Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Dec 1945

Vol. 30 No. 14

Rent Restrictions Bill, 1944—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed:—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is evidently designed to afford facilities to tenants with grievances, to call attention to them and that they can avail of these facilities with more case than those afforded by earlier rent restriction Acts. The impression has, however, gone abroad that this is really a Bill where the odds are very much against landlords in favour of tenants, because of the facilities afforded tenants in the matter of costs that are not enjoyed by landlords. A tenant who has a grievance can bring his case before a court and if he sustains it the landlord has a right to defend the position he got in earlier legislation his costs are paid, but the landlord, as far as I understand the Bill, has to fight the appeal out of his own resources. It has been alleged that because of that unfair differentiation, since rent restriction legislation was introduced, the tendency on the part of the private landlord who owns property is to cease letting these premises and to cash in on them by putting them up for sale. It would be a pity if any legislation passed for the benefit of tenants should interfere with the beneficial work that private enterprise, in the way of building new houses, confers on the community. I hold that every house, whether it is to let or for sale, does to an extent relieve the rather acute housing problem that prevails, not alone in the cities but throughout the country. There is another provision in this Bill which I regard as a flaw, namely, that bad tenants—and there are such, just as there are bad landlords—with vexatious grievances could make the lot of their landlords an impossible one. Some means must be found on the Committee Stage of the Bill to rule out the possibility of vexatious appeals, or attempts on the part of such tenants to make the lot of landlords impossible.

I am acquainted with many landlords and tenants, and I know that they live on the very best of terms, being helpful in many ways to each other. In these instances the landlords are anxious to meet the reasonable requests of the tenants as regards improvements, but there are other tenants who are never satisfied. In such cases I am assured that the repairs which some tenants require to have done to their houses would often cost twice the amount of rent that their landlords collect. As matters stand, an investor who continues to build houses either to let or to sell is certainly a public benefactor. At the same time, we have to consider the position of a large number of people who, owing to economic conditions, will never be able to purchase their homes in the open market. That class of people must depend on the efforts of public bodies to provide them with decent houses, with all the modern amenities that they are entitled to, but these are houses that no private builder could provide and let at rents that the tenants could pay. The difference between what they are able to pay, and what public bodies must collect, so that there would be a fair return on the capital invested, must be met out of State funds. I have experience of cases in which public bodies, in their desire to provide sites for houses, have not treated the owners of those sites fairly. Members of public bodies who themselves owned land that would make suitable sites for building schemes never offered those sites, but they acted aggressively on the public bodies with a view to confiscating, more or less, from other people sites considered suitable for building. Those bodies compulsorily acquired those sites at a fourth of what they would realise in the open market. That is not fair. Where people have property considered suitable for building schemes, it should be acquired only in the ordinary way, and the owner should be given the equivalent of what it would realise in the open market had he an opportunity of putting it up for sale.

Senator Sweetman made what I considered a very good point last night in the brief remarks he addressed to the House on this Bill. He urged that the Government should encourage private enterprise in building but he stressed that the Government should exercise some supervision over the class of houses built, so that those known as "jerry builders" would not be allowed to cash-in on the necessities of people who are prepared to take any house in order to have a roof over their heads. Something should be done to stop that abuse, which is not confined to the cities. It should be possible to amend this Bill in such a way as to rule out the possibility of tenants with vexatious claims pestering landlords who are discharging their responsibilities in the best possible manner. If provision were made whereby tenants of that unreasonable type would be prevented from coming forward with frivolous claims, this Bill would be a very good one.

This is not a Bill on which one can expatiate at any great length. The Minister rather anticipated the discussion on it by his very helpful memorandum. It is a very welcome Bill for what it contains, but the omissions are significant and important. So far as it co-ordinates the laws dealing with rents, it is very welcome. It simplified that question and brings it, perhaps, within the purview of the ordinary man, who has not to go back to scores of references to ascertain what the law is. Rent law will now be found in one Act and, to that extent, I welcome the Bill. However, a number of matters of great importance and urgency, which might have been dealt with in the Bill, have received very little attention. One of those is the scarcity of houses in the cities and, particularly, in Dublin. This Bill is not going to do anything to relieve that scarcity. Incidentally, I may mention that one speaker dealt very largely with the scarcity of houses and was not pulled up for doing so. On that precedent I assume I have the same liberty to deal with this matter. He should be an authority on the scarcity of houses. To illustrate the fact, he said that people in very good circumstances were compelled, owing to the shortage of houses, to seek houses that, in the ordinary way, would be occupied by the working-classes. It is a fact that a member of this House, in good circumstances, had to pursue his case in the courts to be allowed to live in a labourer's cottage. That, in itself, is some evidence of the scarcity of houses.

