Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jan 1946

Vol. 31 No. 1

Rent Restrictions Bill, 1944—Committee.

SECTION 1.

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.

I am prepared to give this amendment support though not perhaps absolutely unqualified support. There are certain considerations which the House and the Minister might keep before their minds. I suppose there has rarely been any period in the history of the world in which it was less possible to foresee, with any approach to accuracy or confidence, what was going to happen in the course of the next three years. It is, I think, a safe prophecy for me to say that, when both Houses have finished with this Bill and when the various inconsistent amendments which we have all introduced have been put into some kind of order on Report Stage: when we all think that we have got the best Bill it was possible for us to get, it will be found, within a very short period, that even then there are a great many loopholes in it and that many difficulties will arise in connection with it. In three years' time it is almost certain that there will be a need for provisions different from what they are at present. How different, I do not know—different, perhaps, in favour of tenants; different in favour of landlords, different in favour of the State. It is very much easier to introduce an amending Bill when a Bill is already on the point of expiring. It is very much easier to continue a Bill. It is always a very difficult thing to revoke or modify very substantially the provisions of a Bill which are in full force and I have a strong feeling that we would probably be wiser if we gave this Bill an initial life of three years with the possibility of continuing it very easily, with perhaps some minor amendments, than if we gave it an initial life of five years which would induce people to build on the assumption that the state of affairs was going to exist for five years when the state of the world is likely to have changed so vividly and perhaps so extravagantly that in fact the Act which people have regarded as setting down a relatively stable state of affairs will no longer be applicable to the conditions. Therefore, unless there are strong objections, I cannot see any reason why this should not be initially limited to three years instead of five as I do not think it can do any harm and it may do some good.

May I say that this Bill is not designed to provide an Act for five years? The maximum life of the Bill is five years. There is no guarantee that it will last five years. If circumstances alter in the way that Senator Kingsmill Moore visualises it seems to me that you can scrap the Act at the end of two years or three years, as the case may be. That is my reading of it. But what amazes me altogether is the approach of Senator O'Reilly because if this Bill is amended in the manner he proposes in the amendments on the Order Paper, it seems to me it would aim at enriching the landlords beyond their wildest dreams. He proposes, for instance, in other amendments to provide a sum for repairs equal to one-eighth—12½ per cent.—of the basic rent. He proposes to increase the standard rent, in certain cases by 25 per cent., in other cases by 24 per cent., and to provide a return of 12 per cent. on improvements for people who cannot get more than 3 per cent. for their money in any other enterprise. I imagine that if Senator O'Reilly were serious he would propose that this Bill should last for 50 years rather than for five years.

Senator Kingsmill Moore has stated that it is much easier to amend a Bill on its expiration than to amend it during the course of its life. Senator Patrick J. O'Reilly is afraid it will interfere with building. It will interfere with building to a greater extent if it is made for a term of only three years because then you may expect an amending Bill at the end of that term which—although I am sure it will not be done—would give the opportunity at any rate for bringing in houses built since 1941, whereas if it is allowed to continue for a period of five years there is no danger that that would occur. Therefore, if the builders are frightened, I think they will be much more frightened by Senator O'Reilly's amendment than by the Bill as it stands at present.

I think Senator Duffy made my case. The Bill cannot last longer than five years and I think it is a reasonable assumption that conditions would be rather uncertain during most of those five years. It is not a question of interfering with the building of new houses. Such houses are not subject to control. Only those houses built up to May, 1941, are dealt with, and it would be only in the event of people who are building now charging exorbitant rents and profiteering that I think any Minister would suggest that they should be brought under control. The Government would naturally be anxious to have all the houses built that can possibly be built and any reasonable person would say that builders should get a fair return on the money they invest. Therefore, if there is no attempt at gross profiteering, I cannot see any Minister bringing in a Bill to control houses that are to be built in future, unless some condition such as has occurred during the present emergency should arise. If conditions improve much more than we expect they will, say, in three years or two years, there is no reason why the Government would not bring this Bill to an end, if they thought conditions warranted it. I think five years is a short time and, as Senator Kingsmill Moore says, no one knows what is going to happen. We will have to wait and see. If conditions warrant a change in this Bill the Government will naturally have to take notice of the conditions and bring in an amending Bill, but I think it is reasonable to say that it will not extend for more than five years. It does not say that the Bill must continue for a period of five years, but merely that it will extend for not more than five years. The Minister at any time can bring in an amending Bill if he thinks conditions warrant it.

That applies to any Act, of course.

Yes, of course.

Would the Minister consider discriminating between the two classes of controlled houses— the 1923-controlled houses and the post-1923 controlled houses, because they do seem to me to call for different consideration? Houses up to £40 in the country and £60 in Dublin are in many cases occupied by exceedingly well-to-do people. I do not know if I am giving the show away when I put myself in that category. I consider myself well-to-do and I am living in a controlled house, and I do not think it is at all called for that I should be protected by legislation. As a matter of fact, I do not pay rent now; I own the house, but people in similar houses to mine are protected against a fair increase on the part of the landlord or for repairs—because nobody can possibly contend that the present increases are unfair. I do think it calls for discrimination, and I would ask the Minister to consider limiting the Bill to three years in respect of those houses and to five years in the case of the smaller houses. They are totally different in character. I think it has gone beyond all reason that houses occupied by people who are far better-off than the landlords, professional people in many cases, should be controlled. A large number of the houses in the Clonskeagh and Ranelagh districts are now controlled. They are occupied by well-to-do professional men who can put up their charges, while the landlord is tied absolutely to the bare rent. I think that is a matter that might be considered and that there might be some discrimination made in the matter.

On that point, I imagine that if, in a couple of years, an amending Bill was brought in it would follow something on the lines of the 1923 Act. What was done then was that the valuation limit was reduced year by year. I imagine that that is the line de-control will take in the future. It seems to be the better way. Even in connection with houses of the kind referred to, I do not think it would be fair to let people profiteer, seeing that we have tried to have Standstill Orders both in respect of wages and the profits of companies. This is on somewhat similar lines. I would imagine that that would be the line on which an amending Bill would go, if there was a case for it. I do not think there is any real reason why we should limit it to three years. As I said, if the circumstances warrant it, an amending Bill could be brought in in two years' time.

