Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 8 Nov 1946

Vol. 103 No. 4

Private Deputies' Business. - Rent Restriction Code—Motion (Resumed).

Mr. Cosgrave

As was stated in the course of the debate on the Rent Restrictions Bill, when it was going through this House, there are numbers of factors which have contributed to an aggravation of the position concerning the controlled type of house and, in fact, to the general housing situation. Since 1939 there are fairly substantial numbers of people who are richer, but there is a very great number of people who are poorer as a result of the control of wages and the rapid increase in the price of the various commodities that these people have to buy. We also experienced an almost entire cessation of building work, in so far as the construction of new houses was concerned. The result is that the large numbers of people who were looking for accommodation in 1939 have been added to by the numbers who, since then, have married or are looking for alternative accommodation.

The people who have made money either directly or indirectly out of the war have been put in the position that they are prepared to pay far higher prices for houses than they would have been had the war not benefited them. At the other end of the scale numbers of people have had their wages controlled; they find their incomes inadequate to meet existing needs. The price of houses has been forced up by the people who benefited by the war on those whose incomes are at the same level as before the war, or who may have received a very small increase. The people whose incomes have not increased, or who have received only a paltry emergency bonus, have to compete with large numbers who are infinitely better off. The prices of houses since 1939 have far outstripped the incomes of the majority of the people who are looking for accommodation.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order. This motion raises a very narrow, restricted point. It relates purely to the most expedient way of ascertaining a statutory rent. Am I now to understand that the terms of this motion are to be extended to include an exhaustive discussion on the housing situation? That was not intended.

Mr. Coogan

It has taken that course already.

Mr. Dillon

It was not meant to do so. I leave the matter in the hands of the Chair. The purpose of the motion is perfectly clear; it deals with a net point, as to the best method of ascertaining a statutory rent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The debate went off the rails a bit; it developed into a very wide debate on the housing shortage. The object of the motion is to get the Government to codify the Rent Restriction Acts into a fair rent code. That is rather limited in scope.

Mr. Cosgrave

I have no desire to take the discussion very far from the subject-matter of the motion. As a result of the factors which I have outlined, people who require houses, who are anxious to secure accommodation, find themselves, as it were, between two millstones. On the one hand there are houses controlled and in many cases people are unable to get sufficient accommodation in these houses and, on the other hand, they are forced, if they want to purchase a house, to raise a mortgage. Many people are thus taking over financial commitments which they will be unable to meet. They are forced to apply for a loan or raise a mortgage and the prices ruling at the present time are far in excess of the value of the type of house these people are buying. Perhaps that is not strictly within the Minister's sphere, but I suggest it is a matter he should not leave out of consideration when he is discussing the subject with the Department of Local Government.

Rent control was brought in at the end of the first world war, but the factors which have contributed to the continuation of this control are factors which, while not within the Minister's activities in the normal way, must be present to his mind. One serious flaw in the 1946 Act is that dealing with furnished flats. Under Section 3 a flat is not controlled if the commodities provided by way of furniture and the services associated with furniture equal 25 per cent. of the rent. The situation that has developed is that if a landlord provides a limited quantity of furniture, it is invariably the practice that that furniture is taken to be equal to 25 per cent. of the rent. The result is that with quite a small supply of inadequate and inferior furniture a landlord is able to evade the provisions of the Act and he can charge a very substantial rent for limited accommodation. If he increases the rent he must increase the furniture to keep in step. The furniture brings the landlord outside the provisions of the Act and forces the tenant to pay well for limited accommodation. No matter how a flat may be supplied with amenities, and no matter how large or comfortable it may be, it affords limited and unsatisfactory accommodation. So far as I can see, this section of the Act does not meet the situation it was designed to meet. As soon as there has been sufficient opportunity for the working of the Act to be tested, I suggest that the Minister should inquire as to whether or not this section has effected its purpose. There is a general complaint that it has not. I suggest that some standard system of valuation should be adopted. Although the Circuit Court and the District Court provide reasonably satisfactory tribunals, there is no set standard on which the valuation of furniture can be assessed. The normal procedure is that a valuer is engaged to give his view as to the value of the furniture from the standpoint of the landlord and that the tenant engages a valuer to estimate the worth of the furniture from his point of view. In general, the system is unsatisfactory and the sooner the Minister inquires into its working the better.

