Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 1960

Vol. 184 No. 7

Rent Restrictions (No. 2) Bill, 1960 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

As Deputies are aware, this Bill has already been considered by the Seanad and amended in a number of minor respects.

The Bill is a comprehensive measure which repeals and re-enacts, with a number of important amendments, all the existing Rent Restrictions Acts. It represents the outcome of the Government's consideration of the recommendations in the Conroy Commission's Report, presented in 1952, in the light of the economic and other changes which have taken place since that Commission examined the rent control problem. These changes have been such as to make some of the major proposals in the report inappropriate in present circumstances.

When the Commission were considering the problem, the Korean crisis was at its height and there was considerable instability of economic conditions. In that context the Commission considered that not only was it necessary to continue the existing controls but that control should be extended to the houses built since 1941, to houses built hereafter and to all furnished lettings. Since that time, however, economic conditions have markedly improved, the scarcity of housing accommodation has been virtually overcome, living standards generally are better than they have ever been and reasonable stability of economic conditions has been attained.

In 1957 the Capital Investment Advisory Committee in a Majority Report recommended that the Rent Restrictions Act should be repealed over a period of 10 years. A Minority Report, signed by two of the members, disagreed with the conclusions in the Majority Report.

After prolonged consideration of the conflicting views on the problem, the Government came to the conclusion that the existing situation was such that it would be contrary to the public interest to extend further the present controls and that, on the contrary, what was needed was such a relaxation of controls as could be effected without causing hardship to tenants. The Government did not, therefore, accept either the Conroy Commission's proposals for an extension of control or the Capital Investment Advisory Committee's recommendation for the abolition of rent control over a period of 10 years.

In reaching a decision the Government were influenced by the necessity for reaching a balance between the requirements of a progressive economy and the need to see that justice was done to tenants, many of whom are among the poorer sections of the community. Moreover, the Government felt that no satisfactory solution of this many-sided problem could be achieved unless it were to be regarded by the people generally as being fair and reasonable. The Government believe that the compromise proposals which are put forward in this Bill merit this description and can be said to be not only in the general national interest—in that they will help to maintain the nation's stock of houses in good repair—but also in the long-term interests of tenants in that they will help to increase the supply of rented accommodation.

With regard to the actual provisions of the Bill, these fall under three main headings. First, certain relaxations of control are proposed. Secondly, an up-to-date and easily ascertainable basic rent is being provided for virtually all property now tenanted. Finally, in order to compensate landlords for the increased costs of repair, it is proposed to increase the rents being paid on 1st February, 1960 (less rates, where the landlord pays them) by 12½ per cent. where the landlord is liable for whole or part of the repairs.

The relaxations in the scope of control which are effected by Section, 3 of the Bill have all been designed so that no sitting tenant will be disturbed. Accordingly, only future tenants will be affected by the proposed decontrol of owner-occupied houses, irrespective of valuation, by the decontrol of houses exceeding £30 rateable valuation in Dublin (£25 elsewhere) on the landlord securing vacant possession, by the decontrol of separate and self-contained flats constructed after the passing of the Act or by the decontrol of certain dwellings let with substantial amounts of land. It will be observed that decontrol on owner-occupation or on vacant possession exceeding a specified rateable valuation will only apply to a future letting of the house in question; any future letting of a room or a flat (other than a newly constructed self-contained flat) in a decontrolled house will still be subject to control.

Those purely business premises which are controlled at present, i.e. those let on less than yearly tenancies, are also being decontrolled but the tenants affected are being given immediate rights to protection under Part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, if they have not got these rights already. It is hoped that, in particular, the freeing from control of newly-constructed self-contained flats will result in a large number of conversions of the large houses in city areas which have become uneconomic for occupation as single dwelling-houses. If this expectation proves to be justified, the shortage of rented accommodation will be relieved substantially in the areas where the shortage is greatest. The Government are anxious to encourage such a development and repair and reconstruction grants will be available for these conversion operations.

The provisions of Sections 7, 8 and 9, which deal with the fixing of new basic rents for the property remaining under control, are expressed, of necessity, in rather technical language, but their broad object is clear. A new basic rent will be fixed for every controlled dwelling which was let on 1st February, 1960, or within three years before that date. This is the effect of Section 7 of the Bill.

The new basic rent will be the actual rent being paid on 1st February last, less rates, where the landlord pays them. If, for example, the rent being paid by a tenant on 1st February was 15s. and the rates, payable by the landlord, amounted to 5s. weekly, the new basic rent will be 10s.; if in such a case the rates were paid directly by the tenant, the new basic rent will be 15s. There will be a few cases in which property not let on 1st February, 1960, will still be subject to control; these will be, in the main, fresh lettings of rooms or flats, other than newly-constructed self-contained flats. Provision is made in Section 9 of the Bill for the Court to determine the basic rent of such lettings by reference to the rents of comparable dwellings whose rents are related to the level of rents prevailing in 1941.

It is necessary also to make provision for the odd case where the rents actually being paid on 1st February, 1960, happened to be unreasonably high or unreasonably low. Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 8 of the Bill allow such basic rents to be revised by the Court where, broadly speaking, the basic rents are more than 12½ per cent. above or below what the Court would otherwise fix. In addition to satisfying the Court on this aspect of the matter, a landlord who desires to have the basic rent increased must also satisfy the Court that the amount of the rent actually being paid on 1st February was affected by special circumstances, for example, where the landlord had let the dwelling at an abnormally low rent to a relative of his or for charitable reasons. If the dwelling concerned has been under control since 1915 then the Court will have regard to the rents of comparable dwellings of this kind in determining whether the rent is 12½ per cent. too low and not to the higher 1941 level of rent applicable to the premises brought under control for the first time, or recontrolled, in 1944. Where the application for the revision of the basic rent is made by a tenant, the Court, in determining whether the basic rent was more than 12½ per cent. too high, will take as its criterion the basic rents of comparable dwellings controlled on the 1941 level of rents, that is, unless the dwelling concerned has been under control since 1915 and has a rateable valuation not exceeding £10.

As I have said, these provisions are somewhat complicated, but it must be emphasised that they will have to be operated only in the exceptional case where the actual rent being paid on 1st February, 1960, was excessively high or excessively low. It is reasonable to assume that virtually all controlled property is rented at levels which approximate closely to the lawful rents under the present law. Accordingly subsections (1) and (2) of Section 8 will not be often invoked and their provisions may be expected to have a comparatively short life because any tenant or landlord who neglects to have a basic rent revised within a reasonable time is bound to have a difficult task in convincing the Court that the rent actually being paid on the 1st February, 1960, was unreasonable.

In general, these rent-fixing provisions will import a desirable certainty into the rent restrictions code and thus remedy one of its most serious defects, namely, that the basic rent is unknown in most cases and that accordingly unless the tenant agrees, the landlord cannot increase the rent to obtain a permitted increase unless he is prepared to incur the expense of having the Court determine it. This situation is being completely altered by the Bill.

At this point I should like to mention that it is intended to move two amendments to Section 7 on Committee Stage. The first amendment will propose to alter the date by reference to which basic rents are to be determined from 1st February, 1960, to a date approximating to the passing of the Bill. It is clearly desirable that this date should be as up-to-date as possible. The second amendment which I will move will be to give effect to an agreement reached on 6th October, 1960, between the, Dublin Artisans' Dwellings Company and the Association representing the Company's tenants, following negotiations under the chairmanship of Deputy Briscoe. The agreed rents will be deemed to be basic rents for the purposes of the Bill.

The third main object of the Bill is to allow an increase of 12½ per cent. in the basic rents of controlled dwellings to compensate landlords who are liable for repairs for the increase in the cost of repairs. The need for such an increase will, I think, be generally conceded. The Conroy Commission found that the cost of repairs had increased five times between 1914 and 1950, when they were considering the matter, and that these costs had doubled between 1941 and 1950. Since 1950 these costs have increased by a further 40 per cent. The Commission recommended that landlords who were liable for all repairs should be entitled to an increase of 25 per cent. on current net rents and that landlords who were liable for part repairs should receive an increase of 12½ per cent.

The Commission made it clear that, in their opinion, these increases would not quite restore the 1914 return of landlords of the older category of controlled houses, who are in the majority, although it would improve somewhat the return received in 1941 from the minority of premises brought under control in, 1944. Landlords of the older controlled premises have been receiving, since 1926, rents which are 30 per cent. above the 1914 rents in cases where the landlord is liable for all repairs, and 25 per cent. above the 1914 rent where the landlord is liable for part repairs. The only increases permitted by the Acts to the landlord of these premises are for any outlay of the landlord on rates—from which the landlord does not benefit personally—or for any outlay of his on structural alterations, improvements or certain exceptional repairs. Landlords of the property which was brought under control for the first time, or recontrolled in 1944, have received no increase to compensate for the increase in the cost of ordinary repairs since then and are entitled to increase the rent only in respect of their outlay on rates and on structural alterations, improvements or exceptional repairs.

In these circumstances the Government decided to allow a 12½ per cent. increase in basic rents. Where, however, landlords have already obtained considerable increases of rent by virtue of expenditure on exceptional repairs, the Government considered that it would be unfair not to modify the application of the 12½ per cent. increase. Accordingly, subsection (4) of Section 10 provides that the 12½ per cent. increase will not apply to any portion of the basic rent which is attributable to a lawful addition obtained by a landlord under the present Acts for expenditure on exceptional repairs with the aid of repair and reconstruction grants, and that the increase will not apply at all to such a landlord who has not received these grants. In the matter of increasing rent the Government have therefore shown the same concern to avoid hardship to tenants as in the matter of relaxing the scope of the present controls.

These are the three main objects of the Bill but, as indicated in the explanatory memorandum, the Bill contains a large number of modifications of the present law, some of which are minor and technical but others of which raise important issues. In the main, these other modifications of the present law are based on recommendations of the Conroy Commission and they are, perhaps more appropriate for discussion on the Committee Stage though I shall endeavour to deal with any points arising out of them if any Deputy should require clarification of them now.

In conclusion, I should like to thank the Conroy Commission and the Capital Investment Advisory Committee for their assistance in the consideration of this difficult problem. In neither case did the Government find it possible to accept fully the recommendations put forward, but this was because, in the case of the Conroy Report, circumstances had altered radically since the Commission reported and, in the case of the Majority Report of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee, the Government were unable to reconcile the recommendation for complete decontrol within ten years with their obligation to ensure that justice is done to the poorer sections of the community.

