Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Nov 1953

Vol. 143 No. 6

Rent Restrictions (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1953—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Bill be read a Second Time. The object of the Bill is to continue the present Rent Restrictions Acts in force for a further period of one year, i.e., up to the 31st December 1954. These Acts, which give protection to tenants of pre-1941 dwellings against arbitrary increases of rent or arbitrary demands for possession, could not be allowed to lapse at the end of the year without causing serious hardships to many tenants.

Deputies will recall that the Report of the Rents and Leasehold Commission, which was published in Januarylast, made a considerable number of recommendations for amendment of the existing Acts including a recommendation that the Acts should be repealed and re-enacted in one statute which would incorporate all the suggested amendments. The chairman (Judge Conroy) and the members of the commission are to be congratulated on their exhaustive investigation of this difficult and many-sided problem, the outcome of which has been a comprehensive and valuable report.

As I indicated in the House during the debate on last year's Continuation Bill, I thought it desirable to get the public reaction to the commission's proposals before the Government were asked to take final decisions. Since the report was published I have received a deputation from a tenants' organisation and two deputations on behalf of landlords, the second of which came to me only a few weeks ago. I understand that the views of another organisation representing house-owners are to be submitted in the near future. In the meantime, the recommendations of the commission have been the subject of careful departmental examination. I expect to have the observations of interested Departments shortly and to be then in a position to submit the major recommendations in the report to the Government for decision.

I am sure that Deputies, having seen the large-scale changes in the present code which have been proposed by the commission, will appreciate that the preparation of comprehensive legislalation in accordance with the decisions of the Government will be no easy task having regard to the complexity of the code and the need to do justice to both landlords and tenants. The period of one year for which it is proposed to extend the Acts is not, therefore, excessive and it will not prevent the introduction before then of either the comprehensive measure, if it is ready, or an interim measure to deal with any particularly urgent problem that may arise.

Section 2 of the Bill is the usual provision in Continuation Bills of thiskind. It amends the provisions entitling landlords to add to the controlled rent a graduated percentage of exceptional expenditure on repairs in specified years by enabling any such expenditure incurred by them during 1954 to qualify for this exceptional lawful addition.

Mr. Sweetman

Perhaps the Minister would tell me what he has said. I am afraid my speed in running was not sufficient.

Mr. Boland

What I said was that I had already received three deputations, one from a tenants' organisation and two from householders, and another one has asked to be interviewed about the recommendations in the report, and that the Departments were examining the report and until I have got all their comments I was not in a position to put up a proposal to the Government. That is the position.

Mr. Sweetman

Thanks. That view of the Minister, of course, I can understand. Until he gets them he is not in a position to submit anything to the Government, but I would stress to the Minister that it is a matter of urgency that there would be a more full enactment following the report of the commission. There are two angles from which it is necessary. In the first case over the years there have been some cases of distinct hardships that have come to light as a result of legal decisions and so forth. When the 1946 Act was enacted the Minister may perhaps remember I was in another place——

Mr. Boland

I do. I well remember it.

Mr. Sweetman

——and gave the Minister a good deal of trouble, perhaps, if I might use that word, on the Bill, and we had very full discussions on it at the time. In respect of one important particular there has certainly been a decision since which has gone contrary to the entire intention that any of us at that time believed the legislation that we were enacting would provide. The Minister is, of course, aware that under the 1946 Act statutory tenants are given certain protection and in addition where astatutory tenant has died the children under certain circumstances are given the benefit of that protection as well. That, of course, is quite understandable and was, if I may use the phrase, the basis of the rent restriction code. A most peculiar situation has arisen, however, in respect of a person who is not a statutory tenant. The effect of one decision—and for the life of me the name of the case escapes me now though I remembered it earlier this afternoon—has been to provide that where a person was not a statutory tenant the children living in the house have no protection whatsoever.

