Senator Sweetman was in possession, I think, when the Seanad adjourned on the last occasion.
Rent Restrictions Bill, 1944—Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment (No. 66) to Section 40:—
66. In sub-section (4), paragraph (b), page 22, line 43, to delete the words "which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld".—(Senator Patrick J. O'Reilly.)
On the last occasion I was asking the Minister if he could tell me what the purpose of having these words in the section was. The Minister was frank enough to admit, I think, that they were not in the original draft. The situation, as I see it, is that a statutory tenant cannot sell his interest under the Bill. If he cannot sell his interest, I cannot see what there is in it for him to assign. His family is protected, so that question does not enter into the situation. I should be glad if the Minister would explain the purpose of having these words included in the section.
I am not sure whether we discussed this particular amendment so exhaustively in the Dáil as we have here, but what I understood was that there were other considerations besides cash that might enter into an assignment. There might be a member of the family who was not actually living in. The statutory tenant might be a person who might want to assign the tenancy either to a son or to some other member of his family who would not be exactly residing with him at the time. Anyway, I was given to understand—perhaps I am wrong; the lawyers may know more about the significance of these words: "which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld"—that the court would have due regard to the rights of both the landlord and the tenant. I cannot see how the suggestion made by Senator Sweetman would apply, that it would be only considerations of cash that would nullify the other provisions. In regard to that point about cash, I have had representations made by Senator O'Dea and he suggests that we should distinguish between the two types of premises—say, a mixed premises, a residential and a business premises combined and an ordinary premises, so that a person in a business premises might be allowed to sell his interests. As the Bill stands, a person could not get anything at all for the goodwill of his shop. If that is the case, I think there is something for reconsideration.
Not on this Bill.
Why not?
The Minister admitted that himself.
I thought such persons were covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act but that appears to need amendment too in order to protect their rights. The difficulty has been put to me that seeing that this matter has been ventilated and that there will be a time lag between any amendment of the 1931 Act and the passing of this measure, there may be a rush by certain people to take advantage of the position that perhaps did not occur to them before.
Perhaps the Minister would explain how they could take advantage of it?
We had better wait. I have got notice that the matter is going to be raised. It has been suggested that the inclusion of these words almost means a direction to the court. I am not quite satisfied that it does. I would admit if they did amount to that, these words are taking away something from the landlord that should not be taken away. On the other hand where a person has built up by his own industry a certain goodwill in a premises, I do not think it proper that he should not have a right to get something for that goodwill if he wishes to dispose of it. That applies to the case of business premises. I think some amendment, therefore, of the nature effected by the section is necessary. Anyway, as I say, I am open to be further convinced on this matter, because an aspect of it has been raised here that was not raised in the other House.
I suppose the best thing is for all of us, on all sides, to consider it between now and the Report Stage. In regard to what the Minister has mentioned about Senator O'Dea's point of view, which he has expressed on several occassions during the passage of this Bill, both inside and outside the House Senator O'Dea and I have tried to reconcile our points of view, and I am afraid a situation has been arrived at where he thinks I am crazy and I think he is crazy.
Perhaps you are both right.
I hope I am not crazy too.
It might quite easily be that Senator Foran is correct. Before the Minister brings in an amendment on the lines suggested by Senator O'Dea I think he should consider the matter very carefully.
I intend to.
There is another difficulty, which perhaps is the real difficulty between Senator O'Dea and myself. I am looking at it from the Dublin point of view and he is looking at it from the Galway point of view.
I am not.
And the tenure of such premises in Galway and Dublin is as different as chalk from cheese. Senator O'Dea, I think, if we want to be personal, could say that he dealt in dozens of sales that this section would cover. I have taken the trouble to find out, not only in my position, but also in the position of some other solicitors in Dublin, and in the whole lot of the inquiries I made I could only come across one case. That is the real basis of the whole difference.
There ought to be no difference between members of the House on this question; it is so very obvious. We must approach this matter not from the point of view of argument. I was surprised to hear Senator Sweetman say to the Minister that he had admitted that this is not a case for amendment of this Bill. The idea of tying down a Minister to any statement he made at any time is an absurdity in the case of a Bill which concerns the whole of the country, as this Bill does. This Section 40 contains certain provisions which would ruin nine-tenths of the people of the towns of Ireland. I am not speaking of Galway alone. I am taking Galway as an example. I am speaking of every town in Ireland. Even in Dublin there are people who reside on their business premises, not of course, to such a percentage as in the smaller towns, but there are big numbers of people who will come under this Act, who reside in the City of Dublin, and whose premises are very valuable. Of course, it applies more in places like Galway, Tuam, Loughrea, Ballinasloe, and every town in Ireland, because in those towns most of the business people reside on their business premises. It is only in an exceptional case that a man can afford to have a residence outside. If a man is unfortunate enough not to have a residence outside, and resides on his business premises, this Act comes along and says to him: "I do not care what your premises are worth; you are not to get a penny for them. I know you built up your business for the last 60 years, but we will make that business not worth one penny." That is what this Bill is doing.
Might I say that it is not so much this Bill as the 1923 Act? Surely this is an old provision.
It is in the Principal Act.
I should have said the 1923 Act.
Exactly.
Unfortunately, this Bill contains a copy of that obnoxious provision. Of course, for a long time it was not noticed that the provision was in the 1923 Act. That is the curious thing about it. There were sales upon sales, and this provision was entirely ignored, but in recent years people began to wake up to its existence, and to point out when a man would sell his premises: "You cannot sell; you are a statutory tenant. You have no right to get a penny for it. If you do get a penny for it you can be brought before the court, fined £100, and ordered to pay back the money you have received". That same provision is put in here. It is a provision which, as I said, will render not worth one penny those houses in which big businesses have been built up during 50 or 60 years. In fact, it makes it a crime to take a penny for these premises. It further provides that, if the owner is a bachelor or a widower without children, on his death the landlord can grab the whole concern. He cannot dispose of it by will or by deed. He can only die and let the landlord take the premises. That is the position and the very serious position which has to be faced up to. I am very glad the Minister has come to take my view—that it is a serious matter.
Would those people be statutory tenants?
Yes.
They could become statutory tenants.
That is the position. It has been held by the court, where notice to quit or notice to increase the rent or notice to reduce the rent has been served, that the tenant, holding on by virtue of that Act, under the altered rent, became a statutory tenant. I tried to get over it in the first instance by suggesting that we could fine down the meaning of statutory tenant to something else—to where the landlord brought an action against a tenant and the court made an order determining all the interest of the tenant, and saying: "We cannot put out the tenant because the Act allows him to remain in".
On the grounds of hardship?
