Rent Restrictions (No. 2) Bill, 1960—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, lines 17 and 18, to delete "or the commissioners of a town".
This is an amendment which I put down for the purpose of getting some clarification. The Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, was passed before the Local Government Act of that year and this definition of rates is the same as the definition in the 1946 Act. As I understand the position resulting from the passage of the 1946 Local Government Act, town commissioners do not make rates since the passing of that Act. There is no such thing as rates made by a local authority being the commissioners of a town. That is my own view of the effect of the 1946 Local Government Act and I am fortified in that view by people who are a great deal more experienced in that branch of local government law than I am. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary agrees.
I think I can short-circuit the discussion by agreeing that the Senator is right in his view. We are prepared to accept the amendment, subject to a slight alteration of a drafting nature, that is, we delete the words in the amendment "or the commissioners of a town" and insert "or" before "the council". If we put in "or" there, we can accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 2:
In subsection (2), page 5, to delete paragraph (e), lines 20 to 22, inclusive.
As I understand the section, houses which are still covered by the valuation and which would still be subject to rent control because of their relatively low valuation, under this amending Bill, could, if they ever become occupied by the owner subsequently, be free completely from rent restriction. I think the Parliamentary Secretary was not quite in agreement when I made that statement on the Second Stage and I should like to have that clarified. In other words, a house which would be subject to rent control under this Bill is subsequently occupied by the owner and thereafter becomes free from rent control altogether. In other words, if the owner gets possession of a house, occupies it for some time and then subsequently lets it, it is free from rent control. That is my reading of the explanatory memorandum and the Bill.
The purpose of this amendment is to delete that provision so that houses, which because of their valuation would be subject to rent control, will still be subject to rent control, even if the owner occupies them for a time and subsequently lets them again. It does appear that the purpose of this paragraph in the section would be to permit the device of the owner securing possession when the house becomes vacant, occupying it for a short time himself and thereafter the house is free from rent control. I think that is wrong and the purpose of the amendment is to provide that the house will still be subject to rent control.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We shall take amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together for discussion purposes.
My amendment, amendment No. 3, is not quite so comprehensive as that of Senator Murphy. I should be inclined, if I had to choose between the two, to support Senator Murphy's amendment rather than my own. What it amounts to is that Senator Murphy thinks—and rightly so—that it is unjust that a house which otherwise would be controlled simply by reason of the fact that a landlord lives in it at the time of the passing of the Act or lives in it for a short time afterwards, should become decontrolled for ever. I think Senator Murphy is right.
It seems to me that the second portion is even more unjust. The first portion refers to landlords who are occupiers of a house at the moment of the passing of the Act, having residence in the house, but the portion I want to move, if it is left in, will allow a landlord to move into a house, live there a week or a month and by that means have the house decontrolled for all time. In other words, if there were to be a vote on these two amendments, I should vote first for Senator Murphy's amendment and if that amendment is accepted, mine does not arise.
If, on the other hand, Senator Murphy's amendment were not accepted, then I would still press mine because my amendment would have the effect at least of allowing sub-paragraph (e) to apply only to houses which are at present occupied by the owner and would prevent its being applied to houses that would be subsequently occupied for possibly a very short time by the landlord, because the paragraph as it now reads is as follows:
a house which at the passing of this Act is occupied by the owner thereof for the purposes of his own residence, or thereafter becomes so occupied.
It does not really matter how long he stayed in it—the mere occupation of a residence for a short time would liberate this house from all control. I think that would be a very bad thing. Therefore, I would press my amendment, even if Senator Murphy's amendment were defeated. If his amendment were accepted, then my amendment falls.
I should like to make the position clear. We are dealing with houses which, at the date of the passing of the Act, are owner-occupied or subsequently become so occupied. In those cases we are not disturbing any existing tenancy.
The principle, as I set out here on the Second reading, was that we should have such relaxation of control as was possible without disturbing any existing tenancy. The House accepted that principle and this paragraph (e) is fully in accordance with that principle. The case with which Senator Sheehy Skeffington is concerned is a case where the landlord subsequently goes to live in a house and he suggests that there is a danger that the landlord may do that for a very short period, purely for the purpose of decontrolling the house. I do not think that is a very real danger because, in the first instance, only a very limited number of landlords would be in a position to do so. For instance, a limited company which is the landlord of a very great number of houses could not resort to such a device. Another category of landlords would be prevented from doing such a thing because of social position or inconvenience, so that the number of cases in which it would be likely to happen would be very small indeed.
Again I think landlords even in this limited number of cases would be very reluctant to atttempt this because subsequently tenants could challenge the bona fides of their residence, if they did it. Therefore, I do not think there is any real substance in the argument of either of the two Senators because we are not disturbing any existing tenant and it is only in the case of new lettings arising after the passing of the Act that this amount of decontrol will come into being. There again let me make this clear: if by virtue of this provision, a house becomes decontrolled, if a room or a flat is subsequently let in that house, it will bring it back under control. In view of all that, I think I should not be asked to accept either of these amendments.
In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I am more inclined than ever to press this amendment. I might agree that limited companies and various concerns which had built small houses and let them over the years—at least they did it in former generations—are undertakings that we should not worry unduly about, but the landlord who might own one or two houses is in a rather different category and the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to put him in a more privileged position than the other people. He can, by this device, gain possession of the house and by going into it for a week, free that house from rent control thereafter.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that no existing tenancies were going to be affected. They are not going to be affected, no matter what the landlord is, but why then put the landlord, who is an individual rather than a company and who may own a couple of small houses, into that privileged position? He would be more tempted than the company to use this device—and it is being deliberately given to him—of getting the existing tenant out and going in for a week and thereafter that house—a small house, perhaps—will be free from rent control completely. I wish to press this amendment.
I should like to oppose this amendment. Senator Murphy has used the phrase that these owners, perhaps of a small number of houses, are to be put in a more privileged position. It seems to me that all that will happen under this section is that owners of houses are in fact being given their property. At least, they may be put in the position of being able to charge a reasonable rent. I know of a building on Palmerston Road of which the rent is £40 a year, as it was in 1919. If the owner of that house is enabled to get back into his own property—he has been out of his money for so long—I cannot see he is being put in a more privileged position. Now he can get a market price for his house. Nobody is going to pay an exorbitant rent nowadays as property is not that scarce. Now he is going to get the market value out of his house after 30 or 40 years. I oppose this amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that he does not think it would be likely that many landlords would take advantage of this kind of thing in order to move into residence and then move out of residence and take advantage of the fact that the house was decontrolled in order to raise the rent. But Senator McGuire has just shown that he sees that as the main purpose of the section——
I did not but I said he will be allowed to.
He makes the point that the landlord could raise the rent but the subsection purports——
——to deal with an owner-occupier. Therefore, either Senator McGuire's reference is totally irrelevant because he said it will enable a landlord to get a high enough rent, or the claim of Senator Murphy is valid and it is anticipated that landlords will in fact go back into their property temporarily and then move out, because it is quite clear they are not going to pay themselves rent. The paragraph relates to the owner-occupied house. If it is owner-occupied at the time of the passing of this Bill, it is decontrolled automatically and if the owner occupies it at any time thereafter for residence, for no specific time—just occupies it—it could be a week or a month—it becomes decontrolled. But clearly he can raise the rent only if he moves out again. It seems to me therefore that to support the Parliamentary Secretary on these grounds is to betray the Parliamentary Secretary by revealing what seems to be the real effects of leaving such a paragraph in the Bill.
I do not see what harm it will do the genuine owner-occupier if his house, which he occupies as a residence, is considered theoretically under this Bill as being controlled. I do not see what harm that does and therefore I do not see the need for this protective paragraph. Why do we need to have a house in which he lives decontrolled if the Minister is aiming at the genuine owner-occupier? What harm does it do him to know he is living in a house which is controlled because he is the owner and is living in it? I do not know what harm it would do if we removed the paragraph and said if a house is of a certain type or valuation, whether you live in it or not, it comes under the provisions of this Act, because clearly he is not paying himself rent and is not going to suffer damage from the fact that the house is controlled.
Further, the Parliamentary Secretary said that it is unlikely that many landlords would resort to this device. I do not know whether it is likely that many would but if we leave loopholes, it is surprising the number who would slip through and enable the house to be decontrolled. Then these provisions of the Bill would go by the board because they allowed a man to move in and occupy his house for a short period and then move out and have his house considered decontrolled for ever.
I should be less unhappy about this paragraph if it were framed in such a way that if and when the owner ceases to be resident in the house, the house would automatically become decontrolled, and would revert to the conditions obtaining before his residence. I would be quite happy if some such amendment were put forward by the Government, and it would probably meet also the objection of Senator Murphy. There is no point in insisting that while a man is in residence, the place shall be decontrolled. Could we not insist that when he moves out, it automatically reverts and becomes subject to the provisions of the Bill?
Senator Sheehy Skeffington is very good at using whatever one says as an argument against the speaker, to his own satisfaction. Still the fact is that this Bill, as I see it, was primarily intended to remove unnecessary controls imposed as far back as the 1914-18 War. In addition, the Bill quite rightly tries to avoid causing any undue hardship to existing tenants. That is the point the Parliamentary Secretary has made. We hear nothing about the injustice to the owner whose property has been kept from him for many years at a quite uneconomic rent, whereas in any other commerce in this country, including workers' wages, everybody wants to get a fair return for his money. All I am suggesting is that this section does in fact say that no injustice or hardship is imposed on the existing tenant; but once a tenant leaves, why keep that house controlled for ever after when the purpose is to move controls gradually until eventually everybody has the right to dispose of his own property in the open market? Therefore I still say that once the owner gets back into his house, whether he wants to live in it or to let it, it should not be further controlled.
Let me repeat that there are two types of things involved. One is a house which has never had a tenant in it, but has been owner-occupied. If at some future date, for family reasons or financial or other reasons, the owner might want to rent it, we provide that such a house will not be controlled in future. There is no tenant involved.