The other flaw in the Act is that, owing to the very substantial increases in building costs since 1939, the landlord can produce sufficient evidence to warrant a substantial increase in respect of services provided or repairs carried out. On the other hand, having regard to the type of house and the accommodation available, the tenant is seriously prejudiced in comparison with tenants of similar houses in 1939. The working of the Act, so far as permitted increases for building costs are concerned, has operated harshly on tenants. These two flaws have come to light since the Act was enacted this year. Having regard to the position regarding shortage of houses, which is likely to last for some time, the Minister should inquire into those matters as soon as he can collect sufficient data, and, if necessary, amend the Act. Most houses are now let at a rent the basis of which is later than 1914. In the case of the few houses in which rents go back to 1914, it is comparatively easy to get evidence of value of similar houses. In many cases, evidence of the actual rent paid is available but, where it is not, it is comparatively easy to obtain the alternative evidence required.

The fact that houses erected since 1941 are not controlled has put a large number of people who are anxious to secure accommodation in a difficult position. I think the Minister should consider that matter even though it does not come within the terms of the motion. One cannot consider this matter in isolation. A factor which must be taken into consideration, so far as rent control is concerned, is the selling price of houses. That price has rocketed without any commensurate increase in accommodation or suitability. In many respects, the services which some landlords provide, such as lighting and heating, are inferior to pre-war standards because of rationing and control, while the tenants have to pay at the same rate. Both those factors should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Coogan

Up to the present, the discussion on this motion has been completely wide of its terms—so wide that it is difficult to say what one desires to say in the limited time available. As the discussion has taken this broad line, I feel that I must do as previous speakers have done.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr. Coogan

Everybody has been given liberty to wander far afield.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The trouble is that, when the question of housing shortage is raised on this motion, the responsible Minister is not present. Housing shortage is not a matter for which the Minister now present is responsible.

Mr. Coogan

The motion has served a useful purpose, even if the Minister responsible is not in the House, in directing attention to the problems confronting us as regards housing. If I read the terms of the motion aright, the effect of its adoption would be to lift existing control and to substitute therefor a system of judicial tribunals for the fixation of fair rents. I take it that that would include all houses at present controlled under the Rent Restriction Acts. That raises a very serious issue. I want, in the first place, to deal with the cases of houses built by local authorities. Houses built by local authorities are let at rents which are not economic. If the House were to adopt the principle of this motion, the tenants of all houses built by local authorities would have to go before the courts and have a fair rent fixed according to the present-day market value of their houses. In the case of the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, the position would be that houses which we are at the moment building and propose to let at rents of from 15/- down to 10/6 per week would have to be let at from 20/- to 30/- a week.

Mr. Dillon

Why?

Mr. Coogan

Because the object of the motion is to remove the anomalies and put all tenants on a fair rent basis.

Mr. Dillon

To fix a maximum rent, but, if you are prepared to charge 15/- for a 30/- house, everybody will raise his hat and say you are a very philanthropic man.

Mr. Coogan

I am not a philanthropic man; I am speaking of the local authority.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the judicial rent will be a maximum rent.

Mr. Coogan

How are you to differentiate? You have the tenant of the rate-aided house paying a rent which is not an economic rent. You have his neighbour next door paying an economic rent. A definite grievance will exist between neighbours, one of whom is living in a house built by private enterprise, for which he is paying 30/-, and the other in a local authority house, for which he is paying 15/-. You immediately set up a new problem. That seems to be as clear as a pikestaff to me.

Mr. Dillon

One citizen gets the old age pension and another citizen does not.

Mr. Coogan

If we are to go into that field, we shall have a very wide discussion.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not the same field?

Mr. Coogan

It is not. You come there to the question of a means test for houses.

Mr. Dillon

Ought it not to be applied?

Mr. Coogan

Deputy Dillon's idea then is that we should adopt the social principle which is adopted everywhere now—that shelter is a necessity of man, that every man is entitled to adequate shelter, and that that shelter should be provided for him as a matter of course, whether by private enterprise or by the local authority or by the State. If we accept that principle, I am afraid the responsibility will fall upon the State and it will then be very difficult to reconcile the interests of private enterprise and State enterprise. In these circumstances, you will have to face up to the social principle that every man must have a house and that, if private enterprise does not provide a house, the State must do so. That opens up a wide field of discussion. I do not think that it would be within the terms of the motion.

