Rent Restrictions Bill, 1944— Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 20.
When we adjourned last night we were discussing amendment No. 20, and the broad issue raised by the amendment is whether local authorities with houses to let should be subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts or exempt from them. The Minister's case was that inasmuch as local authorities' houses are subsidised, there is no reason to make them subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts. I think that is illusory. The rent restrictions code, in addition to controlling rents, gives tenants certain statutory rights, one of which is immunity from disturbance e x c e p t on statutory grounds. There does not seem to be any reason why local authorities should ever have the right, were it never exercised, to evict one of their tenants for no cause stated. Some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies stated that there was no need to bring such houses under the Act, as local authorities never raised rents. If they have never raised rents what harm is it to bring them under the Act? I am not prepared to accept the statement that local authorities have not raised rents. I know of a case where a local authority fixed a rent at 14/8 a month for a labourer's cottage, and then connected that cottage with the Electricity Supply Board. They fixed on each rent a basic rate for an assumed average amount of electricity. Many tenants tell me that the additional rent for electricity levied upon them was far in excess of the price of the electricity actually consumed. I do not remember the figure, but if it was, say, 1/- the tenants were prepared to maintain that the amount should be 8d., and that the remaining 4d. was either levied to relieve the rates or was levied so that one man would pay for another man's electricity.
The practice is growing up in this country of short-circuiting national expenditure to the Dáil, and in local expenditure to the county councils. You can imagine an enterprising local government official, observing the expedient of subsidising the price of eggs out of the price of turkeys by direct negotiation between the Minister for Agriculture and the turkey exporter, saying to himself: "It is going to be a very tedious business ascertaining how much electricity was used in each of 24 cottages. Let us make a bulk arrangement and leave the charge ex xquo for all the cottages”. The result is that one cottage which burns 2/- worth of electricity per week is being partially paid for by another cottage, the occupant of which is burning only 6d. worth of electricity. To the busy local government official it is a great relief to levy a shilling a cottage on all the cottages, but the unfortunate man who is trying to make ends meet may legitimately resent the fact that, in effect, his rent is being raised by about 8d. per week, not to meet the loan charges on the money originally borrowed to build his cottage, but to pay for his neighbour's electric light. Why should not that man have the right, under the Rent Restrictions Act, to go to court and say: “This represents an increase of my statutory rent”? Let the local authority appear in court and say that it is not an increase in rent but an equitable addition to the weekly charge levied on the tenant, every penny of which goes to pay for the electric light actually consumed in his house. That is only one instance.
You can well imagine that circumstances might arise in which, in effect, the tenant's rent was being raised to finance some scheme which the local authority had never expressly authorised and which the tenant himself did not want and had not bargained for when the house was being let to him and when the rent was being originally fixed. If the case of those who want to exclude the local authorities be sound, I suggest that instead of being an argument for excluding the local authorities, it is an argument for including them, because, if the local authorities never do anything which they would be prohibited from doing by the rent restrictions code, they cannot possibly suffer in any way by being brought under it. If that be done, this House will have the satisfaction of knowing that if the local authority, either as a body or through their officials, attempt to do something in the way of raising rents without reasonable grounds, the provision of this code of law will come into operation and put upon that local authority and its officers the same obligations which we put upon every private houseowner in the country.
May I, before I conclude upon this topic, ask the House: are we reaching the stage when the only person in the community who is suspect is the man who is supporting himself? If you are a public authority or in receipt of a pension, or if you have a job or some kind of dole, then, unquestionably, you must be a patriot. Accordingly, there is no use in going after you, but if you are an independent man, beholden to nobody, a situation is developing in which you immediately become suspect.
That situation is not developing under this amendment.
It is, inasmuch as, in the case of a man who owns his house and is beholden to nobody, we are all, like pointer dogs, watching him, but the local authority or the fellow who got something as the result of chicanery, does not require to be watched at all. He must be a patriot of one kind or another or so pure a democrat that there is no need to watch him. If we consider it necessary to concentrate our attention, with never sleeping vigilance, on everybody who has dared to buy a house out of his own resources, is it not reasonable to ensure that local authorities will not do the kind of thing which we do not permit the ordinary landlord to do?
I am impressed by Deputy Dillon's arguments so far as the operation of the law by the local authority against the individual is concerned. The Deputy's arguments sound logical. However, thinking over the practical aspects of the question, we should bear in mind that these are subsidised houses, provided by the State and the local authority. So far as the operation of this measure is concerned, it would be difficult to fix the rent of such houses by reference to the rent of similar houses. There would be no similar houses, save the houses of the local authority itself. We must remember, too, that the citizen has been provided with a house subsidised by the State. Suppose the State, in its wisdom, decides to provide that citizen with some further perquisite—say, a parcel of 20 or 30 acres of land—it might be considered wise to adjust the rents. The occupant has left the category of worker; he is no longer classed as a worker; he is now a farmer.
That is a very ambiguous observation.
I have heard it argued that men with that quantity of land are farmers.
Surely they are also workers.
They are workers but not labourers. The Deputy is making a very fine distinction. In circumstances of that sort, it would be wise to preserve the right to increase the rent. The citizen has got a dual benefit. He had already a house at an uneconomic rent, subsidised by the State, and, when the State provides further benefit for him, it might be wise to leave open the possibility of adjusting his rent. Otherwise, I am impressed by Deputy Dillon's arguments.
One can have an open mind on this amendment by the Minister with regard to the exemption of local authorities from the provisions of the Bill. It is true to say that local authorities are not inclined to raise rents—for obvious reasons. It is also true that they are more or less barred by statute, so far as I know, from making profits from the letting of the houses which they build in their respective areas for certain classes of our citizens. I wonder if the Minister has considered what, the position of local authorities is, now that the Managerial Act is in operation. Although the words "local authority" may appear in the amendment, in fact the real owner of the houses, in my opinion, is the county manager. Since, as far as I know, it is his executive function to have control of the letting and the putting in of tenants to these houses, it is only natural to assume that he will also have power to fix rents. I do not know whether the Minister has given that aspect of the case any consideration.
Everybody knows that at the moment the manager can evict tenants without even consulting the local authority, that the local authority is only a figurehead and that this question of a discretion or leaving it to the good nature of the local authority to increase rents is a dangerous precedent to create. The Minister knows the confusion, chaos and annoyance caused to many people throughout the country by the operation of the discretionary clause in the Dance Halls Act. That clause gave district justices a certain discretion in making rules and regulations governing the granting of licences. Many Deputies who have taken part in this discussion seem to think that they can trust to the good nature of local authorities in this matter but I should like to point out to the Minister that the words "local authority" should not appear here at all. In my opinion the words "county manager" should appear in the section instead of the words "local authority", because it is the manager who has control of these houses. As a member of a local authority for a good many years, I am prepared to argue that the local authorities have absolutely no power in regard to the lettings or fixing of rents of houses and it is only as a matter of form that such questions are brought before them. I should like to have the Minister's views on that aspect of the situation before we agree to the exemption of these houses from the Act.
It is quite true that most of the houses are let at an uneconomic rent. We know for a fact that a subsidy of 33? per cent. is given to cover loan charges and a contribution of 66? per cent. in regard to the rehousing of people whose houses have been condemned. In other cases, according to the means and the earnings of the people who occupy these houses, sometimes as low as 15 per cent. is collected from them so that the rents are in the main uneconomic. They barely pay the loan charges. In fact, some of the poorer classes have to be subsidised by contributions from the rates. I should like the Minister to explain how the words "local authority" are to be interpreted in view of the fact that the Managerial Act has been in operation for a considerable time and that the question of whether rents shall be increased or not is one for the manager.
