Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 1946

Vol. 103 No. 2

Private Deputies' Business. - Comprehensive Fair Rent Code—Motion.

Mr. Dillon

I move:—

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, inasmuch as the Rent Restriction Code has become so complex and in many respects so inequitable and uncertain, especially in so far as it is related to rents payable in 1914, the purpose of fair rents would best be served by the substitution of a comprehensive Fair Rent Code analogous to the Land Act, 1881, and requests the Government to submit suitable legislation for this purpose.

This motion raises no very controversial matter, but, none the less, I think, directs the attention of the House to a matter of some consequence to a very large number of people. It is true that the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, removed certain ambiguities in the old legislation and reduced the opportunity for open exploitation of tenants by landlords, but it does leave the whole rent restrictions code in an utterly chaotic state, and I am informed by experienced practitioners that already it is becoming evident that the new code, created by the superimposition of the 1946 Act on the previous Acts, bids fair to produce as much or more litigation than all the previous Acts combined did in their day and that the bulk of this litigation arises not from aggrieved tenants availing of the provisions of the new Act but is made necessary in order to clarify the position created by the new Act taken in conjunction with all previous Acts.

All this code was primarily designed by the Oireachtas to prevent an undue rise in rents in a time of housing shortage, but, ancillary to that prime purpose, there was a clear intention to ensure that houses of equal quality and convenience would command approximately equal rents. The result of the code has been very much different. To ascertain the lawful rent of a house, the inquiry is not primarily related to the usefulness of the house, or to what it costs the landlord to erect or purchase it, or to the value which it represents to the tenant who pays rent for it, but to the answer to some or all of the following questions: Was it built before 1919; if so, was it let in 1914 and, if let, at what rent; if it was not let in 1914, what would it have fetched if it had been let in that year; if it was not built before 1919, was it built before 1941; if so, was it let in 1941 and, if so, at what rent; if it was not let in 1941, what rent would it have fetched if it had been let in 1941; if it was built before 1919, did it become vacant after 1926; and if it was built before 1919 and became vacant after 1926, what was the poor law valuation of the house when it was vacated?

Conceive that medley of speculation applied in a multiplicity of cases all through the country for the purpose of ascertaining what rent the tenant ought to pay now. Complex as that procedure is, if it produced a coherent result, we could bear with it, but it does not. I do not think it is much of an exaggeration to say that if you wish to inquire into what rent was actually being paid in 1914 in respect of a house in this country, you are engaging in something approximating to archaeological investigation, the answers to which are extremely undependable, and, as a result of this peculiar criterion, I am informed by experienced practitioners that, instead of ensuring that all similar houses are liable to a similar rent, it is not uncommon to find two houses side by side, virtually identical, the rent of one of which, as a result of having been let or not let at a particular rent prior to 1914, is double that of the other, although the amenity value of both is the same. That can arise.

If you have a 1914 house the rent of which is the 1914 rent, plus 20 per cent., and which is identical in all particulars with a 1941 house, under the law as it stands, it could be that, though these houses were in all particulars virtually identical, the rent of one would be £65 and of the other £110. That is not all, because, suppose you had a house in 1914 and you had a widowed sister or a relative in some part dependent on you and to help out the exiguous income of that relative, you admitted her as a tenant at little more than a nominal rent to your house, that is the basic rent upon which the rent of your house is to be controlled to-day. If you were a kindly landlord, a just man—leave out the question of a bereaved relative or anything of that kind—who felt it right to charge not more than what seemed a fair rent in 1914, you are entitled to that fair rent, plus 20 per cent., to-day. What other commodity is selling in the world in which we live at the 1914 price, plus 20 per cent.?

But if you were a bloodsucker in 1914 who sucked out of the person in a difficult situation the last penny that person could afford to pay, is your iniquity marked by the rent code as operated now? Not at all. We may indeed say, with the Scriptures, that the children of light are not as wise in their generation as the children of this world, because the child of Mammon who got the last drop he could out of his tenant 30 years ago is now congratulated, the unjust steward comes in for his commendation and is told that he did well to make friends with the Mammon of iniquity. As a result of that the law is going to ensure that he gets more in 1944 for each house than the child of light who tried to be fair and just.

Now you will have two houses side by side, one of which was owned by a rack-renting landlord and another by an honest landlord in 1914. The honest landlord is getting the rent of 1914, plus 20 per cent, and the rack-renting landlord can cock a snook at him and say: "I told you 30 years ago that you were a damn fool, and Dáil Eireann has confirmed my estimate." All this means that there is uncertainty, that there is no equality of treatment, and that there is unnecessary litigation in order to ascertain what the law ordains. Nothing is worse from the point of view of the citizen than that people should not know their rights. Nothing is worse for the community than that the people should be forced to have recourse to legal proceedings before their rights are defined. Nothing could be worse than that the operation of law should be manifestly unjust, so as to permit one landlord to charge £65 for his house and the landlord holding the house next door, identical in all particulars, should be allowed to take £110.

I therefore suggest a simple remedy. This whole rent restriction scheme, the wisdom of which many may question, has created a situation in which rent control of some kind or another has become a necessity. Without going into the merits of the whole system of rent control, if we have to have rent control, let it be a fair rent control. Let all men be equal before the law. Let every landlord get justice and no more than justice. Let every tenant get justice.

