Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jan 1946

Vol. 31 No. 3

Rent Restrictions Bill, 1944—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 10, as follows:—

In sub-section (2), paragraph (f), page 6, to delete lines 30 and 31, and insert in lieu thereof the following:—"must be a notice of not less than three months".—(Senator Kingsmill Moore).

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I should like to withdraw this amendment and reintroduce it in a slightly different form. There was a great deal of misunderstanding about his matter on the last occasion on which it was discussed. Yearly tenancies were taken out of the Bill, as they were taken out of the measure of 1923, because they were a type of tenancy already protected by another Act. They were not taken out because of their duration or because of the notice necessary to determine them. They were a type of tenancy already protected which did not require additional protection.

The point made in the Dáil was a completely different one. What was said there was that, although it might be right that that type of tenancy should be taken out of the Act, yet it was unfair that it should be determinable by short notice—notice of a week, as in the case brought before the Dáil. I submit that the proper way to meet the position would be to go back to the form in which the provision was introduced, excluding business premises in a fair or market, business premises which are held for a term of years and business premises held on yearly tenancies—in all those cases there are other statutes or provisions to protect the owners of such premises—but adding at some suitable place in the Bill another section saying that business premises, within the valuation limits fixed in the Bill, which are excluded by reason of being yearly tenancies or tenancies for a term of years or tenancies in a fair or market shall not receive the protection of the Act but shall, nevertheless, not be terminable by notice of less than six months, given on either side. That will give the protection which was intended by those who raised the point in the Dáil. It gives a limited protection in that the person will have notice if he is to go out. For other protections, they will rely on the Landlord and Tenant Act. I believe that a provision of that nature would meet the original intention of the Bill and the difficulty which the Dáil found in it. If the House permits me, I shall withdraw the amendment and reintroduce it by way of a new section or ask the Minister to do so.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I should rather bring in my own amendment. I admit that there is ground for reconsideration but I should like the Parliamentary draftsman to draft the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 11:—

In sub-section (2), paragraph (g), page 6, lines 33 and 34 to delete the words "or the use of furniture".

This amendment deals with a subject which has received a great deal of consideration over a long period of years. It was dealt with at some length on this Bill in the Dáil. The question is whether or not the vast majority of furnished flats should have the protection accorded by this Bill—the protection given to a separate dwelling if it were not furnished. The words with which I am concerned in this amendment provide that, amongst the premises to be excluded from the operation of the Act, are dwellings let at a rent "which includes payments for... the use of furniture... unless, on apportionment of the reserved rent by the court, the portion of the reserved rent which... is attributable to the dwelling alone equals or exceeds three-quarters of the reserved rent," or the total rent.

Let us take this case. Somebody rents a furnished flat at 30/- a week. That flat is not controlled. If the proportion of the 30/- attributable to furniture exceeds 22/- a week and if the court considers that the flat unfurnished is worth £1 per week, it is not controlled, with the result that the rents can and will soar, almost without limit, in respect of these furnished flats. A case has been made that so long as a flat is substantially furnished there is no need to do anything about it. This provision is modelled purely on the British Act, and there is no protection against the landlord who throws in a few chairs and tables so as to take it outside the scope of the Act.

There is, however, the guarantee that if the flat is not reasonably furnished it will be treated as a dwelling to which the provisions of the Act apply. I have mentioned the case of flats let at 30/- a week. They are not elaborate, but nevertheless they are not controlled and they are outside the scope of this Bill if the proportion of rent attributable to them as unfurnished flats is not at least 22/6 a week.

I would suggest to the Minister that if he is unable to take out these words, he ought, at least, to alter the provisions regarding the proportions of the rent attributable to the furniture and to the flat as unfurnished. My own view is that it will probably require a special code to deal with furnished flats, if the whole gamut is to be covered, but at any rate we can improve on the existing position by making alterations in the Bill as it now stands. I would urge strongly that the Minister should concede this point, or else introduce a different relationship in proportion to the rent attributed to the furniture and the proportion attributable to the unfurnished dwelling.

Sir John Keane

It does not seem to me that the Senator is very sanguine that his amendment will be accepted. Altogether, as the amendment stands, it is absurd. It would mean that anyone wishing to leave town for two or three months could not let the furnished flat he was occupying without putting himself under the heel of control.

Mr. Duffy

And what is wrong with that?

Sir John Keane

It is a tyrannical proposal. I know that the whole conception of this Bill is tyrannical and every suggestion we have heard tends to make it worse. Freedom should allow the ordinary householder to leave his house for a period and to let it for a period in the full assurance that when he comes back he can resume possession.

Mr. Boland

We discussed this matter at some length in the Dáil and I indicated that if anything would be done in regard to furnished flats it would not be done under a Rent Restrictions Bill. Furnished flats are a special case and I am not saying that they are going to be dealt with here.

Sir John Keane

I hope not.

Mr. Boland

If anything is done it will be the subject of a separate Bill. We have heard it argued that a furnished flat should be controlled. I think that the present safeguards are good enough. My Department had no complaints about furnished flats until this matter was raised in the Dáil. After it was raised some complaints came in. If it becomes necessary the matter will be examined and it will be dealt with under another Bill. In the British Bill, there is no provision for security of tenure. In this Bill there is provision for rent and security of tenure and I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Duffy

I think the Minister might consider whether, if there is a difficulty of accepting the amendment in its present form, he would not be willing to alter the figure from one quarter attributable to furniture, and to make it one-third. That is to say in the case of a rent of 30/- a week to bring the flat under control the proportion of the rent attributable to furniture should be less than 10/- a week. This is not merely a question of flats; business premises, too, are involved. A number of people have commented freely in recent months on the extortionate rents being demanded for office accommodation in this city. A case was mentioned by myself of a rent which is paid for an office, for official purposes, in this city. Up to six or eight months ago, the rent was £180 a year. The occupier vacated the office and his successor sought to become the tenant, but he found that he was asked for £450 a year for it.

Another case brought to my notice recently was that of an auctioneer who advertised certain office accommodation in this city. One of the persons who made inquiries was prepared to pay a very high rent, up to £300 a year. He offered that price, but the auctioneer or house-agent told him that the lowest he would take would be £500 a year and that there was no use in arguing about it.

The applicant looked around to see what he would get, but he could not satisfy himself in location, and he came back again to the agent hoping to beat him down from £500. When he came back he found that a London firm had taken the offices at £500 a year. The fact that complaints do not come to the Department of Justice may prove one of two things. It may prove ment of Justice. It is worth while considering in what light one should accept the statement of the Minister that little or no complaints have been made about certain flats.

The Minister ought to consider very seriously the position before this Bill goes through. Of course, if he has made up his mind that the question of flats calls for special legislation, then I am perfectly satisfied that that is probably the best way to deal with it. I have no hesitation in saying that I am willing to drop this whole proposal in favour of the suggestion that there should be separate legislation.

Mr. Foran

I think this is a very sensible amendment and I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration. One of the most serious aspects of the housing shortage in the City of Dublin is the exorbitant rents sider that there is not much use in making representations to the Depart-on the one hand that the people con-charged to people who occupy flats. In addition, all kinds of conditions are imposed upon them. A condition commonly imposed is that the tenants must have no children. I think that is a state of affairs that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. Other conditions imposed on tenants are that they are not allowed to use certain portions of the house or yard. People compelled because of the housing shortage to live in these flats are enduring terrible hardships in addition to paying exorbitant rents. Senator Sir John Keane seems to be on the side of people who let flats and objects to anyone interfering. It seems certain that he does not have to live in a flat, to pay these rents or to suffer the conditions that are imposed on these tenants. Only on last Tuesday evening, I met two people chasing around looking for flats. They had been occupying a flat in a fairly large house in the Rathgar area. The landlord is resident in England but a solicitor forced them out of the house and left them without home or habitation. I do not know how far this practice extends but I do know it is time that the Government took serious notice of what is going on in the way of rents and conditions imposed on people who have to live in these flats.

Senator Sir John Keane stated that house-owners would leave their flats idle rather than let them at fixed rents. He has no idea of the Dublin landlords if he thinks they are going to leave their flats idle. They are first and foremost business people. Because of the great competition for these flats people are compelled to pay or undertake to pay rents far beyond anything their income would justify. The Minister has thrown out a hint that it is possible that if on inquiry the Government are satisfied that this matter needs legislation, they would be prepared to bring it in. I suggest to the Minister that they do not wait until complaints come in, that they go out and look for them. They do that in other matters with good results to the citizens in general. An inquiry should be made by the Government as to the position obtaining amongst residents in these flats and the information will surprise him, I am sure, as to the conditions they have to endure. I am entirely in favour of the amendment or of any amendment that will bring relief to the long-suffering people who have to live in these flats.

