Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Apr 1980

Vol. 319 No. 7

Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Bill, 1979: Report Stage.

Amendment No. 1 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 2 is cognate and amendment No. 4 is related and these may be discussed with amendment No. 1. The Minister of State will understand that he will explain amendments Nos. 2 and 4 with it.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, line 23, to delete "a tenement" and substitute "premises".

The House will recall that, during the Committee Stage debate on the Bill, the Minister for Justice gave notice of his intention to move on Report Stage, if warranted, a further amendment concerning section 5 of the Bill. The Minister was at that time examining a question that had been raised concerning the effect of the provisions of section 5 (1) (a) (iv) of the Bill.

As the Minister explained to the House on Committee Stage, that question concerned the effect of the words "the person making the letting" and "the person taking it". The corresponding expressions in the 1931 Act provision, in section 2 (d) of the 1931 Act, are "lessor" and "lessee". Since "lessor" and "lessee" are in effect defined, both in the 1931 Act and in the Bill, as including successors in title, the argument was put forward that the change could prevent an assignee of the original lessor or lessee from taking over and relying upon the original temporary convenience. That is, the argument runs, a temporary convenience letting is, initially at least, outside the scope of the legislation if it comes within the provisions of section 5 (1) (a) (iv), since that subsection excludes such lettings from the definition of a "tenement". However, it is argued, since an assignee of, say, the person making the letting is not himself that person, the application of section 5 (1) (a) (iv) may cease with the assignment, and with it the exclusion from the scope of the legislation.

The change in the wording of section 5 (1) (a) (iv) of the Bill was, in fact, made so as to ensure that oral lettings for temporary convenience would come within the ambit of the provision—and hence would have the benefit of the exclusion from the definition of "tenement"—as well as lettings of that kind made in writing, to which alone the expression "lessor" and "lessee" refer. The view was not taken that section 5 (1) (a) (iv) of the Bill would cease to apply by reason of an assignment of the letting.

This matter is of particular importance in regard to the question of renewal rights for tenants who take lettings for temporary convenience in premises that are awaiting redevelopment. The Minister has had the matter examined by the Landlord and Tenant Commission and the commission have recommended that section 5 (1) (a) (iv) of the Bill be amended to make it clear that no change is being proposed in the law as it stands, in section 2 (d) of the 1931 Act, regarding the assignment of lettings for temporary convenience unless a change is intended. No change is indeed intended in this regard and the Minister accepts the view of the commission that the provision should be made quite clear. Amendment No. 34 proposes to do this by inserting in section 5 (1) (a) (iv) the words "lessor or lessee" instead of the words "person making the letting or of the person taking it". Section 5 (1) (a) (iv) will then represent the re-enactment of section 2 (d) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, with the change that oral lettings for temporary convenience, as well as lettings for temporary convenience made in writing, will come within the scope of the provision, and will now do so in a way that is free from the ambiguity, or lack of clarity, that may be regarded as attaching to section 5 (1) (a) (iv) of the Bill as it stands.

To appreciate how this is brought about it is necessary to consider the effect of the changes that are proposed by amendments Nos. 1 and 2. The effect of those changes is that the expressions "landlord" and "tenant" may now apply, in this Bill, to premises that do not comprise a "tenement". In section 3 (1) of the Bill the expressions "lessor" and "lessee" are defined as respectively including "landlord" and "tenant".

A temporary convenience letting to which section 5 (1) (a) (iv) of the Bill applies is, by definition, not a tenement. However, if amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are accepted the expressions "landlord" and "tenant" can be used in relation to such lettings. Hence the reinstatement in section 5 (1) (a) (iv) of the Bill of the substance of the wording of section 2 (d) of the 1931 Act—including the references to "lessor" and "lessee"—means that, in consequence of the altered definitions of "lessor", "lessee", "landlord" and "tenant" in section 3 (1) of the Bill, as against the corresponding definitions in the 1931 Act, "lessor" and "lessee" in section 5 (1) (a) (iv) may relate to oral lettings for temporary convenience as well as to temporary convenience lettings that are made in writing.

(Cavan-Monaghan): These are drafting amendments in order to clarify the position regarding the letting of temporary convenience. The Minister's statement has explained the position fairly well. I should like to avail of this opportunity of welcoming the Minister of State on his first Bill in the House and to wish him well.