If you go to a person now who is poor and who has been called upon to pay an excessive rent and you say to that person: "No one can deny that your rent is manifestly excessive comparing it with the rents of all your neighbours and you ought to go to law to get your rights," that person can say quite truthfully and, indeed, prudently: "No one but a lunatic would go into court against a rich landlord and face the possibility of protracted litigation when the law itself is so uncertain that, if you bespeak the opinion of three lawyers, you will get three different opinions as to what the result of your litigation is likely to be."

I, therefore, suggest to the House that there should be established either in the local authority area, as is the practice in Great Britain, or in any other area that the House, in its wisdom, may think right to define, a rent tribunal for each part of the country where it appears the services of such a tribunal are necessary and before which any tenant who feels that he is being charged an unfair rent for his house can appear, and that that tribunal, having regard to the average rents paid in the neighbourhood for the same kind of accommodation, will be entitled to fix a fair rent for that particular lodging, whether it be a room or a flat or a house, whereafter the landlord will be obliged to charge that and no more.

It is unnecessary to pursue a proposal of this character into all the detail of administration at this stage, as we are concerned here to-night to consider only the principle as to whether fair rent tribunals, such as the Ashbourne Act established for the purpose of rented land in the old days, or fair rent tribunals such as the British local authorities all over England are operating, should be set up. I think they should. I think it would simplify the situation very considerably and that in a very short time you would get equitable standards fixed all over the country for particular types of houses, so that any person living in a street of small villa houses would know at once that, if all his neighbours were paying 8/- per week and he were being asked for 12/-, he was being manifestly overcharged and would go to such a tribunal and ask the tribunal to fix a fair rent.

That would work both ways. There is no need to multiply examples. I do not profess to have expert knowledge of housing and rents and landlords' agreements as some of my colleagues here have. I do not come here as a specialist to deal with specialist problems. I am concerned simply with the general principles of equity and justice as between fellow-citizens, and, to me, the fundamentally important principle that the law should be clear and available to everybody, rich and poor alike. As it stands, I think it is not clear and, in effect, it is not readily available to rich and poor alike. As it stands, I do not believe that it gives to everybody equal privileges.

As is stands, it appears to me that the landlord who was a child of light in 1914 is now severely penalised by his own Government in comparison with the child of Mammon. That appears to be unjust. The whole procedure appears to be inexpedient and for that reason I invite the Dáil, at its leisure and with due circumspection and care, to substitute for the whole complex and complicated code a simple measure designed to produce justice and equality in respect of landlords and tenants for all.

Mr. Anthony

I second the motion and reserve any further remarks for a later stage.

Mr. Moran

I notice that Deputy Dillon in this motion did not point out the means whereby he would achieve the object he set out to achieve, or did not tell us what rules he would lay down for the guidance of the court in arriving at what he wants.

The whole basis of the increase of rent code, looking at it from the tenant's point of view, and the only basis on which the lettings can be judged, is the letting value of the premises. Deputy Dillon was very careful not to mention the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1931, which deals with a very large section of buildings in this country and which controls every business house in the country. Under the 1931 Act we continued the system of letting values. Where somebody to whom the 1931 Act applies is served with a notice to quit, and there is the intention to eject him and he claims under the provisions of the 1931 Act, he comes before the Circuit Court and on what does that court base his new rent? The Circuit Court bases it on the letting value of the premises.

The necessity for the increase of rent code, prior to the passing of our last Act, arose during the first Great War. They had to start at some particular stage. They had to fix some date in respect of which they would legislate and take the letting value. They fixed the 3rd August, 1914, in order to base the standard rent on the letting value.

Presumably they fixed that date because the abuses in regard to which they were legislating had not arisen then. They went back to a date at which time lettings were normal and the abuses they were catering for had not then arisen. The landlords in the country in those days had not very much time to rush in to increase their rents. The Government decided it was a fair test to take, when letting conditions were normal.

I do not subscribe to the view expressed by Deputy Dillon, that there is such a big number of philanthropic landlords in this or in any other country. I do not believe we have such great numbers of benefactors going around building houses. I believe any of them who erected houses did so from a business point of view, in order to get as much as they could out of the houses. They let the houses to the best advantage from their own point of view. I, therefore, take it that on 3rd August, 1914, you would have comparatively normal letting conditions, with the ordinary rules of supply and demand operating. There was no particular reason why any section of landlords in 1914 would let houses at a cheaper rate to their tenants than their brethren in the business rented theirs.

The increase of rent code was based on the prevailing letting value and that code was continued down to the passing of legislation here. As Deputy Dillon well knows, the landlord must give the letting value of his premises in 1914, if the premises were let then. If the premises were not let until 1919, the landlord is bound, on the application of the tenant, to give particulars of the letting when it was first made. I think Deputy Dillon did not refer to that.

There is a difference in the position of the landlord who erected a house in 1914 and the landlord who erected a house in 1937 or 1938. The landlord who let the house in 1914 was drawing a profit from the letting down through the years and he was also entitled to various permitted increases on the 1914 rent, as the Deputy pointed out. By 1938 he had made a profit all down the years from 1914. There is also this difference, that money values were different in 1938 from what they were in 1914. The cost of building was altogether different. The individual who put up a house for letting in 1938 had a far greater outlay than he would have had in 1914.

There is a control, as the Deputy well knows, under our last Act, on the lettings of new houses—that is, houses built since 1919. Under the Act the tenant can apply to the court, and I do not see how the court can approach this problem except from the letting value point of view. The whole rating code is based on the letting value. That is the only way the rating authorities can assess the value of a particular holding—the letting value. Various things may affect the letting value.

