed. I think if the amendment were carried it would do harm to every tenant of every tenement which becomes vacated, and every tenant of every small house in the country towns. The movers of the amendment seem to have in mind only places, like Ranelagh, Rathmines, Terenure, parts of Dublin City, and Pembroke, in which houses are usually sold when they become vacant. If the Deputies could concoct a formula which would only bring in the class of houses which, apparently, they have in mind, then a good deal could be said for the amendment.

Professor THRIFT

I would like to point out to the Deputy that amendment 10 definitely puts in a proviso at the end of the clause, "Provided that any house becoming vacant." The amendment actually under consideration is more specific. It refers to dwelling houses to which this Act applies. I think there is a real point of difference between the two amendments.

Mr. JOHNSON

Right through the Act that we are dealing with a part of a house which is let as a separate dwelling is a house for the purpose of the Act. That is my interpretation, and all the interpretations that have been recorded are in favour of my interpretation.

Professor THRIFT

I do not want to persist, but would the Deputy just put together the beginning of the section and then the proviso: "Subject to the provisions of this section this Act shall, in respect of any particular house, or part of a house let as a separate dwelling"—then certain things come in. Then you have at the end: "Provided always that any house becoming vacant." If he does I think his interpretation will be the same as my own.

Mr. JOHNSON

I will leave that to the lawyers. Apart from the question of tenements, there is the question which I will touch upon and which Deputy Morrissey has touched upon, that it is not the practice in much the greater part of the country—nor has it been the practice during the last three years—for small houses on becoming vacant to be put into the market for sale. That might be the practice in the townships near Dublin and in Dublin.

Mr. O'CONNOR

Or in Cork?

Mr. JOHNSON

It might be the practice in Cork, but over the greater part of the country it is not the fact and this legislation deals with the whole country.

Major COOPER

I can only say, as far as my somewhat limited knowledge goes, that I disagree entirely with Deputy Johnson, so far as, at any rate, County Sligo is concerned. In the first place, I disagree that houses becoming vacant are not put up for sale. Whenever a landlord has an opportunity of selling a house, either to the tenant or when it becomes vacant, he generally takes that opportunity. In the second place, Deputy Johnson thinks that houses let at 4/- or 5/- a week, on becoming vacant, are let at very much higher rents. I can only say in my own experience I find it hard enough to get four or five shillings a week. I find it quite impossible to get a tenant who would pay 10/- or 15/- a week. I have one case in mind that I was dealing with this morning. It is the case of a house that is used as a hotel of which I am landlord. The rent is 6/- a week. That rent has not been paid for eight years, though when I stayed in the hotel—it is a six-roomed house—they charged me 7/6 a night.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Deputy propose to reduce the rent or to raise it—that rent which he does not receive?

Major COOPER

I am proposing to sell, which Deputy Johnson says is never done, and to have the arrears taken into consideration in the purchase price, if I can get a reasonable price. I know nothing about what happens in Minister, but I do not think Deputy Johnson's statement, so far as the conditions in Sligo are concerned, is an accurate one, and I support the amendment of Deputy O'Connor, both because it meets a very urgent need in our common constituency and in Deputy Johnson's constituency, and also because I believe it will be useful to the rest of the country.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Would the Deputy say how poor tenants who are paying anything from 2/6 to 5/- a week can buy their houses if they were put up for sale. I mean men earning from 32/- to £2 a week.

Major COOPER

In the case that I referred to the tenant is also a teacher of Irish in the technical school and he is obtaining a substantial income in addition to the money he gets from visitors.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Take the case of a man working on the roads.

Major COOPER

His rent is generally 1s. 3d. a week in my case.

Mr. LYONS

I wish to oppose this amendment. I think Deputy Thrift and Deputy O'Connor had in mind some very large houses, probably in the city, which, when they become vacant, are put up for sale. Like some of the Labour Deputies, I have had some experience of small dwellings in the country occupied by workers where the rents have been increased on the incoming tenants on their becoming vacant. Those houses are never put up for sale, because the people who live in these houses have not the money to purchase them. I agree with the mover of the amendment that the Act might apply to houses of a certain valuation, say of £35 or £40, but as regards the workers I think the amendments put forward by Deputy O'Connor and Deputy Thrift are purely in the interests of the landlords. To my mind this Bill was hatched——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We are not discussing the Bill as a whole now.