Mr. Patrick J. O'Reilly

I am sure there is no member of the House who does not sympathise with people obliged to live in flats in this city or in any other town but there is a philosophical side to the question that seems to be forgotten. Reading through the report of the tribunal and various other documents leading up to, or advocating measures such as the one before us, we find references to the fact that there is a shortage of housing accommodation and that that shortage is due to certain abnormal circumstances. The first question then that arises is: are owners of houses in districts where a shortage occurs in any way responsible for that shortage or have they any particular responsibility for creating the problem which has arisen? Sometimes we hear of cases where an organised body of men descends on a village. This body is in a difficulty regarding supplies of, say, food or other similar requirements. They find a store where food is available. With the force behind them they take the food by force. If they are an organised body of one type, then they will give some guarantee that what they have taken will be replaced at a later stage. In this case we have a somewhat similar problem. We have a certain limited population in particular towns. Then, owing to the extraordinary economic development of the country, whole rural districts are being evacuated and people are flocking into Dublin and other large towns. Is it any fault of the people already living in these places that these conditions arise and that the housing shortage that is associated with the big national change, has taken place?

I cannot see for one moment why the people whose property has been commandeered so to speak in that situation should be made the victims. I say it is a national responsibility. The whole of the argument for the control of flats seems to be based on the fact that the responsibility for shortage rests on those who have accommodation. I think that the philosophy of the question is being lost sight of and that there is no obligation on a limited section of the people to meet these difficulties, while I think every right-minded citizen sympathises with the people who are subjected to such inconvenience. If we could get that "hang" of the thing, all matters at issue could be settled satisfactorily and justly and there would be none of this bickering about this particular class of house owners such as we have experienced in connection with this Bill and measures of a similar kind.

Mr. Duffy

I do not know whether I ought to say anything in reference to the statement of Senator O'Reilly except to express my amazement that the doctrine which he has enunciated should be expressed in this House. If it is true that a person is entitled to avail of scarcity in regard to living accommodation and charge any price he likes for such accommodation, that doctrine must hold in respect to the price of clothing, the price of food, the price of land, rents and everything else, but it is a long cry from the principles enunciated in our own Constitution and it is a far longer cry from the doctrines contained in the Popes' Encyclicals. I wonder whether Senator O'Reilly has considered that in advocating the survival of the fittest to the extent of squeezing the less fit into the dust, he is opening a way for the promulgation of views and doctrines which will have the effect, not of achieving what he aims at, but of uprooting society altogether? The Minister and those who are responsible for making our laws do not bring in these Bills and regulations merely for fun. I would suggest further that they do not bring them in in the interests of tenants. They are brought in in the interests of society, because the Ministers and those advising them know quite well that if restrictions of this kind are not imposed by lawful authority they will be imposed by mob law. The origin of this legislation is to be found in a situation which arose in Great Britain in 1914, even before the first Rent Restrictions Act, when an Emergency Order had to be made to restrict landlords from raising rents, because the people went out en masse and seized houses and made their own of them without leave or licence from anybody.

That is happening now in Great Britain. It is happening in many of the larger cities and towns of Britain— people are just going out and seizing vacant houses and flats. The Minister is aware of this. He brings in legislation in order to provide the minimum protection for the tenants, so as to evade the risks of mob law. Senator O'Reilly is less wise in his generation. In order that a few people might set at £5 a week a flat which would normally be worth £2, he is prepared to take the risk of mob law. I suggest that it is a dangerous doctrine to put forward in this House.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed, Senator?

Mr. Duffy

Yes.

Mr. Boland

Perhaps I should explain that it is furnished flats we are dealing with here. I think Senator Foran was under the impression that it was ordinary flats. I have already said that I intend to extend the control of unfurnished flats, which are already controlled up to 8th February, 1944. I have already said that, but if appeared to me from what Senator Foran said that he was under the impression it is unfurnished flats we are dealing with. This is a question of furnished flats.

Mr. Duffy

That changes the position.

Mr. Boland

I have said that already. That is the actual situation. I said that many weeks ago.

Mr. Duffy

We have not seen the amendment.

Mr. Boland

We have dealt with the control of ordinary flats. It is furnished flats we are dealing with here.

Mr. Duffy

Do I understand that the Minister is not going to do anything about furnished flats?

Mr. Boland

I may or I may not. The Government does not go out looking for complaints in order to put on restrictions. That would be a mad way to do things. It is only when there are some legitimate grievances, which ought to be remedied, that the Government interferes. The idea that we should not wait until there is direct evidence of some abuse, but should put on restrictions before there is any evidence, could not be stood over for one moment. I certainly would not stand over it.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

Senator Duffy made one or two statements, and if I might be permitted to reply to them I should like to do so. The Senator misunderstood my point completely. I would venture to say that I have as much sympathy with those people in flats as the Senator has. He accuses me of adopting the Darwinian theory of the survival of the fittest. If my philosophy as expressed means that to him I cannot help it, but I feel sure that to anyone who listened carefully it has exactly the opposite meaning. I wish to deny in toto the interpretation of my remarks given by Senator Duffy.

Amendment No. 11 put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

On the section, would I be in order in congratulating the Minister on having got through the section, and particularly the last amendment, without any assistance whatever from any member of his own Party when the vote was called?

Mr. Boland

Thanks very much.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 13:—

In page 6, line 56, before the word "used" to insert the word "lawfully".

The point here is a very small one. It is whether or not the premises are lawfully used for the purpose of a trade or business. I think there are cases in which houses have been used for a trade or business unlawfully, and I wonder whether that brings them inside or outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Boland

I certainly can see no necessity to put in the word "lawfully". As a matter of fact, I think it would make it more difficult for tenants.

Mr. Sweetman

The insertion of the word would be in contradiction of Senator Duffy's other amendment.

Mr. Boland

I should imagine so. It would make it more difficult for the tenants.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I move amendment No. 14:—

In sub-section (3), paragraph (b), (i), page 8, line 16, to delete the word "twenty" and insert in lieu thereof the word "thirty-five".

I should like to point out that this amendment proposes that, instead of 20 per cent. being added to the standard rent of premises, 35 per cent. be added. On the face of it, that seems rather a big jump, but we must remember that rents generally, at the date on which the standard rent is calculated —that is 1914—were very low. I am speaking now of conditions in provincial towns rather than in the City of Dublin, but I should say from my knowledge of provincial towns that a large number of houses were set at rents of about £20. Many of them, of course, were set at rents much below that. I have written out a little table here showing what the effects of this amendment would be. If the standard rent of a private house is £20, and we assume an addition of 20 per cent., or one-fifth, in acordance with the Bill as it stands, that would give us £24. If the 35 per cent. is taken instead of 25 per cent. that rent would amount to £27 a year; in other words, there would be a difference of £3 in that particular case.

Now, if we take, for convenience, another house at £40 rent per year in 1914 and calculate the rent in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, it would amount to £48, whereas, if calculated in accordance with the amendment, it would amount to £54—a difference of £6—and in that case, compared with 1914, the tenant of that house would have a very considerably increased income, even above that of the owner. If we take another case and assume that the standard of rent in 1914 was £60 a year, according to the Bill the rent would be £72, and according to the amendment it would be £81, or a difference of £9. Now, the increase there, from the tenant's standpoint, would be, in the cases I have mentioned, £3, £6 and £9 respectively. I am taking a case that I know is a fairly general one, and that is where the owners of these houses are depending solely upon the income derived from them. They regarded the purchase of these houses as an investment, and a very safe investment, at the time, but if we remember that since 1914 the cost-of-living index figure, which was then taken at 100 points, is now at 295, it means that the cost of living has gone up by almost 200 per cent. and there has been a corresponding decrease in the value of money. There has been an enormous increase in the cost of living. It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, to ask for an increased income for the owners of such property, from the 20 per cent., provided in the Bill, to 35 per cent. That, I think, is a sufficient case to make in favour of this amendment, and I do not think there is anything very much more that can be said about the matter.

I should like to refer again to the enormous increase in the cost of living —and to the very low rents that applied in 1914. Since then there have been great increases in wages and salaries. Admittedly, the increases in rent are very small compared with the increased cost of living, but the increases, small as they are, would mean a very considerable improvement in the financial position of the owners of these houses. I think it will be admitted that wages and remuneration generally have been enormously increased since 1914. I will not say that they have increased to the extent to which they should have increased, but that is an extraneous matter. As the old saying goes: "Two wrongs do not make a right," and if salaries, wages, and so on, have not gone up to the same extent as the cost of living, that is not the fault of the owners of these premises. Certainly, these increases have not lowered the costs which these people have had to bear since the 1923 Act, which provided for the 20 per cent. increase which is continued in this Bill.

Mr. Boland

I do not propose to accept this amendment. This addition of 20 per cent. has been here for a long time, and I think it is fair enough. I do not say that it is an entire justification, but if we were to change it now it would mean an all-round increase in rents on a section of the community that could least afford it. There has been an attempt to stabilise rents and to stabilise wages and salaries also, and I do not think it would be possible for me to accept an addition to this 20 per cent., which was fixed in connection with the 1923 Act.

Sir John Keane

Could the Minister be more explicit in regard to this matter? How has he justified this wide disparity between the increases in rents and the increases in the incomes of all classes of the community? The incomes of all classes of the community have gone up by far more than 20 per cent., and I think that there is no apology to be made in the case of landlords who, after all, have taken a great deal of risks, if they seek this protection— risks which other people do not take— and why should landlords have to suffer more than other classes of the community? I do not think that it is fair or just. I am sure that the Minister is a very fair-minded man. Of course, I know that this is political or Government policy, but I do not see how the Minister can be happy in sponsoring a miserable concession of that kind.