We have gone further here than any other country in providing for what the Deputy described as the very poor tenant. The Deputy has doubts about the tenant getting fair play. Under our last Act there is a provision to the effect that the landlord may be ordered to pay the tenant's costs, even though the tenant brings the application. The whole code under the 1914 arrangement, and continued under the 1931 Act and by the last Act passed here, has been weighted in favour of the tenant. The law, as interpreted by the judges, has been weighted in favour of the tenant. The decisions of the courts invariably have been in favour of the tenant.

Mr. Dillon

How do you find out the 1914 rent if the landlord says that he does not know what it was?

Mr. Moran

If the landlord refuses to disclose the 1914 rent he can be prosecuted by the tenant. There is a special provision in the Act for that purpose, to compel him to give the information.

Mr. Dillon

How will he give it if he does not know it?

Mr. Moran

As regards the houses built in 1914, there are very few of them in which the tenants are not statutory tenants or in regard to which the provisions of Increase of Rent Acts have not been applied. There has been, as the Deputy mentioned, quite an amount of litigation under the 1914 Act as between landlords and tenants. The vast majority of those cases—90 per cent. of them—were brought not by landlords but by tenants, because the whole code is designed to protect the tenant and ensure that he gets his rights. Those powers have been invoked by every town tenants' league throughout the country. In the few years prior to the passing of the recent Act—which will give rise to more applications by tenants—all the cases we used to have in respect of houses built before 1919 in respect of standard rent had practically faded out in our courts.

Various other questions arose from time to time but very rarely during the past few years have I seen any application in such cases solely based on the question of standard rent. However, the provisions are there. In my part of the country, we have not had any experience, so far, of the operation of the Act which we recently passed, but, if I understand it correctly, it will be open to the tenant to apply to the District Court clerk in chambers—his application will, eventually, come before the district justice— simply alleging that his rent is exorbitant. The district justice is entitled, under that code, to call in a court valuer who will give evidence of the letting value, even though no test of standard or basic rent can be applied.

Mr. Dillon

Why not apply that to all houses?

Mr. Moran

It is applied to houses under the last Act passed by this House.

Mr. Dillon

Not to all houses.

Mr. Moran

Not to leases covered by the 1931 Act. The 1931 Act deals very effectively with business lettings. A very revolutionary idea is contained in the 1931 Act. A tenant may get into a house without any provision preventing him from carrying on business there. All he has to do is to put a few pigs' feet in the window, sit behind them for three years and go into the Circuit Court and, irrespective of his landlord, he can get a lease from the Circuit Court for 21 years. What the Circuit Court will do is fix a rent on the letting value. In respect of a business carried on for a period of over three years, I cannot conceive any more revolutionary provision for the protection of the tenant than that to which I have just referred. In the discretion of the court, the tenant can get a lease for up to 21 years, which will be ultimately renewed, so that the position, in these circumstances, of a man under the 1931 Act, is that he cannot be put out of his premises so long as he pays the rent fixed by the court. The landlord cannot get possession of the premises. With all this legislation to guide our people and with these provisions administered in favour of the tenants, I cannot conceive how we should proceed in order to achieve what the Deputy seems to want to achieve—if he is referring to the hardships of the tenants—under this motion.

I suggest that the Deputy has not made any case to convince us that there is any reason why we should change the basis of all this legislation as to letting value. I do not know of any fairer means which could be laid down as a test by the court than letting value. If you leave out the letting value, I do not know how you could fix the rent. That is the test which has been operated throughout our whole code and under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931——

Mr. Dillon

It is the 1914 rent you must consider.

Mr. Moran

I do not want to go over the ground I have already covered. The 1914 rents were fixed at a period when lettings were normal.

Mr. Dillon

But you cannot find out what the 1914 rent was.

Mr. Moran

The provisions are there for finding out what the rent was. I have not heard any argument from the Deputy making a case for this motion.

Mr. O'Connor

It is only some months since this House debated what is now the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946. There was a very full debate and there were a great number of amendments. The debate was conducted in a very friendly atmosphere. The Act passed was somewhat different from the Bill, as introduced, but I think all were agreed at the time that this House had done the best possible job of work in regard to the problem of rent restriction. Now, Deputy Dillon, in that irresponsible way of his to which we are accustomed, comes along and asks the House to scrap all that legislation and go in for some entirely new idea which has not, so far, been tried in regard to the renting of houses. I could not possibly support any such proposals. I am afraid that to do so would create too much of an upheaval. If you have courts to fix rents by reference to fair letting value, you will, undoubtedly, get a good many rents reduced, but you will also get a good many rents increased. The whole principle of the Rent Restrictions Act was to leave things very much as they were before the present acute shortage of houses— that is, going back to May, 1941, in one case, and to 1914 in the other case. The aim was to leave things so that the owner of a house would get the same net profit rent out of it as previously, but no more. That is about the only basis upon which you could go. I do not say that our present system is perfect. There are several difficulties and complexities. Cases crop up in which it is almost impossible to say what is the right thing to do, but I suggest it is the best system that can be evolved and that it involves least expense to the State.