If we are to lift rent restriction and set up a tribunal for the fixation of fair rents, we shall not cure existing anomalies. We shall make them more acute. I have instanced a case which is bound to arise—the case of the tenant of a local-authority house and that of his neighbour living in a privately-owned house. On the question of control, I cannot see why, once you adopt the principle, control should end at £60 valuation instead of £65, or at £80 instead of £100. Housing is as acute a problem to the middle-class man as it is to the workman, if not more acute. Once you accept the principle of control, there is a case for applying it all round. This matter has received consideration on the other side and many authorities incline to the view that control should be widespread. In fact, because of the peculiar war situation existing in England, it is quite on the cards that control will be universal in England in the near future.

The difficulties which Deputy Dillon instanced as to rents payable in 1914 are not, in my opinion, of very great importance to-day. In any event, where it was impossible to prove the rent payable in 1914 by reason of the family having gone away or because there were no relatives or dependents still alive, the courts were always able to get evidence from valuers or auctioneers of rents of comparable houses at the time. There certainly may have been difficulty in getting the evidence but the evidence always could be procured and the courts inevitably accepted the evidence of such people as to rents prevailing for comparable houses at the time.

Mr. Dillon

And is the 1914 rent plus 20 per cent. a reasonable rent to fix to-day?

Mr. Coogan

There are other additions. I do not say it is but if you discuss 1914 rents you have to consider that in 1914 you had not the pressure for housing that you have to-day.

Mr. Dillon

I agree.

Mr. Coogan

If you go back to 1914 you will find there were more houses available than tenants seeking them and that the landlord of that day was getting a competitive rent for his house. One difficulty you have in approaching this problem of housing is, as I put it before to the Minister, that we have not had from the Minister a survey of the housing problem. By that I mean a survey of the rents payable all over the country. Before we can get anywhere with this problem we will have to get a survey made by the Minister. That survey could be easily done through the local authorities. The rent and rate collectors could collect the information very rapidly and could give us a national register of rents so that we could approach this problem in the full light of the facts so disclosed. The present register set up under the 1946 Act will undoubtedly help the courts but it will take many years before that register can be regarded as anything in the nature of a full register. Owing to the emergency situation, the shortage of supplies, and the general opinion that the emergency condition is going to continue for the next five to ten years, we must face up to the whole question on the broad basis of a national survey. I seriously put it to the Minister that to enable the House to get down to solid work on this problem we should have that survey.

At present we are building houses in Dún Laoghaire. It took us 18 months to prepare plans, specifications, tender for contracts and that sort of thing. We have at the moment one contractor carrying out one housing scheme. Operations have been commenced. As late as last week we were coolly informed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that we must redesign our plans and cut down the amount of timber in our houses. The letter which we have received, in my opinion, was written by a bureaucrat, who has no conception of the housing situation and who certainly has no conception of what it means to tell us to revise our plans. If we, after 18 months, have to do that, the contractor will have to leave the job and it will take another six months to redesign and alter our plans to meet the Minister's requirements. It seems to me an extraordinary position that the Local Government Department should approve our plans and tell us to go ahead, apparently without reference to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing and, if that is general, I put it to the Minister that it is a matter deserving the most serious consideration. I feel that drastic measures will have to be taken, and taken at once, and that some system will have to be devised whereby houses intended for the working classes and for the middle classes, if you will, will receive priority.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What has that to do with the motion?

Mr. Coogan

Housing has been discussed ad nauseam on this motion. I only want to make the point that luxury building will have to cease, that in the next five years of this emergency all unnecessary public buildings, all unnecessary cinemas, all unnecessary luxury building of any kind will have to cease and that priority must be given to buildings intended for tenants and families. Unless there is some evidence that timber supplies and building supplies generally are going to improve, I am afraid that will have to be done. It is certainly clear to my mind that the two Ministers will have to collaborate.

Mr. Boland

I will not be one of them.

Mr. Flanagan

A damn good job.

Mr. Coogan

Undoubtedly it is outside the terms of the motion——

Mr. Dillon

Not at all. You are doing splendidly.

Mr. Coogan

——but we have been outside the motion from the time Deputy Dillon opened his mouth.