Might I make one suggestion to the Minister in this matter? It might appear on the face of it that there is no need to protect people living in houses the valuation of which reaches up to £60 in metropolitan areas. But I have already drawn the Minister's attention to the fact that, if house rents in respect of that type of house are going to go up, the people who normally occupy them will leave these houses and look for cheaper houses, bringing the pressure from the top down to the very poorest class of people who have a struggle to pay any rent at all. Therefore I urge very strongly that the Minister should bear that fact in mind and not merely have regard to the actual occupants of highly-rated houses.

May I be allowed to reply to some remarks made by Senator Duffy and also by the Minister? Senator Duffy thinks that I should have proposed 50 years. Personally, if I had my way I would make it 50 minutes. I totally object to this and I explained my position very clearly just before Christmas. As regards the profiteering side of the matter, there is nothing in Senator Duffy's argument worth replying to and I have no desire to continue it. When times are normal I think there should be an absolutely free condition of things just as before. What I have said with regard to Senator Duffy applies to some extent to the Minister also. I venture to say that a lot of Senators know that I am saying something very close to the truth, if not actually the truth. I can assure the House that the feeling of people who would normally be inclined to invest in house property is that in no circumstances will they do so. That is the universal position.

I have discussed the matter with solicitors and house property owners and when I suggest a term, I am making a suggestion that I think is a reasonable compromise between one made in the other House, namely, that the Act should be continued from year to year for whatever number of years is necessary, and what is contained in the Bill. It struck me that there might be difficulties arising, and as a compromise I felt that this suggestion would be a reasonable one. I appeal to the Minister to think seriously about the matter. When I suggest three years, I visualise that during that three years there will be no private building done, or practically none. Therefore, the shorter the term of the Act the better. It has been said by Senator Duffy and the Minister that the maximum duration of the Bill is five years. The implication of that is that the period may be shorter. The reading of it is that the Act shall continue in operation until 31st December, 1950. It is as definite as it can be. I merely suggest that that be changed to 1948. That would reduce the period of uncertainty during which builders may not make due provision for houses.

I am speaking on behalf of certain classes of people who are suffering under very serious handicaps. I want to reduce their term of purgatory to the very smallest. I should like to make it two years, but that would perhaps be asking too much of the Minister. I think three years is a reasonable term. I appeal again to the Minister to consider this suggestion between now and the Report Stage. I think he will have a large body of sensible and prudent people behind him who will regard this as a concession that should be extended as soon as possible. He would certainly be doing a good thing for the comfort and happiness of thousands of people throughout the country. So far as I am concerned, I should like to facilitate the poorer classes in every possible way. I have suggested that their wages should be increased and, if there is any proposal to that effect in order to enable them to pay a reasonable and economic rent, I would be the first to support it. In my opinion, that is the decent way of dealing with the matter.

I suggest that it is a dreadful thing to inflict the hardships which are being inflicted on a lot of poor owners of property. I am personally aware that they are far and away worse off financially than many people living in their houses. I think that the nation as a whole should come to their rescue. If there is help wanted the nation should provide it. It is a monstrous thing to be inflicting this injustice on a comparatively small section of the people. I often wonder to what extent we are practising the nice sentiments laid down in the Constitution. Do we realise that these are people of flesh and blood just like ourselves and that they are suffering dreadful hardships as a result of these Acts? Listening to certain Deputies talking in the other House, one would think that these people were made of wood and not flesh and blood; that they can alter their conditions of life or do anything you like with them and that they do not suffer; that they have no sensitivity to suffering. I do not think anyone would consciously do that. I think it is done from want of thought and want of realisation of the other-side of the question.

When we come to the other amendment to which Senator Duffy referred, I will be prepared to deal with that. I appeal again to the Minister to consider this matter. I know he is endeavouring to be as fair as possible in the matter. I am speaking now on behalf of a very considerable body of opinion. I am not merely speaking for the owners of property. I am speaking from my experience in dealing with certain classes of people who are, to my knowledge, suffering very seriously as a result of these Rent Restriction Acts. If I had my way, I would abolish the Acts completely. Senator Duffy need not talk about 50 years. I would only give them 50 minutes. The matter should be settled on better lines. If nobody else does it, I will submit a Bill for the consideration of this House that I think will put the matter on a healthier basis. This is only a patchwork attempt at settling this question.

Question put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

I wish to complain again that there is no definition incorporated in respect of the self-contained flat. I am just mentioning that now, so as to preserve my right to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage. I admit quite frankly that I have tried to produce a definition myself and have failed so far.

That point is really proper to Section 2.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 2:—

Before Section 2, in page 4, to insert the following new section:—

2.—The expiration of this Act shall not render recoverable by a landlord any rent which, during the continuance thereof was irrecoverable, or affect the right of a tenant to recover any sum which during the continuance thereof was under this Act recoverable by him.

This is a proposal that, on the expiration of the Act, any rights which then exist in so far as tenants are concerned shall continue. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the matter is covered, probably, by Section 21 of the Interpretation Act. I cannot say if that is so.

I think what the Senator is looking for covers only the tenant's part of it. He does not want the landlord to have his rights at all. Both parties' rights are guaranteed by the two sections—Sections 21 and 22 of the Interpretation Act, 1937.

I think the Minister is wrong.

That is the way I read it.

If the Minister reads the section, he will find that what is proposed here is that the expiration of this Act shall not render recoverable by a landlord any rent which, during the continuance thereof, was irrecoverable or affect the right of a tenant to recover any sum which during the continuance of this Act was under this Act recoverable by him. It has nothing at all to do with the landlord's rights. I might also point out that this amendment of mine is lifted, so far as it was relevant, from Section 20 of the Act of 1923—it is a paragraph in that Section 20. The only portion of the paragraph which I omitted was the portion relating to mortgage interest, which is a subject not included in the present Bill. Therefore, I think it is quite wrong for the Minister to make the suggestion he has made, if he has adverted to the Act of 1923, and to the correct interpretation of this amendment.

I think I can make this clear, on the purely legal point. When the Act of 1923 was passed, the Interpretation Act of 1923 was in existence. That Interpretation Act provided that, where a Bill was repealed, the repeal should not have effect so as to alter the various rights of the parties as existing under the repealed Act. It did not contain any provision for what was to happen when an Act was not repealed but expired. Then, in the 1937 Interpretation Act, there was inserted, as far as I know for the first time, a provision that when an Act expired the expiration of the Act was to have the same effect in all respects as if it had been repealed. So that, whereas the section was necessary in the 1923 Act, because the 1923 Interpretation Act did not cover it, it is not necessary now, since the 1937 Interpretation Act provides that, on the expiration of this Act, a state of affairs shall exist which Senator Duffy would like to ensure would exist, by virtue of his amendment.