In the second case, there is the house which has a tenant at the moment, and subsequently the tenant leaves, the tenant whom we are anxious to protect, and the owner goes into occupation. From that day on, we provide that the control will not apply to that house. If that owner rents the house subsequently, he rents it to a completely new tenant. Why should a tenant go into a house and pay an exorbitant rent?
The whole background to the Bill is that there is now an adequate supply of houses, grant-aided, which are available at very attractive terms. The suggestion that an owner who gets his house decontrolled by this revision will subsequently be in a position to charge an exorbitant rent to an incoming tenant is just unrealistic. I think that there is no real danger at all. I cannot see what sort of person the two Senators are concerned about. I cannot visualise any situation where any hardship will be done to anybody by this provision. Surely if the principle of the Bill is accepted, that we should have some modification and relaxation of control where there is no hardship, this provision is perfectly all right.
If the houses we are talking about happen to be owned by a society, they will still continue to be subject to rent control for the new tenant. It is only where they happen to be owned by the poor landlord and he gains possession and goes in for a week, by that device, that house will be free from rent control. Why distinguish between the small house owned by an individual and one owned by a society? We are dealing with small houses, and not with the large houses which Senator McGuire talks about. If such a house is owned by a society and there is a change of tenancy, the new tenant has protection in so far as it is worth anything, but if it happens to be owned by a private individual who uses this device of going in for a week, that new tenant has not the same protection.
There is one point that arises from the remarks of Senator Murphy. How could a landlord use that device if there is a tenant in occupation of the premises, because, as the Senator knows, it is not easy for a landlord to get rid of a tenant? It is only in the case where the tenant leaves the house that the landlord is entitled to come in, and after coming in, he is entitled to take stock of his position vis-a-vis the upkeep of the house and make sure that he will not be at any loss in letting the house to a new tenant. The new tenant will know exactly where he stands. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, I do not think it would be possible for any individual landlord to charge an exorbitant rent, seeing that there are so many houses available now after all the building that has taken place over the years.
The Senator knows that there are not plenty of houses to let. There may be plenty to purchase.
Might I point out to Senator Murphy that this will encourage the letting of houses? The fact that this position is there will enable an owner-occupier to make a letting for three, four, five or ten years, and will make a certain additional number of houses available for letting. In that respect, the Bill increases the supply of rented houses.
In that case a landlord could charge more.
The owner would be more inclined to let a decontrolled than a controlled house.
How can he let a house in which he is resident without moving out?
He must move out, but in that case he would be more inclined to let it as a decontrolled than as a controlled house. Therefore, the Bill increases the supply of houses available for letting.
The owner occupies the house for a short time and then moves out, and the rent goes up.
If that is what I said, it is not what I thought I said.
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will Senators desiring a division please stand?
Senators Miss Davidson, Sheehy Skeffington, P. Crowley and Murphy rose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senators will be recorded as dissenting.
I move amendment No. 3:
In subsection (2) (e), page 5, line 22, to delete "or thereafter becomes so occupied".
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will Senators desiring a division please stand?
Senators Miss Davidson, Sheehy Skeffington, P. Crowley and Murphy rose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senators will be recorded as dissenting.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In subsection (2) (f), page 5, line 24, to delete "or thereafter comes into possession".
This is an amendment of a similar nature which relates to paragraph (f) which says:—
a house of which the landlord is, at the passing of this Act, in possession or thereafter comes into possession and the rateable valuation whereof exceeds——
—£30 or £25 and so on, shall be decontrolled. The words I should like to see removed, and this is the object of my amendment, are the words "or thereafter comes into possession". This relates not to the landlord living in the house, but to the landlord coming into possession of it, and gaining vacant possession and this is the case, I think, which Senator McGuire had chiefly in mind. It is not a question of residence but the mere fact of the regaining possession of the house. Paragraph (f) will mean in future that certain types of houses with pretty low valuations, in fact £30 and £25, will become decontrolled. I think where the landlord is in possession at the time of the passing of the Act, it might be legitimate, but I do not think it is in the public interest to allow any landlord who comes into possession of such property to have it decontrolled which means, in fact, of course, that the rents in these cases will go up. It is only a question of knowing by how much they will go up.
I must ask the House to reject this amendment because, again, it cuts across the entire principle of the Bill. In this case, I should like to remind the House that there is a different principle. The principle in paragraph (f) applies only to houses with a valuation of over £30. The Seanad can immediately realise that that puts the number of houses to which it applies in a very limited category—£30 valuation in Dublin and £25 outside Dublin.
Again, let me emphasise in this regard also, that there is no hardship on the existing tenant. Senator Sheehy Skeffington talked about the rent going up. The rent may go up, but it would be on the basis of the incoming tenant making a new bargain with the landlord. There is no question of putting the rent up on an existing tenant. Once that fact is clearly understood, I think the House will reject the amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Would Senators desiring a division please stand in their places?
Senators Miss Davidson, Sheehy Skeffington, Murphy and P. Crowley rose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senators will be recorded as dissenting.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think amendments Nos. 5 and 6 might be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In subsection (2) (f) (i), page 5, line 27, to delete "thirty" and substitute "forty-five".
At present, houses with a poor law valuation exceeding £60 in Dublin and £40 elsewhere are not subject to rent control. The Bill proposes to reduce the upper limit to £30 in Dublin and £25 elsewhere. When I spoke on Second Reading, I asked if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us any idea of the number of houses that might be affected, but he was unable to do so because such figures were not available. When the Parliamentary Secretary was dealing with Senator Sheehy Skeffington's amendment just now, he pointed to the fact that only houses of over £30 valuation in Dublin would be freed from rent control and that they were a very limited category. He was expressing an opinion as to the number involved, but, in the absence of fairly firm figures, I have a suspicion that the limit is being brought too low, and that quite a number of houses in Dublin and elsewhere will be freed from rent control, if the section is allowed to stand as it is at the moment.
I am trying to compromise; I am trying to bring it to a more reasonable level; I am trying to provide that houses of under £45 valuation in Dublin, and £30 elsewhere, will continue to be subject to rent control. I should be in a happier position to argue these amendments if I had some idea of the number of houses involved and I think the Parliamentary Secretary is equally unhappy in that he cannot give the House any idea of the number of houses which will be freed from rent control by reason of this Bill. It seems to me to be a rather unhappy position for any responsible person coming before the Oireachtas and asking us to pass this measure, to be unable to give any idea of the number of houses which will be affected by it.
I think the limit is too low. If we are to have an easement of rent restrictions, I think the Parliamentary Secretary is asking us to go too far. I believe the limit would impose less hardship if it were £45 and £30. We are told that a greater number of houses will become available, but I think every Senator appreciates that there is a great shortage of houses for renting. It is quite impossible really to find houses which can be rented. A person has a choice of getting a corporation house but, of course, if he does not come within the category catered for by the corporation he cannot get one, and in all probability there is a waiting list. If he cannot get a corporation house, he will find it very difficult indeed to rent a house.
When I spoke here a fortnight ago, I referred to the various types of people who, because of their employment, are unable to settle down and engage in the purchase of a house. They must avail of rented houses when they can get them. These people will be under a hardship if the limit is reduced as low as is being provided for under this Bill. I am suggesting that the limit should be £45 and £30. There would probably be less hardship involved. The houses which will be freed from rent control will probably be bigger houses and they would not be the type of house that would be occupied by people less well able to afford high rents and needing protection by legislation, to give them an economic and fair rent.
Let me make it clear that there will not be any hardship involved in any case. Again, the principle on which we are passing the whole Bill applies here. Two qualifications are necessary before a house becomes decontrolled in accordance with this provision: it must be under £30 poor law valuation in Dublin and £25 outside and secondly, the landlord must come into possession of it.
Senator Murphy is right in saying that there are no precise statistics, but do we not all know from our own knowledge that when we are dealing with houses built before 1941, the vast majority would be under £30 valuation in Dublin and £25 outside? Having, as it were, got rid of the vast majority by the valuation qualification, we come to the next qualification: in no case where an existing tenant is involved can this provision come into operation. The tenancy must cease and the landlord must come into possession. Bear in mind also that the circumstances in which a tenancy would cease and the landlord come into possession would be very rare because in this Bill and throughout the whole of the rent Acts generally, the tenant is hedged around with all sorts of protections so as to ensure that the circumstances in which the landlord can come into possession are very rare, very limited indeed.
I would ask the House to reject the amendment. The figures £30 and £25 are very real and appropriate figures which were arrived at after very careful consideration of the situation. Houses with p.l.v. £30 are paying approximately £60 in rates and that is a fairly good class of house. The number of houses of that sort which would be rented at all and rented to the people we are out to protect would be very limited.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
in subsection (2) page 5 to delete paragraph (g), lines 30 to 33 inclusive.
The amendment seeks the deletion of a full paragraph which gives another category of houses which are to be decontrolled under the Bill:
a dwelling which is a separate and self-contained flat forming part of any buildings which, after the passing of this Act, were reconstructed by way of conversion into two or more separate and self-contained flats.
I think it is not right to decontrol completely such dwellings and I think the paragraph is bad for several reasons. A basic reason is that there is no definition of what "self-contained flat" is and opinions vary very widely as between landlord and tenant as to what a self-contained flat is. Does it, in order to be self-contained, have to have a bathroom, lavatory and kitchen? Does a flat fail to be self-contained which has not its own hall door and which includes such conveniences? What, in other words, do we mean? The Minister has not given us any definition of what a self-contained flat is and I suggest that it is open to quite an amount of argument as between landlord and tenant.
Furthermore, the fact of conversion into two or more separate self-contained flats does not seem to me in itself to be a sufficient reason for complete decontrol. The Parliamentary Secretary will remind the House that the landlord can charge whatever rent he can get. It is of course putting these flats on the market but I do not think that the underlying suggestion that there are plenty of such good self-contained separate flats available or that they will become available under the section is a good enough argument to have them completely decontrolled.