Did I understand the Minister to say that the effect of the amendment would be to put it beyond doubt that the expression "temporary convenience" is not confined to the original landlord or tenant but once it is a letting for temporary convenience it runs with the land and will remain a letting for temporary convenience in the hands of an assignee of the lessee interest or the lessor interest? I would like the Minister to clarify that for me.

At rather greater length, the explanation of amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and what they are designed to achieve is—(1) They ensure that the exclusion from a "tenement" of the kind of temporary convenience letting to which section 5 (1) (a) (iv) refers extends to an oral letting for temporary convenience of that kind as well as to a letting of that kind that is made in writing. (2) They also ensure that the benefit of that exclusion extends to an assignee of the person, whether the person making the letting or the person taking it, for whose temporary convenience the letting is made.

This is because, as a result of these three amendments—(a) section 5 (1) (a) (iv) now refers to "lessor or lessee" instead of "person making the letting or of the person taking it"; (b) "lessor" is defined—section 3 (1) of the Bill—as including the personal representatives and successors in title of a lessor and hence includes an assignee; (c) "lessee" is similarly defined, also in section 3 (1) of the Bill, and hence similarly includes an assignee; (d) "lessor" is also defined as including "landlord"; (e) "lessee" is also defined as including "tenant"; (f) where "lessor" can include "landlord" and where "lessee" can include "tenant" those expressions may relate to oral tenancies, as well as to tenancies that are in writing. Apart from those inclusions "lessor" and "lessee" could relate only to tenancies in writing since "lease" is so defined, in section 3 (1) of the Bill, whereas "landlord" and "tenant" are expressions that may refer to oral tenancies as well as to leases; (g) the changes proposed by amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the definitions of "landlord" and "tenant" enable those expressions to relate to tenancies that may not comprise a tenement, such as the kind of tenancy that is covered by section 5 (1) (a) (iv) of the Bill. Hence “lessor or lessee” in section 5 (1) (a) (iv) now include “landlord or tenant” and hence may refer either to oral lettings for temporary convenience or to lettings of that kind that are in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, line 13, to delete "a tenement" and substitute "premises".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Fitzpatrick has been ruled out of order.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not wish to raise controversy on this. I called to the Ceann Comhairle's office about an amendment which I put down to section 4, which has been ruled out of order on the grounds that it involves a potential charge on the revenue. I may refer to this on Fifth Stage but I want to put on record here that that is a very wide interpretation of the potential charge on the revenue and that it may be establishing a precedent which will make it difficult to put down amendments in the future.

The Deputy will agree that he should discuss that with the Ceann Comhairle.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I did.

The present occupant of the Chair must accept what the Ceann Comhairle says.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I opposed section 4 on Committee Stage and it would have been possible to rule out that opposition also on the grounds that to exclude section 4 would impose a potential charge on the revenue. It could only indirectly impose a charge on the revenue by seeking to put the State as a landlord in the same position as a private citizen as a landlord. I assert that that is a dangerous interpretation of the charge on the revenue rule and is a wide extension of it.

The Deputy has made his point.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, lines 6 and 7, to delete "person making the letting or of the person taking it" and substitute "lessor or lessee".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 5, in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are cognate. The Minister will move amendment No. 5 and we will discuss amendments Nos. 6 and 7 with amendment No. 5.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 13, lines 17 and 18, to delete "one month" and substitute "three months".

In the course of the Committee Stage debate, Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick (Cavan-Monaghan), moved an amendment that was identical with this amendment that is now being moved. Subsequently he withdrew that amendment on foot of an undertaking given by the Minister for Justice to re-examine the matter so as to see whether he could meet the Deputy on the point.

The matter has been given careful consideration and the amendments now before the House are the result. The effect of these three amendments will be that a tenant's right to serve a valid notice claiming a new tenancy will be preserved for a period of up to three months after service by the landlord of notice of the termination of the tenancy instead of a period of only one month as proposed in the Bill as it stands—apart from tenancies coming under sections 14 and 15 of the Bill, where a period of six months is provided. The amendments imply acceptance of the argument put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick that narrow time-limits in section 20, could, in practice, delay rather than expedite proceedings in relation to a claim for a new tenancy.