Mr. LYONS

Those two amendments have been hatched, not in an incubator, but, probably, by the real old clucking hen of the landlords' party, who is out all the time to get the very best clutch of eggs that he possibly can. On this occasion the only eggs he is going to get, the best profits, are in taking restrictions off the houses as they become vacant, and letting the incoming tenant be the game bird, he wants to hatch, by way of charging a far greater rent or trying to sell the houses at an exorbitant price. I have been a member of the Dáil since 1922, and I have to say that I have never appreciated so much before the action of the Minister for Justice as I have on this amendment. Let us sincerely hope that he will continue his good work by saying he will not accept this amendment.

Mr. WILSON

I want to throw out a suggestion to which probably we might get the Labour representatives to agree. A fact that experience has shown is that during the operations of the Rent Restrictions Act houses, in the city at all events, are for a long period kept vacant during the period in which the owner tries to find a buyer. That state of affairs operates against these people who want houses, and I contend that the acceptance of this amendment would leave a greater number of houses at the disposal of people who wish to rent houses. In order to meet Deputy Johnson's objections, I would suggest that we should say "provided always that in the county boroughs of Dublin or Cork that any house become vacant." That takes away the small houses in the rural areas, and that is the real cause of objection the Labour Party have to the amendments. I contend that you are doing wrong to allow these houses to remain empty from the point of view of the interests of the tenants, in whom the Labour Party are very much interested. It is wrong to have houses vacant when nobody can rent them. Their owners are waiting for buyers, and they often remain vacant for six or eight months or even for a year. This amendment would leave them at the disposal of new tenants, and it will take away the objections which exist in the cases of small houses in the country.

FIONAN O LOINGSIGH

Nílim ar thaobh an leas-rún so, acht ba mhaith liom mo thuairm a thabhairt—tar éis bheith ag éisteacht leis na Teachtaí do lobhairt—gur féidir crot níos fearr a chur ar an leas-rún gan mórán troblóide.

I suggest that the Minister for Justice might see his way to look into the amendment in the light of what has been said from the different parts of the House, before the Report Stage of the Bill. I think that it is rather clear that the amendment could, by a considerable amount of amendment in itself be made such as would satisfy all Deputies, or nearly all. I do not agree with the amendment as it stands. I believe in the points put up by Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Johnson, that houses in the rural areas and in the small towns would be affected by this amendment. I say the amendment could be very deleterious from that point of view, but I am perfectly convinced that as far as the townships of Dublin are concerned, the effect of the Rent Restrictions Act is that it is absolutely impossible for a person who is prepared to pay £70 or £80 a year to get a house. When the house becomes vacant the houseowner can get a fancy price, and he will not let on the conditions imposed by the Rent Restrictions Act. I have had experience of it myself, and I am satisfied about that.

Mr. HALL

I am not at all satisfied with any argument that has been put up here to the effect that when a house becomes vacant in an urban area or in the city the owner is all the time out to dispose of that house. I know a particular case that has come under my own notice in the course of the past eighteen months—a case of twelve houses in the town of Trim, and the rent paid for them is only 2/- a week. The houses contain from three to five rooms, and there is a garden of half a statute acre at the rear. The tenants were anxious to extend the houses. To get authority to extend them it was necessary for them to purchase the houses. I was approached on the matter, and I accompanied them to the landlord with a view to making an arrangement with him for the sale of the houses to the tenants. He would not hear of it under any conditions. I went a second time and discussed the matter with him, and he agreed to give it consideration. The local parish priest was apprised of the matter. The landlord declined. He did not make any move at all to dispose of the houses. Four of these houses became vacant in the course of the last eight months. He did not sell them, but he let them again at 2/- a week. He did not ask to increase the rent. Now there is talk about disposing of houses in the city of Dublin and the townships. Take a house in Botanic Avenue which is let at £1 per week. These are only four-roomed houses. They are let at £1 per week, and assuming that one of them becomes vacant to-morrow, and the control is taken off those houses, instead of a rent of £1 for the houses, the owner will probably be demanding about £1 15s. There are some of the tenants who earn only £2 15s. per week and that would leave them £1 to live on.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Is the Deputy sure that there is any control on these houses at all? If they are new houses they are not of course controlled.

Mr. HALL

They are not new houses.

Mr. GOOD

If they have been built since 1919 they do not come within the Act.