For one reason or another like that. If it were confined to those cases it would not have a very bad effect, because there were very few ejectments taken all over Ireland. There have been various discussions here on the question of whether a landlord is a good landlord or a bad landlord. You can say that all the town landlords of Ireland are good landlords. The last thing in the world they want is to evict a tenant. In the year 1905 a curiosity occurred in the nature of an ejectment by Lord Clanricarde against Mr. Martin Ward of Loughrea. Mr. Ward was evicted because he became Secretary of the United Ireland League. Lord Clanricarde brought an ejectment against him, got a decree and put him out, but there was such a furore that the Town Tenants Act of 1906 was passed, which allowed for certain compensation. That was the first of those Acts that was passed. Lord Clanricarde himself was rather a good landlord. One of his tenants said that if you owed 11½ years' rent he would take a half-year's rent. It was only when he was fought that he became a tyrant. He did, in this case; he brought this ejectment, and the Act of 1906 was passed.
In 1915 there were no evictions; no ejectments were taken when the 1915 Act was passed. It was passed because it was passed in England, and made to apply to both countries. In 1917, there were no evictions worth talking about. In 1920 there were no evictions when the Act was passed, or up to 1923. Those Acts did possibly hold certain tenants in their possession, but although the landlord did not evict he did take advantage of the Acts. Landlords, in my opinion, are people who have to put up with a good deal. All the rates were increased. In 1914 our rates in Galway were 9/11; to-day they are 30/-. In every other town the rates went up in the same way. Those Acts enabled the landlord who paid the rates to add to the rent the difference between the 1914 rates and the rates in existence at the time he served his notice. They also allowed other increases. The landlords naturally took advantage of that. They served notices upon all their tenants, and they increased their rents. They did not do that for the purpose of putting out the tenants. They had no notion in the world of putting out the tenants.
They merely did it for the purpose of getting the increases to which they were entitled under the Act. To say, therefore, that those Acts protected all the tenants of Ireland is a fallacy. They may have protected two out of every thousand tenants, but that is all they did, and apart from the fact that a certain fixity of tenure was given to the tenant, the Act of 1923 deprived him of very valuable rights.
Now, we have amendments here. Senator Kingsmill Moore has an amendment which would make the position worse than it was. The effect of his amendment, if accepted, would mean that a statutory tenant, occupying one half of the house, could not sub-let the other half to a tenant that would require the accommodation very badly; that no matter what the requirements are, he cannot sub-let. Then we have this amendment of Senator P. J. O'Reilly. The effect of the sub-section is that the tenant will not assign the premises or any part thereof without the consent in writing of the landlord, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and the Senator wants the words—"which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld" deleted. But what was the law before the Act concerned was passed? The law was that a tenant, in connection with any letting, could assign portion of his holding unless there was an express provision in writing preventing him from doing so. That applied to every letting agreement, except for a period of about seven years, from the passing of the 1923 Act to the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1931. During that period, it was implied as a condition to every letting that the tenant could not sub-let, but apart from that it was always the practice that the tenant could sub-let unless there was specific agreement in writing that he was not permitted to do so. That is a matter of common law, and we are now depriving the tenant of rights to which he was entitled.
Now, if I had my way, I would exclude, not alone business houses, but also dwelling-houses, because there have been many cases of dwelling-houses in which people have resided for 50 or 60 years, during the course of which they spent hundreds and even thousands of pounds in the improvement of these houses. Now, however, if these people are made statutory tenants under this Bill, the tenancy dies with the man concerned, unless he has a wife or a child residing with him at the time, and the property reverts back to the landlord-property which, as a result of the expenditure by the tenant on improvements, may have become very valuable. I know cases of business houses in towns, the value of which it would be very hard to estimate. If put up for sale, they might go for many thousands of pounds and yet, according to this Bill, they would not be worth anything to the tenant if the Bill goes through in its present form. Now, that will have to be changed.
Senator Sweetman gave me an answer the other day. He said that I had forgotten that all those cases came under the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1931. It is he who has forgotten that they do not come under the Act of 1931 unless a notice to quit was served; in other words, unless the landlord now is foolish enough to give the tenant a new notice to quit, he need not do so. Although the tenant is required to give notice that he is giving up possession, we find, under sub-section (2) of this section, that the landlord need serve no notice to quit on the tenant. Now, I have pointed out that most of the notices to quit or demands for increased rent were made before the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1931 was passed. Under that Act the tenant had to move within one month of getting the notice to quit, or not later than three months before the period of the lease expired, and if the tenant does not know the law, and does not move accordingly, then his rights are lost; but this will deprive the tenant of even the rights that he had under that Act. It simply says here that, since your rent is being increased or reduced, as the case may be, you are therefore a statutory tenant, and being a statutory tenant, the landlord need not serve you with any notice to quit. By keeping that notice to quit away from you, the landlord deprives you of the rights you had under the Act of 1931. Senator Sweetman says that it is the Act of 1931 which should be amended. No; it is not the Act of 1931 which does the injury; it is this Bill, and therefore it is this Bill which must be amended in order to prevent that harm being done.
I think that that should be clear to everybody, because if there are tenants in Ireland who have not been made statutory tenants, even now, under the 1923 Act or this Bill, the statutory tenant can be so crippled that he cannot take advantage of any other Act. If the tenant dies without having a wife or child residing with him, nothing can be done. If there is a wife, the tenancy reverts to her, and if there is a child it reverts to the child, but it does not revert in the case of another child, but goes back to the landlord.
My experience, while not anything on the same scale as Senator O'Dea's, is similar to his. I know that in my own town there are quite a number of shops and business premises on which the tenants reside. Some of them have resided there for over 40 years. These tenants have built up a prosperous business there during the course of the 40 years. That business is something to which the landlord has contributed nothing, either by benefit or good will, and the prosperity of the business is due entirely to the business acumen and ability of the tenant. If Senator O'Dea's idea of the legal aspect of the letting is correct, he has certainly convinced me that the 1923 Act did something that was unjust to tenants of such business premises of long-standing. These tenants built up certain assets to which no one but themselves contributed anything, and it would seem that now they can be deprived of any financial benefit or reward, and that is something for which nobody in this House would stand, in my opinion. These tenants built up and developed the premises; nobody else contributed to these improvements, and I think it should be impressed on the Minister that there should be a differentiation between that type of premises and others—that is, on premises on which the tenants reside. I am not prepared to go quite as far as Senator O'Dea, and to say that private houses which have been occupied for a considerable number of years should be accorded the same rights as the other cases. There is certainly nothing like as strong a case in connection with private houses as there is in the case of business premises where the business has been built up over a number of years.