The Reports prepared by both bodies have made it possible for the varying views on this matter to be brought to the notice of the public and of the Government and they will, I think, contribute to a general realisation that no completely acceptable solution is possible. The solution propounded by the Government and proposed in this Bill is not, and does not pretend to be, completely acceptable to all concerned, but the Government believe that it will be regarded as a fair compromise between the conflicting interests involved which at the same time will promote the best interests of the community generally. I trust the Bill will commend itself to the House on this basis.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is only right to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the manner in which he has introduced this Bill and the trouble he has taken to explain its provisions. This Bill, indeed any Rent Restrictions Bill that I have read, is an extremely complicated document. It is very difficult to read and, when one has succeeded in reading it, it is extremely difficult to understand. In that respect it does not differ very greatly from the 1946 Act. May I make one suggestion? Possibly it may be by way of criticism, though it is not intended in that sense.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary's officials that, on the occasion of the introduction of any Bill of this sort, the Department of Justice should follow the precedent which they themselves established some years ago in connection with the Statute of Limitations when they included very full explanatory marginal notes showing what alterations were being made in the law, as proposed, and the law as heretofore existing. That would be very helpful to Deputies, particularly to those who are not lawyers or auctioneers, who, possibly, are more accustomed to dealing with Rent Restrictions Acts. If marginal notes were compiled in such a way as to distinguish between new legislation and existing legislation, it would be very helpful. I know it is not always possible to do that but, as I said, it was done by the Department of Justice some years ago in connection with another Act.

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the problem which this or any Government faces in relation to the question of rent control is a very difficult one. While these Acts are referred to as Rent Restrictions Acts I think it is only right we should bear in mind that they are more than that. They deal not only with the question of control of rents but also with the question of control of possession.

The problem facing the Legislature in connection with any such Bill as this is how to be fair to the landlords and, at the same time, how to prevent anything in the nature of exploitation of tenants. That problem is aggravated by the fact that you have, possibly, as many different types of landlords and tenants as you have human beings. You have the good, bad and indifferent landlord and you have the good, bad and indifferent tenant. If we could classify all landlords as grabbers and exploiters who want to squeeze the last penny out of their tenants, then the Legislature would know the type of legislation necessary to deal with that type of landlord. On the other hand, if we could classify all tenants as "welshers" who wanted to avoid paying a just rent, another type of legislation would be necessary. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot classify either landlords or tenants in that way.

If you tried to get any classification of landlords, I imagine you could divide them into three principal groups. First, you have the slum or tenement landlord. Second, you have the person who is landlord of one or two houses only and who, because of financial or family circumstances, finds it necessary to arrange the letting or leasing of his house, either as an entity or in apartments. In the third category you have what I would describe as the estate landlord. By that I mean the company which goes into the estate business of letting property or building houses and letting them at a profit. In that category also is the landlord who has inherited property and wants to maintain it. Very often he is a person who will have his estate properly managed by a competent firm of estate managers and who has a very high regard for his obligations as a landlord and whose concern very often is more with regard to the type of tenant than the amount of rent he will get.

Landlords can make a fairly good argument, and this was put up by the bodies referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary. An argument can be made, and has been made, for total decontrol; but quite, clearly this House could not accept that. It would be quite impossible, without creating chaos or a social revolution, to take the step from absolute or fairly full control to total decontrol. The Government are right and the Conroy Commission were right when they recommended that control of some sort would have to be continued.

As far as I see the position, I think it was implicit in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement—in any event, I hope it was—that this Bill should not be regarded as a final Bill, that it should not be regarded as the last word on rent legislation. In this matter the Legislature must move gradually, step by step. This Bill must be regarded simply as one step in the path on which the Legislature has set its feet.

With regard to rent restriction and control of premises generally, landlords, no matter in which of the three categories I have mentioned they fall, can argue that the rent they are able to get is artifically pinned down and that the restrictions on control amounts to a definite limitation of their ownership. I feel that, of the two, landlords probably regard the restriction on possession as the greater hardship on them. Certainly there is no doubt that the right to retain possession is a very valuable right from the tenant's point of view. There are arguments which can be made for the landlords, and certainly there are arguments which can be made for the tenants.

It was said in the discussion on this Bill in the Seanad—and I believe it to be true—that, having regard to the general history of landlordism in this country, the natural sympathy of an Irish Legislature would be with the tenants and that it would normally favour the tenant. In that connection it is significant to note that of the three major proposals or alterations contained in this Bill, two of them are what I would describe as landlord's proposals. They are proposals favouring the landlords as against the tenants. The third proposal, which the Parliamentary Secretary described as a more easily ascertainable basic rent, is probably as much in favour of one group as the other.

Again, looking at the matter from the tenants' point of view, I think it is true to say that, by and large, the tenants of controlled premises are very often, by reason of their financial circumstances, among the very weakest section of the community. I said earlier that just as you will have good, bad and indifferent landlords, you will have good, bad and indifferent tenants; but by and large my experience is—and I think it will be the experience of other Deputies in the House—tenants are prepared to pay a fair rent and they expect when they do so that they will have at least reasonable security of tenure. I believe they are entitled to that. The tenant of a controlled premises is, one might say, always a person who, because of his inability to purchase out his home, at least open to exploitation in conditions of scarcity.

As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out this is based largely on the recommendations of the Conroy Commission. The Parliamentary Secretary has outlined the three principal alterations which are proposed in this Bill, firstly to effect certain relaxations in the scope of control, secondly to deal with the question of existing basic rent and to bring in a new method of ascertaining it and, thirdly, to increase the rents of controlled premises where the landlords are liable for repairs. The relaxations which are envisaged or set out in the Bill are the removal of control from owner-occupied houses, from houses in Dublin with a P.L.V. of £30 or more and £25, I think, elsewhere, where the landlord gets vacant possession and, of course, the removal of control from business premises.

The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the new method which is suggested for arriving at the basic rent and has pointed out, in so far as the third principal provision or principal alteration in the Bill is concerned, that it is to increase the rents of controlled premises by 12½ per cent. where the landlord is liable for repairs either in whole or in part. I want to say quite clearly that I object to the provisions in Section 10 which will result in this 12½ per cent. increase to tenants of controlled premises. I believe, and my Party believes, that there should not, in fact, be any increase by legislative action on the rents of what for want of a better word I shall call sitting tenants, tenants already afforded protection by the Rent Restriction Acts in force up to date and who are actually now in occupation of their tenancies.

It is necessary to note that the 12½ per cent. increase which is to be allowed by Section 10 applies not only in cases where the landlord is liable for all repairs but even in cases where he is liable only for part repairs. That is a particularly dangerous step for the Parliamentary Secretary to take at least until there is some very definite definition of what part repairs means. Remember that the qualification under this Bill for the 12½ per cent. increase is not the doing of repairs by the landlord; it is merely the liability of the landlord to do them whether the repairs are done or not.

The 12½ per cent., as I understand the position—the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me, no doubt, if I am wrong—is to compensate landlords for the increase in the cost of repairs as between the date of the passing of the 1946 Act and the introduction of this Bill. If that is so—and I believe I am right in my interpretation—it would seem that if the Government want to compensate landlords who are responsible for repairs at least there should be some condition that any landlord who qualifies for this increase which is related to repairs should have carried out repairs, but as the Bill stands, as I read it, if a landlord is liable for partial repairs no matter how small and whether or not he has done any repairs, he will get by act of this Legislature if it passes this Bill in its present form a bonus of 12½ per cent. simply because of that liability.

I think it is unreal to shut our eyes to the fact that over the last ten or 15 years since the last Rent Act was introduced, and a decade before that, many houses that were controlled by Rent Acts have changed hands. Landlords bought premises knowing that they were controlled; tenants went into tenancies in these premises in the knowledge that there was legislation passed by the Oireachtas which gave them certain rights and now if the Government decision in this matter is allowed to stand in this House, we are going to say to these tenants: "No matter what rights you had under the law up to this, no matter what agreements you entered into with your landlord, no matter what knowledge the landlord had of his obligations under the law as it stands, we are going to alter that and tell you to pay your landlord a 12½ per cent. increase and you will have to do that whether the landlord wants it or not." That is what Section 10 amounts to.

I think it right to point this out and it should be taken into account by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Deputies in regard to this section of the Bill. It is right to remember that all sorts of people will be affected by this provision and the people who will be affected in the main will be the very weakest section of the community, the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans, the blind pensioners and the people already existing on miserable pittances each week. They are going to be told by the Legislature that they must pay a 12½ per cent. increase on the rent under the new Bill. What provision is there in the Bill, or what provision have the Government in mind, to compensate these people for the burden that we, as the Legislature, are going to impose on them? What provision can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate for compensation that they will get? This will increase the cost of living on every tenant of a controlled dwelling.

A few days ago I asked the Taoiseach by Parliamentary Question what steps the Government intended to take to reduce the cost of living and I think it is relevant to this discussion to refer to the reply given by the Tánaiste on behalf of the Taoiseach on the 3rd November:

The consumer price index has been stable over the past few years. The latest index number, that for mid-August last, was no higher than for mid-August, 1958. There is now reasonable basis for believing that the forces making for general price inflation have been checked. The Government consider that no circumstances exist to require the reintroduction of any general system of price restriction and that the competition which is now effective may be relied on to keep all prices at the lowest practicable level.

Earlier this month the Tánaiste said in this House that there was basis for believing that the forces making for general price inflation had been checked and at the same time the Government of which he is a member was deliberately introducing legislation to bring about, by positive Government action, an increase in the cost of living on every tenant of a controlled dwelling in the country.

For those reasons we object to that proposal. It might be reasonably argued, and can certainly be argued to some extent, that the same objections do not apply or that some of them do not apply, in the case of new tenancies of controlled premises but I think that they do all apply in the case of what I have described as sitting tenants. I think that in the case of new tenancies it should be possible, and would be possible to have a provision whereby a rent could be fixed by mutual agreement, or, in default of agreement, there should be some type of fair rent tribunal or fair rent court.

I am aware of the fact that the Conroy Commission rejected the idea of any kind of a fair rent court. However, I do not believe that it would be unworkable. I believe that a tribunal of that sort, to which landlords and tenants could have resort, would be in a position to fix a rent having regard to the general economic and social conditions, cost of building and so on. For that reason I believe that it would be worth while in the case of a new tenancy to have some such provision.