Mr. HALL

They have not been built since 1919. Some of the people are living in them for the last 9 or 10 years. It is an extraordinary state of affairs if we can be made believe here that to take control off a house when it becomes vacant is not going to re-act against the working classes in the city and townships of Dublin and other townships throughout Ireland.

It is ridiculous. If these houses in Botanic Avenue were vacant to-morrow the next thing one would hear about is a demand for a rent of £1 15s. per week instead of £1, the amount that is now paid. I know some of the people who live in Botanic Avenue and I am aware they are earning only £2 15s. a week. They cannot afford £1 15s. a week rent. The amendment, in my opinion, is a bad one and whether the chickens were hatched out or not, as Deputy Lyons says, at all events they chipped the eggs at the wrong end. Just as in the case of Trim, we have other cases around the country where tenants have been asking landlords to sell houses to them and they have not agreed to do so: the landlords would not even answer the requests. In the town of Navan, if a house became vacant and if control was off, the landlord would raise the rent to such an extent that a working-class man would not be able to enter as tenant; you would have, as you have at present in Navan, working-class dwellings occupied by bank clerks and others who can afford to pay.

The amendment is bad from the point of view of the working classes or those of the community who are paid low wages. It extends little sympathy to the unfortunate tenants who are not well-off. It is an amendment that should not be accepted by the House, because it is a landlord's amendment. The landlords have been considering this situation for a length of time, and ultimately they got Deputy O'Connor, who might, for all I know, be a landlord himself, to push this through the House. This will not assist in the direction of erecting more houses, and it has little bearing, to my mind, on the scarcity of houses or on the failure of would-be house contractors. As I stated here last year, what did affect the erection of houses was the high charges of the contractors; their high tenders had a big effect on house erection.

Mr. GOOD

Why have the contractors to make such high charges?

Mr. HALL

I did not quite catch the Deputy's statement.

Mr. GOOD

Why are the contractors obliged to make such high charges?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We cannot go into the question of wages now.

Mr. HALL

It is no use trying to make anyone believe this is a democratic amendment. Deputy O'Connor endeavours to make us think that. From his point of view it is an amendment that will assist in giving more employment, and building more houses for the people who require them. If a five-roomed house becomes vacant to-morrow, and its rent is raised from £1 to £1 15s., I believe you might have an assistant cashier of the Bank of Ireland looking for it, because the ordinary class of people, such as those who lived in it before, would not be able to pay the higher rent asked. It is ridiculous to suggest that a man working at manual labour in Dublin, and earning £2 15s. a week, would be able to pay £1 15s. for rent.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I do not think the Deputy was listening to me, judging by his remarks. In moving my amendment, I made no reference to giving more employment. I had the welfare of the tenants much more at heart than the welfare of the house owners. It is from the tenants we hear most grumbling; they are very anxious to know where they can get a house to rent. When I put down the amendment I had the tenants in mind. A Deputy on my left stated that when he was looking for a house to rent he could not get it even at £70 or £80, and he had to buy a house. I do not press the amendment at all; if it is not pleasing to the Labour Party I do not want them to accept it.

Deputy Lyons made a remark about people in the country; he talked about egg-hatching and so on, and made reference to houses of a valuation of £35 and £40, in which poor people had to live. Just imagine poor people living in a house with a valuation of £35 or £40! The statement is absolutely ridiculous. However, that is beside the question. I will address my remarks to the Minister now, and, as the Minister has heard the speeches from different parts of the House, I think he should leave the amendment to a free vote. I think he should take an open vote on this matter, and it would give him a good indication of the general feeling in regard to this question.

Mr. LYONS

On a point of explanation. I did not wish to interrupt the Deputy, but I did not refer to houses of £35 or £40 valuation being occupied by poor unfortunate persons in the country. I said they might be occupied if houses of that valuation had their valuations altered; then the control over the rent might be removed.

Professor THRIFT

I wonder would the Minister consider looking for a formula which would definitely exclude the operation of this in regard to tenement houses or small houses in the country, and make it apply to a house over £20 valuation, or something of that kind?

Mr. O'CONNOR

Make it apply to houses of £10 valuation.

Mr. LYONS

What about the labourer's cottage in the country?