Mr. Boland
As far as the last question is concerned, it is not a matter for me. The local authorities own these houses and the manager as far as I know is the servant of the local authority.
Mr. Boland
Indeed he is. I know that they have the right to suspend him but that does not arise.
This is an executive function.
Mr. Boland
Everybody knows that these houses are let at uneconomic rents. Also there is the fact, which should appeal to a certain section in this House who feel that an undue discrimination is shown against people with families, that, as far as I know, in the allocation of these houses the local authority always gives people with families a preference and in some cases insists that those who have families should get first call when a nouse is vacant.
That is a Local Government Department regulation.
Mr. Boland
But it is the local authority owns the houses. Even when these houses are sold on the instalment system or the annuity system, those with families—this is true of Dublin, at any rate—get first choice. There is the other question: if these houses were brought within the Act, would the uneconomic rent at which these houses are now let be taken as a standard for comparison with the rent of houses which had been built by private people as an investment? Would such people be required by the courts to let their houses at the cheap rate at which local authorities' houses were let? If that were to be the case the result naturally would be that no further houses would be built by private builders. I am surprised at the opposition to this amendment. I never expected it. I thought the desirability of excluding these houses was so obvious that no one would object to what has been the law since the introduction of these Rent Restrictions Acts. I took it for granted that there would be no objection to the exclusion of local authorities from the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Of course, anybody who buys out one of these houses will be subject to these restrictions. After all, the owners of other houses are subject to the restrictions and if a man who bought one of these houses were not brought within the provisions of this Act, he would be able to let it at any rent he could get. That was one of the reasons for bringing in this amendment, namely, to ensure that when a person became the owner of his house, that house would be subject to the same restrictions as any other house owned by a private individual. That is the amendment before the House.
The Minister is quite right when he refers to the case of a man who buys a house from a local authority. In fact there has been no one so strong on the necessity for controlling such houses as I have been.
Mr. Boland
I am speaking to the amendment. In fact it was my intention to approach the Minister for Local Government in connection with the sale of such houses because a kind of black-market has been developing in these houses. Still I think the Minister rather lightly passed over my point in regard to the position which now exists as between the manager and the local authority.
That is not a matter for the Minister for Justice. It is a matter for Local Government.
The fact is that the manager is in complete control of a house in so far as the letting and fixing of rent are concerned.
How does the position of the manager enter into this amendment?
Because the words "local authority" appear in it. Local authorities have no power, I maintain, in connection with the letting of houses and the words are wrongly used there. The manager has everything to do with the letting of houses and the fixing of rents.
He is the local authority.
The manager acts on behalf of the local authority.
He is the local authority.
His name may appear on the documents but he uses the power of the authority for which he is working. For instance, here in Dublin, every act carried out by the manager is taken on behalf of the corporation. I hope that will remain so. The point made by Deputy Coburn may have certain force but every action taken by the manager is, as I say, taken on behalf of the local authority. So that the phrase in the amendment, as it stands, should remain.
Amendment put and agreed to.
On behalf of Deputy Martin O'Sullivan, I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (2), line 27, to delete the words "from year to year or".
I do not know if Deputy Martin O'Sullivan, when he prepared this amendment, was aware that tenants, from year to year, of business premises got certain rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931. I think it is because of such rights that it is sought to exclude them from this Bill. I would suggest to the Minister that, apart from tenants from year to year, it is possible that tenants from less than year to year may acquire rights under Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931. I think that is a point the Minister might have investigated so as to clear up the question as to whether in such cases the tenant is to have his rights under the Act of 1931 or under the Bill we are now dealing with. I am opposed to the amendment because of the provisions already existing in the Act of 1931.
Mr. Boland
The main reason why these people were excluded was that it was considered that they did not require the protection of the Rent Acts and, as Deputy O'Connor said, there is protection given for these people in the Landlord and Tenant Act. It was not considered that people holding yearly tenancies were in the same position as those holding weekly or monthly tenancies. For that reason they were never included and I do not see any reason why they should be included now. They are people who would be well able to look after their own interests and they have a better position under the 1931 Act than they formerly held.
Will the Minister have the point raised by Deputy O'Connor looked into? Deputy O'Connor wants to know if the Minister will ascertain whether certain tenants are affected by Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act or by this Bill? Will the Minister look into that?
Mr. Boland
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I formally move amendment No 22, in the name of Deputy M. O'Sullivan:—
In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (g), lines 29 to 38, and substitute the following paragraph:—
(g) a dwelling let at a rent which includes payments for board and attendance.
That was settled on amendment No. 13, dealing with furnished lettings. We had that before.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In sub-section (2) (g), line 31, to insert after the word "furniture" the following words:—"or in respect of the rendering of any services whether within the dwelling or not, or the supply of heat, hot water, fuel or any other commodity.
My object in moving this amendment is to provide for certain aspects which I do not think were very fully considered when this Bill was drafted. The Minister says that the Bill will last only until 1950 and that then it will be further considered. It is quite possible that this Bill will survive for very many years and therefore I am desirous that new inventions or new adaptations shall not be overlooked. Some people say that in a very few years, from a centre, super-heated steam will be distributed to the dwelling-houses in a certain area and to dwellings within a quarter-of-a-mile radius. Other enthusiasts say that it is quite possible that atomic energy may be harnessed to this service. I am not suggesting anything beyond what is already envisaged. There is another direction in which many new services may be provided. I note that on the other side services are being provided for a certain number of hours of the day. I do not think that the Minister is such an optimist as to believe that, if people are precluded from recovering the cost of special services these services will be provided. I suggest to the Minister that he should take the widest possible powers so that any service which can be placed at the disposal of the community will be available to tenants. In a very tentative way, some people have started providing central heating within buildings, and other forms of service. This amendment goes very much further than anything that has been attempted up to the present and suggests that possibly the whole community in future may have services rendered to them from a central station. I put it to the Minister that the amendment is worthy of consideration.
Mr. Boland
One thought that strikes me in connection with this amendment is that it will be time enough to meet that situation when it arises. I imagine that the period of five years will probably have elapsed before such services are available here I do not see why these houses should be exempt from control. It would be quite legitimate, and I do not see how the court could object, to allow extra rent for amenities of that kind. Surely it would be a good case to say that light and heat were provided in addition to the premises, but I do not think there is any case to be made, or any necessity, to have such premises de-controlled. These are amenities that are not at present available, but if they should be made available I am quite certain that any landlord could go to the court and say that in addition to the house he was providing heat, and that the tenant had not to buy coal or turf or electric current, as he was getting central heating, or some amenity of that kind. The fact that the house was controlled would not prevent a landlord getting a fair addition to the rent for services of that kind. Therefore, I do not think the amendment ought to be agreed to.
The position that the Minister assures me could not arise has already arisen in a very small and tentative way. In fact, there was a case in court before one of our judges whose judgment was something to the effect that the service was not attendance—or something like that. I I am not a lawyer but I think the Minister's idea is that this situation could not occur. Will the Minister keep an open mind to representation made to him and, if so, I will withdraw this amendment and let representation be made.
Mr. Boland
I hope I always keep my mind open, Deputy. I try to do it.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 may be debated together. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are the same amendment, with different wording.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (h) and substitute therefor the following paragraph:—
any dwelling or business premises let together with land other than the site of the dwelling or business premises unless the rateable valuation of the land when situated in the County Borough of Dublin or the Borough of Dun Laoghaire does not exceed £15 and in any other case £10.
