Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Nov 1945

Vol. 98 No. 7

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

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Does the Minister not think that it would be better to make this Bill last for one year only and bring in a new Bill each year? Is there any extraordinary objection to that procedure? I take it that the conditions may vary considerably and I suppose the Minister really looks upon this Bill, as some of us do, as a necessary evil in the present times. Is there any reason why it should not be brought up every year?

Mr. Boland

On that point, I think that there will not be any great change within five years. The matter can be brought up in a year's time if the situation warrants it. All that is provided here is that it must come up at least within five years. There is nothing to prevent its coming up after a year, but I do not think that within one year there would be sufficient change in the situation. There might be in two years, but we cannot foretell. If there is felt to be a necessity for bringing it up in a shorter period than five years, there is nothing to prevent its being done. The only thing laid down here is that it cannot go beyond five years. It must definitely come up within the five years.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), line 24, to delete the figures and word in brackets "(1923 Act)" and insert before the word "controlled" the word "old".

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential on amendment No. 1. I frankly do not like the composite terms used in this Bill, the mixture of words and figures; they jar upon my ear. These terms are: "controlled (1923 Act) premises" and "controlled (non-1923 Act) premises". I have suggested that the term "old controlled premises", which could be defined if necessary, should be substituted for "controlled (1923 Act) premises" and "newly controlled premises" for "controlled (non-1923 Act) premises." I think it would make for easier reading and certainly would be more euphonious than the present definitions.

Mr. Boland

While I agree that the terms suggested might be more euphonious, I doubt if they would make it any clearer. I think we would have to define "old" and "new", and therefore we would be introducing extra definitions. I would be prepared to use something more graceful, but the draftsman, who is very experienced in this matter, thinks it is the best way to explain it. If you put anything else in, I think you will have to define it and that would make the Bill more complicated.

I do not think it would make for complication, because you will define what "old controlled" and "new controlled" mean in the definition section and you just refer to these throughout the Bill afterwards. I think it would make for easier reading.

Mr. Boland

I would not like to accept the amendment. I will consider the matter, but I am not undertaking to do it. I do not care much for the terms used myself.

The draftsman may be able to find better ones.

Mr. Boland

I will see if I can get better descriptive words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (1), lines 1 and 2, page 5, after the word "let" to add the words "or about to be let".

The purpose of this amendment is to tighten up the law relating to the payment of premiums, to leave no loophole to the landlord to come to an arrangement with a third party. A practice has grown up elsewhere, when a house becomes vacant, that the adjoining occupier takes over on behalf of the landlord and becomes an intermediary between the incoming tenant and the landlord. He accepts a premium, and while the landlord can say that he knows nothing about it, the house cannot be let unless this fictious owner agrees.

I also wish this definition to be read in conjuction with the provisions relating to premises in Section 51. It is to prevent any escape of this kind that I have put down the amendment. This matter was considered by a committee in Great Britain and it was felt that it was necessary to introduce these words into the definition for the purpose of tightening up the law.

Mr. Boland

I did not know that was the point the Deputy was going to make. I could not understand what he meant by "about to be let". Unless there is an actual letting, the Acts do not apply. I suppose the Deputy is dealing with "key-money" and, if so, it would be better to deal with it on Section 51.

The word is "let" here. I want it to include "about to be let". Then Section 51 would be tight.

Mr. Boland

It would be very ambiguous. There has to be an actual letting made before it can be dealt with. If the Deputy has in mind the question of "key-money", I suggest he defer it until we reach Section 51. I do not think the Deputy's amendment would meet the point.

It could be considered on an amendment put in on the Report Stage.

Mr. Boland

I am satisfied that this amendment would not eliminate the dangers of the practice.

Probably nothing would eliminate the dangers absolutely, but if a house were altered and about to be let as a separate dwelling, could it be contended that it was not let as a separate dwelling and, therefore, did not come under the scope of the Act?

Mr. Boland

I am saying that, before these Acts can be invoked, there must be an actual letting. It is a new idea to suggest now to include cases in which a house is about to be let. I cannot see that point clearly enough to agree to accept it. I cannot see how this suggestion would alter the situation in which money is handed over in the circumstances the Deputy has described. I can consider the point on the Report Stage, but as far as I can see up to this, there is no reason for accepting it.

The Minister will appreciate that the purpose of the amendment is to tighten up the law, so as to prevent any person other than the landlord from receiving a payment of this kind or any other consideration. I instanced the case where a house becomes vacant and the landlord allows an adjoining occupier to take over and says: "If you can arrange things as I would like them, we can split the premium between us." It is to prevent such a third party coming in that I have proposed the amendment. I think we should consider this point, as the practice has grown up elsewhere and I am sure it will be copied here.

Mr. Boland

After all, this is only a definition section and I suggest it is not the place to make the change. If the Deputy wants to move such an amendment, Section 51 is the place to do it.

Then I will raise the matter on Section 51.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In sub-section (1), line 2, page 5, to add after the word "house" the following words:—"and a part so let or about to be let of any house shall be deemed to be let as a separate dwelling notwithstanding the fact that the landlord and the tenant or tenants thereof have common user of the water supply, sanitary accommodation, bathroom, garage and fuel store attached thereto."

There again, I am up against the words "about to be let". The purpose of this amendment is to remove any possibility of a decision such as was obtained recently in England being given in our courts. I refer to the case of Neale v. del Soto. This was a case decided on appeal in England. The landlord and the tenant used in common the kitchen, the sanitary accommodation and, I think, some stores, and because of this common user it was held by the Court of Appeal that the portion let to the tenant was not let as a separate dwelling.

Many lettings of flats are made to tenants with a common user of fuel stores, a garage, sometimes a kitchen, and very often sanitary accommodation. It is quite on the cards that the courts would take a similar view here, that a flat let with the common user of these facilities is not a separate dwelling. It is in order to clarify that position that I have put down this amendment. As the law stands, I believe it would be possible to hold that a flat with a common user was not a separate letting and the tenant would be held not to be a separate tenant. Therefore, it would be possible for landlords to get outside the Act, by arranging for some common user of some particular part of the dwellinghouse as a whole.

If that is adopted, what is a lodger?

A lodger is in an entirely different position. A lodger is a man who has board, the use of light, the use of heat.

Not necessarily.

He has no tenancy, he is not a tenant in any sense of the term, but is there for his board and keep.

If the Deputy would read a book published recently entitled London Belongs to Me, he will find that Mrs. Josser occupied three rooms where she had her private provender and kept her home or hereditament very distinct, but Mrs. Vizzard, the landlady, never ceased to regard her as one of her lodgers and never regarded herself as a landlord. There were seven families living in the house. Probably they all shared the same turf or fuel place and the same water supply and sanitary accommodation, with the same bathroom—if there was one—and the same garage—which I am sure there was not. I think Mrs. Vizzard would be quite astonished if she was told that in 10, Dulcimer Street, she had ten separate residences or hereditaments. She regarded herself as a lodging housekeeper and was fortunate enough to set 10 apartments to 10 lodgers. I again ask the Deputy, if we insert that, what is a lodger?

In the circumstances outlined by Deputy Dillon it is quite clear Mrs. Josser was not a lodger— she was a tenant. She occupied three rooms and had the common facilities of the house. These were common to the landlord and the other tenants. She provided for herself. I do not know whether the lettings were furnished or unfurnished.

Unfurnished.

That is exactly what I am getting at—that Mrs. Josser cannot be treated as a lodger, and cannot be thrown out overnight as a lodger; that she has the rights of a tenant. That is the decision that was given in the Court of Appeal in England in the case of Neale v. del Soto.

Suppose that Mrs. Josser comes in raging drunk to my house and dances the can-can over my head, and I cannot put her out in the morning because the law gives her a tenancy, I do not know where I am.

If Mrs. Josser does that, this very legislation makes provision for it—she becomes a nuisance.

"Nuisance" is putting the thing very far. If one cannot go on the spree once a month, if one likes to do so——

Mr. Boland

This amendment applies to places that are unfurnished and in the case referred to by Deputy Dillon the place would be furnished.

The Deputy said the lettings were unfurnished.

Mr. Boland

If people get a letting like that, it should be regarded as a separate letting. The amendment, as tabled, provides only for cases where the landlord lives in the house. There may be cases where he would not live in the house.

Quite so.

Mr. Boland

I think the principle of the amendment is all right. I will examine the matter again. As the amendment is drafted, it will not meet the point. I will look into the matter.

We ought to proceed on the basis of the position in which we may find ourselves to-morrow. Take a person who has been reared in one of the large Georgian houses in Great Denmark Street, and falls on evil times and reserves for herself, let us say, the study and dining-room of such a house as her own apartments, or possibly withdraws into the basement and decides to live there. She sets some of the upper apartments to a married couple, who bring in their furniture and do for themselves. She sets the drawing-room and another room to another married couple, who bring in their furniture and do for themselves. She sets three bedrooms on similar terms and possibly two back bedrooms or the rooms on the top floor to another married couple on the understanding they will bring in their furniture and do for themselves. That woman remains proprietress of the house.