The proposal to set up rent courts would involve the State in considerable expense. Not only would you require courts but you would, I think, require to have inspection of every rented premises in the country by an expert valuer. There are some items in the present law to which I suggest the Minister might give his attention. I am sure he is considering these aspects as they change from day to day. One of them is the present position in Dublin regarding furnished flats. The scarcity of premises to rent in Dublin is growing every day. The situation was never so acute as it is now and I think that the control of rents of furnished flats is not adequate. Complaints are being made all round that exorbitant rents are being charged because flats are furnished. The Minister might have that aspect of rent restriction considered with a view to tightening up the control. The other problem is rather older. It is the problem of expiring leases and the rents that may be charged under the Act of 1931. The Minister has already intimated that he will bring in legislation to remedy that situation. I am sure the House will not have long to wait for it. The only effective control of rents is the provision of more houses. Deputy Dillon may forget that, in 1914, a landlord had to go out and look for a tenant. The position is just the opposite now. When you have a better supply of houses there will not be any need for Rent Restriction Acts and perhaps the day when we will reach that situation is not so far off. It does not certainly seem so far off now as it did a few years ago or even when the Act of 1946 was being debated in this House.

Mr. Costello

There are one or two observations of Deputy O'Connor with which I must profoundly disagree. With some of his observations I am in agreement. I profoundly disagree with him when he said that the last Rent Restriction Act which was passed by this House received the general approbation of the House and was the best job of work that could be done in the circumstances. It certainly did not receive my benediction. I spoke against it as vigorously as I could on Second Reading and, generally speaking, washed my hands of it after that because I found myself almost in complete disagreement with every side of the House. I think that last Act has made the housing shortage far more acute than it was before that Act passed.

I agree with Deputy O'Connor that the only solution for the problem is the provision of new houses. I said so on the Second Reading of the last Bill. I pleaded for it and said that that Bill ought not to be passed into an Act without some plan being available and put forward for speedy execution, under Government auspices or with Government benediction or through private enterprise or some other way, to go step by step with decontrol of houses. What is the position at the present time? We have a complete code of rent restriction with the desire of preventing the exploitation of tenants, whether they be poor or not so poor. We are all in complete agreement. The position at the present moment is that nobody, rich or poor, is able to get a house or even part of a house to let. There has been created under this rent restriction code a privileged class, a limited class of the community. With that class we all have sympathy. We all extend sympathy with a person who may be the subject of exploitation by a rapacious landlord but when we find that outside that limited class it is an absolute impossibility, at all events for people in the City of Dublin, to get, not merely a house to let, but even a room in a house to let, at any price, I ask this House to consider whether we have solved any problem by this rent restriction code or whether we have not, as I stated on the Second Reading of this Bill, made the problem still more acute.

The present position is that no landlord or owner of a house, once he gets clear possession of that house, will let that house for any money even if that house, when he gains clear possession of it, is not subject to existing controls. He is afraid, in the first place, that some supplemental Act will be introduced by this Dáil bringing that house within the ambit of the rent restriction code in the near future. For that reason alone he will not make any letting. But there is a far more cogent and compelling reason why he will not do it, because, at the present moment in the City and County of Dublin, house property which is sold with clear possession is going at enormous prices and it is only the new rich in this country that are able to afford these houses. At the present time, houses are being built with remarkable rapidity. You can see them being built almost daily before your eyes around the city, with expedition and dispatch by the builders, because they know that the market is there at its peak and they want to get the high prices from the new rich who are able to pay these exorbitant prices, before the market falls.

The ordinary person in this country at present has no chance of buying a house and no chance of getting a house to let and the utmost he can hope for is to get a flat, again at some exorbitant rent. What is happening people who are getting married and hoping to rear families? What future is before them? There is no prospect before the ordinary person at present, the person who has to make his living and who has to live on a moderate income by ways and means which do not allow him to cash in on the opportunities which have been presented in the last few years of making vast quantities of money. The only prospect he has as far as can be seen at the moment is to live in difficult circumstances in an expensive flat and to try to rear a family in the inconvenient conditions involved in living in such a flat. That is the problem to which we ought to be directing our attention.

I disagree with Deputy O'Connor that this motion was put down by Deputy Dillon in an irresponsible fashion. There is a motion on the Paper in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Mulcahy, and my name, which had as its inspiration the existing acute housing shortage in this country, and not merely in the city. That motion was put down with a view to bringing about some consideration of the problem that exists. We are allowing builders to make a profit at the present moment, legitimately if you like, on the market that is available there, the limited market of a very limited class of people who have made money in this country or who are coming over to this country with money in their pockets, leaving the vast majority of the ordinary persons who have to live on moderate incomes without hope of any housing accommodation. That problem should be settled. Those people who have the good fortune to be in occupation of controlled houses have the benediction and the protection of the law and the courts.

Deputy Moran has spoken about the standard upon which the rent of those houses should be based and has spoken as if it were either the letting value or the 1914 or the 1941 value. He referred to the Act of 1931. So far as the Act of 1931 is concerned, it is based upon the letting value of houses. The letting value of houses at the present moment does not exist. There is no letting value of houses because you cannot get them to let and it is purely hypothetical value guessed at by a set of auctioneers on the one side giving different evidence from a set of auctioneers on the other side, and based entirely on guesswork. They take the case, if the house were vacant and if normal conditions existed—and they certainly do not exist in our time —the letting value would be so much.