Under paragraph (h) of the sub-section as it stands, if the rateable valuation of the land attached to a building or buildings is one-quarter of the poor law valuation, the tenant is excluded from the Act. These tenants do not come under this Act; they do not come under the Landlord and Tenant Act or any of the Land Acts. I suggest to the Minister that there is considerable hardship in a number of these cases, particularly in the case of older houses, where the house was built on a fairly extensive area of land, comprising a large garden or a garden and small orchard, before building became more or less planned, as it is now, in which case gardens are all approximately the same size. Long ago gardens tapered in all directions. The result is that this type of tenant is excluded from the benefit of the Bill. I suggest that the Minister should accept the amendment and allow in cases where the rateable valuation of the land in the County Borough of Dublin and the County Borough of Dun Laoghaire is not more than £15 and in any other case £10. As the section stands at present, a quarter of the valuation is very small. The Bill does not apply to houses of, say, £50 or £60 valuation if the land is more than a quarter of the valuation of the building.
I agree with the amendment. I do not think there would be many cases of this kind, particularly in the County Borough of Dublin. There may be a number in the County Borough of Dun Laoghaire. I do not think that the amendment would do very much harm. I think it would be reasonable that the limit should be extended to the figures in the amendment.
Mr. Boland
What I want to make sure of is that we will not bring in agricultural holdings. That was the reason for the limitation. The Department have not got any complaints on this score. The reason that the valuation of the land was kept at the figure mentioned in the Bill is to make sure that the holding would be more residential in character than agricultural. That is the whole object of it. If I were to increase it, small farmers might come under the Bill.
The valuations in the amendment are probably a bit too high.
Mr. Boland
I will look into the matter. But this is a town tenants Bill and deals with residences and not agricultural holdings. I want to make sure that we will not bring them in by an amendment of this kind. If I accepted the amendment, I am afraid that is what would happen. If the Deputy wishes me to go into the matter further, I will do so. There must be some relationship between the valuation of the residence and the land. That is what I have to be careful about. I am certainly not going to intrude on the province of the Minister for Lands. I have enough to do in a Bill of this kind to deal with ordinary tenants without going into the Land Acts. That is what I want to avoid. Deputy Cosgrave may have some cases in mind that I do not know about. I think they would be very few.
It is possible that Deputy Byrne's amendment, which proposes to insert the words "one half" for "one quarter", might be a safer one from the point of view of not bringing in agricultural land. If not, I will reduce the figures mentioned in my amendment.
Mr. Boland
Fifty per cent. would be very high. It might be a market garden or something like that.
I think you will have to adjust the amount. In some parts of the country a £10 valuation might mean 16 or 17 acres of land. That would be an agricultural holding. I think the amount mentioned in the amendment is too high.
Will the Minister consider it?
Mr. Boland
I will look into it. I am not saying that I will be able to do it. I cannot take the risk of bringing agricultural holdings under the Bill. I am sure the Deputy does not wish that.
I do not want to bring in agricultural holdings. Perhaps the Minister would consider reducing the figures.
Mr. Boland
I will look into it without committing myself to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 29:—
In sub-section (3) to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraphs:—
(a) the basic rent shall be a rent of such amount as the court considers reasonable, under any given contract of tenancy not being for more than a term of five years, having regard to the basic rents of other controlled (1923 Act) premises, and
(b) for the purpose of the determination the tenant shall be deemed to be responsible for the rates.
This amendment proposes an alteration in the provisions governing the determination by the court of the basic rent under Section 9. On further consideration, it was felt that the provisions contained in the existing sub-section (3) of Section 9 were unsatisfactory in certain respects. First, since there are two kinds of basic rents provided for in the Bill, namely, Chapter 1 basic rents and Chapter 2 basic rents, doubts might arise on the existing text as to what basic rents the court should have regard to under paragraph (a) of sub-section (3). Secondly, it was considered that the word "comparable" in paragraph (a) was really unnecessary and might, in practice, only make for trouble when the courts came to interpret it. Thirdly, the provision in paragraph (b) deeming the tenant, for the purposes of the determination of the basic rent, to be responsible for repairs might not, it was felt, work well in practice and might conceivably operate unjustly to the landlord.
The provisions embodied in the amendment should remedy these defects. It is made clear that the basic rents to which the court must have regard must be the basic rents of controlled (1923 Act) premises. This is obviously the correct thing to do since cases arising under Section 9 can only be cases of controlled (1923 Act) premises. This change meets the point which Deputy O'Connor's amendment is intended to provide for. The word "comparable" does not appear in the new provision. The courts may be relied upon to apply the provision in a commonsense manner and do not need to be told by statute not to compare things that are not comparable.
Finally, the provisions which the amendment proposes have been modelled generally on the provisions in the Rent Act of 1923 governing the determination of the standard rent under that Act. These provisions have, it is believed, worked well in practice and that in itself constitutes a good reason for adopting them as a model. Under the provision at (a) in the amendment, the court, taking into consideration the basic rents of other controlled (1923 Act) premises, will fix the basic rent as the amount which it considers reasonable under any given contract of tenancy not being for more than a term of five years. This means, so far as the question of liability for repairs is concerned, that the court will have regard to the facts in the particular case before it and will fix the basic rent accordingly. Thus, if it is clear that the landlord is liable for all repairs, the basic rent will include a provision accordingly, while if the tenant were liable for all repairs —this would be very exceptional—the amount of the basic rent would be reduced accordingly. It is considered better that the statute should be silent on the question and that the court should be left to decide the matter on the basis of the facts in each case.
Under paragraph (b) in the amendment, the tenant will be deemed to be responsible for rates. This provision presents no difficulty, since the landlord is allowed to add the rates subsequently as a lawful addition and it is obvious that they must, therefore, be deducted in the first instance in arriving at the basic rent.
There is no use in my pretending that I understand that amendment. I do not believe any Deputy understands it.
Is the amendment agreed to?
Well, I do not know; I reserve judgment on it.
The difficulty with the word "comparable" as it was in it, without any provision such as "similar controlled (1923 Act) premises" is that the courts would have to define "comparable" in the Act. Now that is wiped out, but the Minister's amendment says:—
"Having regard to the basic rents of other controlled (1923 Act) premises".
This section would apply when the court was considering the premises in respect of which there was an application before it to control them.
May I interrupt the Deputy to say that if amendment No. 29 is carried, amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 fall, since the lines in regard to which they are moved will have disappeared. If the Deputy has any point with regard to those amendments, he might introduce it now.
Does the Minister realise that the court would then be considering premises which are not controlled and is he satisfied that the definition: "other controlled premises" is sufficiently definite?
Mr. Boland
I think so. The court will have regard to the facts before it and will know what to compare.
What is the purpose of putting in the phrase: "under any given contract of tenancy not being for more than a term of five years"?
Mr. Boland
It is to make sure that the court fixes the rent on the basis of a short-term letting and not on the basis of a long lease.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I would like to mention to the Minister the special case of the houses owned by the Artisans' Dwellings Company. This company played a remarkable part in solving the housing problem for many years past. At the present time, they own 2,660 dwellings in the city, all of which are rented. Its principal business is practically the same as that of Associated Properties Limited, confined strictly to building houses and letting them, not selling them. The situation with regard to the rents of these houses is peculiar. In March, 1922, there was some dispute with the tenants and the Department of Home Affairs of the First Dáil intervened and the late Austin Stack made an order appointing the late Mr. Justice Creed Meredith as arbitrator to fix the rents. The arbitration was duly held and the rents were fixed and those are the rents which have prevailed up to the present. These are not rents which come under Section 8, as they are not standard rents fixed by the court; and the Artisans' Dwellings Company will be in the position that these rents still may be fixed by the court. The Bill says "the basic rent shall be determined by the court."