There are good and bad landlords. Unfortunately, Senator O'Reilly is not here, because he made a good case for the landlords. I can speak as a landlord and as a tenant, and I think that landlords have some grievances. I shall mention one. I happen to be a landlord, in trust, of certain property of which a letting was made about 50 years ago. The letting provided that the tenants would have occupation at certain rents, the owner to pay rates and taxes. At that time, the rates and taxes were between 9/- and 10/- in the £. To-day, they are 21/- in the £. Consequently, the unfortunate landlord in that case has been losing money for a number of years and is likely to go on losing money until the lease falls in four or five years hence. I do not know whether or not there are many other landlords in the predicament in which I was in in connection with that letting but, if there are, they ought to get some relief.

No provision is made in this Bill in respect of ground rents. The ground rent on the property to which I have referred is owned by an absentee landlord—the representative of a family who made their money in this country and, having made their money, had no further use for the country. They are living outside the country and drawing their ground rents regularly from here. It is time that steps were taken to deal with this question of ground rents, which is a very important and serious matter. There is a great deal of talk about the nationalising, in another country, of certain essential industries. I do not know of anything which it is more important to nationalise than ground rents in the City of Dublin. The ground is almost valueless until a public body comes along to erect houses. Then, it suddenly becomes an El Dorado, although the owners did nothing to improve it. It is the public body which makes the improvement, but the enhanced value goes to the private owners.

There are, of course, good landlords. There are the Iveagh Trust, the Artisans' Dwellings Company and St. Ultan's. There may be other such organisations, but with those three I am very well acquainted. As landlords, I think that they could not be improved upon. If those people could get any relief under this Bill which would induce them to persevere on the lines on which they have been going for a long number of years, it would be very helpful.

The Iveagh Trust were the first people to embark, as far as I know, on a very big housing scheme. That induced the corporation to carry on. The Artisans' Dwellings Company was there before the Iveagh Trust and as landlords, I think they are models. I know their properties very well, and I know a number of people who work for them and they are up to a high standard as employers. St. Ultan's is a new society with the object of giving healthy homes at reasonable rent. They are doing that fairly well, and given relief or encouragement from the local authority or national body I am sure they will continue their good work.

One matter which is not dealt with under this Bill is the flat system. This has been exploited to an extraordinary degree. In addition to high rents, children are banned, and I suggest to the Minister that under the Censorship Act or some other Act, he would prohibit the publication of advertisements of flat lettings which specify "Adults only". That is a suggestion from me that no paper should be permitted to publish advertisements of that kind. Such advertisements are quite common and regular in the papers. It is an audacious thing and the censorship or some other authority would serve a useful purpose if they stopped it.

We have only one censorship now.

That is to deal with matters which are in their general tendency immoral, and I know of nothing more immoral in its general tendency than the banning of children.

It is not immoral, but it may be indecent.

Is it obscene?

It is extremely indecent in a Christian country to bar a family where there are children, or to forbid letting in the case of newly-married couples. A man not unconnected with the Labour Party secured a house and let it in flats, and not a child has been allowed to enter it ever since. One newly-married couple got a flat at a fairly high rent and when there were signs of children coming on, the couple were told they had to get out. We have protection in many ways, but here is one scandal crying out for action. This Bill makes no effort to give any protection whatever in the matter of preventing this kind of prohibition on having children in the house.

I would like to welcome Part III of the Bill because it gives the tenant an opportunity of cheap law. It is a step in the right direction and a recognition that the tenant should have access to the courts at the cheapest possible rate without engaging a lawyer to plead his cause and make his case. I welcome the Bill for what it contains, but I regret the omission of many of the other things I have referred to.

I welcome the Bill, but I would be better pleased if it had no limitations whatever. In Section 3 it increases the valuation to £60 in the city, and in other places to £40 per house, but I would like to see these limitations disappear. I do not know why we follow the 1915 and other Acts in that respect. I would like to see this Bill applied to every house and every premises not covered by the Land Acts.

