Rent Restrictions (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1950—Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1

Mr. Moran

I move amendment No. 1:—

In line 17 to delete "1952" and substitute "1951".

I see no reason why this Bill should be continued in its present form for a period of two years. The practice was in this House in respect of legislation of this kind for a Bill to be continued from year to year and there is a very particular reason why the House should not extend the scope of this measure beyond one year. I pointed out on the Second Stage of this Bill that the Opposition would not be prepared to allow this Bill through at all if there were any other safeguards left to the public, but the position was, if we opposed this Bill, that there would be no machinery whereby the people in houses and the people who are being exploited could get any possible protection. Therefore, we are forced to agree to this measure as a temporary measure, but there is no good reason why we should give the Minister a blank cheque until December, 1952, in connection with this measure.

We have already pointed out that there are three main matters that the Minister or the Government has to deal with in this measure. They are— the question of furnished lettings, the question of temporary convenience lettings and the question of new houses built since 1941. The Minister and the Government, by referring this matter to a commission, have simply shirked their responsibility. There is no reason why the House should continue to allow the Government or the Minister to shirk their responsibility in this matter for a day longer than is necessary. We pointed out to the Minister before that the Government could make up its mind on these three vital issues that are agitating the public mind in 24 hours, if they wanted to.

There are other matters which this commission may deal with, but on these three vital questions that the public are concerned with, it is a matter of yes or no. Are the Government prepared to cut out furnished lettings from the protection afforded by the increase of rent code? If they are, the Minister could do it in this Bill. Are they prepared to stop this loophole in the increase of rent code as regards temporary convenience? If they are prepared to do that, they can do it by one line in the Bill. Are they prepared to control houses erected since 1941? If they are, they can do it in the Bill. There is no reason why these three matters should be sent to any commission, except one obvious reason, and that is that the Minister or the Government is afraid or is unprepared to give a lead to the country.

We feel that we are forced by the vacillation of the Government to allow this legislation through as it is, as a temporary measure, but we must allow it through only for the shortest possible time. Is there any reason why the Minister cannot make up his mind, irrespective of the commission, before the end of next year? Why does he want to continue this measure to December, 1952? He assured the House that the commission now sitting will have its report in very shortly and that there will be no undue delay. Then why take power here to prolong this measure for two years? Is there any reason why this Bill should be continued so long? If it is true what the Minister states, that he expects to have a report from the commission in a short time, then there is no necessity to have this Bill continued so long.

Unfortunately, the experience of the House has been that the previous commission on this subject took five years to report. The experience of the House in respect of the plethora of commissions that we have had from this Government is somewhat similar. We are waiting still to hear from many of them. I am afraid the same will happen in connection with this commission. Therefore, I urge on the House, in view of the urgent need of a decision on these three vital matters, not to give the Minister power to continue this law for another two years. If it were only for 12 months we would have something to hope for. It would give Deputies a chance to review the position in connection with the tribunal that has been set up. We can ask the Minister the why and the wherefore if nothing has been done. Surely, December, 1951, is quite long enough to give the Government a chance of making up its mind on this question?

If this amendment is not accepted, and if the Minister wants to insist on continuing this legislation to December, 1952, I want to impress on every Deputy that those who vote against the amendment will be voting for a continuance of the exploitation of those people who are being exploited in this city and elsewhere throughout the country through this gag of furnished lettings; they will be voting for a continuance of the hardships on people who have been afforded temporary convenience and they will be voting for a continuance of the hardships among the people who have been exploited through the scarcity of housing and the people who are suffering because their houses have not been controlled since 1941. Every Deputy who votes against the amendment will be voting for the policy of putting these vital matters on the long finger.

Every Deputy knows that there is no justification for referring these three vital questions to a commission. There is no justification for the Government waiting until December, 1952, to deal with these vital issues. I recommend this amendment to the House and I suggest the House should extend this measure only until December, 1951.

Major de Valera

There is an aspect of this case put by Deputy Moran which, I think, should bring Deputies, from Dublin in particular, to urge the Minister to consider the amendment very seriously. The Minister knows very well that the mere enacting of a continuation law is a very simple matter. In the case of an essential continuation Act there is never any delay, so that there is really no case for having a two-year period here unless the Minister thinks that this Act is going to run as it is for two years. If there is going to be any radical amendment of the Act—if there is likely to be—in the course of the coming year, surely the sensible thing is to have this Act applying only for one year, which is the ordinary custom?

It is true that the Act initially was for five years, but it was then thought that its provisions would be required over five years and it was enacted for that period with the positive intention of covering those five years. Here the question is simply one of continuing an enactment and the ordinary procedure has been to do that for one year.

Mr. Timoney

Did that apply to the 1923 Act?