Mr. Duffy

There is a point here which has been ignored by previous speakers. Take the case of a particular kind of house, which, in 1914, was let at £40 a year. If we follow up what would happen under the Bill in the case of a house of that kind, it would probably enable us to examine the proportions. Under the Senator's amendment, there would be added to the standard rent a sum of £14. In other words, a house rented in 1914 at £40 is deemed, under this, to be at a standard rent of £54. Now, in order to arrive at the basic rent we have to arrive at a standard rent of £54. On that figure we calculate that one-twelfth for general repairs would arrive at a figure of £4 10s 0d., which would bring the rent up to £58 10s. 0d.; but the landlord is entitled to certain other additions, which are specified in Section 11 of the Bill. For instance, is it to be assumed that if, during the last 30 years, he expended on his own property a sum of, say, £300, which is not a very big sum to expend on an old house over a period of 30 years, there should not be some allowance? If we assume that portion of that expenditure came under paragraph (e) of Section 11 (2), and the other portion came under paragraph (f) of the same sub-section, we get the result that in respect of his expenditure under paragraph (f) he would be allowed to add £12 a year—that is, assuming that he spent £150—and if he spent £150 under paragraph (e), the rent now becomes £100 a year, and in the case of a house which was let in 1914 at £40 a year, under Senator O'Reilly's proposal— and assuming that this experiment was carried out—the landlord would be entitled to charge £100 a year.

Senator O'Reilly talked about all the advantages being intended for all classes of the community with the single exception of landlords. I remind him, as I remind other Senators, that this legislation is designed to deal with a situation that has arisen in the past few years. How could Senators consider giving to landlords what is set out in Senator O'Reilly's proposals, while at the same time having in existence a standstill Order which prohibits, with statutory effect, any advantage being given to wage earners in order to increase their incomes? The people living in the houses to which this amendment refers are, in the great majority of cases, not the plutocrats of which mention has been made here. They are civil servants, school teachers, clerks, shop assistants, people with comparatively low incomes, but the State has taken steps to ensure that they will not benefit.

If Senator O'Reilly had his way the landlords would be able to dip generously into their incomes in respect of rents—rents of old houses. These are not new houses. Many of these houses were 50 years old at the outbreak of the last war, and I suggest that if the owners spent £150 on improvements and £150 on repairs they would be entitled to add £42 yearly to the rents. It is well to keep that factor in mind, because that is the only way in which we can judge with fairness a number of other proposals that will come up for consideration.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

Senator Duffy is imagining a case where an expenditure of £300 is involved and got away from the case under discussion. I gave an example of a £20 house. The Senator was anticipating a subsequent section dealing with repairs. According to my reading of the Act, a landlord is entitled to an increase of 20 per cent. on the standard rent together with an allowance of one twelfth of the standard rent for repairs. That would be the total income in that particular case. Are repairs a profit to the landlord? If so, the Government has no right to provide such a section here. I am speaking of a £20 house, which I maintain is the average type of house in a country town at this period. If you take that example it represents something less than £2 being allowed for repairs and on top of that you have 20 per cent. Instead of that Senator Duffy took a case where the standard rent is £40 per year and made out a rent of £100 per year and in doing so brought in many social questions. I sympathise with him about the social questions, but I doubt if they are relevant to the matter now under discussion. Two wrongs do not make a right. I include myself amongst owners of property. It is not my fault if certain things happen. Senator Keane dealt with the bones of the question. There are here what are called pressure groups. A lot depends on the size of these groups, and on the complexion of the legislation that results. We are here to do justice to all parties irrespective of the size of these groups. The pressure group which should represent householders is not as vocal as it might be. It is silent because many people do not like to express themselves in public as they do to me. I know the feelings of these people, but, for various reasons, they cannot come out into the open to give effect to what they think.

I believe that Senator Keane was right when he said that the Minister was a just and an honest man. I am fully convinced of that. I hope he will not be offended if I say something which has a bearing on this matter, namely, that the question here is one of justice and only justice. That will be the permanent issue and it cannot be evaded. The abstract principle of justice is what should guide us, and not the size of the vote. There is a request for justice, and a very meagre instalment of it in this amendment. I appreciate the Minister's difficulties. I would like to keep in the Minister's good graces. More than two thousand years ago we heard of the "shifting breeze of popular favour." There is a big body of opinion which believes that these people are being unjustly treated. They are entitled to fair treatment in this House and, in spite of the Senator or anybody else, I am going to see they get fair treatment.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Patrick J. O'Reilly

Before the adjournment, the suggestion was made by Senator Duffy, in regard to paragraph (e), that there would be quite a substantial addition to the rent in respect of repairs. I made a rapid calculation in this connection and I hope I have not gone on the wrong lines. I have taken the rent of a house at £21 per year, which is not an uncommon rent in provincial towns. If two-thirds of the standard rent were expended on repairs, it would give a sum of £14. Fifteen per cent. of that would give 42/-, which is not a mighty addition in respect of repairs. It is not easy to see how the Senator arrived at his figure. Between now and Report Stage, the Minister might, perhaps, think over this amendment and see if he could allow some reasonable increase. If the Minister would undertake to consider the matter, without committing himself to anything, I should be prepared, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I am not supporting the amendment, but I should like the Minister to meet a position to which I shall refer. I pointed out on the last occasion on which the House was sitting that the original intention of these Acts was to prevent extortionate rents and not to prevent reasonable increases of rent where there were circumstances which would have caused an increase if there had been no control. The present increases in respect of the low-ranking houses were made in an attempt to reach what was a fair, economic compromise in the years 1923 and 1926. There has been a rise since then, and they represent no longer a fair, economic compromise. If they are to be supported, they must be supported on the grounds that many people who live in those houses are labourers and people whose earnings have been kept down by means of standstill Orders and similar legislation. I respectfully suggest that the House and the Minister should accept the view that the rents fixed for the 1923 Act houses are not merely rents which prevent extortion, but are, in fact, rents appreciably lower than would be arrived at under market conditions, even if there was a full supply of houses of that type. Better face that fact.

Mr. Boland

I cannot undertake to consider this matter at all. This situation has lasted since 1923. I think the Senator suggested that it was not justice I was considering, but that I was yielding to popular clamour. Naturally I have to take congnisance of what was happening. The last Government tried in 1926 to decontrol houses. They hoped, by knocking off £10 every year, that they would arrive at a stage when there would be plenty of new building and no necessity for further control. They found in 1928 that they had to stop.

They found that, as these houses became decontrolled, and as no great number of new houses was built, exorbitant rents were being demanded for decontrolled houses. I do not think that you can have a ready-made solution to the problem. We all desire abstract justice in this world, but I am afraid that abstract justice is not possible. We have to have regard to all the circumstances. The landlords may feel a grievance, but surely the poorly-paid people whose wages have been stabilised have to be considered, too.

The attempt at consolidation of these laws has been an object lesson to me. When this matter came before me at first it was the intention to provide for continuance of the Emergency Powers Order, so that when the Emergency Powers Order expired, control would remain. I said that we had too many Acts on this question of rent restriction and that it would be better to consolidate the whole lot. Now, I find myself going back to 1923 and there are requests to amend that Act. This is only a temporary measure. It may have to be kept on for longer than five years—that depends on the circumstances.

I am satisfied that if you could do away with control, it might result in an increase in building, but, in the meantime, we would have to put up with these exorbitant demands. The last Government saw that this restriction had the effect of stopping building. The alternative to the proposal is to allow any rent which a person would be prepared to pay for a decontrolled house. That is the question before us here.

Other points of view have been expressed in the other House. On one side you have demands for increases and in the other for reductions. Deputy Dockrell accused me of playing one side against the other. In one way he was right. I will try to stay in the middle of the road without going to one side or the other.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach

Does that cover No. 15?

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I move amendment No. 15:—

In sub-section (3), paragraph (b), (ii), page 8, line 18, to delete the word "twenty-five" and insert in lieu thereof the word "forty".

This amendment concerns business houses. The Bill proposes an increase from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. Instead of the £20 rent, according to the Act, we get £25 which, with the 40 per cent. increase, makes £28, a difference of £3 in a particular house. If we take £40 as a standard rent, we get £50, and, according to the new rent, it is £66. In the case of the £60 house we get, according to the Act £75, making £84, or £9 difference with the 40 per cent. increase.

Whatever case against an increase may be made in the case of the private house no such case could be made in the case of the business house. I know several cases of people running businesses and paying £156 a year for a single room on the ground floor without turning a hair. I think any business man here will admit at once that the rent, as a part of his expenditure, is a comparatively insignificant portion of the total. It would be very hard to find anyone in business saying that they could not possibly afford the rent, or that it would make any serious difference to them.

So far as my observation goes, the money now in circulation is simply enormous, and business people so far as I know, have never been better off in their lives than they have been for several years past. To say that an unfortunate landlord who is given an increase in the case of a house the rent of which was £60 a year, that he could not afford this increase, I would not believe than man personally. There may be a few cases of people who have not been successful in business. In those cases they could not afford any rent, but surely these rents are merely fleabites, as the saying goes—they do not enter into the total expenditure to any important extent. As I say again, whatever might be said about the Stabilisation Order affecting wages and remuneration, two wrongs do not make a right. To my knowledge the practice of the last two years has been the other way around, because earnings have been vastly increased as compared with pre-war years.