Imagine if a man has a valuation of £60 10s. he has no protection under this Act if he lives in the City of Dublin. In the country, if he has a valuation of £40 1s. he has no protection either, whereas the man with £40 is protected. One shilling thus deprives the man of protection. It reminds me of the old days when they passed a Workmen's Compensation Act in 1897 and made certain limitations. One of the provisions was that if a man was working in a house 30 feet high, compensation was given to him for injury, or to his widow and children in the case of his death from a fall. Similarly, if he worked in a quarry 30 feet deep he could get compensation, but if he worked in a house only 29 feet 11½ inches high, or in a quarry the same depth, he got no compensation whatsoever, whether for injury or death. Those limitations disappeared gradually in 1900, 1906, and 1934, when they were abolished. We should not have to wait for the next 30 years to have all these limitations swept away in the case of houses when certain people are deprived of rights enjoyed by their more lucky neighbours whose valuation differs from theirs by only a few shillings.

There is also a provision that it applies to houses with land attached if the valuation of the land does not exceed a quarter of the valuation of the house. That can work very grave injustices. I had a case some time ago where the valuation of the land exceeded that of the house by about 3/-. Fortunately, I found out that the man was rated for land he did not own and I was able to get a revaluation of the house before proceedings were taken.

We changed that to one-half in the Committee Stage. You may not have an amended copy of the Bill.

Under the 1906 Act a man who owned three acres was held to be entitled to the benefits of the Act. That was the first Act of its kind passed in Ireland and it arose out of the famous case of Martin Ward of Loughrea. Mr. Tanner, the agent for the famous Lord Clanrickard, on seeing that Mr. Ward was acting as secretary of the United Irish League, sent him an argumentum ad hominem in the shape of a notice to quit, and he was duly evicted from his house and premises.

There is also the provision which exempts business houses held for a year or more. I know they are protected to a certain extent by the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1931, but I can imagine slips occurring which will deprive tenants of their rights under that Act. Certain notices must be served at least three months before the expiration of the lease, and in one part of the Act there are powers given by which a judge may abridge the time, but in another part of the Act dealing with ground rents, there is no such provision, and if the tenant forgets or neglects to serve the notice within the period he loses relief.

There is a very great difficulty that certain people will fall between those Acts and will have no remedy at all. That is why I would like to see everybody protected in every house in the towns unless he has sufficient land to bring him within the Land Acts. Another difficulty I see is that this Bill follows the 1923 Act. It says that a statutory tenant may not sell. There will probably be great objection to my statement in this respect that a man cannot sell his house if he is a statutory tenant.

A statutory tenant is defined as a person retaining possession under the Act. I do not know how every judge would construe that section. Some judges may hold that the tenant is protected by it only where an order is made by the judge stating that the landlord would be entitled to possession were it not for the fact that this Bill was passed. I do not know whether such a person would be the only person who is a statutory tenant. Assuming that every person within these limitations is a statutory tenant, then nobody whose valuations come within the prescribed figure can dispose of what would be a very valuable property. That would particularly apply in cases where a man lives in one portion of the premises and carries on a business in another portion. That person's property may be worth £7,000, £8,000 or £10,000 but, even if he is served with notice to quit or with an ejectment order and is merely allowed to retain possession under the Act, he is completely deprived of the right to dispose of his interest in it. That is a matter that should be remedied.

There is also a difficulty where a tenant dies. I know that his wife or his child, if living with him, has the right to continue as tenant but if the child is not living with him that right does not exist. The tenant's right ceases on the death of the tenant. That is different from the law that existed before this Bill was introduced. A man who had certain rights under the 1906 Act, before it was repealed to make room for the 1931 Act, may lose these rights now. There is a danger that certain people may lose very valuable rights if the Bill is passed in its present form. If anybody serves notice to quit knowing that he cannot get possession of the property, permission should be given to the Circuit Court judge to dismiss the case on the merits and not make the order that is intended to be made under the Bill. There are certain other matters which will arise on Committee but these are the broad points of objection which I have to the Bill.

