Vol. 22 No. 17
I move amendment 1:—
In sub-section (1), line 22, to delete the word "six" and substitute therefor the word "eight."
The object of the amendment is to make the existing regulations for the Borough of Dublin more uniform, where the owner is responsible for the municipal rate. However, I think amendment 4, in the name of the Minister, covers the point.
Yes, amendment 4 meets the point. It gives power to make an order, subject to a maximum of £12, extending the limit.
I move amendment 2:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, line 24, after the word "dwelling" to add the words "and also includes any other hereditament or tenement which by virtue of any other provision of this Act is for the time being a small dwelling for the purposes of this Act."
This is a drafting amendment introducing subsequent amendments.
On behalf of Deputy J.T. Wolfe I move amendment 2 (a):
In sub-section (1), lines 31 and 32, to delete the words "two-thirds of."
Perhaps the Deputy will explain the meaning of it?
I move the amendment to give the Minister an opportunity of making a statement.
I am not accepting the amendment. The description of the word "rack-rent" is the description contained in the Public Health Acts since 1878. The effect of the amendment would be to remove a large number of small dwellings from the operations of this Bill. Under the present circumstances there will be a certain difficulty in establishing the ownership of a certain small number of houses. As well as removing a large number of small houses from the operations of the Bill, this amendment would increase the difficulty of finding the owners of a certain number of others. If we accepted the amendment, it would mean that the description of "rack-rent" in the Bill would be out of harmony with the description in the different Acts that deal with this matter up to date.
I move amendment 3:—
On page 2 to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:
(3) Every house or cottage which was or shall be erected or provided under the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1919, or under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, shall be a small dwelling for the purposes of this Act so long as it is owned by an authority having power to erect or provide houses under those Acts or any of them.
This is for the purpose of bringing under the Bill certain houses erected by local bodies and referred to on the Second Reading by some Deputies.
I move amendment 3 (a):— On page 2 to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows: "(3) in the case of a small dwelling which at the making of a rate to which this Act applies is or is included in a holding to which the Land Act, 1923, applies the person who is then the occupier of the small dwelling shall be the owner thereof for the purposes of this Act in respect of such rate."
This is for the purpose of making clear under the operation of the Bill the position with regard to houses affected by the Land Acts. Under the Land Act of 1923 you have houses on holdings which fall into a certain number of classes. In the first place, you may have land vested in the Land Commission and re-vested by the Land Commission in the tenants. The position there is clear. In the second place you may have land vested in the Land Commission, but held by the Land Commission without re-vesting pending rearrangement. It is necessary, in order to establish the ownership there, that this amendment be inserted. In the third place, you may have land as to which an application has been made, either by the tenant or the landlord, to have it dealt with under the Land Act, but as to which the Land Commission has not taken any steps. You may also have land to which the Land Act may apply, but as to which there might easily be a doubt. The effect of the amendment will be that where it is clear that the land comes under the Land Act, the occupier will be responsible for the payment of the rates, and where it is not so clear, then the owner of the land will be responsible.
I move amendment 4:—
Before Section 2 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, on the application of the council of a county or other borough by order extend the limit of valuation of small dwellings under this Act from six pounds to such greater sum not exceeding twelve pounds as he shall think fit and may, if he so thinks fit, on the application of such council by order at any time revoke such order.
(2) So long as an order under this section is in force in respect of a county or other borough the expression "small dwelling" in this Act shall mean in relation to such borough a hereditament or tenement separately valued under the Valuation Acts whereof the valuation under those Acts does not exceed the sum fixed in that behalf by such order and the whole or any part of which is actually used or is adapted for use as a dwelling.
(3) Every order made under this section shall be published forthwith in two newspapers circulating in the county or other borough to which such order relates or in two separate issues of one newspaper so circulating.
This is the amendment which meets the point raised by Deputy Doyle. There are certain local rates, like the borough rate in Dublin, and certain other rates, which fall on the owner, as distinct from the occupier. In the case of Dublin, the borough rate falls on the owner of a house of £8 valuation and under. If there was not power in connection with a borough, such as Dublin, to change the amount slightly, we would have this position in Dublin, that all rates on a house of £6 valuation and under would be paid by the owner, that the poor rate on a house between £6 and £8 valuation would be payable by the occupier, whereas the borough rate and some other local rates would be payable by the owner. When it is taken into consideration that property in a borough is usually more highly valued, because of its position, than property in the country, the raising of the amount in a borough, in order to suit local circumstances and local legislation, does not involve any hardship on anyone.
I move amendment 5:—
To add at the end of sub-section (5) the words:—"Where the owner of a small dwelling is absent from the district or is outside the jurisdiction of the Saorstát and makes default in payment of rates properly payable by him under this Act the tenant shall be entitled to deduct from rent payable to the said owner the amount of rates so properly payable by the owner under this Act and paid by the tenant."
