Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1945

Vol. 98 No. 12

Rent Restrictions Bill, 1944—Fourth and Fifth Stages.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 5, Section 2 (1), to delete lines 1 and 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:—

"the word ‘dwelling' means a house let as a separate dwelling, or a part, so let, of any house, whether or not the tenant shares with any other persons any portion thereof or any accommodation, amenity or facility in connection therewith;".

The object of this amendment is to ensure that, where there is common user of part of the house, such as a bath-room, lavatory accommodation or a kitchen, the tenants will not find themselves deprived of the protection which it has hitherto always been thought they enjoyed under the existing law. The necessity arises out of a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in England, in the case of Neale v. del Soto, which was referred to during the Committee Stage. I have considered this carefully and I think it better to give the court a direction, so that there will not be any doubt as to what the position of a tenant in such a case would be.

Mr. Cosgrave

Will that bring a flat in?

Mr. Boland

It will definitely indicate in the statute to the courts what the position is. I should think it will bring a flat in. I am advised that it will do so. The Deputy might look at the definition we have so far in the section. It merely says: "the word ‘dwelling' means a house let as a separate dwelling, or a part, so let, of any house;" and I am extending that as in the terms of this amendment. I am advised that it meets the point raised on Committee.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have here a series of amendments in the name of Deputy McGilligan. They are to Section 3, which is a fundamental section of the Bill. They might have been moved lawfully and correctly on the Committee Stage, but they certainly should not be brought for the first time before the House on the Report Stage. They are amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6. No. 3 might be regarded as going with them, but it is an amendment that can be allowed, because its main purpose is to change a date which was changed in Committee; and whatever was changed in Committee can be changed back on Report. Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are alterations to a principle, and the issues involved are so radical that the amendments cannot be allowed at this stage. No. 3 is, however, allowed.

In that connection, I might refer to another amendment by Deputy McGilligan, No. 17, in which the same question of control arises. It proposes to delete the words in Section 27 "controlled (1923 Act)". The deletion of the word "controlled" runs counter to Section 3 and would widen the scope of the Bill. As a matter of fact, it would apply the provisions of Part 3 of the Bill to all small premises, controlled or uncontrolled. However, the figures and words "1923 Act" were inserted on the Committee Stage and if Deputy McGilligan cares to move as an amendment to amendment No. 16, "that the figures and words ‘1923 Act' be deleted where they occur in amendment No. 16", he would be quite in order.

Mr. Cosgrave

On behalf of Deputy McGilligan, I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 6, Section 3 (2) (b) and (c), lines 16 and 17, to delete in each place the words and figures "7th day of May, 1941" and substitute therefor the words and figures "29th day of December, 1944".

I do not know if the Minister is aware that, by accepting the amendment on the Committee Stage, houses that have been controlled will now become decontrolled. I intended to put down an amendment myself, but Deputy McGilligan has put it down instead.

Not alone houses that were already controlled, but houses controlled under the Emergency Powers Order will be affected as a result of this section, which changes the date to 7th May, 1941, from the original date, 8th February, 1944. It will operate to decontrol such houses. Consequently, a number of people who had their rents fixed since the coming into operation of the Act will now find themselves decontrolled. I do not know whether the Minister realised that on the Committee Stage. Deputy Dillon had not any particular purpose in moving the amendment. He possibly misunderstood that the 7th May, 1941, was the date fixed in the Rent Restrictions Order, 1944, as the date on which, if houses were let, the rent would be taken as the standard. But that was not the date as from which houses built or erected, or in course of erection, or erected subsequently, would be outside the scope of the Act.

The position is that a number of tenants who had their premises controlled will be decontrolled. I do not know whether the Minister intends that, but I think it will create a certain amount of injustice. A number of tenants have made representations to me that their houses are to be decontrolled and that the Order of 1944 will be nullified by an Act which is really intended to be a continuation of it. I think the Minister should accept Deputy McGilligan's amendment, or re-insert the date in the Bill as it was originally introduced, the 8th February, 1944.

Mr. Boland

I will not do that. I think there is a fair case for decontrolling houses which were built when costs were high, under the conditions that have obtained since the emergency began or, at any rate, since 7th May, 1941. Up to that date the houses were constructed of materials the price of which had not become inflated because of war conditions, and the rents of those houses were fixed accordingly. The landlord had in mind what the cost was and what would be a fair return for the amount of money expended in the construction of the houses. After that materials and labour—perhaps not so much labour— began to cost more.

We discussed this matter on the Committee Stage. Deputy Dillon submitted an amendment to put the date back. There was a good case for it and I do not think there is any very great hardship. In my opinion there would be an injustice to the builder who was enterprising enough to build under the conditions that existed. Anyone who did that ought not to be controlled at a standard that might have been all right up to the beginning of the emergency. I think Deputy Cosgrave will admit that. We must be just to both sides and the person who was enterprising enough to spend money providing houses at a time like that ought not to be at a loss. I did all this with my eyes open. I did not know that people had benefited by the control. Even if they have benefited, I do not think there is a case for it now and they will have to put up with the consequences.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

The argument now used by the Minister is the same argument as he and Deputy Dillon used on another occasion, having regard to the costs operating around that particular time. While a good deal might be said on the side of the Minister, there is the aspect that the emergency brought a certain number of tenants up-to-date and they did have a certain protection which is now being withdrawn. That is the more serious aspect.

Mr. Boland

It is up to me to see that justice is given to both sides. If certain people benefited, they got a benefit to which they were scarcely entitled.

Mr. Cosgrave

Why did you not put it in the Order?

Mr. Boland

I do not know how many cases there are. I expect it was an oversight. I am just like every other human being. Members of the Government are fallible and possibly we overlooked the injustice to the people who were enterprising enough to build in a period such as we have passed through. If we made a mistake, which apparently we did, in not having the date indicated, the only thing to do now is to mend our hand.

Mr. Cosgrave

Will the Minister consider an amendment under which houses that have been controlled by the courts will remain controlled?