Deputies may recall that, in opposing Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment on Committee Stage, the Minister for Justice pointed out that the Landlord and Tenant Commission were concerned in a number of recommendations made by them in their First Report, to shorten the time-limits provided in the 1931 Act so as to speed up the various procedures under the legislation. On foot of this undertaking to Deputy Fitzpatrick, the Minister has had these various time-limits re-examined but he has concluded that—save for those time-limits that are the subject of the amendments—no valid ground exists for the extension of any of the other time-limits provided in the Bill. This is apart from a change in the time-limit provided by section 56 of the Bill which in its terms is linked with the section 20 time-limits and where a change is involved consequential on the changes in section 20.

The time-limits in section 20 relate to the most important right of all under the Bill—the right of an occupational tenant to obtain the grant of a new tenancy. A tenant who far any reason failed to act within those time-limits would normally be committed to seek an extension of time under section 82 of the Bill, whatever the expense for him that that might involve. Accordingly, it is accepted that a too-narrow time-limit in section 20 could in practice give rise to additional delay, as Deputy Fitzpatrick has argued, rather than to a more expeditious procedure, and could perhaps also give rise to hardship. Moreover, there is a case to be made for having the time-limits in section 20 the same as the corresponding time-limit in section 31 of the Bill where the grant of a reversionary lease is in question, and that also is achieved by these amendments. They further simplify the Bill, and it will be useful for practitioners to know that a single time-limit applies to applications whether for the grant of a new tenancy or for the grant of a reversionary lease.

However, no such case exists for extending other time-limits provided elsewhere in the Bill, and where those other time-limits are concerned the general view that was taken by the Landlord and Tenant Commission is valid, that is, that the procedures under the legislation should, where feasible, be speeded up. This is particularly the case in regard to the procedures relating to compensation for improvements under Part IV of the Bill.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am obliged to the Minister for introducing these amendments which arise from an argument put forward by me on Committee Stage where I argued that a period of one month was too short and would in many cases lead to the notices not being served in time with a consequent application to the court under a subsequent section of the Bill for an extension of the time. The net result of the whole operation would be as I have said to prolong and delay the implementation of the tenant's rights rather than hurry it up. So far as the amendments meet my point I am grateful for them. It is a pity that the Minister did not go the whole way and bring in amendments to meet the other points I made.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 13, line 25, to delete "one month" and substitute "three months".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 13, line 29, to delete "one month" and substitute "three months".

Amendment agreed to.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 8:

In page 15, line 15, after "tenement" to insert "and assuming demand for such tenements in the area is normal".

Amendment No. 8 seeks to add to section 23 (5) "and assuming demand for such tenements in the area is normal". In order to explain the position I will have to go back to the Bill as introduced. Section 23 of the Bill as introduced contains the machinery for fixing the rent of a new tenancy to which a tenant is entitled under the Bill. Section 23 (5) reads:

(5) The gross rent shall be the rent which in the opinion of the Court a willing lessee not already in occupation would give and a willing lessor would take for the tenement, in each case on the basis of vacant possession being given, and in such circumstances that the supply of similar tenements is sufficient to meet the demand and the competition therefor is normal and having regard to the other terms of the tenancy and to the letting values of tenements of a similar character to the tenement and situate in a comparable area but without regard to any goodwill which may exist in respect of the tenement.

That subsection contains the formula for fixing the gross rent of the premises under the new lease. It follows a similar subsection in the 1931 Act. On Committee Stage the Minister introduced an amendment which excluded from subsection (5) the words "and in such circumstances that the supply of similar tenements is sufficient to meet the demand and the competition therefor is normal". Those words were in the 1931 Act also but as a result of some remarks made by Mr. Justice Kenny in the Supreme Court, the Minister reconsidered the Bill as introduced and decided to exclude from subsection (5) the words to which I have referred. On Committee Stage I argued to the best of my ability that the effect of those words in the 1931 Act was to ensure that in fixing a rent of a new tenancy the court was precluded from having regard to a situation in which there was a scarcity of houses, that a court would be precluded from fixing the rent of a premises on what I referred to as a scarce commodity basis. That provision was desirable and absolutely necessary.