As a basis of calculation of a rent, whether it be fair or otherwise, letting value has ceased, in my opinion at all events, to have any basis in reality. There is no standard on which to base it. There is no standard by which auctioneers giving evidence can really base their expert testimony at the present moment. So far as letting value is concerned it is purely illusory and, therefore, it is on that aspect of the case I find a weakness in Deputy Dillon's motion, on the question of fixing fair rent for houses. I take it that that part of the motion is not vital to the motion.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, no.

Mr. Costello

I take it that Deputy Dillon has put down this motion merely to draw attention to the fact— the undoubted fact, which everybody knows, including Deputy Moran and, more particularly, Deputy O'Connor, as he deals with them or has heard of them in the City of Dublin—that extraordinary inequalities and inequities exist in relation to controlled houses.

I have not any experience of the working of the recent Rent Restrictions Act in the country. I certainly had some considerable experience under the earlier Acts in connection with the control after the 1914 war. There are extraordinary inequities and inequalities and I think that, at the present moment, the position is as Deputy Dillon has stated in this motion, that the legal requirements and legal principles—if there are any principles at present in this code and particularly in the last Act—are so complex that they are bound to lead to impossible situations. In the last few days, I understand a decision was given on this Act, pointing out a matter that was omitted from it—a small matter, but still just a percursor of what is going to take place. So far as I am concerned, these people who are controlled are in a special class. I am not grudging them their privilege. I am strongly in favour of preventing the exploiting of the poor and the new poor—and even more strongly in favour of preventing the exploitation of the new poor than I am of the old poor. I want to see them protected.

The new poor are those who have moderate incomes, on which to raise a family in decent comfort with some leisure and some enjoyment. Those people are living below the border-line of subsistence at present. The ordinary poor have charitable organisations and State organisations to look after them; they have some people to take an interest in them; but the people really suffering are those who are the backbone of the nation, people on moderate incomes, mostly on fixed incomes or incomes which cannot be raised to meet the appalling rise in the cost of living, in the cost of housing and everything else. These are the people for whom I am really advocating. These are the people who are not in controlled houses, young people trying to start life on small salaries or small incomes, derived from business or profession. They have no chance of getting a house. Would Deputy Dillon's fair rent tribunal give them a house? Not long as the position is allowed to remain that there is a certain limited class of houses controlled which, once they become vacant, can be sold at an exorbitant price, extracted by the necessities of some unfortunate person who has nowhere to go and who must mortgage his future prospects in life to raise the amount to pay that exorbitant price—as, otherwise, if it is attractive enough, the house will be sold to one of the new rich.

There is no prospect of any amelioration for them and it is the most acute problem existing at the present time. I do not think the problem of high rents is anything like as acute as the problem of providing accommodation for people who cannot get it at all at present. I have people coming to me from my constituency, day after day and night after night, asking me to get houses for them, or even a room. I hear stories that would wring the heart of a stone—and I can do nothing. Very often, they are a decent class of tradesmen, in good employment and ready to pay a decent rent, but they cannot get any accommodation. No fair rent tribunal is going to deal with that problem.

I do not know whether it is for political reasons that we all say how strongly we are in favour of preventing rents being increased, or whether it is that we really believe it. I rather fancy it is because of the political backing that may be got from saying we will not let rents be increased that we are in favour of control. Perhaps that is what draws general support for an Act of this kind to control rents. I pleaded, during the Second Reading of the last Rent Restrictions Act, for that larger class of people who are not being catered for and to whom, as far as I and my colleagues can see, there is no thought being given and for whom no provision is being made. There is no use in having any sort of tribunal, whether the rent is fixed on the basis of the letting value in 1914, 1940 or any other year, or whether it is fixed on a fair letting value by a fair rent tribunal, unless you have houses to go into. There is a problem here, as Deputy Dillon says there is, of inequalities or inequities, and anyone practising in the courts knows that. The housing problem is raised in relation to houses built since this State was set up, and which were built before the last Act was passed and are subject to control. They exist in the case of dwellings built by public authorities and into which the working people went, or those who wanted to buy their houses on the principle of paying a composite rent and interest. In the same street, you will find one man paying £1 a week and another paying 10/- a week for precisely the same type of house. The inequality exists since this State started, under the Housing Acts passed by the Oireachtas.

I want to raise my voice again to direct attention to the real problem, which is not rent restriction but provision of houses. If we leave the position as it stands at the moment, where certain houses are restricted as regards their rent and the other houses are left free, there will be, as in the case of the City and County of Dublin, no letting to tenants. There is nothing but houses for sale, at prices far beyond the reach of the ordinary individual. You have only to look at the back pages of the newspapers every day, and particularly on Saturdays, to see the numbers of houses offered for sale. Attend any auction or inquire the price given for them. I do not know anybody who has not been in some of the industries or trades which were able in the last five or six years to make vast profits, who is going to be in a position to buy any house in the next quarter of a century, unless something is done about it.

Mr. Dillon

Would Deputy Costello state the procedure of the rent tribunal in relation to that?

Mr. Briscoe

It is extraordinary that it is only when a problem, such as that with which we are confronted now, reaches its climax that we become somewhat inconsistent in our approach to it, as compared with other matters. On the one hand, we find Deputies finding fault with restrictions on what is called free sale of property, free sale of rent; and the very same Deputies, when asked their opinion regarding houses, advocate the removal of free sale of house property. What Deputy Costello said is quite true. There is such an extreme shortage of housing accommodation that difficulties arise and advantage is taken by people who feel an opportunity has arisen, if they can get possession of a house which is rented, to sell it for cash, knowing that there are people in extraordinary necessity who will pay twice or three times its value.

