I move, with regard to amendment 8, "That the Seanad do agree to the amendment made by the Dáil to the Seanad amendment." The Dáil inserted three amendments in the amendments that we made in the Bill. The first of these amendments is No 8. The Dáil has inserted certain words in the amendment which we adopted. These words are practically only drafting words. The section in question dealt with the notice served by a sanitary authority. The Dáil has altered our amendment by adding the words "in writing" and also adding in a subsequent line the words "in the prescribed form." That means that the notice which the tenant will have to serve on the landlord will be in writing and in a form to be specified by the Department. I am moving to agree with that amendment.
Town Tenants Bill, 1930—Message from the Dáil.
I do not want to take up a very strong attitude on this matter, but it seems to me that by inserting the words "in the prescribed form" we throw an onus upon the tenant which seems to be hardly necessary. So long as the notice is effective why should the tenant be obliged to follow a particular form? I think that it is a pity that any such obligation should be placed upon the tenant.
If the notice is effective and gives the necessary details, it need not actually be in the prescribed form. Any court would hold that. This amendment is really intended to help the tenant, because it points out to him the particulars which it will be necessary to furnish.
It seems to me that the sanitary authority would be in a position to assist the tenant in a case like this. When they serve the notice, requiring improvement work to be done for sanitary purposes, they could, at the same time, give the tenant a form which he could fill up and serve upon his landlord. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power is here and knows all about the position.
I should like to know whether any arrangement has been made as regards the by-laws of the different local authorities. If the local authorities serve notice in the usual way to have work carried out within three days, what will be the position under this Act if the work is not done within the three days? The tenant may be unable to find the landlord. If three days elapse before the tenant finds the landlord, what becomes of the tenant's obligation to satisfy the by-laws of the sanitary authorities?
Either he does the work himself, notwithstanding that the three days have elapsed, or he fails to do it, in which case the sanitary authority does it, and it then becomes a charge on the premises.
The main object in inserting the words "in writing" was to enable tenants to send their requisition to the landlord without having to look up forms they did not understand. In addition, they might not know where to get them. Now they appear to be in as bad a state as ever because they have to send in the notice in writing and in a prescribed form.
Cathaoirleach
It is proposed by the Dáil amendment to insert the words "in writing." They were not in before.
And the notice has also to be in the prescribed form.
The prescribed form is the writing.
Does that mean that the tenant can send a letter to the landlord?
He will fill up a form and send it to the landlord.
The objection was that he would have to go in search of that form.
I think that there was some misunderstanding about this amendment. It was pointed out in the Seanad that the tenant might not have the prescribed forms and, since he would have only three days to serve notice, that it would be unfair to require that the notice should be in a prescribed form. We have taken out the words "in the prescribed form." There is simply to be a notice in writing instead of a notice in the prescribed form.
I am glad that the Minister has explained the position. The amendment passed by the Dáil was put into my hands just before I spoke and I did not notice the change made in the Dáil as regards the prescribed form.
What protection has the tenant if the notice served by a sanitary authority under their own by-laws are not complied with?
If the tenant sends notice addressed to the landlord at the place at which he pays his rent, it will be sufficient.
The by-laws will have to be changed.
In connection with amendment 10, I move "That the Seanad do agree to the amendment made by the Dáil to the Seanad amendment." This amendment made by the Dáil is also in favour of the tenant. Senators may remember that we made an amendment to the Bill which provided that if the tenant did not serve the notice he was not to be entitled to compensation. That did seem, as I said, though I moved the motion, hard on the tenant. This amendment, inserted by the Dáil, does away with the hardship. If the landlord has not lost by non-service of the notice, the tenant will still be entitled to compensation. That is perfectly equitable and right.
This amendment greatly improves the Bill.
Do you second it?
I do. The amendment made by the Dáil solves a difficulty which this House found insoluble. The Minister was not in a position to accept the amendment which we put forward on this matter. The Dáil, by this amendment, has covered the objections which we had to this provision in the Bill.
As regards amendment 16, I move "That the Seanad do agree to the amendment made by the Dáil to the Seanad amendment." The Seanad inserted the word "twenty" instead of "forty" in this section of the Bill. The Dáil has made a compromise between the two figures and has suggested thirty years. Speaking for myself, I suggest that that is a good compromise. After all, thirty years is a fair term of possession to entitle a tenant to a new tenancy. There is a subsequent amendment bearing on this but I move now that we agree with this amendment.
I beg to second the motion. On Senator Johnson's amendment, we reduced the period of occupation of a residential house giving right to a new tenancy from forty years to twenty years. Senator Johnson, in order to mollify opposition, cut down another part of this section. He limited the meaning of "predecessors in title" to the husband or wife of the tenant. The two changes made by the Dáil — the raising of the number of years from twenty to thirty and the modification of Senator Johnson's limitation of "predecessors in title" to husband and wife — make the Bill better than we had made it. Therefore, I second the motion.