I can give one example that comes very forcibly to my mind. I know people in my own town who have been in the same business premises for over 40 years. They have built up a fairly substantial business, but for one reason or another they have not purchased the premises. Their rent is exactly the same as it was at the start. Their business which was small, has developed pretty considerably, and now, in the end, they may feel like retiring. It would be deplorable if the goodwill attached to those premises should not have a cash value attached to it, and they would be unable to get any financial reward at all for the goodwill they have built up over 40 years.
It seems that the goodwill will go back to the landlord, and I consider that would be most unjust to them. The Minister would be well advised to consider leaving with the tenant the right to get the financial reward which the public may assess as the value of the goodwill of premises such as these.
I am afraid there are some misunderstandings regarding the effect of the 1931 Act, and the purpose of the present Act, and as a Senator responsible for this amendment, it strikes me that it would be well to give an opportunity to members of the House to consider further the points raised by Senator O'Dea and Senator Sweetman. There is an old saying that when doctors differ, something happens the patient. Here, we have experts on each side giving opposite opinions, and making it difficult for an ordinary Senator to form a sound judgment.
I am rather afraid to venture into the technicalities of the 1931 Act, because I thought the arguments which were used on the last occasion would be sufficient to convince everybody of the desirability of accepting this amendment. I know something about the 1931 Act, and I would refer all concerned to the definition of the word "tenement". If we look at Sections 19 and 20 we find that Section 20 says:
"Subject to the provision of this Act a tenant of a tenement to which this Part of this Act applies shall, on the termination of his tenancy in such tenement, be entitled to a new tenancy in such tenement on such terms as may be agreed upon between such tenant and his landlord or as shall, in default of such agreement, be fixed by the court."
Then, Section 19 appears to be equally important. It goes on to explain what may happen on the termination of a tenancy, and I understand that the cases mentioned by Senator O'Dea are covered by that section.
On a point of order, would the Senator read out that portion dealing with the application to determine any new tenancy?
I have said that I would not like to enter into a debate about the provisions of the 1931 Act. Where would the layman come in between the eminent lawyers on both sides of the House who have given different views? Nowhere, I would say. I would like to cut out legal technicalities for the moment. What is this Act? Is it a Rent Restrictions Act, or a Sales Restriction Act? I am beginning to wonder which it is.
The Minister has pointed out again and again that it is a Rent Restrictions Act, and if we look at the definition of a statutory tenant, we find that it means a person who retains possession of any premises by virtue of this Act. Therefore, if people do not retain possession of any premises by virtue of this Act, they do not come into the picture, good, bad or indifferent. With the permission of the House, I would like to read something which was read before.
It is the view of a person who, I would venture to say, is the most experienced lawyer in the City of Dublin, a gentleman very well known personally to the Minister. I will give his name later on if it is necessary. He is a person with the widest possible experience of the management of property, and he is himself the owner of house property, although his principal wealth is not in that particular type of property. I venture to say that he is probably the most experienced lawyer in the country. His opinion is:
"In the Landlord and Tenant Act you are dealing with cases where there are leases or long terms in question apart from the Act altogether, and consequently the tenant would naturally have some interest in assigning the premises when there is still a part of the original term to run, but in the case of the Rent Restriction Acts and this new Bill there is no period of time to run in connection with the existing letting, and nothing to assign except the artificial legal period made or granted by the Rent Acts themselves."
So, unless a person comes within this Act, this amendment would not affect him at all. I have considered this matter very carefully, and I have, as I said, been fortified by good legal advice. I am convinced that if you want to keep up the pretence that a landlord has some interest in his premises, then this amendment should be accepted. If we do not want this pretence to continue, then by all means defeat the amendment, and the landlord will have no further claim on the property. Now, it might appear that I am interested in this matter purely from an owner's standpoint.
I happen to own a certain number of houses, but none of the amendments I have suggested would affect these houses to any extent, and I can claim to be speaking impersonally in this matter. I put the larger issue before the Minister, the issue which everybody knows, that if these Acts continue in force there will be no more private buildings for letting, particularly if this objectionable addition to the Act is allowed to continue. I say that it is going to affect the interests of a large number of people, the class of people able to pay only small rents, because there will be competition from other people, who normally should be residing in houses built by private enterprise, for the cheaper class of house, and in that way, I would say all are concerned. If we are drifting, or perhaps I should say if we wish to drift, into the position in which no building will be done except by the State and the local authorities, then there is a lot to be said in favour of these Acts, but if we wish to support the idea of private enterprise, and if we consider it is a form of enterprise which should be encouraged and allowed to continue, we should look with great suspicion on the lines added to this Bill which have never before appeared in any Rent Restrictions Act, either in this country or elsewhere.
I would appeal to the Minister to take this big issue into consideration, the question of the stoppage of private building, and that this will encourage people to get behind the amendments submitted by Senator Kingsmill Moore and accepted by the Minister at the previous meeting of the House. It would be a direct encouragement to such people, it would facilitate them in getting around the amendments, and those amendments would have to come out of the Act or some others would have to be inserted to govern the position.
As I have said, I feel great reluctance about entering very deeply into the discussion. Had I known that Senator O'Dea was going to develop this argument, I would have given as much time as I could spare, since the last meeting of the House, to consider the points he has raised, but we have very eminent lawyers among us, and I am sure they will give us the benefit of their opinions.
I suggest the advisability of giving further consideration to the matter, and I would be prepared to assist towards that end by withdrawing those amendments until the Report Stage. For my own private information, however, I would like to have the benefit of the opinions of these eminent gentlemen between this and the next meeting of the Seanad.
I had not the advantage of hearing Senator O'Dea's speech, and I think it would be very unsuitable at this stage to attempt to give a general lecture on landlord and tenant law, but I imagine it should be possible to look into the matter between now and the Report Stage. Perhaps I should mention the following matter for the guidance of the House. I imagine that the type of case mentioned by Senator O'Dea, if there had been no 1923 Act, would have been that a notice to quit was served by the landlord in the case of a yearly tenancy. If a business had been built up on a yearly tenancy, the tenant had the option of accepting the notice to quit and going out without saying anything, or of claiming the rights that were given him under the Town Tenants Act to get compensation for disturbance. That was the position if there was no 1923 Act. What alteration did the 1923 Act make? The answer is, precisely none. If a notice to quit was served under the 1923 Act, the tenant had still the option either of going out or saying: "I am not going out without making a fuss. I accept the notice to quit but I make my claim under the Town Tenants Act."
In other words, the 1923 Act made no difference whatsoever in the way of cutting down the previous rights of the tenant. Now we have to consider the effect of the 1931 Act. A section in that Act—I think it is Section 3—says that where a person remains on as a statutory tenant the statutory tenancy shall be deemed to be a continuance of the previous contractual tenancy for the purposes of the 1931 Landlord and Tenant Act. That means that a statutory tenant remains on after a notice to quit and has all the rights of compensation for improvements which were given him under the Act.
