Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jun 1960

Vol. 52 No. 12

Rent Restrictions (No. 2) Bill, 1960—Second Stage.

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

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

A Chathaoirleach, may I, at the outset, tell you that it is a very great pleasure for me to come to this House and to introduce here the first Bill for which I have been given responsibility in the Oireachtas?

This is a comprehensive measure which repeals and re-enacts, with various modifications, the present law on the subject of rent control. It has three main objects. Firstly, it proposes certain relaxations in the scope of control which the Government consider to be required in the public interest and which can be effected without hardship to tenants. Secondly, it provides an up-to-date and easily ascertainable basic rent for all property which is now let. Thirdly, it proposes to increase controlled rents in cases where landlords are liable for repairs with a view to providing some compensation for the increase in the cost of repairs. I propose to confine myself to these main issues though the Bill contains a large number of other amendments of the existing law. These are of relatively minor importance and are, perhaps, more appropriate for discussion on Committee Stage. They are indicated in paragraphs 12 to 20 of the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill.

I think it would be helpful if I pointed out at this stage the types of accommodation which are not affected by this Bill and are outside the scope of the Rent Acts altogether. These are all forms of accommodation provided by local authorities, all houses built since 1941 and all houses over £60 P.L.V. in Dublin or £40 elsewhere. None of these categories has ever been controlled and we are not concerned with them in this Bill.

As regards the relaxations of control which the Bill proposes, the Government, when they came to consider the matter after taking office, found themselves faced with two conflicting reports. On the one hand, the Report on Rent Control presented by the Conroy Commission in 1952 advocated not only the retention of the existing controls but also their extension to all property whether let furnished or unfurnished and whether now in existence or to be built hereafter. On the other hand, the 1957 Report of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee recommended, by a majority, the progressive repeal of the Rent Restrictions Acts over a period of ten years.

Conditions have altered materially since the Conroy Commission reported. At the time the Commission were considering the problem, conditions in this country, as in others, were affected by the Korean crisis. There was a severe housing shortage and general instability of economic conditions. Since then the shortage of housing accommodation has largely disappeared.

In the post-war period local authorities have built nearly 60,000 dwellings. In the same period private enterprise built nearly 50,000 new houses and reconstructed, repaired or improved over 50,000 existing houses with the aid of grants under the Housing Acts. In all, therefore, some 160,000 new or reconditioned dwellings have been provided with the aid of public funds, sufficient to house over a half a million people.

Apart from this radical alteration in the supply position, economic conditions have become stable and living standards have improved. It would be wrong, in these circumstances, to base rent control policy on the assumption of a long period of economic instability. Accordingly, the Government have decided that no further extensions of control can be justified in present circumstances and that the public interest requires such relaxations of control as can be effected without imposing hardship on tenants.

The actual proposals in the Bill are that control will be removed from owner-occupied houses, from houses having a valuation exceeding £30 in the Dublin area and £25 elsewhere of which the landlord gets vacant possession and from newly-constructed, self-contained flats. No subsisting tenancies will be affected and control will continue to apply to future lettings of pre-1941 houses not exceeding these valuations—unless they become owner-occupied—and to future lettings of rooms or flats, other than newly-constructed, self-contained flats, in pre-1941 houses. The most important immediate benefit to be derived from these relaxations of control is the improvement of the supply of rented accommodation in the cities, where the shortage is greatest, by converting into self-contained flats the large houses which are no longer economic for use as single dwellinghouses.

These proposals are in pursuance of the policy announced in the White Paper on Economic Expansion and it is proposed to review rent controls from time to time in the light of the housing position and having regard to the need to avoid hardship to existing tenants.

The provisions of Sections 7, 8 and 9 are intended to provide an up-to-date and easily ascertainable basic rent for all premises which are now tenanted. The present position in this respect is unsatisfactory inasmuch as the basic rent is not known unless it has been determined by the Court under the 1946 Act or unless it has been automatically determined under that Act, in the case of premises brought under control in 1944, by virtue of a letting on 7th May, 1941, or within five years before that date. There is, therefore, an element of uncertainty attaching to many of the controlled rents now being paid and there is also the practical disadvantage, from the landlord's point of view, that where the basic rent is not known he cannot increase the rent, even where the law might permit him to do so, without the agreement of the tenant. In such a case the landlord is put to the expense of having the Court determine the basic rent and if the tenant is represented at the proceedings he is put to expense also. Sometimes, indeed, the expense of having the basic rent determined is out of proportion to the increase to which the landlord is entitled and, as a result, he is compelled to forego the increase.

Section 7 provides for fixing the basic rent of any controlled dwelling which was let on 1st February, 1960, or within three years before that date. In such cases the basic rent will be the rent actually being paid on 1st February, 1960, or when the dwelling was last so let, as the case may be. Where the landlord pays the rates, the amount of the current rates will be deducted from the rent being paid to arrive at the basic rent. For example, if the rent is 15/- weekly, the landlord paying rates, and the rates amount to 5/- weekly, the basic rent will be 10/- weekly. If the rent is £1 weekly and the tenant pays the rates direct, the basic rent will be £1.

It is to be expected that virtually all tenants in occupation on 1st February, 1960, were paying rents which approximated or corresponded to the lawful rent. It would be surprising if it were otherwise in view of the existence of control for nearly forty-five years. The Bill recognises that there may be exceptional cases where the rents being paid on that date were excessively low or excessively high. For example, a house might be occupied by a relative of the landlord at a nominal rent; or the present tenant might have agreed to pay an exorbitant rent. In either case it would be inequitable not to afford the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, an opportunity to have the basic rent revised and Section 8 provides accordingly. In order to avoid unnecessary or frivolous litigation it is proposed that the Court should not disturb the basic rent unless it falls short of, or exceeds, by 12½ per cent. the rent which otherwise would be fixed by the Court. However, if a tenant's rent on 1st February, 1960, exceeded, even if only slightly, the amount of the lawful rent as previously determined by virtue of a Court Order, he may have his rent revised to the correct figure under the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 8.

Normally the criterion to be used by the Court in deciding whether a rent being paid on 1st February was more than 12½ per cent. too high or too low will be the 1941 level applicable to premises to which Chapter 2 of Part II of the Act of 1946 applied, but there are two cases in which the lower level applicable to the older controlled houses will continue to be the criterion.

These are the cases envisaged by paragraph (b) of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 8. Subsection (1) provides for the eventuality that an excessively low basic rent has been determined under Section 7 and enables the landlord to apply to the Court to have it revised. Subsection (2) deals with the converse case, that is, where the tenant applies for revision of an excessively high basic rent. Where such an application is made by a landlord of one of the older controlled dwellings, or by a tenant of such a dwelling with a valuation not exceeding £10, it is provided that the Court is to look to the rents of comparable dwellings, that is, those dwellings which have remained under control since 1915 and whose rents are related to 1914 levels, and not to the higher levels applicable to the dwellings which became controlled in 1944.

In some cases, no basic rent will be automatically fixed under Section 7 and it will be necessary for the Court to fix it. This will only be necessary for the comparatively few controlled dwellings which were not let on 1st February, 1960, or within three years before that date or about which evidence of such a letting is not forthcoming.

Section 9 provides that in these cases the criterion to be adopted by the Court in fixing the basic rent will be the basic rents of comparable premises which were controlled under Chapter 2 of Part II of the 1946 Act, that is, premises which became controlled in 1944 on the basis of the rents prevailing in 1941. This means that premises coming within the scope of Section 9 and which at present would have their basic rents determined in relation to the 1914 level will have the basic rents determined by reference to the higher 1941 level of rent.

As I have said, Section 9 will apply only to the relatively few cases where there is no letting at present or where no evidence is obtainable about such a letting. For example, it will apply to a future letting of a room or flat, other than a newly-constructed flat, in a house which is owner-occupied at present. And the 1941 level of rents, though higher than the level of rents applicable to the older controlled houses, is not excessive.

The provision of a new basic rent for all dwellings now tenanted will introduce a desirable element of certainty into the rent restrictions code and will reduce considerably the necessity for incurring legal expenses in having basic rents determined by the Courts.

The third main object of the Bill is to allow an increase in controlled rents to landlords who are liable for the whole or part of the repairs. The present levels of controlled rents are well below economic levels and, in the case of the dwellings which have remained under control since 1915, there has been no general increase since 1926, when landlords who were liable for all repairs were receiving an increase of 30 per cent. on the net 1914 rents and landlords who were only liable for part of the repairs an increase of 25 per cent. As regards the property brought under control in 1944, that is, mainly houses built between 1919 and 1941, the rent is restricted to the 1941 level.

In relation to both classes of controlled property, rates have increased considerably in the meantime and the landlord, where he pays the rates, may pass on the increases to the tenant though the landlord does not personally benefit by such an increase. Landlords who have incurred expenditure on structural alterations or improvements, or on repairs caused by acts of waste by the tenant or, since 1945, on putting the premises into reasonable repair have availed themselves of the provisions of the present Acts enabling them to increase the rent further by adding to the rent a percentage of the excess of their expenditure over two-thirds of the basic rent.

The Conroy Commission, which reported in 1952, expressed themselves as being satisfied that in 1950 repair costs were five times 1914 costs and double 1941 costs. The Commission quoted examples which showed, they said, that landlords who were liable for repairs and who had made any reasonable effort to fulfil their obligations had suffered a serious reduction in their net income and were entitled in justice an increased rent. The Commission stated that it was in the public interest that house property should be kept in a reasonable state of repair and that landlords who were liable for repairs should be compensated for the enormously increased costs that that responsibility entailed.

The Commission recommended that controlled rents, less rates, where the landlord paid them, should be increased by 25 per cent. where the landlord was liable for all repairs and by 12½ per cent. where the landlord was liable for part of the repairs. The Commission proposed that the increase should not be allowed on any portion of the rent which was attributable to an addition under the Rent Acts for expenditure on exceptional repairs. The Commission stated that these increases would not quite restore the return a landlord had got in 1914 from the older class of controlled property and that, as regards the property which became controlled, or recontrolled, in 1941, they would give the landlord somewhat more than the 1941 return.

In the interests of uniformity, the Commission suggested that the increase should be the same for both classes of controlled premises. They rejected specifically any increase in the net income of landlords beyond that necessary to compensate them for the greatly increased repair costs. The Commission said that it might be necessary to allow a higher percentage increase having regard to any further increases in repair costs since 1950. In fact, while no official index of repair costs is available, an index of general building costs, covering materials and wages, indicates an increase of 40 per cent. between 1950 and 1959.

In these circumstances, the Government considered that an increase in controlled rents is necessary in the public interest and after careful consideration they decided that the increase should be 12½ per cent. of the basic rent where the landlord is liable for the whole or part of the repairs. The basic rent is, of course, normally the rent being paid on 1st February, 1960, less rates where the landlord pays them.

In accordance with the recommendation of the Conroy Commission, it is proposed that the increase should not be allowed on any portion of the rent which is attributable to an addition under the present Acts for expenditure on putting the premises into a reasonable state of repair. It is also proposed that the increase will not apply at all where a landlord who put premises into a reasonable state of repair did not avail himself of the grants available under the Housing Acts.

The increases in rent secured by such landlords are considerably greater than in the case of a landlord who did avail himself of the grants and whose percentage increase was calculated only on the portion of the expenditure he contributed himself, usually one-third of the total. In the Government's view, landlords who have secured such large increases are adequately catered for under the existing Acts and a further increase of rent would not be justified in their case.

These, then, are the main proposals. In general, they are an endeavour to reconcile two major conflicting ideas which dominate the entire background to this Bill. On the one hand, we have the principles of sound national economics which require us to do everything possible to preserve a valuable national asset in the form of the existing stock of houses. On the other, we have the obligation which most Governments accept to-day—to ensure social justice and to protect the weaker sections of the community. The Bill represents a fair compromise between these two demands.