It is rather pleasant, after a Bill in which it was apparent that there was a certain imperfect sympathy between the views of members of the House, to come to a Bill with the principle of which I think nearly every member of the House would be prepared to agree. On the general working out of that principle I think most members would also be prepared to agree. In so far as differences make themselves visible, when we come to the Committee Stage, I think they will be merely differences in detail. In some respects, I will submit to the House, the Bill goes too far and, in other respects, it does not go far enough. In order to understand the reasons why I shall make these submissions, it might perhaps be desirable to refer very shortly to the underlying principles which make this Bill justifiable and necessary.

The House will probably agree with me that there is nothing disgraceful or dishonourable in owning or investing in house property. Senators may even go so far as to agree with me that landlords as a class have a right to live— that is to say, landlords of house property. I realise that if I were dealing with landlords of agricultural property, these propositions might not seem so self-evident! In fact, as we are all aware, the majority of houses are not held by rich landlords. House property is a rather favourite method of investment for a person who has saved a certain amount of money, who has retired from active business because he is no longer strong enough to attend to it, and who feels that he would like to invest his money in something to give him an interest in life. There are also many widows and spinsters dependent for an income on small investments in house property.

Therefore we can approach this Bill from the point of view that, although owners of house property may have to forgo a certain amount of what they expected or what they would be entitled to get if there was a completely free market, yet they have a right to a return upon their capital and that a case has to be made out to justify a diminution of that return. What that case is, it is not difficult to find out.

In ordinary times the current level of rents is determined by what economists call the "higgling" of the market, by the combination of supply and demand. In ordinary times, it is always desirable to let economic conditions operate freely because if you do not do that, you are setting up a state of unstable equilibrium. But we are not dealing with ordinary conditions. We are not dealing with conditions in which, if the rents are high, it is going to pay people to build houses to let and so bring down rents. We are dealing with a condition in which house property partakes to a certain degree of the nature of a monopoly. There has been no building for some time. There are frankly not enough houses to go round and the economic laws and the considerations of justice which apply are very much those which apply to a monopoly commodity. In other words, in the interests of the public, the landlord should not be allowed to make as much money or to get a rent so high as he could if there was no interference whatever.

While admitting and endorsing that principle, it is necessary in the application of it to see that we do not go too far in some respects and not far enough in others. It is right because of the shortage of houses that landlords should not be able to get as much money as they otherwise might, in fact that the landlord should come in for a few economic kicks but, of course, there is always the temptation to give the landlord a few more kicks while the kicking is good. When we come to deal with this Bill, I think you will find that what I might call the non-1923 landlords have not been fairly treated. On the other hand, I deprecate very much the absence of interference with what I regard as the biggest ramp of the whole lot, that is the utterly exorbitant prices which are, and under this Act can continue to be, exacted in respect of flats.

It is a common thing for a house which is within the ambit of this Act to be let at, we will say, £50 a year, and for the person to whom it is let to expend perhaps a couple of hundred pounds on construction into two flats, for each of which he gets £100 a year, securing for himself a profit rental of about £150. Speaking generally, a two- or three-roomed flat rents at rather more than what would be the rent of the whole house, if it was undivided into flats. Perhaps that is a rather wide proposition; but in certain districts that state of affairs does exist. I shall propose for the Minister's consideration an amendment to the effect that where, after the passing of this Act, a house is divided into two or more self-contained flats, the tenant shall be enabled to go to the court in order to have the rent of those flats fixed, and that in fixing those rents the court shall have regard to the rent paid for the whole house, to the money expended in converting the house into flats, and to the comparison which can be made between the accommodation and the rent for that flat and the accommodation and rent of separate houses. I do not see why that should not be introduced. I do not think it will stop the conversion into flats. There is no reason why the court should not err upon the generous side in their desire to increase the number of flats. I think such an amendment would go a long way to stop what I consider to be the extremely exorbitant rents which are demanded for flats.

On the other hand, I think the Bill is considerably too harsh upon the owners of houses which did not come within the 1923 Act but come within the limits of this Bill. The rents of those houses are fixed at the rent which existed at 7th May, 1941. First of all, rents have gone up very considerably since 1941. I am not suggesting for one moment that those landlords should be given a free hand any more than the 1923-Act landlords were given a free hand, but as the 1923-Act people were given a percentage increase—not the full percentage; nothing like it—in respect of the rise in rents, I think it would be only fair that a percentage increase should be given in respect of the rise since 1941. I would suggest that rents in the open market have probably risen by something like 50 per cent., and that the landlord should be given at least 10 per cent. automatic rise.