I am still keen that this amendment be inserted, unless the Minister can assure me that sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Interpretation Act of 1937 covers the case. I am not sure it does, but if the Minister assures me, I will be satisfied.

I can assure the Deputy that I will look into the matter, and, if it is not covered, I will provide for it. My advice is that it is fully covered, and that any rights that existed are preserved to both sides; but if that is not so I will meet the point.

I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In sub-section (1), page 5, lines 43 and 44, to delete the words "and which are or would but for any Act be chargeable" and to insert in lieu thereof the following words "and which by any Act are, or but for any Act would be, chargeable".

This is a purely drafting amendment. In the Bill, as originally drafted, the words were:-

"rates ... which are or would but for any Act be chargeable on the occupier of the premises."

It is the 1898 Local Government Act which makes them chargeable on the occupier of the premises and it did not seem to be a very suitable wording. However, I am not at all sure now that the wording I suggest here is the best one. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw my own amendment, so that I may bring in this or a better amendment on the Report Stage, as I think it could be phrased better than it is now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I formally move amendment No.4 standing in the name of Senator Quirke:-

In sub-section (1), to delete lines 50 and 51, page 5, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "the expression ‘statutory tenant' means a person being either-

(a) a person who retains possession of any controlled premises by virtue of this Act after his tenancy therein (not being a tenancy to which Section 45 of this Act applies) has terminated, or

(b) a person who retains possession of any controlled premises under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 39 of this Act, or

(c) a person who retains possession of any controlled premises under Section 58 of this Act."

I move the following amendment to amendment No. 4:—

At the end of the proposed amendment to add the following new paragraph:-

(d) a person who retains possession of any premises after his contractual tenancy therein has been terminated under a claim that the premises are controlled premises and that he is entitled to retain possession of the premises by virtue of this Act, whenever the immediate landlord of such person acquiesces in such claim either expressly or by implication.

I think this amendment of mine is necessary to round out the amendment proposed by Senator Quirke. Senator Quirke's amendment is obviously necessary because of the different interpretations which have been given and the difficulties which have arisen in knowing what was meant by the definition of statutory tenant as it stood in the 1923 Act. Senator Quirke's amendment is designed to cover the various points which have arisen in the course of legal practice, but about which a certain amount of difference of opinion has been shown. There is one curious case not covered and on which a difference of opinion has arisen. Sometimes, when an ordinary contractual tenancy is brought to an end by the service of a notice to quit, it is a question of some doubt as to whether the house on which the notice to quit operated is within or without the limitations of the Act. It may also be a question as to whether the nature of the tenancy which existed and which is being brought to an end was a tenancy of such a type as to be within or without the Act. Accordingly, a tenant may say: "I admit that my contractual tenancy has ceased, but I say that, by reason of the valuation of the house and the nature of the tenancy which I had, I am protected by the Act and become a statutory tenant." The landlord may say: "Well, I am not at all so sure about that." It may be a question of genuine doubt.

It has been pointed out that the law is not such an exact science that people can always tell beforehand what will be the decision of the court. In this particular case, differences of opinion have been given by eminent counsel on both sides. This is designed to cover what will happen if the landlord says to the tenant: "Well, you claim that you are within the Act: I do not think you are, but I am willing to treat you as being within the Act". From then on, the conditions prevailing between the landlord and the tenant are based on the conditions which would exist if, in fact, the tenant had come within the wording of the original Act. But, in one case at least—and I think in others—when some kind of arrangement like that had been come to, the tenant making a claim which the landlord tacitly or otherwise acquiesced in, after a few years had passed and the tenant found it would be more advantageous to himself, for the purpose of assigning or subletting the tenancy, to say he was not within the Act, he took the attitude: "It is quite true that I claimed that I was within the Act, to protect my possession, but I was wrong in that claim and I now assert a right to do exactly the same things which I could have done if I was not a statutory tenant and if the tenancy which has existed since the expiration of the notice to quite were an ordinary yearly tenancy."

This is intended to protect a tenant from blowing hot and blowing cold in that way. If there is a genuine doubt and he claims he is protected by the Act, the landlord may say he does not agree and will contest it, but if he says or tacitly implies: "Very well, we will not fight about it, as there is not much in it, but we will carry on on the assumption that you are a statutory tenant under the Act", then both parties should be bound by it and the tenant should not subsequently be allowed to go back on the claim he has put forward. Now, that is an actual case which has happened more than once, and it seemed to me this was the only thing necessary to round out the very careful and most elaborately thought-out provisions which Senator Quirke has provided and brought before the House.

I am very glad this amendment has been brought forward, because I think it will strengthen an argument that I intended to make against the last paragraph of Senator Quirke's amendment, dealing with "a person who retains possession of any controlled premises under Section 58 of this Act". If Senator Kingsmill Moore's amendment is carried, hundreds of tenants will be excluded from the benefit of the Act. They would be made statutory tenants. That would mean that they could not sell their premises; they could not assign without the consent of the landlord if Section 40 stands as it is. Even if the landlord did give consent, they could not get a penny for their interest in the premises.

Because, if you refer to Section 40, you will see that a statutory tenant cannot give up possession for any consideration. It is a very serious matter.

That is the intention—if a man claims to be a statutory tenant.

That is a very serious matter. As everybody knows, the first Act was passed in 1915 and there were Acts passed in 1917, 1920 and 1923. Under those Acts it was decided that a landlord could not serve a notice to increase the rent unless he terminated the tenancy by a notice to quit. Therefore, up to 1926, when another Act was passed, every notice served to increase rent was accompanied by a notice to quit. In most cases the landlord did not serve an ejectment, but if Senator Kingsmill Moore's amendment is carried, all those people will become statutory tenants and will have no further rights under this Bill. I am afraid also that if paragraph (c) of Senator Quirke's amendment stands the same thing will apply, because Section 58 says that a person retaining possession by virtue of the Act of 1923 —if it is held that everybody should get a notice to quit—is a statutory tenant. These people will be put in the position of being mere statutory tenants, having no rights.

This Act applies to business premises and in most towns business people reside in their business premises. Those business premises are worth very large sums of money, sometimes £6,000, £7,000 and £10,000. If they are statutory tenants only they cannot get one penny for their interest in the premises. That, I think, is a very serious matter and I suggest Senator Quirke should amend paragraph (c) by inserting the words "a person who retains possession of any controlled premises under sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act of 1923." I think that would make the matter clear. It is a very serious matter now, considering the terms of Section 40.