Deputies must remember that nuisance in law has to be a very substantial thing before it can be made a statutory ground for terminating a a statutory right. Under this legislation tenants will have statutory rights, and their right to go to the courts will not lightly be set aside. But surely a respectable woman is entitled to live undisturbed in her own house without having to bring into a court of law any one of her enants who has been guilty of what, in the eyes of the law, would be deemed to be a statutory nuisance? Suppose one of the parties is habitually intoxicated. Suppose one of the parties quarrels violently with another respectable tenant in this lady's house. Suppose that any one of the 101 domestic upheavals that can take place in a house divided up into lodgings should take place, and that respectable woman, from the point of view of the good name of her house, wishes to end an intolerable situation. Is it suggested that we should lay it down in our legislation that she cannot go to one of her tenants and say: "Unless you can get along with this other tenant, one of you must go, because I cannot have the house turned into a bear garden. You allege that it is the fault of the other lady and the other lady alleges that it is your fault. We cannot all remain here in a state of permanent chaos and, therefore, in all reason, I must say to you that you shall have to take a month's notice and find other accommodation?"

Does the Oireachtas intend to say that we will give to all the warring factions in that house a statutory right? Are we to tell a woman who is concerned with the good name of her house "No, you must keep these people who are hollering at one another up and down the staircase of your home, in perpetuity?" Remember that until one perpetrates a series of acts—an isolated act will not constitute a nuisance—which will justify you in going to the court and proving to a judge that certain people are guilty of a nuisance within the meaning of the Act, there can be no peace in your house, in your own dominion, for your home has been taken from you because you are poor and run down and you have to take in lodgers.

What do you suggest?

I suggest that you should not interfere with a person who is in circumstances which require him or her to take lodgers into the house. If you want to deal with a person who buys a house in order to rent it, that is one cup of tea; but if you want to go to a person's own home, the sacrosanct character of which he or she has been obliged to compromise by taking in lodgers—and nobody likes taking in lodgers—and say to that person: "We will enter your home and require you to run that home in accordance with certain statutory provisions which were designed to prevent profiteering in house property," that is utterly going beyond the beyond.

Should we give consent to the fantastic proposition that everyone who owns a house is an avaricious and tyrannical landlord? Surely it is not suggested that every woman who takes in lodgers is a public enemy? Most of these ladies are extremely inoffensive individuals. Admittedly, there are tartars among landladies just as there are tartars to be found in every other section of the community. But to treat the whole body of landladies as if they were public enemies is to me quite an unjustifiable intrusion on the rights of a peculiarly defenceless body of people. Will anyone suggest to me that the landladies of this country constitute such a powerful vested interest as to make it necessary for the Oireachtas to intervene, to exercise powers of control over poor people who are using the one method available to them to eke out a livelihood? It seems to me that these proposals are quite daft. Will anyone argue that a poor woman is to be controlled by Oireachtas Eireann in the manner here suggested?

It is obvious to me that Deputy Dillon, out of his affection for Mrs. Josser, is speaking from the depths of his ignorance of the law in this matter. This provision has been part of the law since 1914. I will refer the Deputy to Section 37 (1) (b):—

"... any person (being the tenant, any individual residing with the tenant, or any of the tenant's lodgers or sub-tenants) has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose."

In these circumstances the landlord may get possession. Mrs. Josser is perfectly protected.

Mr. Boland

I do not see how we can deal with the tenement problem at all if we are not to regard these as separate lettings. I think that judgment is a very serious one, and, if it were accepted here, we would have to amend the legislation to deal with it. I propose to accept the principle of this amendment. As I say, it provides only for the case in which the landlord resides on the premises, but there may be other types of houses in which the owner does not live.

You will distinguish between the houses.

Mr. Boland

Perhaps the Deputy would explain how we can deal with the ordinary person living in a tenement. Even if an owner who had set a house in tenements lived on the premises, we would have to continue to regard them as constituting separate lettings for each of the tenants. I do not think the fact that the person who owns the house lives there ought to make a difference. It would be different if there were furnished apartments, but this is a question of the letting of unfurnished rooms in big houses.

Surely the Minister can see a difference. I do not propose to go into elaborate argument as to the finesses of various judgments under the Rent Restrictions Acts defining the types of houses. We all know that there are volumes of them, and every man who goes into court to get a decision under that code or the workman's compensation, goes into a lottery, not knowing what will come out of the bag; but, as rational people in this House, and not lawyers, do we not see a difference between the woman who is constrained by circumstances to set a few rooms, and the tenement landlord who buys an old house in Gardiner Street, Gloucester Street or North Great George's Street, sets it out in rooms, and sends a rent collector to screw the rent out of the people?

It may be said that it is hard to distinguish between them in terms which will be arguable in a court of law, but we must go as near as we can to it, and provide that where a landlord permanently resides in the house, this general code of rent restriction will not apply to the lodgers he takes in.

It may be that there are exceptional cases where tenement owners live in the tenement houses, but I have never met a tenement owner who lived in one of his houses or would live in one of them for ten minutes. He usually lives in Rathgar or Rathmines, collects his rents and goes home there, and he would never dream of living or allowing a members of his family to live in one of the tenements from which he collects rents. There may be exceptions. If there are, it might be a very good thing for the tenement system. If we could persuade them to live in the houses, the tenements would be a great deal better than they are. But if our refusal to impose this code upon the ordinary respectable woman setting rooms in her house forces them in, it is an additional reason for rejecting Deputy Coogan's amendment.

Let the Minister not be stampeded, for the sake of double-locking his precautions against the tenement owner who wants to abuse his tenants, into inadvertently turning the lives of many respectable old women in this city into misery. The Minister will agree that, whether you have your own family or lodgers in a house, unless there is some head to the house, pandemonium will break out, and if a woman, trying to keep her house decent, respectable, orderly and regular is liable to be set at defiance by her own tenants and told that they will not go for her until she can prove a statutory nuisance within the meaning of this Act, we know perfectly well that she can never succeed.

Or annoyance.

Without in any way suggesting that the Deputy and I differ fundamentally in principle, the Deputy will agree with me that the business of going into court and proving that a person has been guilty of an annoyance or a nuisance sufficient to justify the, court in stripping that person of the statutory protection which this Oireachtas has given is very difficult, because the tenant is always the favoured party and the landlord the persecuting party. The tenant always has the sympathy of the court. I attach importance to this because it might result in doing inadvertently great injustice to many people.

I wonder does the Deputy realise that the Minister has agreed to consider this and that, in the meantime, the mover has withdrawn the amendment?

He will withdraw it when he gets the leave of the House, but not until then. I have not yet given it. When I am ready to give it, I will let you know. The obligation is on the landlady to prove that a tenant has been guilty of an annoyance or of whatever the other word is. That is a very difficult thing to do, and I urge the Minister most strongly not to be rushed into this, but to consider it very carefully and to make up his mind that, whatever concession he intends to make to Deputy Coogan's amendment in favour of tenement houses as popularly understood, that is, houses owned by the landlord who collects rents on them while living elsewhere, he will reserve absolutely the rights of landlords or landladies who live in their own houses and have to live with their tenants, so that they will not be subject to all the restrictive provisions which this code of law sets out.

The Minister, I understand, has said that he accepts the amendment in principle. How far does he accept it?

He has said he will look into it.

The phrase used was "accepting in principle", and I understand the Minister to be equating the cases in which the owner of a premises lives on the premises and in which the owner does not so live. If that is the situation, the Minister ought to reconsider it still further. There is no decision that I know of in regard to the taking in of lodgers, except in cases in which the owner of the house is in occupation. There has been a decision which has not yet been applied here—it is an English decision—in respect of a person living on the premises who lets out a certain part of the premises. The court has held that that is not a separate letting, that that is taking in lodgers; but I must say that Deputy Coogan's amendment does not cover the position, because a more recent decision still has gone against the one on which I think the amendment is founded and has cut it down.

The mere provision in common of water supply, sanitary accommodation, bathroom, garage or fuel store is no longer the point of the decision. The point is whether any of the living rooms are let in common. What does the Minister think? Does he think he ought to object to people taking in lodgers, or that people who do take in lodgers should be in the position that they will have the protection of the rent restriction code? If so, where does he think we should draw the line at the taking in of a lodger? I suggest that any decisions given so far only apply the phrase of taking in a lodger to the case in which the landlord is in occupation with the tenants.

Mr. Boland

I can assure Deputy Dillon that I am not going to be rushed into a decision. I am, however, accepting the principle, because I want to make sure that I will not be prevented by any decision given, or any decision likely to be given in England and which may be applied here, from dealing with these tenement cases. I do not know what Deputy McGilligan considers a lodger—whether he is a person who takes unfurnished apartments in a house——

He may be a lodger.

Mr. Boland

Perhaps so—I do not know—but I understood that a person who did not get anything like board or furniture, who simply took an unfurnished apartment, was a tenant.

The English decision is against that.

Mr. Boland

I have to go carefully into it. As I say, I am not going to be rushed, because I want to be sure that I will not be prevented from dealing with the cases with which we are particularly anxious to deal, that is, those who take separate lettings in these tenement houses. I will look into the whole matter and the principle I am accepting will then be perfectly clear to Deputy McGilligan and everybody else.

In other words, you are not clear at the moment.

Mr. Boland

I prefer to leave the matter there rather than be rushed into a decision while on my feet. It would be much better, I think, to give me time, so that Deputies can see in black and white what I am getting at.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 6:—

In sub-section (1), line 4, page 5, to insert after the word "includes" the words "his agent and".