Apparently, the learned Mr. Justice Kenny said he did not know what the words meant. Whatever they meant, they were a direction to the court that in fixing a rent of a new lease the court should proceed on the basis that there was reasonable demand for a house of a similar nature to the one in question and that there was a reasonable supply of those houses to meet demand. Without those words the court may fix a rent on the basis that there is a scarcity of the type of house in question, that, indeed, there is only one such premises available and, that therefore, the letting value of the house is exceptionally high. In other words, the court is invited to fix the rent of the house on what I referred to, for want of a better phrase, as a black market basis. We all know that during the last war commodities were sold on the black market when they were in short supply and that such commodities realised prices that were far greater than their normal or reasonable value. The words which the Minister excluded from this section on Committee Stage take away a protection which existed in favour of the tenant and which prevented a tenant being exploited in the fixing of a new rent on the basis that there was an acute shortage of premises of the type in question and in respect of which a renewed tenancy was being sought. While arguing this point on Committee Stage I got the impression that the Minister considered me to have a point and that he intended to have another look at the situation. I am confident that this reconsideration has taken place and I should be very interested in hearing what the Minister for State has to say about the amendment.

Until such time as I may hear a solid argument to the contrary, I am convinced that the effect of the amendment of the law by way of this Bill will be such as to direct the court to have regard to the letting value of a premises in the area concerned. The subsection reads now:

The gross rent shall be the rent which in the opinion of the Court a willing lessee not already in occupation would give and a willing lessor would take for the tenement, in each case on the basis of vacant possession being given, and having regard to the other terms of the tenancy and to the letting values of tenements of a similar character to the tenement and situate in a comparable area but without regard to any goodwill which may exist in respect of the tenement.

The real consideration is the letting value of the tenement situate in a comparable area and a comparable area will be an area in which there is only one or perhaps two such tenements and where there is a big population to be served. What could be in question for example, could be a licensed premises. There might be only one licensed premises in an area and that situation would inflate immediately and enormously the letting value of that premises. But let us say that what is involved is a private house and that for some reason there has been considerable development in the area without the number of private houses being built keeping pace with the demands of the people working in the area. In such circumstances there would be an inflated-value situation with an artificial value being put on the premises and the tenant being exploited accordingly. Alternatively the premises concerned might be a small shop and there could be a Navan-type situation in which there would be many people working in the town concerned with the result that the value of the premises would be inflated enormously.

What I am aiming to do is to save the tenant from such a situation. Perhaps if I had tabled an amendment framed exactly in the terms of the section as it appeared originally it would have been ruled out of order as something which had been decided on Committee but in order to find a platform for my argument I have sought to amend the new subsection (5), which reads:

The gross rent shall be the rent which in the opinion of the Court a willing lessee not already in occupation would give and a willing lessor would take for the tenement, in each case on the basis of vacant possession being given, and having regard to the other terms of the tenancy and to the letting values of tenements of a similar character to the tenement and situate in a comparable area but without regard to any goodwill which may exist in respect of the tenement.

I want to add to that: "and assuming demand for such tenements in the area is normal." That would take away the blackmail element or the scarcity element to which otherwise this subsection is wide open. The basis of this landlord and tenant law is to make sure that things which should not be taken into account will not be taken into account. One of them is that goodwill shall not be taken into account because usually the goodwill is built up by the tenant and is not contributed to by the landlord.

The second thing I say should not be taken into account—and it should be made impossible to take it into account—is fixing a rent in what I call a scarce commodity situation. That is wrong. It was never intended that that should be done. The amendment of the law on Committee Stage of this Bill will direct the court, among other things, to take into account the fact that there is a scarcity of similar tenements or premises in the area. I do not want the court to take into account the fact that there are more of such premises than are necessary. That would not be right either. I want the court to be obliged to proceed on the basis that the demand for such tenements in the area is normal, that there is a normal market, that houses are not lying idle.

I do not want them to proceed on the basis that people cannot get houses in the area and that we would have an auctioneer going into the witness box and saying he had ten people looking for similar houses but he had no house to give them. At times auctioneers can be colourful. An auctioneer could say: "I had ten people in last week for houses like this. I had not one house to let. I could have let ten if I had them. `What would you get for them?' `Anything I asked."'

With all due respect to Mr. Justice Kenny, that is the situation which will be created here. I am against that. That is why I was surprised that the Minister did not see fit to re-incorporate the words he proposed to exclude from the section. If he thought the words were ambiguous or hard to follow, I am sure Mr. Justice Kenny or the Landlord and Tenant Commission could have suggested words which would be clearer but which would have the same effect.