It is an unwise paragraph. I think it will mean exorbitant rents, exorbitant by reason of the pressure of demand for just such accommodation. People will be forced by circumstances into paying far more than might be regarded as equitable, because there is a demand for newly converted so-called self-contained flats—which are not in fact self-contained and which in many cases are not even separate.
Again, I must ask the House to reject this amendment because this is a provision of which we are very fond and we hope that a considerable amount of benefit will flow from it. Indeed it is the aspect of the Bill from which we expect the greatest benefit to arise. The background which gave rise to this is that all around Dublin and in other areas there are a large number of old houses which are falling into decay and which would be ideally suitable for conversion into self-contained flats which would be very suitable for elderly couples, business girls and that class of tenant. In my opinion, as a result of this provision, a large number of landlords will be encouraged to convert houses of this type into self-contained flats and therefore there will be a very substantial increase in useful accommodation.
The only real difficulty, I think, which Senator Sheehy Skeffington had is the meaning of "self-contained". I think that is a fairly well defined and well-known term. In fact it has been in existence since 1920. A provision of this sort was introduced into the 1920 Act and the situation we are about to restore obtained all the time from 1920 to 1945. In all that period, we had that term "self-contained flat" in use and widely understood and I do not think any difficulty arises under that heading. I would ask the House to reject the amendment because we hope that very substantial benefits to the type of person who is looking for accommodation will accrue, if the provision stands.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that the term "self-contained flats" which I have suggested is widely disputed and may be disputed hotly under this provision is a widely understood term. Might I ask him what it is understood to mean?
A portion of a house which is a separate dwelling in itself, self-contained; you do not have to have access to any other portion of the building for the ordinary everyday amenities. In the portion of the building involved there are all the necessary amenities for a dwelling.
Am I to understand that these houses will be reconstructed with the help of public money, a grant of one-third from the central Government and another one-third from local Government?
It is not proposed to have these flats subject to any control whatever? A landlord after receiving two-thirds of the cost, can charge whatever he can get from people in need of accommodation?
Senator Murphy is too naïve. He knows well we are spending a considerable amount of money on the repair and maintenance of houses. He knows well that almost anybody can get a grant now in respect of the repair of a house. The first objective in any survey of housing is to see that there is proper maintenance so as to get the most effective use from the existing stock of houses. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, we have a large number of houses of the type mentioned in the paragraph falling into decay. If the provision in the section works, it will have the effect of making flats more plentiful, with consequent competition.
Senator Sheehy Skeffington poses the question: what is a self-contained flat? If you have competition, the customer will tell you quickly. Anybody in search of a flat would be well able to explain to the Senator what "self contained flat" means.
I have seen some of them.
That may be. It follows that if we are spending a large amount of money subsidising housing of every description we should spend some money on subsidising the repair and maintenance of those houses visualised in this section because those houses make up our national housing stock as well as every other type of house.
On the question of "self-contained", I think the fact that self-contained flats are to be completely decontrolled under this paragraph will raise the question of——
The Parliamentary Secretary rightly thinks that the term ought to be used exclusively for flats which contain all the amenities. He will find even in the case of newly-constructed flats, self-contained flats advertised "with use of bathroom" or even "with use of kitchen". He will find a self-contained flat "with use of bathroom".
There is no definition in law which would prevent the owners of such flats from calling them that name. I would feel a lot happier if a definition along the lines suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary were included in the Bill so that "self-contained" really means what he would like it to be taken as meaning.
There is a great deal to be said for what Senator Sheehy Skeffington has been saying. This Bill contains a lot of phrases. It is easy to say we all know what they mean. Senator Sheehy Skeffington is right when he says this question is likely to be much more crucial in the future. If there are to be a great number of newly-constructed self-contained flats immediately, the first thing any person who goes into occupation of one of them will try to have determined by the Court is whether or not it is self-contained. If they are not self-contained, they will apply to have a rent fixed.
That will be the tendency. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary made a very good hand at what I consider was probably an impromptu definition of a "self-contained flat." The fact that he has made such a definition shows, it is capable of being defined. We ought to put it in the Bill.
I have no patience with people who say: "Leave these things in a broad way; we all understand what they mean." We do not, when it comes down to it. This Bill applies to every dwelling. The dwelling includes the dwelling-house, the back yard, the front garden, the coalhouse, and so on. Is a self-contained flat self-contained if only one coal-house is provided for two flats? That is the kind of thing you are up against. That is the kind of problem in respect of which we ought not to have landlords or tenants put to the expense of litigating in the court. Undoubtedly, it is something people will have to have decided in the courts. It may well end up in the Supreme Court on a case stated from the Circuit Court. Some unfortunate individual will then have to pay the whole cost of taking that litigation through all the courts in the land, right up to the Supreme Court when this House could easily say what is meant in this case by a "self-contained flat". I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider some form of amendment in regard to what a self-contained flat is —something along the lines he has suggested.
I am entirely in favour of definitions in a case like this if it is clear that definitions are necessary. I very much doubt whether it is necessary to define a "self-contained flat." The Parliamentary Secretary has given what must be the commonsense description or definition of a self-contained flat. It must have its own toilet facilities. It must have a kitchen. These are the two essentials, apart from living accommodation.
Senator O'Quigley's example was an unhappy one. It showed how ludicrous the position could be if you tried to define all the things a self-contained flat must have. Is the definition which is suggested to include what Senator O'Quigley mentioned? Must a self-contained flat have a coal house?
Let us say it need not have that and then include everything else.
It would have to include everything else.
Must it say it must have a bicycle house?
Must it have everything a flat might or might not have? Once you go into the definition of a thing like a self-contained flat you are almost certain to leave out something important or, on the other hand, to become so detailed as to make it almost impossible to comply with it. Consequently, although I am in agreement generally with the putting of definitions into Acts, where there is any doubt, I think this is not a case where the situation would be helped by putting one into the Bill.
It seems to me that Senator O'Quigley's point was that if you have a clear definition it would be clear from the definition whether the fact that you have not a separate coal-box invalidates you from claiming that the flat is a self-contained flat. If you have a definition which says it must have certain amenities then failure to have certain other amenities does not preclude you from counting the flat as self-contained. If you have no definitions you might make the plea that because you have not separate facilities for fuel the flat cannot be said to be wholly self-contained. I disagree with Senator Ryan. Even a narrow definition along the lines suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary—which would not include bicycle sheds, and so on—would be more satisfactory than no definition.
I think the position was clearly put by Senator Ryan. I do not think there is a need to define "self-contained". Do not forget that the section says "separate and self-contained". This phrase has been in use for 20 years and never caused any difficulty. I do not see that it will cause any difficulty in the future. I see very great difficulty involved in endeavouring to frame any sort of definition which would not cause far more trouble than it would obviate.
Am I correct in saying that these flats will be converted with the help of subsidies and that landlords can take whatever rent they can get?
Yes; it is well-settled State policy to endavour to procure as great a supply of this type of accommodation as possible. The system of grants is available to anybody to carry out this type of operation and I think it is desirable it should be so.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
I should like to press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will Senators desiring a division please stand?
Senators Miss Davidson, Sheehy Skeffington, P. Crowley and Murphy rose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senators will be recorded as dissenting.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
Government amendment No. 8:—
In page 5, before subsection (4) to insert the following subsection:
"(4) Where, immediately before the passing of this Act,—
(a) a dwelling stood let together with land other than the site of the dwelling, and
(b) the Act of 1946 applied to the dwelling,
this Act shall, notwithstanding paragraph (h) of subsection (2) of this section, apply to the dwelling unless and until the landlord comes into possession thereof."
This amendment is inserted in pursuance of the principle that we do not wish, in any circumstances, to disturb any existing tenancy. In the Bill we are reducing the valuation of land attached to a house from £15, in the case of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire, to £10, and in all other cases, from £10 to £5. It is possible as the Bill stands that that reduction could result, in some existing tenancies being disturbed and this amendment is to deal with that situation and ensure that these reductions in the valuation of the land attached to the dwelling which is let will not disturb any existing tenancy.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I should just like to make the point that I find it disappointing that the main aim of this section, which is decontrol, seems to be turning back houses—or to be quite fair, a section of houses—in one sense to the open market, as it were. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the landlord will not be able to get an exorbitant rent because he will be able to get only the rent which the tenant is willing to pay on a market where there is a fairly large quantity of houses available. To couple that with the case of houses which are to be reconstructed with the help of public expenditure is, on the one hand, to recognise the right of a private individual to take profits in a free market and, on the other hand, for the State to put up money for the purpose of helping private people to private profit. I am a bit disappointed to find the unanimity with which the big Parties are supporting this view, and only the Labour Party and one or two Independents seem to take the view that decontrol in such cases should have some strings attached to it in relation to the public moneys being expended in order to enable private persons to make bigger profits.
I should like to refer to something that was half dealt with in the the course of dealing with the amendments. I am concerned here with the possibility of a great deal of litigation arising out of a section which is drafted without sufficent definition. I know quite well how, when sections of this kind come to be construed in court, judges, solicitors and counsel find themselves in extreme difficulty. They are always construing things on the basis that the Legislature knew precisely what it was doing.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in relation to sub-paragraph (e) of subsection 2, what is his conception of a house being occupied for the purpose of the owner's own residence. He did mention earlier in reply to one of the amendments that it was perfectly clear that where the owner or landlord had occupied the residence bona fide, then this sub-paragraph would come into operation; but the sub-paragraph in sub-section 2 makes no reference whatever to bona fide occupation of a landlord or owner.
I am inclined to think that the view of Senator Murphy and Senator Sheehy Skeffington, notwithstanding Senator Sheehy Skeffington's disappointment that Fine Gael take a certain view upon this particular section, is correct. All a landlord needs to do to decontrol a house, in my view, is this: once it ceases to be occupied by a tenant, he can go into residence for a week and can then say that the house has thereafter been occupied by him as his residence; but if you were to say "bona fide occupier as a residence”, then the landlord might not get away with that kind of technicality. I do not think he would. The Court would say that going in for one week was merely a colourable residence and is not in fact a bona fide residence and occupation.