Although the company does not seek to increase these rents, they would like to be in a secure position, in the same position as the owner of a house who had got his basic rent fixed in the Circuit Court. I suggest to the Minister that that is worthy of special consideration for this company alone and I would ask him to reconsider making special provision to regularise the present rents prevailing with this company and to put them, if possible, on the same footing as the rents fixed by the Circuit Court under the 1923 Acts. I would also suggest to the Minister that, in the particular circumstances of this company, he might make some effort to exclude their houses from the provisions of Part III of the Bill. When I mention that the rents of these dwellings run from ? to £1 a week, I think that will be sufficient to show that the company does not seek to get the highest possible rent or to get an exorbitant rent. I suggest that special consideration should be given to the tenants of this company, which has played such an outstanding part in solving our housing problem.
I am all in favour of Deputy O'Connor giving the House the benefit of his experience of the setting of houses, but it is going very far to come into this House and say that Oireachtas Eireann should make a special exception for individuals in whom Deputy O'Connor has a paternal interest.
No paternal interest in this case.
No, but the Deputy likes them. Supposing I came and said that Mrs. Keogh was a very respectable woman and an old friend of mine and that I knew she was very kind to her lodgers for the last 25 years and she had a grand national record and in pursuit thereof she submitted herself to the officers of the early courts of Dáil Eireann and got an appointment as a result, or got a very satisfactory award, in those stormy days, and would like to be confirmed in the enjoyment of those privileges now, I think Deputy O'Connor would say: "It is going a bit far for Deputy Dillon to come into Oireachtas Eireann and constitute himself the advocate of Mrs. Keogh because he likes her". If this admirable body submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the late Mr. Justice Creed Meredith in 1922 and are so well satisfied with the experience they had at his hands for the last 22 years, I cannot imagine why they should now fear going before the courts as every other householder has to go, unless they think that, if they are subject to the statutory indent to which every other person who is setting a house has to subject himself, they would be in a less advantageous position than that in which they would be if the original award were confirmed.
Surely Deputy O'Connor will not argue that, whatever the personal attributes of any individual may be, he should be excepted from the general application of the law. If the terms of this Bill press too heavily on the Artisans' Dwellings Company, presumably they are going to press too heavily on everybody else and it would be a very hard thing if a loud and loquacious householder who owns a very large number of houses should be exempted from the provisions of the law, while an individual with one or two houses and who could not make his case to an individual Deputy who would speak for him in Dáil Eireann, would have to take the ordinary run of the mill. Surely Deputy O'Connor does not argue seriously that if you reach, as a company or as an individual, a position of affluence indicated by the possession of some 2,000 houses, that is a good reason for taking you out of the operation of the ordinary law. If we once accepted that principle, all justice would vanish from the land. Either we are all equal before the law—big fellow and little fellow— or else there are degrees, and the man with one house would get the rough end of the stick, the man with ten houses would get the middle of the stick and the man with 2,000 houses would get the soft end of the stick. Such a practice could conceivably go further.
Before we go further in the discussion of this Bill, I must say I am struck by this interesting fact, that the Fianna Fáil expert on this Rent Restrictions Bill is like the Fianna Fáil experts on grow more wheat. It is: "Grow More Wheat on everybody's land but on that of my constituents". With Deputy O'Connor, it is: "Give everybody the length and breadth of this code of law except the fellow in whom I am interested". I am beginning to wonder if Deputy O'Connor is not coming over to my point of view—that the real effect of this code is going to be to destroy altogether the system of renting houses in this country. If not, why does Deputy O'Connor want Artisans' Dwellings Company exempted from the provisions of this code? I think we ought to tell him that he does himself less than justice in the case he has made to the Minister for special consideration for this particular company.
May I explain that I did not suggest that the houses of the Artisans' Dwellings Company should be excluded from the Bill? I suggested that the rents prevailing at present should be put on the same footing as if they were standard rents fixed by the Circuit Court. The grounds of my application to the Minister are that this company owns such a large number of houses that it would be a very serious dislocation of its business if it had to face so many thousands of applications to have rents fixed in the courts. I should have mentioned also that this company intends building further houses on the outskirts of the city. It has obtained 38 acres of freehold land which it intends to cover with houses. I think that is another matter that should get every consideration from the Minister, and I have no doubt it will.
Mr. Boland
As I understand it, what Deputy O'Connor wants is not to exclude these houses from control but to take them as Section 8 houses. The case he makes, as I understand it, is that the court that was established before the Treaty, the Arbitration Court, did fix these rents and he wants them to be taken as already having been fixed by the court rather than have them made subject to further court proceedings. I take it that is what the Deputy is asking.
Mr. Boland
I will look into this matter. All we have listened to about Mrs. Keogh is pure nonsense. Deputy Dillon has a way of illustrating things so as to amuse us. He does it very well occasionally, but there are times when he does not do it so well. It appears, however, that the court has already adjudicated on this matter in such a way that, I am given to understand, people are paying less rent than they would be entitled to pay under the 1923 Rent Restrictions Act. I am told that that is so.
Mr. Boland
I understand that they are actually charged less for their houses, as a result of Mr. Justice Creed Meredith's award, than they would be charged under the 1923 Act. What is sought is that their houses should be treated as Section 8 houses. They would prefer that rather than come in under Section 9 in order to have the whole matter considered again. I think there is a case for doing that. I will look into the matter between this and the Report Stage, notwithstanding all that Deputy Dillon has said about Mrs. Keogh.
Wait a minute. The Minister need not be quite so cavalier about this.
If the Minister thinks that there is something in Deputy O'Connor's point, will he also consider that there are similar cases which may not actually have the same circumstances applying to them, in the sense of an award being issued by a court? If those people feel aggrieved, it might be well that their grievances should be considered. There are, possibly, several building societies involved. It may be it is a wide thing to put a provision in a Bill which will exempt individuals or companies or firms from the provisions of the Act.
Mr. Boland
It would not be done that way.
It is desirable that people would be in a position to make representations because it may be that they have not quite realised the circumstances.
It is all very well for the Minister to get cavalier and jaunty——
Mr. Boland
I am not getting cavalier or jaunty. I have listened very patiently to Deputy Dillon, but I can assure him that he is not going to get away with it on this occasion.
It is all very well for the Minister to jaunt about and say that so-and-so has made representations. A very grave principle is involved here. Are we to have a system under which Deputies may get up here and say: "A certain individual in whom I am interested wants a special concession," and the Minister will reply: "I will consider giving it to him and anyone who does not like it may lump it?" Are all the people equal before the law or are they not? Is an individual big and powerful enough to bespeak a Deputy to make a special case for him——
What does Deputy Dillon mean by that?
I am not suggesting you got a fee for it.
You had better be careful about that.
Can any individual bespeak the good offices of a Deputy to come here and ask on his behalf certain exemptions from the law—the law which is applicable to everyone else? That sort of thing is wrong in principle. I do not care what are the consequences of doing the thing, but I do say that the principle is wrong. If a company or an individual has a statutory right to claim certain privileges under Section 8, let that company or that individual claim them in the way everybody claims them. I object most strenuously to any exceptional treatment being granted to any individual in this State. It is absolutely impossible for any Minister——
Mr. Boland
Who is to get exceptional treatment? This is quite in line with the Deputy's charges of jobbery. Who is doing what the Deputy suggests?
Mr. Boland
I am not going to listen to such charges.
Does the Minister want to raise a point of order?
Mr. Boland
The Deputy is saying something which is just in line with his charges of jobbery—he is trying to spread it to everything. Is he to be allowed to do these things? Is the Chair going to allow him to do it?
Is the Minister raising a point of order?