Therefore, the argument does not apply as it might be alleged to apply in the other cases. There seems to be a special case for the consideration of the Minister, and I would be interested to hear the arguments which the Minister is prepared to advance against this particular amendment.

Mr. Boland

I had intended to take both together because the same argument applies to both amendments. For practically the same reason, I am not prepared to depart from either the 20 per cent. or the 25 per cent.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

Yes, seeing that the Minister is not willing to meet it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

There is a matter on this section to which I would like to call the Minister's attention. He provides for a new basic rent being fixed in two cases, the first being one where a court has made an Order which Order includes the amount of the standard rent, and the second where an arbitration award has been made including the amount of the standard rent. At first, it was rather puzzling to me why it was necessary to add that in such cases the provision should include the amount of the standard rent. I thought it would do it, but I understand there would be certain difficulties where District Court orders did not make the position clear. I see reason for putting that in. There are a very great number of cases, probably something like 70 or 80 per cent. of all the houses, in which the standard rent is perfectly well known, there being in existence at the present moment indisputed and indisputable evidence as to what was the 1914 rent, the matter of calculating the permitted increases being an easy one. It is not realised how many of these there are because they do not come before the courts, as the evidence is clear and conclusive, available to both-landlord and tenant and usually in the form of written letting in 1914. There is nothing to bring either party before the court because the facts are there and the decision of the court would be perfectly automatic.

It did occur to me looking at this section and realising that if for the majority of houses landlords and tenants have satisfied each other as to the evidence and made calculations, that would be disturbing the position of these landlords and tenants who have quite happily between themselves fixed the standard rent and the permitted increases and gone on paying and receiving it. I still think that it would have been wiser to provide that where satisfactory evidence was in existence of all the facts enabling a standard rent to be fixed easily, it should come in under Section 8. I do, however, understand the reluctance of the Minister to perpetuate much longer a system which depends for these calculations on the rent in 1914. I can understand the Minister saying: "It would be more satisfactory if we got a new way". After all, 1914 is a long way back but there is a danger in leaving it out altogether. The danger is that in cases where the landlord and the tenant have quite happily gone on, knowing that there could be no dispute if it came before the courts because the evidence was there, that either the landlord or the tenant might chance an application to the court feeling that under the next section the court would be bound to make an estimate of the rent and will not only not be forced to have regard to the admitted facts of the 1914 rent, but may not even be at liberty to do so.

If Senators will look at Section 9, they will see that in any case that has not come under Section 8, the court has to fix the basic rent as a rent "of such amount as the court considers reasonable, under any given contract of tenancy, not being for more than a term of five years having regard to the basic rents of other controlled (1923 Act) premises." So if a landlord or a tenant, in a case where all the facts were at hand, were to go to the court, it would appear that the court in fixing the new rent can look at the rent of every other premises except the particular one with which it is dealing. Therefore, I think that unless either you put in a sub-section in Section 8 providing that where there is undisputed evidence of the 1941 rent, that shall be taken into consideration and that the rent should be fixed on that basis or add to Section 9 sub-section (3) (a) the words "the basic rent shall be a rent of such amount as the court considers reasonable ... having regard to the basic rents of other controlled (1923 Act) premises and such evidence as is in existence of the 1914 rent of that particular tenement," you will be creating a new difficulty. I have not put down an amendment on this matter but I think these are considerations which should be examined before the Report Stage.

Mr. Hearne

May I say that I should like to join with Senator Kingsmill Moore in asking the Minister to consider the position that the Senator has just put to him? Despite my animadversions on lawyers, I still think they serve a useful purpose in the community. If there is any doubt, as the result of the coming into law of Section 9, that the 1914 rent which has been the basis as Senator Kingsmill Moore has pointed out of a great number of rents that are being paid and are payable without dispute—both landlord and tenant know exactly where they are—and if that situation is now going to be changed so that the whole thing can be thrown into the melting-pot again, and that either the landlord, feeling that he is getting too small a rent or the tenant feeling that he is paying too much, might chance a favourable result by bringing proceedings in the courts, that is a situation we should guard against. I think it would be deplorable if the existing law should be changed in cases where it has worked satisfactorily. Where, of course, there is no evidence or where there is very great doubt, or that it is extremely difficult to get evidence as to the 1914 rent, there is everything to be said in favour of the section, but I would ask the Minister to consider the insertion of a clause which will provide that where evidence of the 1914 rent is available, that rent should be taken into account as the basic rent for the purpose of the statutory additions.

Mr. Sweetman

I should like to join with Senator Kingsmill Moore in the case which he has made, because I think it is absolutely undeniable. I would suggest that it would be wiser to insert the suggested new clause in Section 9 by changing the existing phraseology to read that if the court was satisfied as to the evidence available of the 1914 rent, then it should automatically fix the rent on that basis. Nobody would go to court if he was aware that the court would automatically fix the rent on the 1914 basis where evidence of the 1914 rent was available.

Mr. O'Dea

This is a very important point, and I think it might be met by altering the second line of Section 8 where the words occur: "evidence is forthcoming of both the following facts". I think if that were changed to: "evidence is obtainable of either of the following facts", it would cover the matter.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

It does not.

Mr. O'Dea

I think it would if, instead of using the word "and", you used the word "or".

Mr. Boland

I think it would be better to have the amendment made in Section 9.

Mr. O'Dea

If there was evidence of a standard rent or of the fact that an order was made by arbitration, that rent should be fixed as the standard rent, plus the permitted increases.

Mr. Sweetman

What about cases, in that event, where you knew that the matter had, in fact, at some stage been brought before the courts, but in which, because you had not the court order, you would be stuck?

Mr. O'Dea

The orders of the court exist in the Circuit Court for 20 years, and they are then sent on to the central office.

Mr. Sweetman

In the Circuit Court you could not trace orders relating to particular premises unless the Minister is going to undertake, not only to get an index of plaintiffs and defendants, but to get an index of premises. You would not have any chance of getting evidence going back over all the orders made in the last 30 years.

Mr. O'Dea

We would not have that difficulty in Galway.

Mr. Sweetman

The business that the Circuit Court in Galway would do in this regard cannot be compared with that in Dublin. Sometimes there are three courts in Dublin working on this.

Mr. Duffy

It seems to me that you must retain Section 8 because you are dealing with a case in which, by some process, the standard rent has been determined and is known. I think there is no doubt that Section 8 deals with a distinct class of house from Section 9. However, it might be considered by the Minister whether he would not alter the section to read that where the standard rent is known —whether determined by the court, by arbitration or otherwise—Section 8 would apply. Once there is agreement, or once it can be established what is the standard rent, there is no difficulty.

There is one other point which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. I do not know whether it is vital or not. This section was altered in the Dáil, and cognisance of the alteration is not taken in the marginal heading, which is misleading. I do not know if it has any significance in relation to the construction of the section at all. In any event, there is no reference to arbitration in the marginal heading.

Mr. Boland

I am advised that it is not necessary to alter the marginal heading. On the other point, I am inclined to deal with it as Senator Sweetman suggests. In any case, I will examine the matter, and provide for it. I think it will be Section 9, but we will leave that for consideration on the Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 9 put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 16:—

To add to the section a sub-section as follows:—

(2) If the rateable valuation of premises is increased by reason of the execution by the landlord of structural alterations or improvements thereto and the landlord is in possession of the whole of the premises at the date of such alterations or improvements then sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply to such premises.

This amendment is calculated to try to see if I could prevent a house to which this has happened going off the letting market, so to speak. As I see the situation at present, with present values and present practice, what will happen is this: the landlord has a house vacant at a particular time and proceeds to make improvements to it. If, having made those improvements, the valuation is increased from the Chapter I into the Chapter II class, and he is allowed to let on the Chapter II basis, there may be some chance of his keeping the house available for letting. On the other hand, if he is not permitted to do that, but is controlled on the 1914 basis as against the 1941 basis, then it appears to me quite clear that what he will do in those circumstances is sell that house in the open market with vacant possession. He will have no difficulty whatever in getting a high price for it, and that house will go out of letting, so to speak. My anxiety in this and a couple of other amendments which will come subsequently is to ensure that so far as we can, while retaining control on certain lines, the maximum number of houses will remain available for letting.

To be quite frank, I do not know whether my amendment is phrased very happily, because I can see one objection which would have to be covered by a subsequent paragraph. I want to be certain that, when a vacant house goes from one part into the other part, it only goes if there is a letting of the whole house as one entity. Under the 1923 Act there were cases where a whole house became, by reason of its size and valuation, entirely uncontrolled. When the whole house became entirely uncontrolled, then the owner of it proceeded to divide it up, and let the four rooms, as he was entitled to do, at uncontrolled figures. That did, without any question, create a scandal, and I think it was that particular scandal— where the type of the letting, in regard to the size of the premises, was changed —that the Minister was anxious to avoid. I think that could, by a slightly differently phrased amendment, be covered against in this case, and that it would be possible to ensure, where improvements were made to a house, that that house would then not necessarily go out into the sale market but would be kept in the letting market. That could be done by something on the lines of what I have here. I would very strongly commend that to the Minister. We might consider in the meantime whether some more happy phraseology would meet the case.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I support the amendment.

Mr. Boland

That is where there would be vacant possession?