Another matter which I would ask you to consider is the question of repairs. Remember that those landlords themselves have to live. In many cases they may be civil servants who have retired, commuted their pension, invested it in house property, and have to live on it. Their expenses have gone up. Everything they have to buy has gone up. Yet they are not allowed to make any commensurate increase in their rents. But it is not only that. This Act puts very stringent repair obligations upon the landlords. It has already been mentioned and I know it to be a fact, that the cost of repairs has gone up considerably. Somebody mentioned 400 or 500 per cent. I think that is probably excessive, but anyway it has gone up. Therefore, the landlord who is under an obligation to repair, not only is not enabled to raise his rent so as to approximate it in some way to his own increased cost of living, but he is obliged to carry out repairs, the cost of which has gone up considerably; so he is very much worse off now than he was in 1941.

Notice taken that 12 members were not present; House counted, and, 12 members being present——

There is one other matter which has already been mentioned, but I should like to give my own experience to back up what other speakers have said. There is quite a number of cases which I have come across, in which landlords, who would have been entitled to raise the rent because they were outside the ambit of the 1923 Act, refrained from raising the rent, especially to old tenants. I know a number of cases where tenants who were in there in 1914, even in yearly tenancies, did not have their rents raised. Not only did they not have their rents raised to the unlimited extent to which the landlord could have raised them, as he was not controlled, but they did not have their rents raised even to the extent to which the rent of houses controlled under the 1923 Act could have been raised. The curious position now is this: that whereas a landlord who is under the 1923 Act can get 20 per cent. on the 1914 rent, those landlords who were not under the 1923 Act but who would not raise the rent upon old tenants, even though they were utterly unencumbered, are not now in a position to raise the rents upon the new tenants even to the extent that the 1923 Act allowed. That also seems to be unfair. Those are the only points I want to bring before the House. I do think we should make an effort to extend it to flats, and I think we might make some modifications.

I think most of the points that were raised were really Committee Stage points. Senator Sweetman said that we had not implemented all the agreed recommendations of the tribunal. I can tell the Senator that we certainly considered every one of them, and that we have given effect to those to which we thought we could very well give effect. We did not think it practicable, after full examination, to appoint the official recommended by the Report, to deal with what are now called Part III cases. We thought, and I hope rightly, that by giving cheap access to the courts in the manner proposed under Part III we would overcome a lot of the difficulties experienced by poor tenants up to the present in having their cases dealt with. A couple of Senators—I think Senator Ruane was one, and I am not sure whether Senator O'Reilly also referred to it—mentioned that we are paying all the expenses of the tenants. What we are proposing to do is: where the landlord takes an appeal against the rent that the court fixes in a Part III case and brings the tenant into the Circuit Court, the judge may order the costs of the tenant to be paid out of State funds. I notice that in a circular which, I think, everybody has got from the Houseowners' Association, the same thing is said, but that is not correct. This only refers to the case of a poor tenant who avails of Part III and gets the rent fixed by the judge, and where that is appealed against by the landlord. It is only in that case that this would apply.

Which Householders' Association is the Minister referring to? I think there were one or two of them.

Yes, but I am referring to the last circular that we got, a few days ago.

Yes, because that was incorrect in every detail.

The Senator also mentioned that there was a reduction in the allowances for repairs in 1923 Act cases. There appears to be a reduction but, actually, there is no reduction. The allowances of 10 per cent., and 5 per cent., under the 1923 Act were on the standard rent, whereas the allowances in the Bill are calculated with reference to the basic rent.

Yes, I admit that I missed that point completely.

Yes, as I say, there is really no change there. Then the matter was raised of attempts to contract out. That was dealt with in the tribunal's report, but we got no evidence of any attempt to do that in this part of the country. If we had got any evidence whatsoever of that, we would have dealt with it, and if the Senator has evidence to that effect, I shall be glad to consider it.

I am quite sure that I will be able to give the Minister some evidence.

Well, we got no complaints and, naturally, we did not want to go out of our way looking for grievances or trouble. We tried to deal with the cases where we got complaints and where we know that the law has been evaded and hardship has been caused, but as we have had no evidence in regard to this particular matter, or no complaints, naturally, we did not deal with it in this Bill.