Mr. Boland

I do not think it would be fair to the people who built houses at such an unfavourable time.

Mr. Coogan

May I draw the Minister's attention to a concrete case which has had the benefit of the protection of the courts under the Order? The house was built in 1942; the valuation is in the neighbourhood of £15 and the rent is £90. The tenant took it on a short lease which is due to be terminated within the next few months. The tenant will then find himself in the position that if this legislation goes through he will be deprived of the benefit of the Order. He has had already a decision in his favour from the courts. What you are doing is to deprive that tenant entirely of benefits which have accrued to him under the Order of 1944. There is a good deal in the argument that the date should be as it was in the Order —8th February, 1944. The case I have referred to is a concrete case, recently brought to my notice.

Mr. Boland

Deputy McGilligan spoke about the adverse effect that rent restrictions will have on builders. I pointed out that it already had had that effect in the between-the-wars period. After 1919, when there was experience of control, we are aware that houses then built after, although they were not subject to control, were built more for selling than for letting. Deputy McGilligan raised that point and mentioned that by continuing control we would be likely to restrict building. Here are people who built houses and I think if we did what is now suggested it would be most unfair to them. It is too bad if some people will suffer by it but, on the other hand, they have gained something up to date, may be for a couple of years or for whatever time has elapsed since the Order was made; but strictly they were not entitled to it. Probably we made a mistake.

Mr. Hughes

Will you consider applying a new standard to the houses built after 1941?

Mr. Boland

I would not consider that now; the matter is complicated enough without that.

Mr. Hughes

It might be useful.

Mr. Boland

That is another day's work.

Amendment No. 3 put and declared lost.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 6, Section 3 (2), lines 28 and 29, to delete paragraph (f) and insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph:—

(f) business premises let for a term of years or let from year to year under a tenancy, notice to determine which must expire at the end of some year of the tenancy and be a notice of not less than six months.

I have been informed that there is a practice—it may not be a very widespread one—that where a business premises is let on a yearly tenancy the tenant may be subject to a notice of less than six months and, in fact, it does not amount to a yearly tenancy at all. This amendment will rectify that position. I think it meets the point made on the Committee Stage.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I raised that point on the Committee Stage. This refers to small traders or hucksters who occupy places on a week-to-week or a month-to-month basis. Now that the notice has been raised to six months I must say it is an improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 8.

In page 6, Section 3 (2) (g), line 32, to insert after the word "furniture" the words "or for the supply to the dwelling of heat, hot water, fuel, electricity or any other commodity or for the rendering of any services in connection with the dwelling,".

This amendment relates to a matter mentioned by Deputy Dockrell. I do not know that he made it quite as clear on Committee as it was made to me subsequently. It may have been my fault, but I did not get the point at the time. I understand that there are in the city what are called service flats in which are provided certain amenities. It was represented to me, I believe quite rightly, that in the case of these flats in which, for example, central heating is supplied, the cost of fuel became so very high that the flats were being let at a loss. Another point is that the people who take these flats are not the type of people who require the protection of the Rent Acts. I think there is a good case for the amendment. There are only a few cases of it in the city and I do not think that anyone would expect that people should be required to let their flats or houses at a loss, which I understand is the position.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I did think that the Minister——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to be hard on the Deputy, but we are on Report. The Deputy may speak once only.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I have not yet spoken, Sir, on this amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Pardon me; the Deputy is quite right. I thought the Deputy had spoken. It is my mistake.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I did expect that the Minister would indicate to us his decision to deal with the vexed question of furnished apartments on this amendment. He gave us—Deputy Coogan, Deputy Cosgrave and myself —to understand in Committee that we might withdraw our amendments and that he would give us a viewpoint on Report which would be an improvement on the Bill. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a fact of which I am sure he is aware, that there is a Bill going through the British House of Commons dealing with furnished apartments. It is a short Bill of 12 clauses; the most important of which deals with the setting up of a tribunal to which people who have these furnished apartments may appeal to get a fair rent fixed or to get a reduction in the rent. I should like to know if the Minister is still adamant, if he is still in the same position as that in which he was on the Committee Stage, or if he has anything to offer which would bring about an easement of this tremendously important and vexed question in relation to Dublin City.

Mr. Boland

I have gone very carefully into the whole question and I am satisfied that, if this problem is to be dealt with, it would best be dealt with in a separate Bill. I have not yet made up my mind whether it is necessary or not, but if I am satisfied that it is, I can deal with it in a separate Bill rather than in a Rent Restrictions Bill. The British have Rent Restrictions Acts, but this is a separate Bill.

Amendment put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

With regard to amendment No. 9, in the name of the Minister, I would remind those Deputies who have tabled amendments Nos. 10 and 11 that these amendments might be debated on amendment No. 9. In fact they might consider amendment No. 9 as covering them, because if that amendment is carried, amendments Nos. 10 and 11 cannot be moved. They can, however, be debated on amendment No. 9.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 6, Section 3 (2), to delete paragraph (h), lines 40 to 44, and insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph:—

(h) any dwelling or business premises let together with land other than the site of the dwelling or business premises, if the rateable valuation of the land exceeds the lesser of the following:—

(i) half the rateable valuation of the site including the building or buildings thereon, or

(ii) (I) in case the dwelling or business premises are situate in the County Borough of Dublin or the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, £10,

(II) in any other case, £5.