Mr. Sweetman

Yes.

Mr. Boland

I think there is a case for it. The tendency is to sell houses. If there is a good job made of the improvements the valuation goes up. I will consider that matter

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Campbell)

The next amendment, in the name of Senator P.J. O'Reilly, to delete the section, will be taken on the question: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

In view of the assurance given by the Minister in respect of Senator Sweetman's amendment, I will not move my amendment.

Section 10 put and agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Amendment No. 17 not moved.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I move amendment No. 18:

In sub-section (2), paragraph (c), page 9, line 11, to delete the word "eight" and insert instead the word "twelve".

Mr. Sweetman

Might I suggest that all those amendments dealing with the actual proportion of repairs might be discussed together. We could take separate decisions if necessary.

Acting-Chairman

If that commends itself to the House, there is no objection.

Mr. Duffy

I would object to that. I withdrew amendment No. 17 because I wanted to move No. 24.

Acting-Chairman

Very well. Senator O'Reilly will proceed.

Mr. O'Reilly

As far as I am concerned I would be agreeable that all the amendments be taken together. I have here figures supplied by an architect who has had considerable experience. The figures are in regard to housing costs per square foot in 1913-14 and 1945-46. In 1945, the cost of building is given at 18/4, per square foot. Some may object and say that the usual plan is to reckon in cubic feet, but you will get more or less the same result by dividing the figures given by 12. The point then is that in 1914 we had building costs at 5/6 per square foot, and in 1945 the figure is 18/4. It is interesting to take the cost of a six-roomed building, and compare the cost of that building in 1945 with what would have been the figures in 1914. The cost in 1945, including architect's fees, would be £1,300, and in 1914 a similar building could be put up for £371.

I will give this table to any member of the House. It might be of interest because the calculations have been made by a very experienced architect, and I think the figures will stand examination. I am told that where you have straightforward building— new building—the cost is always less than the cost of repairs, and in fact I have been assured that the proportion between straightforward building and repairs can be obtained by simply multiplying the figures given by anything from two to three. That I think will bring home the fact that the cost of repairs now is very much greater than the cost in 1914.

That is one of the justifications for the amendments standing in my name. With regard to amendment No. 18, that alludes to paragraph (c), and in that case the tenant is supposed to be responsible for damage to the premises, and that is one of the reasons for suggesting, in that amendment, that the word "eight", should be converted into the word "twelve", because anybody who has had experience of house property knows that there are certain classes of tenants who seem to have no sense of responsibility in regard to repairs, damages, and so on. If it is known, however, that such people will have to pay for the increased cost of the repairs of such damage, it might have some effect, and that is one of the reasons for suggesting that the word "eight" should be converted into "twelve" in paragraph (c) and corresponding paragraphs. There is also amendment No. 20, standing in my name, and I thought we were going to discuss that.

Mr. Duffy

Senator O'Reilly does not seem to have addressed himself to the amendment on the Order Paper. He is talking about the enormous increase in the cost of carrying out repairs. I suggest that we are not discussing that, but that we are discussing the matter of the rate of interest to be charged. Senator O'Reilly wants to make the rate of interest 12 instead of 8, and why he did not make it 112 I do not know.

Mr. Hearne

I agree with Senator Duffy. It is immaterial whether the repairs cost £3, £300 or £3,000; it is a question of the rate of interest, and I think that a return of 8 per cent. to a landlord is a generous return in view of the interest-bearing rate of money at present. I think that this would be an encouragement to people to do something that is badly needed. Of course, I quite agree that in complying with this the landlords are getting something into their own pockets.

Mr. Duffy

And improving their own property.

Mr. Hearne

Yes, I know that quite well, but I think it cannot be contradicted that a return of 8 per cent. on money which has been invested on reconstruction or repairs is a far higher return than on any investment that I can think of at the moment.

Mr. O'Dea

In justice to Senator O'Reilly, I think it should be said that he points out that the amount allowed is only a percentage on the basic rent —that is, in paragraph (d).

Mr. Hearne

Oh, no—a sum equal to 8 per cent. per annum.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I understood that we were taking all these amendments together, but I find that we now have to consider this amendment alone, and therefore the question of building costs would not arise. As regards the statements made by Senators Hearne and Duffy, the rate proposed is admittedly a penal one. I do not think that any member of this House would say that it is not desirable to inflict a penalty in the case under consideration or to adopt some method which would tend to prevent wilful damage to houses. In the normal case, 8 per cent. would, I think, be sufficient, but this case is different. Paragraph (c) provides that in case the landlord expends any amount on repairs to the premises which are wholly or mainly rendered necessary because of the acts of waste by, or the neglect or default of, the tenant, and so on, a sum equal to 8 per cent. per annum shall be added to the amount. That is why I am asking for it to be made 12 per cent., instead of 8 per cent.

Mr. Boland

I will not say that this provision of 8 per cent. is on the generous side, but I think that it is adequate, to say the least of it. The proposal of amendment No. 18 would be to increase it to 12 per cent., but I think that would be too much. I think that, later on, Senator Duffy suggests reducing it to 4 per cent., but I think that 8 per cent. is sufficient. Does Senator Duffy object to dealing with all the amendments together?

Mr. Duffy

Yes—on this matter of the rate of interest.

Mr. Boland

Very well.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Campbell)

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Campbell)

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 may be taken together.

The following amendments appeared on the Order Paper:—

19. In sub-section (2), paragraph (d), sub-paragraph (i), line 15, page 9, to delete the word "one-twelfth" and substitute the word "one-sixth"—(Senator Sir John Keane).

20. In sub-section (2), paragraph (d), (i), page (9), line 15, to delete the word "one-twelfth" and insert in lieu thereof the word "one-eighth"—(Senator Patrick J. O'Reilly).

Sir John Keane

Speaking generally, on this question of repairs, I do not think it is fair or just to apply a flat rate. We all know that the cost of repairs to property in the city is fairly high, but I have some experience of the cost of repairs to houses in the provinces. I can speak about this myself, personally. I happen to own a number of small houses in the country, the rent of which would amount to about 4/- or 5/- a week, and the cost of the repairs to these houses is inordinately high. In fact, I get no income at all from these houses, since all the income goes on repairs. Of course, I admit that there is a provision which relieves me from income tax in cases of that kind, but my point is that the application of this kind of a flat rate in such cases is inequitable. There should be some method of dealing with it. Do not ask me how to deal with it, but I suppose it could be done by means of the production of a certificate as to what the repairs would cost. I do not know where the Minister has got his advice and has come to the conclusion that the provision of this amount is adequate for any particular case. In fact, I do not think the Minister has made any attempt to approach this matter factually at all. He said that some people said it was too low, and that others said it was too high, and that he kept to the middle of the road. That might be a good method of securing justice in a rough and ready way, but the question must be determined by facts. I can assure the Minister that 25 per cent. would be an understatement of the average cost of repairs in connection with comparatively low rents. Take property in a small country town. The £12 basic rent would represent quite a decent sort of house in 1914. I possess property of that character, and the cost of repairs would be at least £3 a year on each house. All that is now being allowed over 1914 prices is an addition to the rent of a miserable £1 to cover the increased cost of repairs.

I am sure the Minister is tired of hearing figures relative to the increased cost of building, but I feel that I have to give them again. Take the price of timber in a year which was not the peak year of scarcity. The price in 1939 was 12/6, and the price now 23/-; lead piping increased from 25/- to 40/-; cement from 40/- to 60/-; lime from 20/- to 55/- and so on, all along the line. We heard about the standstill Order for wages. There was no standstill Order in operation between 1914 and 1939. In this class of property the labour percentage for repairs is much higher than for materials. There is no doubt that if the matter is examined objectively, one-twelfth would be utterly inadequate to do justice, or to recoup landlords for the additional cost of repairs. It is for that reason I put down the amendment. What I suggest is certainly not going to secure even a sufficient increase for the owners, as one-twelfth would only add £2 to cover the increased cost of repairs since the 1933 Act was passed. I think the request is a most reasonable one.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

Senator Sir John Keane suggests one-sixth, and in the next amendment I suggest one-eighth. As a matter of fact some owners of house property suggested that the fraction should be something like one-fourth. A solicitor who has experience of dealing with house property in Dublin asked me if the Minister would consider inserting one-fourth. Within the past few days I was speaking to a solicitor who has to deal with house property, and he stated that on the average 50 per cent. of the rent goes for repairs. Anybody who has experience of house property would agree that that was a reasonable proportion. The houses contemplated in this section are necessarily those of an older type. New houses, like new motor cars, do not involve much repairs for the first few years, but as time goes on it is found that the cost of repairs is higher and higher. These are comparatively old houses. Seeing that the cost of repairs has greatly increased, the fraction suggested by Senator Sir John Keane is nearer the mark than what I intended to propose. If the Minister is prepared to accept Senator Sir John Keane's amendment in preference to mine I will have pleasure in not moving mine.

