Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Jun 1968

Vol. 235 No. 8

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rented Accommodation.

50.

asked the Minister for Justice whether he is aware that many young married couples have to pay as much as £5 or £6 per week for minimum rented accommodation; and that as most of these have low incomes, rents of this size restrict their ability to provide themselves with the minimum necessities of life with consequent risk to health; and whether he will take immediate action to extend the scope of rent control so as to assist these young people as much as possible.

I have not received any complaints on this matter recently but it is the case that for many years the rents of furnished lettings and other lettings of dwellings that are not controlled by the Rent Restrictions Acts have remained high, particularly in central city areas.

As I indicated in reply to recent questions, the scope of the present rent controls was determined by the House only last year, during the debates on the Bill of the 1967 Rent Act. No extension of control is contemplated at present.

In view of the fact that there has been—even since last year—a growth of Rachmanism in this field, would the Minister have another look at the need for a tightening-up of rent restrictions legislation to see if he can put a spancel on these racketeers who are exploiting unfortunate couples who are paying up to £6 per week for what, very often, is second, third, and fourth-class accommodation? Would the Minister undertake to look at this problem again because it is liable to increase rather than to diminish and to become a graver social menance if some steps are not taken to relieve the people concerned?

I have no evidence that there has been an increase in this business since last year when the House discussed the matter. The Deputy is no doubt aware that furnished lettings were not controlled since the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923. Instead of achieving what the Deputy might desire, I personally think that if there were further control, the effect might possibly be to dry up some accommodation that is now being made available in private houses.

We are all familiar with the last argument the Minister made. With regard to the danger of the supply drying up if further restrictions are imposed, would he not consider that we should at least endeavour to bring the matter into proper perspective and proper control? We have not experience of this: we are just guessing that it would reduce the available amount of accommodation if restrictions were imposed. Surely the social desirability is that the racketeer and the exploiter should be put out of business? That is the first essential.

That may be so. Within the past 12 months the House fully concerned itself with this matter. No amendment was then put down to achieve what the Deputy now suggests.

Top
Share