There are a few other matters to which I want to refer. Some of them would probably be committee matters but I want to accept the invitation of the Parliamentary Secretary to refer to them now because I think it might be possible to get some further information regarding them. I would like to say generally in relation to this Bill that it is one which sets out to repeal the entire of the 1946 Act. I do not know what views other Deputies may have but I feel very strongly that in a Bill which is repealing the entire of another Act we should just do that and be content to do it. Throughout this Bill we refer to the various sections and parts of the 1946 Act to such an extent as to make some sections practically unreadable. We are doing it by reference to the Act which, by this Bill, we are trying to repeal in its entirety.

I should like to give the Parliamentary Secretary an example of what I have in mind. Section 9, subsection (2), of the Bill states:

The basic rent of a controlled dwelling to which this section applies shall be determined by the Court and shall be a rent of such amount as the Court considers reasonable having regard as far as possible to the basic rents of controlled dwellings, being dwellings to which Chapter 2 of Part II of the Act of 1946 applied, which are comparable in regard to location, accommodation, amenities, state of repairs and rateable valuation.

It would be much simpler to set out in this Bill what were the dwellings to which Chapter 2 of Part II of the 1946 Act applies instead of forcing landlords and tenants and their respective lawyers to preserve the 1946 Act which is now being repealed in order to try to understand what this present Bill means.

If you look again at Section 10 of this Bill, subsection (4), you will see that it says:

(a) in the case of a dwelling with respect to which there has been, during a relevant period, an excessive expenditure such as is referred to in paragraph (g) of subsection (2) of Section 11 or paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of Section 17 of the Act of 1946.

That is very difficult to read and it seems to me that it might be, if not easier to read, at least less difficult to understand if we had not got these references back to this Act which is now going to be repealed in full.

In regard to Section 7 of the Bill, I think what is intended is clear enough but I am merely referring to this matter so that the Parliamentary Secretary can look into it between now and the Committee Stage. Paragraph (b) of Section 7 refers to the basic rent of certain controlled dwellings and says:

A controlled dwelling in respect of which evidence is forthcoming of both of the following facts—

(i) that it was not so held on the first day of February, 1960,

(ii) that it was last so held on a date (in this section also referred to as the relevant date) not being more than three years before the first day of February, 1960.

I think that means any date between the 1st February, 1957, and the 1st February, 1960, but it would make the section much clearer if we said that.

As it reads now it says:

being not more than three years before the 1st day of February, 1960.

I have forgotten the equivalent section in the 1946 Act but there was some such phrase as that used in that Act and I have a distinct recollection of hearing it argued in Court, and, indeed, I argued it in Court myself, that the particular wording of the section did enable you to go back to the 1st February, 1957, in this case and not further back than that, but it did not put any limitation on coming forward from that date. It is obvious that it is intended to take the period between 1st February, 1957, and 1st February, 1960. If you were going into court under this section in the year 1965, I think it is arguable that under that section you are entitled to have regard to a rent, say, on 1st February, 1961, because that is not further back than three years before 1st February, 1960. It is not an easy point to be clear in explaining, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary probably sees what I am getting at. I think it is clearly intended to be between two dates but there is a ceiling put on the furthest back.

Mr. Haughey

Paragraph 1 says: "was not so held on the 1st February, 1960."

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

If application to the court is being made in 1965, it might not be so held on 1st February, 1960, but would be so held on 2nd February, 1961. It may be perfectly all right but I think it is a point which might be looked into.

The next point to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention is in relation to Section 8 of the Bill. I should like, first of all, to make it clear that what I am saying in relation to this section is subject to some of the remarks I made in relation to Section 10. Assuming that Section 10 remains unaltered, I think the Minister should have another look at Section 8, paragraph 2 of subsection (1). This is the section which deals with the case the Parliamentary Secretary referred to in introducing the Bill where you have, for some reason, either a basic rent or a rent which falls short of or exceeds the basic rent and an application is made to the court.

If the difference is one-eighth up or down on the basic rent, the court may fix what is referred to as a notional rent. There was a similar provision in the 1946 Act in Section 15, but in so far as the landlord is concerned, there is a very definite alteration in the character of the section as between the 1946 Act and the present Bill.

Under the 1946 Act, it was possible to go into the court in such a case as is envisaged here and make an application and if you could show that the rent, from the landlord's viewpoint, was fixed too low, you were able to get it remedied in, court. Under this section of this Bill, you can go into the court but the landlord is now also required to show special circumstances. I do not see the reason for that. I do not see why, if the rent which has been ascertained is too low and if a landlord is entitled to go into court, he should be deprived of remedying a rent, if it is too low.

I know from my own profession in dealing with a number of those cases —other Deputies in other capacities will have come across the same thing —that very often you will find landlords whom I might describe as good and decent landlords, who, because they did not want to interfere with the tenant or because they were ignorant of their rights, did not increase their rents. Many of them did not increase their rents even when there were rate increases. I do not know to what extent a simple fact like that—that a landlord did not know his rights or that he felt some sympathy with the tenant—will be regarded as special circumstances for the purpose of this section.

I do not believe that in these circumstances a landlord should be required to prove special circumstances in court and I can see very great difficulties with the interpretation of the section of the Bill, because I think you will have a whole new mass of case law to establish what are and what are not regarded as special circumstances. I do not really believe that, by and large, tenants will be affected if that provision requiring the landlord to prove special circumstances is left out of the Bill, because very often the type of landlord who did not increase his rent is the very person who would be affected by this provision and probably he will not take advantage of it, in any event.

There is another point also—I would describe it as a landlord's point —which arises in relation to Section 9. This section deals with various matters which the Court will have regard to when they are considering the basic rent, where the application is brought under this section. I do not know whether the Minister feels it is necessary to do anything by way of amendment but I would ask him to consider it. Subsection (2) of Section 9 provides:

The basic rent of a controlled dwelling to which this section applies shall be determined by the Court and shall be a rent of such amount as the Court considers reasonable having regard as far as possible to the basic rents of controlled dwellings, being dwellings to which Chapter 2 of Part II of the Act of 1946 applied, which are comparable in regard to location, accommodation, amenities, state of repair and ratable valuation.

It does not oblige the court to have regard to additions which have been made to the rent by reason of exceptional repairs or money spent on improvements to the premises. It may be that having regard to the state of repair of the premises would cover that. I do not believe it would, however, because you may have two sets of premises—one of which is only in the same state of repair as the other by reason of having money spent on it.

This can arise in cases where the second premises are of more recent erection or possibly are in a more sheltered part of the country. I am not at all sure the phrase in the section that the court would have regard to the state of repair would cover that point. I think it is possible that, quite inadvertently, the court might be put in a position, as a result of this section as it stands, of depriving the owner of the premises of rights he already has or is intended to have under the 1946 Act and of which, I am quite sure, Section 9 does not intend to deprive him. I would ask the Minister to look into that point.

The Bill does, I think, effectively and with the assistance of the amendment in the Seanad, remedy the position of the families of contractual tenants where a notice to quit was served after the death of a contractual tenant who died intestate. Where the notice was served before a grant was extracted, it did operate to end the tenancy and the person then in possession had not got the protection afforded to statutory tenants under the 1946 Act. The provisions in Section 31 of the Bill certainly seem to cover that case.

There is a point I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider again in relation to Section 46. This is the section which relates to the recovery of a deposit made as security for the payment of rent. The section is a new one. It provides that where the tenancy of a controlled dwelling having terminated, possession of the dwelling is surrendered and a deposit made as security for the payment of the rent stands not repaid and, thirdly, that the person to whom the rent was last paid is not the person with whom the deposit was made, the deposit shall be deemed, for the purposes of the recovery thereof, to have been made with the person to whom the rent was last paid.

I can see a number of difficulties arising for house purchasers under this provision. A tenant who has made a deposit on the commencement of his tenancy as a security for rent might continue to be a tenant for eight, nine or ten years after. Meanwhile, the ownership of the premises has changed hands. The Bill does not oblige the tenant to do anything about it or disclose the position to his new landlord. We say that in those circumstances, the new landlord, because he is the new person in receipt of the rent, is going to be deemed the person who got the deposit.

Mr. Briscoe

Can he not find out?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

He can, certainly, but it is going to put every purchaser of a house with an occupying tenant on inquiry from now on as to whether any deposit has been paid.

Mr. Haughey

Just another requisition on title.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Yes, but the Parliamentary Secretary probably knows that very often the reply to the requisition on title is not to the vendor's knowledge. While I appreciate the reasons for it—it is to protect the tenant who has parted with his money —I do think it would be no undue hardship on the tenant to provide that, where a tenant has paid a deposit to a landlord and where the ownership of the premises changes hands and a new landlord comes into being, if he is to exercise his rights under this Act, he should have the obligation of informing the new landlord within, say, a period of one month or two months that he has, in fact, made a deposit to the landlord's predecessor in title.

Mr. Briscoe

He may never know there is a change of tenancy.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

In some cases, he will not, if there is the same rent collector; but in very many cases, there will be a change of rent collector. The kind of case I have in mind is this. Very often the landlord himself goes round collecting the rents. I think it would be worth considering incorporating some such provision in the Bill. It would not be any hardship on the tenant to have it there and it would be fair to the landlord.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to Section 50, which roughly corresponds with Section 55 of the last Act, why the power of the Minister to nominate a particular district justice to deal with rent cases is being omitted. The Parliamentary Secretary will recollect that under the 1946 Act it is open to the Minister for Justice to nominate a particular district justice to deal with all Rent Act cases. That authority is now being omitted here and I should like to know the reason for it. Was it that the Minister felt that it had not worked out well? On the face of it, it would seem to me that there are definite advantages in having the work dealt with in a specialist manner by the designation of a particular district justice to deal with the various cases.

Generally speaking, I do not regard this Bill—and I think it would be a mistake so to regard it—as the final word in rent restrictions legislation. There are many features in this Bill that are welcome. As the Parliamentary Secretary put it, it is in many respects a compromise Bill. It is the kind of situation in which a compromise Bill is necessary because the two extremes are full control, on the one hand, or full decontrol, on the other. In the present situation, it is not possible to take action in favour of either of those extremes.

I have many quarrels and other Deputies will have greater quarrels with certain sections of the Bill but by and large, it is a compromise Bill. There is good in it as well as matters about which Deputies will have complaints. I do not believe the Bill will satisfy either landlords or tenants but I cannot see any rent code which either this or any other Government may adopt having that result, in any event.

Mr. Briscoe

I shall be very brief. I welcome this Bill, which brings about very many necessary improvements. The title of the Bill is "Rent Restrictions Act, 1960". Therefore, the idea of restriction is inherent in the Bill. Deputy O'Higgins spoke as if it were designed to bring about a further increase in the cost of living. As I listened to him, I could not quite appreciate his attitude when he changed from the defence of the tenant to the defence of the landlord. All his criticisms had been levelled mainly at restrictions against the landlord and protection of the tenant. The protective clause in this Bill to ensure that a tenant who has paid a deposit will have that deposit honoured by the new landlord seems to upset him. I cannot see any difficulty in a member of the legal profession finding out if there is any liability on the tenant, in the case of a transfer of ownership, as is done in the case of rates or other charges.