This deals with those cases in which land is attached to a dwelling, which were raised by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Byrne. I understand that, in the case of Dublin or Dún Laoghaire, a £10 valuation would mean about two and a half acres. We made inquiries of the Valuation Office and were given to understand that about £4 an acre is the amount at which land would be rated, which would represent about two and a half acres in Dublin. I think the figure of £10 set down in the amendment is high enough, because if you go any higher, you are getting near to an agricultural holding. In rural areas the average is 10/- to 15/- per acre so that the limit of £5 would represent from seven to ten acres. I think the amendment should meet Deputy Byrne and Deputy Cosgrave.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am opposed to this amendment. I do not know if the Minister realises that it will decontrol some houses which have been controlled since the 1923 Act. It is bad enough that houses which were controlled by the 1944 Emergency Powers Order should be decontrolled, but, under the 1923 Act, if any premises built before 2nd April, 1919, which were situated in Dublin and of which the poor law valuation did not exceed £30 and any premises situated elsewhere, the poor law valuation of which did not exceed £25, were let with land, they were controlled if the rateable valuation of the land was one-quarter the valuation of the house. A quarter of £60 is £15 and a quarter of £40 in respect of premises outside Dublin is £10. I understand that that worked out approximately that a house inside Dublin with a valuation of £30 was protected, even though let with land, provided that the rateable valuation of the land did not exceed £7 10s. 0d., but, outside Dublin, if the poor law valuation was £25, it amounted to £6 5s. 0d. By this amendment, the Minister is reducing the amount in Dublin to £10, and outside Dublin, to £5, which will in both cases decontrol houses which have been controlled since 1923.

Whatever case can be made in respect of houses dealt with by Emergency Powers Order for the past couple of years, there is no case for this, because serious hardship will arise, and I suggest that the Minister should accept the amendment in my name and that of Deputy M. O'Sullivan, which reads:—

In page 6, Section 3 (2) (h), line 43, to delete the words "one quarter" and substitute therefor the words "one half" and at the end of the paragraph, line 44, to add the following words:—

"provided that the Poor Law Valuation of the said land shall not exceed:—

(1) in the case of premises situated in the County Borough of Dublin or the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, £15;

(2) in any other case, £10;

and provided further that the tenancy comprising the dwelling or business premises with the said land is not a tenancy to which the Land Acts apply."

On that basis, there is no danger of the Bill covering premises to which the Land Acts apply. It complies with the amount in the Bill of £60 in the County Borough of Dublin and Borough of Dún Laoghaire and £40 elsewhere. Certainly whatever objection there is to our amendment, there is a far more serious objection to the Minister's amendment in that it decontrols houses which have been controlled for over 20 years.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I support Deputy Cosgrave's point of view. The Minister, on the last occasion, did, as a matter of fact, indicate—I think Deputy Cosgrave was supported by Deputy O'Connor on the point—that Deputy Cosgrave's amendment was reasonable. What Deputy Cosgrave says is absolutely correct. In the 1923 Act, the figures were £30 in Dublin and £25 outside Dublin and what the Minister is now doing, inadvertently, I am sure, is giving an advantage inside Dublin, where the old quarter basis applied, that is, £7 10s. as against £6 5s. outside Dublin. The figure now proposed by the Minister is £10 for the city, which is an advance of £2 10s. and £5 outside the city, which will remove protection from quite a number of people, particularly in urban areas. May I make an appeal to the Minister, on behalf of members who have taken an interest in this Bill, and who gave it a comparatively easy passage on the Committee Stage, to surrender to our point of view on this question, because we know that, as a matter of fact, hardship will follow if the Minister's figures stand. I suggest, if he does not accept the figures mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave, that he might leave the Dublin figure at £10 and bring the figures appertaining to urban areas to £6 10s. or £7. That would ensure protection and would cover such cases.

Mr. Boland

If I accepted £15 for Dublin and £10 in the other cases?

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment would then read——

Mr. Boland

As altered, paragraph (1) would read:—

"In case the dwelling or business premises are situated in the County Borough of Dublin or the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, £15;

In any other case, £10."

Mr. Byrne

I was tempted to put in my amendment, because, as the Bill stood, a total of £26 was possible I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister has gone a good way towards meeting me and I am thankful.

Amendment No. 9, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 12:—

In page 8, before Section 8 (2), to insert the following new sub-section:—

(2) This section also applies to controlled (1923 Act) premises in respect of which evidence is forthcoming of both the following facts:—

(a) that the standard rent of the premises was, before the operative date, the subject of an arbitration award, and

(b) the amount of the standard rent.

This is the case we had all the trouble about, on which Deputy Dillon held forth. It provides for a case where an award was made by an arbitrator appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs under Dáil Eireann. The object of the amendment is to bring the within Section 8. I have examined the case and I think there is no reason why this should not be done.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is that the only case, or are there any other arbitration awards?

Mr. Boland

We know of no other.

Mr. Cosgrave

If there are others, this will cover them?

Mr. Boland

If there are any, this will cover them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 13:—

In page 9, Section 11, to delete in lines 3, 4 and 5 the words and figures "or the amount of any grant under Section 5 of the Housing and Labourers Act, 1937 (No. 42 of 1937)"; to delete in lines 9 and 10 the words and figures "excluding the amount of any grant under Section 5 of the Housing and Labourers Act, 1937", and to insert before sub-section (3) the following new sub-section:—

() For the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section, the amount of any grant under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1944, as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment, shall not be reckoned as part of any amount expended on any improvement, structural alteration or repairs to which that sub-section applies.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 14:—

In page 12, Section 17, to delete in lines 12, 13 and 14 the words and figures "or the amount of any grant under Section 5 of the Housing and Labourers Act, 1937 (No. 42 of 1937)"; to delete in lines 18, 19 and 20 the words and figures in brackets "(excluding the amount of any grant under Section 5 of the Housing and Labourers Act, 1937)"; and to insert before sub-section (3) the following new sub-section:—

() For the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section, the amount of any grant under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1944, as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment, shall not be reckoned as part of any amount expended on any improvement, structural alteration or repairs to which that sub-section applies.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

Amendments Nos. 15, 18, and 20 are drafting amendments. The references to "provisional rent" are no longer appropriate in view of Section 29, under which the justice will determine the lawful rent—not the provisional rent. I am deleting the reference to "provisional rent" in these amendments. I move amendment No. 15:—

In page 16, Section 27, to delete lines 33 to 35.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 16:—

In page 16, Section 27, to delete lines 36 to 38 and insert in lieu thereof the following:—

the expression "small premises" means premises being—

(a) controlled (1923 Act) premises situate in an appointed area which is a county borough or the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, the rateable valuation whereof does not exceed ten pounds, or

(b) controlled (1923 Act) premises situate in any other appointed area, the rateable valuation whereof does not exceed such amount (not being more than ten pounds) as may be prescribed.