Accordingly, while the proposed relaxations in the scope of control will make for the best use of the houses available and for an improvement in the supply of rented accommodation in the cities, they will not affect any sitting tenant. And the increase in rents, though not such as to entail hardship, will help to maintain rented houses in good repair, especially when taken in conjunction with the provisions allowing a generous return on expenditure on exceptional repairs.

So far as the remaining proposals for changes in the law are concerned, most of them are in accordance with the recommendations of the Conroy Commission and are designed to remove defects or anomalies which experience of the working of the Acts has revealed. Many of them are of a technical character. As I have said, I think they would be more appropriately discussed on Committee Stage but if any Senator wishes to have any particular one of them clarified I shall endeavour to do so when replying.

I should not like to conclude without expressing appreciation of the Conroy Commission's work not only on the rent restrictions problem but also on reversionary leases. In 1958 the Oireachtas passed a Bill to implement the recommendations in the Commission's Report on Reversionary Leases. In the case of their Report on Rent Control, it has not been possible, owing to the altered circumstances since the Report was prepared, to accept the Commission's proposals for an extension of the scope of control but the majority of their recommendations have been incorporated in the Bill. On behalf of the Minister for Justice and his predecessors and on my own behalf, I wish to thank the Chairman and the members of the Commission for having discharged a particularly burdensome task and for having produced two comprehensive and lucid reports on a difficult branch of the law.

Mr. O'Quigley

First of all, I should like to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to this House, and I am sure I speak for everyone in congratulating him on his appointment and wishing him well in his office. Much work, I imagine, lies ahead of the Parliamentary Secretary in the matter of law reform. I trust that in his new position he will give an impetus to that work. I should like also to express the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will find the members of this House particularly cooperative—even from this side—on a measure of this kind, which is so very difficult. I trust my hopes will be realised and that the Parliamentary Secretary will get the utmost cooperation in dealing with this very intricate and complicated Bill.

I am glad the Government have followed the precedent which has been established by the introduction, in this House, of the Broadcasting Authority Bill, by bringing in this Rent Restrictions Bill here. That is a matter we were all interested in, in this House, for some time past. I think the precedent was first established by the inter-Party Government by introducing here the Courts of Justice Act and the Criminal Justice Act. I trust this is not the last of these measures which will be introduced in this House.

The Parliamentary Secretary has very wisely, I think, confined himself to the main principles which this Bill establishes because, as he says, it lends itself more to argument, debate and examination on Committee Stage. I must confess I was somewhat taken aback by the Parliamentary Secretary's declaration that it is proposed to review the rent control at some time in the future in the light of housing needs. I felt that, once the 1946 Act was being repealed, house owners, landlords and tenants, could regard the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, as a piece of permanent legislation embodying for some time to come, for an indefinite period, the principles of rent control.

The Parliamentary Secretary will create anxiety and fears in the minds of many tenants of houses that, at some stage in the future, they may find themselves left to the tender mercies of their landlords and of the results of the operation of the inequitable law of supply and demand. Whatever about the economics of the law of supply and demand, when it comes to providing people with necessary housing, in my view, it ought not be permitted to operate and people ought not to be exploited because of their necessity and need for living accommodation. A fair and just rent should be payable by them and not more than that should be available to any landlord.

I should think that the history of this country, particularly in the latter part of the 19th century, would almost make it inevitable that in dealing with landlord and tenant relations, the Oireachtas, bearing in mind that the memories of what went on in that period are fresh in the minds of the Irish people, would clearly come down on the side of the tenants. It seems to me that there could never be a position in this country, having regard to our history and what we know the people in the past suffered at the hands of the landlords—though the landlords of the present time are largely different from those of former days—in which we could get away from the principle of rent control in some shape or form.

I do not think the 1946 Act was necessarily the best way in which to implement rent control, nor do I think the present measure, which largely follows the principles dealt with in the 1946 Act, is the best measure that could be devised in order to deal with rent restrictions. The main thing we must consider in relation to this Bill is that there are families who require dwelling houses, and who are in occupation of dwelling houses already, who must be protected in their possession and that possession must not cost them more than what is fair and reasonable.

The 1946 Act, to a large extent, has been a lawyer's paradise, and so far as I can see, this Bill is something better than a lawyer's paradise. So far from clarifying the position, this Bill creates so many exceptions and so many conditions that it will be extremely difficult for anyone to know with certainty what the law relating to rent restrictions is under the 1960 Act, as it will be called. As an instance of the difficulties which arose under the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, we have seen on occasions cases starting in a district court, going through to the circuit court, by way of certiorari to the High Court, and from the High Court to the Supreme Court.

On one occasion, the Supreme Court, having sat—with three judges out of five, the other two not being available—upon a principle of a point of legislation for three or four days, decided the matter was so involved and intricate that they would have to have a further hearing with a full court of five. That is the kind of thing we have in this measure. We have afterwards to deal with the inequities of the situation where some individual in the community as a result of the ineptness of the legislators—and that includes all of us—in drafting laws and in enacting legislation has to pay for that ineptitude of the legislation in the form of the costs of the whole thing from the district court to, perhaps, the Supreme Court.

However, I shall come to that again. A general criticism of this Bill is that it certainly will not make for any certainty as to what the law is. I must confess that I was very disappointed to find that there were long sections—particularly Section 8 and, I think, Section 10, subsection (3)— where the law is stated in a confused and confusing manner. I must say I am very disappointed that after the very fine report of the Conroy Commission to which the Parliamentary Secretary has paid tribute, and I join with him in that tribute, not only for the comprehensiveness of their study of the whole subject of rent restrictions but also for the speed with which they presented their report, we have a measure which, in general may be said to be a duplicate, with minor alterations, of the 1946 Act which has been criticised time and again by judges in the courts because of its vagueness and complexity.

Perhaps I should exculpate the Parliamentary Secretary from that criticism because the original Bill was already drafted and introduced in the Dáil before he was appointed. My comments, therefore, are not in any way intended to reflect on the Parliamentary Secretary who is dealing with this as his first Bill.

Another criticism I want to make in a general way is this. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary would give some explanation as to why the Government have decided, as indeed they are perfectly free to do, not to make premises built after 1941 subject to rent control. I do not believe that all this business of decontrol that is contained in this Bill in such a complicated fashion will increase substantially if at all the number of dwellings that will be available for letting throughout the country. On the contrary, I think the position will be that, once a landlord gets possession of a premises which has been subject to control and which is decontrolled, so far from letting it, even at a higher rent, he will immediately sell it.

Indeed, if one wants some evidence of that in the Bill, one finds in the latter sections that a landlord because of financial stringency may apply to the Court for an Order to recover possession of his property to sell it. Landlords of a particular kind do suffer from financial stringency. Many of them prefer to have money in their banks rather than to have it in houses which may, if the Parliamentary Secretary is right, be subject to review at some future stage and may again be recontrolled.

The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that the Government intend to review the operation of this Act in the future. It may well be that what I suggest may happen will happen, that is, that as premises become vacant and decontrolled landlords will sell them and that, in that way, the number of houses which will be available for letting will, so far from increasing, diminish. It seems to me, in regard to post-1941 houses, houses built after 1941 and which have never been subject to rent restriction or rent control, that it would be far preferable if a principle were introduced in this Bill regulating in some way the rent to be charged for these houses.

I understand from what I am told by some people that landlords have no objection to rent control but object to a particular form of rent control— the form to which they have been subjected in the 1946 Act and the Emergency Powers Order that preceded it and the other Acts from 1923 that preceded all of these. It seems to me that people would be less slow to rent post-1941 houses, as I shall refer to them, houses built post-1941, if it were provided in this Bill that a tenant aggrieved by the rent he had been charged for such houses could come into Court and say: "This is not a fair rent. I ask the Court to fix a rent which is fair and reasonable." I do not think landlords or owners of houses would have anything to fear from that. It would probably increase the supply of houses for letting on the market because the owners of that type of house would have a fair certainty that the Legislature had provided a form of rent control or rent regulation for these houses in the future. The basis of that regulation would be a rent that is fair and reasonable.

It may occur to some people to say: "How is a Court to determine what is fair and reasonable?" I do not think there is much difficulty in doing that. Courts every day are deciding what is fair and reasonable compensation, for example, for a man who has been injured, for a man who has suffered by reason of a breach of contract and so on. Courts are quite competent, on evidence, to do that. If a particular Court, for instance, does not do that satisfactorily there is always the right of appeal.

I think house-owners would be more disposed to let post-1941 houses if such a principle were established in this Bill and it would at the same time be fair to tenants. I have in mind a particular kind of situation which obtains in rural Ireland. In smallish towns of from two hundred to a thousand persons you will find that the number of houses available for letting is extremely limited. Some person who is in the bank or is working on the Railways or is a Post Office official or is attached to the Electricity Supply Board is transferred from one town to another. There is only one house there that he can get. Generally, you will not find many vacant houses available for letting in our small towns.

In the case of houses built after 1941 such a person, who will never be a person of great means, will find himself with no option but to take the house at the rent which the landlord nominates. In that kind of case and in fairness to that kind of person, he should be entitled to go into Court and ask the Court to fix a rent for him which is fair and reasonable—a fair rent. We all know how you can arrive at a fair rent. I greatly regret there is no indication in this Bill of any protection of any kind whatever for people who will find themselves in that kind of position. I am rather inclined to think that the absence of such a provision will inhibit the owners of such houses from letting them.

I should mention, since the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the Conroy Commission, that the Conroy Commission, in fact, for reasons different, I think, from those I have given, recommended the regulation or the control of houses built after 1941 and to be built in the future. The position of reports of Commissions is, as I have said previously in this House, extraordinary. If the Government decide to accept the recommendations of the Commission then the Commission's Report immediately becomes the Bill and, in regard to anything anybody may say, we are told: "That is what the Commission have to say." On the other hand, if the Government do not accept the recommendations of the Commission they say: "The Government are entirely free to do what they like and to accept or reject the report of Commissions." In this case, the Parliamentary Secretary indicates that the Government accept some aspects of the Commission's report but he does not give any reason why another aspect of the Commission's report has not been accepted or, at any rate, any lengthy reason.

I have in mind the position which obtains in relation to furnished flats. There is quite a considerable number of furnished flats in the country. In the 1946 Census, the Conroy Commission found that there were something over four thousand in Dublin. The number has greatly increased over the fourteen years which have elapsed since that Census was taken. If ever there was a case of exploitation of the needs of young unmarried people it is the renting of furnished flats in and around the city.

The furnished flat has become a necessity for most young girls who come up from the country to work in Dublin. Everybody knows that landladies in Dublin do not welcome particularly young girls as boarders, for the reason that they are always looking for hot water to wash this, that and the other, and they want to do ironing and drying, and consequently a lot of young girls coming up from the country find themselves after talking to their companions, eventually going into furnished flats. It is with that kind of person, for whom a flat is a necessity, that I am concerned.

Everybody knows that young girls who come up to work in various firms in Dublin are not experienced negotiators with hard-faced landlords and people of that class. They have to take the best they can get, and the best they can get is often determined by the bus fare, and they must take it at whatever rent it is offered. I am quite satisfied that there is shocking exploitation of the needs and the inexperience of that class of person in and around this city, and I am sure it applies elsewhere.

There would be no difficulty whatever in providing a ready means of controlling the rents of furnished flats, and it would probably have the effect of improving the type of furniture that is often found in furnished flats. Some of the landlords come from what one would regard as the respectable classes, and they would not like to go into a court and have the furniture valued by a valuer for £5 and £7, all it would be worth.

I think that as a social duty on the part of the Legislature, furnished flats and dwellings should be subject to some form of rent control along the lines recommended by the Conroy Commission.