The effect of that is best illustrated by an example. You have two houses side by side in the same street. The terms of the tenancy and the valuation of each of those houses are exactly the same. In house No. 1 we have tenant A who does not pay his rent. He gets into arrears and generally, for the sake of example, we will say he is a really bad tenant. The landlord serves notice to quit on tenant A, and tenant A, with the pistol to his head, pays up. Then he continues as a statutory tenant under the provisions of the 1946 Act. He dies subsequently and his child, who has been living in the house with him, remains on as tenant, and under the terms of the 1946 Act is protected from eviction.

In the second house you have tenant B who is a model tenant. He pays his rent on the nail on the day it is due, keeps his house nicely and is no trouble to his neighbours or no trouble to his landlord, and accordingly the landlord has never any occasion to serve any notice to quit on him. Tenant B then dies and leaves his child in exactly the same situation as tenant A, but because tenant B never became a statutory tenant, because no notice to quit was ever served on him, the child of tenant B is not protected and can be put out in the morning. That means a child of a good tenant can be penalised while the child of a bad tenant gets the protection of the 1946 Act. The Minister will agree with me that that was certainly never our intention in the days we were trying to cover appropriate cases in the Billbefore it became an Act. I myself have professional knowledge of two cases side by side which I had, one in which there was a good tenant and one in which there was a bad tenant and where there was a bad landlord, shall we say, over each. The child of the bad tenant is protected while the child of the good tenant had no protection or no redress. I do not know whether the Minister can now name the case I mentioned a short time ago.

Mr. Boland

There were two cases, one O'Sullivan versus O'Mara, and the other Hill versus Carroll.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister will agree that these were cases of very considerable hardship and that such cases should be met and met fairly soon. I think that the Minister is going to find that the preparation of what one might call a codifying or a consolidating measure, a full new Rent Restrictions Act, is likely to take up some very considerable time. Even when a governmental decision has been taken, inevitably a long time will elapse before the Bill is introduced.

Mr. Hickey

Did the 1946 Act not safeguard tenants against increases in rents?

Mr. Sweetman

It did if they were statutory tenants but not if they were not. If notice to quit had not been served in the tenant's lifetime, it did not safeguard his children. This, of course, is purely a continuing Bill and I do not think that I could, under the terms of the Long Title, propose an amendment that would cover cases of that kind but I would urge the Minister to consider the introduction of an interim short measure to cover that and any other similar type of simple case, leaving aside the whole question of general revision.

Having said that, I want to make it quite clear that so far as hardship goes, I am entirely on the side of the tenant and anxious to prevent that type of hardship. I want at the same time to sound a note of caution. One of the effects of the Rent Restrictions Act up to date has been that there are no houses to rent. I think we will probably get agreement on all sides ofthe House for the statement that where you have good landlords there is no necessity for Rent Restrictions Acts. The difficulty is that you get a proportion of bad, very bad, landlords. The type of person who deals in slum property almost always comes under the heading of a very bad landlord.

It is absolutely essential to provide some means by which a person in the position of a tenant to such a landlord will not be imposed upon. We, however, must face the situation— whether we consider it good or bad is another question—that the continuance of rent restriction has tended to drive people out of having houses for letting at all. Personally I think it would be far better, if it were possible, that people should buy their houses on an annuity or loan system rather than that they should rent them but there will always be a certain number of people who may feel that their employment in a particular place is not going to be sufficiently permanent to justify their making arrangements to buy their houses. For such a type of person the provision of houses to rent is not merely desirable but is a necessity.

Over the years, we have gone to such an extent in trying to protect tenants against bad landlords that we have rather overbalanced ourselves by putting restrictions on the good landlords and the result is that the supply of houses to rent is giving out and that there are practically no additions coming on the market in that respect. That is a matter which obviously has got to be considered in relation not merely to the problem of landlord and tenant, but also in relation to the supplies of homes for our people.