Deputy Coogan pointed out that there are areas where a valuation of £10 would be very high. I am taking power to prescribe the limits that will apply in any area outside the county boroughs to which Part III of the Bill may be applied.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 17 is in the name of Deputy McGilligan:—

In page 16, Section 27, line 36 to delete the words "controlled (1923 Act)".

Mr. Cosgrave

Why not apply it to controlled houses in general, and not confine it to the 1923 Act?

Mr. Boland

The reason is that there are special facilities provided in Part III for certain classes of tenants. This is something new. It is intended entirely for tenement dwellings, I think practically all tenement dwellings come under the 1923 Act, because they are older houses. I do not want to have newly built houses brought in; houses which obviously were not occupied by the type of persons mentioned, although the valuations might be low.

Amendment No. 17 not moved.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 18:—

In page 16, Section 28 (1), lines 41 and 42, to delete the words "a provisional rent for" and insert in lieu thereof the words "the lawful rent of".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 19:—

In page 17, Section 29 (1), to insert in lines 26 and 33, after the word "may", the words "subject to paragraph (d) of this sub-section", and to insert before paragraph (d) a new paragraph as follows:—

(d) in case it appears to him that the lawful rent of the premises, if determined by a provisional order, would equal or exceed the existing rent, he shall dismiss the application and cause the tenant to be informed accordingly.

This is to provide that a tenant will not have the rent increased after going to court to have the rent fixed under Part III.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 20:—

In page 17, Section 29 (1), to delete the words and brackets "(in this Part referred to as the provisional rent')" where they occur in lines 29 and 30, and lines 39 and 40.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 21:—

In page 17, to delete Section 30 (1), lines 49 to 52, and insert in lieu thereof the following new sub-section:—

(11) Where a district justice makes a provisional order in relation to any premises, he shall as soon as may be cause a copy thereof to be served on the landlord and on the tenant, which copy may, without prejudice to any other manner of service, be served in the same manner as a summons.

This deals with the form of service.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 22:—

In page 17, Section 30 (2), line 54, to delete the word "provisional" and insert in lieu thereof the word "lawful".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

On behalf of Deputy McGilligan I move amendment No. 23:—

In page 17 to add at the end of Section 30 (2), line 58, the words "but the tenant shall continue to pay the existing rent until the final determination or confirmation by the court."

I do not care much for the form of the amendment as it stands and I do not know if the Minister is acquainted with such cases. In most rent applications, where a tenant is brought up under an ejectment for not paying rent, the usual result is that the judge says he has the rent available now, and will ask "why allow these people to get into arrears"? Of course there is legal advice, and the landlord may be compelled to execute necessary repairs or some other work which requires to be done. The rent is a lever and, in many cases, it is given to a solicitor or into some safe depository like a solicitor's office, but when the case is again considered the tenant is not able to make up the arrears. As the section stands, if a tenant makes an application to the court and a provisional rent is fixed after, say, two months, the landlord has three months' time in which to make an objection. Let us suppose that after a couple of months the landlord makes an objection, the case is put into the list but, possibly, it will not come on for hearing for six months. During that time the tenant has paid the provisional rent which was fixed by the district justice. At the end of the period of six months, the case is heard, and the rent is readjusted to the original rent or to some other figure in excess of that fixed by the provisional order. The tenant in that situation is faced with the payment of a sum which he cannot afford to pay. I suggest to the Minister that this section should be amended, and that the payment of the rent under a confirmation order should date only from the making of the order. As it stands, the section will certainly cause a lot of hardship to a tenant if, say, a period of six months can elapse before his case is heard. There can certainly be a period of three months within which the landlord can make his objection. I suggest that the landlord should only be entitled to his rent as from the date of the confirmation order.

Mr. Boland

The amendment is not acceptable. The difference cannot be very much since we are providing that the tenant will not have to pay a greater rent than he has already been paying. If there does happen to be some difference between the lawful rent provisionally fixed, and the rent that is finally fixed, it certainly will not be very much. The court can make an order as to how the difference is to be paid, if that question should arise. On the other hand, if the amendment were accepted I think the tenant will probably lose because, as the Bill stands, he will get the benefit immediately of the rent that is fixed by the court. I think that in most cases tenants would lose rather than gain by the acceptance of the amendment, and that the section is much more favourable to tenants as it stands.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not think it is. Deputy McGilligan put down the amendment for the purpose of having the matter clarified.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy should remember that it is the lawful rent that is now provisionally fixed, so that the tenant will enjoy whatever remissions there may be made.

Mr. Cosgrave

But if it is adjusted at a higher rent, will not the tenant suffer?

Mr. Boland

He will not be paying more than he had been paying before he went to court. If there is a difference, it will be between what he had been paying and the lawful rent, but on the other hand he runs the chance, under the amendment, of losing the benefit of six months' reduced rent.

Mr. Cosgrave

That might amount to a fair sum.

Mr. Boland

That can only happen if the landlord sits tight and takes time about it. I think the section, as it stands, is much better for the tenant. The acceptance of the amendment would be of no benefit whatever to him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 24:—

In page 18, Section 31 (1), to delete in line 7 the words "or his agent".

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 21. It proposes to delete the words "or his agent". That refers to the serving of notice on the agent. These words are considered unnecessary because provision with regard to serving notice is already made in the Court Rules. The draftsman is of opinion that there is no need for the insertion of these words when the matter is already covered in the Court Rules.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 25:—

In page 19, Section 32 (1), line 2, to delete the words "or his agent", and in sub-section (2), line 19, to insert after the word "served" the words and brackets "(in a manner authorised for the service of a copy of a provisional order under Section 30 of this Act)", and to delete the words "or his agent".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 26:—

In page 20, Section 37 (1), to delete lines 20, 21 and 22 and insert in lieu thereof the following:—

Subject to sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section, an order for the recovery of possession of controlled premises shall not be made unless the court considers it reasonable to make the order and—.