It is very much an open question as to whether the amount of decontrol contained in this Bill is prudent and will be beneficial. I have not heard any good reasons why there should be decontrol of premises which have hitherto been controlled once the landlord gets possession of them. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might expand upon the reasons which motivated the Government in deciding on that measure of decontrol, apart from the general statement by the Parliamentary Secretary that it is hoped by this measure to increase the number of dwellings available for letting.

An outstanding feature of this Bill, tucked away as clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 10, is the increase of 12½ per cent. which, I understand, will apply immediately to all tenants in controlled premises where the landlord is liable for repairs in full or part. Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary, I got the impression that this 12½ per cent. was in some way related to the financial circumstances of landlords and to the increase in the cost of living and its affect on landlords. I may have gathered a wrong impression, but it certainly seems to me to be nothing more than a 12½ per cent. bonus to all landlords payable by all the sitting tenants. I do not know how the Parliamentary Secretary can justify that increase on sitting tenants. As far as my Party are concerned, they are absolutely opposed to this uncovenanted increase in the rent of sitting tenants.

People who are in occupation of controlled premises at the present time have never agreed to pay this 12½ per cent., and their particular family circumstances have been developed around a belief that a particular rent which they were paying, subject to an increase in rates, would continue to be the rent in the future. I cannot see how the Government can justify on top of the other increases which are provided in the sub-section—increases for improvements or structural alterations, in respect of money spent on repairs due to waste and neglect of the tenants, and increases in respect of money expended to put the premises into a reasonable state of repair—this 12½ per cent. bonus to landlords.

The subsection says that the increase where the landlord is liable for the whole or part of the repairs shall be a sum equal to 12½ per cent. of the basic rent, so that if the landlord is obliged to repair only the front door, which would not require to be repaired for 30 years, he is entitled to 12½ per cent. There is no definition of what is meant by "liable in part."

I do not know, in the light of the Government's representations that they wish to keep down the cost of living, how they can justify the introduction at this stage of a 12½ per cent. increase on the rent of all tenants of controlled premises, nor have I heard the Parliamentary Secretary indicate that, since this will apply to all tenants—old age pensioners, widows, blind pensioners, and such people—the Government propose in any social welfare legislation in future to offset these increases by increases in old age pensions, widows' pensions, blind pensions and the like. This is a new principle that is being established, that the Government can increase the cost of living upon these poorer sections of the community without making any compensation, even the slightest, for the effect which that will have upon the old age pensioner and such people.

The kind of cottage which an old age pensioner is living in may be let at a basic rent of only 5/- a week, and the increase will be probably 7d. or 8d., but 7d. or 8d. to a person out of something around 20/-, 22/- or 23/- is quite an amount of money when people have not got enough money already. I cannot see how the Government can justify for the benefit of landlords, some of whom have bought property with their eyes wide open and knowing that it was rent controlled and occupied by tenants, the giving of this bonus of 12½ per cent.

There might be something to be said for a 12½ per cent. increase for tenants other than the present sitting tenants because people would then be taking a dwelling at the rate for which they were covenanting and were agreeable to pay. Perhaps as a result of the discussion in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary may agree to that, but certainly as far as I am concerned I certainly do not agree that this 12½ per cent. increase could in any way be applied to existing tenants.

There is another aspect of these increases to which I should like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary at this stage. We are here providing for a percentage increase to be paid to the landlord in respect of various sums of money spent by him in various kinds of works. It is eight per cent. in respect of improvements or structural alterations. I want to put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary: to my knowledge, the structural alterations which have been carried out by landlords from time to time under the old Act also entitled them to a certain percentage increase in respect of the capital sum expended, but in quite a number of cases the improvements or structural alterations carried out were either overelaborate or not necessary. A landlord, however, can well decide that 8 per cent. of his money invested in that way is a good investment from his point of view, but it is not at all necessary either for the preservation of the premises or for the comfort of the tenant that these alterations and improvements of the character effected should be carried out. Of course from the point of view of the landlord, it is good business because he is assured of 8 per cent. of that money in futuro.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether these provisions in sub-section (2) of Section 10 should not be amended in such a way as to provide that where improvements or repairs have to be carried out because of the waste or damage done by the tenants or his family, and where the landlord spends money in putting the premises into a reasonable state of repair, there should be some provision limiting the landlord to carrying out such repairs, improvements or alterations as are necessary.

If a man chooses to spend £250 on the repair and structural alteration of controlled premises, but could have done a job which would have been quite satisfactory for the premises and the comfort of the tenant for £150, and the court is of the opinion that £150 would have been sufficient, then the landlord should not be allowed 8 per cent. on the £250 but 8 per cent. by way of an addition on £150.

There is another point which arises in this connection and which, in my view, has given rise to considerable abuse on the part of landlords. The Parliamentary Secretary's heart may bleed for landlords whose rents have been stabilised but landlords have many ways and means and a lot of money for breaking through the Rent Restrictions Act of 1946. I should like to see a provision whereby the tenant who has an interest in the expenditure of this money would be protected in these cases of expenditure of very substantial capital sums. You have this kind of situation. A landlord could get a job done say for £90, quite satisfactorily by contractor A, but contractor A is not a friend of the landlord's and contractor B is. He gives the contract to contractor B for £120 and as far as the tenant is concerned, he has to pay eight per cent. on £120, whereas if things were done fairly, he would have to pay only eight per cent. on the lower sum. I think if we are to have rent control by as adequate a measure as this, we might as well go the whole hog, particularly in the interests of the tenants.

There is another situation also which gives rise to considerable abuse. A landlord may be a contractor and by reason of being a contractor, able to get materials at wholesale prices or at a discount. The actual cost to the landlord may be, say, 20 per cent. less than the sum which he presents to the tenant, as being the amount spent by him and the tenant finds himself paying eight per cent., or whatever the appropriate percentage was in the 1946 Act, on money which in fact the landlord never expended. That may be a problem which it would be extremely difficult to solve but I do think that in circumstances of that kind, and because of the fact that these devices are resorted to—perfectly legally, if you like—by landlords should make the Government pause and consider the imposition of 12½ per cent. of the basic rent upon sitting tenants where the landlord is liable for repairs in whole or in part.

In fact the landlord can also avail himself of other provisions in Section 10 to carry out extraordinary repairs and there is nothing in this Act to compel him to expend 12½ per cent. or any part of it in carrying out the repairs for which he may be liable in whole or in part. In the circumstances and seeing the manner in which the landlords can make a tidy profit for themselves under other subsections, there is less justification upon examination of the increase of 12½ per cent.

I should like to refer particularly to Part III which provides for the fixing of rents by district justices in the case of some dwellings with a valuation, of £10 or less in the city of Dublin and other county boroughs. There was a corresponding Part in the 1946 Act and the explanatory memorandum indicates some minor amendments to Part III. I am informed that Part III of the 1946 Act worked quite satisfactorily in the city of Dublin and I have heard tributes paid to the various district justices who had the difficult task of dealing with that Part of the 1946 Act.

There is only one thing in the 1946 Act, as far as I can see, which is changed in the Bill and it is that whereas previously the district justice made a provisional order and then the landlord came and appealed against it, now the district justice informs the landlord—if I am interpreting the section correctly—in advance that he proposes making a provisional order and that he may furnish him with such information as may assist the district justice in making such a provisional order. Once the provisional order is made, the provisions of the 1946 Act continued in the Bill come into operation: the landlord can if he wishes appeal against the provisional order of the district justice and the appeal may be heard in open court by the district justice.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to indicate the advantages in providing that the district justice may make a provisional order. Perhaps he has figures which will justify the retention of that provision that the district justice might in the first place make the provisional order which will be served on the landlord. If it so happens that the vast majority of provisional orders were not appealed against by landlords under the 1946 Act, that might be a fair reason for continuing the same system in this Bill.

The aspect of Part III however, which does not appeal to me is the provision that the district justice who makes the provisional order is one and the same person as the district justice who hears the appeal from that order. I think that is placing the district justice in a rather difficult position. He makes a provisional order—granted upon certain data before him. Then there is an appeal and he himself has to decide to reverse himself or reaffirm himself. That does not accord with my sense of the proper way to administer justice as between man and man in the State. I think it would be far better if it were provided, perhaps administratively, that the appeal would be taken by another district justice. It does not seem right or proper to me that a district justice should be called upon to reverse himself or change his mind even on the basis of new information and further evidence.

I do notice, however, that in a selection of 50 cases given in Appendix 9 to the Conroy Commission Report— cases under Part III of the 1946 Act which corresponds with Part III of the Bill and which, I take it, are a random sample of the kind of determinations made—on only two occasions did the district justice reaffirm himself and not vary the previous order. It certainly suggests a great sense of integrity among district justices that in 96 per cent. of the cases they were quite prepared to say: "Well, my previous order on the basis of the evidence before me was not correct or fair to the landlord or to the tenant and I decide that this should be the basic rent." I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this matter which seems to place a district justice in a very difficult position: judge, in the first instance, and judge of appeal in the same case.

I notice that subsection (4) of Section 23 is a repetition of the corresponding section in the 1946 Act and I want to draw the attention of the House particularly to this subsection which provides:

If, on an appeal by the landlord to the Circuit Court against an order made by the District Court under this section, the Circuit Court certifies that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is proper that the whole or a specified part of the amount for which the tenant is liable in respect of the costs of the appeal (including the tenant's own costs and the costs (if any) which, under the order of the Court, the tenant is liable to pay to the landlord) shall be defrayed out of State funds, the Minister shall defray out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas the amount of the costs in respect of which it has been so certified.

That to me is a very wholesome provision and I now relate it to remarks I made earlier in relation to cases stated. This section is, I think, one of the very few instances where the poor people in this country are able to come into court without fear of their furniture being seized by the sheriff in the event of their failing and costs being given against them. I think—and I hope to express a similar view on the Courts of Justice Bill—that justice is as much the right of every citizen as fresh air and I do not believe in the present system whereby poor people are debarred from justice because they have no money.

I should be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could give some rough indication of how much money was paid out of State funds under the corresponding provision of the 1946 Act. I think probably the vast majority of the legal profession never benefited from this section, partly, I think, because some people may never have been aware of it.

I want to turn to the position of the person who has a valuation of £11 per annum or perhaps one of these people covered by Part III of the Bill who goes into the circuit court on appeal and the circuit court judge says: "The law on this matter is not clear. I have to state a case to the High Court." The circuit court judge is unable to determine what should apply as between landlord and tenant or perhaps the members of the tenant's family on the occasion of the devolution of a statutory tenancy. The law is not clear only by reason of the fact that the Legislature has not made it clear. I think it is quite wrong that some individual in the State should fortuitously have to bear the whole cost of having the law settled for all citizens in the future. It is quite wrong, quite indefensible.

I should like to see it established that every citizen is entitled to justice and that no citizen should bear the total cost of establishing the law for the community at large.

I should be glad to see some section establishing that principle incorporated somewhere in this Bill. It is not a section which, if I drafted it, would appear on the Order Paper because it would be ruled out of order. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider in relation to this particularly complicated and complex piece of legislation whether an extension of the principle which is recognised in sub-section (4) of Section 23 should not be incorporated along the lines I suggest.

There is only one other matter to which I want to draw the attention of the House and particularly the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, that is, in relation to the devolution of non-statutory tenancies on the death intestate of the statutory tenant. That is dealt with in Section 21. The position at the present time is—and it is continued under this Bill with minor modifications—that, where a statutory tenant dies intestate, then the member of his family living with him is entitled to possession of the controlled premises. A different situation has arisen in relation to control of premises where the tenant who died was not the statutory tenant or, in other words, where the tenant of the controlled premises was a contractual tenant and subsection (3) of Section 31 is intended to deal with the anomolous position which arose under the 1946 Act.

The position developed that where a person who was a contractual tenant died intestate and the landlord served a notice to quit on any one of his next-of-kin in occupation and before administration was taken out, the tenancy ceased and did not pass to the personal representatives or any of the next-of-kin. It seems to me that the provision which is being made in subsection (3) to get over that difficulty and to put the contractual tenant in the same position as the statutory tenant upon the death intestate does not succeed completely.