Would the Senator say how he is to secure them?
He has got them.
How can he have them unless there is a new notice served?
He remains a statutory tenant and has all the statutory rights that he had before. If he wishes to put an end to his statutory tenancy, he is in the position that he would be in if there was no Act. If he gets a notice to quit he goes out.
I want to know how he could come within the Act of 1931 unless the landlord obliges him by serving a new notice to quit, which this Bill says he need not serve.
The answer is that he has complete security and fixity of tenure as long as he likes.
No.
As long as this Act is in existence.
Up to 1950.
Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, he has all the rights he originally had.
As a layman I think the House should know that ten days ago a case was decided at the circuit court in Roscommon. I do not know if I can quote from a local newspaper report but the effect was that a woman who was tenant of premises in Strokestown, in which she and her family had been for 66 years, sold her interest in a confectionery business for £530. The landlord refused to give his consent and the Circuit Court judge held that the landlord was right and the woman goes out.
Why did the landlord withhold consent? The probability in all the cases I met was that the incoming tenant was not a person that any ordinary person would accept as a tenant.
The reason given was that the landlord wanted the premises for himself.
That is a statutory ground under the 1931 Act.
I do not think Senator Kingsmill Moore has answered as to how statutory tenants come within the Act of 1931. The Senator says such tenants are protected, but how are they to come within the Act?
I have not the papers before me, but if the Senator reads the full report he will find that the lady in question got (a) compensation for improvements, and (b) compensation for disturbance.
No, neither.
I am afraid I am not prepared to accept that.
She was not put out. She wanted to sell her interest. Therefore, she could not get any compensation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 67 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 67 and 61 were already considered. Although the Minister did not give a definite promise there was some suggestion that he would consider this matter on the Report Stage.
Question proposed: "That Section 40, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
If the Minister does not have an amendment here I will have one to try to cover the position under this section.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 41 agreed to.
Sections 42 to 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45.
I move amendment No. 68:—
In page 23, line 39, after the word "let" to insert the words "bona fide”.
This is a section which deals with the particular kind of letting—one which has given me some trouble. The section provides that Sections 37 and 38 shall not apply to premises let to a person during his continuance in any office, appointment or employment, or let for the temporary convenience or to meet a temporary necessity of the landlord or the tenant. It has been brought to my notice that a number of lettings have been made in this manner by people who know exactly what the Rent Restrictions Acts provide and are resolved to circumvent them. In the West, especially, a number of cases have arisen in which the landlord has induced the tenant, anxious to get a house of any kind, to acknowledge, in some way, that the letting is temporary and for the convenience of the tenant or the landlord. That takes the letting out of the Act completely. What we have been doing here will be of no avail so far as that class of tenancy is concerned. The matter was raised in the Dáil, and it seems to me that the Minister was quite willing to meet the case if he were satisfied that there was any side-stepping of the Act.
During the debate in the Dáil, Deputy Moran, who is familiar with the part of the country in which these cases most frequently occur, said:
"If you get an agreement under which a tenant admits and declares that the letting is for the temporary convenience of the landlord and himself, such agreements have been upheld and it is a way of getting outside the provisions of the Act."
A question was raised as to the Deputy's interpretation of the provision by Deputy McGilligan who said: "Do you mean that somebody pretends that there is a temporary convenience letting and gets away with it?" Deputy Moran replied:
"Yes. I have had experience of special provisions like that under the legislation that exists. In practically every letting agreement, where you intended to give the landlord a chance of recovering his premises when he wanted them, you put in a provision that the letting was for the temporary convenience of the landlord. There were cases in which such agreements were upheld in which the tenants admitted and declared that the letting was for the temporary convenience of the landlord, although, in fact, no such reasons existed at the time of the letting."
The Minister referred to that matter later in the debate and said: "I find that the question has been decided. In 1925, a case was brought and the Chief Justice held that, whether a letting is for temporary convenience or not, is a question of fact, to be determined by the court." Since the debate in the Dáil, I have been discussing the matter with two practising barristers. They confirmed the statement that those agreements were quite common. A case in County Sligo and another in County Mayo, in which barristers were engaged, were cited to me, showing that, in these cases, agreements were signed that the lettings were for the temporary convenience of the landlord and tenant whereas the tenants advised their legal representatives that they signed under duress. To get a tenancy, they were prepared to sign this agreement that the letting was for temporary convenience. I have endeavoured to meet the point in my amendment but I do not know whether I have succeeded or not. However, the insertion of the words I propose cannot weaken the provisions of the Bill. I think that the insertion of those words would have the effect of ensuring that a bogus agreement would not be palmed off to prove that lettings were for temporary convenience.
The Minister's statement, made in the Dáil, is correct. This is a question of fact. I do not know where Deputy Moran got his information, because he practises before the same Circuit judge as I do. That judge held, soon after the Act of 1923 was passed, that the fact of putting in a declaration that a letting is for temporary convenience does not conclude the matter, that it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that it was made for temporary convenience. That decision was upheld on appeal, and I think that it has always been the law. The words proposed would not, I think, do any harm, but I think that the 1923 Act provides greater protection than is afforded by this amendment.
I agree with what Senator O'Dea said, but I do not think that it would do any harm to insert the words proposed. Senator Duffy has not envisaged the case in which there is only an oral agreement. In that case, the decision depends on the evidence as to what was said at the time. It occurred to me that Senator Duffy might desire to provide that agreements for temporary convenience lettings should be in writing. In the case of small tenants, that might be somewhat onerous.
You cannot compel people to make agreements. If you had a provision that these agreements should be in writing, if there were no such agreement, then the whole case would collapse. I should rather leave that matter as it is, but I should like to ensure that no side issue will void the provision.
We are all in complete agreement as to this matter. You cannot contract outside the law. If Senator Duffy's amendment makes the matter clearer, and if it satisfies some people, I have no objection to it. But I do not think that it will add anything to the provision.
The words are not necessary, and why put in words that are unnecessary? If you insert the words "bona fide”, it may be necessary to prove bona fides to the court. My advice is that the words are unnecessary.
I do not think that the words will be necessary if you go so far as a court, but I think that the insertion of the words "bona fide” cannot do any harm, and might act as a deterrent to a landlord reading the Act.
Is there any legal definition of bona fide?
There is—in the Licensing Acts.
I once heard Senator Kingsmill Moore talk in a rather facetious way about the use of Latin tags in the law. I was wondering whether we were not following the bad example here by inserting the words "bona fide”.
I have no objection to the amendment other than that the draftsman says that the words are not necessary. I would prefer to have the Bill drafted without any superfluous words, but if there is any feeling about the matter I do not object to the amendment.