I welcome this Bill because, as a layman and not as one who has experience of the matter in the legal sense, I see great reliefs and, indeed, the greatest of all reliefs for the tenants. This measure will remove a considerable amount of litigation from the courts. Those of us in public life who are not professional men sometimes feel very sorry for a tenant who either goes to court or is brought to court for something that is not quite clear under other Acts, and particularly the 1946 Act. The dispute may be about £5 or £10 a year in rent, and one side or the other is ultimately faced with costs of anything from £50 to a couple of hundred pounds. To a great extent this Bill will put an end to those proceedings and the tenants, in time, will know their position and their circumstances.

When he was introducing the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary said it was not to be looked on as being of a permanent nature and he envisages that, at the end of 10 years, another situation will have been created. The restrictions appertaining to this type of property became necessary when building ceased, and houses became so scarce that rapacious landlords could fix rents in accordance with need and not in accordance with what was right and just. That began during the first World War and, until such time as a sufficient number of houses are available for our people and until such time as there is competition amongst the landlords to get tenants, it will be necessary to have the strongest possible control—in equity and within reason. I am not prepared to argue the legal aspects of this matter. I only know what I believe is the sense of it, and I believe that after reasoned discussions, if loopholes are found which should be closed, agreement can be reached on Committee Stage if it is shown that any section or subsection merits change.

I cannot understand Deputy O'Higgins' suggestion that, on the one hand, this Bill will bring about an increase in rents and add to the cost of living. On the other hand, he wants fair play for the landlord. So does everyone else, but it appears to me that he does not understand that there are different kinds of repairs. In certain circumstances the landlord can spend money on a house with a view to selling it, perhaps at a later period or at the immediate period, and put all the cost of that improvement—which may not be essential at all and may not be necessary—on the back of the tenant, with the result that the tenant will pay and the landlord will get a better price for the sale of his improved house. I do not think Deputy O'Higgins appreciates that position at all.

On the other hand, there can be a definite need for the improvement or the keeping up of certain standards, if you like, of a house owned by a landlord, Where certain improvements are made within the house itself for the benefit of the tenant, there should be some consideration and a reasonable understanding of the percentage of the increase that should go on to the tenant.

As I say, to me the main feature of this Bill is that it will bring about a great improvement in that long drawn-out legal battles and the establishment of precedents in connection with a particular house in a particular terrace in a particular district will no longer be necessary. I imagine that when we hear discussions on the Bill there will be no objection to it on the part of those of us who are not lawyers. Those difficulties have been going on year after year without any regular approach being made to the problem.

I want, therefore, to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the lucid manner in which he dealt with the Bill in introducing it. The need for the Bill is obvious. I know of certain specific cases where it will be a God-send in ending long frictions and disputes, and it will bring about a better relationship between landlord and tenant than hitherto existed. The limits of the rights of the landlord are as clearly defined as they can be and the limits of the rights of the tenants are equally so defined. I believe that when this Bill becomes an Act and is enforced, we shall find a great deal less of this vicious litigation, to the better understanding and relationship between landlord and tenant.

Mr. Casey

If Deputy Briscoe is serious in his suggestion that members of this House who are not lawyers would have no objection to this Bill, he must certainly be living in cuckoo-land.

Mr. Briscoe

Show me where I am living in cuckoo-land.

Mr. Casey

Either he has not studied the main implications of the Bill or he is slightly out of touch with those of his constituents who are ordinary working-class tenants. The first impression those of us who are not lawyers get is that the Bill is an intricate and complex measure and certainly, if I needed any confirmation of that original impression, I received it from the speech made here by Deputy O'Higgins, who is a lawyer. He intimated and forecast that, as the Bill stands, not alone will it be argued here but also in Court and there will be further unlimited litigation in respect of many parts of it.

I am not competent to deal with intricate legal points of law. However, the Labour Party propose to apply some horse sense to the measure as it passes through the House. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, it is largely a Bill that can best be dealt with in Committee. On the Committee Stage, we propose to tease out the many vexed questions we feel have arisen in this regard.

I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary and the officers of his Department on the Explanatory Memorandum. It is an admirable document and has been of great assistance to those of us who are not lawyers.

In indicating that we do not propose at this stage to go into any great detail we should say that there are three or four salient points in the Bill that struck us as worthy of comment on this Stage. First of all, there is the imposing title. Deputy Briscoe referred to it as a Rent Restrictions Bill. We also think the imposing title is a complete misnomer. The Bill might more appropriately be described as the landlords' Bill. We see little or nothing in it for the tenant but quite a lot for the landlord.

Take the provision regarding the changing of the poor law valuation from £60 to £30 in relation to Dublin and £40 to £25 in relation to other parts of the country for the control of rents. Premises that are now subject to rent control are privately-owned unfurnished dwellings with an original valuation not exceeding £60 in Dublin and £40 elsewhere. It is proposed to change that to £30 in Dublin and £25 elsewhere.

I was hoping the Parliamentary Secretary would give us an indication of the number of houses which would be decontrolled by that section. I have no opinion. I do not know whether the number is large or small but this House is entitled to some indication of the number of houses whose rents will be decontrolled as a result of this section.

Mr. Haughey

None at the moment.

Mr. Casey

Then why put it into the Bill? Is the Parliamentary Secretary serious that there will be none?

Mr. Haughey

None at the moment.

Mr. Casey

But where possession is got?

Mr. Haughey

How could I estimate that?

Mr. Casey

If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot estimate it, I cannot. I thought he might be in a position to obtain some information which a Deputy cannot obtain. I have in mind some problems that might be created in that regard. Such a provision presupposes that in places such as Dublin and Cork there are houses freely available for letting for people who arrive in these centres in the ordinary course of transfer, as far as their business is concerned.

A whole host of white-collar workers, civil servants, C.I.E. personnel, E.S.B. personnel and other such people are transferred, on promotion or otherwise, from a rural centre or to Cork or Dublin. At the moment, it is very difficult for them to get accommodation at any reasonable rent. I feel that the restrictions being removed by this section will make the problem of such individuals more difficult still. Because of that, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary how many tenancies will be affected by this provision. Perhaps, between now and the next Stage, he will be able to give us some indication in that regard.

The second point that strikes us is that houses which under this Bill will still be kept under rent control can, if the owner occupies them for a specified period, immediately be relieved from all rent control. I want the House to realise the seriousness of that provision. Some controls are being removed. Even in respect of dwellings which will still be controlled, if at any subsequent date the owner occupies such dwelling, even for a day, the house is subsequently released from control. There is nothing in the Bill which would compel the owner to take up a bona fide residence in the house. As far as I can see, it is quite open to him to carry out the strategy of getting the tenant out, of going in for a month, a week or a night, and then saying: “I occupied that house and having occupied that house it is my house. I occupied it; I lived there; I slept there.” Having done that, under the terms of this Bill, that house is subsequently, for all future lettings, removed from rent control.

I would seriously ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at that point. The implications are very grave indeed. I have no doubt he would not wish such an abuse to be perpetrated. If he feels my interpretation of that section is correct, I would ask him to have another look at it and see if it can be tightened up.

The next point that causes us particular worry is the provision which enables a landlord who is responsible for whole or partial maintenance of a dwelling to increase the basic rent by 12½ per cent. In many ways this is really the most serious implication in the Bill. It justifies my contention that it should be called a landlords' Bill. This is obviously a bonus of 2/6d. in the £ to the landlord who is liable for repairs either in toto or in part. He need not do them. So long as it is in the terms of letting that he is liable for any part of the repairs to the house—he may be liable only for the maintenance of the bell or the knocker or a chimney or for keeping the washers on the taps—under the Bill he is entitled to increase the basic rent by 12½ per cent.

My interpretation of the basic rent in the context of that section is the new rent, the consolidated up-to-date rent on 1st February or the date the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned. That provision will hit practically every tenant at the moment, whether or not his house is controlled. When this Bill is enacted the landlord will immediately increase his rent by 12½ per cent. There is nothing in the Bill to compel him to carry out the repairs for which he is liable. He can say: "I am liable for repairs. Because of my liability in that respect, the Dáil decided I may increase the rent by 12½ per cent. Of course, I shall not carry out the repairs." I hope my reading of the Bill does not mean that the position is as open as all that, but I can see nothing which compels the landlord——

Mr. Haughey

The whole code is full of provisions to insist that the landlord will carry out repairs which he should carry out. There are several different provisions. I refer to the rent restrictions code.

Mr. Casey

But there is nothing in this Bill.

Mr. Haughey

There is.

Mr. D. Costello

No, there is nothing. The tenant would have to show it is not in reasonable repair but the landlord is entitled to the increase whether or not he does the repairs.

Mr. Casey

At any rate, if the Parliamentary Secretary has an answer to that——

Mr. Haughey

Yes, I have.

Mr. Casey

——and I genuinely hope he has, he will get ample opportunity to air it on Committee Stage.

Mr. Haughey

What I am saying is that the existing law provides several impositions and obligations on a landlord to carry out the repairs for which he is liable.

Mr. Casey

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will elaborate on that and tell us that the tenant has a complete answer to this situation and that he can compel the landlord to carry out his repairs.

Mr. Haughey

There is no question about that.

Mr. D. Costello

Only by applying to the courts, if the premises are not in reasonable repair.

Mr. Haughey

There are other ways.

Mr. D. Costello

There are no other ways. There is no way other than by applying to the courts.

Mr. Casey

In any event, it will be possible for us to elicit all that information during the later Stages of this Bill. In the main, I should like to make this comment on it. It is stated in the explanatory memorandum, and the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned it in his introductory remarks, that he and the Government had the report of the Conroy Commission and the report of the Capital Investment Advisory Commission before them when considering the drafting of this Bill. We should bear in mind that the Conroy Commission was set up specifically to consider, and charged specifically with considering, whether or not it was expedient to consider extending or restricting the Rent Restriction Acts of 1946 and 1949. Secondly, it was charged with considering whether it would be desirable to control rents of furnished dwellings. It was a committee set up specifically to inquire into these matters and report back to the Government. It sat for two years and invited all interested parties to put their cases and to give evidence. Eventually, after two years, the Commission presented what could be regarded as a unanimous report. The main recommendation was as outlined in the memorandum:

(a) the present controls should be retained on dwellings and control should be extended so as to apply to all dwellings, whether let furnished or unfurnished and whether now in existence or to be built hereafter;

They recommended complete extension of the controls as existing at that time and as they still exist. The other main recommendation was:

(b) in order to meet the increase in the cost of repairs, landlords of existing controlled premises who are responsible for all repairs should be entitled to increase the present net rents by 25 per cent.—the increase to be 12½ per cent. where the landlord is responsible for only part repairs.