The object of the amendment is to provide for the case of an absentee landlord who, because of his absence, may be able to plead innocence as regards any legal transaction that may be going on. I want to ensure that, in such a case, it will not be open to the landlord to plead innocence, and to provide that any person who acts as his agent shall be included.

Mr. Boland

I think it is much better leave the word "landlord" as we find it in the definition section.

I consider the amendment highly dangerous. The Bill places certain liabilities on landlords for the recovery of over-paid rents and costs. An agent, I am sure, would not like to be put in the position that he could be made liable for these things. I am afraid that would be the effect of the amendment, if accepted.

Mr. Boland

Wherever, in the Bill, we want the agent to go in, we are putting that down specifically. I do not think we should do as the Deputy suggests. I suggest that we leave the word "landlord" as we find the word in the definition section, and not bring in "agent" in this way.

The object of the amendment, I take it, is to make the landlord responsible for the actions of his agent. Deputy O'Connor fears that the amendment, if accepted, would relieve the landlord of liability, and leave the agent standing in the gap. I am getting a bit rusty as regards my knowledge of the law, but such as it is I think that, ordinarily, a landlord would be liable for the action of his agent unless there was a specific saver in the statute.

I am not putting forward the amendment for the purpose of enabling a landlord to put the onus on his agent. The opposite is my purpose. I want to prevent the landlord from escaping his liability.

He cannot escape any liability by being away.

He could make that plea in certain cases, in cases relating, say, to key money.

Would not notice to the agent be notice to the landlord?

Mr. Boland

I think we had better leave "landlord" as it is and not include the agent here.

If the Minister will consider the matter I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Boland

I do not think it will be necessary for me to do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:—

In sub-section (1), line 47, page 5, after the word "used" to add the following words:—"provided that the interest of a statutory tenant shall be deemed to have determined upon the death of the widow or widower or such other member of the statutory tenant's family as shall have succeeded to the statutory tenancy upon the death of the statutory tenant."

This amendment relates to matters to be raised on amendments Nos. 12, 101 and 123. They can be discussed together.

Mr. Boland

My amendment, No. 101, deals with the same matter.

Is amendment No. 101 intended to meet the other amendments?

Mr. Boland

It deals with the same subject, but I am not saying that the object of it is to meet the other amendments.

As regards my amendment, it is not clear at the present time whether or not there is perpetual succession. There are two viewpoints on that. One is that once there is succession there is no further succession. The other viewpoint is that there is perpetual succession. My amendment is designed to provide that when a person who succeeds to a statutory tenancy, whoever it may be, whether a widow, a widower or any member of the family, that the tenancy will be determined on the death of that particular person, and that there is no further succession. The object of the amendment is to clarify the law and to clear up the doubt which exists at present.

Mr. Boland

I think it would be better to discuss that on the other amendments.

The four amendments can be discussed together—Nos. 7, 12, 101 and 123.

The amendments are widely separated.

Mr. Boland

I am taking the opposite view to this amendment on amendment No. 101.

The Minister is for perpetuity?

My amendment aims at determining the tenancy on the death of the person who first succeeds to the statutory tenancy. Deputy O'Sullivan aims at perpetual succession in his amendment.

Mr. Boland

I think it would be better to have all that dealt with on my amendment.

Will amendment No. 10, in my name, be included in the discussion on these amendments? My amendment deals with another aspect of the question.

The decision on amendment No. 8 will govern amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. If amendment No. 8 is carried, amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 cannot be moved.

Amendment No. 8 is the Minister's amendment. It proposes to delete from the definition of the word "tenant" all words following the word "sub-tenant". Surely, it should be in order for a Deputy to move an amendment proposing an extension of the definition of the word "tenant" as I am proposing to do in amendment No. 10?

The Minister, by his amendment, throws all that responsibility over on No. 101.

Amendment No. 101 is tied up with amendment No. 8, and, consequently, is tied up with amendment No. 10. The Minister can best clarify his own intentions; possibly he will assist us on this matter. I understand that when he moves, in amendment No. 8, to delete all words following the word "sub-tenant", he is doing that because he is substituting this amendment No. 101?

Mr. Boland

That is correct.

Then amendment No. 8 would appear to be tied up with amendment No. 101, and amendment No. 101 is tied up with amendment No. 7.

Mr. Boland

But we are dealing with Section 2, and we want to make that right as we go along.

The best way would be to take Nos. 8, 10, 12 and 101 together.

And No. 123.

I would suggest that the principle of all those could be discussed together.

Deputy Coogan has talked about clarifying the law. I do not know if anybody is very clear as to what the law is at the moment. In any event, this appears to be near it: if you have a tenant who is protected, and that person dies, there is no doubt that if that tenant is a man and if his widow is then in occupation of the premises that widow can succeed.

Mr. Boland

That is right.

It also appears to be the case that a child may succeed. It would appear to be the case that there can be no succession beyond one member of the family. Deputy Coogan's amendment here does not make it too clear, on my reading of it. He said that the interest of a statutory tenant shall be deemed to have determined upon the death of the widow or widower or such other member of the statutory tenant's family as shall have succeeded. When he says "such other member", I do not know if the Deputy means the singular to include the plural, and that it should go along the whole line of the number of children who are left. That is a position which a lot of people would like to see arrived at.

When we come to the Minister's amendment No. 101, he very definitely stops at a particular point. He sets out here in a series of numbered paragraphs that if the statutory tenant leaves surviving him his wife, who was residing with him at the time of his death in occupation of controlled premises, then she retains possession under the terms of the Act; but, if the statutory tenant does not leave a wife so residing, such member of the statutory tenant's family so residing, or— the Minister is very precise—where there is more than one such member, such one of them as may be agreed upon by the court shall be entitled to retain possession. If the tenant was a woman, the same conditions shall have effect with respect to her husband and family. As I read it, the Minister says in his amendment: If the tenant is a man and he leaves a widow, the widow becomes the tenant; but after that jump to her there is no further jump. I take it that that is the meaning of the Minister's amendment. But if the tenant be a man, whose wife predeceases him, and he dies leaving a family, then one member of the family will succeed. In other words, what happens is that the control of the premises lasts for an extended period to correspond with the life of one member of the family, and only one. I think that is the meaning of the Minister's amendment.

Deputy Martin O'Sullivan has amendments which I think are aiming at a sort of perpetual succession down along the family. Deputy O'Connor, who is very precise in his amendment No. 123, provides for a line of succession. He brings in people who are relatives by affinity or marriage of the tenant. He wants to extend it down along not merely the life of the widow who may succeed, but of any child or children who may succeed, or of any relatives who happen to be in occupation, I do not know at what time. I do not know if Deputy O'Connor refers to those who, being relatives by affinity or marriage, are in occupation at the date of death of the tenant.

At the date of death.

I know there is considerable hardship in some cases. There is a case being heard, or about to be heard by the courts, in which the tenant died leaving a widow who died shortly afterwards. There is a large number of young children in that house, and as the law goes at the moment it looks to me as if—the widow having lived later than the man in occupation, but not having lived to this point—those children are not protected by the Rent Act and may be put out. The opinions I have heard expressed would be in favour of extending this down along the members of the family.

Mr. Boland

I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension. If he will look at Clause (b) there——

What the Minister says is: "Where there is more than one such member, such one of them as may be agreed upon". That is only one. Suppose Mr. X and his wife are living in a controlled house. Mr. X dies; his widow lives a bit after him, and then the widow dies. As I understand the Minister's amendment, if Mr. X had seven children one of those children would be selected, and for the life of that child the premises would be controlled, but no further.

Mr. Boland

But that person will then be the statutory tenant and have the same rights as any other statutory tenant. That would make it in perpetuity.

If that person dies unmarried, what is the situation? Does the statutory tenancy flow on down to the brothers and sisters? If that person marries, and puts out the brothers and sisters, he can continue the succession down through himself or another child. I do not think the Minister's amendment reaches the point.

Mr. Boland

It is very hard to provide for all those things.

There was a situation under the old code in which it was of some value to get possession of a house. It was possible to get possession of a house as long as there was a particular valuation point met, and then, if the landlord got complete control of the house, the house was decontrolled. That has gone.

Mr. Boland

He can sell it now.

He can sell with vacant possession. Let me leave that out for the moment. If the landlord does not want to sell, the house, after this Act is passed, remains controlled, and the rent is fixed, so the only question is: will he leave in the house the children of the people with whom he used to deal, or will he put them out and put in other tenants on the same terms and conditions? The Minister says there may be a sale with vacant possession. Who is going to buy? Again, let us look at the circumstances which necessitate this extension of the Act. They are that there are not sufficient houses being built for a certain class of the community. There are not sufficient houses that those people can get, that is those who want to rent houses. If one of those houses comes on the market, it is going to be sold. You are certainly not going to get one of the tenant class, so to speak, to buy; they will not have the money to buy. You are going to induce somebody from a sort of higher stratum of the community to come down and buy. When you do that, you remove one house from the already scanty number available for letting. I do not think that should be allowed. I see no great point now in having houses de-controlled. In the new circumstances, it seems to me that, once you do not stop at the widow or widower who is left when the tenant dies, once you move out to any member of the family, you really should move along the whole line of that family. I have yet to hear why Deputy O'Connor decides to allow for people who are relatives by affinity or marriage——

Only if they are members of the household.

At what point?

At the time of the death.

Of the original tenant?