Those of us who are also attached to local authorities are very close to this problem. It is very hard to know what is to be done. Recently, the Dublin Corporation sent a request to the Department of Local Government asking that legislation be framed to prevent the very persons to whom Deputy Costello has alluded—people who had bought houses on the hire-purchase system through the Dublin Corporation —from selling those houses in a free market. At the same time, other people are permitted to exploit even further the needs of people who require accommodation. Rent restriction is necessary and possibly this motion will serve some useful purpose in this sense that it will cause us to think further about this matter. I think the Minister ought seriously to consider the introduction of further legislation to prevent people getting possession of houses, which were hitherto let, for the purpose of selling them. Deputy Costello talked about people who have made huge fortunes in the last few years being able to buy houses at any price. I think we all agree that some form of control should be exerted over those house-building gentry, and that their margin of profit should be fixed and controlled by the Prices Section of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

If that were done local authorities might then be able to secure materials to build houses. The local authorities are unable to build all the houses that they would like to build because they cannot get the materials, which are going to private speculators in house-building. They are going to them at high prices and this makes it impossible for local authorities to build houses to let at an economic rent to tradesmen, small businessmen and others. That is the position in spite of the very heavy subsidies which the State is giving towards the building of houses.

Mr. Dillon

Is not all that under the control of the Department of Industry and Commerce? Must you not have a licence to get building materials?

Mr. Briscoe

A certain percentage of materials is reserved exclusively for local authorities, but then there are other materials which are let on to the free market, and there is no control of timber.

Mr. Dillon

There is, absolutely.

Mr. Briscoe

I addressed a communication to the Minister for Industry and Commerce only recently, pointing out that the licences issued to private individuals for the building of small houses had no value in securing materials. How that is I do not know. I have asked him to investigate that, but that is beside the point we are discussing. The point is that the Government, by the huge subsidies it is giving for the building of houses, has indicated its willingness to help on that work. The local authorities are doing their best to get materials and labour. We find that the rate of building houses is below what it should be for two reasons. One is that sufficient supplies of material are not available, and the second is, that the number of skilled tradesmen and labourers is not up to requirements. In the Dublin Corporation we have been considering the possibility of changing the whole idea of employment in the house-building industry so that skilled workmen can be guaranteed constant employment for a period of ten years. That would enable us to continue without a break our house-building programme for ten years. We have all kinds of problems and difficulties to contend against. It is quite clear that the rent restriction, which was provided for in the 1946 Act, was very necessary. It may be necessary at a later date to tackle another aspect of the problem, the one to which Deputy Costello alluded to-night, and that is, that houses hitherto let should not be permitted to go into the market for sale for their cash value but should be kept for renting purposes.

I do not see how the tribunal, which the motion suggests should be set up, would help the situation. What would help the situation is that all of us should agree that we have got to get more houses. Meanwhile, every effort should be made to prevent the exploitation that is going on, even in spite of the provisions in the 1946 Act. I am quite sure that the Minister is willing to deal with these matters when they are brought to his notice. Deputy O'Connor talked about the exploitation of people in connection with furnished flats. I do not know how it is, but the fact is that, no matter what Act is passed by a Parliament, some people seem to be able to find a way of getting around its provisions by approaching the problem that it is aimed to deal with from a different direction. In that way the people whom the Act was intended to protect find that they are deprived of that protection.

The Minister should consider having a very strict and rigid control over this furnished flat business. There is an aspect of it that I would like to deal with. All Dublin Deputies are aware that we have people coming to us every other day looking for houses and flats. This flat business is creating a shocking situation. We find certain people creating a sort of new form of landlordism in the way of lodgings or accommodation for students who come from the country to Dublin. Those students are being packed—as many as three, five and nine—into a room, sometimes with two or three in the one bed. There is no means of protecting those young people. I think the Minister ought to look into that and see if something cannot be done for them. The position is that you have people paying exorbitantly high prices for big houses, and then turning them into lodging houses for those unfortunate young people who come up here to try to make their way through college. I suggest that if that is looked into it will be found that at the moment it is a shocking racket.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister will take a note of certain matters that have been brought to his notice. I do not think that it is necessary for us to pass this motion. I am afraid that its passing would only get us farther away from the problem that we want to deal with. In fact, the passing of it might be a danger because it might lead people to believe that the setting up of the tribunal envisaged in it was going to end all their troubles in the matter of housing accommodation.

What I urge on the House is that we should use every means possible to bring about the building of houses as fast as possible, so that we may be able to get back to the 1914 position to which Deputy Moran referred. At that time a landlord had to give good value before he got a tenant because there were plenty of houses available. Therefore, I suggest that every effort should be made by everyone everywhere to get down to the building of houses as fast as possible.

It may be necessary for the Government to consider whether materials should be permitted to be made available for the type of house to which Deputy Costello alluded. The rich gentry should be made wait for their accommodation until the requirements of the less fortunate people in need of housing accommodation are met. I do not think the Minister or the Government would meet with very much resistance from anybody if they pressed that point of view. It is true that speculative builders are going ahead with the building of houses which are far beyond the reach of ordinary people. So long as we have the same currency as they have across the water you will find a number of trustees buying houses for people who feel that there is far greater security for their money in house property in Ireland than there is in having it in the Bank of England or in the securities which they favoured formerly. All these things are contributing to our difficulties. You have people shifting their money into house property. They are acquiring houses, a thing which they never thought of doing before. That means that they are using up materials in their house-building operations which, I suggest, should be allocated to meet the housing requirements of people less fortunately circumstanced.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

This debate provides an opportunity to direct the Minister's attention to two matters that arose in debates here recently. One is connected with the Act to which reference has been made, namely, the Rent Restrictions Act of 1946. During the debates on that Act, the Minister indicated that he was prepared to deal at the earliest possible moment with the problem of the furnished flat. At that time it was pointed out to him that the matter could be dealt with by means of a simple Bill and the Minister indicated that he thought that was the best means of dealing with the problem.