This amendment is self-explanatory and no words of mine are necessary to enforce its meaning. If the owner is away, the owner cannot be got at. Then the tenant can pay the rates and deduct the amount from his rent.
The amendment is really unnecessary and it is undesirable in view of the intention of the Bill. In the first place if Deputy O'Kelly will refer to Section 1 where the owner is defined he will see that the owner means either the person for the time being receiving whether on account as agent or trustee for another the rack rent of the small dwelling. So that the agent acting for an absentee landlord is the owner within the term of this Bill as within the term of some of the other Public Health Acts so that in so far as there is a possibility that the owner may be inaccessible there is not that particular possibility and you have the ordinary machinery of the law to get at the agent or the owner. The whole intention of the Bill is to remove from the occupier of the small house completely any responsibility for the payment of the rates and to saddle the owner completely.
The suggestion contained in the amendment came under discussion in connection with the original drafting of the Bill and it was made quite clear from very mature consideration that it gave an opening for prejudicing the whole intention of the Bill. The owner is to be completely saddled with responsibility under this particular Bill and in so far as there is thought to be any danger of him evading it, the description of owner in Section 1 completely meets any danger that Deputy O'Kelly anticipates in the matter.
I do not know that it is as clear as the Minister says from Section 1 or any other section that the occupying tenant could not be made, in certain circumstances, liable. If that be definite and clear that in case the owner did not pay the occupier would not be liable or if he were liable that he should be free to deduct from his next rent the amount he paid in rates I would be quite satisfied to withdraw the amendment. I have one case in my mind and I know that those who suggested this amendment to me had others where there is not an agent in the country and where the owner of the property lives abroad and would not be easily got at by any authority or by the Government for the payment of rates. It was in such a case as that to safeguard the interests of the tenants and occupiers that I suggested this amendment.
On this particular point the Minister states that he is anxious to put the liability on the owner. In introducing this Bill, I think he made it clear that he was only putting the liability upon the owner with the object of the convenience of the tenants. We quite understand that for the occupiers of those small houses it is very inconvenient in many cases to be called upon to pay what is, for them, a considerable sum at periods of, say, six months, and that it would be very much easier, from their point of view, to pay it in weekly payments. Therefore we are conveniencing the tenants in putting this obligation upon the owners. But I want it to be made clear that in doing that we are not going to take from the tenant his liability to pay his proportion of the rates. We want it kept separate and distinct from the amount of the rent. The reason of that is this: That we want to get a proper civic spirit in this country. We want to cast on every tenant, no matter how small the liability, the duty to pay his proportion of the particular rate either to the urban or the borough council in his particular area. I am particularly anxious that these two things should be kept separate for that reason that we may have, what we have not up to the present and what we had not in the past, a proper civic spirit in this country. I would press upon the Minister in going as far as he has done, in throwing this liability upon the landlord in order to convenience the tenant, that, at the same time, he should keep clear in this Bill the liability for rates as separate and distinct from the liability for rent.
In reply to Deputy O'Kelly, Section 3 (1) of the Bill says that: "Every rate to which this Act applies made in respect of small dwellings shall be made on the owner of such dwelling, and save where the owner is also the occupier no such rate shall be made on the occupier of such dwelling." That makes it quite clear that the Bill relieves the occupier of the legal responsibility of paying the rate.
If there is a difficulty about finding the owner the ordinary legal proceedings are available. The rent can be garnasheed in respect of the rates, so that the suggested difficulty does not arise at all. In reply to Deputy Good, I think we made it quite clear that one of the principles we wanted to safeguard was that the ordinary individual would shoulder his burden for the rates and would not escape that burden, and under Section 4, sub-sections (1) and (3) he is pinned down to the actual bearing of that burden, while the owner is made legally responsible for the paying of the rates. But the owner cannot enter into a contract to shoulder the burden of these rates himself. The Bill here makes any such contract null and void. The owner is legally responsible for paying the rates, but he is legally responsible also for passing on, in the way of addition to the rent, the amount of the rates to the individual occupier. I think it is well that it would be understood that this Act is not only for the purpose of conveniencing the tenants, but it is also for the purpose of the general convenience of both the public as a whole, and the public bodies, who will undoubtedly have a better rate collection.
With reference to the point raised by Deputy Good, a case was put before me. My informant said he never could collect more than 70 or 80 per cent. of his rent. What is the position there? The tenants are generally written off by the council as persons with no effects and that no rates can be collected from them, so that the occupying landlord will not only lose his rent but also his rates. Is there any remedy for that?