We had a long debate on the Committee Stage as to the position which the words "unless the court considers it reasonable to make the order and" should occupy in the section. The draftsman agrees that it would be better to insert them at the beginning of the section. Deputy McGilligan suggested that on the Committee Stage, and that is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Byrne

I think that the insertion of the words quoted by the Minister would make it too easy for controlled premises to be taken over from an existing tenant without alternative accommodation being provided. For instance, if a case relating to controlled premises goes to court and the landlord states that he wants the premises for his own use, for some one in his employment, or for some relative, what is going to happen?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is speaking to the next amendment. He can raise the point that he is making now on amendment No. 27.

Mr. Everett

The Minister promised, on the Committee Stage, to introduce an amendment dealing with this particular point referred to by Deputy Byrne.

An Ceann Comhairle

That arises on the next amendment, on which the Deputy will have an opportunity of speaking.

Mr. Boland

Amendment No. 27 deals with the overriding provision that the court must be satisfied that it is reasonable to make the order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The purpose of amendment No. 26 is to put the words "subject to sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section", and so on, at the beginning rather than at the end of the section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 27:—

In page 20, Section 37 (1), to delete paragraph (e), lines 43 to 51, and insert in lieu thereof the following new paragraph:—

(e) in the case of a dwelling—

(i) the dwelling is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any person bona fide residing or to reside with him, and either—

(I) in the opinion of the court greater hardship would, owing to the special circumstances of the case, be caused by refusing the order for possession than by granting it, or

(II) the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available, or

(ii) the dwelling is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for some person in his whole time employment of some tenant from him, and the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available, or.

Paragraph (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 provides that, in the case of a dwelling, the landlord may recover possession if he reasonably requires the premises for occupation as a residence for himself or for any person bona-fide residing or to reside with him or for some person in his whole-time employment or in the whole-time employment of some tenant from him, provided that the court considers that it would be a greater hardship to refuse the landlord possession than to allow the tenant to remain. The overriding provision that the court must consider it reasonable to make an order for possession applies also.

Paragraph (e) was the subject of a keen debate on Committee Stage and I undertook to reconsider the paragraph in the light of what was said on that occasion. I am now proposing in this amendment to substitute a new paragraph (e) which, I think, represents a considerable improvement on the existing draft and is fairer to both landlords and tenants. The proposed new paragraph distinguishes between the case in which the landlord requires possession for himself or for some person bona-fide residing or to reside with him and the case in which he requires possession for an employee of his own or of a tenant of his. In the former class of case it would seem reasonable to provide that the landlord should be entitled to get possession when he is able to satisfy the court that it would be a greater hardship to refuse him possession than to allow the tenant to remain on, or, alternatively, that other accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available for the tenant. For the landlord to be able to satisfy the court on either point should be sufficient. On the other hand, where possession is required for an employee, the landlord should be required to show that suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant. The “greater hardship” clause should not operate in this class of case.

The amendment has been drafted accordingly on these lines and, as I have stated, I think that it is a distinct improvement on the present paragraph (e). In the case where the landlord wants the premises for an employee, he should be able to show that there was alternative accommodation for the occupying tenant.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

That was not covered before.

Mr. Boland

That was not covered before.

Mr. Everett

The amendment does not cover the point in regard to children.

Mr. Boland

I have gone into that matter and, although in the meantime I have received an agreement which provided for adults only, nevertheless I am still advised by the Attorney-General that in his opinion at any rate that is unenforceable and I have done nothing. Of course, I undertook to consider the matter but I did not see that I could do anything and I took it that if Deputies were not satisfied with my amendment they themselves would put down an amendment. I did not see how I could cover that point.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is it clearly understood that even if there is a covenant in the agreement, it is unenforceable?

Mr. Boland

That is the advice I have received—that it is unenforceable.

Of course, the courts may hold that it is enforceable but I am definitely advised by the Attorney-General that it is unenforceable and I accept that. I said before that we looked everywhere—Deputy Coogan said we went east instead of going west—for such cases. I suppose the debate drew attention to it and we did see such an agreement.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There was some angry correspondence in the Evening Mail about it.

Mr. Everett

In respect of the particular case sent to the Minister, the agreement was enforced.

Mr. Boland

By the courts?

Mr. Everett

The tenant had to vacate the house. He went out.

Mr. Boland

The tenant went out. If people make an agreement and feel in honour bound to abide by it, they will go out, but what I mean by "unenforceable" is that if the case goes to court the court will not enforce it.

Mr. Everett

Every tenant is not in a position to fight the landlord in court.

Mr. Boland

The court is there and the people have the right to avail themselves of it but we cannot make them.

Mr. Everett

I hope the aggrieved tenants will read the Minister's statement, which I hope will get publicity, and that they will fight these landlords.

Mr. Byrne

I wish to make the point —this is possibly the only chance I will have—that we are making it easy for owners of property who want possession of premises for the purpose of sale to give notice to quit to two or three tenants occupying a large house and not provide them with alternative accommodation, as is the Minister's intention. By being able to say he wants the premises for an employee, the landlord may get judgment for possession. There is no time limit provided; he does not have to state the length of time for which he wants the premises for the employee. He may use that provision as a lever to get the tenants out and then may bring in a friend or relative and accommodate them for a month or two. At the end of that time he may proceed with a plan of converting the private house into business premises and sell the premises at a handsome profit. I suggest a time limit. If tenants are to be put out of their flats or their houses and if that house is subsequently converted into a business premises, will the Minister provide some period of time during which the premises cannot be converted into business premises unless the tenants are given adequate compensation and provided with alternative accommodation as set out in the Bill?