However strong the case might have been for the introduction of legislation of that type at that time, I need hardly remind the Minister and the House that the necessity for such a measure is all the more acute at the present stage. It is almost impossible for newly-married couples to get one or two rooms in the city and, if they do succeed in getting them, it is only by paying prohibitive rents. The situation is becoming more aggravated day after day. In addition, there is the position that thousands of our people, particularly workers, are no longer in a position to look forward to getting houses at any stage, even six months or 12 months ahead.

I suggest to the Minister that this question of housing, in so far as it affects workers and other classes referred to by Deputy Cosgrave, constitutes something in the nature of a national crisis and that unless the problem is courageously faced grave moral consequences will ensue, so far as Dublin at least is concerned. Anybody who knows anything about the position in the city will admit that there is only one solution and that is the provision of more houses. We have got to ask ourselves how are these houses to be provided and when? It is said that there is only a limited supply of building materials available. Can we augment the present supply and when and how? Are the agencies at our disposal actively engaged in augmenting that supply and in making that national survey which, in my opinion, is a matter of urgency at the present time? I may say that steps along these lines are being taken. Deputy Briscoe has referred to the position so far as the corporation is concerned. The position there is definitely grave. We need something like 20,000 houses at the present time and we hope, with some luck, to be able to produce 2,000 houses per year for perhaps three or four years. I am saying that we hope to do that because we know that there are certain difficulties inherent in the position. There are difficulties from the point of view of supplies and difficulties so far as the question of skilled labour is concerned. On that point, may I say that we recently received a deputation representing master builders and builders' providers who gave us an outline of the supplies position and it is the intention of the corporation to approach the Minister for Industry and Commerce at an early date to ascertain if the supply position can be improved.

A motion of this character can, I suggest, do some practical good by focussing the attention of the Government on the gravity of the situation, which is particularly grave so far as young people are concerned. Anybody who states that in six months' time there will be houses round the corner does not realise what he is saying. It is going to take years to remedy the position if progress is to be limited to the rate which we are achieving at the moment. My sole purpose in joining this debate is to bring home to Deputies the seriousness of the position and to ask that the Government might enter into consultation with the local authorities, who are the main bodies concerned, to see that every avenue will be explored and to ensure that we should get the maximum amount of materials in the shortest possible time.

I am satisfied that the labour side of the question will solve itself on the basis of a continuous programme of employment. If Irish builders or workers, at present employed across the water, find that conditions here are such that they can look forward to decent wages for at least five or ten years, obviously they will prefer, to return home and remain at home. An early solution of this question will depend on how we organise our supplies. Deputy Costello made the point that while there is one set of houses controlled and another set free of control, you are going to have confusion. I directed attention to that point also when the 1946 Act was going through and I pointed out that if the date could be brought forward control could be extended to the houses to which Deputy Costello referred. My own view is that as the number of such houses is rather small, it does not affect the position seriously. So far as Dublin is concerned we need thousands of houses and the question is how we are going to provide these houses.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I did not intend to intervene until we had heard a better case for this tribunal. So far we have not got that case. Deputies have been dealing mainly with the provision of houses which is a matter for the Minister for Local Government. I should like to hear the case for the motion before the House and I should prefer to wait some time longer before intervening if the House agrees.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister will hear no case for a tribunal, but he will hear a case for houses.

Mr. Boland

I cannot see for the life of me how Deputy Dillon's motion, if it were accepted, would better the position. We have had this rent restrictions code in operation for 30 years. I would be the first to admit that it is by no means perfect but surely it is better to retain it than upset it. It provides a certain basis, anyway, for determining what rents should be. The 1946 Act made it unnecessary to fix rents on the 1914 basis, as had been the position prior to the enactment of the 1946 Act. That is no longer the position. Thousands of cases, I am sure, have been settled on the basis of this Act and if we were to upset the Act, which is really the issue involved in this motion, and introduce legislation to set up courts to fix fair rents, we would then throw the whole matter into the melting pot again. Instead of having a certain standard as we have now, every case would have to be decided on its own merits. As far as I can see, in such circumstances you would have a most expensive and chaotic system. I have had no evidence whatever that the passing of the last Act has led to a more chaotic position than existed before. Deputy Dillon may have such evidence but he has not given us any instance of it here. I should like to remind the House again, having regard to what Deputy Costello said, of the position that existed before we introduced the 1946 Act. We are all well aware of the restrictive effect of these rent restrictions on building. Before the Act was passed at all, we had to pass an emergency Order fixing rents because many people were getting notices of big increases in the rent of houses in which they were living, and, in some cases, ejectments had taken place. No new houses were being erected, and there was no possibility of houses being erected at that time, due to the shortage of materials, and consequently, unless we were to have people out-bidding each other to get houses, finding, when they got into the houses, that others had been thrown out, and these new tenants coming in, having agreed to pay a rent which was beyond them, in turn being put out, so that we would have evictions all over the place, action had to be taken.