Mr. NAGLE

As the amendment stands, I am against it. I was going to suggest something similar to what Deputy Thrift has suggested. There is a great difference in the minds of Deputy Johnson and myself and in the minds of Deputy O'Connor, Deputy Thrift and Deputy Dr. Hennessy as to the meaning of the amendment as it stands. For instance, we claim it will apply to very small tenement houses and cottages that would be inhabited by the very poor. The statements made by the Minister for Fisheries and Deputy Dr. Hennessy prove conclusively that they had no such ideas in their minds. The Minister for Fisheries said that he found it impossible to get a house at a rent of £70 or £80 per year and was forced to purchase a house to live in. There is no worker in Dublin or elsewhere who would rent a house like that. If the section applied to houses of that nature we would not object. Deputy Dr. Hennessy talked of houses that became vacant and upon which £150 would be spent for repair and decoration. You could buy one of the houses we have in mind for £150. If the Minister is going to consider this matter on Report he should take into account the suggestion made by Deputy Thrift. I agree with Deputy O'Connor that if you make it a matter of £10 valuation you would be much nearer the mark. As the amendment stands I will oppose it.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I think Deputy Johnson was correct in his contention that the amendment as it stands would apply to tenements, and to any rooms let separately in a house. Turning to Section 12 of the present Bill we find "This Act may be cited as the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1926, and shall be construed as one with the Principal Act, and that Act and this Act may be cited together as the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1923 and 1926."

In the Act of 1923, Section 3, the following occurs: "This Act shall, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling where either the annual amount of the standard rent or the rateable value does not exceed: (a) in the County Borough of Dublin and the Urban Districts in the Dublin Metropolitan Police area sixty pounds, and (b) elsewhere forty pounds; and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies."

I take it that that runs through, not merely to the Act of 1923, but would apply, also, in this Bill. However, apart from that there is the question of the advisability of taking the line that a house, falling vacant, shall be automatically released from control. Deputy O'Connor asked me would I be prepared to leave the matter to an open vote of the Dáil. Of course the answer to that is this amendment does not raise any issue which could properly or fairly be regarded as a matter of confidence, and I do not really care what way Deputies vote upon it. I, myself, do not favour it as it stands, for the reasons I have already gone into. I think it is in conflict with the principle of this control legislation, and I think it constitutes a very real temptation to landlords to secure, by any and every means, vacant possession of their houses, so that houses may thereby be released from control.

One suggestion is that that, possibly, might be met to some extent by a provision saying that only in the case of voluntary surrender by a tenant, and making some provision for evidence that the surrender was, in fact, voluntary, would decontrol apply. But there has been a suggestion not to apply this amendment in the county boroughs of Dublin or Cork, and to let it simply apply throughout the rest of the State—or was it that it should only apply in the county boroughs of Dublin or Cork? (Deputies—Yes.) The mover of the amendment can have it whichever way he likes. If he wishes to have it out now, and left simply to the vote of the Dáil, that is one way of dealing with it. If he likes to withdraw it on the understanding that we would, between this and Report Stage, give further consideration to the points that have been deduced, and the arguments that have been urged. we can deal with it that way. But the only argument that was urged that influenced me to any extent was this point that houses tend, in the position as it stands, to lie vacant for the reason that the houseowner acquiring vacant possession of his house will not again let under the condition of our restrictive legislation, and will be prepared to wait even a considerable time for a buyer. As against that, I think, we have put in some provision making the owner of empty houses liable for rates. That was intended to check the tendency that was there, and was manifesting itself of allowing houses to lie idle rather than let them under the provisions of the control legislation. That is one argument that has weighed with me. No one wants to see houses lying empty in times of housing shortage, and if the release of houses from control, once they became vacant, would end that situation, then, that is one definite thing that can be urged in favour of such a course. If the amendment is now put I, myself, will vote against it. If it is withdrawn I will consider between this and Report Stage if we can bring up an amendment that will perhaps be more satisfactory without going the full length of the Deputy's amendment.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Professor THRIFT

I am prepared to accept the second suggestion.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I am quite agreeable, too. I ask leave to withdraw amendment 11.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 10 (Deputy Thrift) not moved.

Amendment 12 (Deputy Johnson) not moved.

Question—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Mr. GOOD

As there is so little time at our disposal, it is scarcely worth while proceeding with Section 5, and I move that we report progress.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Seanad has passed the Protection of the Community (Special Powers) Bill. 1926, together with the Resolution exempting it from the provisions of Article 47 of the Constitution.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.20 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 19th May.