I think that in a case where the non-statutory tenant dies intestate and there are certain members of his family living in the premises at the time he dies and the notice to quit is not served until after representation to the deceased non-statutory tenant has been raised, the interests of the non-statutory tenant vests in the personal representative and having vested in the personal representative, the notice to quit is valid to terminate the contractual tenancy and that, therefore, the administrator, if he happens not to be in possession, as can oftentimes happen, the tenancy vested in him is gone. It has never vested in the next-of-kin of the non-statutory tenant. That is as clear as a complicated situation can be made standing here on my feet. I believe that to be the position.

Perhaps, if the Parliamentary Secretary would have a look at the particular position which would arise where a notice to quit is not served until the tenancy is terminated after a grant has been raised to the deceased non-statutory tenant, he might find that the interest of the non-statutory tenant is absolutely determined as far as the people in possession are concerned and also as far as the personal representative of the non-statutory tenant is concerned.

However, that is a point which, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary would hardly be able to deal with now although I do not wish in any way to delimit his capacity for dealing with matters of this kind in his reply. It might save unnecessary amendments if he were able to indicate that my interpretation of the position under sub-section (3) is not right.

Subject to these observations, I do not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I think there are certain sections, particularly Section 10, to which I referred, about which we shall have some further views and some amendments. In the light of the observations I have made, I hope it will not be necessary to oppose these sections on Committee Stage.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Mr. Murphy

I, too, should like to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Seanad, even though I certainly cannot welcome the Bill he brings to us. As he said, this is a complicated measure and I think that was driven home to us by the speech we heard from Senator O'Quigley. However, I shall not go into the complexities. I intend to deal only with the two main principles embodied in the Bill.

The first principle, as I understand it, is that rent control is being removed from houses with a valuation of from £30 to £60 in Dublin, and from £25 to £40 elsewhere, when vacant position is secured of such houses. The second main principle is that for those houses which will be still subject to rent control and where the landlord is responsible for repairs, a rent increase of 2/6d. in the £ is being allowed under this measure. I want to point to the fact that there is no provision that repairs should, in fact, be carried out by the landlord. This increase is not related to any repairs there might be; it is simply an increase of 2/6d. in the £, generally speaking, where the landlord is responsible for repairs. That 2/6d. in the £ increase is not on the basic rent of the house, but on what I would call the consolidated rent.

The explanatory memorandum, which is very helpful, refers to the Conroy Commission. That Commission was appointed by the Government of the time to deal specially with the questions of rent and rent controls. The first two items of their terms of reference were:

1. to inquire into the working of the Rent Restrictions Acts, 1946 and 1949, and to report whether, in the opinion of the Commission, those Acts should be continued in force, and, if so, whether they should be extended or restricted in their application or amended in any way;

2. to investigate and report whether it is necessary or desirable to control the rents of furnished dwellings and, if so, what legislative provision should be made for that purpose.

That commission sat, I think, for nearly two years. It was appointed specifically to deal with rent control— whether it needed to be removed, amended or extended. Eventually, after sitting for two years, after hearing all interested parties, they came forward with, generally speaking, a recommendation that in fact rent control should be extended.

I think there were some qualifications by two members to the general recommendations but it is fair to say that the commission, after sitting for two years, after hearing all interested parties, unanimously found not that rent control should be removed, but in fact that it should be extended. The main recommendations of the commission are summarised for us in the White Paper.

The main recommendations of the report were (a) the present control should be retained on dwellings and control should be extended so as to apply to all dwellings whether let furnished or unfurnished and whether now in existence or built hereafter and (b) in order to meet the increase in the cost of repairs landlords of existing controlled premises who are responsible for all repairs would be entitled to increase the present net rents by 25 per cent., the increase to be 12½ per cent. where the landlord is responsible for only part repairs.

The Government have apparently rejected the recommendation that control should be extended but partially accept and are implementing in this Bill the recommendation that there should be an increase in rents. As I see it, the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech today are falling back on the second report of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee. That committee was set up to hear evidence about rent control. I do not think it heard any evidence or any views on that. It was a specialist committee dealing with capital and capital investment, but in their second report they concentrated on housing. A majority favoured the gradual removal of rent control. The arguments they use in favour of that general recommendation were effectively answered in a minority report signed, I think, by General Costello and Rory Roberts.

In looking through that, I am struck by what I find on pages 18 and 19. I shall quote one paragraph on page 18 of the minority report. It says:

The majority state that their outline of a housing policy is consistent with reasonable social requirements although it would involve a reduction in house building. This involves an assessment of reasonable social requirements but the committee has made no investigation of them.

Note the words "it would involve a reduction in house building." On the opposite page, we are shown, for the countries of western Europe, the number of persons per dwelling and the number of persons per room. It is made easy for us by an index in the third column. It shows that, with the exception of western Germany and Finland—the year was 1956—the number of persons per room in Ireland was higher than in the other countries in western Europe. The index for Ireland was 111. The index for the United Kingdom, a neighbour of ours, was 86. For Switzerland the index was 82. Then come the two higher countries. The index for Western Germany was 124 and for Finland was 171.

Professor Stanford

For clarification, what is the proportion? To what do the figures relate? I do not think I follow the statistics.

Mr. Murphy

It shows the number of persons per dwelling and the number of persons per room. Then it shows the index.

Professor Stanford

May I ask what is the index?

Mr. Murphy

It is based on 100.

Mr. Donegan

To what is the 100 related?

Professor Stanford

I do not think the House quite sees the basis for figures such as 171.

Mr. Donegan

Does 100 relate to one person per room?

Mr. Murphy

The information is calculated from an earlier table in relation to these various countries. It shows dwelling houses per thousand inhabitants, rooms per dwelling, dwellings completed in 1956 per thousand inhabitants. From that is collected this table and the index. The point in this is that it is stated that the objective of housing policy in Ireland was to have a density of occupation of .9 persons per room, and the construction of 10,000 houses a year for 10 years was necessary to bring it up to that standard. That was the report of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee, the majority report. I have referred to the answer made by the minority who disagree completely with the conclusions arrived at by this majority.

The point I want to make is that here we have two documents before us: a report on rent control by a commission specifically charged with the task of examining the position here, which, having heard evidence and having considered the matter, after two years, brought forward, generally speaking, a unanimous report in favour of the extension of rent control and the report of a body not appointed specifically to deal with housing or rent control, with a majority recommendation in favour of a gradual complete withdrawal of rent control. The recommendation of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee was that rent control should be withdrawn gradually over a period of five years until houses reached what they term the market value.

That is again referred to as a point of policy in the Government's White Paper issued some 18 months ago. We are entitled to draw the conclusion that this Bill is simply an instalment in the Government's policy of withdrawing completely any rent restrictions in this territory. That causes me and the Labour Party to question the Government and to ask if they are satisfied that there is now a sufficiency of housing so that the complete withdrawal over a period of a few years of rent control will not give rise to any hardship, and that a sufficiency being available, the market will be such that people can rent houses at a reasonable rent.

Again we ask, because of this recommendation of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee, if the Government are satisfied that there should be a reduction in house-building. That was one of the strong arguments in this document, the second report of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee, that with the removal of rent control, there would be a reduction in house-building and our capital could be utilised better invested in other parts of the economy. We all know that there is not very much employment in the building industry at the moment. Are the Government satisfied that this partial withdrawal of rent control and the eventual complete withdrawal will not lead to more unemployment in the building industry? Will these building workers be able to secure alternative employment, or must they follow their colleagues across to England?

The White Paper does not, as far as I can see, give us any idea as to the number of houses that will be affected by the proposals to withdraw rent control in this Bill. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some estimate of the numbers that will now be free from control by reason of the proposals in the Bill and the number that will still be subject to rent control. It may very well be that the number released from rent control by this measure will not be very great.

The point I want to make is that this is simply a first measure of the Government's policy of withdrawing completely rent control. That is made plain by the statement of policy in the Government's White Paper and was also made plain by the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech introducing the Second Reading here this afternoon. He made it plain that this was not the final word in regard to rent control, and quite plainly what is envisaged is the implementing of the recommendations of this Capital Investment Advisory Committee and a gradual withdrawal of rent control altogether. It is, so, the thin edge of the wedge. It will eventually result in greatly increased rents for the working classes who are not housed by local authorities.

I want to remind the Seanad that the houses which are being freed from rent control and which, to my mind, will have to bear increased rents later under this Bill are all old houses, without the facilities that are expected and taken for granted now in modern houses. They are houses that do provide a service to the people who have them rented, people who cannot afford to purchase houses and also people who, by reason of their occupation, have to transfer from one town to another and are dependent on whatever rented houses are available. There are many people working in various concerns, and I know people on the railways, who because of their employment have to transfer from one town to another and are dependent on whatever rented accommodation is available. They obviously cannot purchase a house in one town and attempt to sell it again in 12 months or two or three years' time, and attempt to purchase another house in the next town to which they are transferred. They are dependent on rented houses.

As I see it, these houses that will be freed from rent control will, if they are subsequently let, be let at a much higher rent than is at present being paid. That is obvious to all. That is the purpose of the withdrawal of rent control. They are old houses which in many cases have repaid the landlord over and over again by reason of the rents collected over 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. Those rents have in many cases repaid the capital costs, because those houses were built for what to us now appears as a very small amount. That is referred to in the report of the Conroy Commission when the comparison is made as between the cost of building pre-war, between the wars, and subsequent to the last war.

We know ourselves that to build the same type of house which previously cost £300 or £400 would possibly cost £2,000 now, but as I say, these houses have in many cases given ample compensation to the landlord for the original capital invested in the rent which has been paid over the years. Now these houses, under this Bill, and under subsequent Bills, will be removed from rent control with the object of charging and getting increased rents, where they are rented at all.

Another aspect which I notice is that even houses which are still being controlled in relation to the rents will come out of rent control if they are subsequently occupied by the owner. That is my reading of the memorandum. In regard to houses under £30 valuation, if the owner can secure possession of that house later on and occupy it for even a short time, then immediately he succeeds in occupying it, he can let it without any rent control at all. That is my reading of it and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me that I am wrong. I do not see the justification for that at all.

The temptation is there for the landlord to try to get possession of the house which is still under rent control, to get the tenant out, to go in himself for a week or two, or for a month, so that immediately he does so it will be free from rent control. I do not see the sense of that arrangement and I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary can say I am wrong in that respect. Because of the indication that this is simply a first step in a policy of completely removing rent control, allowing the rents to be increased for the working classes who are not housed in local authority houses, we in the Labour Party oppose this Bill.

Mr. Lenihan

Some remarks made by Senator Murphy have prompted me to say a few words. One aspect on which he laid considerable emphasis was the question of old houses which are now being, in some cases, exempted from rent control, or if subjected to rent control, can have the rent increased by 12½ per cent. in the case of landlords executing repairs. Senator Murphy was at pains to point out that this would lead to unemployment in the building industry. I think it can be fairly well proved that the whole purpose of this Bill, along with the Housing Acts which have already passed through the Oireachtas, is to encourage further repairs and reconstruction to the existing stock of houses. That was the reason the housing reconstruction loans and increased reconstruction grants were introduced in the Housing Act of 1948, and the other Act which we discussed two weeks ago in the Seanad. This Bill is consistent with that principle and that was the idea behind the Capital Investment Advisory Committee's report, that the existing stock of houses, from the national point of view, should be preserved and improved. That, to my way of thinking, can only result in increased employment in the building industry.