That is a definite limitation. If the husband dies, leaving an invalid wife, and if she has a sister of hers, an aunt of the children, in to look after them, and that sister is in residence at the date of death of the children's mother, I see no reason why it should not be extended to such a person. I should like very much more to accept Deputy O'Connor's amendment if he, in return, would agree not to be very insistent, in so far as he can put pressure on the Minister, on having exempted from this the premises which were in course of being erected on the 8th February, 1944. Why not bring those in? The Deputy is bringing in a vast number of people who are kept out of the rent control of houses.

There are very few houses involved there.

All right, why not let them in? The Deputy is rather anxious to give a certain medicine to some landlords, but he will not accept it for himself.

This applies to all controlled houses.

Yes, the controlled houses under the Act, but this does not apply to houses that were being erected on the 8th February, 1944.

Very few houses have been erected since 8th February, 1944.

Well, then, let them in. At any rate, I am personally in favour of as wide an extension as possible of this. I do not see what reason there is for stopping at the one child.

There are two points in the amendment I have put down, one of which, so far as I know, is not covered by existing law or by any provision in this Bill or in Section 1. That is the case of a woman who is a statutory tenant and who dies, and where the succession does not automatically fall to the husband. It is an extraordinary thing that the husband has no right of succession in that case, whereas the wife has automatic right of succession. The second point is the right of succession so far as the children are concerned. Deputy McGilligan mentioned the matter of perpetuity. As the law stands, the right of succession passes only once, and that is to the widow or the children, as the law provides. The Minister mentions one member of a family.

Mr. Boland

Yes, and the husband also.

Yes, but only one member of the family, so far as the children are concerned. You may have a number of boys or girls, as the case may be, who may be getting married and living in that house, and when one dies, the right of succession immediately ceases, and the landlord steps in. Accordingly, like Deputy McGilligan, I favour the widest possible extension of the right of succession so far as members of the family are concerned.

In tabling this amendment, what I had in mind was the position under the existing law. We talk of an interest of a statutory tenancy. The interest of a statutory tenant is merely the right that during his lifetime he cannot be disturbed or put out except in certain statutory conditions. The purpose of my amendment was to direct attention to the fact that there were these two viewpoints, and to decide now, once and for all, whether that purely personal right—which is not a tenancy at all, but merely the right to hold on by virtue of the Act, as distinct from by virtue of his tenancy—should be handed down in perpetuity. I should like to say that I have an open mind in the matter—it cuts both ways—but it was for that reason that I put the thing down at all. As the law stands, I believe there can be only one succession.

That has been decided.

That is, one succession to the statutory tenancy.

That can be changed at any time by another decision.

Well, as I have said, I have an open mind on the matter, and it was really for the purpose of provoking discussion, if you like, on this that I put down this amendment.

I think that, while the Minister's amendment goes a good way to meet the case, Deputy O'Connor's amendment is better. In that connection, I may say that there is a case pending at the moment where the wife died and the husband died almost immediately afterwards. In that case, the children might not come in, and I am sure the Minister wants to make this as wide as possible, so as to include the children. On the other hand, in the case of paragraphs (c) and (d) of Deputy O'Connor's amendment, there could be a case of bringing in some old person in order to get the tenancy. However, with the exception of those cases where efforts might be made to extend the actual idea of the Act, I think that a wide definition is better than the Minister's amendment, and while it goes a good deal further than the other proposal, it will not include a family on the death of both parents.

Is it not intended to include them?

Mr. Boland

It was my intention to have perpetual succession, but I can see a difficulty in the case mentioned by Deputy McGilligan, that is, in the case of minors.

You do not say that the successor becomes a statutory tenant: you say that he shall be entitled to retain possession. That is all.

Mr. Boland

I am advised that that includes a statutory tenant, but I shall look into it. However, that is the intention.

The intention is to give succession to the members of the family as long as, in the words of Deputy O'Connor's amendment, the member of the family was residing in the premises at the time of the death of the tenant. Supposing Deputy O'Connor would add on to that the case of a relative who was brought in afterwards?

That is very wide.

Mr. Boland

It is, undoubtedly.

If Deputy O'Connor's amendment is passed it will mean that, supposing a relative has been there bona fide residing on the premises to look after the children, that person then becomes a statutory tenant and will have all the rights of a statutory tenant, including this: that if that relative marries and has children, they get the right of succession. What does it matter? Once the house is controlled, the rent is fixed, the statutory conditions are fixed, and if the landlord has people there who have not gone into arrears of rent, and could not be put out on that ground, or who have not created a nuisance that would have allowed him to get a court order to get rid of them, why should they not be allowed to remain in their own house, and not be put out?

Surely, it will be realised that this perpetuity business deprives the landlord of one very valuable right? The code of rent restriction is now becoming so comprehensive that many a landlord, where he is able to terminate a tenancy, would desire to retire altogether from the profession of landlord and sell the house to a tenant purchaser. This perpetuity principle will greatly vitiate that right of the landlord to sell his house. So long as we have this kind of Dáil Eireann— and I am including all sides of the House now—rent restriction will go from bad to worse. This code of law is going to put an end to the renting of houses.

What about the building of houses?

They were all enshrined in perpetuity. Let us do this with our eyes open. We are taking something that is valuable. The landlord is losing his right to sell.

On the question of perpetuity, amendment No. 123 proposes that "a member of the family or household of the tenant or a relative by affinity or marriage of the tenant who at and prior to the death of the tenant was bona fide residing in the premises comprised in the tenancy shall be entitled to the tenancy.” What will constitute bona fide residence and what period?

Whatever a judge finds.

Mr. Boland

The court will settle it if there is any dispute.

If a man suffers from an incurable illness and three months before his death sends for some relative to nurse him, is that relative to be enshrined as tenant for the rest of her life? There will be a good deal of law about this.

The Minister is to look into all the matters covered by the amendment.

Mr. Boland

On amendment No. 101.

Including amendment No. 123.

Amendment No. 7, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 8:—

In sub-section (1), lines 53 to 57, page 5, to delete from the definition of the word "tenant" all words following the word "subtenant" in line 53.

Amendment No. 8 has been discussed.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are much the same.

Amendment No. 8 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 fall, the words to which they are moved having been deleted.

Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

A difficulty has arisen as to the interpretation section. I wanted to put down an amendment which would, in effect, delete chapters 1 and 3 of the Bill. On the amendment being considered, it was decided —I believe, correctly—that it was of so comprehensive a nature that it might more properly have been dealt with on the Second Reading. I want to make this point to the Minister, rather than to my legal friends in the House—that this effort to codify the Rent Restrictions Acts and Emergency Powers Orders is, in fact, creating confusion, because we have now rent restrictions under the Act of 1914 and the later Act, and under the Emergency Powers Orders. All these are concerned with the Bill we are considering.

The Deputy is dealing with only one section now.

Have we not reached a point when, instead of having definitions of "controlled premises" and "lawful rent" in relation to premises controlled under the Acts and Orders, we ought to empower the courts to fix rents?

Is not that outside this Bill?

My difficulty was that it was deemed impossible to put down an amendment for the Committee Stage.

And therefore it cannot come under this section. It is outside the scope of the Bill.

This is entitled "An Act 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". The Bill is designed to make better provision for restricting the increases of rent. The provision we are making for restricting the increase of rent is described in the definition section and, as the Chair will observe, runs to a page-and-a-half. I am submitting to the House that we could make better provision for restricting the increase of rent, if, instead of having one-and-a-half pages, an amendment of two lines were inserted stating that under this Act a fair rent shall be such as a Circuit Court judge shall decide or, in the case of tenants, such as a district justice shall decide.

That would cut out this Bill and, therefore, is not in order. The Deputy cannot propose in Committee to amend a Bill so as to make it a new Bill. What he is discussing is a new principle.

Even though it made better provision for restricting the increase of rent?

It is a different principle. I cannot argue on the merits, whether I agree with the Deputy or not.

I suppose it is a matter that might be discussed on the Fifth Stage.

It could have been discussed on the Second Stage if the Deputy had the point in mind.

There is no other opportunity?

The word "premises" is defined as "premises used for the purpose of any business, trade or profession or for the public service". We have definitions of "business premises" and "controlled premises", but Section 3 states, "this Act applies to every premises", the only exclusion being those in the latter paragraphs of sub-section (2). I do not know if that makes a change in the old code. People have brought cases before the courts concerning lean-to sheds. In one case brought to court, the contention was that it was a dwelling-house. The court decided against that conclusion. I am not sure if the court decision would hold in the new circumstances concerning "business premises", in view of the direct statement in Section 3 that "this Act applies to every premises", subject to the exception in sub-section (2).

I am not sure, but I think that the decision in the lean-to case turned on the question whether there was a roof on the place or not. The other and more important matter is this: Taking the Minister's amendment No. 8, as passed, the word "tenant" is now defined in this way: "Unless the context otherwise requires", it "includes in relation to any premises a statutory tenant and includes any person from time to time deriving title under the original tenant and also includes a subtenant". Inadvertently, there may be a definite widening of the Act in this regard. Tenant includes——

Amendment No. 8 was passed in connection with amendment No. 101.

Amendment No. 101 was held over for consideration by the Minister, who agreed that his amendment deleting those words had a bearing on his new amendment, No. 101.

That is a point for the Deputy and not for the Chair.