Mr. Boland
I am raising a point of order. The Deputy is suggesting that I am guilty of perpetrating jobbery on behalf of certain individuals. That is a thing that has not arisen here at all and I most strenuously object to the suggestion. It is in line with the Deputy's usual procedure. He has charged Ministers and the Government generally with being corrupt, and I protest most strongly against that.
Is that a point of order?
The Chair could not take that meaning out of what the Deputy said.
The proposal has been made that the Dublin Artisans' Dwellings Company should receive, by way of the Minister, a concession that is not available to ordinary citizens of the State. The Minister says that his information at this present stage is that the concession asked for by the Dublin Artisans' Dwellings Company would result in the tenants of their dwellings paying a rent not greater in any case and in some cases less than they would have to pay if the rents were fixed under the 1923 Act and subsequent Rent Restrictions Acts, and he says for that reason he is not going to listen to any representations about this being exceptional treatment. He says it is all nonsense to make representations of that kind. I say it is not nonsense. There is a big principle involved and I suggest that it is not proper or becoming, in the legislation of this country, on the representations of any Deputy to declare that, by amendments submitted to the Dáil, you intend to give a particular individual, however influential, a concession that is not available to every other citizen of the State. I say that that, in principle, is wrong and it should not be done.
The Minister says, in effect, that what Deputy O'Connor is asking is that the Dublin Artisans' Dwellings Company should be entitled to treat their houses as Section 8 houses. If their houses are Section 8 houses let them be so treated; but if they are not Section 8 houses, and if houses situated similarly to the houses of the Dublin Artisans' Dwellings Company are not Section 8 houses, there is no reason why an exception should be made. I know nothing about that company; I do not know who is in charge of it or what its dimensions are; I know nothing about it beyond its name. But I most emphatically reject the suggestion of the Minister that this is a matter of no consequence, that it is purely a matter of convenience. I suggest a very grave matter of principle arises and it is no reassurance to the House for the Minister to say that he has looked into this matter and no fiduciary advantage will result to the person to whom he proposes to make a legislative concession.
The principle is that all people should be equal before the law and no group of persons shall have the right to seek any prospect of success which everybody else is not entitled to enjoy. It may be that there are other landlords who have a large number of houses and who will be confronted, as a result of this legislation, with a very considerable number of lawsuits to determine what is the basic rent of the houses of which they are owners. Is there any proposal that a person having more than 12 houses is to be exempt from the ordinary provisions of the Bill?
No one asks for exemption from any provision. That matter arose earlier and I corrected the Deputy there.
Is not the Deputy asking that the Dublin Artisans' Dwellings Company, having Mr. Justice Creed Meredith's award in their pocket, will be exempt from all proceedings which might be instituted by the tenants?
I am not asking that, and I said so before. I am asking that the award of the late Mr. Justice Creed Meredith should be treated on the same footing as a decision of the Circuit Court under the 1923 Act—and the Deputy knows that.
But why should it? The late Mr. Justice Creed Meredith, so far as this House is aware, had no instruction to have regard to the standard rents paid in 1914 and he had no instruction to proceed in accordance with the terms laid down in the Rent Restrictions Act, which have been consistently adhered to in every Act which followed. Why should an in vacuo award, without any evidence the principles of the rent restrictions code, be given the sanctity of inviolability without any evidence being brought before the House that the same principles would apply to the ascertainment of a standard rent under the Creed Meredith award as applied to all other statutory rents fixed in this country? It is all very well for Deputies to say that it is merely a matter of machinery. It is a fundamental principle that all people should be equal before the law, and I must emphatically object to any amendment designed to save any individual from discharging the same obligations under this code as the rest of the community, and if the Minister does not like that, he can lump it.
Mr. Boland
The Minister does not like it and he does not propose to lump it, either. I can quite understand Deputy Dillon's reluctance to recognise anything done under the Republican Government before the Treaty, but there is a very big difference between doing something for an influential individual and recognising the award of an arbitration court set up under the First Dáil. What I resent is the continued attempt by Deputy Dillon to imply—indeed he openly makes the charge—that members of the Government are open to receive representations, with the hint of its being done for a consideration, when the fact of the matter is that there is no such proposal before the House at all. I am simply asked by Deputy O'Connor to regard an award by a Dáil Eireann court set up before the Treaty by one of my predecessors—I think as Minister for Home Affairs—as a Section 8 case, a case already settled by the courts. What I said in that connection was that I would look into it and I do intend to look into it. If I am satisfied that there are grounds for doing so, I will bring in an amendment on Report Stage to give effect to it, whether Deputy Dillon likes it or not. If he does not like it, he can do what he wants me to do.
The Dublin Artisans' Dwellings Company has been referred to and I should like to know from any of the Deputies who have spoken whether that company asked for any concession. If they have not asked, and have not made representations to Dáil members, it is very unfair that it should be made to appear that they have asked for something which is not being given to others. That company has done valuable work in the past and I should like to see the company encouraged to do it again. I suggest it should be made clear whether the company have asked for any concession or if Deputies have merely mentioned the company in passing. It is only fair that that should be made known.
I want to direct the Minister's attention to a very relevant element in this situation. When the late Mr. Justice Creed Meredith was requested by the late Mr. Stack——
Mr. Boland
As Minister for Home Affairs, which is a very important point.
When he was requested to make a rent award by the late Mr. Stack, in whatever office of State he was then occupying, between this company's tenants and itself, there is no evidence before the House, and I do not think any evidence exists, that he was directed to have regard to the basic rent payable in 1914. Once the rent restrictions code came into existence, whereunder standard rents were thereafter determined, every standard rents was determined with reference to the ascertained rents payable in 1914. If the case is made that, when the late Mr. Stack made his reference to the judge, he said: "In determining this, have regard to certain principles" and we find these principles subsequently enshrined in the Rent Restrictions Act, 1923—that is, putting the Creed Meredith award on an equal footing with all subsequent rent restrictions awards—a case can be made for this proposal, because it is merely avoiding going over exactly the same ground; but surely, in all fairness, equity and commonsense, Deputy O'Connor, on reflection, will not ask the House, if the Creed Meredith award were made on a basis entirely different from that upon which the whole rent restrictions code for the rest of the community was subsequently erected, to clothe an award made on an entirely different basis with the character of an award made under the rent restrictions code. Surely he must see that, were that to be allowed, every citizen who had not had that advantage would have a very genuine grievance. That is the point I am making, and I believe that after people's tempers have cooled down, they will realise that there is very material substance in the point.
Mr. Boland
I thought the Deputy was making a different point. He has got very reasonable now, I must say.
The Minister has the habit of flying into a rage, but——
Mr. Boland
He is not going to be browbeaten by Deputy Dillon.
——if he believes me to be making certain allegations——
Mr. Boland
I am quite certain you were.
——if he would intervene and ask, calmly and blandly: "Is this the allegation——?"
Mr. Boland
Do not get fussed. There are grounds, and when people's tempers have cooled down, they will see that if Deputy O'Connor's proposal, which may have been made in a most harmless way without full reflection, were to be accepted, and if it then transpired that what I have stated were the truth, it would be true that one individual in the State who had the advantage of directing the attention of Deputies to his particular problem and getting his problem brought forward would in fact secure an advantage which no other citizen had. That is manifestly unsound in principle.
Mr. Boland
That was never intended. Naturally, these are the very things I intend to consider. I am not going to take simply one matter. I will look into exactly what were the terms of reference, and if I am satisfied that the award should be put on the same footing as a Section 8 case, I propose to bring in an amendment to that effect. It is not I who have changed but Deputy Dillon. I am very glad to see that he has become far more reasonable
The Minister never said, in making his first case——
Mr. Boland
——that a proviso to his proposal favourably to consider this was that the terms of reference of the Creed Meredith Report were identical with those of the 1923 Rent Restrictions Act. If that be the case, there can be no argument at all, but this is the first time I have heard that said. Once that is said, a very different situation emerges.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 33:—
At the end of the section, line 33, to add the following words: "for a period not exceeding 12 months from the date on which the increase in the rateable valuation took place."