Some landlords, under this Bill, will now be able to effect external repairs and it should be emphasised that in all these cases the landlord is liable for external repairs. Hitherto in many of the old houses, the position was such that the landlord was not in a financial position, by reason of controlled rents and the limitation regarding the lawful addition he could impose with regard to repairs, to undertake the necessary repairs and reconstruction work and therefore much work which should have been done was not undertaken. The net effect of this Bill, taken in conjunction with the other Housing Acts, will be to increase activity in reconstruction and improvement of houses. That can only result in increased employment for tradesmen.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Senator's argument is all right except for the fact that exactly the same provisions applied in the 1946 Act.

Mr. Lenihan

I do not understand the Senator's point.

Mr. O'Quigley

The same provisions applied in the 1946 Act and I cannot see how this will have any effect on increasing employment.

Mr. Lenihan

If there are premises specified here in this legislation—houses having a valuation exceeding £30 in the Dublin area and £25 elsewhere and so on—which are to be exempted from rent control, then the net effect will be that the landlords will be in a position to improve them, to reconstruct them and to put them into a proper state of repair and that can only result in giving employment in the industry.

Mr. Murphy

The Senator should know that I was using the arguments set down by the Capital Investment Advisory Committee.

Mr. Lenihan

Another aspect of Senator Murphy's argument was concerned with the point that we have not got sufficient activity at the moment in the building industry and that there is scope for much more. I agree with him on that, but I think that that scope lies best within the ambit of the local authorities and within the ambit of the S.D.A. loans which are functioning well and also the grants which have been improved and extended for the private building of new houses and the reconstruction of houses. There is ample scope within the ambit of those for any house building and house reconstruction which may be desired.

It is quite obvious that the reason rent control was first introduced as an emergency measure after the first World War, and then again after the second World War was that there was no activity in housing. During those periods, rents had to be forced down to provide for people who could not be provided for by the local authorities by reason of the aftermath of war. That position has now rectified itself and the local authorities and private building societies operating through S.D.A. loans are now in a position to engage in any house-building which is required and have been in such a position since the war. Therefore, the people for whom rent control was introduced are now amply facilitated by the various methods I have mentioned, either through local authority building or private building making use of the S.D.A. scheme.

Another point which was made here was in regard to the recommendation of the Conroy Commission. I would suggest in regard to the proposal to decontrol certain houses and the proposal of the 12½ per cent. increase with regard to reconstruction, that they amount to political decisions. In other words, the Conroy Commission made some very excellent recommendations that have been adopted in this Bill but the question of whether there is to be decontrol is a political decision which must be taken by the Administration in the context of the housing position of the day. It is purely a political decision based on the realities of the situation whether we should decontrol or not and to what extent we should decontrol. It is a political decision which can best be taken by the Administration in the context of the situation of to-day. It certainly cannot be left to a commission which brought out recommendations in this respect eight years ago.

Mr. Murphy

Is the Senator saying that there are plenty of houses to be rented now?

Mr. Lenihan

I have pointed out to the possibly rather obtuse mind of the Senator that there is plenty of scope under existing legislation, under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, for instance, and I think I have laboured that point sufficiently.

The questions of rent decontrol and the increase of 12½ per cent. for reconstruction are both political decisions to be taken in the context of the housing situation of to-day. The most up-to-date recommendation is from the Capital Investment Advisory Committee and that is certainly one to be looked into more seriously than one backdated to 1952. The Capital investment Advisory Committee were very concerned about preserving the existing stock of houses and it was on that advice that the reconstruction loans scheme and increased reconstruction grants were brought in in 1958. This is a corollary to that system and it is the common sense point of view to ensure that the existing stock of houses is kept in repair. They are an existing asset which can be brought up to date to give proper living conditions at a lower cost than to wipe them out completely and embark on new developments. Both are good and must go hand in hand: the improvement of the existing stock of houses and the development of new houses, and there is no point in sabotaging our entire stock of houses when they can be improved and put, into condition.

The Conroy Commission in their technical aspects made many sensible recommendations which are incorporated in the Bill, in particular, those regarding the determining of the standard for decontrolled rents to-day. I did not understand what Senator O'Quigley meant when he said that Sections 7, 8 and 9 were cumbersome and that he failed to understand them. I think they are quite simple sections dealing with how basic rents are to be ascertained. Under the 1946 Act, the matter was very complicated. Practitioners and people who wanted to ascertain basic rents were placed in a difficulty by virtue of the fact that there were two procedures to ascertain the basic rent: a procedure dealing with premises controlled under the 1923 Act and another for controlled non-1923 Act premises. In other words, premises controlled in 1923 and premises controlled in the 1946 Rent Restrictions Act had two procedures. There were two sets of premises and two ways of computing basic rents in respect of those two categories of controlled premises. That cumbersome situation is done away with in this Bill and Sections 7, 8 and 9, in my opinion, provide clear concise ways of ascertaining basic rents.

Section 7 applies to:

(a) a controlled dwelling in respect of which evidence is forthcoming of both of the following facts—

(i) that is was on the 1st day of February, 1960 (in this section referred to as the relevant date) held by an occupying tenant thereof under a contract of tenancy not being for more than a term of five years, and

(ii) the rent at which it was so held;

(b) a controlled dwelling in respect of which evidence is forthcoming of all the following facts—

(i) that it was not so held on the 1st day of February, 1960,

(ii) that it was last so held on a date (in this section also referred to as the relevant date) being not more than three years before the 1st day of February, 1960, and

(iii) the rent at which it was so held.

(2) The basic rent of a controlled dwelling to which this section applies shall be the net rent at which it was held on the relevant date.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the net rent at which a controlled dwelling was held on the relevant date shall be taken to be—

(a) in case the landlord at the relevant date habitually paid or allowed a deduction or set-off against, or indemnified the tenant in respect of, the rates or any part thereof, the rent payable at that date less the amount of the payment, allowance, deduction, set-off or indemnity (as the case may be);

(b) in any other case, the rent payable at that date.

Section 8 provides for an appeal to the court with regard to controlled dwellings to which Section 7 of the Act applies.

Section 9 states in subsection 2:

The basic rent of a controlled dwelling to which this section applies shall be determined by the Court and shall be a rent of such amount as the Court considers reasonable having regard as far as possible to the basic rents of controlled dwellings, being dwellings to which Chapter 2 of Part II of the Act of 1946 applied, which are comparable in regard to location, accommodation, amenities, state of repair and rateable valuation.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 are simplicity itself.

Mr. O'Quigley

As short as you have read them out.

Mr. Lenihan

Section 7 fixes 1st February, 1960, as the relevant date; Section 8 sets out the right of the tenant or the landlord to appeal against the rent fixed; and Section 9 allows the court to fix the rent at a reasonable standard, having regard to comparable rents in the locality. That procedure is a vast improvement, as practitioners will agree and as Senator O'Quigley should agree, on the 1946 legislation where you have, in the first place, to ascertain whether the premises were controlled under the 1946 or the 1923 Act and apply two different procedures before ascertaining the basic rent.

This is a marked improvement and the recommendation of the Conroy Commission on technical matters is fully incorporated in this legislation. The Conroy Commission's technical recommendations on the legal aspects of the situation are entirely incorporated and are only gone away from where the recommendations were political rather than legal. That is the Government's right—to come to a decision in political matters in the context of the situation as it is to-day.

Senator O'Quigley very properly, I thought, drew attention to Section 31 which I think is a very important section. Heretofore, the position arose that where a tenant under a contractual tenancy died, the landlord had a chance of evicting his wife and family quickly, if notice to quit was served before representations had been made on behalf of the deceased's estate. It is time to get rid of that unfortunate situation by providing that after the death of the tenant, the rights of his wife and family in the tenancy are maintained. I think that consideration might be given to making the section simpler and that was Senator O'Quigley's main point against it, but it gives a clear right to the widow of family to remain on in a premises so that the landlord cannot evict them. Their rights are preserved and the tenancy is maintained.

There is nothing else I can say beyond again emphasising that this useful legislation is consistent with the general policy of the Government in the past few years of ensuring that activity is maintained in housing. The only effect the Bill can have on the housing position is to improve it and give more employment.

Mr. P. Crowley

I want to add my voice to those of Senators who have extended a welcome to the Parliamentary Secretary and I wish him well in office. It is rather a pity however, that he was not sent here with a more acceptable measure, because like some other speakers I find myself in opposition to the Bill. As representing what I might call the trade union interests in this House, I must oppose the Bill. At this hour of the evening, it would be quite unfair to the House to indulge in any repetition of points which have been capably and quite fully covered. Senator Murphy set out the objections we in the trade union movement have to the measure.

The principle behind the Bill is bad, particularly at the present time. The removal now of controls from a large category of houses with large valuations must inevitably result in increased rents. That is a bad thing at the present time and something the Government should not have done. The eventual removal of controls from rents is something to be deplored and that such a suggestion should be made is to be deplored.

Every week that passes, somebody in the Government or out of it will stand up and say that people in the trade union movement especially should act with a sense of responsibility and restraint, but here we are certainly telling a small section of people to go ahead and do almost what they like as far as the level of rents is concerned for the people who occupy their houses. This is something that should not be done at the present time.

However, in my personal view, the Bill goes even further. The Bill certainly presents a bonus. It presents a certain category of landlords with a bonus which they will receive immediately in the increase of 12½ per cent. in their existing rents from a large number of tenants who are quite incapable of meeting such an impost.

Finally, the Bill seems to reject completely the firm recommendation of the Commission which sat on this problem for so long and which came down with a firm recommendation in regard to rent control. I must oppose this measure and join with the other members of the House who condemned those aspects of the Bill.

Mr. Donegan

I personally would not be opposed to this Bill except in respect of certain aspects of it, particularly its relation to certain infamous measures that were taken in regard to housing over the past 18 months. Nobody seems to have adverted to the phrase— and I quote the phrase of the Parliamentary Secretary—"a fair and just rent". That is a practical impossibility in the case of a house which is owned by a landlord, for the obvious reason that the whole pattern of our local authority housing is that there is a two-thirds subvention from the State in respect of loan and repayment charges. Naturally, when that obtains over 30 years, it is built into the whole structure of our economy. It has relation to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth round of wage increases. It is related to the rate of wages paid and it has relation to the cost of products. On the one hand, if you have a large body of working people living in local authority houses on which there is a two-third subvention from the State and on the other hand, you have the same sort of people earning the same kind of wages living in houses owned by landlords, it is impossible, with the economy so designed in relation to waee rates, to find a fair and just rent.

The only factors I can see which would produce a fair and just rent are the necessity for the landlord to receive a rent in relation to the value of the property, the cost of repairs and the ability of the tenant to pay. The whole problem is one which is entirely insoluble. There is no perfect answer. This kind of Bill is, I believe, a right good effort to do it. How can people, existing on wage rates which were designed on the basis of local authority houses, pay the fair and just rent necessary to maintain the old houses owned by the landlord in a proper state of repair and give that landlord a fair return for the value of his property and the cost of repairs? It cannot be done.

We have got to make the best of a bad job and the best of a bad job over the past number of years has been in favour of the tenant, but this has also brought to the tenant other things as well as low rents. It has provided him with a house in regard to which the landlord will do the absolute minimum of repairs. It gives the tenants a bad house in which the ordinary facilities which they would expect were not brought with the years abreast of all the other houses owned by people themselves or the local authority houses. Therefore, we had to reach some sort of a compromise and I would regard this Bill as a compromise.

Senator Lenihan hit the nail on the head when he said that this Bill was a part of Government policy on housing. To employ an oft-used expression: it preserves the existing stock of houses. At the same time, there are certain aspects of the measure about which I am not very happy. For instance, we had the Housing Act of 1958 whereby loans for the first time were available for the reconstruction of houses. Landlords can now enjoy those loans and presumably they can now enjoy the allowed increase in rents envisaged in this Bill.

