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.