We all agree that the provision of new houses is the remedy. I can remember, as any of the older people in the House will remember, that, up to 1914, landlords were actually looking for tenants. Younger people will scarcely believe that, but it is a fact, and one could have the choice of practically any number of houses before 1914. Immediately after the war, there came the rush into the towns, particularly in England—a rush of munition workers and so on into the towns— where there was no accommodation. The landlords, like any other business people, naturally took advantage of the supply and demand position and did what every other class does, when it gets the opportunity, that is, get as much for the goods they had on hands as they would fetch, with the result that the British Government was forced to bring in the Rent Restrictions Act.

When the new Government was set up in this country, it tried to decontrol. Several Acts were passed yearly, designed to reduce eventually the valuation of houses under control, in the hope that in due course houses would cease to be controlled and we would get back to the position in which there was free building and houses could be got as they could before 1914. That did not materialise. It was discovered that houses were not being built for letting and that, as they became decontrolled, they were either being sold or let at a greatly increased rent. The last Government decided that the decontrol system would have to be stopped.

When the last war came along, we found the same thing happening. The Government and everybody else realise that when there is that control of rents, there will not be as much building of houses for renting as there would otherwise be, but there is no way out of it until we get the houses built. The building of more houses is a matter which is engaging the attention of the Minister for Local Government and of the Government generally. We are fully aware of the position, but the remedy, of course, is to get more materials. I do not know what powers the Minister for Industry and Commerce has to restrict the building of the luxury type of house and to concentrate what materials are available on the building of ordinary houses, but it is a matter with which I am not in a position to deal.

I am merely asked here to substitute for the present rent restrictions code a fair rent code, but no indication is given as to the basis on which the new rents are to be fixed, and, as I said, I believe that the position which would arise in such circumstances would be worse than the present position, in which there is a well-established system of fixing rents. Deputy Dillon thinks there is some way out, but, if he has any plan, he did not give it to us. Neither I nor the Government need to be told of the necessity for more houses, and that is the aspect on which practically everybody concentrated. I no not think it was quite in order; I thought we should deal with the merits of the proposal in the motion and the existing rent restrictions code.

Deputy Dillon spoke of the child of light as compared with the Mammon of iniquity—the people who charged very little rent and those who got full value. So far as I remember, the 1914 rents were competitive. There was not very much of that sort of thing, in the towns, anyway, but there were cases in which a person brought in a relative or perhaps a poor friend and charged only a low rent. In these cases, only a certain percentage increase on the 1914 rent could be charged, but that position was remedied by an amendment accepted in the Seanad. Deputy Dillon must not be aware of that. I do not think that there is any grievance in that respect. So far as I can see, the situation is not likely to be bettered by adopting the motion. He has not shown me that it is, and I can assure him that I approach this matter with an open mind, as I think I showed when the Rent Restrictions Act was going through. I was then prepared to listen to amendments, no matter from what side they came and to deal with them on their merits.

With regard to furnished flats—a matter which is scarcely relevant either —I did say that I would look into it and have it examined. I did so, but no decision has been come to. I shall have to look further into it and see what can be done. It is a very difficult matter to deal with. As to accommodation for students, how could we deal with that matter? I do not see how we could possibly deal with it. We cannot compel people to take students or other lodgers into their houses if they do not want to do so.

I should like to be able to do it, but I fail to see how it is to be done. The kernel of the problem is more houses and that is a matter for the Government and not for this particular Minister. It is a matter primarily for the Minister for Local Government, who, I think, is doing all he possibly can to meet the situation.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not a fact that, under the existing system, there are the widest inequalities between the rents charged in respect of very similar premises?

Mr. Boland

There are, and, so far as I know, it was due to decontrol. The position was that when a person left a house and the landlord got vacant possession, if he either sold or let the house, the house became decontrolled and he was consequently able to get a bigger rent for it than the owner of a similar house which was still controlled and of which the tenant had not given up possession. That is how it arose. These inequalities do exist and that is how they came about. There was also the other situation referred to by Deputy Moran that as time went on and building costs became higher, similar houses, and in fact houses of worse quality, cost a lot more to build, and, if they were let for rent, a bigger rent had to be charged. There is also the question of the value of money. We all know that money went further before 1914 than after 1914 and all these things had to be taken into consideration. The last Act passed, however, has certainly improved the position. It is only a temporary measure. We hope that, in five years' time, there may be an improvement and a certain measure of decontrol may be brought in, as the last Government thought in their day. How far we can go with that remains to be seen. It will depend on the progress made in providing houses.

General Mulcahy

Does the Minister suggest we must stay as we are for the next five years?

Mr. Boland

I suggest no such thing. Deputy Costello said that houses were springing up all over the place.

Mr. Costello

Of a certain type.

Mr. Boland

Even that, in itself, is a good thing because the more houses being built, the better chance there will be, in the long run, of prices coming down. Looking around the City of Dublin, I am surprised by the number of houses which are springing up having regard to the supply position. Near where I live, in the Killester area, many houses are being built. They are not occupied yet, but they are springing up very quickly. There is no suggestion of remaining where we are for five years, but the Rent Restrictions Act will have to remain operative for about five years, until things improve and until we see some justification for bringing in an amending measure, which can be done at any time.

Mr. McMenamin

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 7th November, 1946.