Mr. Byrne

Rents are governed by supplies, so it is in order. If we had more supplies the rents would be in order.

Mr. Coogan

The obvious remedy for this situation is more houses.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is what started the debate.

Mr. Coogan

And until, either by public or private enterprise, we succeed in producing houses, rent control, bad and all as it is, must exist and continue to exist and I do not think we can do anything about it, because if we lift control we will have chaos. Mention has been made of furnished flats. That matter was put to the Minister in the debate on the 1946 Act, and since I spoke on that measure I consider that the position in Dublin and in several towns throughout the country has become more and more acute. I put it to the Minister that it is necessary for him to have a survey of this position. I can give instances—Kilkenny, Dundalk, Cork, Waterford—where very acute problems of this kind arise. It is a very difficult problem. It is a problem that has been giving considerable trouble both in England and Scotland. Commissions of inquiry have discussed these problems and have made reports and the Minister will not be in the dark in tackling the problem. He would have the benefit of the views of experienced men and of the facts collected from these inquiries if he did now undertake some survey of the problem. I do not think it will be denied that the rents obtainable for what are called furnished flats to-day are appallingly high. There is no doubt that an owner of a reasonably decent flat can command any rent he chooses for it. The present position is that if a flat is available, not only can he ask any rent he likes, but he can get a lump sum down from a prospective tenant to pay that exorbitant rent. Many seekers after flats and houses are young people either recently married or about to marry, and it baffles me how they can hope, with their limited means, to continue to pay these exorbitant rents. Very often the furniture in these flats is very meagre.

Under the provisions of the 1946 Act these flats are uncontrolled unless the court can be satisfied that the rent charged for the flat is based on 75 per cent. for the accommodation and 25 per cent. for the furniture supplied with the accommodation. The court is bound to make an apportionment, but with the present high cost of furniture a few chairs and tables, a few ordinary articles of household furniture, can easily be made to exceed 25 per cent. of the rent. That safeguard is in no way easing the position here either for the tenant or the prospective tenant. I would put it to the Minister that a survey based on an annual valuation of flats would be the appropriate way to approach the problem, that the flat should be valued empty, unfurnished, and that the valuation list should be revised annually. Taking a fair valuation of the vacant accommodation, you could relate the rent to it in some way and ignore furniture altogether.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Deputy prohibit the letting of furnished flats as such?

Mr. Coogan

Not necessarily, but I would insist that the flat, whether furnished or unfurnished, be valued on the basis of the accommodation rather than on accommodation plus furniture. This question has been discussed very fully by the commissions I have mentioned and that seems to be the inference to be drawn from their findings. Deputy Cosgrave has mentioned the aggravation caused by reason of the new rich——

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy again, but, on a point of order, there is on the Order Paper a motion standing in the name of the Fine Gael Party, motion No. 12:—

"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that urgent action is necessary to deal with the serious housing problem...."

In that motion, there is full scope for a discussion on the housing problem. This motion raises a very narrow point. Housing cannot be discussed adequately on it, as Deputies cannot open up fully on all aspects of it. I am anxious to raise the narrow point and have it discussed and disposed of, so that we can go on to other business. For that reason, I would point out that it is a narrow matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy's point of order is quite sustained.

Mr. Coogan

It is absolutely impossible to discuss this matter without relating it to the housing problem. The effect of the adoption of this motion would be to decontrol houses which are controlled and bring in some system of fair rent tribunals. Surely I am entitled to point out that, if that happens, the position will be far more acute than at present. I am trying to show how acute the present position is and I do not wish to detain the House much longer. The housing shortage here is aggravated by two factors. We have the new rich who, strange to say, are very numerous. I know cases where those gentlemen have paid anything from £3,000 to £14,000 in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. I know cases where they have paid three and five times the pre-war value, both in Dublin and in the country and it is a mystery to me where the money is coming from. Then there is the stranger coming into our midst, into the South of Ireland and into Dublin and anywhere they can settle down. These people are evading their lawful liabilities on the other side, evading income-tax and surtax. They can say to their neighbours: "I can save £50 a week in tax by living in Ireland." I can give concrete cases of that. These are the people who are sending the price of houses sky-rocketing.

Mr. O'Leary

It is bringing money into the country.