This amendment can be commended in very few words. If it is the accepted view of the House that a house over a certain valuation is not properly one which should be brought within the terms of this restrictive legislation, it seems utterly unreasonable to say that, simply because for some administrative reason, or because the nature of the House was different when this legislation was passed from what it is now, it was caught by this legislation and therefore must be for ever caught. The whole reason why we have chosen the arbitrary figure of a £60 valuation is that it is felt that a person living in a house over £60 valuation is in an income group where it is unlikely that he will require protection of this kind.
Now, presumably, we are dealing with a house which, by an increase of the rateable valuation, has moved up over £60—it was very close to £60 before any alteration in the rateable valuation took place—or, else, the nature of the house was completely changed. In the first case, if a minor operation of the rateable valuation was sufficient to bring it above £60, then it is one of those borderline houses which should not have come within the Bill, and it is wrong to retain it there once a rectification of the valuation has raised it above £60. Suppose a house had a valuation of £40 to-day, that someone reconstructed the whole place, that he altered its nature without actually altering the house by building two wings to it or a conservatory, and that it was subsequently valued at £80 and was re-set, am I correct in saying that, as a result of fundamental alterations which did not amount to a complete substitution of a new house, the rateable valuation has been preserved? It seems fantastic to suggest that such a house as that should be retained within the ambit of this Bill if it was not originally intended to be put there. For these reasons, I suggest that once a house has exceeded the maximum valuation referred to in the Bill——
The maximum in this section is £30.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy is moving from the lower to the higher.
I am dealing with Section 10. If my case is founded on a misunderstanding, then, of course, it falls to the ground at once. My case is that, after a reasonable period and in the event of such change in the valuation, if the house passes the statutory maximum it should drop out of the rent restrictions code and become an uncontrolled house.
Mr. Boland
What this section proposes is that if, as a result of some alterations, a house goes above the £30 valuation it will then not be liable to be treated as a chapter 2 house. The position is that if a house is in the chapter I category it remains there, and if it is in the other category it remains in that.
The chapter 2 houses are the Emergency Powers Order houses.
Mr. Boland
Yes. Those that were built after 1919 were not controlled. The other houses, built before 1919, were subject to control. The valuation in the case of Dublin houses was £30.
Before the Emergency Powers Order was made, if one had a house valued at £30, subject to rent restriction, and if the valuation lifted it up to £50, would that house not have dropped out of the rent restrictions code altogether and have become an uncontrolled house? Surely, it is reasonable to suggest that any advantages that may accrue to a landlord as a result of having his house constituted a chapter 2 house should be afforded to him because, presumably, the nature of the property has changed in the eyes of the valuer. Are we not going to have an extraordinary situation if, supposing a case goes to court in which someone will say that the valuation of a house is £37, and the court says "this is a chapter 1 house"—that it was revalued in 1946, and that £7 or £8 was put on to it, therefore, it will remain in chapter 1, although another house in the City of Dublin under £37 valuation is a chapter 2 house? Why will not the Minister allow the ordinary changes in valuation to operate as they might ordinarily be expected to do?
Mr. Boland
Because in one case there might be a very big increase in rent and in the other there might be a very big reduction. If the house fell from chapter 2 into chapter 1 it would be treated on a different basis, and the rent would be considerably reduced. If it went from chapter 1 into chapter 2, there could be an additional rent put on. What we are trying to do, as far as we can, is to prevent an undue increase in rent in the one case, and undue decrease in the converse case. I think it is very important to have that established. As regards the legal point, I am not quite certain what the position is. If a house is increased in valuation to the extent mentioned, I do not know how it would be regarded.
There is just one point that occurs to me and it is that the effect of this may be to prevent landlords from improving their houses. It might be desirable to consider whether, if a landlord does bona fide increase the amenities of his house, he should not be entitled to get the benefit of that.
Mr. Boland
He does. He gets a percentage.
It is a small percentage, one that would not make any landlord feel justified in improving his house. As a matter of principle, I do not know whether it would not be wiser perhaps to consider not putting houses from one category into another. The Minister should consider whether or not the effect of this may not be to prevent landlords from doing up their houses, adding rooms and increasing the amenities.
Mr. Boland
The landlord is allowed 8 per cent. of the cost of improvements. Would not that be an encouragement to him?
From what Deputy Dillon has said, it may operate the other way, that 8 per cent. would not be sufficient to encourage landlords to expend a considerable amount of money on their property.
Mr. Boland
He gets 8 per cent. of whatever it costs him to improve the house.
I appreciate that, but still there is the fact that in present conditions he will not get the increased rent. That may discourage him from making improvements. In present circumstances, it might be reasonable to consider this a matter of public policy. As regards the question as to what the effect would be under the old Acts, my recollection is: once a controlled house always a controlled house, until it came out under the provisions of the Act.
Mr. Boland
I think that is the position, but I am not quite certain.
Would the Minister give us his view about what Deputy Costello has said? "Once a controlled house always a controlled house" under the old Acts leads me to believe that no serious confusion did arise. Now, we have the question of a chapter I house and a chapter 2 house. Is there a danger of considerable confusion arising in ten or 15 years when there is found in chapter 1 a considerable number of houses with a valuation of £37, £33 or £40, and in chapter 2 a not inconsiderable number of houses the actual valuation of which is £24 or £26, the fact being that all those houses had begun their careers as controlled houses in the appropriate chapter, but changes of valuation moved them over, and while moving them apparently into a new status, in fact that apparent status was not appropriate to them at all inasmuch as it was not the status they occupied when the code first operated? Does the Minister think that will create confusion?
Mr. Boland
I think there will be less confusion this way, by keeping them in the category they are in. With regard to the point as to what return the landlord should get, I consider 8 per cent reasonable. I think there are amendments down to reduce that, but I think it is reasonable.
Was that 8 per cent considered in the light of present costs?
Mr. Boland
It is 8 per cent. of what it costs him.
But, relatively speaking, the costs now are very much higher. I appreciate that it is 8 per cent. of what he spends, but is that regarded as sufficient?
Mr. Boland
Well, I think so, anyway. There are people who think it is too much. I think it is reasonable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Section 10 put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (2) (b), line 2, before the word "amount" to insert the word "reasonable."
I suggest that we should take amendments Nos. 34 and 35 together. They both deal with paragraph (b).
And amendment No. 38, I think.
Mr. O'Sullivan
Well, amendment No. 34 is diametrically opposed to the point of view just expressed by Deputy Costello in connection with Section 10. The House will appreciate that the usual relations between landlord and tenant are not of such a character that the landlord is to be found tumbling over himself to do certain repairs in the house. In this particular case, having regard to the terms of Section 11, where you are dealing with the question of lawful additions, the question of the repairs to be executed carries a significance because of the consideration which has to be granted under the latter portion of paragraph (b), that is that he is to be allowed an amount up to 8 per cent. for the repairs. Therefore, I am suggesting that before the word "expended" the tenant's interest should be safeguarded by inserting the word "reasonable". Here again may I submit to the House that 8 per cent. is entirely too high, and I should like to have pointed out how it is that, under current conditions, the Minister introduces a consideration of that particular character.
We can consider amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 38 all together. There are also two amendments on the Order Paper, I think in the name of Deputy Dockrell, amendments Nos. 36a and 36b, which might be considered now.
I think it is better to dispose of the paragraphs. Amendment No. 36 ought to be considered probably with mine, because they are going in opposite directions, but I suggest that we should dispose of paragraph (b) before we get down to the other sections.