When we get the reprint of the Bill, it will, I think, have those words at the bottom of the page appearing in it. According to the definition, "tenant" includes a statutory tenant and includes the person deriving title from time to time under the original tenant. You have to write in there, instead of the words "original tenant""statutory tenant". How can you derive title from a statutory tenant? I do not suppose it is intended that anybody should derive title from a statutory tenant. The only persons to carry on, in addition to the statutory tenant, are those we have discussed—the wife who remains on after her husband or, if the wife has predeceased her husband, who was tenant, a child or children. I do not assume that the provision that "tenant" shall be deemed to include statutory tenant is then going to carry forward the tenancy and mean that a person can derive title from a statutory tenant. A person can derive title by purchase. It is not the Minister's intention, I take it, to allow statutory tenants to sell their rights but that might be contended owing to the peculiar mixture of words which we have here. I draw attention to the matter though I am not sure that what I say is correct. A contractual tenant can derive title under the ordinary law. Why then put in the words to which I have referred? They may cause some complication.

Mr. Boland

I shall have those points looked into.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.

Amendments Nos. 39 and 56 seem to be part of the scheme adumbrated in amendment No. 13. There is an alternative scheme in amendments Nos. 22 and 28 by Deputy O'Sullivan. The Chair suggests that the matter be discussed generally and that decisions be taken on amendments Nos. 13 and 22.

Amendment No. 23 is consequential on amendment No. 13.

We shall take a decision on amendments Nos. 13 and 22.

I move amendment No. 13:—

In sub-section (1), line 8, after the word "premises" to insert the words "notwithstanding the fact that the rent at which they are let includes payments for the use of furniture".

At present, furnished lettings are not controlled except in a limited number of cases in which it can be shown that the charge in respect of furniture amounts to 25 per cent. of the rent. My purpose in moving this amendment is to have considered by the House the problem of furnished lettings. Any old shack can, in a sense, be described as a furnished flat. You put in a few tables and chairs and put up a few plywood partitions and you say that that is a furnished flat. Owing to the acute shortage of houses, many flats are being let furnished and exorbitant rents are being charged for flatlets and shacks of the type I have mentioned. It has been put to me by many people that the time is opportune for the State to step in and effect some control of furnished lettings—at least a greater degree of control than that proposed in Section 3 (2) (g). The problem of furnished lettings is not as acute here as it is in Scotland and England but it does crop up. Legislation has been passed for Scotland and I understand from a recent pronouncement that legislation is about to be passed for England.

In Scotland, they have got over the difficulty of furnished lettings by taking the valuation of the flat or flatlet unfurnished as the basis for control. There, they have a system of annual valuations. From that valuation roll the rent is calculated, and in all cases of furnished lettings the rent of the flat or flatlet is fixed on an unfurnished basis. The charge for furniture or other service, such as light or heat or water, is calculated independently of the rent and is added to the rent. There is a provision that, in the event of disagreement between the landlord and the tenant, the court may fix the proper value of the furniture or other services. It is possible to evade the provisions of this Bill entirely by resorting to the expedients adopted in Great Britain—to throw in a few articles of furniture and let the flat as furnished.

In that way, they can evade control and keep within the provisions of the Act. I suggest, therefore, that serious consideration be given to this problem of the furnished flat. A proper approach to the problem would be to have the rent calculated on the basis of an unfurnished letting and that any charge for furniture or board or attendance should be calculated independently of the rent. In case of dispute, provision might be made for resort to the courts. In amendments Nos. 39 and 56, I go further and propose that these charges be treated as lawful additions to the rent. In other words, we get the position that all flats would be let unfurnished. A furnished flat would be let on the basis of the valuation of the flat and the value of the furniture and additional services would be calculated. These would be added to the rent as lawful additions. In case of dispute, the matter could be settled by the court. I feel that there is a necessity in the present emergency and in the present shortage of houses for control of furnished lettings almost to the same extent as exists for control of unfurnished lettings.

My amendment, No. 22, would practically have the same effect as Deputy Coogan's amendment except that on Section 4, I am submitting an entirely new amendment on the question of furnished flats. The Minister justified this afternoon and also on the introduction of the Bill, the attempt to control rents on the grounds of the evils which flow from the conditions under which tenement dwellings are let and I think he will agree that some of the lettings which are sought to be controlled here also constitute a social evil. These furnished apartments, houses or flats, are occupied mainly by newly married couples and by other equally deserving sections of the community such as business girls, who, in order to avoid the drabness associated with lodgings, club together and take a flat. The hardship in their cases is also very serious. Deputy Coogan made a point which I want to underline and that is that the beneficial clauses of the Bill could be very largely negatived by a landlord insisting that the letting would be such as to carry with it furniture. There is a very big problem in Dublin in this respect as far as newly-married couples are concerned. One can understand that at a time such as that, when the main consideration of a newly-married couple is to get into premises which they can regard as their home, they may take on commitments which they cannot live up to afterwards and which they will regret. The fact remains however that they do enter into such tenancies and that under present conditions they are excluded to a very great extent from the reliefs which this Bill would otherwise make available for them. I would strongly appeal to the Minister to accept the scheme which we put forward in our several amendments and which will provide that a furnished flat shall be dealt with as an ordinary separate dwelling and that arrangements will be made for an assessment of the value of the furniture to be added to the rent. I think in all equity we should also provide that tenants of such premises will be entitled to recover excess charges in the same way as other tenants.

It was notorious, of course, to everybody, certainly before the war, that there was a certain type of bamboo furniture which was largely sold to landlords for use in houses which they wished to describe as furnished houses to get them out of the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts. It is notorious that in every county in Ireland, when a man bought a small house for letting, he put a few decrepit sticks of furniture in it and it became a furnished house for the purposes of the Act. I could never see why a Rent Restrictions Act should have permitted that practice. Deputy Coogan's proposal, however honestly conceived, seems to open the door to a very much wider abuse. Deputy Coogan said we should adopt the Scottish system by which they deem a flat to be an unfurnished flat, fix a rent on that basis and then let the landlord if necessary, in default of agreement, apply to the court for a rent for the furniture and services supplied with the empty flat. If you accept the doctrine that it is legitimate to refer to the court for the fixation of a rent for furniture service in a flat, why not accept the principle that you should refer to the court for a fair rent for the flat itself? If you are going to adopt Deputy Coogan's proposal—and it sounds a sensible one to me; the Scottish are no fools and they do not attempt to put plans into operation that are not likely to work—why not go the whole hog and get rid of this mess through which we are trying to battle our way at present?

The amendments do not propose that, of course.

Deputy Coogan proposes to fix a fair rent for furniture and services and also to fix a fair rent for the flat.

I think Deputies are to be congratulated on having got into a Rent Act this whole question of furnished lettings which is apparently quite clearly happening. I do not see, with respect, how it can be prevented once you have brought in paragraph (g) in sub-section (2). That paragraph does prevent a landlord who throws in a few sticks of furniture, pretending that it is a furnished letting because if the court comes to the conclusion that the proportion of the rent to be assigned to the furniture does not reach a certain figure, it shall not be regarded as a furnished letting. Deputy Coogan goes much further and so does Deputy Martin O'Sullivan. I see no great point of principle in the objection. If we do this incidentally it will be a remarkable thing. Ordinarily we lag about five or seven years behind legislation in Scotland.

In this proposal we would be lagging a few years behind what they have done in Scotland, but if we carry it at this moment, we shall be running in line with the proposals in England where they have decided to bring in legislation to apply to England what is already in operation in Scotland. The only difficulty that they have found with regard to the Scottish system is that it necessitates the setting up of a number of tribunals and there is some difficulty as to the variation in rents that are fixed for premises and furniture for different districts. That is a small matter, but there would be some variation as between Cork and Dublin, for instance. I have no doubt the courts could tackle that question.

I do feel that there is a great deal of force in the wider amendment of Deputy O'Sullivan. He decides to exclude only dwellings where a charge is made for board and attendance, because where you have board and attendance, that is lodgings and not a letting of part of the premises at all. If we are going to deal with the rents of premises generally, I think we might as well deal with the rent of furnished lettings. This country seems, for reasons which I cannot fathom, to have committed itself to a low wage policy. So long as you are in that position, so long as you allow, notwithstanding a soaring cost of living, the middle classes to be deprived of their old emoluments—you have definitely cut their emoluments in half —I do not think in justice you can avoid giving them this concession. So long as the cost of living is high and so long as wages and salaries are not allowed to rise to the new value that money has secured in this country, you must see that not merely are unfurnished houses controlled but that the protection of the same kind is extended to furnished premises.

Mr. Boland

This is a very difficult subject. In the British case, it is dealt with, not in the Rent Restrictions Act, but in a separate Bill that they are bringing in. I have seen a copy of that Bill, and in it there is no security of tenure. I see great difficulties in dealing with furnished lettings.

We all know cases where some member of a family may have gone away for, say, a year or two, leaving a spare room with furniture available in the home. The owners of the premises may be prepared to let that room for a year or two and I do not see why they should not have the right to get possession if they want it. I do not think that would be in the same class as an unfurnished letting. I have listened to all that has been said here. I will consider it but, at present, I am not inclined to include furnished lettings. This rent restrictions code is troublesome enough without bringing in something which has not been in it already. Furnished lettings were controlled only to the extent that no fictitious letting could be made by supplying a few sticks of furniture, and things of that kind. That is already dealt with and I am not disposed to deal with this question any further at present. I will look into it and see if I can do it.