Then, the chairman of the tribunal deduces that without any evidence?

I would not go so far as to say that. My information is that we have not got any evidence to that effect, in the Department, at any rate. I do not want to reflect in any way on the chairman of the tribunal. I am merely stating what is the position.

Well, I shall leave it with the Minister.

Now, on the question of bogus flats, I understand that there is a lot of case law about that. I think that has been settled by the courts several times.

Not too satisfactorily.

Well, perhaps not, but at any rate I am prepared to accept an amendment, such as was suggested by Senator Kingsmill Moore, in connection with these new flats. Of course, the reason they were exempted is that they were created since 1941, and because of the extra costs involved. The intention was to encourage people to continue making flats available and also to encourage builders to continue to build houses. I may say, in that connection, that it was brought very clearly, indeed, to my attention by builders and by those societies which have been building houses for rent, that if the emergency Order, which is now incorporated in the Bill, were to apply to houses built after 7th May, 1941, they would simply have to cease building.

That is quite right.

We had representations from all sides to the effect that they would have to stop building if that were the case, and the same applied to flats, but if it is a case that exorbitant rents are being charged for these new flats, I shall consider that matter on the Committee Stage.

Is there not the case of rents being fixed by law?

The standard taken was that of 7th May, 1941. That was the date of the standstill Order—I think it was Senator Duffy who referred to it as a standstill Order. The Senator is right, in so far as rents and wages were concerned, in saying that the Government tried to stabilise what was considered an economic rent at the time, because I think it is a well-known fact that houses that were not subject to the 1923 control were being let at such a rent as the landlord was satisfied would give a reasonable return, and we all know that there was very keen competition for them.

For new lettings?

But not for old ones?

At any rate, I think that an adequate return was given to the landlord. There may be cases of some benevolent people who did not charge that rent, but we cannot deal with these exceptional cases. If they wished to do so, I suppose they could have got a higher rent, but we are satisfied that those who were setting non-controlled houses on that date were getting a fair return for their money. Not only that, I am satisfied that, having regard to the experience of house owners, under the 1923 Act and earlier Rent Restriction Acts, they took into consideration also the possibility of this recurring in the future. Perhaps not, but I have no doubt that that was the idea, and I am also satisfied that the fact that there was rent restriction during the last war had a bad effect on the building of houses for letting. People tried to sell their houses. We are all well aware of that, but it could not be helped. Some Senator went into the history of rent restrictions yesterday, but I think it will be realised that, in England, in the last war, there was such an influx of people into the cities and towns, where munition factories, and so on, had been set up, housing accommodation became so insufficient that any rent that was asked for had to be given. That situation had to be dealt with. I think it was about 1915 when rent restriction was brought in. I resisted as long as I could the extension of rent control, but when Senator Duffy says that I am apologising in this Bill, I certainly am not.

Naturally, I want to see as many houses built as can be built, and I subscribe to the idea that the people building those houses are public benefactors, that they are supplying something that is badly needed, and I do not look upon them as anything but people who are conferring a benefit on the community. There was evidence, however, that on account of the scarcity of housing accommodation— the demand for houses and so on— people, undoubtedly, were being put out of their houses, if they were not prepared to pay increased rents. There is no doubt about that, and on two or three occasions in the Dáil when I was asked to bring in this Order, I was not prepared to do so until I was satisfied that that was occurring. I found that people with fixed incomes, such as civil servants and others, were being asked to pay exorbitant rents and, therefore, I advised the Government to bring in that Order, and one of the reasons for this Bill is to prolong that Order. Everybody knows that the Government are anxious to get away from this matter of Emergency Orders as soon as they can, and this obtains in this particular case until this Bill is passed. This particular Emergency Order will now be incorporated in the Bill, which has a limited life of five years, but if it were not there, and if the Emergency Powers Act is not passed next September or October, there will be the question of the control which applies to the non-1923 cases. Consequently, it was thought necessary to bring in this Bill, and when it was thought necessary to bring it in, I did not see why we should have so many Rent Restriction Acts. I thought it would be better to have them all in the one Act, and improve the position of the 1923 Act, especially by not making it necessary to produce evidence of what the rent was in 1914. I also took advantage of the opportunity to bring in a new provision dealing with the poorer class of tenants. Senator Duffy said the Bill was not as good as when it was introduced, because Part III was to apply then to all houses of £10 valuation or under. I am satisfied that the Bill, as introduced, would bring in people who did not require the benefits that are being given to the very poor in Part III. I refer to the type of person who can well afford to pay the legal expenses if they want to go to court. They are not slum dwellers. Plenty of small houses are occupied by people in fairly comfortable circumstances, and they do not want the special conditions of the 1923 Act. These conditions were intended for the very poorer classes of the community. I asked the Dáil to agree to an amendment of that provision.