That brings in amendments Nos. 34 and 35.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 38 are cognate.
I do not know that Deputy Martin O'Sullivan could have thought of a worse word to put into a Rent Restrictions Bill than the word "reasonable". Whatever there is in this Bill, there is nothing about it that would be reasonable. The insertion of that word cannot possibly do any good, and may possibly cause considerable confusion in the courts.
Mr. Boland
There was a lengthy debate in the House of Lords recently on that very word "reasonable".
I am amused to observe the reaction of the professional lawyer to the word "reasonable". I have always regarded the word "reasonable" as the citadel of the judiciary. If you could persuade the Minister to put the word "reasonable" into a Bill, you had opening before you endless vistas of habeas corpus, quo warranto, and 101 other applications to the court, all founded on the thesis that what the Minister had done was unreasonable. Most of them woke up to the awkwardness of that word “reasonable” as the little man's key to the law courts. Once you take it out of the statutes, my apprehension is that you put the little man out of reach of the judge who could stand between him and the other fellow, no matter how powerful the other fellow might be.
Then you will have him in the courts all the time.
I am not so sure. I should like the opinion of lawyers who have had experience of this kind of procedure as to whether the word "reasonable" here will benefit the tenant; whether it will be the tenant's access to the courts to determine whether improvements or works done by the landlord are not placing on the tenant a heavy burden. It may be that the word here would not so operate. If it would, then I think we ought to be careful about excluding it. If it would not, then I agree it is a word which is pregnant with litigation, but none the worse for that in certain circumstances. Litigation is the safeguard of the little man. It is the only means he has of fighting the big fellow, whether the administrative State or a powerful corporation.
As Deputy Dillon has, so to speak, thrown down a challenge to the legal profession on the word "reasonable", I suppose I must explain my point of view on it. I confess that I like the word "reasonable". I make a lot of money out of the word "reasonable", but it is mostly in connection with juries who are supposed to be the test by means of which you ascertain what is and what is not "reasonable". I think there is something to be said for the idea at the back of this amendment by Deputy Martin O'Sullivan. I think, if the paragraph of the sub-section were drafted as he proposes to draft it, it would be perhaps extremely difficult of construction and of application, but, as I understand what he is at, it is this: that the landlord cannot come in and put a few dabs of paint on the gate or a few pieces of wallpaper on the front room, and then say: "I have spent £4 on this. I want 8 per cent. of my £4". What he wants is that there should be some sort of standard by reference to which the improvements or structural alterations should be ascertained, and that it should not be merely trivial repairs that would qualify for the percentage here. I do not know whether I have misunderstood the meaning of the Deputy's amendment, but from that point of view there is something to be said for the use of the word "reasonable", that is to say that before the landlord becomes entitled to this increase he must have done some substantial or reasonably substantial repairs, or some repairs which, having regard to the nature and condition of the premises, are reasonable in the circumstances. I think that is what is at the back of the Deputy's amendment, and there is something to be said for it. With regard to his 4 per cent., I do not think it is fair to the landlord nor do I think it would be proper to reduce the amount, for the reason I have stated, that I think is desirable that the landlord should be required to improve either structurally or decoratively the premises which are controlled by these Acts. I am afraid that the effect of this legislation will be to stereotype the position not merely as regards possession but as regards the care which a landlord will take of his premises. He will expend only the minimum on the premises unless there is an inducement to him to put the premises into a reasonable decorative and structural repair. From my own point of view, putting that view in favour of the landlord's right to get 8 per cent., I think it might be possible to require that before he got that percentage he should show that the amount of the repairs or the nature of the decorative or structural alterations that had been effected were reasonably or fairly substantial.
Mr. Boland
I think that the point which Deputy O'Sullivan has tried to cover is already covered in Section 20, sub-section (5). The sub-section states:—
"(5) At any time after the expiry of a notice under paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section increasing the rent of any controlled premises by an amount consisting of or including any sum in respect of the matters mentioned in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 11, or paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 17, of this Act, the court may, on the application of the tenant, if satisfied that the expenditure (in so far as it is applicable to any of the said matters) in respect of which the notice was served was not incurred or was unnecessary in whole or in part, disallow or reduce the increase accordingly, as from such date (whether before the date of the application or otherwise) as the court thinks fit."'
I think the point is covered there and we have not found it necessary to use the litigious word "reasonably".
Does not this point arise? If the Minister is putting a new mantelpiece into his house, he will seek the keenest quotation he can to get the work efficiently done, but supposing I am going to get 8 per cent. out of the money spent on repairs, and that I am a man in business owning 20 or 30 houses in the town, would it not be worth my while to set up my brother as a contractor so that, whereas a mantelpiece might cost £7 if put in by an ordinary contractor, I would arrange to get my brother to put one in each house for £10? In that way, over a whole range of houses, I could add 12 or 15 per cent. to the ordinary cost. It might run into a total of £200 and I could thus secure for myself an annual income of £16 in excess of the sum to which I am entitled. Has such a tendency ever manifested itself in the past and, if it has, has there been any need of checking up to see that the charges made for necessary repairs were fair and equitable and were not the result of collusion between the landlord and a nominal contractor whose principal function was to inflate the cost for the purpose of misleading the court?
Mr. Boland
The provision which I read out has been in existence since the 1923 Act and so far as I can gather there was never any trouble in regard to it; it worked very well. I do not think there is any danger of a development such as Deputy Dillon visualises. We are simply re-enacting it in this Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In regard to amendment No. 35, perhaps the Minister would give us some explanation as to why 8 per cent. was fixed as the allowance for repairs? What standard has he followed in fixing that figure having regard to interest charges at present? I understand that court interest charges are generally 4 per cent.
Mr. Boland
Practically all landlords are protesting that the allowance is too little. I have got more complaints as to the inadequacy of the allowance than otherwise.
It contains a capital element.
Mr. Boland
I took 8 per cent. which was the proportion allowed under the 1923 Act. We have one section in the House saying that that is too much and another section saying it is too little. Seeing that I have taken a figure in between, I think it must be reasonable enough.
I think that Deputy O'Sullivan may possibly be easier in his mind if he realises that you are doing something in reference to a particular species of property which is not being done in reference to any other kind of property. You are preventing a man by this Bill from using his property in the way he might wish to use it. I am sure Deputies have read the Minority Report of the late Mr. Herlihy, a member of the last Town Tenants' Tribunal, in which he stated that if a man owns a wheelbarrow he can do what he likes with it—sell it, break it up or burn it—but if he owns a house within certain limits of valuation he cannot do what he likes with it. That is an element that has to be taken into account in justice to the man whose property is being interfered with for the public good.
Is it not true that it is wrong to regard current interest rates as the standard when fixing this allowance because there is a capital element to be considered? Property is constantly depreciating and unless there is some fund built up during the period of depreciation to allow for that you will simply bankrupt the landlord. This is not 8 per cent. interest. It is a sum of 8 per cent. consisting partly of interest and partly of capital repayment.
Amendment not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:—
In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (d), lines 16 to 25, inclusive.
On this amendment, I want to direct the Minister's attention to the fact that under the Order of 1941, and under the provisions of this Bill in so far as they relate to non-1923 premises, the landlord is not entitled to compensation for repairs. I am suggesting the deletion of this paragraph to bring the 1923 houses into line in the Order of 1941 and the provisions of this Bill.
I think there is something in the point made by Deputy O'Sullivan. If the landlord is entitled to claim for repairs the tenant should also be entitled to claim for repairs when carried out by him. As the matter stands, tenants of the non-1923 Act houses are not liable for such claims, and why should the tenants of the 1923 Act houses be liable?