In Dublin one meets numbers of people who have received notices to quite because the premises are required for some private purpose of the owner and within three to six months we see the premises converted into valuable business premises. For instance, in Tara Street at the Tara Street Fire Brigade Station, a number of houses have been allowed to get into a certain degree of decay; then the owner comes along and gives notice to quit on the grounds that the premises are not in good order and, in the course of a couple of months, he sells the premises at a fabulous price for conversion into business premises. That has happened in connection with premises beside the Tara Street baths and along Sir John Rogerson's Quay.

What I want to secure is that in connection with houses which are let as tenements or flats in thickly populated areas, if the owner wants to convert them into business premises he should be forced to pay adequate compensation and provide alternative accommodation. If tenants are put out of premises which are then converted into valuable business premises such as a coalyard or a cement store— I mention these deliberately because of the cases I have in mind—the tenants should be provided with accommodation by the owner who is improving his property and we ought not to make it too easy for landlords to get possession for the purpose of sale.

The Minister knows that house property is worth two and a half times its value if clear possession can be obtained. I want to secure that it will not be made too easy to put people out of their homes when they have no alternative accommodation. I have in mind more than business concerns. I have in mind the Irish Tourist Board, who may have to put people out of their homes and do not provide accommodation for them, although they are creating a public amenity.

Mr. O'Connor

Have they put anybody out of their homes yet?

Mr. Byrne

No.

Mr. O'Connor

Wait till they do.

Mr. Byrne

I have in mind the area which the Deputy represents. The Minister for Local Government threatens to put 12 people out of Santry Court. That is a Government Order—12 people evicted from their homes in Santry and the Minister is not providing accommodation for them. Deputy O'Sullivan when he was Lord Mayor and Deputy Doyle have had experience of people coming to them in hundreds asking them to get accommodation for them, which they could not do, and yet the Government are evicting men out of married quarters.

An Ceann Comhairle

Now, Deputy, on the amendment.

Mr. Byrne

I am trying to show that while there are restrictions on private owners, there are no restrictions on public authorities.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise.

Mr. Byrne

No, but I am asking the Minister, can he not include them.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is going outside the matter before the House.

Mr. Byrne

I should like to go much further.

An Ceann Comhairle

No doubt.

Mr. Byrne

There are too many people being put out of their homes and it is made too easy for others to get them out without giving them alternative accommodation. Knowing the conditions in Dublin, I ask the Minister to do everything possible to protect them.

Mr. Boland

I am making it more difficult in this amendment than it has been.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 28:—

In page 21, Section 37 (1), to delete lines 10 and 11.

This amendment was covered by a previous amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

On behalf of Deputy McGilligan, I move amendment No. 29:—

In page 22, Section 40 (4) (b), lines 42-43, to delete the words "without the consent in writing of the landlord".

I do not know whether the Minister is aware or not, but in England the general tendency is that the proviso, "without the consent in writing of the landlord", is ignored by the courts because the consent in writing really means nothing. If the tenant assigns the premises, even with the written consent of the landlord, subsequently, if the landlord takes proceedings to get the tenant out for breach of agreement, the courts in England have held that the phrase, "without the consent in writing of the landlord", does not mean anything. They have given the landlord control of the premises. In other words, they have evicted the tenant. If the Minister does not see his way to accept the amendment, perhaps he would adopt the provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, in which it is set out that "such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld". That would cover, this type of case. The courts have held that the phrase in the Bill does not mean anything. There is no advantage in having a provision as to the written consent of the landlord if that provision can be got over by the landlord.

Mr. Boland

I am prepared to accept amendment No. 30, but not amendment No. 29.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is amendment No. 30 with which I am concerned.

Amendment No. 29, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 30:—

In page 22, Section 40 (4) (b), lines 42 and 43, to add after the word "landlord" the words "which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 31:—

In page 23, Section 46, to delete lines 44 to 46, and insert in lieu thereof the following words:—"powers under any enactment for the time being in force or under any scheme made under any such enactment".

Section 46 of the Bill provides that the restrictions which Part IV imposes on the landlord's right to recover possession shall not prevent a local authority from obtaining possession of any premises which they require for the purpose of exercising their powers under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts or under the Labourers Acts or under any scheme made under those Acts. On the Committee Stage, Deputy Martin O'Sullivan proposed that the section should also include a saving for a local authority's powers under the Public Health Acts. I have had the matter further examined and it is now thought better not to mention any specific enactments but to have the saving framed in the more general and comprehensive terms which the amendment proposes. This will have the advantage that the saving will apply to the powers of a local authority under any Act that may be enacted hereafter. It was thought better not to mention any specific enactment but to use the more comprehensive terms of the amendment.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

The matter is covered by the phrase in the amendment "any such enactment".

Mr. Boland

Yes. The matter might be affected by a later enactment which this phraseology will cover.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 32 not moved.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 33:—

In page 26, Section 54 (1) to insert in paragraph (a), line 4, after the words "controlled premises" the words "or any class of controlled premises".

This section deals with the regulations to be made by the Minister as to the supply of rent-books. The Bill provides that the Minister may make regulations for the supply of rent-books in a form prescribed in the regulations by landlords of controlled premises to the tenants of such premises. To ensure that all classes of controlled premises will be covered, I move the insertion of the words: "or any class of controlled premises".

Mr. Boland

I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 34:—

In page 26, to insert at the end of Section 54 a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) (a) On an application by a landlord of controlled premises, the court may by order exempt the landlord from compliance with regulations relating to rent-books made under sub-section (1) of this section.

(b) An order shall not be made under this sub-section unless the court is satisfied—

(i) that the applicant has made satisfactory alternative arrangements for keeping records of payments of rent made by his tenants and for furnishing a proper receipt for each such payment, and

(ii) that, having regard to those arrangements and to all the circumstances of the case, it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to comply with the regulations.

(c) The court may attach to an order made under this sub-section such conditions as the court thinks fit to impose, including, in particular, a condition that the applicant shall furnish each tenant of controlled premises, of which he may from time to time be landlord, with such particulars, relating to the rent payable by the tenant and the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants under this Act, as are required by the regulations to be specified in rent-books.

