I would like to ask the Minister when it is proposed to bring in the Bill for which I was refused 12 months' delay two years ago? Last year, I must admit, the Opposition met me fairly, and gave me a year and I said that if I were still in the same position—about which I had my doubts —I hoped to bring in the Bill this session. I know the difficulties very well because I had to deal with them myself, but I would like to know from the Minister when he hopes to bring in the Bill arising from the report of Judge Conroy's tribunal.
Rent Restrictions (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1954— Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
No one is as familiar with the difficulties involved as the Deputy himself. The Bill is still under examination and I am not in a position at the present time to promise that it will be brought in in the New Year. In bringing in a Bill of this kind, we want to give justice to all sections of the community which will be affected by the new Bill. I promise, however, that if there is anything exceptional occurring in the New Year that measures will be taken to deal with it.
Have the proposals been brought to the Government yet?
They have. They are at Government level and are being considered at that level.
That satisfies me.
I want to ask the Minister if he will give consideration to increasing the allowances for improvements and repairs to premises. I think all Deputies will agree that the Minister is right to introduce this Bill for a further 12 months pending consideration of the Bill which Deputy Boland has in mind, but the House will also be aware that very many people who are owners of property and have that property let, feel that they are not getting a fair crack of the whip in relation to the amount of increases which they are entitled to put on the rent when repairs and improvements are carried out. The present fractions—I do not carry them in my mind—were fixed I think in 1946, and there is no doubt the cost of practically any type of work has increased considerably since. I just want to ascertain if the Minister has given consideration to this question and if so whether he intends doing anything about it in the next 12 months?
The matter which the Deputy has raised will be considered and if he has any suggestions to make he might, perhaps, forward them.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and received for final consideration.
Agreed to take Final Stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
There is one word missing in one of the sections of the Rent Restrictions Act and it has caused a great deal of disturbance and havoc in Dublin City during the last couple of weeks. I have a case here which was brought to my notice where the tenant, who was the father of an ordinary working-class family in a working-class area, died and the landlord proceeded to give the widow notice to quit and succeeded in getting an order to evict herself and the children. If that continues, there is nothing to prevent a landlord, whenever the father of a family in similar circumstances dies, from giving the mother notice to quit and succeeding in putting them out in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in 1953 which can be found in the Irish Law Times of the 27th February, 1954. It is the case of Reynold v. McKane and Lyons. That case was quoted in connection with the case of Mrs. Jane Milea of 26, Lower Rutland Street, Dublin. I was trying to get the tenant kept on in the house where her family was born and which was her home. Then she gets this letter: “This is to confirm that a decree was granted against you by the Circuit Court .... that rent had been paid up to the date of the Notice to Quit, the proceedings being against you not for over-holding but on title, the actual tenant being your late husband.” A stay was put on until the 1st January and the sheriff's men will go in on that date to evict that woman from her home where she lived all her life.
What I want to get done is to provide that the contractual tenant would also be protected as well as the statutory tenant. Without exaggeration, 90 per cent. of the tenants in decent working-class houses in Dublin become contractual tenants when the father of the family dies and when that happens, it is open to the owner to seek possession of the house. It does not matter what family the person has; the case is not covered by the Rent Restrictions Act. The contractual tenant is the ordinary tenant, the father of a working-class family, whose name goes on the rent book and is it to be said that, because of the omission of this one word, his widow is to be evicted, if he dies?
This case was before Judge MacCarthy recently in the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court made their decision on the basis of the Supreme Court decision. I would ask the Minister to safeguard the citizens generally and the rights of contractual tenants who, as I said, comprise 90 per cent. of the citizens of Dublin in working-class areas. I know it is not the intention that when a docker at the North Wall dies after 40 years in a house, anyone should have the right to say to his widow: "Get out." That is not and never was the intention of the Act and I would ask the Minister to look into it.
Section 39, sub-section (3) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, says:—
"In case the statutory tenant leaves him surviving his wife, who was residing with him at the time of his death, she shall be entitled to retain possession of the premises under the same terms and conditions as the deceased statutory tenant."
I merely want the contractual tenant to get the same benefits as the statutory tenant; if not, it will lead to a lot of trouble in the City of Dublin. It has commenced in a working-class area in the Summerhill, Lower Rutland Street and Seán MacDermott Street area. I earnestly appeal to the House—and I feel I am appealing to a sympathetic House—not to allow a woman and her family—it is bad enough for her to lose her husband— to be under the threat, within a week of his death, of losing her home. I will leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Minister and the Government. As I say, sub-section (39) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, gives protection to statutory tenants and why not to contractual tenants who, as I say, comprise 90 per cent. of the tenants of working-class houses in the City of Dublin?