I do not know whether things are as bad as Deputies have represented. I think those who are going to the trouble of making genuine flats to accommodate people who need them, in a time like this when there is such great scarcity of living accommodation, are doing a very good service and if we are going to be restrictive on them we may stop them altogether. If we could build houses overnight and house everybody, it would be quite another matter, but we all know that what Deputy Martin O'Sullivan says is right. Newly married people especially are inclined to pay more than they are able to afford but if there were no place at all for them the position would be worse than it is at present. All these things have to be considered before we decide to bring furnished lettings within the scope of the Rent Restrictions Bill. I will look into it and if I see that I can meet the points that have been made here, I may do it, but at present at any rate, I am not disposed to bring furnished lettings into this Bill.

I had no intention when I referred to furnished lettings of letting into this Bill, say, a letting of a furnished house for one month in the summer or a short letting of that nature. I know that as the amendment is framed it would be possible, perhaps, to include that. That difficulty could be got over by drafting, prescribing some minimum term of months or years in the case of furnished lettings and at the same time giving some rights to the tenant of a furnished house or flat. I think you could get over the difficulty which the Minister has in mind by fixing a minimum term—six or twelve months.

I have often been anxious to find out what are the arguments against this. The Minister has advanced two, as far as I can understand him. One is, he takes the case of a family who, say, through certain members disappearing, find themselves with a few rooms over their requirements and they let those and then, he says, if the family gather in again, what is the situation? If you fit these people into the rent code proper then the owner of the premises can claim before the court that he requires the rooms for himself or his family. If he made a bona fide claim and backed it up with evidence that the court found proper, he could get the rooms back. In any event, that could be attended to. Maybe the rent code would have to be strengthened to meet that.

Mr. Boland

Would the "greater hardship" clause not come in there? Suppose it could be shown that the person in possession had the greater need, what would be the position?

I know there is a suggestion—one that I will try to ventilate by an amendment—that we should have in this code something like what there is in the 1931. Landlord and Tenant Act, that even with regard to unfurnished houses, where the person wanted the house and it could be called good estate or good house management for him to have it, he should get it. There are people at the moment who are forced to patch up dilapidated houses who, if they could get the tenant out, would make partial reconstructions and make proper premises of them. Even though the premises are still controlled, that could be attended to.

On the other point the Minister made I cannot see eye to eye with him at all. Think, he says, of the good people engaged in turning places into flats and letting these. We have a funny segregation. The landlord, the man who owns a house that he wants to let unfurnished is a bit rapacious—an ordinary business person going to get as much out of the scarcity as he can. I will not use the word "apacity in connection with that man. He is just a good business person. According to the Minister he is a rather decent sort of chap and he is not going to be rapacious.

Mr. Boland

I did not say that.

I do not think human nature is going to change because the man in one case is letting an unfurnished house and in the other case is letting the house as furnished lodgings or premises. These being the only two arguments, I think the Minister should give very serious consideration to this matter. I am not denying the difficulties and I am not denying that the whole rent code as we know it may not be proper to apply to furnished lettings but certainly some slight adaptation of the rent restrictions code will fit the furnished lettings.

I wish to make only one point, as the Minister is making up his mind finally on the question. I wish to advert to his statement that the grievances in relation to the question of furnished flats may not be as extensive as had been represented. It may be of interest to the Minister if I read extracts from a letter which I received yesterday in connection with this particular subject and which deals with two cases:—

"Case A: A girl clerk, renting a one-roomed furnished flat, was given notice suddenly by her landlady on the grounds that she required the room for her own personal use. The girl is alone, without parents—unable to pay the cost of legal advice or to find time from her work to consult a solicitor. Within a week the one room is let by the landlady for greatly increased rent to two girls.

"The supervisor of a Government Department informed a lady that several girls had complained of this and had no redress. This method is widespread and is causing great hardship when girls are almost turned out on the street to seek accommodation and without means to obtain legal aid. A solicitor, when consulted, admitted that if the tenant did not leave, conditions would be made intolerable for them by the lanlady.

"Case B: A tenant (girl) in the same position renting a two-roomed flat, in bad repair, held under agreement since 1937. The method adopted by the landlady was to inform the tenants verbally that owing to increase in valuation of their flats and consequent increase of rates, the rent would have to be increased. No receipts for rent are ever given. When inquiry was made at the rates office, it was found that for eight years the house was not returned as being made into flats and no increase in valuation had been made. Written notice to increase the rent is never given or legal notice to quit, but the tenants are required to comply with the demands and, if they do not, they are told to go. Were they to remain, conditions would be made intolerable for them. These are cases where the landlady lives on the premises and can, consequently, interfere with the liberty of occupation though the tenants have committed no breach of agreement or misconducted themselves in any way. There should be provision whereby the landlord should be forced to submit evidence of previous rent and/or the legal rent payable under this new code."

I mention that letter as indicating that a number of people in the city at the present time are seriously perturbed.

Surely it all sums up to this, that if it were possible under the Land Act of 1881 to fix a fair rent for every agricultural holding in Ireland, it ought to be possible to give general discretion to the court to fix a fair rent for furnished and unfurnished lettings in this country. That would relieve the Minister of this endless argument and wipe out many injustices.

What would it do to this Bill? It would require another Bill.

It would relieve this House of a great deal of discussion.

You would require a new Bill for that.

It will be reconsidered?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 14:—

In sub-section (2), line 13, to delete the word "sixty" and substitute the words "seventy-five".

The reason I put down the amendment is that the Bill generally is obviously for the benefit of tenants. The point is that as many tenants as possible should be included and the limits should be as few as possible. In any event, under the 1939 Act in Great Britain the valuation in London is fixed at £100; in Scotland it is £90; and in places in England other than London it is £75. Here the figures are being fixed at £60 and £40. I suggest that they should be £75 and £50.

I cannot see why there should be this increase. If a man can afford to live in a house with a valuation of £65, he is not a man who needs any protection against an increase of rent. He must be quite a wealthy man. I do not know any of my friends who live in a house with as high a valuation as that.

What about the £60 valuation man?

The man who can pay more than £60——

What about the man who can pay £60?

The man who can pay over £60 does not need any protection. You must, however, fix the limit somewhere, and I say that a limit of £60 in one case and £40 in the other is quite fair and reasonable. I do not think these figures should be extended so as to bring another class of houses within the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Boland

The Labour Party are getting very respectable.

Remember Lloyd George's dictum: "Always get the little follows with you; there are too many of them."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 may be discussed together and there will be one decision on them.

I move amendment No. 16:—

In sub-section (2) (b), line 16, to delete the words and figures "8th day of February, 1944", and substitute therefor the words and figures "7th day of May, 1941".

I think this amendment can be defended in a word. The Emergency Powers Order fixed rent restriction as applying to houses which were in occupation on the 7th day of May, 1941. Deputy O'Connor is constantly reaffirming that this Bill is only for a period of five years and only includes houses that were constructed up to the relevant date referred to in this Bill. If it is not the intention gradually to draw into the scope of this legislation all houses that have been built or are to be built in this country for all time, I suggest to the Minister that houses built between 7th May, 1941, and 8th February, 1944, cost just as much to build as the houses that are to be built immediately after the passing of the Bill. If it is just to exclude from the rent restriction code the houses to be built immediately after the passage of the Bill, we ought to exclude from the operation of this Bill the houses built during the period when the impact of scarcity and rising prices had increased the cost of house building. If that date is deemed to be the 7th May, 1941, for the purposes of the Order, then I suggest that it is only equitable to leave it for the purpose of this Bill. Otherwise you are bringing in that small group of houses that were constructed between May, 1941, and February, 1944, while you are omitting from the Bill all houses that have been built from February, 1944, onwards on the ground that they were built in a period of far higher costs than the prewar houses which the Bill covers.

That is the whole case. I would expect, when I am speaking on behalf of landlords to this House in its present humour, to secure for them equity, not to speak of justice; but if either one or the other were to be accorded to landlords, then this concession should be made. I would have some hope if the Árd-Fheis were over, but the Árd-Fheis is still going on in the Mansion House and I have very little hope indeed.

In my amendment I suggest the 1st October in order to bring the date into line with the Bill. I think that was the date on which the Bill was circulated.

Mr. Boland

I agree with Deputy Dillon in this matter. I think it would cost as much to build a house after May, 1941.

And probably more.

Mr. Boland

Probably more. I am prepared to accept that. I think Deputy O'Sullivan must agree that a house built when the cost of materials had increased should not be controlled. The 8th February was the date on which the Order was made. There were three years intervening and some houses may have been built at the higher cost. I think it is only right that they should not be controlled.

I support Deputy Dillon's amendment.

The man who built a house in 1941 deserves the V.C.

Let us be candid about this. We know that in an Intoxicating Liquor Act there is what is called the "Guiney clause", and that there was a Finance Act in which a particular section was included for a special purpose. I understand the Minister said that this was the O'Connor clause.

Mr. Boland

I never said any such thing.