If the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government had in mind that it is only in cases where the owner has in fact occupied the house as a residence for himself and his family, if he has a family, that it should become decontrolled, then they ought to put that in the Bill, and unnecessary litigation in ascertaining what the Oireachtas had in mind in passing this section will be avoided.
With regard to the other paragraph on which we had a good deal of discussion earlier, paragraph (g), I have no doubt at all, notwithstanding the lack of imagination on the part of Senator Ryan, that it is quite possible to put in a definition as to what this Parliament means by "self-contained flat". That is what we ought to do. It is for the Parliamentary Secretary to say what is meant by a self-contained flat and whether in particular circumstances, if a particular type of residence becomes available, the Parliamentary Secretary can declare it to be a self-contained flat. It has been found necessary to define what a dwelling means and I think it is equally necessary that we should define what a self-contained flat means. Does it mean a flat containing the minimum of accommodation with, to put it broadly, cooking facilities, sleeping facilities, toilet and washing facilities——
Does the Senator mean actual cooking?
No. The Parliamentary Secretary may define it whatever way he likes.
Everyone knows what a kitchen is.
The Senator's phrase was "cooking facilities".
I said I was putting it broadly. I was outlining the headings generally. A kitchen could also be a kitchenette. We could say "a room and separate portions thereof set aside for cooking, accommodation for sleeping, accommodation for toilet and bath." Then we could say: "Notwithstanding the fact that this complies with the minimum requirements and notwithstanding that the tenant shares any other amenity, accommodation or facility, it shall be deemed to be a self-contained flat." That is one definition. I thought of that between 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m.— in fact I thought of it between 6 p.m. and 6.10 p.m. and if I was prepared to sit down and spend half an hour brooding on it, I am sure I could work out a definition so that everyone reading the Bill would know what is meant by a self-contained flat.
In view of the arguments adduced here by Senator Murphy, Senator Sheehy Skeffington and others, I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to consider attempting, at any rate, between now and Report Stage, to define what is meant by a self-contained flat. In that way, unnecessary litigation which would be unprofitable both to the landlord and the tenant, and profitable only to people such as Senator Louis Walsh, Senator Ryan and myself, would be avoided.
I would certainly be anxious to meet any real fears which any Senator might have, but I really think the fears which are being expressed are a little divorced from reality. Surely the phrase "purposes of his own residence" is absolutely clear and unequivocal. If we start to define, we must define every word in the Bill, and we shall finish up with a dictionary and not a Bill.
With regard to the question of a definition of self-contained flat, let me say that the Bill stipulates that such dwelling, in order to become decontrolled, must be newly re-constructed, must be separate and must be self-contained. I really do not think we should be asked to go further than that. There must be a substantial element of reconstruction in it and there must be reconstruction so that it is made into a separate self-contained dwelling. I think that is sufficient for any reasonable man to interpret.
Even if we put in a definition, will not the Courts still have to interpret that definition? Where would it stop? We would have to put in a definition and then define every word in the definition, and so on ad infinitum. I think paragraph (g) is clear and concise, and if it does lead to any litigation, that litigation would arise anyway, even if we define it.
I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to one of his own amendments—an amendment of Section 31—in which he finds it necessary to use the phrase in relation to a surviving wife of a non-statutory tenant: "...who was bona fide residing with him at the time of his death”. He has found it necessary to say “bona fide residing” and not just “residing”. That refers to giving a concession to a tenant, but on the question of giving a concession to a landlord, it would seem to the Parliamentary Secretary to be unnecessarily restrictive to use the same phrase. Under an earlier section, a landlord can take up residence in premises for perhaps a week and then move out and the premises then become decontrolled. He does not have to show bona fide residence—the phrase the Parliamentary Secretary finds it essential to use in relation to the tenant.
That is just the position. I have other amendments down to define what is meant by "family". I have seen a number of cases brought under sections of the 1946 Rent Restrictions Act, which this Bill is replacing. Endless litigation and endless and worthless effort, have been caused because of failure to define what is meant by various terms used in that Act. The Parliamentary Secretary says that if we are to define every word, we will end up with a dictionary. I think Senator L'Estrange made some interjection about dictionaries. They have had their uses at times for the Parliamentary Secretary's Party, and well he knows it.
I think we should keep to the amendment.
I find it difficult to restrain myself on occasions of this kind. The Bill itself contains a definition of dwellings. A dwelling is defined as "a house let as a separate dwelling, or a part, so let, of any house, whether or not the tenant shares with any other persons any portion thereof or any accommodation, amenity or facility in connection therewith". A "dwelling". I should say, is a much more understandable term than a "self-contained flat". Before the adjournment, I-heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that this phrase was contained in enactments since 1923. I have the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, before me. I did not have an opportunity of going through it but I am not aware of the Acts in which the phrase "self-contained flat" occurs.
The 1920 Act. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say—I probably misunderstood him—in legislation from that period.
It is in the 1946 Act also.
I do not know where it is in the 1946 Act.
It certainly is not in Section 3. In any event, the Parliamentary Secretary is reluctant to accept a definition because he says the Bill would become a dictionary. There are two types of dwellings which will be subject to control or decontrol in the future: ordinary dwelling houses to which no one but the tenant has access, and self-contained flats. The self-contained flat is one of the major items in this Bill, and there is no definition of it. That is what we are asking for.
I would again urge the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this matter between now and Report Stage, because in my view the likelihood of a certain amount of decontrol in the future is likely to give rise to quite unnecessary expense for landlords and tenants.
I am not altogether clear on this. I cannot see the point when Lord Midleton who had houses let for 2/9d. per week in Park Street, Midleton, got a local government grant and then for the past three months increased the rent to 22/9d. Leave the legal advisers out of it, all the B.L.s or whatever you call them. I am here from the country and I want to know how did that occur. How can any absentee landlord come along and hoist us with that in East Cork? I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give his view of what did occur.
I am afraid that I have not the faintest idea of what did occur, but the facts as the Senator has given them seem extraordinary if these were controlled dwellings and I should like him to give me more details.
I shall give the whole lot.
This is exactly the same principle as we are asked to adopt for older and larger houses. They will be reconstructed with the aid of Government and county council grants and then let to tenants at the best rent the landlord can get We must again point out that there is a grave shortage of rented houses or flats and it is not correct to say that there is a sufficiency and that people will be able to get accommodation at a fair rent because of the adequate supply. There is that shortage and we are going to assist these people to convert old houses into self-contained flats and charge exactly the same as Lord Midleton: whatever rent they can get—£2, £3 or £4 a week, with the help of State grants. I am sure that Senator Ahem will join in condemning a section in the Bill which allows the same practices to be carried on in Dublin as he has drawn attention to in East Cork.
What the Government are doing in this case is what Governments have to do quite often: they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The object is to give employment to builders and building workers. You will get workers who will be able to pay just rents when grants have to be paid to keep the building trade going. If Senator Murphy could suggest a constructive way of dividing the benefits, that would be well enough. He has suggested that the aim is to put money in the pockets of landlords but in fact it is to put money in the pockets of the builders.
We are not against State or local government grants to assist reconstruction, but we are against freeing houses from rent control. We think there should be still rent control and that is the object of the amendment we discussed.
The Senator is to some extent hoist with his own petard because he says there is not a sufficient supply of accommodation available, but the very aim of the section is to increase the supply, to encourage conversion. Every building converted under the section will help to bring about the sort of desirable situation which Senator Murphy would want; the more landlords who do this, the less chance they have of getting exorbitant rents. The section would have accumulative effects in achieving that position.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Government amendment No. 9:
In subsection (1), line 24, to delete "years," and substitute "years or under a statutory tenancy (within the meaning of the Act of 1946)."
This amendment, of course, as Senator Sheehy Skeffington has already seen, is necessary to give effect to the intention of the Bill. Section 7 at the moment envisages only dealing with contractual tenancies but we want to include statutory tenancies as well.
Amendment agreed to.
My amendment, No. 10, is entirely covered by the Minister's amendment and I am glad to welcome it.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 11:
In subsection (1) to add the following paragraph:—
"(c) a controlled dwelling the lawful rent of which has been fixed by the court under the Act of 1946 subsequent to the 1st February, 1960, and prior to the operative date."
This amendment seemed necessary to me to cover what seems to be a gap here which I think is covered by Section 51, that is to say, the case of dwellings where it cannot be said that proceedings are pending since they have already been decided— where they were decided between February 1st and the operative date. Such an additional paragraph is necessary.
The same kind of contention is contained in my amendment No. 12, Section 8. I want to add a third condition. It seemed to me again necessary, to cover every contingency, to include a third possibility.
I agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington. There is a position here which will have to be dealt with and we shall consider the most appropriate way of dealing with it. We shall deal with it at some stage and the Senator might withdraw his amendment on that basis.
Will it be dealt with in the Seanad?
Not necessarily, but we quite appreciate the point. We appreciate that there is a situation there to be dealt with and it will be dealt with at some stage. I do not think it will be in the Seanad.
It should be done in the Seanad and let Senator Sheehy Skeffington get the credit for it.
Since the Bill comes first to the Seanad, once it goes beyond us to the Dáil, if we are not quite satisfied with the frame of words in which the Minister introduces the amendment, we shall not so easily have access to him to suggest amendments—though I realise that it would come back to us in that case. I would feel happier if the Parliamentary Secretary would promise to put in such an amendment on the Report Stage in the Seanad. I feel in a way that is due to us. I also feel he might accept these amendments which I feel cover the case.
I want to support Senator Sheehy Skeffington. It goes out of our orbit when it leaves us. Can we make further amendments if the Bill comes back to us?
If the Bill comes back to the House and it is amended in the Dáil.