Having considered these points, the Government have seen fit to reject out of hand the main recommendation which was that not alone should rent control be continued as it was but further extended to all dwellings, whether dwellings which existed at that time or built subsequently. That was rejected by the Government in the Bill and the second recommendation regarding an allowance for increases in rent for certain repairs was accepted in part, giving an increase of 12½ per cent. where the landlord is liable for part repairs.

We have the second report to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, the report of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee. As we all know, that committee was not set up specifically to inquire into the housing problem or rents. It was set up to inquire into and report on capital and investment generally, but it is true that in their second report there was a majority report which favoured the gradual removal of rent restrictions entirely—a majority report by six members of the committee, with two members bringing in a quite contrary report in that respect. I think it was Lieutenant General Costello and Mr. Ruaidhri Roberts who signed the minority report.

However, there eventually emerged the situation in which the Government were faced with two recommendations. One was from the Conroy Commission which was specifically charged with the task of examining the whole position of rent control and they brought in a recommendation which was rejected by the Government. On the other hand, the Capital Investment Advisory Committee, which was not specifically charged with such an investigation at all, brought in a majority report favouring the gradual abandonment of rent control. We find that the Conroy Commission recommendation is rejected and that of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee accepted.

Because of that, I am justified in saying—and indeed anything I have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary and from other speakers fortifies me in saying—that this is simply the thin edge of the wedge and in fact is the first instalment by way of legislation of implementation of the recommendation of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee that there should be gradual abandonment of rent control over the next 10 years. It has been said that this is not the end of rent restrictions. I am quite sure that it is not and that it is, as I say, simply a first instalment in that regard.

For the reasons I have mentioned, I want to indicate the opposition of the Labour Party to this measure, particularly in view of the fact that it is definite that there will be immediate rent increases, immediate bonuses to the landlords on the scale of 2/6d. in the £ in respect of dwellings that would still remain controlled, so far as rent is concerned; that it will throw impositions on practically every working class family which has a house from a private landlord; that it will throw impositions on the unemployed man and the man on a disability pension, on the old age pensioner and on the widow. Chiefly because of these reasons, and others which I have mentioned, we want to indicate our opposition to the Bill and we propose to deal with other matters on the Committee Stage.

Mr. D. Costello

I want to say at the outset that I am strongly opposed to this Bill. The result of this measure which the Government are asking us to enact will be a considerable increase in the rents of all tenants, an increase which, in my view, is not justified. There will be an increase in the rents of all the small businesses throughout the country. In the future, where a premises becomes decontrolled, a greatly increased rent will have to be paid by future tenants and the security of tenure which is at present created by the Rent Restrictions Act will be taken away from the tenants of premises which, in the future, will be decontrolled.

It is our task in this Legislature to strike a balance between the legitimate rights of landlords and the legitimate rights of tenants and, in my opinion, the balance in this Bill has been weighted heavily against tenants. This Bill, it has been pointed out, goes directly contrary to the recommendations of an expert committee which reported eight years ago. It goes against the experience which has resulted in the partial repeal of Rent Acts in England. It is contrary to the experience which we had in this country when an attempt was made 34 years ago to bring about a measure of decontrol, an attempt which had to be given up.

The background to this Bill has been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Seanad as follows:

The whole background to the Bill is that there is now an adequate supply of houses grant-aided which are available at very attractive terms.

It is a fundamental defect in approach, in my opinion, that the Government have dealt with this Bill and this whole problem on the basis that there is now an adequate supply of houses grant-aided which are available at very attractive terms. The way in which we must approach this whole problem is on the basis, not of whether there is an adequate supply of houses, but whether there is an adequate supply of houses suitable for letting.

It may be that a person can now build a house with the assistance of loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts on attractive terms. It may be that the pressure in respect of houses for persons of that class has now eased and that persons can, without too much difficulty, get grants and loans to erect houses, but we are dealing with a whole class of people who cannot, for one reason or another, mainly economic, perhaps social, purchase their own house and what we are concerned with are literally the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of cases of persons, who cannot for one reason or another, purchase their own houses.

What is relevant in the consideration of this problem is the number of houses suitable for letting. I think the Government have too easily taken upon themselves the task of bringing in a measure of decontrol based on the proposition that, since the Conroy Commission reported, a great number of houses have been built by local authorities and by private persons.

The commission which inquired into this problem has been regarded as a most expert commission and it has got the proper amount of praise from the Government and from other places for the report that it brought in. This commission was fully alive to the number of premises that were being built at that time, the plans of the Government that were in operation at that time with regard to the future of publicly assisted erection of buildings. This is the view of the Commission, at page 18, paragraph 63:—

Whilst we recognise that the Rent Acts have had a deterrent effect on the investor who might otherwise have been inclined to put his money into new houses for letting, at most the Acts have only been a contributory factor in the present housing shortage. In so far as they are a contributory factor this is due, in our opinion, to the fact that the Rent Acts operate to prevent any capital appreciation of investment in house property and make it difficult to realise capital so invested rather than to the restrictions which these Acts impose on the yield from the investment. The development during the present century of a taste by the small investor for dealing in industrial investments, with their attractiveness of greater mobility and speedier realisation, has tended to divert from investment in house property money which in pre-1914 days would have been so invested. The inflation which since 1942 has taken place in the values of uncontrolled houses, and even of controlled houses where vacant possession has been obtained, has made more noticeable this change in investors' tastes. Whenever an owner can get clear possession of a house, whether controlled or uncontrolled, he almost invariably puts it up for sale, thereby reducing the number of houses available for letting.

The view of this commission was that the provisions of the Rent Acts and the prospect of future legislation would not affect the number of houses suitable for letting which would come on the market and the unanimous view contained in this report was that control brought about by the previous legislation should be continued.

One of the worst features of this Bill is the decontrol of business premises. The Parliamentary Secretary said, in answer to a query posed by Deputy Casey, that there would be no decontrol brought about by this Bill. Every small business premises held under a tenancy of year to year or less will be decontrolled. It is true that the tenants will be given rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act to apply for a new lease and I may say here, in parenthesis, in answer to what appeared to be the main point made by Deputy Briscoe, when he said one of the good features of this Bill was that the number of applications to the court would be reduced, one of the results of this Bill will be that thousands of tenants in small business premises will have to apply to the court, in default of agreement, to have their rights regulated under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Briscoe

I referred to tenants of houses.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Casey's specific query to me was what decontrol would result from the reduction in the valuation from £60 to £30, not from the Bill as a whole.

Mr. D. Costello

Then I misunderstood the query. I am taking the Bill as a whole. The Bill as a whole will introduce decontrol of all the small huckster shops in the city of Dublin and throughout the country. All the small people who are trying to make a living out of a small shop and who are on a weekly tenancy, whose rents are controlled and whose rights to retain possession are controlled, will lose those rights. I do not see any justification for that, nor has any argument been put up for doing that. I intend to put down an amendment to see what the views of the Government are on it.

I know the sort of theoretical argument will be made that the Rent Acts were never meant for business premises. The fact is that for the past 30 years or so, business premises have been subject to control. It is part of our social fabric that the ordinary small man who rents a small business on a weekly tenancy gets rights under the Rent Restrictions Act. I do not know of any argument, except a purely theoretical one not based on commonsense or on the facts of the situation or on the rights of the tenant, which would justify the taking away of control in respect of these people.

Another aspect of this Bill which I regard as particularly reprehensible is the fact that dwellings which will be converted into self-contained flats in future will be decontrolled. The Parliamentary Secretary in the Seanad said that this was one of the aspects the Government were most fond of. I should like to refer this House to the way the Conroy Commission dealt with the problem of the conversion of houses into self-contained flats. At page 53 of the report, the commission said:

Special provisions were made for determining the Basic Rents of these flats with the object of providing a rather generous return to persons who carried out conversion of this kind.

The commission goes on to show that landlords who converted their houses into self-contained flats got a rather generous return on their capital.

At page 22 the commission states:

It would be a departure from the precedent created by the 1946 Act if such flats were not to be controlled. The policy underlining the decision of the Oireachtas in 1946 to control self-contained flats created after 1941, notwithstanding that houses erected after that date were to be free from control, was based on the view that the conversion of houses into self-contained flats provided opportunities for exacting extortionate rents from persons obliged to avail themselves of accommodation of that kind.

It was the view of the Oireachtas in 1946 that the 1946 Act gave what the Commission called a generous return to persons who converted them into self-contained flats. As Deputies know there was a special provision in the 1946 Act for a lawful addition for landlords who converted their premises into self-contained flats and the commission points out that the view of the Oireachtas then was that the conversion into self-contained flats, if decontrolled, would mean that extortionate rents would be demanded. Has that situation been changed since 1946 or since 1952? It has not been changed by the fact that a number of houses on the periphery of this city have been built under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts or that a number of houses have been built by the Dublin Corporation.

What this decontrol involves is the decontrol of old houses in the city which will be converted into self-contained flats. At the present time if a landlord thinks that he will get what the commission refers to as a generous return on his investment and if he does not avail himself of that under the provisions of the present Act, and he does it as a result of the passing of this Bill, it will only be because he will see an opportunity of getting what the commission referred to as extortionate rents.

The Parliamentary Secretary in the debate in the Seanad said: "Why should a tenant go into a house and pay an extortionate rent?" The answer is that many tenants have no alternative. Anybody conversant with the general effect of decontrolling premises or anybody conversant with conditions in this city where landlords think they can get away with not charging a controlled rent, will know that the amount that tenants have to pay in many circumstances is extortionate.

I want to say in all seriousness to the Government that they should consider the proposal we are making, that is the setting up of a fair rent tribunal. They have the votes and no doubt this Bill will go through as it is, but we would in all earnestness suggest that some machinery would be established by which a tenant could apply to a court and say: "An unfair rent is being asked from me." There should be some overall jurisdiction in either the courts or a rent tribunal to see that unfair rents would not be asked. It should be possible to devise a formula which could be put into this Bill by which either a rent tribunal or the courts would say: "In all the circumstances of this case, we think the landlord is asking an unfair rent." I would strongly urge upon the Government to adopt such a safeguard.