(d) A person who fails to comply with any condition attached to an order made under this sub-section in relation to him shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall, on summary conviction thereof, be liable to a fine not exceeding £10.

On Committee Stage there was a discussion on this subject of rent-books, and, as a result, I put down this amendment. Very often, when tenants arrive at the landlord's office to pay the rent, they forget the rent-book. The result is that the landlord will not accept the rent. When the tenant has to go away and come back to the landlord, he may come back with the rent-book but without the rent. This amendment provides that the landlord must give a receipt, and if the Minister is not satisfied with the receipt given, he can compel the landlord to give the tenant a rent-book. In many cases a receipt would be more satisfactory than a rent-book, because rent-books have a habit of getting lost and tenants may not always bring them with them. If the tenants come to pay the rent, the landlord can, under my amendment, give them a receipt and jot down in the stub of the receipt-book the amount of the rent paid, so that there can be no subsequent disagreement as to whether payment was made or not.

Mr. O'Connor

I support this amendment. It does not go as far as I should like it to go but it leaves to the circuit judge the decision whether or not a landlord should be exempted from the provision with regard to rent-books. I think that the interests of tenants will be safeguarded by the Circuit Court and that an order will not be made by the circuit judge granting the exemption unless he is satisfied that the receipts the landlord is in the habit of giving to tenants will protect their interests as much as would rent-books. Those who are dealing with property should not be forced to adopt a system of rent-books if it does not suit their method of doing business.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

There was some controversy about this matter on Committee Stage. The opinion was expressed that the most suitable way of doing business as between landlord and tenant was by way of the rent-book. As regards the corporation, it is true that they give receipts but I can imagine how easy it would be for a woman to lose one of a string of loose receipts. The rent-book seems to be the firmer form in which to transact this business and, unless there is a very strong argument to the contrary, I should still favour it. That was, I think, the consensus of opinion on Committee Stage.

Mr. Boland

That is my personal view, too. However, I understand that the corporation relies on receipts. There may be cases in which the court is satisfied that suitable alternative arrangements have been made. As Deputy O'Sullivan will see, the District Court or the Circuit Court, as the case may be, will have to be satisfied that suitable alternative arrangements have been made. I cannot see that the amendment will do any harm and I am prepared to accept it. Every landlord will be compelled to provide a rent-book for a tenant unless he can satisfy the court that he has made satisfactory alternative arrangements.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Cosgrave

There are two matters to which I want to refer. Despite the arguments of the Minister, I want to refer, in the first place, to Section 3 (2) (b). I have in mind a particular set of circumstances affecting six houses, the erection of which was begun in 1936. In that year, there was a builders' strike and the work was discontinued. Nothing was done until 1942, when work was recommenced. The houses were completed at the end of 1942. These houses were substantially erected or at any rate a considerable amount of work had been done on them before 1941. The houses were completed at the end of 1942 and they were let in 1943. The tenants of these houses would not only in the normal way come within the Rent Order but also within the Rent Acts. I would suggest to the Minister he might make inquiries to ascertain if there are many such cases. I do not know how many houses this particular builder or company erected but as far as I am aware six tenants are involved. They are faced with considerable hardship which would have been prevented if the Minister had left the Bill as it originally stood. I would suggest that he might reconsider the matter.

The other sub-section dealing with statutory tenancies has been changed from its original wording. Sub-section (3) of Section 39 now reads:

On the death of the statutory tenant of controlled premises the following provisions shall have effect:

(a) in case the statutory tenant leaves him surviving his wife, who was residing with him at the time of his death, she shall be entitled to retain possession of the premises under the same terms and conditions as the deceased statutory tenant:

(b) in case the statutory tenant does not leave a wife so residing, such member of the statutory tenant's family so residing or, where there is more than one such member, such one of them as may be agreed upon between them or as may be selected by the court in default of agreement shall be entitled to retain possession as aforesaid;

In a fairly recent case Judge Davitt decided that where a deceased tenant left a wife she became entitled to the statutory tenancy on the same conditions as the original tenant enjoyed. It has not yet been decided whether, if the wife died shortly after her husband, the children would be entitled to the statutory tenancy. In fact that is a question of considerable doubt although it seems to me that if the parents died, one almost immediately after the other, it would be unfair to prevent the children enjoying the rights of the statutory tenancy. In this case the Minister provides that if the statutory tenant dies and leaves a large number of children, such one of them as may be agreed upon, or such one of them as may be selected by the court in default of an agreement, shall be entitled to retain possession, in other words to become the statutory tenant. I do not know whether it follows from that that if, say, the eldest son, either by agreement or by appointment by the court, became the statutory tenant and if he got married and eventually had children of his own, he could eject his brothers and sisters. As I read the section as it stands, it follows that he will be in a position to evict his brothers and sisters. I think the Minister should make some effort before the Bill finally passes, to introduce an amendment which will cover such cases because I am sure, instead of preventing hardship, the present provision will create hardship if, say, the eldest son of a large family—and some of them may be quite young—gets married after becoming the statutory tenant on the death of his parents and is placed in a position to evict his brothers and sisters. I would suggest that that is not the intention of the Bill and that the matter should be reconsidered. There is the other difficulty that arises where the husband dies, leaving his wife, and she dies after a short period. As the law stands at the moment, the children would not succeed as statutory tenants. I would suggest that in that case the children should become statutory tenants.