Could not that matter come up on the Report Stage?

No, because the expression "statutory tenant" is used. There is a definition of "statutory tenant". I was glad it was defined because I had very great doubts as to what was a statutory tenant. If a tenant served notice to have his rent reduced, did he become a statutory tenant? If the landlord served notice to have the rent increased, was the tenant a statutory tenant, or was he a statutory tenant only when he continued on under Section 4 of the Act of 1923, which has an equivalent section in this Bill? Take the case of a person who has been brought to court in an ejectment suit and the judge says: "I will determine your rights, but you can continue on as a statutory tenant."

Surely that is wrong? That is the wrong legal view that tangled matters up for so long and it is one of the objects of the amendment to clear that up.

So you think that any tenant served with a notice to quit——

Your tenancy has been effectively determined by a notice to quit.

It is difficult to decide when a notice to quit will determine a tenancy.

Paragraph (a) of the amendment indicates that a statutory tenant means "a person who retains possession of any controlled premises by virtue of this Act after his tenancy therein has terminated"—leaving out the reference to Section 45. Then you have paragraphs (b) and (c). There are really three alternatives.

I think Senator Duffy is right. I would like if the expression "statutory tenant" were defined as in paragraph (b), leaving out paragraphs (a) and (c).

Paragraph (b) refers only to a sub-tenant in family members and paragraph (c) refers to a person retaining under the Orders. Paragraph (a) refers to a temporary convenience. Paragraph (b) deals with a person who retains possession under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 39.

It should be sub-section (1) of Section 39, which reads:—

"If an order for the recovery of possession of controlled premises is refused by the court on the ground that the tenant is entitled to retain possession of the premises by virtue of this Act, the court shall make an order declaring that any tenancy of the tenant otherwise than by virtue of this Act has terminated, and when making any such order as aforesaid may make an order as to the payment by the tenant of any arrears of rent or any mesne rates."

I suggest Senator Quirke should amend his amendment and put down sub-section (1).

I thought that we were discussing the amendment to amendment No. 4 and not Senator Quirke's amendment. Could we not keep to one thing for a moment?

I understood Senator Kingsmill Moore proposed his amendment in order to have the matter clarified and not for the sake of carrying his amendment.

Oh, no, I want my amendment carried. I think Senator O'Dea is under a slight misapprehension. Under the old Act there was always a question as to what "statutory tenant" meant. It was a question as to whether, when you served a notice to quit, its expiration determined the tenancy and whether after that the tenant remained on as a statutory tenant, or whether it was necessary to go further and bring an ejectment before the court and get a declaration determining the statutory tenancy, or rather holding that it had already been determined by virtue of the expiration of the notice to quit and direct that the tenant could remain on only as a statutory tenant. The existence of that latter view, which was always, in my opinion, an erroneous interpretation, led to a great number of unnecessary court cases because landlords were advised that in order to make a tenant a statutory tenant it was necessary to go through the procedure of bringing the matter to court and getting a declaration. In my view it was always an erroneous view of the law, but that view did persist and still persists.

The whole object of this amendment is to prevent those unnecessary cases and make it certain that, with the limited exceptions mentioned there, when a person who has been an ordinary contractual tenant has his ordinary contractual relationship determined in the normal way by the service of a valid notice to quit, which subsequently expires, from then on, his contractual tenancy having ceased, his statutory tenancy automatically arises. That is the view which has been held by the majority of the members of the profession. The existence of another possibility has involved a great deal of unnecessary litigation and doubt and now that we are passing this Bill, it is an easy matter to put the question beyond doubt so that landlords and tenants may know where they are—that when the contractual tenancy ceases, if there was no Act of this kind, the man would be put out on the street but if he remains by virtue of this Act or by virtue of a claim under this Act, the provisions of this measure relating to statutory tenancies are to apply to him.

That puts the matter very clearly, of course. It is clearly put in the amendment that if a notice to quit has been served, even though the landlord does not go any further, the person who has been served with a notice to quit becomes a statutory tenant. A statutory tenant is a person, as I said, who cannot get one penny for his interest, no matter what it is worth. He cannot assign his interest to anybody without consulting the landlord. What is to be assigned is a question on which I should not like to have to tender advice if I were acting for the purchaser of a statutory tenancy, even though the landlord's consent was given. If the tenant has not a wife or family, the tenancy terminates on his death. If he has a wife, it passes to her after his death for her life. If he has no wife it passes to one of his children, but after that it does not pass even to the next child. It terminates. It is therefore a very serious matter to make a tenant a statutory tenant. Remember that under the Town Tenants Act of 1906, provision was made for compensation for disturbance and for improvements.

That was where the tenant had a lease.

That applied to the ordinary yearly tenancies as well as to a leasehold. The landlord can now get rid of that difficulty by serving notice to quit. If the amendment is put in the Bill, he just serves notice to quit, and the man becomes a statutory tenant. He has no saleable interest.

Surely the 1931 Act is there still?

It may possibly be that the man may not be a yearly tenant, and that he may have a business. He has no protection under the 1931 Act unless he is a tenant for a term of at least one year. If he is not a tenant from year to year, or under a lease, he has no protection under the 1931 Act, so that serious questions may arise in connection with this method. I would appeal to the Minister to give the matter further consideration.

I thought I was simplifying the matter by bringing forward this amendment, because the point was raised with some of my officials. The Bill went through the Dáil containing the definition: "The expression ‘statutory tenant' means a person who retains possession of any premises by virtue of this Act." I thought that by defining the expression at somewhat greater length I was making it more simple, but in view of what has happened I think I had better have it examined again before Report Stage.

It appears to me that there is a certain amount of confusion in this matter. If we were to accept the view put forward by Senator O'Dea, the only possible effect the provision would have would be that it would clutter up the Circuit Court and that there would be a lot of work for solicitors because every landlord, having served notice to quit, would promptly go into the Circuit Court and automatically get his judgment, if it was a valid notice to quit. Then the tenant becomes a statutory tenant. All that has happened in that case means that this amendment is rather unnecessary because it must be clearly remembered that the judgment of the court declaring a man a statutory tenant is nothing more than a judgment declaring that the notice to quit terminating the tenancy was a valid notice to quit. If the notice to quit is a valid one, then to go to the court to have it declared valid seems more or less to be piling up unnecessary litigation.

