Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Nov 1945

Vol. 98 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Rent Restrictions Bill, 1944—Money Resolution.

I move:—

That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision for restricting the increase of rent and the recovery of possession of premises in certain cases and to provide for other matters connected therewith.

I handed in amendments which, unfortunately, were late. Would the Minister consider those amendments on Report Stage? If he would, I should be quite satisfied.

Mr. Boland

If we do not get the Bill through this week, I would have no objection to taking them on Committee. I am not optimistic enough to believe that we will get through this week. I have no objection, if the House agrees and if something similar has not already been dealt with. I have not seen the amendments yet. Personally, I would have no objection if they are in order.

Of course, I take it they will have to be in order.

Mr. Boland

Some decision on principle may have been made. Subject to that, I have no objection.

They will have to be circulated.

They have been handed in.

On the Money Resolution, I should like to put before the Minister certain views in relation to the matter of ground rents——

Mr. Boland

Ground rents?

And the anomalies which will arise as a result of the passing of this legislation and which are contained in existing legislation.

I do not think that would arise. You can deal only with expenditure that would be incurred in the administration of this Bill. This Resolution is to provide money for the expenses that will be incurred in the administration of the Bill before the House.

On that very issue, am I not entitled to point out to the House my disappointment that the Minister has not sought the opportunity to include in this Bill legislation relating to the control of ground rents? I see no distinction in principle between the control of a house rent and the control of a ground rent.

Mr. Boland

With all respect, I think the Chair can see, as I see, that this is not the stage on which to raise this matter. I submit to the Chair that it is out of order.

The Deputy is raising a matter which might have been more properly raised on Second Reading.

Mr. Boland

And was raised on the Second Reading by some Deputy, I think. My submission is that it is out of order. The Deputy is bringing in something which is outside the actual scope of the Bill.

Will the Minister show me how it is outside the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Boland

It is not for me to do that.

Anyhow, it is outside the scope of the present Resolution.

Are you so ruling?

I am ruling that it is outside the limits of the motion.

Would I be entitled to raise it on the Fifth Stage?

On the Fifth Stage you can raise only matters which are included in the Bill.

Am I not entitled to raise any question relating to rent, as this is a Rent Restrictions Bill? "Rent" is not defined in this Bill.

I think the purpose of the Bill was very clearly defined on the Second Reading. I do not think the Deputy can make another Second Reading speech.

I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech, but I do intend to direct attention to the fact that this is a Bill to make further and better provision for restricting the increase of rent.

That matter was discussed on Second Reading and all the matters relating to it were clearly set out and defined in the Bill.

Am I entitled to put in an amendment on Report Stage? "Rent" is not defined in this Bill and, in the normal way, a landlord refers to rent indiscriminately, whether it is house rent or ground rent. I feel I am entitled to raise any point relating to rent in a Bill dealing with the restricting of increase of rent.

I think the Deputy is going into general terms of rent which do not arise. This is a Bill restricting the increase of rent of premises.

All I wanted to point out was that in controlling what we commonly call house rent we are creating and perpetuating an anomaly. We are allowing to continue the existing state of affairs under which ground landlords are not in any way controlled. If a lease falls in, the ground landlord may put any rent he likes on the leasehold, without restriction.

Would not that be dealt with under the Act of 1931—a renewal of a lease?

We deal with leases in this Bill.

Mr. Boland

If we are going to debate the matter—I thought it was out of order—I should like to make a point in regard to it.

I think the Deputy is exceeding the limits of this Bill.

I want to direct attention to a state of affairs which exists in this country and which I believe the Government should take some steps to regulate.

It is not proper to this Bill, I am afraid.

I want to direct particular attention to the large estates in this city and country generally which were obtained for military and political services rendered some hundreds of years ago and to the fact that leases then granted by the landlords who obtained these estates by confiscation were, generally speaking, limited to a period of 99 years, and that under these leases the landlords were entitled not only to the land but to the buildings upon the land which were erected at any time.

I am afraid I will have to bring the Deputy back to the terms of the Money Resolution as it applies to the Bill. This money is being provided to give effect to this Bill, which makes further and better provision for restricting the increase of rent.

Whilst we are controlling house rents we are making no effort in this State to control ground rents and, if there is any argument or principle in favour of the control of house rents, the same argument, with equal emphasis, applies to the control of ground rents. This is essentially a Bill to restrict increase of rent, and "rent" is not defined in this Bill as a house rent or a ground rent, and I feel I am entitled to criticise the control of any rent.

On Second Reading it was clear by the speeches made that every member of the House understood what we were dealing with.

Will the Minister give some indication of when he does intend to introduce this very necessary legislation?

Mr. Boland

That is an entirely different question. This Bill is consolidating the existing Rent Restrictions Acts and making certain ameliorations in respect of a certain type of poor tenants. Leaseholders who pay ground rents were never controlled under any of these Rent Restriction Acts, and therefore would not be brought under a Bill of this type at all.

Anyway it is out of order in the discussion of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Boland

There is a motion on the Order Paper dealing with the matter.

Am I entitled to put down an amendment on the Report Stage dealing with this matter?

That will be a matter for the Chair to consider.

I take it the anomaly is to be continued in this country, that absentee landlords, when leases fall in, may get whatever rent they like.

The Deputy is continuing to discuss a matter on which I have specifically ruled.

There is a small matter which I should like to raise with reference to the final part of the Bill, which is designed to enable the poorer classes of tenants to secure their legal rights in a simple and expeditious way. Under the £10 poor law valuation provision all those who live in houses of £10 valuation and under can avail of this. What struck me about it was that in the provincial towns there are quite a number of well-off people living in houses of £10 valuation and under, and this means that the State is now going to pay the expenses of getting a fair rent fixed for people who are in a position to pay their own expenses. I merely want to direct the Minister's attention to that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Boland

I think that is a Committee Stage point.

It need not be raised again.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy can raise it in Committee.

We are providing money to pay the expenses of tenants who come under that category, and I submit that I am entitled to raise the point on this money resolution.

I think the Deputy is so entitled.

We are encouraging our people to look to the State for everything that is required in human life. I think the principle is morally unsound. While I am not opposed to the State providing the money in necessitous cases, where people are unable to finance legal proceedings of one sort or another, I think in these cases, where there are people in a position to pay their own expenses, it is a bad principle for the State to step in and pay the expenses of such individuals. It is the trend in that direction to which I object more than anything else and not this particular isolated instance alone. I think there is a definite trend in our legislation in that undesirable direction.

Resolution put and agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.
Top
Share