Senator Comyn had an amendment down to this Bill originally by which ten years would be sufficient to give a tenant fixity of tenure. I am surprised to find him now in favour of raising the period from twenty years to thirty years.
He is a good politician.
I get something in the next amendment.
I do not understand the next amendment. When I hear it explained, I shall be able to answer the Senator.
Senator Brown points out that this is clearly a compromise. It is a kind of compromise upon a compromise. I am hesitating as to whether or not the change is a valuable one. Of course I would like the right to renewal to apply to a tenancy even if it was a shorter period than twenty years, but there was a chance, as was proved in the result, that so far as residential property was concerned the tenant of a house was going to get a distinct advantage if he had the right to renewal — he or his wife or widow — at the end of twenty years. I leave out of consideration the question of tenancies or tenant rights in property which is saleable. I do not think that the importance of the case, so far as residential property is concerned, is affected very much by that. The period of twenty years that the Seanad agreed to restricted the right to the tenant or his widow. Now the Dáil has agreed to make the period thirty years, and to make the right apply to the widow, son or daughter, or somebody that the tenant is willing enough to give the tenancy to, so long as there has not been a purchase. In the original draft the purchaser of a tenancy——
Had no rights.
The holder of the tenancy, no matter how he obtained the tenancy, provided it was the same tenancy, had the right to renewal.
Provided he had forty years.
Yes, at least up to forty years. That is now altered. If the thirty years' tenancy has been acquired by purchase for a valuable consideration, then he has no right to renewal. I am not sure whether, apart from residential holdings, the new form will be beneficial to the tenant. I am not going to oppose the amendment, but I am very doubtful as to whether it is an improvement. I think it is not. I would rather have the amendment as it went down from the Seanad.
Question agreed to.
I move: "That the Seanad do not insist on amendment 17 but agree to the amendment inserted by the Dáil in lieu thereof."
I beg to second the proposal for the following reasons. Senator Johnson got us to reduce the period of occupation of a residential house necessary to give a right of renewal or a right to a fair rent, from forty years to twenty years; but in doing that he surrendered what in my opinion was a very valuable principle, namely, that a man who buys the interest of another man in a house or farm shall have all the rights of the man whose interest he has bought. Senator Johnson surrendered that and, as he said, he compromised and allowed a limitation to be put on predecessors in title so as to mean only a husband or wife. At the time I agreed with Senator Johnson. At first I expressed dissent and reserved my right to object to the subsequent amendment, which was yielding what I now say Senator Johnson did yield for the sake of a compromise.
We agreed, however, and I felt very uneasy that I did agree because I think Senator Johnson, although he may not have thought so, and he may be right, was giving away too much. He was giving away too much in order to get something. No doubt it is a very valuable concession; the most valuable thing in the Bill has been achieved by Senator Johnson's amendment; but in order to get it I thought he was yielding too much, and apparently the Dáil thought the same. They say we should not break in upon the usual and recognised meaning of predecessor in title; that we should not break in on the universal principle that a man who buys the interest of another man should get all the interest and all that is appurtenant to that interest.
I would not like it to go out that the Seanad has agreed with this amendment on the grounds stated by Senator Comyn. If we do agree with the amendment we are, in fact, giving away that valuable right that the Senator says ought to go with any purchase.
We are not.
That is the point I want to have settled. As I understand it, the Bill as we sent it to the Dáil was restricted. Twenty years' residence was sufficient to get a new lease, but the predecessors in title were restricted to the husband or wife. The period of twenty years has been changed to thirty years, but I am not certain in what position the predecessors in title have been left. I take it that our amendment goes altogether and this is to be substituted for what was in the original Bill. If that is so we have predecessors in title for thirty years with the exception that the rights shall not be acquired by purchase inside thirty years. That is the Bill as I understand it. The Bill is being left as it was with the exception of the ten years' difference and the purchase.
We are giving away ten years. We have exchanged ten years for the deprivation to the purchaser of the title.
I wonder is that so? I think what you have given away the ten years for is that the son and daughter shall have the same rights as the wife.
It seems to me the statement made by Senator Wilson is correct in substance. What we are doing as between our amendment and the amendment that has been sent from the Dáil is that we change twenty years to thirty and we are extending the right from husband and wife to any successor in title, unless they have purchased it. That means that a husband or wife might will it or give it to the children, as the case might be, but that it could not be a matter of sale. That seems to me to be a far more satisfactory arrangement. I think Senator Comyn is right in stating that for the difference between twenty and thirty something is being given to the tenant. It was simply husband and wife before. Now it is husband or wife or a person whom they may will or give it to.
Question agreed to.