Major de Valera

I think it did, but I would like to check up on it. Nobody can be blamed for drawing the conclusion that the Minister and the Department do not anticipate any radical change in the legislation for two years. If that is so, then the tribunal that has been set up must be regarded to some extent as window dressing.

I mentioned Dublin. I wonder does the Minister realise—if he does not, he can ask representatives of the Dublin constituencies sitting beside him and on his flank—that the problem of rents is as serious and has evoked as much public interest as the problem of the cost of living? Does the Minister realise that? Representing, as he does, a rural constituency, he may not. Therefore, I ask him to inform himself on that matter.

I hasten to add that the problems involved appear to be extremely difficult. There are the problems of corporation houses and the Rent Acts. There are the problems of furnished lettings and the Rent Acts. It is only since I came into the House that another type of problem was mentioned to me. Are we to take from the fact that the Minister has provided for a two years' period that he does not anticipate being in a position to deal with these problems inside two years? If the Minister is serious, the proper thing to do is to adopt Deputy Moran's amendment and continue this for a year. If anything unforeseen happens, he has only to bring in another continuation Bill and that will give Deputies a chance of discussing the matter with the Minister and, through Deputies, it will give the people who are affected by these problems an opportunity of having it dealt with in a place where it can be discussed in a routine and proper manner.

As the Minister knows, problems of this nature can only be satisfactorily discussed on some legislation. If I attempt to raise this matter by way of question, I will have only half an hour and in that period the Minister must get ten minutes, so that discussion of the problem will be restricted to half an hour, of which period the Minister must have ten minutes. In that way I am precluded from dealing as I would like to with such problems if I can only raise them on the Adjournment. If I tried to raise the matter on the Minister's Estimate, he would appeal to the Chair, and the Chair would rule, as it has ruled, that legislation cannot be discussed on a Minister's Estimate. Therefore, if the Minister succeeds in putting off the day of reckoning for two years he muzzles the lot of us from talking on the Rent Acts, short of doing so by means of a Private Deputy's motion. The Government, I know, has control over Government time, and we all know how long it takes to get a motion in Private Deputy's time taken. If the Minister, note the "if", by, shall I say, evil design were to set himself out to preclude further discussion, or of dealing with this problem for two years, he could hardly do it in any better way than by enacting a Bill to continue the status quo for a year, and avoid thereafter having it raised on the motion on the Adjournment in an inadequate way, or on his own Estimate, discussion on which would be precluded.

I hope that the Minister will take our submissions on this in the spirit in which they have been given. I have outlined these points not in any sense of making an accusation against the Minister, but rather to indicate what can be the result of a two-year period. I can see absolutely no objection whatever to making it a one-year period. It would cost the House very little time to enact a recontinuance Act a year hence if that should be necessary. All the blandishments of the Minister, and his references to the new tribunal, are only to be rivalled by the references to the prices tribunal. Surely, we may expect to have this problem dealt with, so far as the Minister can deal with it, well within the next year. There will be three sessions before this time next year. I think, therefore, that the case which Deputy Moran has made is unanswerable. I have added my few remarks principally to stress the urgency of the situation from the point of view of the problems occurring in Dublin, and to point out to the Minister that these problems are as serious in their effect as the problem of rising prices is in Dublin at the moment. If the Minister does not believe me he can refer to Deputies who are supporting him in this House.

I suggest to the Minister as a gesture of good faith and of his earnestness and as a sign that the fears that have been expressed in regard to the efficiency of this advisory body, are without foundation. I think the Minister could very well get up and say that he is accepting the amendment. He could say that without doing what he had to do on another Bill—to fight it and then turn around, when public opinion was against him and accept the amendment. He knows the amendment that I refer to—the one on the Courts of Justice Bill. He did that when he felt that he was being coerced by public opinion. As regards the City of Dublin and its environs, I can assure the Minister that public opinion, if nothing else, will coerce him into tackling this problem before the year is out.

Mr. G. Boland

I think there is a case for having this Bill for one year only. The point was raised by Deputy Moran that houses built since 1941 have not been controlled. I remember they were deliberately left out at the time the Consolidation Act of 1946 was passed. We felt that if they were controlled there would be no houses built for letting. I remember saying at the time that if we got complaints of overcharges for newly built houses, the question of extending control to them would be considered. I wonder if the Minister has got any complaints. I thought that he would have given us some information on that point when he brought forward this Bill, that is as to what has been the effect of not controlling houses built since 1941. Everyone realised at that time that in the case of houses built in the conditions which then obtained—the cost of building had increased, and the cost of materials and wages had increased—it would be impossible to let them at the same rent as houses built earlier. I should be glad to have some information on that point from the Minister. Can he tell us if many houses have been built for letting since 1941, and whether he has had any complaints in regard to overcharging, having regard to the greatly increased cost of building?