At the same time, there were implemented all over Ireland two other things. First, there was the situation whereby for the first time a local authority was not the final judge as to whether or not an applicant would get a house. The position now is that if the local authority officer or sanitary officer goes to an applicant and declares his housing conditions as unsuitable and passes the applicant as a tentative occupier of a new council house, for the first time, the officer of the Department of Local Government comes along and if he adjudges the house in which the applicant lives as fit for reconstruction, then he is crossed off the list.

The next step in this situation with which I do not agree and of which this Bill forms a part, is the implementation of Section 19 of the Act of 1931. It says that where a landlord will not reconstruct or repair a house, the local authority can go in and do it for him. They can seek the cost of it from the landlord and if they fail to get it, they can issue an instalment order against him. If they fail, they can put an instalment order on the tenant. This Bill is a slight alleviation inasmuch as it encourages the landlord to do these repairs and claim his 8 per cent. increase.

The Bill is brought here because of the fact that the other measure has largely failed. In fact, it is not being implemented. The local authorities and the county managers all over the country have not seen to it that the houses, adjudged by the officials of the Department of Local Government as fit for reconstruction, are being reconstructed. They feel it is unjust to the landlord and they are not doing it.

This Bill is designed to help the landlord. It is one cornerstone in two pieces of bad legislation. At the same time, from evil oft comes good. I feel that, having regard to the condition of houses in which tenants are living, they will realise this Bill is necessary, even though from the Government point of view, it is a way out of their promise to build houses in 1957, which they did not keep. At the same time, out of evil has come good.

This is a good measure. It will encourage landlords in some part to repair their houses which are daily falling into disrepair. Can anybody in this country give the figure for the number of houses which are derelict and which could have been kept in repair? My quarrel with the Government is not in the least that they want to keep these houses in repair but that they will force unfortunate landlords to do uneconomic things in order to see that their policy is brought to fruition.

In 1960, there is such a person as a poor landlord. The old conception of the landlord as a fellow with a red face and gout in his toe because he drank too much has gone. There are many old ladies dependent on their incomes and retired people who were set up by their relatives 20 years ago to live on the rent of apparently good houses. These rents have moved only very slightly in relation to the cost of repairs. The result is that these people are living in penury. I do not mind being quoted as saying a word for them here. I think there are wrongs on both sides but it is about time something was done for them.

As I said, from evil has come good, and the fact that the Government. because of the failure of their housing policy, are trying to do something here to give a little fillip, is a good thing. The way they are doing it will have the effect of helping landlords to repair old houses and get some little return from them. I prefaced my remarks by saying that everything cannot be perfect.

In relation to other property and small businesses, I feel that the measure is a good one. All over the country there are small properties, not just large properties, which, because their rents are so low, are being kept idle by the persons who pay the rent, because it is only a few shillings or a few pounds. Any small increase on those properties, based of course on their being repaired, would—if these people would give them up to somebody with more initiative, energy and application to try to do something to improve them—result in increased business and increased employment. It is better that rents should be higher and that property should be properly maintained than that they should be at a very low rate and property allowed to reach the stage where the roof falls in and the county council then get no more rates. That is my view.

I find myself in disagreement with Senator Murphy when he says that the rents collected over the years have paid the landlord many times. I do not think I am ultra-conservative but I believe in rights of property. I think that property means work done at some time and if it appreciates, one is entitled to the benefits therefrom in relation to the increased value and the appreciation over the years. As I said, that is impossible in this context because of the situation with regard to this business of local authority houses which, of course, are subsidised.

At the same time, I do not for one moment admit that property which was paid for many times by rent is not still entitled to provide profit for its owner. If that type of approach is once allowed to get into the country, there is then, of course, no incentive to own anything. There is no incentive to do anything and the only incentive I know is the profit motive. It is a good one, and it is the sort of incentive that leads to employment and furthers the country's well-being.

The figure of 8 per cent. for cost of repairs was quibbled about. I would call the cost of repairs to houses risk capital. Anyone who addresses himself in any interested way to the Stock Exchange quotations will find that gilt-edged investments are gilt-edged investments. There is absolutely no risk but there is a risk in the case of houses, even in fine houses in good places. There is a risk of a bad tenant who may burn the banisters. There is a risk that many things may happen. The neighbourhood may go out of fashion and the owner may find himself with an empty house. That is a risk and for risk capital 8 per cent. is not a high sum when one takes into consideration the extra insurance which has to be paid and the money which has to be spent on the house. When one considers all that, 8 per cent. is only about the normal return on risk capital in any other sphere of business activity. Let us be factual: we must relate everything to the normal return on risk capital in any ordinary business activity. It is like buying a box of matches or a packet of cigarettes. I think the figure of 8 per cent. is a realistic and a right one.

Naturally, this is a measure on which people will take sides. I had hoped that, in general, the Seanad would not take sides. If there is an incorrect situation at the moment and the landlord is not, in fact, repairing his property, the tenant is getting bad value and the existing stock of houses is falling into disrepair, and in some cases into disuse. If we are to do something about it, this Bill is just as good as any that could be introduced. Of course it strikes the people who do not want to see any increase in rents and it will not satisfy people who are ultra-conservative, but, by and large, I think it is a good Bill. It has been presented because of the fact that the implementation of Section 19 of the 1931 Act has failed. What the Government failed to get with compulsion, they are now hoping to get freely from the landlords who will be encouraged to repair their properties under this Bill.

Mr. Louis Walsh

First of all, I should like to join with other Senators in welcoming the Parliamentary Secretary on his first appearance in this House, piloting such an important Bill. I suppose I am somewhat prejudiced because of a certain county loyalty, because his parents are natives of the same county in which I was born.

Rent control and the requirements for obtaining possession of a rented dwellinghouse have resulted in much litigation since the first World War. This Bill, therefore, clarifies the law and is indeed a welcome measure. Landlords, tenants and property owners generally, will benefit from its provisions. In north-eastern Ulster, there have been many amendments of the Increase of Rents and Mortgage Interest Act, 1920. As the Parliamentary Secretary has already pointed out, there is a tremendous improvement in the dwellings in the cities over the past number of years, and in rural Ireland at the present time excellent work is being done, as Senator Lenihan pointed out, by the local authorities, and generous grants are being provided by the central and local authorities for the provision of new houses and the reconstruction of existing dwellings.

The Rent Restrictions Act is fortunately, therefore, not of so much concern to the community as it was, say, 15 years ago. Seldom now are the courts troubled with that type of litigation. I assume, however, that there are still a large number of cases in the city courts and the city dwellers are, therefore, particularly concerned with the provisions of this Bill. A continuous influx of people into the cities, due to the increased expansion of industry and to the large numbers now employed in administration, means that the supply of accommodation in the cities possibly has not kept pace with the demand. Furthermore, as living standards improve, larger dwelling accommodation is required. For these reasons controls are still required.

As Senator Donegan has stated, landlords responsible for repairs are entitled to proper compensation so that they will be enabled to preserve their property. It is sad to see houses falling into disrepair, in many cases due to the fact that landlords are not in a position, at times, to provide the necessary capital to have proper repairs carried out. I should like to point out to Senator O'Quigley and Senator Murphy that, under Sections 12 and 16 of the Housing Acts, fairly generous grants are provided for those repairs and those grants can be availed of by the tenant.

Senator Lenihan has already pointed to the fact that the tenants are normally responsible for interior repairs and even the provision of ranges in houses is regarded as a repair. If the tenant is in possession, and if he is entitled to £100 for a three-roomed house, £120 for a four-roomed house or £140 for a five-roomed house, he is also entitled to a supplementary grant of the same amount from the local authority. If he is responsible for the internal repairs, then obviously the tenant will possibly take advantage of that fact.

At present, in country districts, it could be quite expensive to bring valuers and auctioneers to district courts to prove the basic rent fixed in other areas for a similar type of house, where an application is made to a district justice. This Bill will obviate that to a fair extent because the basic rent will be based on the rent applying at February, 1960.

I feel, therefore, it is only right that lettings of rooms or flats of pre-1941 dwellings will also be subject to control. I am pleased to note the improvements in the law in Section 13 and Sections 29 and 31 are improvements on previous Acts. In fixing the basic rent, some cognisance should be taken of the poor law valuation. If the rent were related in some way to the poor law valuation, it would possibly be a greater justice.

An aspect of this matter affects rural areas, particularly the village in which I practise and the neighbouring village. Practically every house in these villages was purchased under the Land Acts and registered in the Land Registry. Under Section 4 (1) of the 1927 Land Act and Section 44 (2) of the 1936 Act, these lettings are void, unless the consent of the Land Commission has been obtained to the subletting. Many lettings are of a verbal nature. The parties are not aware of these facts. Where the letting agreement is prepared by the solicitor, he is acting for the landlord and when he wishes at some time to eject the tenant, he takes advantage of that Act. With regard to a dwellinghouse with only a small portion of land, I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would ensure that the landlord will not take advantage in such cases.

Senator Murphy and Senator Crowley said the landlord will automatically be entitled to a 12½ per cent increase in the rent. The explanatory memorandum states on page 3 that the increase will be modified or will not apply at all in cases where the landlord has already secured a return under existing Acts for expenditure incurred by him in putting property into a reasonable state of repair. The end of that paragraph states that where such landlord did not avail of these grants, he will not be entitled to the 12½ per cent. increase under Section 10 (3). I am not quite sure what the section means. It would appear that if a landlord does repairs and does not obtain a relevant grant, he is debarred from obtaining an increase in his rent. If that is so, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would reconsider the matter.

Reference has also been made to the fact that many properties will be decontrolled when the tenancy ceases. Tenancies will not cease as frequently as is suggested. If the tenant dies, his spouse or his family automatically carry on the tenancy. Surely that is the most common experience? Mention is also made of a change of tenancy with consent. If a landlord is in possession of his property and simply walks into another house for a few days in order to terminate the original tenancy, I doubt very much if a court would accept that as a termination, if he re-lets the property within a few days.

Under the Act, the poor law valuation is £60 in the case of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire and £40 in respect of any other part of the country. The Parliamentary Secretary will realise that not many houses of that valuation were constructed before 1941. I feel it would not be unreasonable to reduce that amount by at least £10; in other words, to £50 in the case of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire and to £30 in any other part of the country.

It might be no harm to have a proper definition of "conversion". It is suggested that the converting of a house or flat into two parts would be a conversion. Would putting up a partition in a room and providing an extra toilet be a conversion under Section 3?

It will be noted under Section 4 that if there is a separate letting of the business part of a premises and of the dwelling part of a premises both would then be subject to control. I feel that the portion of the premises which is let separately as a business premises should be decontrolled and that Section 29 of the Landlord and Tenant Act should apply in such a case.

I already referred to repairs.

It is no harm again to emphasise the fact that in the case of a person who is a farmer or an agricultural labourer —and "agricultural labourer" is very wide and covers practically everybody who works at a trade or business in a rural area but does not employ anybody other than members of his own family—it is only a person in possession who can apply for the grant. Therefore, the number of times in which the landlord will require to carry out the repairs himself will not be so very many and consequently the question of his obtaining this extra 12½ per cent. that has been referred to will not arise very often.

This is, of course, a Bill which is properly a Committee Bill, and I was wondering would the Parliamentary Secretary consider having it referred to a special committee rather than to have the next stage taken by the whole House. I think a better Bill would be completed here if the next Stage were dealt with in that way.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I agree with what Senator Walsh has said about this being primarily a Committee Bill. He has touched on several of the points that might need amending, in particular this rather odd point that if a house was built without the aid of a grant, the landlord is apparently not to be entitled to increase the rent. I agree with him also that it probably is better to discuss that on the section rather than on the Second Stage.

I should like to take up something that Senator Lenihan said—I have no doubt in good faith. He seemed to imply—I do not think I took him up wrongly—that in view of all the housing that has been done generally by local authorities throughout the country, now there is virtually plenty of housing for the people who earlier required the protection of the Rent Restrictions Act, and that consequently a Bill leading towards decontrol will not do the harm it might have done.