If there are landlords who, with the powers they already possess, are not able to collect their rents, I do not think we can deal with that under this particular Bill. The relative importance of the rates as compared with rents does not warrant that we would avoid dealing in the most systematic way possible with a definite public problem simply because there may be landlords who do not collect their rents.
I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
I move:—
To delete sub-section (4) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:
(4) In the application of Section 8 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923 (No. 19 of 1923) to a small dwelling, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the word "rates" in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of the said Section 8 shall not include a rate made by virtue of this Act on the owner of such small dwelling, and
(b) the amount by which the rent of such small dwelling is for the time being increased by virtue of this section shall be reckoned and included in the calculation under the said Section 8 of the amount by which the rent of such small dwelling may exceed the standard rent.
This is really a drafting amendment to make the intention of the section more clear.
I move:
In sub-section (6), line 23, to delete the word "pays" and substitute therefor the words "is liable to pay."
The object of the amendment is to meet a case in which a person might occupy a house for a considerable time without paying any rent for a certain period before vacating it. It would be difficult to ascertain the extent of such period. I think this amendment would meet such a case.
I do not know whether the Deputy means that a person could occupy a house without paying rent. If the house is occupied the sub-section does not operate. The amendment is not acceptable, because the sub-section is intended to prevent the landlord getting a refund on rates where the house is not occupied but where he has actually been paid the rent. If a landlord has a bad tenant who deserts his house and leaves it unoccupied, and at the same time does not pay the rent, we think that the landlord ought to be able to have his house regarded as unoccupied for that period. Under the amendment he would still be held liable for rates.
In that case would not the Minister's reply to Deputy Goulding a few moments ago, to the effect that the landlord has power to collect his rent, hold good in this case also?
This is accepting a case where it may be found that the landlord is not able to collect his rent and where the house is not occupied.
I move:
Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—
Wherever a rating authority is the owner of a small dwelling such rating authority shall not make in respect of such small dwelling any rate which would by this Act be required to be made on the owner of such small dwelling, but nevertheless in every such case all the provisions of this Act in relation to the increase of the rent of a small dwelling on the owner of which a rate is made by virtue of this Act shall apply to such small dwelling as fully as if such rate were actually made in respect thereof and the amount of every increase made under the said provisions in the rent of such small dwelling shall when received by such rating authority be applied by them for the purposes for which such rate in respect of such small dwelling would be applicable.
The purpose of the amendment is to avoid a rating authority rating itself in respect of its own property. Where such a case occurs, this amendment obviates the rating of itself by a rating authority. Where a local authority has property this section enables the rent of that property to be increased by an amount equivalent to the rates, if the property were rated, and to pay that additional amount into the rates.
I would like to suggest, if there is no objection on the part of the House, that the remaining stages be taken on Friday next. A month has passed since the Second Reading of the Bill, and there have not been in the discussion even small points of difference requiring to be cleared up on the Report Stage.
Has the Minister had any objections from parties outside that would be material?
I have had objections from parties outside but, so far as the Dáil is concerned, none of them has found voice. They came along many weeks after discussion with a number of parties interested in the matter, and at least three weeks or a month after the Second Reading, but no amendments have come forward in connection with any matters in respect of which representations have been made. If there is a desire on the part of anybody in the Dáil to bring forward an amendment on the Report Stage I will not press my proposal. As a matter of convenience, if there are no points outstanding, so far as Deputies are concerned, I would like to have the Bill finished on Friday.
Is the Bill to come into force at the beginning of the financial year?
No, not until after the 1st April, 1929. There is no hurry, so far as the House is concerned, but the Bill has been before it for a long time.
We have been attacked in this House several times for rushing legislation. If there is no need for pushing this Bill I am rather against rushing it like other Bills. A certain amount of information has been given under a number of points to-day and on matters which were of some difficulty, as all matters of rating are. In view of the explanation given to-day, I think it would be only fair to allow reasonable time to those interested in this particular problem, if they think it desirable, to communicate with their representatives here. As a matter of principle I think it is undesirable to push legislation unnecessarily unless there is some good reason for doing so.
I think that what Deputy Good says is quite justified, and, in view of the fact also that the Bill is not due to come into operation for more than a year, I think the Minister might consider holding it over for a while.
I quite agree. I have no objection, but it seemed to me a proper matter to suggest, as the Bill has been a long time before the House. I do not think that Deputy Good has any reason to suggest that any of the interests which may have approached me, even recently, on the matter had not an opportunity of bringing forward any point they desired.
That is so, but it is usual on the Committee Stage to give an amount of information which is not available on other stages. Having this information before the different parties interested, they may be disposed to take action, and, if they do, I would like to give them reasonable time.
Fourth Stage ordered for Wednesday, 18th April.