This Bill does not concern lettings of dwelling houses except incidentally and in odd cases, and has very little connection with residential rents. In Part II it is primarily a code for the renewal of business tenancies. "In a comparable area" can mean any comparable area. In the 1931 Act it was restricted to the vicinity. The change was made to meet the very point Deputy Fitzpatrick was making.

Deputies will recall that the Minister for Justice moved amendment No. 26 to subsection (5) of section 23 of the Bill which was agreed to on the Committee Stage of the Bill. That amendment deleted the words "and in such circumstances that the supply of similar tenements is sufficient to meet the demand and the competition therefor is normal" from subsection (5), leaving it as it now stands. Deputies may further recall that the deletion of those words arose particularly from adverse comments made thereon by Mr. Justice Kenny in the Supreme Court. That criticism by the Supreme Court was echoed and supported during the debate on this Bill in Seanad Éireann and was subsequently endorsed by the Landlord and Tenant Commission, who had been asked by the Minister for Justice to examine the provisions in question on foot of the Supreme Court criticism. The commission in substance recommended the change in the law that was proposed in the Committee Stage amendment.

Deputy Fitzpatrick, in speaking to that amendment, expressed the fear that the deletion of the words in question could lead to a situation where a scarcity of supply might mean that the court, in fixing a gross rent under section 23, would fix a rent that was inflated by that scarcity of supply. The amendment he now proposes is apparently designed to eliminate that possibility.

The Minister for Justice has given this matter careful consideration but the proposed amendment cannot be accepted. In the first place, it seems appropriate to remind the House that the code of law with which we are now dealing is not, and was never intended to be, a code of rent control. There is, indeed, a separate code dealing with that issue, and it would not be proper to attempt to insert rent control provisions in this Bill. The part of the code we are here concerned with gives the tenant security in his tenancy, protects his investment in any improvements he has made and prevents the landlord from exploiting the tenant's goodwill. It does not otherwise purport to interfere with market rents.

Secondly, on a careful examination of the Deputy's amendment, the Minister feels that the substance of it, compared with the words that were deleted from this section on Committee Stage, are so close to one another that acceptance of the amendment would virtually mean his rejection of the very arguments used to support the Committee Stage amendment. However re-examination does not lead to the rejection of those arguments. On the contrary, it appears to strengthen them. To say that demand is to be assumed to be normal is to imply that it is neither too great—when supply is too short—nor too low—when supply exceeds demand. Demand is surely only "normal" when supply and demand are in equilibrium and supply and demand are always in equilibrium at, and only at, an appropriate level of rent, high rent or low rent, depending on the levels of demand and of supply. This brings us back to the unworkable concept deleted from the Bill on Committee Stage.

Additionally, I am not at all sure that, even if the amendment were acceptable, it would produce the results Deputy Fitzpatrick desires. In the first place, the words proposed in the amendment could, I submit, be validly interpreted in the following way. In the Dublin city centre area demand for business premises often exceeds supply at the level of hitherto-prevailing rents. Is the court, therefore, to be obliged to assume in Dublin city centre cases that that situation is to be ignored that is, that demand in that area is always stable?

In the second place, the amendment appears to take no account of the situation—albeit a less common one—where supply actually exceeds demand at current levels of rent. In such a case the amendment, as drafted, would itself result in the fixing of an artificially high rent, which presumably is what the Deputy seeks to avoid.

All in all, I do not think that the amendment is either necessary or desirable. I feel that this is one of the areas where we should lay down sufficient guidelines—but only sufficient guidelines—for the courts and allow them to use their discretion and proven sound judgement in applying the law in a just and even-handed fashion.

(Cavan-Monaghan): In the first place, I am utterly amazed to hear from the Minister of State that this Bill deals almost exclusively with business premises and only in a marginal or peripheral way with dwelling houses. That simply is not so. This Bill goes out of its way to bring more dwelling houses under the scope of the Bill. It goes out of its way to give more and more tenants of private dwelling houses the right to avail of a new tenancy, the right to come into court and claim a new tenancy. The Minister of State rightly referred to Part II of the Bill, which gives the right to a new tenant. Section 13 states:

(1) This Part applies to a tenement at any time if—

(a) the tenement was, during the whole of the period of three years ending at that time, continously in the occupation of the person who was the tenant immediately before that time or of his predecessors in title and bona fide used wholly or partly for the purpose of carrying on a business, or

That means that if a person is a tenant of a premises for three years and is carrying on a business he is entitled to a new tenancy if he complies with the other provisions of Part II.

