I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (2), page 4, line 17, to delete the figures "1950" and insert in lieu thereof the figures "1948".
Perhaps in dealing with this, the first section of the Bill, I might be permitted to read a brief extract from a letter which was handed to me this evening. It is from a builder in Dublin City. He says:—
"These Rent Acts have killed all private enterprise in house-building as an investment. If there was a free, unrestricted market, thousands of people to my own knowledge in this country would invest their money in building houses as obtained up to 1914, when the supply far exceeded the demand, with automatic adjustment of rent."
I have no personal knowledge of what the conditions are in Dublin, but I can speak from personal knowledge of what is happening in some provincial towns. I am personally aware of the fact that what is stated in that letter with reference to Dublin applies, with equal force, to provincial towns. Generally, the tendency of this Rent Restrictions Bill will be to damp further the enthusiasm of people who, in the normal way, would like to put their money into building as an investment. I am not suggesting that there is any restriction on people building houses for the purpose of occupying them. I am not making any comments on that at all.
We are all aware that a tribunal reported on this question. I presume the recommendations of that tribunal govern some of the clauses in this Bill, but it is to be borne in mind that the members of the tribunal mentioned in their report that there was no attempt to control rents in the case of houses built after 1919, and that there was no intention of doing so. This Bill, in some of its provisions, goes against that suggestion which is contained in the report of the tribunal presided over by Mr. Justice Black. I want to suggest now to the Minister that he would be going a long way to reassure people who have begun to doubt the sanity, if you like, of building houses for the purpose of renting them, if he were to accept this slight amendment moved by me. Under the Expiring Laws Act, if the emergency conditions which appear to justify this particular measure have not passed by the end of three years, it will be possible to continue this measure more or less indefinitely, as some other measures have been continued. I appeal to the Minister to consider this amendment sympathetically. Its acceptance would, as I have said, go a long way to make people believe that ultimately they will be safe in resuming the practice of building houses to rent. Should that occur, then a lot of the difficulties that exist at the present moment in regard to getting a house will disappear. I have personal knowledge that one member of my own stan has, owing to the difficulty of obtaining a house, to travel a distance of 13 miles. He is carrying on his work in a certain town and cannot get a house anywhere. The same thing applies to several other members of my staff. I am sure that other members of the House, if they were to call upon their experience, could quote similar cases. In view of all this, I appeal to the Minister to consider this amendment sympathetically. It is not asking a whole lot. It is simply proposing to reduce the duration of the Bill from five years to three, with the understanding, of cource, that, should conditions warrant the continuance of the Act beyond the three years, it may be continued under the Expiring Laws Act.