Mr. Lenihan

On a point of explanation, I did not say that. I sought to imply that there was ample scope for such housing through the S.D.A. schemes and through advances being made available from local authorities. I did not say that the stock of houses was sufficient.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am glad to have that clarification. As I understand it then. Senator Lenihan believes, to put it this way, that the demand for houses by people who might previously have required the protection of the Rent Restrictions Act will now be satisfied without their being charged prohibitive rents under private enterprise and State-aided local authorities and so on. I should like to make a point in this connection which I think is sometimes missed, because we can point with pride and it can be granted that this Government can take more credit for it than the other Governments——

Mr. Donegan

They cannot.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

When I say "can take more credit," I mean can justifiably take more credit.

Mr. Donegan

They cannot.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It would be quite proper for them to take more credit, because on the question of housing the Fianna Fáil régime has a very good record and I think a better record than their predecessors.

Mr. Donegan

That is totally incorrect.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am aware that this record is being challenged by representatives of the predecessors, but my view remains unchanged. Nevertheless there is one aspect that is sometimes missed, that is, that despite the fact that rents in these new housing estates are subsidised, the tendency has been to house the people most in a position to pay rent, and that has resulted in the fact that the people who most need rehousing are often the last to get it. It is the people in the working classes largely who can afford to pay the rents required, partly subsidised, who get houses; but there is a section of people who very much require the protection of rent restriction who can afford to pay possibly only a very tiny rent, not an economic one, who remain in some of the worse slums still or are removed into corporation slums like Keogh Square in Dublin. The reason they are there is that they owe arrears of rent. The suggestion I make in that connection is that in our schemes those who are in many ways the worse off are often the last to be rehoused.

Mr. Louis Walsh

I would like to make a correction in that respect——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am sorry; the Senator must wait until Senator Sheehy Skeffington finishes.

Mr. Donegan

I agree with Senator Walsh.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I notice that Senator Donegan has agreed and therefore I assume that the interjection was wrong and unjustified. On the question of decontrol, I should like to say that in fact, as has been said by Senator Murphy, it will inevitably mean rent increases. A plea is made for the "poor landlord". Senator Donegan has given us a touching picture, which I shall deal with in a moment, of the poor landlord having for years been victimised because the commodity he sells, housing, has been unfairly controlled since 1915 and so on. The fact, however, is undeniable that once you decontrol the rent, it goes up. It is no good pretending that the rent will go down, but rents for these decontrolled houses will go up, and if we pass this Bill we do so with our eyes open and should say to the public: "Your rents are going to be increased unless you happen still to be protected for a few years by the protective clauses still remaining."

I should like to cite an example about which I knew a certain amount during the war regarding a house which was decontrolled. It was No. 23 Mountjoy Square, which was decontrolled. The case came to my attention in the early 1940s because a tenant was threatened with eviction. We had a Labour Party and Trade Union Tenants' Defence Committee which took up the case and fought it in court. We investigated and found among other things that in this house there were eleven tenants and fifty-four people. The rent for a single room, quite a good room, was 18/6d. There were two lavatories, that is to say, the Corporation by-laws were being flagrantly broken, and there were three taps of running water for the whole house.

The total amount of rent being collected for that one house was £386 a year. The landlord paid a little over £45 ground rent and something round £44 in rates, that is to say, he paid roughly £90 out of the £386 he was getting in. I do not know whether this can be related to the eight per cent. interest on risk capital and so on Senator Donegan was talking about, but it seems to me to be a pretty considerable income from a house being clearly and quite unjustifiably neglected from the point of view of repair, from the point of view of plumbing and from the point of view of the by-laws. The final thing we found was that the landlord had bought it three years before for £900. He was clearing practically a clear profit of £300 per year from this house for which he had paid £900 three years before.

I have mentioned the place and the house and I know my facts and figures, which were brought to the court. The judge, the late Judge Shannon, held that the house was decontrolled because the owner had regained possession of it on a certain specified day and occupied it for a short time. Although it had previously been controlled, it was decontrolled and what happened? The rents went rocketing up and Judge Shannon said that the rent in the case we were fighting was exorbitant. He used that phrase from the Bench. I need not say it was not entirely judicial but he said that he could do nothing and that he was powerless. The case was dismissed and the tenant was put out. That is an extreme case and I am not suggesting that it is an average one but it is a case I know about and a case in which rocketing rents resulted from decontrol and a case in which the landlord flagrantly failed to spend the money he was making on repairs and keeping the house decent.

Therefore, I am suspicious of any Bill which comes before us asking for decontrol and which does not contain any provisions which will ensure that the landlord must maintain the house in decent repair. We are very concerned that the landlord should be entitled, if he spends money on repairs, to reimburse himself from the tenant but we are taking no powers to ensure that he will keep the house in decent repair. We shall be told that we have by-laws. There is a by-law which provides that you must have a lavatory for every 12 people in a house but I wonder how many landlords are prosecuted for not observing that by-law and how many houses provide a defiance of that by-law. My contention is that decontrol, however tempting it may be in some cases, is highly dangerous and that there should be linked with it the obligation on the landlord to keep the premises in decent repair. Apparently it is necessary to say there should be an obligation on the landlord to obey the by-laws because apparently some local authorities are not vigorous enough in pursuing them. There may be some which do.

I am also aware of the fact that if you allow certain increases and so on, under a very complicated Act, time and again the landlord will get away with an increase to which he is not entitled, simply by saying: "I am entitled under the new Act to such an increase." I know it is very hard to protect the ignorant tenant against his own ignorance. What can you do? You can read the Act to him and stand there until he understands it. I feel that there may be some ignorant tenants who may be bamboozled under the pretence of an observing of this new Bill and find their rents increased unjustifiably. I should like to feel it would be easy for them, and made clear that it will be easy for them, to test the validity of such increases.

I have seen cases involving an application on the part of the landlord to evict a tenant—an application which was granted with a stay of execution, provided arrears were paid off—in which the costs were not merely given against the tenant, as the Court was entitled to do, but inscribed on the tenant's rent book and treated as if they were arrears. They mounted up with the arrears and in one case in which I was interested, the tenant was actually being evicted for what turned out to be the costs of a previous case and in fact the tenant did not owe any arrears. He owed costs for which no tenant can be evicted. How many of our poorer tenants in Dublin are aware of that fact and how many docilely allow costs of previous court cases to be slapped on to their rent books, which is quite improper, and treated as arrears of rent? I should like therefore, to see more safeguards in the Bill and some consciousness in the Bill of a necessity on the part of the landlord to spend whatever increased money he gets upon the premises.

I should like now to turn to Senator Donegan's picture. It is the classic picture of the slum landlord but "he" is always an old lady. The only exception is the orphan. There may be some of them who are orphans but they are pretty prosperous orphans. I was interested in a case in which a person was being evicted. It was an absolutely lamentable case and I shall not go into the details. In this case the people were living down on the Quays in Dublin. There were six houses with eight people in each house. There was one lavatory per house and the rent agent was extremely vigorous in the collection of his rents. I found that there was this legend amongst the people: "The landlord, poor Miss So and So, if she only knew what Mr. X was doing, would feel differently and would not be mean to us," and so on. In this case, I made it my business to go to see Miss M—her name began with the letter M.

I had some difficulty in finding her. First of all, I was told that she lived in Sutton and when I went there I was told she had recently left and was living in Rathgar Avenue. When I went there, I found that she had just left and finally I tracked her down in another suburb. I found her a very charming and vigorous lady in her 60's and when I told her about this case—it was a cruel case, a case of a man who was living on a disablement pension, a wife who was bedridden, one daughter who was blind and was living on the blind pension, and another daughter who was earning something like 25/- a week— she said: "I will hear nothing about that man. I was merciful to him before. The parish priest intervened and I did not put him out and I am sorry I did not. Now he owes me £4-10s. This agent is the best agent I ever had." When I told her that we were going to take the case to court, she said: "You can take it to court and do what you like."

That was my meeting with this gentle old lady about whom the tenants had a legend. She was concerned only with collecting rents and for her the best agent was the man who screwed it out of the tenants. She may not be a typical case any more than the old lady painted by Senator Donegan is but I do suggest that the important factor is not the benevolence or the nature or the personality of the landlord but the squeezing of the rent and the living conditions which are sometimes in disregard of the sanitation rules of the Corporation. In other words, I reject the kind of sob stuff that has been given to us by Senator Donegan who painted the usual landlord as some distant old lady one would not like to hurt and therefore we must hurt the tenants.

Mr. Donegan

On a point of explanation, in regard to the phrase "the usual landlord," there are such things as poor landlords.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I have no doubt there are.

Mr. Donegan

Do not suggest that I said all landlords are poor.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I realise that Senator Donegan was being more objective than that and merely painting an exceptional picture in suggesting there are these old ladies, who form part of the landlord section of the public.

Mr. Donegan

There are, you know.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am sure there are and there are some who have very good rent agents and some have rent agents who are not so good, but the people they are living on are very frequently people of the slums. I am sorry, but I personally would rather see even a dear old lady with eight houses do with a little less money than see people of a slum dwelling put out in the street with their furniture piled up in front of the door. I am sorry, but I have seen it.

I have mentioned the safeguards, the obligations I should like to see placed on landlords to keep their place in repair. I know there are landlords who do spend money on repairs and who do their best and only too often they are the ones who are victimised, but that is not enough. In fact, there is only one way in which you can approach the question of control. It is not by allowing the value of house property to go up by decontrolling; it is not by allowing flourishing speculation in houses; it is not by allowing untrammelled free enterprise to take not eight per cent. but 50 or 60 per cent. sometimes. It is by deciding that since there are these difficulties consistently, since we do not want people to be squeezed and exploited and since landlords cannot, it seems, make enormous profits, we should take over houses. Let us have municipal housing. Let us take these houses which are apparently so onerous on the landlords and let them pass into the hands of a housing authority. Then we shall be in a position to know what rents are being paid, what repairs are carried out, to see that things are properly done or if they are not, to know upon whom the blame should be placed.

Mr. Haughey

I should like at the outset to tell the House that I am very grateful indeed for the reasonable manner in which they have received the Bill and for their comments on it. I should also like to add my personal thanks to Senators who availed themselves of this occasion to welcome me to the House. I think the House has been reasonable in its approach to the Bill and I would like the House to know that we shall give full consideration to all the arguments that have been put forward and if it appears to be necessary to amend the Bill, we shall not hesitate to do so. A very great number of points have been made and I am sure I will not be expected to deal with all of them in detail. In fact quite a lot of them could be more appropriately and more fully dealt with on Committee Stage. There have, however, been arguments on the principles of the Bill and I feel I should deal with those now.

The first point was put forward by Senator O'Quigley and may I say that, in my opinion, he dealt very capably with the Bill generally and I should like to congratulate him on the careful study he has obviously made of its provisions? I must say, however, that I do not think any tenants should worry about the suggestion that this is only a first instalment of decontrol, that rents are to be reviewed from time to time, that eventually we shall do away with all control and that they will be left completely at the mercy of the landlords. Senator Crowley also based his remarks on the assumption that we were going to do away with rent controls ultimately. That is not our intention. We have quite clearly rejected the suggestion of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee that we should do away with all rent control over a period of ten years.

I can do no better than repeat what I said in my opening remarks that in pursuance of the policy announced in the White Paper on Economic Expansion, it is proposed to review rent controls from time to time in the light of the housing position and having regard to the need to avoid hardship to existing tenants and we clearly state and repeat that we shall at all times keep the position of sitting tenants in mind in carrying out that review.

Senator O'Quigley also suggested that we should extend control to post-1941 houses and furnished lettings. He based most of his arguments on the recommendation of the Conroy Commission. I can only repeat that, in our opinion, any such extensions of control are not necessary in present circumstances. On the contrary, a limited measure of decontrol is desirable at this stage and, in justification of that, we may point to the radical improvement in the housing situation—160,000 houses have been erected or reconstructed since the war—to the comparatively stable economic conditions generally and to the improvement in living standards. In that situation, I can only repeat that there is no justification for extending the scope of control.