These amendments have been down for a fortnight.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I still hope that my appeal——
I must appeal to the Seanad, too. I appreciate fully the nicety of the situation. I would much prefer to do it the way the Senator asked me, but I am in a technical difficulty. I am almost certain it would not be possible for me to deal with the situation as effectively as I would like on Report Stage here. I appeal to the Senator to waive his rights in this case and let me deal with it as I think I can most effectively deal with it, probably on Report Stage in the Dáil.
If the Parliamentary Secretary feels there would be some difficulties on Report Stage, is there any objection to having the Bill recommitted on that Stage?
It is a question of timing.
We can give the Parliamentary Secretary all the time in the world.
In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary says——
I assure the Senator he will be quite satisfied when the matter is taken up.
With some reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I feel we in the Seanad are giving up one of our prerogatives in acquiescing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7, as amended agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 12:
In subsection (1) (a), page 7, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following subparagraph:—
"(iii) or that proceedings were pending on the 1st February, 1960, to fix the basic rent or lawful rent under the Act of 1946,".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
In subsection (1), page 7, to delete paragraph (b), lines 17 to 22, inclusive.
This amendment might be taken in conjunction with amendment No. 14. They relate to the same principle. I am asking for the deletion of paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) and paragraph (b) of sub-section 2. They are two paragraphs (b) which seem unnecessary because the court is being given power to decide the basic rent, and so on. Paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) provides:
In determining pursuant to paragraph (a) of this sub-section the notional rent of a dwelling to which Chapter 1 of Part II of the Act of 1946 applied, a reference to that Chapter shall be substituted in sub-section (2) of Section 9 of this Act for the reference to Chapter 2 of that Part.
That seems to place an unnecessary restriction on the court.
I think we are granting a reasonable power to the court—"the basic rent of the dwelling shall be determined", "the basic rent ... shall be the amount which, in the opinion of the Court, ..."; that occurs already in paragraph (a). I do not think it is necessary to restrict the powers of the court to reach a reasonable decision by reference to the Act of 1946, and so on. I feel it is placing an unnecessary burden upon those who are litigating on such matter to tie the hands as it were of the Court. We would be quite happy to give them power to reach a decision as to the notional rent without reference to an Act which, as the years go by, will become more and more an ancient Act. It might now be relatively easy to decide something in relation to the Act of 1946 but it might increasingly become difficult to find even an evidence.
The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that it became increasingly difficult under the 1923 Act to find evidence of what the rent used to be of a dwelling in 1914. Originally, in 1923, that was relatively easy but by 1933 or 1943 it became extremely difficult. So, too, here, these two (b) paragraphs have not any useful positive function. They may have a harmful negative effect. Therefore, I move their deletion.
I support Senator Sheehy Skeffington. I think we would impede Courts, landlords and tenants equally by complicating legislation. As Senator Sheehy Skeffington explained, definite difficulties arose under the 1946 Act in referring back to 1914. It seems fairly clear that the same difficulty will arise under this Bill if the Courts must refer back to the 1946 Act. If the Parliamentary Secretary can see that this serves any useful purpose that is a different matter but at the moment I do not see it.
With regard to Amendment No. 13, Senator Sheehy Skeffington surprised me by being on the side of the landlords in this instance. The purpose of paragraph (b) is to ensure that where a landlord makes an application to the Court the Court will decide the notional rent by reference to a Chapter 1 dwelling, that is, on the 1914 basis. Am I to take it that Senator Sheehy Skeffington would prefer that the landlord should have it fixed in relation to the 1941 level, which would be much greater?
I would prefer it to be within the discretion of the Court to decide, without tying the hands——
Section 9 stipulates that it shall refer to Chapter 2 cases, which is the 1941 level.
It seems to me that the paragraph before sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) leaves wide discretionary powers to the Court to decide what represents the notional rent.
The preceding part of the section stipulates that it shall become a dwelling to which Section 9 of this Bill applies. If it becomes a dwelling to which Section 9 of this Bill applies, the Court will have regard to Chapter 2 cases and those Chapter 2 cases will be the 1941 level rents.
I do not think it makes much difference. The 1941 rents had been reached more or less upon the same kind of basis and in equity would represent just about the same measure of justice. We should be concerned here not with the side of the tenant or of the landlord but with what seems equitable. I think that would be equitable. I think the rents based upon 1941 levels have been fixed in equity in so far as they have been fixed.
The Senator is not right there. The Chapter 2 cases fixed rents at levels prevailing in 1941. They fixed rents which were caught by the 1946 Act at 1941 levels. Therefore, they will be considerably higher than Chapter 1 cases which are at 1914 levels, with certain adjustments. The effect of deleting paragraph (b) would be to throw these applications by the landlord into the Chapter 2 class, that is, 1941 levels.
I want to press this amendment. To place the onus on the court to go back to 1914 now seems unfair.
It does not have to go back to 1914. It deals only with comparable dwellings the rents of which would be known— comparable dwellings of the Chapter 1 class. It does not have reference back to the rent of that particular house.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
That governs amendment No. 14, I take it?
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection 2 of this Section provides for the tenant's right to apply to have the basic rent varied but it is not stated that special circumstances are necessary. I wonder is that, in this case, fair to the landlords because, when they take action, special circumstances are demanded. It seems only equitable that, if special circumstances are demanded on one side, they should be demanded on the other side.
Our difficulty in this Bill is that we are legislating for landlords and tenants in general. There are bad landlords and good landlords, and there are bad tenants and good tenants, but we have to legislate to cover all those. I suggest it is unfair to the good landlords, who do exist, that they should be subjected to what really is frivolous litigation at times. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows and as other members of this House know, there are certain legal means by which, although the amount involved may be 6d. or a 1s. a week, tedious litigation may be instituted. Then for the landlords, if they get any damages awarded under the legislation, those damages could cost, for many reasons, £100 or £200. They could not recover those damages. In this Bill we should protect the good landlords from frivolous, unreasonable legislation.
I confess that this Bill is very difficult to me. I am not a lawyer. I am trying to see where justice and fair play lie. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary, gently if I am wrong, would put me right on this matter.
The Senator is right. Special circumstances apply in the case of the landlord and do not apply in the case of the tenant. If the Senator thinks over the matter, he will realise that that is only right. The special circumstances are meant to envisage a situation where a landlord would let to a relative or let at an exceptionally low rent for some special reasons. Therefore, it is only in that case we would allow him to come in and get the increase. It would be difficult to imagine that sort of situation applying to a tenant. I do not think it is necessary there should be special circumstances in the case of the tenant.
Excuse me; I want to ask just one further question. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will admit that actions in law are taken for the sake of 6d.
It must be 12½ per cent. in this case.
I have a case here where the sum is 25/- or 30/-. What is 25 per cent.——
Twelve and half per cent.
It is 2/6d. in that case, and for this you put the whole machinery of the courts into action. It is being done continuously. I think it would be better if we could screen that out by legislation. I do not think it is good for the country. I do not think it is good for the courts. But if the Parliamentary Secretary does not agree with me, I shall withdraw my argument.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 15:
In sub-section (2), lines 20 and 21, to delete "as far as possible."
The reason I put down this amendment is that I do not see any point whatever in inserting redundant words of that kind in a section which can only have the effect of making it more complicated. In regard to the basic rent of controlled dwellings, the court must fix such amount as the court considers reasonable. That is the first point. The court will do everything possible to ascertain what is reasonable. Therefore, I do not see that after that you have got to write into the subsection that it will have regard "as far as possible to the basic rents of controlled dwellings, to which Chapter 2 of Part II of the Act of 1946 applied." Then there is another qualification: "which are comparable in regard to location, accommodation, amenities, state of repairs and rateable valuation."
The courts, it must be assumed, will do what is reasonable. I do not see any merit at all in inserting the words "as far as possible". The presence of these words will cloud what otherwise would be the clear meaning. The words "as far as possible" can be interpreted in a variety of ways I do not want to go into. In fixing the rent, the court will fix a rent which it considers reasonable, having regard to the basic rents of comparable dwellings to which Chapter 2 of Part II of the 1946 Act applies.
That is the principle. Anything else by way of modification of that is only clouding what would otherwise be a clear section. I think you could even stop there and say that the basic rent would be such an amount as the court considers reasonable. You would have a perfectly adequate section in that. Purely as a matter of drafting, I would think that, unless the Parliamentary Secretary has some very good reason for the inclusion of these words, they should be dropped altogether. They only create a good deal of mischief.
I have some sympathy with the Senator in this matter. The reason for the insertion of these words is that the absence of some words of this nature from Sections 9 and 16 of the 1946 Act led to difficulties. The problem is that, whereas in Dublin a large number of comparable dwellings are available to which the court can have regard when fixing rents, this does not apply all over the country. The words "as far as possible" were inserted to cater for the situation where there would not be anything. I admit that possibly it is not the best phrase to meet the situation. The situation we are trying to meet is that, in a particular area, town or village there might not be any comparable dwellings being, as the section says, "comparable in regard to location, accommodation, amenities, state of repairs and rateable valuation". It was to obviate the difficulty where there would not actually be any comparable dwellings that these words were put in. I shall certainly have another look at it and see if we can get some form of wording which would be more appropriate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16:
In subsection (2), lines 21 and 22, to delete "being dwellings to which Chapter 2 of Part II of the Act of 1946 applied".
The subsection reads:
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.
It is the last few words I would like to have deleted. I do not think it should be necessary to go into court to prove that these dwellings are dwellings to which Chapter 2 of Part II of the Act of 1946 applied. It should be quite sufficient to say that the court shall determine such rents as it considers reasonable, having regard to comparable controlled dwellings.
Again, I have some sympathy with the Senator but I want the House to be clear that Section 9 will apply to only a limited number of lettings and apply in effect only to lettings made after the operative date.
The effect of the inclusion, of these words is to keep a ceiling, as it were, on rents. In other words, the court would have regard to these Chapter 2 cases in fixing rents. I should be loath to remove them because then the court might be inclined more towards making a present day valuation the basis for the rent which it would fix and it could be excessive. Again, the best I can do for the Senator is to reconsider whether or not these words could be safely deleted. My own feeling is that it is safer to leave them in and I admit that it would be better if we could get away from referring back to the 1946 Act but there is a difficulty which I think the Senator will appreciate.