Mr. Coogan

I am not denying that and do not want to stop them. I am drawing attention to the fact that these are the people who are putting up the price on the native Irish and if a native Irishman wants a house he simply cannot compete.

Mr. Dillon

Unless he is one of the new rich.

Mr. Coogan

Mind you, a good many of the new rich here are also imported.

Mr. Dillon

Even though the name may be Murphy there is another one in brackets underneath it.

Mr. O'Leary

It is very good for the seller.

Mr. Coogan

Apart from that aspect of the matter, there is the ordinary case of the rising building costs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going off to housing again.

Mr. Coogan

Every man in the House went on to housing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is it not nearly time the flood stopped?

Mr. Coogan

I am trying to answer Deputy Dillon in this way and will not be much longer. Building costs have soared to twice and three times the pre-war costs. The house built for £800 pre-war is costing anything from £1,500 to £2,000 to-day. I know cases of men who built those houses pre-war and who are building them to-day. They are reasonable people who are not trying to profiteer on the existing situation and who are keeping their profits within the limits of their pre-war profit margins. These gentlemen assure me that if they charge £1,800 to-day for a house that cost them £800 pre-war their profit to-day is actually less than their pre-war profit on the £800 house.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

May I point out to the Deputy that the Minister for Justice has no responsibility for the shortage of houses or the cost of house building.

Mr. Davin

Of course he has.

Mr. Coogan

Deputy Cosgrave directed the Minister's attention to the necessity of exercising some control over prices. I wanted to get to that point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has nothing to do with supplies or prices.

Mr. Coogan

Deputy Cosgrave asked the Minister to consider the question of controlling prices. I was mentioning these facts with a view to arguing that, from the facts I have recited, there is a case for some Department, whether the Minister's Department or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is supposed to control prices, to set up some machinery by which this problem can be examined.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is not in charge of this motion.

Mr. Coogan

Why, then, were other speakers allowed to get away with all these things?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You can do anything once, maybe. This motion is very simple, the proposal being to codify the several Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. Coogan

If you say it is a very simple thing, then may I say, with all respect, that the Chair is speaking in complete ignorance of the implications of the motion. The rent restriction code is undoubtedly one of the most complex pieces of law that ever was enacted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I was speaking of the wording of the motion and not of its implications.

Mr. Coogan

I have been trying to show that a fair rent tribunal will not meet the case. I am arguing against the motion and trying to show that a fair rent tribunal will not settle the problems which we have. I thought I was entitled to make that point. However, if I am out of order on that point, I do not intend to press it beyond saying that I think there is a case for investigation with regard to the whole question of building profits and building control with a view to exercising some system of control of prices and, further, with a view to giving the native Irish an opportunity of getting a house.

To come back to the motion again, I want to say that I think the 1946 Act, though it did not go as far as some of us would like, was a vast advance and improvement on the previous position, and that the Minister has gone a great distance towards clarifying many of the ambiguities and anomalies which existed before that Act was passed. To my mind, it is too soon yet to say that the Act has failed. It has been in operation only for a few months, and I think it will have to get a fair trial. Its duration is limited, I think, to five years. It can cease to operate at the end of that period. I am sure that if before the end of the five years a case can be made for the scrapping of the Act, the Minister will be the first to come to the House and say that conditions have so altered as to warrant the introduction of a new measure. I feel myself that though certain flaws, some of which were adverted to by Deputy Cosgrave, particularly in the matter of furnished flats, have become apparent, that, nevertheless, taking the Act on the whole, it is too soon yet to pronounce judgment on it in the wholesale manner which the adoption of this motion asks us to do.