In this regard, it would be useful I think to look around at what is happening in Europe. Members of the House will perhaps insist that we deal with our own circumstances as we see them but nevertheless all over Europe, in practically every country, more and more measures of decontrol have been introduced following their emergence from the post-war situation with all its difficulties and troubles regarding housing.

Senator O'Quigley also accused us of producing a Bill which was complex. Well, possibly it is, though I must say I agree with Senator Lenihan that it is not all that complex. But if it is complex, that complexity arises from the desire of myself and the draftsmen to make the position precise and certain. I think the lawyers present will recognise that the Act that gives rise to most litigation is the vague and apparently simple one, but we in this Bill are trying to state the law as precisely and as clearly as we can and to give as much certainty as possible. There may be some litigation arising out of its complexity but I think that that very complexity is an earnest of our endeavour to ensure that in the majority of cases there will be no need for litigation.

Senator O'Quigley also asked about the amount expended under the provision in the 1946 Act whereby the State can pay costs in certain cases. The figure is not very exciting: £147.

Mr. O'Quigley

In 14 years?

Mr. Haughey

Yes. Maybe, as the Senator says, it is because the lawyers are not aware of the provision.

Mr. O'Quigley

Or they are not such sharks as the public think.

Mr. Haughey

The suggestion that the court should be asked to fix fair rents in existing cases was specifically rejected by the Conroy Commission and, I think, properly so. I think that to attempt to do anything like that would lead to a very great disturbance of the existing situation and increase the possibility of disputes and litigation and would, in the end, lead to more trouble than benefit.

Quite a number of Senators stated that they were perturbed because we were prepared to give landlords certain benefits if they carried out repairs but there was no obligation on landlords to do repairs. That is not so. There are a series of provisions in this Bill and in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, whereby a landlord who neglects to do repairs for which he is liable can be made do them—at least the tenant can ensure that they are done.

Senator O'Quigley was also anxious about the matter of the non-statutory tenant who dies intestate. He is right in his interpretation of that section but I do not think it will lead to any real difficulty generally because the normal position will be that the next-of-kin will be in residence in the house and the occasions on which a widow or a member of the family who would be normally resident and entitled to take out a grant of administration would not be in residence and would not consent to the member of the family in residence taking out the grant of administration, would be very rare, I do not think it will ever give rise to any difficulty. However, in view of the fact that the Senator has drawn attention to it, we shall have another look at it and if anything can be done to improve the position, we shall certainly do it.

With regard to Senator Louis Walsh's point about sublettings of small cottages with a little portion of land, without the consent of the Land Commission, I do not think it would be advisable or that we could attempt to do anything about that matter because the provisions of the 1927 Land Act are in pursuance of land policy. I think it would be most unwise for us in this Bill to cut across those provisions or that general policy in any way.

Senator Walsh also asked if his interpretation of the provisions about a landlord who did not take a repair or reconstruction grant was correct. It is. We have definitely provided that if a landlord carries out repairs and does not take a State or local authority grant and proceeds to get an increase in rent in relation to the whole of the amount he expended such landlord will not be entitled to the 12½ per cent. increase. I think that is only fair because he has already got a fairly substantial increase in rent. I do not think we would be justified in permitting him to get another increase on top of that. If he carried out repairs and accepted the State grant, the Bill only gives the 12½ per cent. increase on the original rent and not on the portion of the rent which is attributable to an increase because of the exceptional repairs which he carried out.

The Senator also suggested, in the case of a letting of premises used for both residential and business purposes, that the portion used for business purposes should be decontrolled. The Conroy Commission examined that particular matter also but considered that it would be completely impracticable to endeavour to segregate the two portions of the premises for rent control purposes. They said said that there would be no justification for removing control from the residential portion and, as segregation was not practicable, they recommended that these lettings of combined residential and business premises should not be decontrolled.

Mr. Louis Walsh

What about the case where there are two separate and distinct lettings to the one family, where portion of the letting is in respect of the business premises and another separate letting for the dwellinghouse?

Mr. Haughey

We are proposing to decontrol purely business premises let on less than a yearly tenancy. The only business premises that will continue to be controlled will be combined residential and business premises. There was some criticism of the fact that we are giving a "bonus" of 12½ per cent. to landlords. I do not think that is fair criticism, if the House will consider the picture as a whole and the figures I gave for the increased cost of repairs. The Conroy Commission estimated that repairs had increased by five times between 1914 and 1950. The cost of repairs has gone up by 40 per cent. since that time. The House should also bear in mind that rents generally are controlled at either 1914 or 1941 levels, that landlords of the older controlled property have received no general increase since 1926 and that 12½ per cent. is not really a hardship increase on any tenant. I shall give the House in a moment some samples of the way in which this 12½ per cent. will work out.

If Senators keep these factors in mind, the House will agree that it is a reasonable compromise, particularly in view of the fact that the Conroy Commission eight years ago recommended a 25 per cent. increase in one case where the landlord is liable for all repairs and a 12½ per cent. increase where the landlord is liable for part repairs. We are giving only 12½ per cent. in any case.

Some examples which we have taken here in regard to how this will operate in the city of Dublin are as follows: Let us take a room, first floor in Dublin, with a rateable valuation of £1 and a present weekly rent of 3/2. That will go up to 3/5½. In the case of a first floor room whose present rent is 15/2½ per week, that will go up to 16/6. Let us take the better-class accommodation such as a house with a valuation of £22 and a present weekly rent of £2 7s. 10d. That will be increased to £2 11s. 9d. In the case of a house whose valuation is £10 10s., the present weekly rent of 17/11 will be increased to 19/2.

I think that even looked at purely from the point of view of the tenant and ignoring the whole economic background, these increases cannot be regarded as being in any way likely to cause hardship. Indeed, we have had quite a number of representations about the Bill and the provisions in it, and this is one aspect of the whole matter about which there have been practically no representations of any sort.

The other points included one which was raised by Senator Sheehy Skeffington with regard to 23 Mountjoy Square. The only thing I can say about that case is that it happened in 1943. It was brought about by the decontrol which came after the 1926 Act. We are providing in this Bill that, in a case where a house is decontrolled and that house is subsequently re-let in rooms or flats, it will come back under control again. With regard to the situation which Senator Sheehy Skeffington described, the law has done all it could. The local authority has provided as well as it possibly could for dealing with that situation, both in the public health provisions compelling landlords to look after their property and to keep it up to a minimum standard, and in rehousing the tenants where necessary. In this Rent Restrictions Bill, we are doing everything we can for that type of person. The Morgan Place Court has been provided for them and it is hard to see what more can be done.

The general argument Senator Murphy made, that the Government are proposing to reduce building and regard the housing needs of the people as being fairly well satisfied, has been dealt with satisfactorily by Senator Lenihan. It is not true. In fact, the Bill, in so far as it has any bearing on that matter, will have the opposite effect. We think it will encourage more repairs of houses; we think it will encourage certain landlords who own old houses which are going into disrepair at the moment to change them into self-contained flats; and, generally speaking, we think the effect will be to give a fillip to building and repair work. It certainly is not the belief of this Government that the housing needs of our people have been satisfied, and there is no intention of slowing down the housing drive.

Mr. Barry

Does the Parliamentary Secretary know that the housing authorities in Cork have been cut from three to two in four years, and that where we built three in 1956, we are only allowed to build two now?

Mr. Haughey

Let me say that I do not accept that. I would have to know more about it. I can say that the general position all over the country is that the number of houses being built is increasing year by year, and in fact——

Mr. Donegan

That is incorrect.

Mr. Haughey

——everything the Minister for Local Government can do to encourage the building of houses and to encourage the repair and reconstruction of houses is being done. I do not think it fair to try to tempt me into an argument on general local authority housing policy at this stage.

Mr. Donegan

That is quite incorrect.

Mr. Lenihan

The Minister for Local Government gave the answer two weeks ago.

A Senator

The Minister for Local Government got his answer.

Mr. Donegan

The number of houses being built is diminishing.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order!

Mr. Haughey

All I am concerned to say is that this Bill, in so far as it affects the situation, will have the opposite effect to what has been suggested. It is an endeavour to encourage, as I say, the alteration and reconstruction of certain buildings and the further repair and improvement of others.

The suggestion has also been made that we might refer this Bill to a special committee. I do not really think that is necessary on this occasion. Very important principles, as well as fairly technical matters, are involved in this Bill, and I would prefer the whole House to participate in the discussion. It would be more desirable that we should proceed in that way. I have sufficient respect for the Members of the House, and their experience of affairs to know that the House as a whole could deal fully, properly and intelligently with the Bill, and that it is not at all necessary to refer it to a smaller, more specialised, committee.

I shall conclude by saying again that the Bill is, as Senator Donegan properly said, a compromise. There are two major conflicting requirements: on the one hand, there is the requirement of social justice and the necessity to protect the weaker sections of the community and, on the other hand, there is the argument of the economists that we must as a matter of good national policy preserve the existing stock of houses, and that we must do what we can to ensure that landlords will be encouraged to preserve that stock of houses. Between those two conflicting requirements we have this Bill which I think represents a fair compromise. On the one hand, we are doing something for the landlords to enable them to do the job we want them to do and, on the other, we are absolutely insisting that the rights of tenants will be protected and that no subsisting tenancy will be disturbed in any way.

We have given that guarantee and we are prepared to abide by it. If the House would accept that it is a difficult situation, and that in this Bill we are trying to do what we can in that difficult situation, I think the House would be agreeable to give us the Second Stage of the Bill.

Mr. Murphy

Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any estimate of the number of houses which will be affected by the measure?

Mr. Haughey

I am afraid I cannot do that. The only definite statistics we have are that there are approximately 160,000 houses altogether under rent control, and the number of those that will go out of control by virtue of the provisions of this Bill I do not think we can even estimate.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. Murphy

Votáil.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Will Senators who desire a division please rise in their places?

Senators Miss Davidson, Murphy, Sheehy Skeffington and P. Crowley rose.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senators will be recorded as dissenting.

Mr. Haughey

Could we have the Committee Stage this day week?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that we take the Committee Stage this day week.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I do not want to be obstructive but there may be amendments and there are quite a number of details and complicated points to be covered. To get amendments in for next week, they have to be in by Saturday. I wonder if two or three days are enough?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is eleven o'clock on Monday.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should feel happier if we left it a fortnight. I do not know if we shall meet this day fortnight.

Mr. Haughey

The Bill has been circulated since 3rd March. The explanatory memorandum is fairly clear. I think most Senators have had an opportunity of considering it fully. We shall give the fullest possible consideration on Committee Stage to any point any Senator may wish to make.

Professor Hayes

I take it that amendments would be accepted up to Tuesday morning because Monday next is a bank holiday?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

No, it works the other way. It goes back.

Mr. Murphy

That is a bit short. Next Wednesday week would be better, in the circumstances.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the Parliamentary Secretary would agree to accept amendments——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

On the basis of the discussion we have had and those who have studied the Bill, how many Senators are inclined to put in amendments? We have had the experience before of amendments being promised and never materialising.

Professor Stanford

Some of us received a complicated document from a much-interested organisation. I am in favour of postponing the Committee Stage for another week. This document is difficult to grasp. It will take some time to digest it. It would be rushing it to take the Committee Stage next week.

Mr. P. Crowley

Is the matter urgent?

Mr. Murphy

It is not urgent as far as we are concerned.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think the Parliamentary Secretary is inclined to give a further week in the circumstances, that is, the Committee Stage will be taken on Wednesday, 15th June, 1960.

Mr. Haughey

On condition that we get a series of very helpful amendments.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

On condition that the Parliamentary Secretary accepts them when he gets them.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 15th June, 1960.