Mr. Byrne

I support the point of view put forward by Deputy Cosgrave. I dealt with this matter on the previous stage. We asked the Minister then to take steps to protect the children of tenants in cases where a father whose name is in the rent-book dies, leaving a widow and children. The widow becomes tenant but then a case might arise in which the widow might die within a very short period, leaving five or six children, the eldest of whom, perhaps, might be a girl of 18 or 20. As the law stands, that girl is not protected nor are any of her younger brothers or sisters who are left in her charge. I understood from the Minister that he would take steps to give them protection. Then there is the other point raised by Deputy Cosgrave. It has been known to happen, unfortunately, that where an elder brother became the tenant, because it was his responsibility to see that his younger brothers and sisters were properly housed, that elder brother or elder sister, as the case may be, got married and claimed full possession of the house. In the absence of any special conditions or regulations which would establish that when he was given the tenancy, it was in order that he might provide shelter for himself and his brothers and sisters, he can claim full possession. I would ask the Minister to consider that point. I have had experience of a case quite recently of a house let by a certain authority to a certain man. There was a regulation in the terms of the letting that the tenant had to be qualified a certain way, and that if he were not so qualified, another person who was qualified should get the house. The father and mother of the family died within a short time of each other, leaving behind them a family of seven, of whom the oldest was a girl of 21. Fortunately, after five or six months' appealing to the authorities concerned, this authority, out of sympathy with the family, did arrange to provide them with a house. The girl had had five brothers and one other sister, all younger than herself, and it was just because of the sympathetic consideration given to her case by the authority concerned that they were provided with a house. I join with other speakers in suggesting that the Minister should provide that, where children are left after the death of a father or mother, no drastic action would be taken to evict them from their homes.

Mr. O'Connor

I support the remarks of Deputy Cosgrave in regard to Section 39. I suggest to the Minister that the position which will arise on the death of a tenant has not been made any more satisfactory by the Bill than it was under the 1923 Act. I consider that the amendment which I moved on the Committee Stage went a good deal further to alleviate the position where tenants might be dispossessed through a technicality. That amendment, perhaps, may have gone a little too far in the interest of the tenant, but I suggest to the Minister that there is some middle course between what is in the Bill and what was contemplated by the amendment. This Bill is intended to last only five years. It is really an emergency measure to cover the period while houses will remain scarce. It is the hope and the intention that at the end of five years there will be sufficient houses for everybody, and that less necessity for restriction of rents and other controls will then exist. Other Deputies were rather amused when I said that before. They pointed out that the 1923 Act had been renewed every year for 20 years. We, however, must take this Bill as we find it and it is to operate for five years only. I suggest to the Minister that every possible effort should be made to provide that, during those five years, no owner of a premises can get possession on the death of a tenant and, owing to some technicality or defect in the Bill, put out members of a family of the tenant who may not come within the cases provided for in this section.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

On the Committee Stage I drew the Minister's attention to the question of the provision of costs for the tenant, in certain circumstances, in the Circuit Court. Part III of the Bill dealt with that provision, but I pointed out that it was possible for the landlord to take the initiative under some portion of the Act outside of Part III. In that way, the beneficial clauses of the Act, so far as the tenants' costs were concerned, would be vitiated. On the Report Stage, I have not heard anything from the Minister as to whether he has considered that particular question. It would be decidedly wrong if this Bill, while setting out to protect the tenants in certain cases, left a loophole by which the beneficial clauses could be nullified.

I think Section 39 is perhaps one of the main clauses of the Bill that appeal to every member of the House who is interested in this matter. It deals primarily with the question of family life, and nobody knows its effects better than the Minister him self. I think it would be correct to say that this Bill has improved the position. Hitherto, the position of the widow was obscure. The matter is now clear with regard to the husband and wife, and succession to one child. But is it quite clear that there is any further succession? For instance, if the father and mother die, leaving three girls, one of whom is selected to be the tenant of the house, is it quite clear that there is further succession when that girl dies? For the sake of the preservation of family life, and for the avoidance of any domestic trouble, I think every precaution should be taken to ensure that there would be that protection.

Mr. Boland

I cannot see how Deputy O'Connor can say that there is no improvement as regards the continuity of a statutory tenancy. As the law stood before, the succession did not extend beyond the person who first succeeded, and, as Deputy O'Sullivan has pointed out, the position of the widow was not clear. Now, it goes on to one of the children. Deputy Cosgrave apparently wants me to consider cases where the eldest of the family, a boy or a girl, gets married, and puts the others out. Surely we cannot be asked to deal with cases of that kind. It would be impossible to deal with family disputes. You cannot expect the law to deal with them. One would expect that common humanity or the fraternal feelings of the family ought to be sufficient to prevent anything of that kind.

With regard to the first point raised by Deputy Cosgrave on the Report Stage, I am satisfied that it would not be fair to control houses built after 7th May, 1941. There may be, as he mentioned, a few cases, but they would be very rare indeed. Even if the houses were finished in 1942, you will find that there was greater expense on the builder even in providing material to finish the houses than there would have been before. I considered that matter very well, and it was discussed here in Committee, but I am not prepared to change that. I think that is only fair, because it would be too discouraging to anyone who built houses under present conditions if we were to extend control to houses built during that period of the scarcity and dearness of supplies.

Mr. Cosgrave

I just want to ask one question about the statutory tenancy. I think the Minister is not quite clear on the provision there. If the husband is the statutory tenant, and he dies, the widow becomes the statutory tenant. If she dies shortly after the husband, the children are not provided for. They do not become statutory tenants.

Mr. Boland

Surely, whichever of them the court selects will become the statutory tenant. Clause (b) says that "such one of them as may be agreed upon between them or as may be selected by the court in default of agreement" will become the statutory tenant.

Mr. Cosgrave

It says: "in case the statutory tenant does not leave a wife so residing, such member...", but in the case where he does leave a wife, who becomes the statutory tenant, and she dies shortly afterwards, the children are unprovided for. They do not become statutory tenants.

Mr. Boland

There may be something to be cleared up there. I will look into that again.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is something to be cleared up.

Mr. Boland

Certainly, it would be against the whole spirit of this section if such an interpretation were to be given to it.

Mr. Cosgrave

Deputy O'Connor's amendment on the Committee Stage would have covered that.

Mr. Boland

If there is any loophole there I will close it up.

Mr. Byrne

We thank the Minister for his courtesy during the whole passage of the Bill.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

He got a very easy passage.

Question put and agreed to.