I would again urge the Minister to consider seriously introducing legislation to deal with some of the more glaring instances that have come before him and that came before the commission, because otherwise I cannot see any prospect of the Minister not coming before the House again with a similar Bill next year and, indeed, the year after. I doubt if he will get through the various realms of governmental sanction and governmental Departments and then throughthis House and the other House to enact a comprehensive measure much short of the year 1956. I would not like to see children of good tenants penalised between this and then, as they will be under the decision which has been given and which clearly was a decision not visualised by this House at the time and certainly not visualised by the Minister or the other House of which I was a member on the consideration of the 1946 measure.

Mr. Hickey

I appeal to the Minister to bring in a Bill to cover certain cases. The best way I can convince him of the necessity for that is to mention cases in point. I understand that there is no protection under the Rent Restriction Act for houses built since 1941.

Mr. Boland

That is correct.

Mr. Sweetman

The 7th May, 1941.

Mr. Hickey

In the suburbs of Cork a large number of private houses were built since then for which reasonable rents were agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant. This applies to certain houses built in 1944. It was agreed between the landlord and the tenants of these houses that the tenants should pay a rent of £75 and that the landlord should pay £17 in rates. In 1949 he notified the tenants that he would have to increase the rent from £75 to £96. In 1953 he informed them that he could no longer pay the £17 rates and that the rent of the houses would be £113 per year as against £75 in 1944.

Mr. Boland

Is that on account of the increase in the rates?

Mr. Hickey

Not at all. When the last Government were in power deputations were received by the then Minister for Justice and this Bill was promised. I know that what is happening in Cork is happening all over the State. I agree with Deputy Sweetman that it will be two years, if not more, before we will have the comprehensive Bill introduced and passed. The people I speak of require protection, because while some people are protected by the Rent Restriction Acts these tenants are not. Some ofthese people have come to me about the matter. I said to one of them: "Why do you pay rent?" His reply was: "Where am I to get a house? I had to submit to paying the increased rent because I had no chance of getting any other house." I appeal to the Minister, and I know he has a good deal of sympathy with people who are treated in that fashion, to bring in a short Bill to give these people protection. In another case where the rents were increased the tenants told me that one of the houses had been sold at a very reduced price compared with what they have to pay in rent. I appeal to the Minister to bring in a short Bill to protect those people who require protection.

Mr. Boland

As to the point raised by Deputy Sweetman, there is a recommendation with regard to that. I agree with Deputy Sweetman that that was not the intention. We had plenty of advice from lawyers on that occasion and we thought we had everything covered. The trouble about bringing in a short Bill is that if we do that Deputies will be pressing to have other matters included. However, I will consider the matter and see what can be done to deal with cases of hardship. I would prefer to deal with these matters in a comprehensive Bill, but I think it will be a good while before it will be ready. On the last occasion I think I was unduly optimistic. I know that I said it would probably be brought in during the summer.

As I explained when introducing this Bill, I have already received three deputations, one from tenants and two from landlords, and a third deputation is now asking to see me to point out how the proposals in this report affect them. That is one of the reasons why the Bill has been delayed. In the meantime, the proposals are under examination in the Department, and other Departments are examining them to see in what way they may affect their Departments. Consequently I have not been able to bring the matter before the Government yet. I will see what can be done to deal with the kind of cases which have been referred to. Deputy Hickey spoke abouthouses built since 1941. I suppose, if we brought in a short Bill to deal with them, other points would be raised. That is the difficulty about bringing in a short Bill.

Mr. Hickey

Cork Fianna Fáil Deputies have been approached about the matter. It is a grave injustice.

Mr. Boland

I will look into the matter and see what can be done.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

Mr. Boland

Perhaps I could have it now. Last year there was an amendment to make the time six months but I think there is not much point in that.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister remembers that he was pretty rude to his predecessor on the question of time.

Mr. Boland

Perhaps I was, but we are often rude to one another when I suppose we ought not to be.

Mr. Sweetman

I accept the Minister's statement as putting himself on the stool of repentance and on that basis we will give him the Bill now.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.