I am proposing an increased allowance, and I consider it is a very modest increase. We may as well be honest with ourselves. I think nobody can contend that the landlord is getting a fair deal considering what has happened since 1920. He is now assessed on five-fourths of his valuation under Schedule A, and his income-tax has also been increased. When you consider that at the same time the cost of living has gone up or that the purchasing power of the £ has gone down—I do not mind which way you look at it—I think we are fast approaching the time when houses to rent will be a disappearing commodity in this State, except when built by a local authority, or by philanthropic societies. I am merely suggesting to the Minister that it is a small concession to the landlord and that he might grant it.
Mr. Boland
One of these amendments is the opposite to the other, one wanting to increase the amount, and the other wanting to do away with it altogether. I think the least the landlord is entitled to is what he is getting already, one-twelfth of the basic rent, or 10 per cent. of the old standard rent, where he is liable for all the repairs and one-twenty-fourth where the tenant is liable for some of them. There is some allowance for the increased cost of repairs compared with 1914. I think that it is not over generous. The Deputy wants to increase the amount to 20 per cent.
The increase should be uniform.
Mr. Boland
That was considered at the time. This gives some return, and I am not going to make any change. I am not prepared to increase or decrease the amount.
The Minister says that Deputy O'Sullivan proposes a decrease, and that Deputy Dockrell proposes an increase. He cannot play off in that way, seeing that he is Minister for Justice. I do not think the Minister can look at the figures and then say that justice is being done. It is very easy to say "a plague on both your houses". I suggest to the Minister that under no standard is this justice.
Mr. Boland
That could be said about many things.
Deputy O'Connor was able to prove to the House yesterday the cost of building since 1914, and the Minister accepted it—that from 7th May, 1941, the cost has been such that a house could not be let at a rent which would adequately remunerate the owner for the money spent on it. The same argument has coerced the Minister into the belief that reconstruction of premises, apart from building, cannot be done except in such a way as will enable the owners to get an adequate return. Notwithstanding all that, they are going to be remunerated on a fixed percentage of something which is the basic rent. I do not know if Deputy O'Connor has views on that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 36a and 36b not moved.
I move amendment No. 37:—
In sub-section (2) (f), line 34, before the word "expended" to insert the word "lawfully".
This follows from the line which contained the word "reasonable", on which we had an interesting dissertation from Deputy Costello. Perhaps some of my lawyer friends would enlighten me on the difference between the word "lawfully" in this case and in the other case.
It could not be unlawful for a landlord to expend money.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 40:—
In sub-section (3), page 9, line 39, to delete the word "Act" and to insert in lieu thereof the word "Chapter".
This is a drafting amendment. It is made because of a provision in Section 70 of the other Act. A corresponding change is made here.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
I move amendment No. 41a:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 13, after the word "held" to insert the words "by the occupying tenant".
The purpose here is to ensure that it is the occupying tenant only is entitled to the concession. In other words, if a tenancy changes the new tenant would not get the benefit.
Mr. Boland
I think this amendment is unnecessary.
Mr. Dockrell
I am in the hands of the Minister.
Mr. Boland
I am advised that the amendment is unnecessary with the words "so held" in the section.
"So held" governs everything in the case of the occupying tenant.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 42, 42a and 43 not moved.
I move amendment No. 44:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—
For the purpose of this section if controlled (non-1923 Act) premises to which this section applies were at a date subsequent to the relevant date let at a lower rent than that payable by the tenant at the relevant date such lower rent shall be deemed to be the rent at which the premises were held on the relevant date.
I put down this amendment because of representations made to me by a tenant who went into premises in 1942 at £84 per annum. Recently, the landlord informed him that he proposed to raise the rent to £96, which was the amount receivable on 10th May, 1941. Assuming that the landlord thought it advisable to let the premises in 1942, I think it is unfair that he should be now entitled to raise the rent on a tenant who is only able to pay the amount agreed on then. Because the premises were let at a higher rent in 1941, the present tenant is bound to suffer ill effects as the section stands, and for that reason I suggest that the Minister might accept this amendment. It applies only in cases in which the premises were let at a lower rent than the 1941 rent. If the landlords were prepared to let their premises at a lower rent since 1941, that is their responsibility and the tenant should be given the benefit.
Mr. Boland
That would be hardly fair. I do not think that we have many cases like that. The position is generally the other way round. But, if there is a case such as that, it would be unfair to deprive the landlord of the right he has, so far, enjoyed. If this amendment were accepted, it would mean that, in a few cases, the landlord would be prevented from getting the benefit of the Emergency Order, whereas, in cases of overcharge, the landlord would be mulcted.
Suppose we amend Deputy Cosgrave's amendment by putting in the words "different rent" instead of "lower rent".
Mr. Boland
It would not make any difference.
Deputy McGilligan's suggestion is better than my amendment. It would mean that both tenant and landlord would be saved.
Mr. Boland
It would make for great uncertainty. I think it is better to leave the provision as it stands.
I think that the Minister should consider my amendment or the amended version of it suggested by Deputy McGilligan. A case of considerable hardship was brought to my notice.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy will admit that there are cases where the landlord has to put up with a reduction.
There may be but he is getting a fair rent. If a landlord was entitled to a higher rent to the extent of £12 per annum, let the premises at the lower rent in order to get a tenant and now seeks to raise the rent to the 1941 level, I think that the tenant is entitled to complain. The tenant is suffering because the landlord is hoping to put a "quick one" across him.
Can the rent be increased in a case such as that to which the Deputy refers? The landlord has made a letting.
Mr. Boland
I do not think it can. It is the rent paid at a certain date that matters.
I think it can. In this case, the house was let under the 1941 Order at £96 per annum. When that tenant left, a new tenant came in and took the house at £84. Now the landlord wants to raise the rent to the 1941 level.
Mr. Boland
As the law stands, he may not have that right. Paragraph (d) of Section 20 would, I think, prevent him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 45:—
At the end of the section to add the following new sub-section:—
In any case where the tenant of premises to which this section applies considers that the basic rent of such premises, as determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of this section, is unreasonable, it shall be competent for such tenant to make application to the court under this sub-section for a review of such basic rent and upon the hearing of such application the following provision shall apply, that is to say:—
(a) the basic rent of the premises to which this sub-section applies shall be determined by the court and shall be the rent which, in the opinion of the court, is fair and reasonable having regard to the basic rents of comparable premises to which this section applies;
(b) for the purpose of the determination by the court of the basic rent under this sub-section, the tenant shall be deemed to be responsible for the rates and the landlord shall be deemed responsible for all repairs.
This amendment seeks to deal with cases in which houses were let at an exorbitant rent on the relevant date. The Minister will appreciate that, in 1941, there was a definite shortage of houses and that a tenant was prepared to go into an uncontrolled house at a high rent. The circumstances of the tenancy were oftentimes conditioned by economic pressure. In such cases, I am asking in the amendment that the Minister permit a review and allow the court to determine what should be the lawful rent.
Mr. Boland
I could not accept this amendment at all. We control the rents by reference to a certain date. If we were to depart from that, there would be no end to litigation. Generally speaking, the tenant was satisfied with the rent on the relevant date and the case of the landlord was also covered. The only complaints we get have reference to attempts by landlords to increase the rent. It would be undesirable to reopen the question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 46:—
At the end of the section to add the following sub-section:—
(5) References in Sections 15 and 17 of this Act to the relevant date shall be construed as references to the date which is the relevant date for the purposes of this section.
The purpose of this amendment is to make quite clear that the expression "relevant date" in Sections 15 and 17 means the same thing as in Section 14.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported. Committee to sit again later.