Mr. Dillon

I very much regret that I felt bound to raise a point of order while Deputy Coogan was speaking. I felt obliged to do so because I should feel a certain sense of guilt if an undue part of the time of the House was spent in inadequately discussing the very much broader and wider matter of housing that does not arise on this motion at all. That may create the impression that the House failed to take the interest which should be aroused by the larger matters which are very naturally concerning Deputy Coogan's mind when the House simply forbore to discuss them because it decided to adhere to the narrow topic raised in this motion. That narrow topic can be simply stated in this way: Is it criminal or wrong for an ordinary citizen to want to know what his rent should be approximately without embarking on protracted litigation, without feeing solicitors or barristers for their opinion as to what the effect of the rent restriction code is on his particular house? Now, I am not expressing any legal opinion on this. I am a member of the legal profession but not a practising member. Lawyers have got into the habit of saying to the laity: "These are matters which you do not understand; leave these matters to us." Well, I do not see why Deputy Cormac Breathnach and Deputy Dillon, two ordinary citizens of this State, who are not practising barristers, are not entitled to look at their own thatch and make up their minds as to what the rent of it ought to be under the law without feeing a solicitor or barrister and starting the whole machinery of the High Court in operation. That is all I want. Is that presumption? The whole purpose of my representation is to sweep away this whole abracadabra of law decisions and so forth, and get a criterion for assessing rent on a house occupied by a tenant which the average man can understand and at least approximately apply. Do not deliver us, by the complexity of your statute law, into the toils of the legal profession out of which it may take us a small fortune to struggle.

I submit to the House that there is a general principle in regard to statute law and, indeed, to all law, and it is that it should be certain and clear so that every man may know his rights and duties under it: that it should be equitable in that it imposes on all men the same duties and confers on all men the same rights. Now, that is not a bad definition, I think, of good law, and if you accept that criterion for good law the rent restriction code, as it stands at present, answers neither. The standard laid down is most uncertain. Not even the most highly skilled lawyer in this country can, in any given case, tell you with certainty what the verdict of the court may be where you go in for the purpose of getting your rent fixed or a declaration as to what are the obligations and rights of tenant and landlord respectively under the rent restriction code in a given case. I submit that, in respect to any house, if the tenant approaches his solicitor and raises questions as to security of tenure, the rent payable and all liabilities accruing, he will get from any reputable lawyer an opinion, but he is likely to get from an equally reputable lawyer an opinion in the direct opposite sense, and when he gets into court he may find that neither of them is correct in their forecast of the decision that the judge will give.

Mr. Moran

You may get the same from two doctors. It all depends on a diagnosis of the facts.

Mr. Dillon

We in this House did not make typhoid fever, measles or typhus. The Lord God Almighty provided for that, and it ill behoves us to lay down rules as to how He should do His business. He knows best. I am suggesting to the House that there are rules which may properly govern the making of statute law. If the Deputy suggests that our statute law should partake of the incidence of measles, I cannot agree with him.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy is suggesting no such thing.

General Mulcahy

The turf valuation does.

Mr. Dillon

I am suggesting that law, unlike measles, should be certain and clear. I cannot accept the Deputy's view that the profession dealing with law should approach it in the same way as doctors approach their patients, wondering is this the rash of measles, chicken pox, typhus, typhoid or what not. That is the very fault I find with the present state of our law. I want the law to be certain so that humble members of the community like Deputy Cormac Breathnach and myself, who are both entitled to wear a wig and gown but who do not, can decide these questions for ourselves and walk our way in peace without being put to the necessity of handing out guineas to solicitors to ascertain what the position is. We should probably be told if we did consult a solicitor that the best way would be to start litigation, and that by the time it was finished, we should probably find out what our rights were.

Let us apply this test. Is there any Deputy who is living in a rented house who can go home, look up at his thatch and say to himself: "If somebody invoked the Rent Restrictions Act to determine what my rent should be, I know what it is"? I venture to say there is not. I venture to say that if he went to his best friend and asked him what he should do in order to get a proper answer to that question, that friend would say to him: "Look here, if you take my advice you will say nothing about it, but if you can afford it and if you want to be foolish, go to the best solicitor you can find and God knows what will happen after that." Does any Deputy own a house, and if so, has he a tenant in it? If he is a quiet, peaceable man, is there any landlord in this House who will advise his tenant to go into court and fight him to get their respective rights and duties defined under the rent restrictions code? Will he not pray to God that that tenant will never start it, not because he is afraid that certain liabilities will accrue to him, but because he is filled with a numinous awe, an awe of the unknown, and he feels that once he starts out into that desert, God knows where he will end up. I say that is bad law, and that is why I am making my alternative suggestion. Under the existing law, it is quite possible for two houses offering identical accommodation, side by side in the same street, occupied by tenants in precisely the same circumstances, in receipt of the same income, to have rents one of which will be fixed by law at a maximum of £65, and the other fixed by law at a maximum of £110. I assert that to be true on the best authority. That is inequitable and is a manifest departure from one of the reasonable criteria which I have laid down for good statute law.