I do not know what the Iveagh Trust or the Artisans' Dwellings Company want. Senator Foran seems to think that they want encouragement. If they want to build new houses now, the Rent Restrictions Act does not apply to them. There is nothing to stop them building if they can get the materials. I suppose they are not going to charge exorbitant rents. They do not. As the Bill stands, any house built after 7th May, 1941, is not subject to control. I do not know what encouragement these bodies want. On the Committee Stage in the Dáil I stated that I had not heard of any case where a clause existed which provided that adults only could live in some houses. Since then I got one such case sent to me, and the advice I have been given is that such a provision could not be enforced. In that case the person concerned left the house. What I mean by saying that such a provision could not be enforced is, that the court would not enforce it. If people leave a house or sell, that is their look-out. I am satisfied that the advice I got from the Attorney-General is sound advice, that the provision would not be enforced if people wished to fight. Of course, if they do not wish to fight the case, there is no obligation to do so. It is their look out. My advice is that if they want to fight they cannot be put out. I know of no way in which we could force people to take in children if they do not want to do so. They could make all sorts of excuses without putting that in the agreement. I imagine that the number of agreements of that kind is very few. I have no power to stop advertisements. As far as I am informed, anybody who tried to put tenants out because there were children in the family would not be able to succeed. Senator P.J. O'Reilly spoke about people sub-letting rooms. Such cases are covered. The people concerned must not know the law. All we can do is to pass Acts, and if people do not avail of the rights given them under these Acts, that is their business. We cannot make them do it. If the Senator knows of any such case he should tell the people that they are fully protected. I did not follow Senator O'Dea's point about statutory tenants not being able to sell houses.

There is a legal difficulty.

Their interest in these houses.

There is a provision that no fine should be exacted by a statutory tenant when giving up possession. That is a statutory difficulty. The object is to protect the statutory tenant and not to attempt to take any profit from the landlord.

That is a committee point.

I intend to raise it.

As to ground rents, I do not intend to bring these into this Bill. I do not know that I could extend its scope. Ground rents form one of the most intricate questions that any Government could be asked to deal with. I have no intention of bringing in a Bill to deal with ground rents. I went into the whole matter. It is too difficult. The Government went fully into it and decided that they would not bring in any legislation dealing with ground rents. The question does not arise on this Bill although Senators are entitled to raise it. An effort was made to raise it at the wrong stage in the other House, but I did not follow the Deputy who did so and evaded the question. The matter was brought up here at the proper time and I might as well tell the House now that the Government, having gone carefully into all the implications, decided not to bring in any legislation dealing with ground rents. It can be dealt with by a motion in the Dáil. That is the Government's decision on the matter.

They will be well prepared for the next General Election.

As far as that goes, I think people who are mainly concerned with ground rents are not in need of very much help from the State. They are generally people who own houses. We are trying to get houses for the very poor, and we are dealing in a special manner with the very poor in this Bill. We are much more concerned about the very poor as they need help. The well-to-do people own their own houses.

Does the Minister propose to consider the question of dealing with jerry-built houses to which I referred?

That is not a matter for the Rent Restrictions Bill. It is one for the Local Government Department, just as the matters raised by Senator Duffy, with all respect to the Chair, concern that Department. The Senator dealt with Dublin Corporation housing programme, and that, as well as jerry-built houses, is not a matter that concerns rent restriction. Senator Sweetman will admit that housing is the concern of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

Question put, and declared carried.

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

Would the 16th January be a suitable date?

I do not mind. There is not much hurry about the Bill. Some people think that there will be a queue waiting in connection with Part III but I do not think so. Virtually everything is at present covered by Emergency Powers Orders.

Committee Stage fixed for next sitting of the House.

Top
Share