Perhaps I might suggest to the Minister another amendment to Section 39 or else to Section 31——

Let us keep to the one section for the moment.

I was going to suggest that he would insert an extra clause that if, after the operative date an ejectment is brought and if the landlord has no bona fide right to bring such an ejectment, the court will have power to dismiss the ejectment and allow the landlord to revert to the rights he possessed before the notice to quit was served.

This evening as I was coming to the Seanad I met an eminent judge. I told him that I was going to the Seanad and that the Rent Restrictions Bill was on the Order Paper. He said to me: "I hope you will make the law clear at all events. Rent Restrictions Acts have been the puzzle of the judiciary in England and Ireland". In my opinion, it would be impossible to make these Acts clear because they are a thing of shreds and patches. Every individual has his own idea of how houses and rents should be controlled. Here we are dealing with a definition clause, namely, a definition of the expression "statutory tenant" in the Bill. The Minister, for some reason or other I cannot understand, has yielded to some advice that was tendered to him to make the expression "statutory tenant" clear. Senator Quirke has moved an amendment which confuses the whole definition. Senator Kingsmill Moore adds words to that which make confusion worse confounded. I would suggest that they should leave well alone in this matter and leave the words defining statutory tenant as they are in the Bill, namely, to mean a person who retains possession of any premises by virtue of this Act. Other definitions are dependent on that and no amendments have been moved to them.

For example, the definition immediately preceding the definition of a "statutory tenant" is: "a statutory tenancy means the interest of a statutory tenant in the premises in relation to which the expression is used". I think the definition in the Act has worked reasonably well, and the definition in the present Bill is the same definition as is in the Emergency Powers (No. 313) Order, 1944, which is as follows: "The expression ‘statutory tenant' means a person who retains possession of controlled premises by virtue of this Order." The courts, I think, will understand what is the meaning of "a person who retains possession by virtue of the Act". The three sub-divisions, so to speak, in Senator Quirke's amendment all lead to the same end, namely, that the person therein mentioned will retain possession by reason of some provision or other in the Act. Senator Kingsmill Moore's amendment, I think, would leave everything in the air, because his amendment provides that a person who retains possession of any premises after his contractual tenancy had been terminated, under a claim that the premises are controlled premises and that he is entitled to retain possession of the premises by virtue of the Act, must, in order to become a statutory tenant within the meaning of this Bill, have the acquiescence, either expressed or implied, of the landlord. Well, the courts would be faced with the task of defining what might be described as implied acquiescence on the part of the landlord, and we know that landlords will not acquiesce in anything that is contrary to their own interests.

Nor tenants.

Nor tenants either. Therefore, I think it would be more satisfactory that the relations governing the law of landlord and tenant should be expressly set out in the Statute, so that he who runs may read, and that there should be nothing left, so to speak, to the agreement of landlord and tenant unless it is either in writing or else is in a Statute so that it can be put beyond all doubt. If the question of an agreement between a landlord and tenant is based upon implied acquiescence it might mean a nod of the head or it might mean some form of verbal agreement which would be difficult or impossible for any court to analyse or to determine in a proper way. Therefore, I would suggest that the Minister should revert to the definition which is in the Bill as it now stands. I would ask the Minister to refuse to accept Senator Quirke's amendment, and also Senator Kingsmill Moore's amendment to Senator Quirke's amendment.

Might I suggest, as this does not appear to be a controversial matter——

——and is practically unintelligible to most members of the House, that the experts should get together with the Minister before the Report Stage and try to come to an agreement.

First of all, I might say that I feel complimented that the eminent judge should pick out a Senator from this side of the House to ensure that the legal position would be safeguarded during this discussion.

That only occurred through the accident of his meeting him.

Having regard to the speeches made by Senator Ryan and the other eminent legal men here, I think it is only right to say that there has been confusion. There is no doubt at all that the motion is an attempt to define something which was included in the 1923 Act, though not definitely defined, and since there have been such confusion and such differences of opinion I would suggest that the best thing to do would be to withdraw the motion—consequently, of course, the amendment would go by the board— and that the Minister should go into the matter, if necessary in consultation with any Senators who have any great interest in it, between now and the Report Stage. If necessary, he could present another amendment for the Report Stage.

It seems to me that we might seriously consider the suggestion made by Senator Sir John Keane, if not in its complete form, in a limited form, that is to see whether we might agree that some of those amendments which in the course of discussion immediately raised obviously legal points, as distinct from points of general interest, should be submitted to a small committee. You could have Senator O'Dea, Senator Ryan, Senator Sweetman, Senator Kingsmill Moore, and perhaps Senator Quirke just to round it off.

I expect that Senator Quirke is quite too modest.

He always was.

With all respect, I would suggest to my colleague, Senator Ryan, that paragraph (b) in amendment No. 4 does add substantially to the definition which Senator Ryan has quoted from a previous Act, that is to say, paragraph (b) deals with "a person who retains possession of any controlled premises under sub-section (2)". If we turn to sub-section (2) of Section 39 we will find that, when the contractual tenancy has been determined by a notice to quite, if there is someone to whom there has been a lawful sub-letting he becomes the statutory tenant under the landlord, as if nothing had happened, under the terms to which he would have been subject had the tenant not had his tenancy determined. That is something which is not in the definition of which Senator Ryan approves.

Might I just put this one point? Hammering out a legal formula is a matter which can be easily done between legal gentlemen in committee, but there is one curious point which has been raised by Senator O'Dea and which is not a legal formula at all. It is a contention of his which would have to be considered as a matter of policy. Senator Ryan has spoken as if the definition of "statutory tenant" under the 1923 Act had given no trouble. It has given a lot of trouble, and that is one of the reasons why an attempt is being made to clear up the trouble. The very short point— leaving aside verbiage or anything else —which I imagine Senator Quirke attempts to meet by his amendment is this: it is, I believe, the agreed interpretation of the 1923 Act, and would be the agreed interpretation of this Bill as introduced into the Dáil that once a contractual tenancy has been determined by the service of a valid notice to quit the person becomes a statutory tenant.

I believe that that is the agreed interpretation, and I have always believed that to be so. But there have been other people who have believed that it was not so until the actual ejectment was taken, and they have been misled, I believe, by not seeing that the form which the judge uses in the ejectment is merely a declaration that the person is a statutory tenant and not an order that he be one. Anyway, the effect of that difficulty and the absence of clarity in definition has been that an enormous number of unnecessary court cases took place. If this House is only agreed on the principle—as I should think it is agreed— it would probably be perfectly easy to hammer out a definition which would give effect to that principle, though it might not be as complicated as this. It might be a person who retains possession after his contractual tenancy has ceased——

After the order of the court.