Mr. Haughey

What did your expert commission say about that?

Mr. D. Costello

As far as I remember—I speak subject to correction and I certainly shall look it up—the view was that a rent tribunal then would not be effective, but that did not close the door on it. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would look it up? My recollection of the report of what the Parliamentary Secretary refers to as my expert commission is that they said that at that time they did not think a rent tribunal would be a good idea, but that it was something which could be considered in the Department. Of course the reason for that was that the whole proposals were completely different from what the Government are now doing. The Government are not now following the recommendations of the commission and are not controlling all premises. They are doing something which is contrary to the whole scheme proposed in that report.

The Parliamentary Secretary said something to-day, and he said it earlier in the Seanad, which caused me a considerable amount of surprise. If his view—and I presume it is the view of the Government—is as he said, I would welcome the statement, but I would ask him hurriedly to bring in an amendment to give effect to it.

As Deputies are aware it is proposed in this Bill to decontrol a house which "at the passing of this Act is occupied by the owner thereof for the purposes of his own residence, or thereafter becomes so occupied." It also proposes to decontrol a house of which the landlord comes into possession after the passing of this Bill if the Poor Law Valuation is over £30. The Parliamentary Secretary said that while that decontrol would operate, if there was subsequently a letting made in the house that letting would be controlled.

Mr. Haughey

Of a room or a flat.

Mr. D. Costello

Of a room or a flat in the decontrolled house. With all respect to the Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers, it is my humble view that a court would interpret that in a completely opposite sense. If that is the contention of the Government I would ask that an amendment be brought in to make more specific this point; otherwise there certainly would be what Deputy Briscoe wants to avoid, a certain amount of litigation in this matter. What does the Bill say? Section 3 says: "(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, this Act applies to every dwelling." Then it goes on to say: "(2) this Act does not apply to—" and then paragraph (e) provides: "a house which at the passing of this Act is occupied by the owner thereof ...."

I apprehend that the court seeing this Section and interpreting it in a reasonable manner will say: "This Act does not apply to this house." How then can it be said that a letting made in the house will be subject to the Act? There may be legal arguments the other way but I must say that after giving it a certain amount of consideration it seems to me to be abundantly clear that at any rate there is danger the court will say: "This Act does not apply to this house and certainly will not apply to a letting in it." In fact, there is judicial authority in the form of a decision in the High Court for the view that in respect of premises above a certain Poor Law Valuation and decontrolled any letting made in it is not controlled.

My view may be incorrect. The Parliamentary Secretary's view may be the correct one but there is certainly considerable doubt and I would respectfully suggest that an amendment to make the matter clear would be desirable. If I am correct and if the Bill as it stands is as I interpret it, I should like to make clear to Deputies what is involved. Take tenements in Mountjoy Square or certain flats on the Rathmines Road or in Baggot Street as an example. A number of these houses have a poor law valuation over £30. If my view of this Bill is correct and if the landlord can get his tenants out, he will be able to re-let these premises, re-let the tenement houses in Mountjoy Square, at uncontrolled rents. I certainly do not think it is desirable, and if that is not the intention of the Government I suggest an amendment be brought in to clear up the matter.

I have said I object most strongly to this Bill. One of the grounds of my objection is the proposed increase in rent on existing tenants. Whether or not the landlord carries out repairs, he will get an increase of 12 per cent.

Mr. Briscoe

May I ask a question? I have been listening with interest to the Deputy. He gives an illustration of a Mountjoy Square tenement house. Is he suggesting that each of the flats in such a house will be above £30 valuation?

Mr. D. Costello

No. I am suggesting that some of the houses in Mountjoy Square carry a poor law valuation of over £30. As I interpret the Bill, if the owner can get all the tenants out he will then be in a position——

Mr. Haughey

How will he get them out?

Mr. D. Costello

Tenants die. An unscrupulous landlord, and there are such people as unscrupulous landlords, can refuse to relet. He can pay the tenants to leave the premises. I have known that to happen. There is nothing to stop a landlord doing it. Does the Parliamentary Secretary not envisage an unscrupulous landlord deliberately getting rid of his tenants?

Mr. Haughey

I cannot envisage his getting rid of his tenants against their will.

Mr. D. Costello

Of course not. He will pay them to leave. Some of them may die. He will not relet.

Mr. Briscoe

He will have a long wait.

Mr. D. Costello

I do not know. I do not think we should hazard a guess. I think we should make the legislation quite clear.

Mr. Briscoe

Even if a tenant dies, is not the right of succession clear?

Mr. D. Costello

I know of houses with fewer tenants than three or four which fell vacant and the landlord has to relet under controlled rents. Under this Bill he will not relet. He will wait until he gets possession and, if my interpretation is correct, relet then.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy thinks the landlord will get tenants to pay exorbitant rents in Mountjoy Square.

Mr. D. Costello

All I am saying is that under this Bill, if the landlord can get possession of premises with a poor law valuation of over £30, he will be able to relet at any rent he likes.

Mr. Haughey

Will the Deputy accept that it is not our intention that that will be the position?

Mr. D. Costello

Then I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to bring in an amendment.

Mr. Haughey

Has the Deputy taken into account the definition of a dwelling in the subsection?

Mr. D. Costello

I have, but the question is how is the court likely to interpret this. It is stated that a dwelling is part of a house. The court is likely to say that the Act does not apply to the house and, therefore, does not apply to any part of the house. My view may not be the correct one. The court may interpret differently. But there is the danger that the court may so interpret.

Mr. Briscoe

Would it not be better to bring in an amendment to have each part of a house separately rated?

Mr. D. Costello

I am not quite certain that would be the best way, but I am quite certain that the intention of the Government should be clearer than it is here. I was dealing with the proposed increase of 12½ per cent. whether or not the landlord does the repairs. I do not think that is justified. Reference has been made to the position of the poorest people in our community—the old age pensioners, the widows, and the blind. They will have their rents increased whether or not the landlord does repairs.

Reference was made in the course of the debate to the fact that the tenant has his remedies. There are remedies in the Bill. If the premises are not in reasonable repair a tenant can make an application to the court. Let me repeat that the tenant must go to the court. He can have his rent reduced, or, in certain circumstances, he can get a lump sum to have the premises put in proper repair. How many tenants know their rights? How many old age pensioners will have their rents increased by this 12½ per cent. and will not know that they can go to the court? They certainly will not bother going to the court; they will accept it as one of the inevitable hardships we put on them. I do not think we should have this automatic increase.

We appreciate the hardships imposed on landlords who are faced with the problem of keeping premises in proper repair. We think that the way to deal with the problem is to give landlords a reasonable return if they put premises into proper repair. That was the scheme in the 1946 Act. Landlords got a handsome return on their investment if they carried out exceptional repairs on their premises.

I want to refer once more to the view that one of the advantages of this Bill is that it will make the position of landlord and tenant more or less lawyer-free, if I may coin a phrase. I ask Deputies who believe that to have a look at Section 10, subsection (4), paragraph (a). I think it is worthwhile reading the subsection to the House.

Mr. Briscoe

It will apply only in very limited circumstances.

Mr. D. Costello

The subsection reads as follows:

In the case of a dwelling with respect to which there has been, during a relevant period, an excess of expenditure such as is referred to in paragraph (g) of subsection (2) of section 11 or paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of section 17 of the Act of 1946, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply in relation to the dwelling except in a case in which a relevant grant was made in respect of repairs by reference to which the excess of expenditure occurred, and, in any such case, in the calculation of the lawful addition under the said paragraph (b), the basic rent shall be reduced by the portion thereof which is attributable to the addition under the said paragraph (g) or the said paragraph (e) (as the case may be).

Mr. Haughey

Perfectly clear.

Mr. D. Costello

Perfectly clear? There is a famous decision in the Law of Equity known as the "Rule in Shelley's case". It is a complicated legal decision and a famous judge once said: "It is one thing to put the rule in Shelley's case into a nutshell, but it is another thing to keep it there." It is one thing to grasp what this subsection means, but it is another thing to keep the meaning in one's mind. I think I know what it means and, for the benefit of Deputies, I shall tell them what I think the subsection means.

As Deputies know, under the Housing Acts grants are given mainly to landlords to carry out repairs. As Deputies are also aware, if exceptional repairs are carried out landlords are entitled to get an increase in rent—an increase under the old Act under Section 11 (2) (g) or Section 17 (2) (b) as the case may be. It was provided— very wisely provided—that, if a landlord availed himself of grants under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, he would not be entitled to take the benefit of the grant which the public authority would give him; the tenant was entitled to get the benefit of these grants. But if a landlord carried out and did exceptional repairs, and got assistance from the local authority for doing that, he could then put up the tenants' rents. That was perfectly reasonable. Do you know what is hidden away in that subsection? What is hidden is a repeal of that in certain circumstances and I shall put down an amendment to this subsection to try to find out how a change in that position is justified.

As I interpret this section, subparagraph (b) of subsection (2) is that which provides that in the case of a landlord liable for the whole or part of the repairs to a dwelling, a sum equal to 12½ per cent. of the basic rent is to be a lawful addition. The subsection I have been referring to reads as follows:

In the case of a dwelling with respect to which there has been, during a relevant period, an excess of expenditure such as is referred to in paragraph (g) of subsection (2) of Section 11 or paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of Section 17 of the Act of 1946, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply in relation to the dwelling...

May I stop there?

If a landlord has availed himself of the lawful additions to which he is entitled under the previous Act, on putting the premises into a reasonable state of repair by expenditure on exceptional repairs, then it is provided that that landlord is entitled to get a 12½ per cent. increase. That is perfectly reasonable because the whole purpose of the 12½ per cent. increase is to make up to a landlord the cost of carrying out repairs. Now, what this subsection says is that if, in fact, before this Bill is passed he has already put the premises into repair and got an increase in his rent for so doing, then he is not entitled to a 12½ per cent. increase. Again, I think that is reasonable but what this subsection goes on to do is to make exceptions. It states:

...except in a case in which a relevant grant was made in respect of repairs by reference to which the excess of expenditure occurred, and, in any such case, in the calculation of the lawful addition under the said paragraph (b), the basic rent shall be reduced by the portion thereof which is attributable to the addition under the said paragraph (g) or the said paragraph (e) (as the case may be).

He is not entitled to the whole 12½ per cent. increase but, if he gets a grant, he is still entitled to increase his rent if he has spent money on exceptional repairs. This is what the situation will be.

Mr. Briscoe

Are both things not taken into account, the grant plus the expenditure?