I suggest that the insertion of the words will certainly draw attention to the fact that importance is attached to the matter.
I shall accept the amendment though I do not think it is necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 45, as amended, agreed to.
Section 46 agreed to.
SECTION 47.
Question proposed: "That Section 47 stand part of the Bill."
Am I right in thinking that this section was lifted completely from the old Act?
I think it is a complete re-enactment but I shall verify it.
There is only one point that appears to me to arise in connection with the section—indirectly I must confess. Senator Duffy mentioned a case the other day where tenants on one particular estate had to go to the solicitor for the landlord to have an agreement made. One of the reasons for the necessity of an agreement for letting is that there are certain terms which are optional and which are operative unless provided for in a written agreement. The Minister might consider the question at some future stage—it is obviously improper on this Bill—of providing some definition in regard to the matter which would obviate a lot of the necessary costs and agreement. I did not realise that it was improper to raise it on this Bill until I had started to call attention to it.
There is a necessity because the old Deasy Act of 1860 provided that where there is no agreement in writing the tenant is responsible for all the repairs. That is not known to the tenant.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 48 agreed to.
SECTION 49.
Amendment No. 69 stands in my name but in view of the fact that there is a subsequent Government amendment to delete the section, I am not now moving my amendment.
I should like to know whether Senator Duffy will move his amendment so that it can be discussed?
My preference, in view of the Government amendment, is not to move my amendment at all.
Amendment No. 69 not moved.
I formally move to delete the section.
If this section is to be deleted—and Senator Hearne has moved its deletion—I think the House should be told why it is moved first. I understood the Cathaoirleach had put the question that the section stand part of the Bill.
My hearing may be getting worse as the result of age but I do not think there was any question of the Chair putting that motion.
The position is that there is a Bill at present before the Dáil, the Local Government Bill. When this Bill was introduced we had not definitely decided between my Department and the Local Government Department as to whether we should leave this section in the Bill or not. As it is a matter that deals with rates, I thought the section was unnecessary in this Bill. I am now informed that the Minister for Local Government is bringing in a section in the Local Government Bill to deal with this whole question of rating.
I agree that the procedure suggested by the Minister is the proper one but I was rather perturbed because the divisions of the two Bills are not quite similar. Now, however, we shall get rating dealt with under the other Bill once this section is withdrawn.
I might mention that the matter was dealt with in the old 1923 Act. We tried to get the Local Government Department to deal with it before introducing this Bill but there was a rush of work at the time and the matter could not be definitely settled before this Bill was introduced.
This question of rating worked great hardship in some places, particularly in small towns. There were some places like Clifden in which there were houses which nobody would take.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 50 agreed to.
SECTION 51.
I move amendment No. 70:—
In sub-section (1), page 25, line 7, to delete the word "controlled".
This is a case in which we are dealing with the restriction on the payment of money in the form of what is called "key money", deposits, premiums, etc., in relation to the renting of houses. Sub-section (1) of the section provides that a person shall not, as a condition of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of any controlled premises require the payment of any fine, premium or other like sum. This prohibition applies to houses which are controlled for the purposes of this Act, that is to say, houses which were erected before 7th May, 1941, and to houses within certain limits of valuation. I am endeavouring to secure the deletion of the word "controlled" so that the prohibition contained in Section 51 will make it illegal to demand a fine or premium in respect of any letting. I am quite prepared, if the Minister accepts the principle that the prohibition should apply to houses within the range and the scope covered by this Bill, to have the sub-section redrafted for the Report Stage so as to exclude houses over £60 valuation if there is a desire to exclude them.
I am satisfied to bring into the section houses, which, if they were erected before 7th May, 1941, would be controlled houses. In other words, if houses are being built in future I want the section to apply to them, if they are within the £60 limit, to ensure that this practice of demanding fines and premiums will be discontinued. To an extent this amendment is related to a subsequent amendment and probably some of the things which I should like to say in connection with it might be more properly discussed on the later amendment.
I do not know whether I completely misunderstood Senator Duffy, but I find it almost impossible to get at what he has in his mind. As I take it, he wants to suggest that any houses built since 7th May, 1941, cannot be sold subject to a rent.
No.
It appears to me clear that that would be the effect.
This has nothing to do with selling.
Whether or not it has anything to do with selling in the Senator's mind, if the section were drafted without the word "controlled" in it the effect would be that no house could be sold subject to a ground rent. I do not know if the Senator means that. It is just as well that we should know what he does mean.
Is not Senator Sweetman's suggestion that a house which was erected before 7th May, 1941,——
No—since that date.
Pardon me; I want to know the Senator's view on this. Is it illegal under the section to sell, subject to a ground rent, a house erected before 7th May, 1941? If it is not illegal to do so, it cannot be illegal under my amendment to sell a house erected after 7th May, 1941.
So far as a house erected before 7th May, 1941, is controlled, it is, of course, illegal to take a premium under this section, subject to the provisos of it.
Suppose some house is not controlled at all, and a person wants to make an agreement with the owner and say: "I prefer to pay £100 down and have a smaller rent," he cannot do it if we take out the word "controlled" there. I think that would be the effect of it. I do not know if the Senator means that. What we are concerned with is to try to prevent the payment of this key money— to prevent people from increasing the rent of a controlled house by getting a deposit. We want to stop that. But surely to goodness, in the case of a person who thinks it is a better arrangement for himself—he may have a sum of money in hand and say: "I will pay this in consideration of a smaller annual sum for years to come"—he should be allowed to do that when the house is not controlled.
We have two houses; one is built on 1st May, 1941. This section applies to that house.
It does.
If the house is built on 1st May, 1941, it is covered by the section. If it is built on 8th May, 1941, it is not covered by the section.
I do not agree with that either.
Where is the crime we hear about? The Minister talks about a person wanting to pay a lump sum. He cannot pay that in respect of a house built on 1st May, 1941, or at any stage 70 or 80 or 100 years before that. But there is something sacrosanct about a house built after 7th May, 1941.
Does not all this arise out of the argument about the operative date that we had earlier? Is it not a rehash of that?
It is not. If the control date had been brought down to 1945, there would not be very many houses outside the control.
I agree. We decided that argument already.
I am not going back on that. All I am asking is that the fines or the key money will be made illegal whether a house is built before or after 7th May, 1941.
I am not accepting that. I am saying that it may suit a person who wants to rent a house after that date to pay a lump sum and get a smaller rent, and I do not see why I should interfere in the case of a non-controlled house.
But the Minister will not let a person do that if the house was built before that date.
In the case of a controlled house, certainly not, but where the house is not controlled it is quite a different matter. I am afraid we cannot understand each other. The Senator cannot understand me, and I cannot understand the Senator.