No. Senator O'Dea is making his own point, which, if I may say so with all respect, from the first time it was made was a bad one, and which has induced nothing but entirely fruitless cases and expenditure of money. It has as far as I know—I speak subject to correction— never been so held by the court, but a lot of people have been induced, in order to make themselves more certain, to bring proceedings because of that. Let us go back to what the origin of those Acts is. The origin of those Acts is not to present entirely gratuitous biscuits to tenants. The object of those Acts is to see that a person who is in a house and cannot get another should be preserved in the house in which he is, and should not be liable either to be thrown out by ejectment or to having his rent unwarrantably increased. The service of the notice to quit puts an end to the common law tenancy, and provides for his rights to remain under the Act. He cannot be put out because the Act prevents him from being put out.

He cannot have his rent increased but, at the same time, and quite properly, he is not allowed to make a profit by selling a tenancy which is preserved to him merely for himself and his family, in order to save him from being put out into the street, or having his rent raised. It was never the intention of the Act that the contract, as between a landlord and tenant, was a thing that could be varied from day to day. Senator O'Dea seems to think that the tenant, when he did not want to live in the house any longer, could set it and put the profit in his own pocket instead of into the landlord's pocket, and it would seem that the reason he resists this amendment is that the tenant will not be able to pouch that profit, which will be profit properly accruing to the landlord. Now, quite frankly that is what I want to stop. I want to prevent the existence of any doubt, in the case of a person trying to keep on a crop of things like that in connection with his contractual obligations. I imagine that Senator Ryan will agree with that. He may not agree with the draftsmanship of the amendment. It is frightfully difficult to modify such matters by draftsmanship, but what we want is to make things clear, so that people such as Senator O'Dea may not be able to assert things which I believe to have been fundamentally wrong since the date of the 1923 Act, and which, if I may use the phrase, has "codded" a lot of people.

I quite agree that it is better to have these things made as clear as possible and, as I have said, I think it would be better to leave this thing over for further consideration. I shall go into the matter thoroughly.

The Minister will recollect that, under Section 39, the phrase "statutory tenant" means a statutory tenant and no other?

If it were not for the Rent Restrictions Act, which is finished now, I suppose the landlord would have to terminate the tenancy, and what is being done now is to preserve the tenant in his tenancy. Is not that the position? On the other hand, the tenant should not be allowed to sell something that is not his own property either. If the contract had gone, then there would be no contract other than by virtue of this Act, and why should the tenant be allowed to sell what is not his own?

I do not agree that that is a proper presentation of the case.

I thoroughly agree with what the Minister has said.

I hope that the Minister will have regard to the terms of Section 39.

I shall go into the whole matter thoroughly.

Amendment to amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Will you consider, Sir, keeping open for the Report Stage the remarks I made earlier, under Section 1?

Yes, Senator.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.

In connection with Section 3, Sir, may I point out that amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 appear to deal with the same matter, and therefore, they could be taken together?

That is so, Senator. I was about to call the attention of the House to that. I take it that it is understood that amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 are being taken together, and that if a decision is desired it will be taken on the question that the words and figures "7th day of May, 1941" stand. Is that understood?

Yes, that the words proposed to be deleted stand.

Or, instead, to insert the other words and figures.

We might be in favour of putting in the words for the purposes of Section 48.

I think that it would be sufficient to put the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

Yes, that is all right.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In sub-section (2), paragraph (b), page 6, line 16, to delete the words and figures "7th day of May, 1941" and insert in lieu thereof the words and figures "2nd day of April, 1919".

This amendment was suggested by the fact that it seems to be desirable, if at all possible, to get some base line from which increases of rent should operate. I made a search to-day to see if it were possible to find a building index, but I failed in the search. Perhaps, if I had given more time to it, I might have got it. I did, however, get some figures bearing on the cost of living. As everybody knows, the cost of living rose from about 1914 onwards, and at a certain period, subsequent to 1919, it tended to fall. Subsequent to that period it dipped down a bit, but it rose again from then onwards, and there would have been a considerable increase in the cost of living during the years 1917, 1918, 1919, and afterwards. I want to point out that the figures in connection with the cost of building would have followed that, and, in the absence of precise mathematical figures, I will venture to say that it did follow it, although, perhaps, not exactly. Houses that were built prior to 1918 were controlled, even though they were built at a higher cost, but houses built subsequent to that were not controlled until the 7th May, 1919—a date which has now been pushed forward, under the Bill, to 1944.

Senators are familiar with my ideas about this rent restrictions business generally. I think "1919" is a good average date, and that it would be desirable to follow that date as closely as possible. I suggest in this amendment that the date, 7th May, 1941, should be deleted. It is a pity to disturb confidence by what is proposed in the Bill, and to bring under control houses built up to 1919, seeing that for a considerable time the people interested were led to believe they would not be subject to control. It is reasonable to take as the basic date what the amendment proposes instead of that in the Bill.

Some Senators are anxious about houses being brought under control. Nobody is bringing any houses under control in this Bill. What is being done in this Bill is to de-control houses that are now controlled. Prior to February, 1944, every house in the metropolitan area the valuation of which did not exceed £60 was controlled if it was built before April, 1919. The same applied to houses outside the metropolitan area if the valuation exceeded £25. That was the position. It was very obvious to most people that there was going to be a racket in houses, and representations were made to the Government to step in to prevent that racket developing. In 1940 some of my colleagues in the Dáil endeavoured to introduce a Bill for that purpose. It was resisted and the Minister or the Government did nothing whatever until the tide commenced to rise against them, and they discovered they had to do something. On February 1st, 1944—two years ago—the Government made an Emergency Powers Order, controlling every house, the valuation of which exceeded £60 in Dublin and Dún Laoghaire, and £40 elsewhere, no matter when built or when it would be built in future. There was no time limit. There was not a word about time limit in the Emergency Powers Order of 1944. That Order was published on February 8th, 1944. It is dated February 1st, 1944. I want to make it perfectly clear to the House that that Order applies to houses already built, and to houses not yet built, for all time to come. But some people got busy and began to tell the Minister that it was going to interfere with house building. I can assure him that it does not, and that there is no sense in the argument that it does interfere with house building. The Government—not the Minister—on June 25th, 1945, made an amending Emergency Powers Order—15 months after the original Order—limiting the operation of the first Order to houses which had been constructed, or in the case of flats reconstructed, on or before February 8th, 1944. That is now the law, so that Senator O'Reilly cannot talk about bringing houses under control.