Mr. Haughey

The effect of that, in order to give a 12½ per cent. increase, is that you first of all deduct the amount of the special increase and apply only the 12½ per cent. to the remainder.

Mr. D. Costello

Why do that?

Mr. Haughey

Because you do not want to give it to him on the increase he has already got.

Mr. D. Costello

Why not stop at the words "in relation to the dwelling,"?

Mr. Haughey

That would not achieve anything. We want to give him 12½ per cent. on the original rent, unincreased.

Mr. D. Costello

If he gets the grant he is not getting the 12½ per cent. Why make an exception in favour of landlords who have got grants under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act?

Mr. Haughey

I want to say at this stage that it is on the recommendation of the Conroy Commission.

Mr. D. Costello

I do not think it is.

Mr. Haughey

It is.

Mr. D. Costello

The Parliamentary Secretary may be right on that but I do not think he is and, in view of the fact that he and the Government have shown themselves so little concerned with the views of the Conroy Commission, it does seem to me to be a weak argument to say that the Conroy Commission recommended it. I say the Government should give better reasons for this provision. I should like to explain how it is going to work. Take two houses side by side, two different landlords, with tenants in controlled premises. One landlord does exceptional repairs; he slates the house, puts on new down-pipes and points the house, and he does not get any grant for doing that. He does not get any increase in his rent.

Mr. Haughey

Of course he does.

Mr. D. Costello

If he spends money on exceptional repairs he does not get an increase.

Mr. Haughey

He has already got 15 per cent. of the cost.

Mr. D. Costello

Very handsome. Take the next door dwelling house where the landlord carries out repairs and he does not get any increase because the tenant is entitled to get the benefit of the housing grant but, under this section, we are going to increase that tenant's rent, so that you have two houses side by side, one house with the rent not increased, and the other with an increase because a grant was obtained. I think that is a subsection that should be amended and I intend to table an amendment to that effect.

There is a provision in this Bill for preserving the rights of tenants who are in premises which are not in proper repair, and an application can be made to the court to reduce the rent under Section 15. That right was there under the 1946 Act. There is a provision under the 1946 Act by which a landlord can apply to the courts for an order to have a lump sum spent on the premises if they are not in reasonable repair.

Mr. Briscoe

The tenant?

Mr. D. Costello

Sorry, the tenant, not the landlord, but this Bill proposes to amend what was Section 48 in the 1946 Act by adding a new sub-clause which provides that an order may not be made, that is to say, an order directing the landlord to carry out repairs or to give a sum of money to the tenant for the purpose of carrying out repairs. Such an order will not be made if, having regard to the age, condition, character and situation of the premises, the cost of putting them into good and tenantable repair would involve an expenditure which would be excessive, having regard to the value of the dwelling or the rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay, or a dwelling could not be put into good and reasonable repair except by being rebuilt or structurally altered too substantially. These words are taken from the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931. At present they are being subjected to judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court and I do not think it is a good idea to put them into this section of the Bill. I can see the object of it. The object is not to make a landlord do something which would be completely uneconomic, which would be completely stupid to require him to do, but I think the protection provided already in that matter is a discretionary one. The Act says the court "may" make an order, and the court then exercises its discretion.

I expect if these clauses are inserted, a situation will result of which I have only recently had experience, where premises have got into a bad state of repair, where rain is pouring in, where the landlord is doing nothing, and where the tenant has a right to ask for something to be done about the premises, but the landlord can say, under this provision, that in order to put these premises into reasonable repair the expenditure would be excessive, would be out of all proportion, and he can get away with it. I do not think we should pass a Bill to deal with that. I think we should leave it to the courts to interpret in a fair way. I think we should leave it on a basis where discretion may be applied.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy is talking about a dwelling?

Mr. D. Costello

Yes.

Mr. Briscoe

Is it not obvious that if such a dwelling existed it would be long since condemned by the local authority?

Mr. D. Costello

Deputy Briscoe is a member of a local authority but not all local authorities act like archangels. There are premises which are not suitable, which are in bad repair and which are overcrowded.

Mr. Briscoe

That kind of thing would be condemned by local authorities.

Mr. D. Costello

A lot of things should be done.

Mr. Briscoe

I said "would be"; I did not say "should."

Mr. D. Costello

Deputy Briscoe, I am afraid, thinks much too highly of human nature. These things escape notice and in the meantime, the tenants are in premises found not to be in proper repair and advantage could be taken of this subsection.

Mr. Briscoe

I agree.

Mr. D. Costello

I do not think it is one which should be left in. There is another aspect of this Bill, a technical aspect, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to investigate it. It concerns the position arising on the death of a tenant, which, as Deputy O'Higgins pointed out, has been very rightly dealt with by the section, but I do not think it has gone far enough. As Deputies are aware, the line of decisions in this country and in England on this matter have resulted in the fact that if a tenant dies intestate and if the landlord can serve notice to quit which expires before letters of administration are taken out, the Rent Acts do not apply and the landlord is entitled to get possession. That was an anomalous and unreasonable interpretation of the Act and certainly not what was intended. Therefore, it is right it should be remedied.

I should like to draw attention to a decision reported in the current number of The Irish Jurist. It is a case called Deans v. Kelly decided in Wicklow by the Circuit Court judge. On appeal to the Supreme Court it was decided if a tenant dies intestate and his administrator is in possession of controlled premises as administrator, he is not entitled to the benefit of the Act. I would ask that this matter be gone into and a further amendment be made in this subsection. It is a very recent decision which has further refined the law on this point.

This subsection deals with the case of intestacy and deals with the tenancy of a non-statutory tenant which is terminated before administration or where the administrator is not in occupation. It has to go further. It has to deal also with the position of administrators who are in occupation, because they, as a result of this decision, are not controlled by the Rent Acts. I would suggest, too, that this particular part of the Act should also deal with the position of tenants who die testate and who appointed executors, because the situation there is also confused and it could also work hardship on tenants. If an executor is out of possession and if he has taken out a grant of probate, he may not get the benefit of the Act if he has not distributed the deceased's assets and the landlord may be able to obtain possession. What we have got to do is to get as much uniformity in the law as possible. I welcome the fact that an attempt has been made to alter the law in this regard and rectify the position that has arisen, but I think care should be taken that more loopholes are not left and that the whole position arising on the death of a tenant should be carefully gone into.

These are just a couple of minor matters to which I want to make reference. It has been provided under the previous Act that it is not permissible to assign a statutory tenancy, but it has been decided it can be sublet. There is a distinction there which I do not think is a correct one. If we have decided correctly not be assigned, tory tenancy should not be assigned, I do not think it should be permitted to be sublet also.

There is just one other minor matter, that is, the position in some of these sections dealing with applications to the court. There is a section, to be welcomed, which gives power to the court to grant second stays in the event of an order for possession being made and a stay of execution being placed on it. Under the present system, if such an order is made and a tenant makes one slight slip in failing to pay his rent on the appointed time or fails to comply with complete accuracy with the terms of the stay, the stay is automatically removed and the tenant is without redress. I think it advisable that the power to grant second stays should be given to the courts, which is provided for in Section 33, but reference is made to an application to the court. I would suggest it be made clearer that the application can be by notice of motion or whatever way it is intended. A number of Acts get into the Statute Book in which it is stated an application can be made to the court in certain circumstances. What frequently happens is that no rules of court are made and no procedure is set out for such applications, and they have very frequently to be brought by an extensive and long drawn-out substantive action. This sort of thing should as far as possible be avoided.

I should also like to agree with Deputy O'Higgins when he suggests that reference to the earlier Act should, if possible, be done away with. It is, I can see, an attractive way to draft legislation. It makes it, perhaps, easy to draft, but it makes it much more difficult to interpret. What we should aim at is as simple a code as possible—a code which is very clear and easily understood and which will not discriminate. I would suggest that the references to the 1946 Act should be deleted and in their stead, it should be made clear what is intended.

These are matters of detail which can be gone into on Committee Stage, but on the question of the substance of this Bill, I think the Government have worked on a fundamentally wrong premise in believing that there will not be extortionate rents arising from decontrol. They have worked on a fundamentally wrong premise in saying that landlords, whether or not they do repair, are to get a 12½ per cent. increase. This Bill will work hardship on the very weakest sections of the community as well as others— the section of the community it should be our concern to protect. For that reason, we shall vote against this Bill.

Mr. Sherwin

This Bill requires the mind of a lawyer. There is so much in it that, unless you spent a long time studying it, you could not make head or tail of it. I imagine that the person it is proposed to affect, the man-in-the-street, will hardly be aware of its contents. In my opinion, all this business should be simplified and presented in such a way that the people it affects can understand it. When this Bill is passed, I do not think the people will know their rights. Hundreds of simple people come to me asking what they will do. There have been discussions here about unscrupulous landlords. Most people are unscrupulous if they can get away with it, but there are certainly unscrupulous landlords, especially new landlords.

When a house is sold, the new landlord specialises in trying to get rid of the tenants. People have told me of cases where they refused to take the rent. I asked the Minister for Justice on a previous occasion to do something about this and he said he would keep it in mind when introducing the next Rent Restrictions Bill. The practice is that they do not ask for rent. They wait for four or five months and in various ways try to get the tenant out, informing them, at the same time, that they will not take action for recovery of rent, if they get out peaceably. That is one means of getting rid of tenants. Those people are psychologists. They know that poor persons cannot save money and after five or six months, hand out five or six months' rent. Knowing he owes rent and fearing and not understanding the courts and not wanting to have anything to do with them, the tenant gets out.

I know of cases of that sort and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he has anything in the Bill to compel landlords to accept rent. Is there any penalty where rent is refused? That is a form of blackmail that is commonly practised. I have experience of a person actually paying rent for three years and never getting a receipt. This person was, with two others, in a dwelling that was bought and the landlord managed to get rid of the other two, but this man continued on and sent the rent by post for three years. It is a battle between the two. Is it fair that people should be open to this form of blackmail? The Parliamentary Secretary should keep an eye on this practice of refusing to accept rent.

Another case that came to my notice over the past few months was a letting as caretaker, a bogus method. I know a case in Dublin where the tenants were let two rooms, one of which was a stone floor basement and the other a room on an upper floor. They were charged 18/- for the two rooms, but, mark you, they were made tenants of the stone floor basement and caretakers of the better room. When the tenants went to court to have the rent reduced, they got the reduction— 50 per cent.—but the landlord went to court and asked for possession, on the ground that they were the caretakers of the better room and the Justice made the required order. Therefore the person was liable for full rent of 18/- for the stone floor basement. This is another way in which landlords can get around the law and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to define "caretaker" in the Bill so that we shall not have this practice in future.