I do not think the amendment would have the effect that the Senator intends. Even if you leave out the word "controlled" this Bill is governed by Section 3, which says to what premises it will apply and to what premises it will not apply. Leaving out the word "controlled" would not have the smallest effect.
I think I can understand the Minister and Senator Duffy.
Superman.
The Minister wants to control houses to a certain date. He recognises that that has certain drawbacks as well as certain advantages. After that date, the bargain as to what is to be paid is free. As long as it is free, he does not mind whether you pay a high rent—remember that the rent is to be negotiated anyway—or whether you pay a low rent and a lump sum. Senator Duffy wants to extend the control beyond 1941; when he cannot get complete control he would like to get partial control. Therefore, from his point of view, I think what he is trying to do is not unreasonable. But I think it is unworkable, because, when the rent has been negotiated and not controlled by the State, simply to control it to the extent that you cannot arrange it in one particular way would to my mind be absurd. For that reason I agree with the Minister.
There may be arguments against my proposal but I have not heard them. The argument has been used that we finished control on 7th May, 1941. I am not reopening that question. I am suggesting that if the practice of permitting the landlord to demand key-money, to demand deposits, is a bad one socially, then I think my amendment has a social aspect. The section means that so far as houses built after 7th May, 1941, are concerned, nobody can get them unless he has a certain sum of money in his pocket to hand up. The person who needs a house most, but who has no ready money, cannot get a house at all. That is what the Bill is doing. That is what I am trying to remedy. If the Minister or Senators who are better authorities than I am on the technicalities of the Bill say that what I am aiming at is not done by the amendment, I am satisfied that an amendment to the section should be redrafted, but I am pointing out that there is no use in telling me about a free bargain in the case of lump sums; there is no such freedom where the person has not got the money. I am trying to cover that aspect of the matter. I am endeavouring to meet what I believe is a great social need. If the Minister does not do that I cannot compel him.
You have control up to a certain date. That has been decided on. After that we have decided that there will be no control. I am in entire agreement with Senator Douglas when he says that you cannot have partial control, because that is what it amounts to.
It seems to me that there is no need to introduce the question of ethics at all. Senator Duffy suggested that if it is right to prohibit a fine under certain conditions it is equally right to prohibit that fine under other conditions. But what is the reason for the section at all? It simply seeks to ensure that rent restriction will be effective as far as houses built up to 1941 are concerned.
If you amended the section it would not have that effect, because it would enable people to come along and pay a sum of money which, capitalised with the rent payable, would give you a rent prohibited under the Act. I have stated what I assume to be the main purpose of the section as it stands. As pointed out by previous speakers— putting aside the question of ethics, which does not apply—it simply means that it has been agreed that houses built after 1941 shall not be subject to control. Therefore, the Minister is not going to accept an amendment which would have the effect of cutting out what has already been agreed upon.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 71 not moved.
I move amendment No. 72:—
In sub-section (4), paragraph (a), page 25, line 28, before the word "shall" to insert the words "or advertising or publishing an offer to give a reward for information concerning the letting of controlled premises".
This is a proposal to meet one aspect of the advertising business, in relation to the payment of fines and key money. Sub-section (4) of the section prohibits any person from making or offering to make any payment, or giving or offering to give any consideration the requiring of which would be in contravention of the section, or advertising or publishing any such offer. Now, there are other kinds of advertisements common to this matter. There is the case of advertisements offering a reward to any person who will give information as to where a house can be got. In other words, the offer is not an offer to give possession of the house, but to supply information as to where such a house can be got, and in this amendment the proposal is to insert the words "or advertising or publishing an offer to give a reward for information concerning the letting of controlled premises".
Has Senator Duffy considered whether or not this amendment would prevent an auctioneer from advertising that he had a house available, provided that the tenant paid his commission?
The amendment expands the sub-section by making it an offence to offer by advertisement a reward for information.
Yes, but I think that if the section were amended in the way the Senator suggests, an auctioneer who put in an advertisement in the Evening Mail to the effect: “I, So-and-so, auctioneer, have a house to let in Ranelagh,” might be guilty of an offence.
I do not think that that is so. If the auctioneer publishes an advertisement to the effect that he has a controlled house for rent for a fine, the section would get him, as it stands. All the amendment does is to try to prohibit the advertisement or offer of reward for information. That has nothing to do with the auctioneer. The auctioneer is on the positive side, so to speak, offering something to sell or let.
Yes, that is right, but I still think that there might be that danger.
I see no necessity for this at all. I think that what Senator Sweetman said might happen, and that an auctioneer, who was entitled to say where a certain house was, might conceivably commit an offence under this amendment. I would not be prepared to accept this amendment at all. In any case, I do not think it is necessary.
Surely the question of an auctioneer has nothing to do with this at all. This amendment is simply dealing with the case of a person issuing an advertisement to the effect that he is prepared to pay, say, £20 to anybody who will give him information as to where he can get a controlled house for letting.
Yes, I am afraid that I misunderstood the Senator. The Senator's amendment is to the effect that the person is advertising that he wants to get a house.
Yes, and is prepared to pay a reward to anybody who will give him information.
Yes, but I am afraid that the same thing can be twisted around and that he can go into an auctioneer and say to him: "I want a controlled house with possession and I am prepared to pay your fee." The auctioneer then advertises to the effect that a controlled house is wanted and his fees will be paid by the tenant. Would not that be the same thing?
Yes, but the person who can go to the auctioneer and say that he is prepared to pay his fees is putting himself in a position of advantage over the mass of the people who want this type of house, and I am endeavouring to stop that.
I am not sure that Senator Duffy has got this right, but I think there is something in the point he has made, and I suggest that the Minister should consider it. I do not think that any of us want to interfere with legitimate house-agency business, but there might be a loophole along the lines Senator Duffy has suggested. I think the Minister might consider this matter between now and the Report Stage.
Very well, but that is as much as I can do. I do not think that this is necessary at all.
I am not saying that it is, but I think it ought to be considered.
Well, I shall have it examined, but that is all I can do. I do not think there is any necessity for it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 51 put and agreed to
SECTION 52.
I move amendment No. 73:—
Before Section 52 to insert a new section as follows:—
Where under an agreement for the sale of a dwellinghouse to which this Act applies, the purchase money is to be paid by instalments with interest and the purchaser is permitted to occupy the dwellinghouse before the purchase money is paid in full, such instalments shall be payable over a period not exceeding 30 years, and the rate of interest shall not exceed 7½ per cent. on the balance of the purchase money outstanding from time to time.