I know it is popular in this House to represent oneself as a champion of tenants for the excellent reason that there are more tenants than landlords. I do not give a fiddle-de-dee for landlords or tenants. There is nothing in their gift I want, but this House has a duty to do justice by all, be they numerous or few, weak or powerful. Is it just to say to a landlord, whether he is a blood-sucking tyrant or a widow who has her slender means invested in house property in order to get a small but certain income, that if a certain rent was paid in 1914 on a house which was his or her property, he or she shall be deterred from getting any higher basic rent to-day than the 1914 rent plus 20 per cent.? What commodity of any sort, kind or description can be purchased to-day at the price ruling in 1914 plus 20 per cent.? Some people who do not understand the theory of money are puzzled by it. The plain fact is that money has lost its value. That reduction in the value of money was a matter of policy for the purpose of reducing the burden of national debts. We by statute have passed that burden on to the individual property owner. Why? Very largely because there are more tenants than landlords, and if you vex the tenants they will vote against you. If you vex the landlords, they have not enough votes to make very much difference, and nobody likes them in any case because they are called landlords. One of the evil side effects of enforcing that basic rent is that landlords in their own defence must abstain from paying a worker to keep such houses in the condition they were meant to be kept, and they will try to compensate themselves for loss of income by cutting down on these repair and maintenance charges for which they cannot get an adequate allowance under the Rent Restrictions Code in addition to the basic rent of 1914 plus 20 per cent.

Now here is a simple alternative which I propose to the Minister. I want a fair rent fixed for houses. I want this House to lay down a rent which is fair and just. For instance, I think it would be quite reasonable for this House to say: "We shall allow landlords 3 per cent. on the capital value of their houses, and if you like, whatever would be equitable for repairs." Deputy O'Connor, who is supposed to know everything that opens and shuts about houses, is peevish and crotchety and talks about the irresponsibility of bringing forward a motion of this kind, though he talked himself like a halfpenny book upon it. I do not propose to be an expert in public utility societies and the ramifications of these organisations, but I make this suggestion. Suppose you instruct fair rent tribunals to allow landlords 3 per cent., with an allowance for maintenance and repairs, as the maximum rent which they can charge for houses. This situation then arises, that simple citizens like Deputy Cormac Breathnach and myself living in rented houses, when we get our rent demand for 12/- a week, can stand out, look up at the thatch and make up our minds that it would take about £1,000 to build that house. Say that the capital value ascertained by a fair rent tribunal would be £1,000. The landlord has a right to 3 per cent. on that, that is £30, and he may be allowed £2 per annum for repairs. If he is charging 12/- a week for that house, there is no need to go into court—he is fairly near—but if he is charging £1 or 22/- for that house, Deputy Breathnach and myself will go down the street to him and say: "We are not lawyers, but 22/-, according to the way we reckon it, at simple interest would be the interest on nearly £2,000. Will you go to any tribunal and say it cost you £2,000 to build that"? The landlord will know full well that there is no use in his maintaining that the capital value of the house is £2,000. He will say: "What would you say it is worth?", to which I will reply: "£800." He will say: "£1,200" and we will split the difference and arrive at the rent in the back parlour without going to solicitors, lawyers or anybody else.

Is there anything shocking in that proposal? Is there anything evil in it because it makes it possible for the ordinary citizen to get an approximate knowledge of his rights without invoking all the abracadabra of the law? Would it not give every citizen that opportunity, or is there a flaw, is there some defect, in my argument? It is an extraordinary thing that the legal profession, like the bankers, manage to surround their whole proceedings with an aura of mystery and the average unfortunate layman, when he dares to make a suggestion of this kind, quails under the contemptuous smiles of the professional lawyer, whose head, incidentally, may be as empty as a drum. I know them. He smiles and, of course, he is a "larned" man. In the South of Ireland, they call him Attorney So-and-So and in the West we call him Counsellor So-and-So. He is a "larned" man. Very many of them are as innocent of the elements of the law as the babe in the cradle.

Mr. Davin

But they get their 6/8.