The first Rent Restrictions Act was passed as a war measure. The way in which the Dáil proceeded at that time was that each year for four or five years a Bill was brought in which reduced the valuation limit of houses that were controlled. Take a house of £60 valuation. I do not think that the people who would be prepared to rent such a house need any protection. I thought so at the time. Still we did not know how things would turn out. We decided that we would control houses up to £60 valuation in the City of Dublin and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, and £40 elsewhere. I should imagine that, by this time, that so far as Dublin is concerned, the Minister would be justified in reducing the valuation to £45. A house with that valuation is a pretty big house. In the country, it would be a very big one indeed. If houses are to be built for letting, the Minister will have to consider reducing the valuation limit. I have been told by people with fairly good incomes, who are not in a position to buy a house, that if they could get one of that type for letting they would take it.

I know, of course, people are afraid to let houses now because as soon as one does that, one might as well hand the house over to the person who rents it. I realise that we had to have a Rent Restrictions Act. Those who remember the period before the first great war are quite well aware that it was quite easy to get a house in any part of Dublin for letting. Since the Rent Restrictions Act was passed, there has been a reluctance on the part of people to let houses.

On the general question of postponing this for two years, I think the Minister has a very bad case. When I was Minister, hardly a month passed that I did not get demands from the Opposition about furnished lettings. This Government has now been in office for nearly three years, and it has not made any move to do anything. I know it is a very difficult problem. They found in England that there was no cut-and-dried way of solving it. What they did was to set up regional tribunals, each area being treated differently. I am not saying that that would be an easy thing to do here, but I do say there is no necessity for this commission.

I have to agree with those who say that this is simply shelving responsibility. By taking a two-year period, the Minister is giving an indication to the commission that he does not expect to hear from them for two years. When I was in his place, I was persecuted about this matter. We have asked very few questions about it because we knew the difficulties. There was no such consideration, however, when we were the Government. As I say, the problem is well known, and the Minister should be able to say definitely whether he is going to do anything about it or not. He ought to know that by now. I know we could not have remained much longer in office without coming to a decision. This is merely shelving the responsibility.

As Deputy Moran said, we know how long a commission takes to consider a matter. I am not going to blame the commission for that because, to get a proper commission, it is necessary to get people from practically every walk of life. They are busy people who do their work voluntarily. In the case of a judge, he has a lot of other work to do and can only attend in his spare time. Consequently, it will take a long time to come to a decision, if we are to judge by other commissions. Some which were set up in our time have not reported yet. A couple of years before we went out of office there were a couple of commissions and we are still awaiting their report. This is simply a device for doing nothing. At the very outside, in two years' time another general election will be due. I do not think this Parliament will last very much longer than two years. It will be somebody else's responsibility then. That is the best proof that that is what the Minister is up to, but it will not work. I think we ought to accept this amendment and make it one year.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us what has been the effect of the Housing Bill, 1946. Has he any information as to how many houses were built for letting? I doubt very much if there have been many houses built for letting. If he has not that information, I will understand it. Before he brought in this Bill, however, he ought to have fortified himself with that information because he must have expected that somebody would ask that question. Have there been any houses built for letting, apart from corporation or local authorities' houses? I think there was an amendment, when I was Minister, seeking to put these local authority houses under the Rent Restrictions Act. I would not agree to that at the time and I would not be in favour of it now. I do not think there is any case for it. I certainly took that stand. If the Minister is taking the same stand now, I will support him.

A Deputy

He took the opposite stand before.

Mr. G. Boland

But he is in the Government now and he knows a lot more, or at least he has to admit that he knows, although he probably knew it then. He has to admit now that he knows the other side of the problem. I certainly would not support in our Party bringing in corporation houses or local authority houses, because, if you did, you would find that a lot of local authorities would not go on with building. If the Minister is going to bring that in, I think he would be very foolish, but I know he will not. I do not see any reason why he should not accept this amendment for one year. When a Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act was passed formerly it was done for the purpose of extending the Act for a year and reducing the valuation limit to something like £30. It became dangerous then and the Government stopped, and I think they were right. I think the £60 valuation was too high and also the £40 valuation in the country.

Mr. Timoney

I should like to get some information from the Minister as to what he expects from this tribunal. I should like him to let us know if he proposes, on getting a report from the tribunal, to introduce a completely new Rent Restrictions Bill. If that is the Minister's intention, I think it is something worth waiting for. I think lawyer Deputies will agree with me in that. I should also like to ask how long he thinks he will have to wait for the tribunal's report.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 6 Dec 1950