Mr. Sweetman

I want to put a few points to the Minister, partly on the amendment and partly not on it, but I may save time in the end. I do not like the wording of the amendment and I do not like rigorous ruling. On the general question of repairs, I put it to the Minister that it was estimated, with prices ruling in 1923, that a fair increase from the year 1914 in the cost of repairs was 10 per cent. It was on the basis that 10 per cent. represented at the time the increase in the cost of repairs that that figure was brought in. The Minister in this section has kept to the same figure. I suggest to the Minister that while I am with him without question in controlling profiteering, so far as repairs are concerned it is not a question of profiteering. The effect of retaining after the recent war the 10 per cent. level means that in fact you are decreasing from 1939 the amount which the owner of house property was getting from the property, because the cost of repairs is very much higher now than pre-war. I am accepting that for the moment. I think the Minister will agree that the 10 per cent. figure, when the Principal Act was introduced, did at that time represent a fair increase, but as the cost has gone up very much more since that time, it is not fair or reasonable that he should continue the same figure. I am also against the possibility of merely making a fixed increase on the rent, which would have the effect of benefiting, not the good landlord who does his job and carries out fair repairs, but giving to the bad landlord, who neglects his job and neglects to keep his premises in repair, a return which could be fairly described as profiteering.

I want to ensure that, no matter what is done, premises will be kept in the best possible state of repair by the owners and that everything possible will be done in this Bill to induce them to keep their premises in adequate repair. I think that the Minister would be wiser, if I may say so, to retain his percentages, as provided in the section, with an overriding provision that, where the owner of the house was in a position to go to the court and satisfy it that he had, during, at least, a couple of years up to the date of the application, expended more than the prescribed percentage, he would be permitted by the court to recoup himself the extra expenditure. I do not want it to be possible, in any circumstances, for the owner of a house to get additional payment without doing the necessary work. However, the law is so inexorable at present that there is no inducement to the owner to keep his premises in proper repair other than that of preventing his property from falling. We all know that there is a great difference between keeping property in a suitable state of repair and making certain that the property will not fall. I had intended to table an amendment on the lines indicated in the Majority Report of the Tribunal, which was that the 10 per cent. rule would be kept so as to render unnecessary litigation in the vast majority of cases, with a provision, which I would make operate both ways, that a dissatisfied owner or tenant could go to the court and, if a reasonable amount had not been spent on repairs, the tenant should get relief; while, on the other hand, if the landlord could show that he had expended moneys beyond the figures set down in this Bill, the court could give him relief in addition to the basic amounts set out here.

I do think that it is necessary to stress the contention with which I started regarding the increase in the cost of repairs. The Minister realises that as well as anybody else. Figures that were possible before 1938 are no longer possible. I have before me interesting figures regarding amounts spent by a firm on repairs. I find that, before the last war, this firm was spending on repairs about 18.5 per cent. of the rent.

In 1944—the last year for which figures were made up—though the firm was not able to do anything like the same amount of repairs, owing to the shortage of materials, the cost had gone up to 23.8 per cent. That increase had to be met in some shape or form. I suggest to the Minister that something along the lines I have suggested might be the easiest method of securing that premises would be kept in a proper state of repair and that there would be no evasion of control.

Sir John Keane

I dislike this idea of enterprise being brought within the purview of the courts. But we have got ourselves tied up in knots and we have to recognise that the courts afford the only fair way by which issues of this kind can be settled. If I may say so, Senator Sweetman is perfectly right. He advocates a factual approach to the problem. He wants this matter determined by actual figures of expenditure. That is the only way to determine it. I am afraid that the Minister and his officials felt that the matter was so complicated and that it would be so difficult to make allowance for different classes of property, that, for administrative convenience, the Minister took one flat rate and said that that would do rough justice. But it does not afford rough justice. It may be just in a few cases but it is unjust in the great majority of cases. Senators have heard the figures quoted by the last speaker. Twenty-three per cent. of the rent was expended in 1944 on repairs. That was at a time when very little expenditure was possible. I feel certain that a vast amount of deferred maintenance is due on this class of property and that 30 per cent. would be nearer the required figure than 23 per cent. I hope that the Minister will not give a definite reply now, that he will think the matter over and see if the problem cannot be approached in a fairer way than that set down in the section.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I support the suggestions put forward by Senator Sweetman and by Senator Sir John Keane. The same view has been expressed by a large number of persons who are acquainted with the difficulties. May I mention the view which has been shaping itself in my mind? Having ascertained the actual cost of repairs, I suggest that there should be some machinery by which the tenant would be enabled to pay that amount, spread over a long period, without bringing it into the landlord's accounts at all.

That would, probably, result in a greater measure of justice as between landlord and tenant. Conceivably, the landlord might, in certain circumstances, make a profit on this expenditure on repairs and I do not think that any landlord wishes to do so. He merely wants to be repaid, approximately, his expenditure. He never does succeed in getting the total amount but he would like to get as near to it as possible. If some financial arrangement could be made on the lines I suggest, it might solve the difficulty. It would be a matter for the tenant to pay off the cost of repairs, in one year if he were able to do so, and get rid of it, so that the rent would not need to be altered at all.

Mr. Hearne

I must say that I have been somewhat impressed by the case made for the amendment, but before the Minister considers it and replies, I would like to examine one aspect of it. There is a very big social problem involved in this, and I know from experience of my own town, Longford, that the type of property let by the landlord at a low rental is a borderline property in the sense that it is very nearly bad enough to be condemned as unfit for human habitation. If encouragement is given to the landlord of such property to get more than he is getting at present in order to continue the existing state of affairs, then, I think, I certainly would oppose any legislation that would tend to lengthen the period before the house would be condemned and levelled.

I know, myself, that because of the cessation of building in the town of Longford there are slums there equally as bad as the slums I saw this evening in Gloucester Street, or the other day in Bride Street—a hopeless place altogether. I am speaking of places in Longford where the rent is 2/6 a week. If there is any encouragement given to the landlord of that property in my own town to continue to keep his houses in just a habitable condition, just above the border line, then that social problem is one that will call for redress and I am not quite clear as to how this amendment will affect such property. I should like guidance on that. I want to make it clear to the Minister that if this amendment will retard the day when that property is condemned and levelled to the ground, I intend to oppose it.

Mr. Sweetman

Surely Senator Hearne appreciates, in the present state of building shortages, the reason why property of the type he has mentioned is not condemned is because there is nowhere tenants can go. It appears to me desirable that everything should be done to make certain, so far as we can, that the condition of that property is kept as good as we can ensure it until the day when we can produce alternative accommodation.

Sir John Keane

I should like to say a word in reply to Senator Hearne. I admit that he has knowledge of conditions in Longford; otherwise he would not speak as he has spoken. But, we shall always have this borderline problem and if we had not it the housing situation would be greatly aggravated. There are many properties— not ideal properties, I agree—where the landlord does his best but if we had not these properties we should have a much more serious problem to face. It will be years before housing schemes can provide space for those persons who would be displaced from condemned properties. Even if these properties are not ideal, the local authorities are there to ensure that they are reasonable. Senator Hearne mentioned rents of 2/6 a week. When these tenants are displaced and secure council houses, they will find they will have to pay a rent up to 5/- or 6/- a week. Those properties serve a need and the local authorities are there to see that sanitation and the sewers conform to a reasonable standard. We know the standard may not be up-to-date, and that the houses may not have the latest ideas in cubic space. But, after all, people have lived in them for generations without losing their health. They have lived under those conditions for years and I am sure they are perfectly satisfied and perfectly healthy.

Mr. Hearne

I spoke because I appreciate the difficulties in this problem. I have full knowledge of the facts. I could appreciate there is a certain need supplied by those borderline houses but the danger I foresee is that we might encourage landlords to continue that state of affairs for even one day longer than is absolutely necessary. I do not subscribe to the view that we should encourage such landlords and I certainly do not subscribe to the last remarks of Senator Sir John Keane when he suggested that the people living in these houses are quite content.

Mr. Boland

I am not prepared to accept these amendments. It means a flat increase of double in the case mentioned by Senator Sir John Keane, and of one and a half in the case mentioned by Senator P.J. O'Reilly. There is a point in Senator Sweetman's speech and I am prepared to consider that. One of the lawful additions to the rent covers repairs. Every Senator may not be aware of that. I admit that there is a case to be considered where some repairs above a certain minimum have been done, but I am not committing myself. I would like to look into the matter to see if we can arrive at a satisfactory arrangement. As to these four amendments, I am not prepared to consider them.

An Cathaoirleach

Are the amendments withdrawn?

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach

I take it that amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are also withdrawn?

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 23:—

In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (e) and to substitute the following paragraph:—

(e) In the case of premises to which Section 8 of this Act applies where the landlord in the year 1922 expended an amount exceeding one-third of the standard rent or during the period of the two years 1923 and 1924 or the years 1924-25 or the years 1925-26 or the years 1926-27 or the years 1927-28 shall have expended an amount exceeding two-thirds of the standard rent on putting the dwelling-house into a reasonable state of repair, a sum not exceeding 15 per cent. of such excess or excesses of expenditure.

This is a very small point. The Minister himself wants this Bill to be a consolidating measure, but as it was drafted it is not quite a consolidating measure. My amendment seeks to repair that omission and I have therefore proposed the re-enactment of the section in terms somewhat different from that in the Acts of 1923, 1927 and 1928. The years 1924 and 1925 have been left out.

Mr. Boland

I am very much obliged to Senator Sweetman for this amendment, which is quite specific. I agree that the terms of the Bill were loosely drafted in that respect.