Mr. Dillon

They get their 6/8 simply because they have to shave. If they looked their mental age, a bottle of milk would be suitable; but, because of that, anyone who dares to tread upon this sacred ground is sneered at. "It is shocking to hear that fellow lay down a proposal for rent control under which the ordinary fellow in Balbriggan could go out and value his house." Would that not be good law? If we lay down a system of rent assessment which enables 99 per cent. of the citizens to meet in their own back kitchens and arrive at a knowledge of their mutual rights under the law because it was so simple and clear and certain, would it not be good law? That is what I think is good law, and it is the kind of law that lawyers do not like. It trespasses on this sacred area where no one dares to walk if a lawyer does not hold his hand. It is like the bankers when you talk of credit. They grow fat on their fraudulent fiction that they serve some useful purpose in the communal life. Anyone who dares to discuss this mystery of credit is looked upon with contempt as venturing on fields which no sensible man would dare to tread, were he not a banker, most of whose heads are solid ivory and who qualify for their right to sit on bank boards solely and exclusively by the solidity of their heads.

Mr. Davin

The Minister for Finance would not agree with that.

Mr. Dillon

The explanation might be readily available. My submission is that we, the plain people of this country, have the right to run things in the way which suits us and not the parasites who live upon us. I want the law of this country so written that recourse to the law courts should be the exception rather than the rule. Is there any rent in Ireland to-day which comes within the rent restrictions code which can be determined without recourse to the law courts? I know of none. I offer one alternative—there might be many other suggestions which could be made.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Suppose the landlord and tenant agree? Would that not be one case?

Mr. Dillon

About what?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

On the rent to be paid.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Ó Briain is a man for whose judgment I have profound respect and I think I may claim him as a member of the plain people with myself and Deputy Breathnach. I have this difference, however: I entered this unholy hall of law and came out of it to rejoin Deputy Breathnach and Deputy Ó Briain in the pure air outside, so that I know some of the tricks of the trade. Deputy Ó Briain asks whether if, under the existing law, a landlord and tenant agree, that would be a settlement. No, and after 20 years the tenant could go into court, get his rent fixed and recover from his landlord all the excess rent paid on foot of the agreement made between them.

Mr. Moran

That is not so.

Mr. Dillon

It is so.

Mr. Moran

It is not. He cannot go back beyond six years.

Mr. Dillon

Since the last Act. The Deputy admits the six years. Two citizens having dared to come together without a solicitor there to get his guinea committed the offence of agreeing a rent between them.

Mr. Moran

To the advantage of the landlord.

Mr. Dillon

We have virtuous indignation on the part of the legal profession, girding on their armour to defend the oppressed tenant—always on the side of justice and the little man, always ready to unsheath the sword and flourish it, provided the little man has the wherewithal to pay their costs.

Mr. Moran

The landlord has the same. The law is for the protection of the little man, and the Deputy knows it. He would have a poor chance under the law.

Mr. Dillon

I am not concerned to make any attack upon a very honourable profession to which I am proud to belong and to which many members of my family have belonged. I am merely concerned to assail the pretensions of some unworthy elements in it who would seek to impose upon the people the belief that law, in order to be good law, must be obscure, rather than the true doctrine that good law ought to be clear, equitable, fair to all citizens and easy for the simplest to understand. That is why I move this motion and I put it to the Minister that surely the alternative I suggest would be better than the jungle of case law and obscurity in which we at present are. Surely it would be fairer if tenants in houses of similar character were paying the same rent and if every landlord in possession of houses of similar character were getting the same rent.

Surely it would be better if every tenant in this country were in a position to go very near what his just rent should be without the intervention of any third party between himself and his landlord. There is the narrow point that concerns me. Deliver us from obscurity and bewilderment and give us instead something simple, clear and fair. I know that that evokes from the legal profession sneers of contempt. It would distress me to think that the Minister for Justice, by his proximity to lawyers, should have forgotten that desire which I believe he once had for the right to live within the law without having to keep a pet lawyer to tell you how to do it. That is all I want. It is very simple; not very fashionable; in the ears of lawyers almost blasphemous; but in the ears of most simple men an attractive kind of life. I do not think it is hopeless to ask Dáil Éireann that her people should be given that benefit. It is for that reason I put down the motion. I do not intend to press it to a division because, if I did, all the lay members of the Fianna Fáil Party would vote against their conscience. They would vote for the lawyers because they had to; but in spirit they would be walking through the Lobby with me. It would distress me so much if the separation of soul and body were to precipitate their dissolution, that I spare them the ordeal and the labour.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.