This, of course, is taken straight from the similar Act in Northern Ireland, and it is taken because of the recommendation of the Town Tenants (Occupation Tenancies) Tribunal, page 33, paragraphs 59 and 60. If the members of the House care to read through that report they will find that on this particular point the report is absolutely adamant that something should be done. Paragraph 60 starts off by saying:—
"In addition to this provision there are certain kinds of fraudulent evasion of the Acts, which should be frustrated. This need was recognised by the Legislature of Northern Ireland in its Rent Act of 1932. A device is sometimes adopted of purporting to sell a house to the tenant on a deferred payment system. The tenant continues in occupation, but acquires no legal interest or title until a certain sum is repaid by periodic instalments."
I am not going to weary the House by reading the whole lot of that paragraph, but I would just add the last sentence of the paragraph, in which the report states that the particular Act in Northern Ireland should be adapted to suit our requirements and embodied in any amendment which may be made of the existing law. I raised this matter on the Second Reading and I was very surprised to note that no such section was embodied in this Bill. The Minister, in his reply, told me that he had had no evidence that that was happening. It seems to me extraordinary that there was no evidence that that was happening: that the chairman of this tribunal should sit down and make a report and that he and the other members of the tribunal should produce a long paragraph covering a whole page of typescript about a thing of which the Minister says that there was no evidence whatever. That appears to me to be so fantastic that I find it impossible to believe. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be at least desirable that something should be done about it now, because the members of that tribunal could not have produced this report in vacuo, if Senator Hearne will allow me to use another Latin expression. It appears to me that is the general principle of law, and I think that this thing of sitting down just before you bring in anything is not right, and that we should not accept it in a codifying law.
I do not agree at all.
However, I am still lost in admiration that a tribunal should be able to bring in a long paragraph about a matter on which they have no evidence. I wonder if the Minister is going to make that point.
That is correct.
Surely the Minister has had the evidence that was available to the tribunal?
I have every bit as much as they had, and that is none whatever, so far as I understand.
Apart from the question of a tribunal, could the Senator moving the amendment tell us the object he is seeking to achieve? Personally, I could see no reason for it. I am sure it is a matter for permanent legislation that is to be enacted. A measure of this kind is hardly an appropriate place for it.
I would support the amendment without speaking on it.
On the point whether it is good practice or not, I would say that it is necessary and desirable to have evidence when you are dealing with restrictive legislation. It is both a good principle and a good practice in restrictive legislation that people should not go out and anticipate things of that kind unless they have some evidence. It may be a different matter in other types of legislation but it is fairly serious when it comes to a definite restriction on sales. I think this tribunal went through the Northern Ireland Act.
I have no doubt that there must have been plenty of evidence in the North of Ireland as to what was happening, but we have no evidence of it here, and until we have, my attitude is that we should not anticipate that sort of thing until we know that it is becoming a nuisance and a burden to a section of the community. Only then would I feel disposed to interfere. I am quite satisfied that the tribunal saw the Northern Ireland Act and considered what was happening there, but I understand the position is that the Department has no evidence that it is happening here. I do not want to accept the amendment, and I am assured that it is not comprehensive enough even if it were necessary.
The amendment has been put down only to test the principle, but when the Minister assures me that neither his Department nor the tribunal had any evidence this was happening I think, quite candidly, he has cut the ground from under my feet. I was going on the assumption that the tribunal was a tribunal of reasonable men who were not going to bring in this suggestion without having some evidence before them but, of course, the Minister has now blown that argument sky-high. So far as Senator Sir John Keane is concerned, the whole purpose of this amendment was to prevent fraudulent evasion of the Act.
I am certain that so far as this State is concerned, there is no evidence of it. They may have had it in Northern Ireland—I do not doubt that.
Then, the Border must be higher than we think.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 74:—
Before Section 52 to insert a new section as follows:—
Where the purchase of any furniture or other articles is required as a condition of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, the price demanded shall, at the request of the person on whom the demand is made, be stated in writing, and, if the price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles, the excess shall be treated as if it were a fine or premium required to be paid as a condition of the grant, renewal or continuance.
To a certain extent, this is tied up with the last section we have passed, but I am not absolutely certain whether the wording in Section 51 regarding the giving of any pecuniary consideration, would include what I had in my mind. Suppose, for example, the owner of a house is offering it to let and says: "Very well, I will let you that house, at the controlled price, provided you will buy that table for £100". I am not absolutely certain that we are covered against that already. It is the old question of conditional sale, and if the Minister can assure me that we are covered about it already I shall be quite happy to withdraw the amendment, but, as the situation is, we are not altogether certain that we are covered.
I think we are. I am advised that so far as controlled premises are concerned, we are covered. This thing would amount to a fine.
We are covered by Section 51?
Yes.
If the Minister tells me that the giving of some form of pecuniary consideration would amount to a fine, I might understand it better, but I think the Minister feels exactly the same on the subject as I do, that neither of us wish to permit fraudulent evasion of the Act.
Exactly.
If that is understood, I am willing to withdraw the amendment so that the Minister may consider it on the Report Stage.
I will do that.
This is taken from the Northern Ireland Act, of course.
Yes, I know that.
Amendment No. 74, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 75:—
Before Section 52, in page 25, to insert the following new section:—
52. Where, before the passing of this Act, any person has as a condition of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of any premises required the payment of any fine, premium or other like sum, or the giving of any pecuniary consideration in addition to the rent and where any such payment or consideration was made or given in respect of any such premises, the amount or value thereof may be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction if proceedings for such a recovery are commenced within twelve months after the passing of this Act but not otherwise.
This is a proposed link, to some extent, with an earlier amendment of mine. In this amendment, I am endeavouring to deal with payments already made in respect of this whole house. It is known that many devices are adopted by landlords to secure for themselves the use of large sums of money, where the property is a large one, in respect of which no return whatever is given to the tenants.
It has been mentioned to me that in one area of Dublin there are 1,000 houses in one property, in respect of which deposits amounting to £15 or £20 have been made. The sum involved is now between £20,000 and £25,000, and there are no dividends, interest or return of any kind. In another case, brought to my notice this afternoon, a controlled house was let, at the controlled rent of 10/- a week, but the landlord brought it up to £40 a year, a difference of 5/- a week, and explained to the tenant that the margin between the 10/- and the 15/- was a sum in respect of security which would be returned when the tenant was leaving. What is happening in this case is this: the tenant has a sum of between £15 and £25 on deposit with the landlord. These deposits have been made in the past, and therefore are not prohibited by the Bill. The Bill only deals with future payments.
It does not.
The tenant is under an agreement to have returned to him the amount of the deposit when he is leaving the house, but he does not always get it. One tenant who spoke to me on this matter explained to me that he found his house with whitewashed walls, and he decided it would be more comfortable if the walls were papered. He papered the whole house and spent a considerable sum of money. A year or two later he was leaving and when he was settling up with the landlord, the landlord deducted £10 from £15 deposit, explaining that he would have to take the paper off the walls and get them re-whitewashed.