He said he was persuaded by Deputy O'Connor——

I am not talking about the amendment, but about the original date in the Bill—because there was some property in which Deputy O'Connor was interested; that Deputy O'Connor being a person interested in building societies had persuaded him that this was the proper date. Deputy O'Connor is "sitting pretty" in this, because the further the date is pushed back the better he is safeguarded. I want to hear the case for making it the 8th February, 1944. Why should it not be what we ordinarily do—the date upon which the particular piece of legislation appears, the date on which the First Reading was taken? If we want to have clauses inserted for the benefit of individuals with property, let us be quite open and frank about it and let us know where we are.

I am solely responsible for the proposal to change the date back from 8th February, 1944, to 7th May, 1941. In making that proposal I was not conscious that Deputy O'Connor had any interest, direct or indirect, in this date, nor did I discuss the matter with the Minister or with any other Deputy.

I do not think that these business connections should be introduced.

Let me be clear that there was no allegation in regard to the Deputy's business. The Minister said in the earlier stages that, Deputy O'Connor being a man interested and experienced in building societies and matters of that kind and having an intimate knowledge of the business, had made expert representations which carried weight with him.

For this date?

Yes. Deputy McGilligan says: "Well, now, if the Minister is going to hear one expert and allow his judgment to be swayed by that, I suggest he should say to himself: `This is Deputy O'Connor's opinion, but I have not talked to all the other building societies, which is a thing I would have done if I wanted a building societies point of view'." I gathered from what Deputy McGilligan said that it might be suggested that the amendment proposing 7th May, 1941, instead of 8th February, 1944, suited Deputy O'Connor very well and, therefore, Deputy O'Connor sat mum. It may suit him, but I wish to make it clear that he had nothing whatever to do with it. I put down this amendment without consulting any Deputy, and Deputy McGilligan says he wishes to hear a cogent argument for it. There is no one else who can make that argument but I, as no one else knows what was in my mind, and no living creature knows the argument I want to make for it. As I understand it, in the original code this date, 7th May, 1941, was taken as being a kind of Rubicon between the houses built on the basis of pre-war costs and the houses built after costs had begun to soar.

It is the date of the Order.

No, the date named in the Order. At any rate, I take it to be the acceptance of the Rubicon between the houses of pre-war costs and the houses built under rising and inflated costs. It seems to me unfair to take the small segment of houses built in the period of inflation from 1941 to 1944 and to make them subject to this code, when we are excluding all the post-1944 houses on the ground that they were too dear. If 1941 was the right Rubicon when the Order was made, it is still the right Rubicon between the pre-war building costs and the war building costs. It is for that reason and for no other reason that I alone, uninspired by anyone else, put down this amendment. As far as I am concerned, that is the only case I can make for it, and it has no reference to the views of any building society, with whom I had no discussion or consultation whatever.

Mr. Boland

Of course, that would not suit Deputy McGilligan who can see the cloven hoof in everything, but as far as I see, he had an interest in this. He supported the "Guiney clause". The fact is that, if we had thought of the effect of the Order when making it originally, we would, when making the amending Order, have put in the same date as in the original Order, 7th May, 1941, but what we did was only to make it from the date the Order was originally made. There is no reason why it should not be made the same date.

But the 7th May, 1941, is not a date mentioned in an Emergency Powers Order except as being the date for rent fixing purposes.

Mr. Boland

Exactly.

But this is for excluding purposes.

Mr. Boland

Any house built after that is not to be controlled. That is the point.

Surely that is not so?

Mr. Boland

It is so.

I wish the Minister would take advice on that. Does the Minister tell me that premises built after 7th May, 1941, were exempt from control under the Order? I suggest that is not so.

Mr. Boland

No, I mean the 8th February, 1944.

Now, the 1st February, 1944, is the date on which this Order was promulgated. The Order referred to a date, 7th May, 1941, but that was in respect of the rent that, so to speak, had been fixed by arrangement between the parties on the 7th May, 1941. It is quite a fair thing to say that, if we are bringing premises under control, we will look at the rent fixed by agreement between the parties and take the rent at some date— though why it should be this particular date I do not know.

It was the date of the Emergency Powers Order.

The Emergency Powers Order was made on the 1st February, 1944, but refers to the rents that were in operation on the 7th May, 1941.

That is the date of the standstill Order.

So it coincides with the standstill Order?

That was the idea. The control was to go on at the same time as the standstill Order came into operation.

Am I right that there is no provision in the Order of February, 1944, excluding——

Mr. Boland

I made a slip there.

Then it is not so? So there is no exclusion of premises that were built after the 7th May, 1941. The date is only there for the purpose of the rent, that is, if the rent was in operation on that date, you take that rent. That mistaken impression regarding the Order seems to be Deputy Dillon's foundation for this amendment. It is now recognised as a mistake, that is, it is not the date of exclusion. I want to know how we are going to exclude the houses built after the 7th May, 1941. Some one has coerced the Minister into fixing that date and I would like to hear the argument publicly made.

Mr. Boland

I am satisfied there is as much case for excluding houses built from the 7th May, 1941, as there is for those built from the 8th February, 1944, because the costs were at least as high then as at the later date. As far as I know, for a couple of years after the war started things were very scarce and probably cost as much. I do not know how many houses are concerned. No one made representations to me about them. As far as Deputy O'Connor is concerned, he, as a man of experience, told me it was going to affect a very important building concern here, which was providing houses for the people, and that the building would have to stop if the control were applied to houses which were just being built. That meant the stoppage of building and I was not prepared to let that happen. That is why the amending Order was made. If anyone else had made the case here, it would have been the same, but Deputy O'Connor happened to have knowledge of the matter and happened to be there. Maybe I should not have mentioned his name, but I had nothing to hide.

I do not think Deputy McGilligan wants to hear any argument. He knows quite well that, owing to the heavy cost of building houses since the scarcity of materials first arose, it would be unreasonable to expect people to continue building unless you told them you would relieve them from this Order. Deputy McGilligan has sought to implicate me in a personal way as owner of this society.

No. It may be that my tongue stumbled into a phrase which appeared to have that meaning, and I entirely withdraw it. It was not meant, and I withdraw it if, even by inadvertence, I made it.

I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Boland

I accept that, too.

I thought it might be made to appear that I was making representations to the Minister for my own personal purposes, and I would like to remind the House that this is a big concern with several hundred shareholders, with public money invested. I have a holding in it—I do not deny that—but it is very far from being anything like part ownership. It was I who asked the Minister, at the time some building was in contemplation, whether there would be any chance of getting an Emergency Powers Order whereby these buildings, if put up, would be excluded, so as to ensure that the control would not apply to them. The Minister did that, as regards a certain number of houses. It was not a great number—about 24 or 25 were built. The Minister made that amending Order——

For letting?

Yes. Every house this company builds is rented. Deputy McGilligan also thought that I might be interested personally in this matter.

As to what would happen on the death of the tenant, he said something about our prescribing a medicine for others that we did not want for our own people. That is not so, because, as I say, the company with which I am connected always relets a house if the occupying tenant dies or moves out. The company never sells a house. Its principal business is the building of houses for rent, and it never takes advantage of increased prices to sell a house. On several occasions houses could be sold, but the policy is to rent houses, and that policy is being continued.

It is helpful when a Deputy with practical experience like Deputy O'Connor says: "I am building houses; I know the circumstances and, if a certain course is pursued, a certain thing will happen". The House is indebted to Deputy O'Connor for openly stating, from his personal experience, what he knows will be the reactions of his colleagues in certain circumstances. Bear this in mind, that Deputy O'Connor speeks freely and frankly. He says: "How can you ask people to build houses for rent if you apply rent restrictions to them? Surely, Oireachtas Eireann will not subscribe to the shameless fraud that we here, passing this Bill into law, believe this is the end of rent restrictions? Will Deputy Martin O'Sullivan subscribe to that—suggest that to anybody contemplating building houses? Do we not all know that whoever is Minister for Justice in four or five years' time will be brought under the same pressure to produce an analogous Bill to control rents? Does Deputy O'Connor believe that a democratically constituted Dáil is likely to put up a stiff resistance to a move in that direction?

We may as well face the fact that we will have rent restrictions for all time and the sooner we get to the point of the 1881 Land Act and have fixation of fair rents the better; then you will get somewhere where you can hope reasonably to control rents and have building. It will not be a business of going to court and pinning the man who builds a house down to a hopelessly uneconomic rent, thus forcing him to sell. There will be a position in which both parties can go to court and get a fair rent fixed, in some cases the rent being raised and in other cases the rent being lowered.

The Minister should mark well the useful and cogent words of Deputy O'Connor. How can you expect anyone to build houses for rent if they are to be subject to rent restrictions? Does not that lend point to what we have said, that this kind of law if it is to be projected indefinitely, will end all house-building for rent? Let us face the problem seriously and establish a tribunal to fix fair rents; then both parties will get a fair crack of the whip and you may have a reasonable hope that people will build houses in the belief that the owner as well as the tenant will get every consideration.

Mr. Boland

Deputy O'Connor came to me and explained the position of his society, but I am informed by my advisers that, six months before Deputy O'Connor mentioned the matter to me, a deputation of builders came to the Department and made the very same case. As a matter of fact, the draft Order was being prepared at the time Deputy O'Connor came to me. I think Deputy O'Connor did a very good service in conjunction with the other people who came. I just want to clear that point up.