I should be inclined to ask leave to withdraw this amendment but I feel that a defence might be made, in the event of an appeal, that the court had not in fact felt it necessary to show or become convinced that these dwellings were dwellings to which such-and-such of the 1946 Act applied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In subsection (2) to delete paragraph (b), lines 44 to 46.
The paragraph with which the amendment deals provides for what I call the bonus of 2/6 in the £ on the rents being paid on dwellings which will still be subject to control. I think it is sufficient to provide, as is provided in. paragraph (c), that where a landlord improves a dwelling, he shall be able to put a certain percentage of the amount expended on improvements on to the rent. In that way, there would be that inducement for the landlords to improve their dwellings which would still be subject to rent control. They would be able to get something back from the increased rents. But in paragraph (b) we are providing for a bonus of 2/6 in the £ for landlords who are liable for repairs, without any requirement that they shall in fact spend money on repairs and improving the house. It is simply a bonus of 12½ per cent. That is unnecessary and I object to giving that bonus.
Again I would ask the House to reject this amendment because it runs counter to one of the basic principles of the Bill. In the first instance, an increase of 12½ per cent. is not excessive. As I mentioned on Second Reading we received representations about very many aspects of the Bill and the significant thing it that this is one aspect of it about which we received no representations at all. Nobody has said that the 12½ per cent. is too great.
Except Senators on Second Stage.
Except Senators on Second Stage.
Whom did you expect to make representations?
Tenants' associations and the people affected. The background to the matter is that the Conroy Commission recommended 25 per cent. where the landlord is liable for all repairs and 12½ per cent. where he is liable for only half of the repairs. That was in 1950 and the Commission said that if there was a further increase in repairs, a basic increase in rent should be given. This 12½ per cent. is not meant to be, and will not work out as, a net increase for the landlord. In fact it will go only part of the way to compensate him for the increased cost of repairs. Repairs have increased five times between 1914 and 1950 and they have gone up 40 per cent. again since 1950. Against that background, the 12½ per cent. is by no means excessive and the principle of the Bill is that we are giving this one-eighth increase to landlords to enable them to meet the increasing cost of repairs and to encourage them to carry out repairs.
One could argue that it is not completely against the interests of the tenant to give this increase and that the landlord would be more inclined to keep his property properly maintained and repaired as a result of this increase. If it were a substantial increase, there might be something in what Senator Murphy says but it is a modest increase.
I would have sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary to a great extent but an objection arises from the fact that we are dealing with a great number of different kinds of landlord. All he says is just and fair for the landlord who has genuinely carried out the repairs for which he is liable. One might say there are a large number of landlords, either individuals or companies, who have carried out the repairs for which they are liable and it is not unfair that they should get this 12½ per cent. on the basic rent which may turn out to be a relatively small amount. The paragraph of course grants it not to the landlord who has spent money on repairs but to the landlord who is liable for the repairs and he gets this 12½ per cent. on the basic rent because he is liable, whether or not he has carried out the repairs. I think there is some justice in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that it will encourage landlords to carry out repairs but in fact it will be giving money to all landlords who although they are liable for repairs have not in fact carried out any repairs at all. They will get the full 12½ per cent.
The case I want to make is the same as the case Senator Sheehy Skeffington has made. As the subsection stands at the moment, this increase of 12½ per cent. will be payable to the person who is liable but there is nothing to say that he need ever carry out the repairs.
There is nothing in this section to say that he must carry out repairs, but this code of legislation and the Landlord and Tenant Acts are full of methods whereby the tenant can compel the landlord to carry out necessary repairs. I mentioned this when we were discussing the Second Stage. The question of making the landlord do the repairs for which he is legally liable and which the various statutes put an obligation on him to carry out is a separate one, adequately covered elsewhere. Here all we are doing is giving the landlord a 12½% increase to cover the cost of the repairs. If he does not carry them out, that is a separate question which does not affect this issue. In any event, let me say to Senator Sheehy Skeffington that we could not possibly distinguish between the vast majority of landlords who, he admits, merit this increase and certain other landlords who do not fulfil their obligations. He will appreciate that we could not possibly do that.
The tenant might be encouraged to do so.
Surely if the spirit of this Bill is properly carried out, it would not be necessary to argue that the landlord would not use the 12½% increase for repairs to his property. The trouble is that what has been underlying the whole situation up to now was that the land-lord's property was so useless to him that it would not pay him to repair. Surely if this Bill carries out its real intention and gives the landlord some reward for owning his property, he will, if he has any sense at all, use the 12½% for repairs. The implication in the arguments of Senator Sheehy Skeffington and Senator Murphy is that he will put it into his pocket. He will do that if his property is not worth keeping up and he is not getting a proper rent for it. If a man is allowed to get a reasonable return on his property, he will keep it in good condition.
The Parliamentary Secretary must certainly be embarrassed by his friends this evening. I am satisfied that what the Parliamentary Secretary says is not correct in regard to this section encouraging landlords to spend money to keep their houses in proper repair. We have to look at the Bill as a whole and remember that these houses which would still be subject to control can be released from control simply by the landlord regaining possession of the tenancy and residing there for one week. In these circumstances, there obviously is an inducement to a landlord to try to get the tenant out. He is not going to encourage what he would regard as pampering the tenant by spending money on repairs. The inducement would be to get him out as quickly as possible and recover possession and have the house free from control. I do not think that in view of paragraph (b), subsection 1, there is any reason for providing this increase under paragraph (b), subsection 2.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Will the Senators desiring a division please stand?
Senators Miss Davidson, Murphy and P. Crowley rose.
The Senators will be recorded as dissenting.
I move amendment No. 18:
In subsection (2) (c), line 50, to delete "eight" and substitute "six".
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 will be taken together.
These two amendments are to paragraphs (c) and (d), and relate to further sums to be given to the landlord—(c) in the case of the amount he spends on improvements or structural alterations, and (d) the amount on necessary repairs which have been due to acts of waste or negligence on the part of the tenant. As the two paragraphs stand, the landlord is entitled to add to the rent a sum equal to 8 per cent. per annum of the amount spent in each case, whether it is for improvements and structural alterations or repairs due to neglectful acts on the part of the tenant.
I think that 8 per cent. is too high here. The principle is different from what it was in paragraph (b), where he was allowed to add 12½ per cent. to the basic rent because he was liable for repairs. These paragraphs relate specifically to money actually spent on repairs or alterations, and he is to be allowed 8 per cent. of the amount actually spent.
In relation to subsection (3), it could be argued that 12½ per cent. of the basic rent might not be enough to-cover what he had actually spent as a good landlord over the period, but that cannot be argued in relation to (c) and (d) because he is being granted a percentage, not of the basic rent but of the actual money spent. Being granted 8 per cent. of the actual money spent, he gets that money back from the tenant in 12½ years in the form of rent. That is too short a time.
If you regard this as an investment in his own property, on structural alterations or the righting of something that is wrong, repair of something gone wrong owing to the neglect or waste of the tenant, he is bringing his own property back into repair and he is getting back the money spent on it in 12½ years, and will continue to-draw that rate of interest from the tenant forever till the house falls down. In other words, he will be investing his money at 8 per cent. Some people think that is quite all right but I think that 6 per cent. is plenty. To say that he should be able to get back the money spent within 12½ years is being too generous to the landlord, and the figure should be cut down to 6 per cent. which is quite reasonable and by no means an ungenerous percentage to allow him on money actually spent.
I suppose the object here, as pointed out earlier in this debate, is to encourage the landlords to put their property into repair. If we want to encourage them, we must offer them a fairly good return for their money. I think 8 per cent. is reasonable enough and 6 per cent. would simply reach the level where the landlord would say that it was not worth while.
I should like to correct something which I mentioned earlier this evening. The rents we were dealing with actually go down to 5/4d. per week. I have a schedule which shows the rents of certain Dublin properties and they range from as low as 5/4d. to 12/- a week. That does show that the computation of sixpence which I mentioned earlier is not so much out of focus. It would be more like a shilling. If we are to hold to this principle of landlords being encouraged to put their property into repair, we must offer them this inducement. In case I get cool looks as a landlord, perhaps I should mention that the only property I own is 2½ acres of rough hillside in Dalkey where I happen to live.
I see a good many dilapidated houses in Dublin and in Dalkey and it would be for the good of the country if they were put into decent condition, both on the outside and inside. If we do not offer sufficient inducements, that will not be done, and the country will suffer, the city will suffer, and eventually the tenants will suffer.
I should like to say with regard to paragraph (c) that I think the case is unanswerable. We want to tempt the landlords into making improvements, and I think we all agree that the more we encourage and entice the landlords into making improvements, putting in additional bathrooms or improving the premises for the tenants, the better it will be. If a landlord has a sum of money, he can invest it at 6 per cent. or 6½ per cent. in securities. We have to give him more than that to get him to plough back his money and for that reason 8 per cent. cannot be regarded as unreasonable. The figure has always been 8 per cent; the Conroy Commission did not recommend any reduction, so I think Senators are being unduly finicky in seeking to reduce the figure from eight to six.
The same applies in paragraph (d) which deals with the case where the tenant has, by waste or wilful neglect, brought about a situation where the landlord has to go in and carry out substantial repairs to the property. Again, I think it is only fair that if he has to expend his money in that way, he should be given a reasonable rate. I do not think eight per cent. is unreasonable. Senator Sheehy Skeffington talks about getting his money back in 12½ years, but of course it is not quite as simple as that. He is deprived of his income on that money for 12½ years, if you look at it purely from the point of getting it back in 12½ years. In other words, he is only getting back the amount of interest over and above the normal return on his money.
I recognise that but I should like to suggest, notwithstanding, that it is six per cent. return on money which he has to be persuaded and cajoled into spending in order to keep his own property in a decent condition. I do not feel he needs to be further tempted than six per cent. I heard Senator McGuire saying that anyone who thinks six per cent is sufficient does not know anything about money.