Mr. Duffy

I take it that the Minister is accepting the amendment?

Mr. Boland

In principle, but not in exact wording.

Mr. Sweetman

In principle is all right.

Mr. Boland

I would like to have a look at the wording. I agree that a reference to an Act which has been repealed is not the best way of doing it.

Mr. Sweetman

That was a slip.

Mr. Boland

There was a gap of a couple of years which was not provided for.

Amendment No. 23, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister not consider bringing those provisions in regard to the years up to date? I am not asking him to commit himself now.

Mr. Boland

I will consider that.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 24:—

In paragraph (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 11 to delete the word "eight" and substitute the word "four".

This sub-section provides that in the case of certain premises, after August 4th, 1914, we are calculating the rate of interest to be allowed for money expended at any time after that date for improvements or structural alterations to the premises.

In the original British Act, the rate of interest allowed on that expenditure was 6 per cent. and we are going one better. We are allowing 8 per cent., not upon the expenditure incurred during the emergency, not upon the expenditure incurred since 1923, but at any time after the 4th August, 1914. I think the Minister seems to ignore the fact that most of this expenditure was incurred before World War I or the early days of that period.

Mr. Boland

Before World War II.

Mr. Duffy

It does not seem to me just that the rate of interest should be 8 per cent., in these cases particularly. You will remember that when we were dealing with paragraph (b) I intimated that I did not intend to move an amendment which I had submitted, in deference to the arguments used here in relation to present difficulties, present costs of improvement and so forth. I was quite prepared to say that if a landlord executes substantial structural alterations or improvements to his house in the interests of a tenant after the Act becomes law, there is a case to treat him generously. I do not say that he is entitled to 8 per cent.; I do not think he is, but to make a demonstration that we were willing to allow a good return on expenditure incurred in a period like this in keeping houses in good condition I did not persist in my opposition. These arguments do not apply at all so far as the expenditure covered by this paragraph is concerned. I would urge on the Minister very strongly that this particular proposal requires review and that the proposal I have made to reduce the rate of interest to 4 per cent. is reasonable in this case.

Mr. Boland

I think this is the other side of the case made in regard to the last amendment. I am not going to accept this any more than the others because by doing so I should be taking from people something already given to them by the 1923 Act. What justification would there be for that? The demand has been practically all the other way. I have not yielded to that demand but I am not going to take from these people what they had been given by virtue of an earlier Act. That would be indefensible and unjust.

Mr. Duffy

The Minister does not suggest there is not an argument——

Mr. Boland

It might be argued but the position I am in is that I am not going to agree to it.

Mr. Duffy

I am addressing the House, with all respect. I suggest to the House that Senators ought not to agree to 8 per cent. interest on money expended by a landlord in effecting improvements to his house in 1914. At that time all that was allowed under the British Act was 6 per cent.

Sir John Keane

What difference does it really make? I agree that in 1914 alterations would probably cost less but that does not affect the rate per cent. This is a fair percentage for outlay of a kind which is of a distinctly speculative character. Very heavy expenses are incurred in repairs to property and 8 per cent. is really not considered an adequate return for private enterprise in building. Generally a person who has put money into property looks for a gross return of 10 per cent. knowing that there will be very heavy expenditure on repairs and that in ordinary times the house may probably be vacant for some time.

Mr. Kyle

I can understand the attitude of Sir John Keane in this matter but I cannot understand the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Government. They are prepared to allow 8 per cent. while the British Government was prepared to allow only 6 per cent. As I say, I can quite understand Senator Sir John Keane. I can even understand Senator O'Reilly's attitude on this question, as he is a landlord, but I cannot understand the attitude of the Republican Party on this amendment and I hope my colleague will put it to a division.

Mr. Hearne

I must say that if my interpretation of this matter is correct, it means that the existing law gives these people 8 per cent. If Senator Duffy's amendment is accepted, people who are enjoying this income for the past 20 years will now be deprived of it to the extent of 50 per cent. I think there are two aspects of this problem. In the first place, it is entirely irrelevant to discuss whether 8 per cent. is too large or too small. What will guide me in the vote now being asked for is not whether 8 per cent. is too large or too little, but whether people who have been in enjoyment of something for the last 20 years without dispute are now going to be deprived of it. I think that it would be unjust to deprive them of it.

Mr. Kyle

In a word, that means that certain people have been robbed of 4 per cent. all these years and Senator Hearne is prepared to stand by that robbery. That is the argument put to the House now. He is not going to vote for the amendment simply because this injustice has been in operation for 20 years. One has heard of injustices taking place over a longer period of years in this country but all of us thought that it was the duty of the Oireachtas to see if it was not possible to remedy such wrongs. I cannot understand the attitude of mind of Senators opposite and of some Senators on this side who think that an allowance of 8 per cent. is justified when they themselves have justified an allowance of only 6 per cent. in their standstill Order. I cannot see for the life of me why the special class of people who own houses should be protected in the way that the Party opposite propose to protect them. Why should it continue? Let the vote determine it.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

There is one matter which has been overlooked in this discussion. Certainly as long as I remember, 8 per cent. was considered as the lowest percentage which one could expect by way of return on money invested in bricks and mortar. I am not dealing now with the Housing Acts; I am dealing with the matter from the point of view of accountancy. If you were taking advice as to whether you should put money in bricks and mortar, more especially by erecting houses, you would be told that taking into consideration wear and tear, the difficulties of the situation, and the fact that you might not have tenants sometimes, if you got anything less than 8 per cent. you would be likely to meet with a loss and that if you wanted to get a fair return you should look for a percentage up to 15 per cent. This has been taken as the recognised figure on which a person should base his calculations if he expects money which he has put into building to show him the equivalent of 3½ per cent. in ordinary funds.

Mr. Boland

On the point that only 6 per cent. was allowed in Britain while 8 per cent. was allowed here, I should like to refer Senators to Section 8 of the 1923 Act. Clause (a), sub-section (1), says: "an amount calculated at a rate per annum not exceeding 6, or, in the case of such expenditure incurred after the second day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty, 8 per cent". It was 6 per cent. up to that date, and after that 8 per cent. What I am doing in this Bill is continuing the 8 per cent. The 6 per cent. operated only for a couple of years. I have not got a copy of the British Act here, but I should say it possibly follows the same lines as this. Which follows which I do not know, but I should think they are somewhat on the same lines. Anyway, people have done the repairs on the understanding that they were to get the 8 per cent.

Mr. Duffy

This is in respect of improvements and structural alterations. Repairs are dealt with in paragraph (e).

Mr. Boland

That was a slip of mine. I should have said "improvements".

Mr. Duffy

Very well. I will not argue it. The point I want to make is this: after the last war—after 1920— the Minister will be aware that interest rates increased enormously. At the end of the war, in 1918, 5 per cent. was the normal rate of interest on Government loans. By 1921 or 1922 the bank rate had gone to 7 per cent. It was in the shadow of that financial situation that the Act of 1923 was prepared. Obviously, if we are to have regard at all to economic reactions, it was the realistic thing to say that money expended in 1922 on carrying out improvements which involved, as Senator Kingsmill Moore has said, expenditure on bricks and mortar, should be rewarded at a higher rate than when the bank rate was at 5 per cent. But what is the position now? The bank rate in Ireland is 3 per cent. and the bank rate in Britain is 2 per cent.

Sir John Keane

It is the same in Britain.

Mr. Duffy

Is it? In any event, Government borrowing is done to-day in this country at less than half the rate at which the British Government could have borrowed in 1922. Surely this 8 per cent., to which the Minister has referred and to which Senator Sir John Keane has referred, must be related to something? Eight per cent. is no more sacrosanct than 2½ per cent. or 5 per cent. There was a reason for arriving at the figure of 8 per cent., and I suggest that when 8 per cent. was considered a proper rate of interest on expenditure incurred in respect of building it related to the current earnings of invested money. The current earning to-day in this State is 3 per cent., and a very large sum of money—probably £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 of our money—is earning less than 1 per cent. in London. Surely we cannot concede that 8 per cent. must now be accepted in this Bill simply because it was written into a Bill drafted 23 years ago? I would urge this House to accept the amendment, and to establish the fact that we are not prepared to go on indefinitely regarding 8 per cent. as reasonable remuneration on invested money.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I should like to say that, in my opinion, Senator Duffy need not bother too much about the rate per cent. in future, because I do not think that any person is likely to invest money in house-building.

Amendment put and declared lost, Senators Duffy, Kyle and Tunney dissenting.

Sections 11, 12 and 13 put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I move amendment No. 25:—

In sub-section (3), line 23, to delete all words after the word "be" and to substitute the following words: "an amount equal to the sum of the following:—

(i) the net rent at which the premises were held at the relevant date, and

(ii) (a) in the case of a dwelling-house, 10 per cent. of the net rent;

(b) in the case of any other premises, 15 per cent. of the net rent."