As regards the 12½ per cent. increase for repairs, because of the operations of local bodies, landlords in the main are doing well. Any family of three and upwards is housed by the local authority and landlords can re-let at double the rent and charge key money of £10 to £20. They do not need this increase and, for the Parliamentary Secretary's information, in many cases no receipt is given for the key money. You pay it or you do not get the premises. What answer has the landlord to that? I know dozens of cases of people paying out from £10 to £20 and getting no receipt. This is one means by which the unscrupulous can beat the tenant and there are many others. The Minister should make this Bill comprehensive, so as to protect the tenant against this kind of roguery.

I have little more to say because I am not a lawyer but I know the tenants' grievances and I want the Minister to know that it is too easy to threaten tenants or to blackmail them because they do not like going to court or even to a solicitor. The Parliamentary Secretary should try to protect the tenant, and, in my opinion, Bills such as this should be simplified so that the people can read about their rights in the Press. They know as much about the present Bill as they knew about the previous ones when they were introduced, but the landlords will know all about it because they are clever people. In many cases, they are solicitors themselves or they have agents as solicitors and they get their solicitors to blackmail or threaten the tenants by putting their demands in legal language. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider all these points regarding unscrupulous landlords and to see that tenants are protected.

Major de Valera

This Bill, as has already been remarked, is the latest of a series of complicated legislation, and right from the time of the first World War, when attempts were made to control rents and tenants' interests on houses up to the present day, there has been a problem. This Bill comes in a kind of a recurring pattern. If my memory serves me, it was after the first World War when restrictions were first brought in that efforts were made in the 1920's towards decontrol and the trend went the other way. During the last war, enforcement of control by the 1944 Order was necessary.

I remember—and I think other Deputies also remember—the atmosphere in which we discussed the 1946 Bill here. I think it was in 1945 or early in 1946. At that time, there were two conflicting approaches: one was the approach that we all had, in the hope of peace, towards more freedom after war-time restrictions, and the other was the approach to protection of tenants' interests, tenants who had no other protection. In the atmosphere of post-war expansion and inflation, it seemed to the House that it was all the more necessary to maintain the restrictions. The result was that the 1946 Act appeared as a rational consolidation, as far as possible, of the rent restrictions code up to that time and a very real effort was made to bring certainty into the law in the matter of basic definition and basic procedures. There was, for instance, the definition of "controlled premises", the definition of "basic rent", "permitted increases" and so on. These were worked out in considerable detail first by the Department and were then subject to considerable and very careful examination in the House, particularly on Committee Stage.

It was hoped that when the Bill went forth at that time, it would bring such regularity into the law as would at least avoid further litigation and I think one of the great hopes which the Legislature had at the time was that many cases that had been going to the courts in a steady stream before that would cease to go there and that rights could be determined without incessant litigation. In those days, I think it was a regular feature in Dublin Circuit Court at any rate, to find cases under this Act appearing so regularly that time was specially allocated for them. Those were the motives and the purposes in bringing in the Act. Anybody who studies the 1916 Act will see that it consolidated the law and improved the law and one would have thought that it brought certainty.

However, it is inevitable that where you have legislation of this kind you will have contention. The 1946 Act gave rise to a very substantial number of applications and to a certain amount of litigation. I do not think, therefore, that it is realistic to hope that this Bill will operate as a measure to settle the law for all time and minimise applications to the courts. By its very terms, it seems to me that we can expect a continuance of applications to the courts and I therefore feel that Deputies who approach it from the point of view that it will bring certainty into the law are over-optimistic.

On the other hand, provided there is expedition and reasonableness as to costs, I think there is no fairer way of having such matters decided in the best interests of the parties contesting them and of the community as a whole than that the courts should deal with them. I think there should be a limit to the desire here to keep everything out of the courts and to keep everything simple. What we should try to do is to give the courts a code which they can administer upon terms which they can decide in the most equitable way as between the parties concerned. That should be our aim rather than straight-forward simplicity. You will not be able, in the historical circumstances of this matter, to get straight-forward simplicity.

Before going into the details of this legislation at all we ought to address ourselves, in Committee Stage, to try to provide a consistent code so that the courts will be able to operate quickly and with minimum costs to litigants and with maximum certainty for them. That requires that these provisions should be set forth in a methodical way with reference to previous legislation. At this point I, as one who, in other days had a little experience of those matters, join in the plea to the Parliamentary Secretary that the point made first by Deputy O'Higgins in relation to references to the 1946 Act is worth considering.

It is simple and direct and, even from the lawyers' point of view, sometimes useful to have direct references like that. There are advantages in having such references back but there are also disadvantages and, in the case of a complicated code like this, these disadvantages clearly outweigh the advantages. Even if you repeal the Act and try to have a completely new Act, there are a number of decisions under the 1946 Act, and Acts before that, which conceivably can be brought to bear on the discussion of that provision. I think it would be neater and more helpful to lawyers advising clients and contesting cases in the courts, and to the layman who may have some idea of understanding this for himself, if the provisions referred to here were redrafted. I know that it will mean more drudgery and more drafting and that the Bill itself will be longer. As against that you have the disadvantages of legislation by reference, which, I think, have been discussed here on more than one occasion.

Apart from that, I think Deputy O'Higgins had quite a point when he said that it is bad enough to legislate by reference when referring to live legislation but that legislating by reference to repealed legislation makes for maximum difficulty. All of us who had experience in the courts have had experience of the unexpected interpretations that can occur from the juxtaposition of sections out of different Acts in the one code or sometimes in the one Act. The possibility of these unforeseen interpretations can never be completely killed in an Act itself but you will minimise unforeseen interpretations in any code if you can achieve the ideal—have one Act, have it all in one Act and abolish all anterior Acts. If you succeed in doing that, you will have nothing more to deal with than the one live Act and whatever residuary decisions there are in important cases.

Furthermore, that very procedure has the advantage that it lends more weight to the Act as against authority. If you manage to get everything within the confines of one Act, you automatically minimise by relation to that Act all decisions made under previous legislation, even though they relate to the same form of words. If you keep these Acts alive even by implication, even by reference back, you have the rather contradictory and difficult position for the lawyer and for the judge that you have an Act which is ostensibly repealed but which is sufficiently alive in the legal sense that it is interpretable as an Act by virtue of the reference.

Perhaps I have said that at some length and perhaps Deputy O'Higgins referred to it more concisely. Deputy Costello has also referred to it. I certainly feel that whatever emerges from this discussion should be a neat job and that it will do what it purposes to do. I would go so far as to suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary and the draftsman find it too difficult to do precisely what we have asked for in the first instance, they should at least extract the referred sections as such and improve them in a Schedule to this Bill, thereby doing an equally neat job. It would simply mean referring, say, this section to the Schedule and re-enacting for that purpose in the Schedule, even if only for the purpose of the 1946 Act, these sections referred to.

Some such device as that seems to me to be indicated. In saying these things, I do not want to take from the complimentary things that have been said by other speakers and I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will take such suggestions as I have made in the constructive spirit in which they are offered. There is no doubt this Bill itself is best discussed in detail on Committee Stage. It is a Committee Stage Bill and for a thorough discussion on it later, we would need to take in with us the 1946 Act in order to see where we start and to make the relevant comparisons. A detailed discussion of that nature is out of place on the Second Stage.

We can, on this Stage, however, revert to some of the broader problems arising from this Bill. One is struck, when examining the Bill, by the very similarity of some of its problems with the existing code. That is altogether understandable. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us about the Conroy Commission and about the changed circumstances and the changed trends since then. Circumstances do change but I would point out that there has been for 40 years a continuing code of legislation that has crystallised itself in certain directions and we are obviously not in a position to cast it aside and completely to revolutionise the situation as it is.

Somebody spoke about control and decontrol. This problem cannot be solved in that way. Anybody who looks at the realities of the situation must realise there must be some control. To my mind a certain element of control in these matters will be required, of necessity, for as long as I can foresee, for as long as we have the system of tenanted property—of people renting accommodation from others. Straightaway, of course, you have the development of public authority housing which is quite a different field, but there is a very substantial area where the relationship as between the landlord and the tenant —in the sense of an individual renting property from another individual or a body corporate which is not a State body—will continue.

In those circumstances, I think every Deputy here who stops to think will realise that control of some sort must be kept. What is the basis of that control to be? When I ask that question, I am asking precisely the question we examined so very thoroughly in this House in 1946, and I am asking a question in relation to which the basic facts are still the same as they were in 1946—the necessity for protecting the tenant in the relatively disadvantageous position he is vis-a-vis the landlord.

Therefore, nobody is going to apologise for the continuation here of the general code enshrined in the 1946 Act. Naturally, as has been pointed out, times are changing, trends are different. Basic rents, lawful additions and so forth come under review, but basically the situation is the same and basically the question is: was the scheme we decided upon in the 1946 Act a reasonable one and a good one? Should it be tossed aside and replaced completely by something absolutely new or should it be allowed to continue, though in a new guise?

It seems to me that the Minister and his Department have come to the conclusion that it is the latter course that must be adopted and I think those of us who look at the thing intently will agree. On the other hand, in the pattern of the changing times and circumstances, there are areas of decontrol and there are points where an adjustment of equity is called for in present circumstances. There is hardly a Deputy who cannot tell stories of hard cases of tenants and their difficulties but it is true also to say that there is hardly a Deputy who has not had argued to him the other point of view.

But, for the Parliamentary Secretary, and for us now, one problem looms foremost, that is, the maintenance of property in a tenantable state. The result of our legislation to date in certain respects has been that landlords have not been as assiduous in the maintenance of property and in repairing property as one might expect, having regard to the fact that it is their own property. When they are asked why, in their own interest, they did not keep their property in repair, why they let it deteriorate, the answer is it would not pay them to bring it into repair, that, on balance, the most economical thing was to take out of it what was left and let it ride for as long as it would.

That is a social problem, one vitally affecting the tenant, and though all of us will be disturbed by the provisions of Section 10, nevertheless we shall find on that section material for fruitful and, I hope, constructive thinking. I wonder if Deputy M.J. O'Higgins has adverted to the interesting situation where if repairs are not done, the tenant has certain remedies? I think that in this matter we have a problem which should not be discussed merely from the viewpoint that it is a benefit for the landlord. We have to consider also what is the best thing in the long run for the tenant. I hope that this Bill, like the 1946 Bill, will be approached in this House in a constructive spirit.

Debate adjourned.