In another case the tenant was handing up the key. There was a deposit of £20 and the landlord pointed out that the tenant had changed the door on the house. What happened in the house in question was the tenant on entering it found the front door was made of plywood and that it had shrunk. He happened to be employed in a firm of building contractors, and he got a very excellent door made for his house and had it hung. When he was leaving, the landlord pointed out that the hall-door—a very excellent door—would have to be taken away and that £15 must be deducted for the transaction. He handed back £7 10s. to the tenant.
The tenant happened to be talking to a neighbour who told him that the front door had been taken away by an official of the landlord concerned, and was actually in his possession. The tenant pursued the matter, and went to a solicitor, who demanded a refund of the £15 and got it. That is the kind of thing we are doing. It is the kind of transaction this amendment is designed to cover. I am endeavouring to secure, where a sum of money has been paid by way of deposit or fine or premium in respect to controlled prices, that that money will be recovered if proceedings are commenced within 12 months after the passing of this Act. In other words, I do not want to open the gate for some person, who remains in one of these houses for six or seven years, at the end of that period to take proceedings to recover the amount of the deposit. I want to secure that only those who take proceedings within 12 months after the passing of the Act, would secure the advantage which this amendment is designed to provide.
I am not prepared to accept this amendment. As far as controlled premises are concerned any sums paid by way of fines or premiums are recoverable. It is different in the case of deposits. If a landlord acquires a certain deposit for rent, say in a case like that mentioned, in which the Senator might think there was an improvement but which the landlord might think the reverse, the Attorney-General says that "deposit" is not in the same category as a fine or a premium. It is different. I think it is justifiable that a landlord should be able to protect his property, or to have some guarantee for the rent by way of deposit.
If a landlord wrongfully forfeits a deposit the matter goes to court. If there is any dispute it will be taken to the courts for decision. Furthermore, according to the amendment the proposal does not seem to be confined to controlled premises. It simply says "premises" and might apply to any premises.
I suggest that the Minister is wrong in his statement. The question of a deposit was not mentioned. This deals with fine or premium.
They are covered. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary.
My point is that it is illegal to pay a deposit premium or fine in respect of any letting, if this Bill becomes law. That is settled in the Bill. I am endeavouring to secure that the paying of a premium before the Bill became law entitles a person to recover it.
The position is the same at it was.
Amendment put and declared negatived.
Sections 52 and 53 agreed to.
SECTION 54.
I move amendment No. 76:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Every regulation made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.
I assume that the Minister is accepting this amendment.
I will accept it on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 54, 55, 56 and 57 agreed to.
SECTION 58.
I move amendment No. 77:—
At the end of the section, in page 27, to add a subsection as follows:—
(2) To avoid doubts it is hereby declared that where any tenant shall or shall have bona fide reconstructed any premises by way of conversion into two or more separate and self-contained flats or tenements, such reconstruction shall not as between the tenant and his immediate landlord operate to exclude the premises so reconstructed from the provisions of this Act or the provisions of the Act of 1923 and the Act of 1926.
This refers to a rather extraordinary claim put forward recently. The 1923 Act, Section 3, sub-section (5) provides that that Act shall not apply to dwelling houses that since April 2nd, 1919, have been bona fide converted into flats. The object was that if a person had spent money in creating new dwelling houses he should not be controlled in his rent by the provisions of the Act. It has been sought recently to operate that section in a very peculiar way. In one case which came under my notice, and which I am told is typical of others, the tenant of a house converted it while she remained in it into two separate flats, one of which she retained for her own use and the other of which she let. As she had to provide the money she performed a public service. But her immediate landlord, who had raised no objection to the conversion into flats came along afterwards and said: “Ah! You now come within the actual wording of the 1923 Act. This work has been done since April 2nd, 1919, converting the house into two separate self-contained flats. It is true that you did that, but the Act only deals with the fact, and according to its wording, if in fact a house has been converted into two or more separate flats it is out of the Act. You are not protected from the smart notice to quite which I am now about to serve. As landlord I will be in a position to put you out, taking the benefit of the money which you expended in creating flats.”
If Senators read the wording of the Act of 1923, literally, that house would have to come out of the protection of the Act. It is absolutely certain that to hold that it has come outside the protection of the Act is flying straight in the face of the object of the section, and the whole tenor of the Act. I seek to have it made quite clear that, as between a tenant who has spent money in creating flats and his immediate landlord, the landlord cannot take the benefit of the tenant's work because of the accidental phrasing of the 1923 Act. As hard things have been said about landlords, I may add that, in this case, the landlord is not a private person but a municipal corporation.
May I ask for information on this proposal? Surely the tenant has to get the landlord's consent before he can convert the house into separate flats?
It depends on whether there is a covenant or not.
In the absence of any covenant against it, is the tenant free to do what he likes with the premises?
That depends on whether the conversion is so extensive that the tenant would come within the doctrine of waste—that is to say, that he has destroyed the general nature of the premises.
I can understand a landlord saying that the premises had been substantially altered without his consent and that the tenant, having acted in that manner, the premises should be liable to reoccupation.
I shall have to consider this point. It is rather hard on the landlord if a tenant can alter his premises without his consent. If I were the owner of a house, I should resent that very much. Houses built after 1919 were not controlled but, under the Emergency Powers Order, flats were controlled up to a certain date and we are proposing, on Report, to extend that control to flats constructed since.
If the landlord has consented to the conversion, the position is extremely hard on the tenant.
Yes, but he may have put the house into such a condition that it is of no further use to the owner.
We should confine ourselves to the case in which conversion has been done to the knowledge of the landlord and without his objection.
Suppose there is a covenant in the agreement against conversion?
The tenant would have no rights at all in that case. I shall look into the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 58 agreed to.
SECTION 59.
Question proposed—"That Section 59 stand part of the Bill."
When were the present rules made?
I think that they were made in 1923.
They were made under the 1923 Act but I think that there was considerable delay in making them. All I wanted was to get an assurance that there would not be the same delay this time.
We shall try to arrange that.
Section 59 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 78 not moved.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I was anxious to bring a point to the Minister's attention on Section 20. I happened to be out of the House when it was being considered.
That will have to be held over for the Report Stage. When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
I should like an interval of three weeks but I think that it is safer to say a fortnight as there is danger that the Bill might run out after 90 days. It was passed by the Dáil on the 5th December.
Surely that 90-day period is not mandatory.
A Bill becomes law in 90 days after it reaches this House.
The 90-day period applies only if Dáil Eireann so resolves. That is a point of importance.
Report Stage fixed for 20th February.