If the position is as indicated by Deputy Byrne, I certainly think the Minister should look into it, but I wonder is the position as has been represented to Deputy Byrne? My understanding of the position is this: It is true that the 1946 Act specifically deals with the case of statutory tenants—I think it is in Section 40, as the Deputy mentioned— and it provides that on the death of a statutory tenant the widow or widower or other member of the family residing with the statutory tenant at the time of death becomes entitled to the tenancy, but remember that a statutory tenant is a contractual tenant who has lost his contractual tenancy by reason of the fact that notice to quit has been served.
On the widow.
On the contractual tenant, and the person who is there then is only a tenant by virtue of the Rent Restrictions Act, and that is how he becomes known as a statutory tenant which is now a definition incorporated in the Rent Restrictions Act. I always assumed—I may be wrong in this—that it is a well-settled and well-known law that an ordinary contractual tenant, that is, a tenant whose tenancy has not been determined by notice to quit, has a tenancy interest developing in the ordinary way as any other personal property and that, in the case of a contractual tenant, the personal representatives of the deceased tenant became entitled in the ordinary way to the benefit of his tenancy interest.
It astounds me to learn that there was a decision in the Supreme Court which seems to run counter to the general law on the subject of devolution of property. I am not saying that Deputy Byrne is mistaken. It may be that the decision which he has quoted has that effect and, if it has, I do not think there is any doubt at all that he is right in raising it here and asking the Minister to look into it, and I think the Minister should look into it in relation to the decision which has been given. I do not think that when the 1946 Act was being drafted, there was any flaw or slackness in the wording of Section 40 because the only people it was necessary to protect were statutory tenants, people whose contractual tenancy had come to an end and who were merely holding their tenancy rights by virtue of the operation of that Act. These were the only people whose rights appeared to need protection, because, as I say, the position as regards a contractual tenant was well-settled and well-known under the law. If there is a decision which runs counter to that it certainly should be looked into.
Might I be permitted to make one or two observations, in view of the fact that I was associated with the particular case, the decision in which has caused this trouble? The decision arose, I think, in Cork and it was to the effect that if a landlord can get in a notice to quit in time, in the case of a deceased tenant dying intestate, before a grant of administration is taken out, the tenancy is gone and the widow and family get no rights under the Act. You require to be a pretty slick landlord to do that, but some of them have done it. The taking out of a grant of administration would solve the whole matter.
As Deputy O'Higgins pointed out, in the case of a contractual tenant, the tenant had an actual tenancy or piece of property in the premises which he was occupying. He had something he could deal with by will, even though it was not perhaps very valuable from a pecuniary point of view. When he died intestate, that would pass to his widow and children under the ordinary law of intestacy, but if a landlord got in his notice to quit, before administration was taken out, there was nothing on which the grant could operate. It is a very thin point and a very technical decision.
The matter is dealt with by Judge Conroy's commission in several parts of the report. It is dealt with on page 75 of the report on rent control in paragraph 265 and the following paragraphs and there is a recommendation made in reference to the matter in paragraph 271, on page 78, and an alternative recommendation made subsequently at paragraph 283 on page 83 of the report. This last recommendation is that, if the recommendation referred to in the earlier paragraph is not adopted, any new legislation should ensure that the spouse and family of the deceased intestate contractual tenant of controlled premises shall be in the same position, so far as the right to remain in possession is concerned, as the spouse and family of a deceased statutory tenant.
Obviously, if a general clause were put into this Bill, it might be said to interfere with the right of a tenant to make a will dealing with the property. I think the Deputy's troubles can be got over, if the tenant makes a short will leaving his rights in the property to his widow or children. I think I can suggest without prejudice, and without incurring any liability for the gratuitous information I am giving, the Deputy might solve the whole matter and obviate the necessity for putting in this particular provision in the Bill. The matter is being considered in connection with all the other problems arising out of Judge Conroy's recommendations. If we were to adopt the Deputy's suggestion, we would be taking one particular proposal of the rent commission to put into this Bill. We would not be getting the whole matter into perspective, without giving each recommendation full consideration. If there is a way out, in the manner I suggest, then the matter will have to wait until the general Bill, which I hope will not be unduly delayed, is introduced and, in the meantime, the suggestion I have made might be considered.
I feel some responsibility for the 1946 Act. I must say that of all the Acts that have gone through this House, I do not believe there was ever one which got such consideration, especially from the legal members. I remember when we went to the Seanad we had senior counsel, junior counsel and solicitors offering their assistance to make it a watertight measure but, within a very short time, a loophole was found. I am surprised that such a big number of people are contractual tenants. I understand the point the Taoiseach has made just now, that if people have the foresight to make a will——
We tried to make a good job of it.
It was not for want of legal advice, because we had an abundance of it in the Seanad.
Question put and agreed to.