Is the Senator not speaking of the Emergency Powers Order?

Which is good law in this country.

During the emergency.

Quite so. The emergency continues until both Houses of the Oireachtas pass a resolution declaring it at an end. I want to make it clear that the houses we are dealing with are controlled, and that people in the City of Dublin have gone to the courts and got reductions in the rents in respect of houses built in 1942. We got a copy of this Bill last autumn, some of the provisions of which, according to the first copy read in Dáil Eireann, applied to every house built on or before 8th February, 1944. That is in the Bill which was approved of on Second Reading in Dáil Eireann, "imposing restrictions on rents which might be charged in respect of houses built up to 8th February, 1944." People have gone into the courts under the Emergency Powers Order and at the discretion of the courts got reductions in the rents. What actually happened is that when that Bill was going through the Committee Stage in the Dáil a private Deputy got up and asked that the Bill should apply only to houses which were erected on or before 7th May, 1944. Where he got that date from God only knows. That happens to be the date of the Standstill Order. I do not know where the Deputy got the 7th May, 1944, from, but the Minister said: "All right, I will accept that". The Minister and the Deputy concerned are not very fast friends and they do not very often pass complimentary remarks about each other. It occurs to me that the Minister wanted to curry favour. When I tell the House that the Deputy in question was Deputy Dillon, they will understand. The Minister came along then and said: "That is an excellent idea, I am adopting it." Therefore, by that act he has taken away control—if we do not restore the original position—of houses in this city which have been controlled for the last few years. I am suggesting that this House ought to restore the position as it was, and as it is now under the Order, and as the Minister originally intended it should be, when introducing it. If I were to achieve what I have in mind, notwithstanding the nightmares of Senator O'Reilly, I suggest that the Bill should apply to houses, no matter when built, and to all houses being built so long as there is a scarcity. Senator O'Reilly spoke about a free market. A free market in what?

The Senator's remarks seem to be based on the assumption that this Bill must follow the Emergency Powers Order. If that be the case, I should like to make it clear that I assume, when the Bill is passed, the Emergency Powers Order, as it affects matters in the Bill, ceases to exist.

I do not say for a moment that this Bill must follow any pattern. What I did say was that if we passed the Bill in the form in which it now stands, not to talk about going back to pre-historic times, we would be decontrolling houses. I am asking the House to refuse to decontrol houses which are now controlled by Emergency Orders. I said that if I were responsible for this Bill I would apply control to all houses, whether built in the past or in the future. When we are told of the effect that this restriction will have on house-building, we must remember that, so far as the houses built after 7th May, 1941, are concerned, there is no yardstick by which the courts will determine the rent. The court has, under Section 16 of this Bill, to fix the rent at whatever figure it considers reasonable. If the Minister feels that the court is in any way restricted under Section 16 regarding the fixation of rents of houses rented after 7th May, 1941, I have no objection to the amending of Section 16 to make sure that the court will fix a rent which will be fair, having regard to all the circumstances. In other words, I agree that it is unfair that, if a house cost £1,500 to build in 1943, the rent should be fixed on the same basis as if it cost £1,000 in 1938. But the contrary is the fact. I have been informed by people concerned with the building of houses that local authorities were receiving lower tenders in the City of Dublin for the building of houses in 1943 than in 1938. The reason is simple enough. In 1938, the best-equipped and biggest building firms were contracting for the building of hospitals and other institutions. They would not touch a building scheme of small houses unless they saw a very wide margin of profit —far beyond the usual margin.

Once the building of those institutions ceased, the best-equipped builders in Dublin commenced to compete for the small houses and brought down the prices very substantially. One building contract was mentioned to me—a contract with the corporation—which showed, so far as my recollection serves me, that the lowest tender in 1938 was £650 as against £630 in 1943. I am not basing my case on that. If it can be shown that the cost of building in 1943 and up to the 8th February, 1944, was higher than it was in April, 1941, I am satisfied that there should be a new principle for determining the rent of the later houses. That is reasonable. I urge this House not to permit the repeal of the provisions of the Emergency Powers Order which extends control to houses built between 7th May, 1941, and 8th February, 1944. I do not imagine that anybody will take seriously the proposition of Senator O'Reilly that we should control no houses built after 1919.

Senator Duffy referred to building costs in 1938 and 1943. I know nothing of the contract to which he referred but, if the facts are as stated by him, the persons responsible for assessing the values appear to me to have been sadly lacking in their duty. Let me take the figures for 1939 and 1944. It is just as well that they should go on the records of the House. For the years 1939 and 1944 respectively the cost of materials was as follows:— timber flooring, 23/- per square against 65/9; spruce standard, £33 12s. against £80; lead piping, 40/- against 54/6; cement, £3 per ton against 98/-; sand, 8/- against 12/6; plaster, 80/- against 150/-; lime, 55/- against 80/-; slates, £55 against £67 10s. The figures for 1939 and 1944, in respect of the cost of labour, per hour, are as follows:— carpenters, 1/11¼ against 2/3¾; bricklayers, 1/11½ against 2/3½; plumbers, 2/0¼ against 2/4¼; painters, 1/10¾; against 2/2½; slaters, 1/11 against 2/3; builders labourers, 1/5 against 1/9. If anybody comes in here and tells us that building costs have gone down since 1938— I can give the figures for 1937 if anybody wants them—and bases an argument in regard to this Bill on that assertion, I do not think we ought to pay very much attention to that argument.

It is true that Deputy Dillon tabled the amendment to which Senator Duffy referred. I do not care who puts down an amendment. If he makes a good case for it, I hope I shall always listen to that case and act having regard to the case made. Undoubtedly, there was a case for going back to the earlier date. Senator Sweetman has given the figures. We were up against the position that there would be no more building for letting. I did not know that anybody was building for letting at the time. I did not think that the material was available. Some material was available at very enhanced prices and certain builders told the Department that they were prepared to carry on if allowed a fair return on their money. If they were to be restricted to the 1941 rent, they could not go on building as it would not give them a return. Consequently, that amendment was accepted by me, even though it was tabled by Deputy Dillon. I do not care who introduces an amendment. If Senator Duffy brings in an amendment which seems reasonable I shall take the same line with regard to it.