I think it is accepted that reference to Deputy O'Connor was not intentional in the form in which it was first regarded, because I have a similar case to the one mentioned by the Deputy. A builder built houses and had them ready for letting in 1940. He was trying to let them at £7 per house. The houses are on the north side of the city. He could not get sufficient tenants at £7 per house and in order to let the houses he reduced the rent to £6 10s. At that rent he let all the houses. As time went on certain of the tenants left. The rates at that time were £6; now they are £18. The result is that the builder has decided to sell whenever he can. There is no company and the builder has not sufficient capital. He does not go in for the letting system in the same way as the firm mentioned here.

It is obvious that any private builder, or any person who has not capital or who has not a large number of shareholders behind him, will be forced out of this business. This man told me—and he speaks for another man in a similar position—that when any house becomes vacant he will sell it. I do not know whether the Minister will consider pushing the date back further. The position is that all people who have built houses up to 1941, or at any time since the cost of building materials increased so steeply and rapidly, will be forced out of the letting business and will have to sell. It is only an exceptional company or a firm which has a large number of shareholders that will be enabled to remain in the letting business. I think what Deputy Dillon has said is likely to happen, that these people will cease to act as landlords and will be forced to sell.

Is not the speech we have heard from Deputy O'Connor just what Deputy Dillon has described —is it not a complete refutation of the whole basis of this legislation? We are bringing in premises with a valuation of £60. There is no doubt that a great case can be made for that on the basis that there is a scarcity of houses of this particular type, and the people who own them will make hay while the sun shines. But then we have provision made for getting what is called a lawful rent. We have sections carefully built up here which are supposed to give a person who puts money into the building of a house, something in the nature of a fair return. Deputy O'Connor, speaking from his experience, says that it would not meet the houses built since February, 1944, and apparently the Minister is now of the opinion that these carefully balanced provisions will not meet the houses built since 7th May, 1941. Is not that a condemnation of the whole Bill? Does not that mean that the provisions made in respect of a person who has built a house will not give him an adequate return?

Mr. Boland

I would not say so.

Look at the next paragraph. We will exclude premises erected after a certain date and we will exclude premises which at that date were being bona fide reconstructed. I expect that date will have to be logically moved back to the 7th May, 1941.

Mr. Boland

Oh, yes.

This date will be pushed back and that again means that the cost of reconstructing a house will be so great that the carefully balanced sections of the Bill will not give the owner a return. What about repairs?

Mr. Boland

That is another day's work.

We are on a descending scale. Deputy O'Connor says you cannot bring in houses built since February, 1944, as the cost is so enormous the rent would not be adequate. The Minister now says the date should be pushed back to 1941. The same ought to apply to reconstruction. Is the cost of repairs being met in these provisions? We are taking a step where we definitely abandon any hope that people's needs in regard to houses will be met by the private builder who will build houses for rent. The only way the private builder will ever be brought into operation again will be by saying: "We will control every house no matter when built, and we will give subventions to private people who build, so that when the house is built it will be let at a rent which tenants subject to a low wage policy can pay, but we are certainly closing the door on enterprising builders.

Mr. Boland

The idea behind fixing the rent at that date was that it was assumed, and, I think, rightly, that up to that time builders had material on hands and those who were letting houses were letting them at adequate rents. They were covering themselves for their outlay and getting a reasonable profit. What we are doing here is giving people who have to build in the new conditions the right to a fair return on their money. I dare say that the whole rent restrictions code from the very beginning may have restricted the building of houses for letting, but to the extent that that building was possible between the two wars, it ought to be continued, because we are not going to impose any restrictions on it, unless, as I said on the Second Stage, conditions again arise in which people try to take advantage of a scarcity and seek to charge exorbitant rents in respect of houses from which they were satisfied to get a proper or fair return before emergency conditions arose. I think that is justified and it is being done everywhere. We cannot avoid it, however restrictive of building operations it may be.

I hope the Minister will bring in a fair rent Bill the next time he tackles it.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
18. In sub-section (2) (c), line 17, to delete the words and figures "8th day of February, 1944", and substitute therefor the words and figures "7th day of May, 1941"—(James M. Dillon).
Amendment No. 19 not moved.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 20:—

In sub-section (2), paragraph (d), line 23, to insert after the figures "1931" the words "and of which a local authority is for the time being the landlord".

The object of this amendment is to ensure that the exemption from the control provided for in paragraph (d) will not extend to houses provided by local authorities under the Housing Acts and subsequently sold by them. It is intended that the exemption in favour of local authority dwellings should apply only where the local authority is for the time being the landlord. In other words, if a person buys such a house, it will be controlled and will not get the exemption which the local authority had.

Why should a local authority have an exemption?

Mr. Boland

Because the houses are generally let at uneconomic rents. When a local authority builds houses, they are generally let at uneconomic rents.

If they are exempt from the whole code, the rents can be raised, and, whether the rents are in arrear or not, the people can be evicted. One of the biggest mass evictions in this country in recent years took place in one of the northern countries of this territory when the local authority decided to pitch out all the tenants. They did so, and it was then discovered to everybody's amazement that the local authority had all the powers of the old landlords. Can anybody tell me why that should be so? The Minister's amendment shows that there is something by way of glaring contrast. He says that if a local authority sells a house, if a house erected by the Dublin Corporation is bought by the tenant purchaser or by somebody else, that person letting that house will be controlled, but that the local authority, while it remains the landlord, will not be controlled. Why? If an ordinary tenant does not pay his rent, being controlled, he can be put out. If a tenant destroys the property or gets in people who are a nuisance, he can be put out. Why should a local authority be put in this favoured position? If they are letting the houses at uneconomic rents, very good. They have done so, but, if the rent is not being paid, the tenant can be put out. That is one of the few rights which the landlord or owner of controlled premises has. He has certain other rights, but I have not yet heard any argument as to why a local authority should be put in the position of the old-time landlord and allowed to evict without cause.

They have never done it.

I give you an example.

Not in the cities, at any rate.

I know that there is a device whereby, if tenants fall into arrear, the amount of home help is graded up so that a bit is given out and a bit comes back by way of rent. I know that is done, but, at the same time, why give a local authority the right simply to go into court and put out the tenants?

If, as Deputy O'Connor says, it is never done, they will not suffer by being made subject to control the same as anybody else. The more that argument is pressed, the greater the case for saying that the Act shall apply to houses built for the working classes and under the Labourers Acts. I want to hear some argument against that.

There is no need to control the rents of these houses. The rates have to contribute a very substantial portion of the annual charges, of the money lent to build the houses. They are not rented at economic rents at all.

I am talking of giving the tenant the security of his house.

But the local authority fixes the rent for him and the local authority is not going to raise these rents. I can imagine the noise that Deputy McGilligan would make and all the appeals he would make to the Minister to exercise his powers over the Dublin Corporation, if it were announced that the Dublin Corporation were trying to raise rents on its tenants.

To put them back into the position of the landlords.

It is right that these premises should be excluded while they are in the ownership of the local authority. The effect of the Minister's amendment is that, if a house is subsequently sold and the local authority ceases to be the owner, the house will become controlled and will not get the benefit of the exclusion.

I should like to hear from the Deputy why he thinks it good that a local authority should be exempt.

Because they do not charge the highest rent they can get. Their object is to keep the rent as low as possible and, to do that, they put ratepayers' money to the cost of building houses, in order to keep the rent down to the lowest possible figure.

Mr. Boland

And they were never controlled.

That is another argument. We have done a heap of things that were never done before.

Mr. Boland

It is a very important argument.

It would be very foolish to bring these houses in now.

I again want to know why.

Deputy McGilligan has been unfair in his statement. He said that a public body was carrying out a mass eviction. He should tell the whole story when he makes reference to that particular case. A local public body has never been known to increase the rent of its property, and I invite any Deputy who has any association with a local authority to instance a single case of a local authority increasing rents. The reason these people have been threatened with eviction is that they have refused to pay the rates.

If the only reason was that the tenants had refused to pay the rents, if the premises were controlled, the tenants could be put out. That does not work.

The rates, not the rents. An economic rent, plus rates, has been fixed by the public body.

In any event, I was not talking about raising rents on people. In Donegal, a series of evictions were carried out by a local authority. I understand that it has nothing at all to do with raising rents. They got rid of people. I thought one of the points at which we were aiming in a rent code was that, so long as a person paid whatever rent was fixed, he remained on. That protection the tenants of a local authority have not got. Why should they not have it?

They have it so long as they pay their rents.

If it is only a matter of not paying rent, if they do not pay rent, they can be put out, whether the premises are controlled or not. Therefore, local authorities must want something more than that, because they have that power even if the premises are controlled. They want something else, and in fact, they have evicted people for something other than non-payment of rent, as I am instructed, and I propose to object to this amendment because I object to the paragraph, and that is one way of getting at it.

While it is true that local authorities do not habitually raise rents, cases have come to my notice, in which, on the installation of electric light, a basic increase has been made in rent which many tenants would challenge as being properly related to the actual cost of light consumed, and in respect of which I think that if a local authority were subject to the rent restrictions code, these people would have a status to go into court and say: "The local authority purports to raise my rent from 14.8d. to 18.10d. a month. They justify the 4.2d. on the ground that it is payment on a flat rate for light. Our submission is that 2.4d. would cover the light and the balance is in fact an effort to increase the rent to the relief of the rates. Admittedly, these cottages were built and a sum was borrowed to finance their erection. Its payment is financed partly by rents and partly by rates." I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Top
Share