Paragraph (b) of section 13 (1) states:

the tenement was, during the whole of the period of twenty years ending at that time, continously in the occupation of the person who was the tenant immediately before that time or of his predecessors in title, or

There is no word there about a business premises. I am speaking from memory but I think I am correct in saying that the period of 20 years is in substitution for 30 years in the old Bill. The qualifying period for a new tenancy of a private house is being reduced by one-third from 30 to 20 years. Probably the Minister has been handed his brief at short notice but it is not correct to say that this Bill is all about business premises and does not concern private premises. I got from the Minister an admission that my interpretation is correct. It will leave it open to the court to fix the rent on a scarce commodity basis and the Minister acknowledged that. I think that is wrong.

Neither is it correct to say that the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, is not about rent control. Of course it is. It entitles a tenant to a new lease on reasonable terms. Goodwill is to be disregarded. Other guidelines are given but the words that are excluded were written into the 1931 Act and there can be no doubt about that. I have been confirmed in my opinion as a result of what the Minister said. As I said on Committee Stage, the words in the 1931 Act mean that the court is not to fix a rent on a scarce commodity basis. The people who introduced the 1931 Act knew what they were doing. What they were saying in the words they used is what I am saying in other words, namely, that the court is to assume that demand is normal, not abnormal. I do not accept the Minister's argument that this could lead to the fixing of a very high rent against the tenant. That could only arise if there were houses or other tenements idle in the immediate area. In such a case the tenant could move into one of those houses and not apply for a renewal of his tenancy. He could negotiate with the landlord on a reasonable basis and would not have to go to court.

I am surprised that the Government have fallen for this argument. I am surprised they have taken this backward step and are putting on the Statute Book a measure that will lead to the exploitation of tenants. This trend is evident throughout the Bill. In the section dealing with reversionary leases new ground rents are being created. I refer to that matter in passing because I shall deal with it at length later. Elaborate provisions are made for new ground rents which the Government were supposed to abolish. I am amazed and disappointed that in 1980 a modern Government should seek to change the law in this way, should seek to change the law by inviting the courts to fix the new rent of long-standing tenants, who may have been in occupation for 50 or 60 years, on the basis of a scarcity of accommodation. That is what the Government are doing.

Sometimes when I come across something like this in a Bill I wonder if I am reading it correctly. When I moved this amendment I thought the Minister might have an explanation to show me that my interpretation was wrong. I might have been a little embarrassed but at least I would have been satisfied that what I feared was not the case. However, the Minister brazenly said that my interpretation was correct. He told me the Bill was not about private houses, even though it is and he went on to say that the Bill was not about rent control, but it is. It is about fixing the rents of small business premises and private houses on a reasonable basis and renewing the rents on a reasonable basis.

The argument that in Dublin city centre, if the amendment is accepted, tenants might be penalised by having their rents fixed higher, is not valid. This could work adversely to a tenant only in a scarce situation, but all the premises we are dealing with have been occupied for a long time and in 99 per cent of the cases they are tenements in which the tenants are responsible for all repairs and the landlords have not to put a paint brush on them or a nail in them. They are the tenants who are being exploited by this amending legislation, notwithstanding all the Fianna Fáil talk about abolishing ground rents, about making it easier to get houses and cheaper to keep them.

I am amazed that the Minister of State should have been sent in here to try to justify this just because some judge did not like the phraseology. A person coming across that phraseology would have to stop and think, but is that not what judges are paid for? This has stood the test from 1931 to date and it was always interpreted as being an inhibition against fixing rents on a black market basis, a scarce commodity basis or on the basis that there were far more tenants looking for them than premises on the market. This provision is wrong and I strongly oppose it.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 44; Níl, 62.

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Cosgrave, Michael J.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • D'Arcy, Michael J.
  • Deasy, Martin A.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John F.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Horgan, John.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • Lipper, Mick.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Mannion, John M.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, William.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Kit.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Cogan, Barry.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joe.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Murphy, Ciarán P.
  • Nolan, Tom.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy C.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Filgate, Eddie.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzsimons, James N.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Fox, Christopher J.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Dennis.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keegan, Seán.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael J.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers; Tá, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share