As regards Senator O'Reilly's point, there would have been no extension of the Rent Restrictions Act if landlords had been content with the rent they were getting in 1941, which I am quite satisfied was adequate. It is true, a Senator Duffy stated, that the Government was pressed, time and again, to bring certain houses under control. Letters poured into the Department and I was several times questioned in the Dáil on the subject. I waited until I was satisfied that there was an attempt at gross profiteering. People with stabilised wages and salaries were being asked for increases of rent which could not be justified. Therefore, I asked the Government to bring in an Emergency Powers Order preventing any increase of rent beyond what it then stood at. I was satisfied, after examination, that the rent then being received was adequate and was giving a fair return to those who were letting the houses.

That was why the new houses were brought under control. I think that practically everybody knows it was not done until the Government had to do it. Naturally, we are well aware of the restrictive effect on building of these Acts, but the point is that houses would not be built because the material was not there. There was a limited number of houses available and there was a big demand for them, and I have no doubt that what would happen was that people anxious to get into a house would offer to pay any price—that those in possession would be put out because they could not pay it and that those who came in would perhaps be unable to pay what they had contracted to pay. We were not going to allow any section to profiteer if we could help it and that was the justification for extending control to houses not controlled under the 1923 Act.

I made it clear that the question of the price of materials does not enter into this matter at all. I suggested that the rents of houses erected after 7th May, 1941, under the Bill as introduced, would be fixed by the court without regard to any basic figure.

The reasonable figure in 1941.

7th May, 1941—Section 16.

I am sure the Minister remembers the point I made. I was willing to have Section 16 amended to enable the court to say what was a fair rent in respect of houses built after 7th May, 1941. I am prepared to agree to an amendment of the section to leave it to the court. If the Land Courts could fix a fair rent for 12,000,000 acres of Irish land, surely a fair rent can be fixed for the few hundred houses built between 7th May, 1941, and 8th February, 1944. All I am asking is that control be maintained. I am not even proposing to bring one new house under control. I am asking that the existing control be maintained and that the Minister will make provision to give the court the widest power to use its discretion in determining what is a fair rent in respect of these houses.

Let me give the Minister one instance which came to my notice last week. It is the case of a widow and a couple of young children in the City of Dublin who lived in a house for which she was paying 19/6 per week. She was unable to pay the rent and she was dispossessed. The property owners, apparently not desiring to appear as extortioners in the public eye, transferred the nominal ownership of the house to a member of their staff, who then offered the house for letting at 25/- a week. The house was built in 1942, but, when built in 1942, it was let at 19/6 a week, and, in 1945, it was let at 25/- a week. The tenant in question went into court on the basis of the Emergency Powers Order and the judge, with great reluctance, reduced the rent by 1/6 a week and made the strange decision with regard to costs that both sides would bear their own costs. As a last taunt, he said to the successful tenant: "I think that when you have paid solicitor and counsel, you will not make much out of the reduction". That is what we are up against now, and I am still prepared to say that judges of that mentality are to be free to fix a fair rent for the houses brought under control.

Acting-Chairman

I draw the Senator's attention to the fact that criticism of judgements of the courts is not permitted.

With all respect, I am not criticising. I am stating a fact, and saying that, notwithstanding that, what I am proposing is that a judge will have a free hand to fix a fair rent in respect of the houses built after 7th May, 1941, and up to 8th February, 1944. I urge the Minister very strongly, unless he wants to face a tidal wave of criticism and anger in the City of Dublin, to maintain the existing position.

Could the Minister give any indication of the approximate number of houses built after 1941 which are let in rent? I cannot imagine any sane man ever letting a house in rent with the present tendency of legislation. Surely the bulk of the houses built since 1941 have been sold, and I feel sure that, if Senator Duffy had a house, he would be very loath to rent it, that he would do what any sensible man would do, that is, sell it.

That brings me to a very important principle involved in this legislation. Does the Government not realise the importance of having houses to rent? How are the large bulk of moderate-salaried workers ever to get accommodation unless there is freedom in the renting of houses? At present their only alternative is to borrow and buy a house, and when they move, as they may have to, to run the risk of selling or letting that house at a loss. It should be recognised as a matter of public policy that the renting of houses is a real demand for service from the community and it should be always borne in mind in legislation of this character.

There is one point I want to mention in reply to Senator Duffy's remarks. I have made out the average cost-of-living figure from 1939 to 1945 and I find that, in 1939, the figure, in round numbers, was 178. In 1940, it jumped to 205; in 1941, it was 226; in 1942, it was 250; in 1943, it was 282; in 1944, it was 295; and in 1945, 295. That cost-of-living figure certainly affected the people whose main income is derived from houses, and that aspect, I suggest, should be considered. If we adopted a plan somewhat similar to that adopted on the other side, where roughly £200,000,000 was given by way of subsidy to keep down the cost of living, there could be no grievance on the part of owners. In fact, in order to facilitate tenants in getting their houses, these subsidies should have been applied to rents just as they were to foodstuffs in a small way in this country and in a large way on the other side. I am merely pleading all the time for equal justice.

The Senator remembers that the people who are living on wages did not get equal justice. They got no subsidies—their wages were restricted by Order.

They should have got it.

Acting-Chairman

I am putting the question: "That the words and figures 7th day of May, 1941" stand part of the section.

The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 5.

  • Clarkin, Andrew S.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hearne, Michael.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Johnston, Séamus.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Kelly, Peter T.
  • McEllin, John E.
  • Magennis, William.
  • O Buachalla, Liam.
  • O'Callaghan, William.
  • O'Dea, Louis E.
  • O'Donovan, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Ryan, Michael J.
  • Stafford, Matthew.
  • Summerfield, Frederick M.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.

Níl

  • Duffy, Luke J.
  • Hayden, Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick John.
  • Smyth, Michael.
  • Tunney, James.
Tellers:— Tá: Senators Hearne and Seán O'Donovan; Níl: Senators Duffy and Smyth.
Question declared carried.

Acting-Chairman

That disposes of amendments Nos. 6 and 8, as well, of course, as amendment No. 5.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.

In view of the present transport arrangements, could we not agree to sit, as from to-morrow, until 9.30 p.m.?

Not without notice.

I said from to-morrow, and on subsequent nights.

Agreed.

The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. until Thursday, 24th January, 1946, at 3 p.m.

Top
Share