The bank rate is 6½ per cent. and the National Loans are paying more than that now.
I suggest in these circumstances that to give eight per cent. to a man to plough back money into his own property is being over-generous to the moneyed classes. That is my objection. Five per cent. would probably be reasonable, but six per cent is quite sufficient. It may be legitimately argued that he does not in one sense get his money back. He could have invested it in something else from which he might have got a higher return. We are always told that these people are very anxious to spend money on their own property. Now they will get a high rate of interest——
Six per cent. is not a high rate of interest. It is lower than the bank rate.
Some rents are very low and this percentage does not relate to the rent but to the amount of money spent by the landlord. I think the landlord is being pampered too much by saying: "Oh, please spend money on your property and if you do that, we will permit you to extract eight per cent. of the sum invested from the tenant, and it is awfully decent of you to spend this money on your own property, and we are frightfully grateful to you." I do not think that is a correct principle. Six per cent. is adequate.
Surely the landlord is not getting eight per cent. on the amount during those 12 years. He is merely getting his money back. It is only at the end of the 12 years that he gets his money back. He is merely getting back what he has spent over those 12 years.
It is 12 years' purchase.
To talk about getting eight per cent. over 12 years is wrong. He is getting no percentage on the money for the 12 years. When the 12 years are up, he gets his money back but he is not making a profit on the money.
A moment ago, someone said: "Save the Parliamentary Secretary from his friends", meaning me, but I think the tenant must be saved from his friends. If they are to get their way, the tenants, for whom they seem to be standing up, simply will not be very pleasant people in the future. When we think that the landlord may have to borrow at six and a half per cent. it is just childish and a waste of the time of the Seanad for Senator Sheehy Skeffington to say that six per cent. in modern conditions is a return on money.
I hope I shall not waste the time of the Seanad but I want to say that, like Senator Sheehy Skeffington, I think eight per cent. is too high. Eight per cent. might be regarded as all right if it were a question of taking account of depreciation. We cannot regard the £300 that might have been spent in building a bathroom as something that would have worn out and exhausted itself in 12 or 15 years. If fact, even though the bathroom may have deteriorated, the eight per cent. is still on the rent and is there for ever after so long as rent is payable. If in 12½ years' time the landlord again spends another £200 or £300 on improving the dwelling again, there is eight per cent.
That is only the ordinary rate in ten years' time.
If I have money to invest, I shall go to Senator McGuire——
I shall give eight per cent. any time.
Eight per cent. on a safe investment——
I would give it tomorrow.
Three parts frozen it is not so safe.
Of course it is. He can spend another few hundred pounds in a few years and there is another eight per cent on that. Like Senator Sheehy Skeffington, I think in these circumstances eight per cent. is too high. It is not simply taking account of depreciation in the improvements on which he has spent the money because none of these improvements will depreciate very much. He is still certain of eight per cent. on the amount he has spent. It is on the rent for ever after.
I am afraid, with all due respect, I must accuse the two Senators of being unrealistic in this matter. These two provisions, particularly paragraph (c), are all very much in the interests of the tenant. We want to try to get rented accommodation improved and we want to get the landlords to carry out improvements and to plough their money back into their property. They need not do it; we cannot compel them to do it; but if we say that six per cent. is enough for them and they do not accept it, we shall not have the tenants' properties improved—the tenants will not get the improvements we are trying to give them. If you are on the side of the tenant, you must approve of these two provisions.
I should like to ask a question about the eight per cent. of the amount spent on structural alterations and repairs. How is the tenant to know what amount has been spent and that the eight per cent. he is being charged is the correct amount?
It is a question of fact. The landlord will have to establish to the tenant that he has spent the amount in question and if the tenant is not satisfied that it has been spent, it is a question for the court to decide in the final analysis.
Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 19, Níl, 5.
Tá
- Ahern, Liam.
- Brady, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Cole, John C.
- Colley, Harry.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McGuire, Edward A.
- O Ciosáin, Eamon.
- O'Dwyer, Martin.
- O Grádaigh, Seán.
- O Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
- Quinlan, Patrick M.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Stanford, William B.
- Walsh, Louis.
Níl
- Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
- Crowley, Patrick.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Carter and Ryan: Níl, Senators Sheehy Skeffington and Murphy.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 9, before subsection (3), to insert the following subsection—
"( ) Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to a person who on the operative date is a tenant of a controlled dwelling in respect of his tenancy in such dwelling."
I think there is a mistake in this amendment as it appears on the Order Paper which I have only discovered within the past few minutes. It should he paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) that should not apply. This is the amendment to which I want to address myself, if I may. Paragraph (b) permits the increase of 12½ per cent. in respect of repairs. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would agree to accept the amendment in relation to paragraph (b)?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is it that, where "Paragraph (a)" occurs in the amendment, it really should be "Paragraph (b)."
We dealt very fully with paragraph (b). We have had a full discussion on it. We would only be going over the same ground again.
If there is no objection, I move the amendment so as to read:—
In page 9, before subsection (3), to insert the following subsection—
"( ) Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to a person who on the operative date is a tenant of a controlled dwelling in respect of his tenancy in such dwelling."
An important point of principle, which the Parliamentary Secretary has been repeating all this afternoon, is involved in this amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is purely a verbal matter. If the Senator says it should be paragraph (b), we would take it in that way. I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary might not have considered the matter in relation to paragraph (b).
Amendment No. 17 is precisely the amendment that——
No. Senator Murphy's amendment was to delete the section altogether. I did not think the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government would go that distance. In conformity with the principle enunciated by the Parliamentary Secretary this evening, one of the fundamental principles of this Bill was that any relaxation involved should not disturb existing tenancies; these were his very words. Perhaps my amendment would be accepted.
My amendment seeks to provide that the 12½ per cent. increase in respect of repairs for which the landlord is liable in whole or in part will not apply to tenancies existing on the date the Bill comes into operation. That is undoubtedly in conformity with the principle which the Parliamentary Secretary has said informs the whole of this Bill—that existing tenancies would not be disturbed. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared for this amendment I do not want to pursue it any further. We can deal with it on Report Stage.
The amendment which Senator Murphy moved was to delete the whole of paragraph (b) so that the 12½ per cent. would not apply either to existing tenancies or to any future tenancy of controlled dwellings. I am seeking to achieve that the principle to which the Parliamentary Secretary has shown such persistent adherence throughout this debate shall be implemented in respect of the 12½ per cent. in relation to existing tenants. I do not know what case the Government can make for imposing a 12½ per cent. increase on the existing tenants, on the tenants in occupation of controlled premises on the date this Bill becomes law because, on their pleas, they do not intend that this Bill should discharge any of the existing tenancies.
It discharges the tenancy.
The tenants would be greatly disturbed if given a Bill for 12½ per cent. I take it the tenancy does not exist apart from the tenant. When the Parliamentary Secretary speaks of existing tenancies I take it he is not quibbling but includes the tenant in occupation of hereditaments subject to control under this Bill. The whole principle upon which Section 10 is built and particularly paragraphs (b) to (e), inclusive, of subsection (2), is, to my mind, completely wrong. That observation applies equally to paragraph (b).
If the object of the Government in this Bill is to provide an ever-increasing supply of houses for letting I do not think that particular individuals in the community should have to pay increases of 12½ per cent., increases of 8 per cent., in order to make available to the community as a whole the supply of houses which the Government say it is the object of this Bill to make available. That is not the right way to go about it. A much better way of doing it would be to provide appropriate reliefs in income tax for people liable in whole or in part for repairs, for people who expended money on decoration and alteration of premises, for people involved in expense in putting premises into a proper state of repair by reason of the waste of tenants or for people doing the usual repairs provided for in paragraph (e).
I want to point to the permanent effects of relief in income tax in making particular commodities available. In the past few weeks we had a great deal of talk about the dramatic—that was the word which was used—in-crease in industrial exports.
We on this side of the House can take credit for that because the Bill providing income tax relief was the 1956 Finance Act. We can all rejoice that that has come about. It is time we had some improvement from the present Government and some sign of something being done. However, I am on rent restrictions and I want to restrict myself to the technicalities of this Bill. If we want to stimulate enterprise in relation to the supply of houses, one way of doing it and the more equitable way as far as tenants are concerned is by reliefs in income tax. The idea of supplying houses is to make them available for the community at large. I do not see why a person who is a tenant of a dwelling at present and who has been there for 10, 15 or 20 years should have to pay 12½ per cent. to the landlord to ensure that that house will be available for the community—because that is what it means—in the future. Consequently, the whole idea of penalising and charging existing tenants with a 12½ per cent. increase is wrong and, in my view, will not achieve anything.
The Parliamentary Secretary has shown persistent adherence to the principle which he enunciated several times here this evening that it was not intended in this Bill in any relaxations which are granted to disturb existing tenancies. For that reason, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, to be logical and consistent, should accept this amendment. There is an entirely different situation in relation to a person who becomes the tenant of a controlled premises in five or six years' time after the passing of this Act because at least he will have notice of the fact that a particular dwelling will be liable to an increase of 12½ per cent. on the basic rent but the person in occupation at the present time has never bargained for this 12½ per cent. increase. He has never agreed to it. Perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary would refer us to cases where people in a smiliar position are called upon instantly to pay an increase of 12½ per cent. for a particular service they are getting.
We have moved a long way in the field of social welfare and towards a proper appreciation of what is due to the poorer sections of the community since 1923. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary does not say we should go back.
The Senator asked me to give him an instance of a similar type of legislation.
I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary but I should like other instances, apart from the——
Every income tax Act does it every year.
That is an entirely different thing. It relates to a particular income.
In regard to the 12½ per cent., if the old age pensioner is paying 5/- a week in respect of a controlled premises, that old age pensioner, after this Bill becomes law, will have to pay 5d extra by reason of this Bill.