It is important for the House to understand that when we passed Section 13 we came to a completely different class of premises from what we had been dealing with up to this. Up to this we have been dealing with small and very small houses, occupied perhaps in the majority of cases by people of the labouring class or the very small shopkeeper and tradesman class. We have now come to deal with premises which include all premises except the very largest in the most choice situations in Dublin. Premises over £60 valuation are practically confined to Merrion Square, Fitzwilliam Square, Fitzwilliam Place, some of the larger houses in Clyde and Elgin Roads, some of the houses in Ailesbury Road and the houses in Shrewsbury Road. I do not say that that is an absolutely exhaustive list, but looking through Thom's you will not find many houses over £60 valuation outside those general areas. Looking through Thom's also I find that the houses which you are now proposing to control are occupied by judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court——

Sir John Keane

And Senators.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

——by Senators, by a number of Ministers of State, by some of the most eminent doctors and surgeons in Ireland, by senior counsel who are certainly not amongst those making the smallest incomes in their profession, and by prosperous businessmen, such as Senator Brennan. He is no longer a Senator, but we all knew him. Now, the point I want to make is that you are dealing now, not with a poor class of tenant, but with a class of tenant which includes the wealthiest people in the State. Now, what classes of landlord are you dealing with? Admittedly, the question of ground rents enters in here, but we are not dealing with that. Where it comes to profit rents, you will find that the landlords are very often poorer than the tenants. In the course of my law experience I have had to deal with a good many cases of this kind, and I hardly remember a case where the landlord was better off than the tenant. For instance, if you walk through the streets and squares in Dublin, you will notice that every few yards there is some little difference in the shape of the houses—some little difference in the design of the hall door or the fanlight, or something like that. The reason for that is that the sites were granted in blocks of three or four to speculative builders who put up a group of houses and then sold them to different people, who took them as an investment. They were then left to families, going down from father to son. Such experience as I have had in going through titles is that, generally speaking, the landlord is a less wealthy person than the tenant of these houses of £50 or £60 valuation.

I made those introductory remarks because different considerations must apply in dealing with houses of that sort from those which apply in the case of smaller houses. I think we are all agreed that it is wise to prevent extortionate rents, but my suggestion is that in the case of these new houses which are being brought in, from £40 to £60 valuation, you should endeavour as far as possible not to favour the landlord at the expense of the tenant or to favour the tenant at the expense of the landlord. Now, both the tenant and the landlord each had to face the increase in the cost of living that is coming to us all, but as I have shown, in most cases the tenants are better able to afford that increase in the cost of living than the landlord, because the tenant in most cases has been able to get a rise in his fees or profits, and so on, whereas, in the case of the landlord, in very many cases, the rent he derives from the house is his only means of livelihood. So that, although you admit that the cost of living has gone up in the case of both the tenant and the landlord, if you permit this increase, you are in fact increasing the cost at the expense of the poor landlord.

He has to face the cost of repairs, and the cost of the repairs has gone up tremendously, and you are giving him no increase in respect of these increased costs. You are giving one type of landlord an increase in rent and also in the matter of repairs, but in the case of the poor landlord, as I say—the owner of the big type of house—you are giving him no increase. Now, that is unfair and unjust. I think it would be correct to say that costs of such repairs have gone up by more than 40 per cent., since 1940. I think that that would be a fair estimate. One of the items that a tenant has to meet is the rent, but as against that the landlord has to meet all the increased costs of living out of the rent he gets from the tenant, which, in very many cases, is his only source of income. All I am asking here is that the burden should be equally distributed between the landlord and the tenant, and that the relatively rich tenant should pay to the relatively poor landlord an increase of 10 per cent., in order to help that landlord to live, because, while not overlooking the fact that some of the assertions I have made are not applicable in all cases, I would say that they are applicable to the houses of £50 or £60 and I cannot see why this concession should not be given in these cases. By all means, let us have control of these houses with a view to stopping exorbitant rents, but why not give the landlord what was given to him in 1923—10 per cent. under the 1923 Act, which was increased to 20 per cent. under the 1926 Act? Why adopt the principle of putting on control and then manipulating it in such a way as, not only to prevent the landlord from doing what would be unfair but also preventing the tenant from paying what would be a fair rent? As I have said before, my only object here has been to stop exorbitant rents. That has been my object in every case, but while I think it is desirable to exercise control in this matter, I do not think there is any reason to adopt what has been unconsciously underlying a great deal of the discussion in connection with this Bill: the unexpressed assumption that every landlord, with difficulty, conceals his horns and hoofs, and that it is only the modesty of the tenant which conceals the fact that he is equipped with wings and a halo.

Mr. Sweetman

I want to say at the beginning that I am in entire agreement with the Minister's point of view, that in 1941, so far as control for the non-1923 Act houses was concerned, houses were let at the market competitive rate. I do not think that that can be gainsaid. The Minister referred to that on several occasions previously, and I think that he was quite correct, but since then several things have happened, and the first of these is what Senator Kingsmill Moore is dealing with here in his amendment, and that is, the value of the money in terms of goods derived from that competitive rent has fallen very considerably. That is one circumstance which, without question, has reduced the real income of the owner of the house in terms of money.

The second thing is that, where the owner was responsible for repairs, he has had since 1941 to expend a very great deal more in terms of money to do the same amount of repairs. Frankly, I can appreciate the Minister's point of view, that he might not feel able to meet both these points. I think one of them should be met and, candidly, I am afraid I am of opinion that it would be better to meet the repairs one rather than the decrease in the value of money. I want to make certain in every way that premises are kept in good and adequate repair, more than the tenantable repairs referred to in Section 22. While the Minister may not be able to accept the amendment in its present form, I urge him, between this and the Report Stage, to make an estimate of the increased cost of repairs between May 7th, 1941, and the present time. Having made that estimate, I ask him to consider introducing a provision, by virtue of which, while the owner of a house has to bear the decrease in the value of money, he has not to bear also the increase in the cost of repairs, and that he would be met, by being able to pass on the increased cost of repairs. That would appear to me to be a just provision, and one which would make for better conditions for tenants living in these houses.

Sir John Keane

I have been at trouble to find out the reason why the Minister meted out such a disparity of treatment between these two categories. The only argument I can see is that he can say that these houses were not controlled in 1941, and that they had already taken advantage of the increase and had put up rents accordingly. Is there any evidence in support of that? There was no justification for increasing rents prior to 1941 when costs were seriously on the upgrade. Repairs had not then become the heavy burden they are now. Demand is now being made for the same treatment in principle in respect of that increase, and that it should be allowed to the non-1923 houses as well as to the others, so far as circumstances go. Surely Senator Kingsmill Moore has convinced the House of the equities of justice in the majority of these cases, and that the tenants are well able to pay the increased 10 per cent. to cover both repairs and cost of living. In many of these cases the landlords are not exactly poor people, but they are dependent almost entirely on the rents they get from these houses. They are hard hit by their inability to increase rents to compensate themselves for repairs and the increased cost of living. Senator Kingsmill Moore says he knows some of these people to be starving. Perhaps Senators have not fully considered these aspects of the question. I feel that this would be only just as well as feasible, and that there should be no difficulty on the political side in asking comparatively wealthy tenants to pay this slight contribution to meet the undoubted needs of small landlords who are now hard hit.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I notice that Section 11 (2) and Section 17 (3) contain references to lawful additions to the basic rent. I notice that Section 17 (2) does not contain a provision for repairs similar to that provided for in Section 11 (2) (d) (i) (ii). I think there must have been a mistake there. I would be inclined to agree with Senator Sir John Keane's figures, as if 10 per cent. was put in for lawful additions, that would agree with the corresponding sub-section in Section 11. There is complete justification for an increase of 10 per cent.

Mr. Boland

There was no mistake of that kind made in framing the Bill. As most Senators know, these are houses controlled under the Emergency Powers Order. The whole question of repairs and as to whether we would allow the same percentage as in the 1923 Act was carefully considered. I think I stated on Second Reading that I was satisfied that an allowance was made for repairs in the rents charged for these houses. The landlords had before them the example of what happened to their predecessors in 1914. The experience of those who had houses for renting then was before them. It is common knowledge that house rent included all those likely contingencies.

Mr. Sweetman

At the prices of the day.

Mr. Boland

Senator Kingsmill Moore referred to houses at £60 valuation. I admit that that is rather on the high side, but there are a great many houses between £30 and £40 valuation which became decontrolled under Acts passed some years ago. They are not occupied by wealthy people. Every other house, no matter what the valuation, built after 1919 was decontrolled until brought under the Emergency Powers Order. Senators are aware that the houses are occupied by people who are not wealthy. I want to correct the impression that the 1941 rents applied only to that class. All classes of the community living in decontrolled houses are included. I am satisfied that the rent charged was an economic rent and that all things a landlord was likely to have to meet were taken into consideration. We know that the rents of houses were very high compared to what they were before the last war. I draw the attention of Senators to the fact that this is a temporary measure. If it be amended before its expiration, it will be along the lines of decontrolling the houses of higher valuation. The question of repairs may then arise. That will depend on circumstances. We examined the matter very carefully and I am satisfied that the case made for an increased allowance for repairs in respect of the 1926 Act could not be made in respect of those houses. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Would you allow an increase in the case of houses of £50 to £60 valuation in Dublin and £30 to £40 valuation elsewhere? In those cases, you would be going amongst rich men.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister's answer to that question will conclude the debate this evening.

Mr. Boland

That would mean taking houses of that valuation out of the Act. It would mean amending the Act and reducing the valuation which, at this stage, I am not prepared to do.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I could not expect you to do that.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 31st January, 1946.