It may not be very much but 5d in terms of the budget of an old age pensioner may mean a bottle of milk less in the week. When you are trying to live on 25/- or 26/- a week, 5d out of that, or out of 20/-, if you are paying 5/- rent, is quite a substantial sum. I cannot understand how the Government can attempt to justify an increase of that order on everybody, without, as I said on Second Stage, offering anything in return. In regard to any increase we had in the prices of essential commodities such as butter and bread as a result of the budgets of 1952 and 1957, at least the Government tried to save the situation by saying: "We will increase the old age pensions or the pensions of the widows and orphans in order to offset those increases". There is nothing like that happening under this Bill and no promise of that happening.
The Parliamentary Secretary said they received no complaints about this from the tenants. Of course, they have not. The Parliamentary Secretary should look up the reports in the newspaper. The Irish Times reported that a Rent Restrictions Bill was discussed in the Seanad. The Irish Press, Irish Independent and the Cork Examiner gave the usual amount of space to the debate. This particular section has not been brought home to the members of the public. When it is, the Parliamentary Secretary will find that his relaxations have been very disturbing to existing tenants.
Senator O'Quigley is trying to pretend that this is a completely new principle. Of course, he is quite wrong. The very same type of thing was in previous Rent Restrictions Acts, the provision allowing the landlord to increase the rent to pay for repairs. As well as that, as I am sure Senator O'Quigley is well aware, it is part of the recommendations of the Conroy Commission and it is quite clear that in the recommendations of the Commission the increase applies to existing tenants of controlled premises. The only difference is that in the Conroy Commission the increase recommended was 25 per cent., whereas in the Bill it is only 12½ per cent., so that far from this being some rather new principle and a very sinister kind of provision, it is both an existing principle and one recommended by the Conroy Commission.
There is nothing like it and well Senator Lenihan knows that. I should be surprised if he did not.
This Bill does not purport to be a Bill which is entirely for the benefit of tenants with no regard whatever for the landlords. It is an attempt to meet both parties and if the tenants are to get the benefit of having their tenancy secured so that they cannot be dislodged and if their rent is to be almost entirely controlled, it is only fair that the landlord should be allowed something to pay for repairs which are becoming dearer and dearer all the time. Consequently, this sudden erruption by Senator O'Quigley that this is an outrageous provision cannot be taken seriously. I doubt very much whether the Senator takes it seriously himself.
Mr. O'Dwyer
I should like to support the previous speaker. I am not an expert as regards the rent of houses in the towns. We should be fair to both sides. Pre-war rents bear no comparison with modern costs. I do not think there is anything unfair to the tenant in the matter before the House.
There is just one point of correction. Senator O'Quigley purported to say that there was no similar provision regarding an increase of rent in respect of repairs as a lawful addition to the rent. If the Senator wishes he can get all the law on the matter in Mr. Coghlan's The Law of Rent Restriction in Ireland. Sub-section 2 (d) (1) of Section 11 says:
In case the landlord is responsible for the whole of the repairs to the premises, an amount not exceeding one-twelfth part of the basic rent.
The Conroy Commission in advance of that recommended instead that a 25 per cent. increase be allowed for such repairs but the Government have compromised as between landlord and tenant and suggested a 12½ per cent. increase. It may be no harm, in case people get a wrong impression, to say that that will apply only to the basic rent fixed on 1st February, 1960. It can be a lawful addition only on the basic rent which applies on 1st February, 1960. It will apply only to future repairs.
The Bill sets out that any grants paid by the central authority will be excluded so that if the landlord gets land under Section 12 the tenant will not be liable for an increase in respect of that expenditure. Senator O'Quigley points out that it would be desirable to allow something under the income tax code but there are many landlords who are not liable for income tax and consequently not liable to property tax so that the Government are doing a considerable amount to meet these cases by providing the grants. As Senators are aware, the local authorities also supply a supplementary grant of a similar amount. In other cases, the tenants are responsible for repairs. For instance, the tenant is usually responsible for interior repairs and it is also set out in one of the subsections that any decoration work will not be liable to an increase of rent, so that in actual fact there will not be many cases in which the tenant will be subject to the increase to which the Senator objects.
There seems to be some confusion here, as I understood Senator O'Quigley was dealing with paragraph (b) which has nothing to do with reconstruction or reconstruction grants. It simply deals with the bonus of 2/6 in the £ to landlords who are liable for repairs and it has nothing to do with carrying out repairs or reconstruction. It simply allows them to increase their rents by 2/6d. in the £. The amendment has taken the Parliamentary Secretary at his word that no existing tenant will be affected and provides that the increase will not apply until there is a change in tenancy and that the existing rents will not be increased. Even though it does not go as far as my amendment, I am prepared to support Senator O'Quigley's amendment.
I have no doubt in my mind as to what the position is. Senator Lenihan in his customary manner referred to the 1946 Act and he read out Section 11. Section 11 in the first place applies only to premises to which the 1923 Act applied. In order to put the matter beyond any doubt, I shall read out paragraph (d) of Section 11. In the first place Section 11 applies to the 1923 Act premises and to certain additional allowances in respect of these premises. Paragraph (d) reads:
(i) in case the landlord is responsible for the whole of the repairs to the premises, an amount not exceeding one-twelfth part of the basic rent,
(ii) in case the landlord is responsible for part only of the repairs, such lesser amount as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant or as may, on the application of either of the said parties, be determined by the Court, or, in the absence of any such agreement or determination, an amount not exceeding one twenty-fourth of the basic rent.
That is quite a different story from 12½ per cent. That applies to 1923 Act premises and as far as the non-1923 Act premises are concerned, no such subsections are to be found in the section dealing with the lawful additions, that is, Section 17, in relation to premises built between 1923 and 1946.
Will the Senator look at Section 17, subsection (2) (d)?
That only convinces me that the Senator does not know what he is talking about. I am talking about the 12½ per cent. in respect of repairs, where the landlord may be liable in whole or in part. I am talking about paragraph (b) sub-section 2. What Senator Lenihan is talking about is in (c), (d) and (e) of this Bill. I am not discussing these. I am being relevant and I am discussing paragraph (b). There is nothing to be found in the 1946 Rent Restrictions Act which corresponds to this Act. Senator Lenihan said that it was not new and that it was to be found in the 1946 Act. That is all by the way.
What I am concerned with here is that the Parliamentary Secretary has got away from the principle which he enunciated and repeatedly enunciated that, as I understood it, existing and subsisting tenancies and tenants at the passing of this Bill would not be disturbed in their occupation. It may be that I am completely misinterpreting the section and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if that is the case. As I understand it, as from the passing of this Act every tenancy and every tenant of controlled premises will be liable to pay an increase of 12½ per cent. of the basic rent, if the landlord is liable in whole or part for repairs.
That, in the main, is the position. The vast majority of tenants in controlled premises after this Act comes into operation will be liable to a 12½ per cent. increase on the basic rent. In the case of people on the subsisting rent or below it, there is no indication from the Government, through the Parliamentary Secretary, that anything whatever is to be done to meet their position. I urge the House to accept this amendment.
Let us face it. We are giving a general all-round increase of 12½ per cent. on basic rests to the landlords, with two exceptions. We are not giving it in the case of a landlord who has expended money on a premises and who has secured a special lawful addition to his rent as a result of that expenditure and has not taken a State grant. In that case he does not get the 12½ per cent. increase. In the case of a landlord who has secured a lawful addition by reference to that expenditure and has taken a State grant, we are giving him only the 12½ per cent. on the original rent and not on the rent as increased by reference to the special expenditure on repairs.
I think there is every justification for giving this all-round increase of 12½ per cent. As a matter of fact, I think we are travelling over the same ground as we have already travelled. Let me say that, if we were to accept Senator O'Quigley's amendment, the effect of it would be to nullify the all-round increase of 12½ per cent. because he would restrict it to new tenancies and they would be in the minority. The vast majority of tenancies are subsisting tenancies.
I can only go over again the justification which the Government have for giving this 12½ per cent. increase. It is not an increase of net income to landlords. It merely endeavours to compensate them in some small way for the increasing cost of repairs, which have increased five times between 1914 and 1950, have doubled between 1941 and 1950, and since 1950 have gone up again by 40 per cent. The Conroy Commission—and we must agree that they went into the whole position very carefully—recommended an increase of 25 per cent. when the landlord was liable for all repairs and of 12½ per cent. where he was liable for part. We are giving only 12½ per cent. in any case, despite the fact that since the Commission sat, costs of repairs have gone up by 40 per cent. again and the Commission recommended that if repairs went up again between the date of the report and the coming into operation of this Act, further increase should be brought in. We have, however, given a bare 12½ per cent. increase.
From the point of view of the tenant, I do not think it is realistic to argue that this is excessive. One-eighth of the rent is not excessive, and the smaller the rent is, the less excessive it is. As somebody has put it, it is an attempt to even up the scales a little as between landlord and tenant. We protect the tenant in every way we can from injustice or excessive or exorbitant increases in rent; we protect him from being thrown out into the street; and we have all sorts of provisions whereby landlords must carry out repairs. In that context, it cannot be regarded as unfair or excessive to come along and only partially compensate the landlord for the increased cost of repairs which he has had to bear over the years.
As I said in relation to amendment No. 17, it cannot at all be argued that it is entirely against the interest of the tenant to do this, because by giving the landlords generally this increase, we hope with a certain amount of confidence that they Will be encouraged to be better landlords, to look after their property better and to put them into the financial position to be able to do that. The only thing you can put up is that 12½ per cent. is too much, but I think that any realistic examination or analysis of the situation will show that it is not.
The Parliamentary Secretary has urged us to face it, and I am prepared to do so. Then he cited certain factors which the Government took into consideration, among which were the recommendation of the Conroy Report and the increases in the cost of repairs since 1939. If we are to take into consideration the Conroy Commission report, we might as well take all its recommendations into consideration. In recommending an increase of 12½ per cent. where the landlord was liable in part for repairs as provided to this section, it went on to say that where he claims, then, under another of the sub-paragraphs in this section in respect of structural alterations or in respect of money spent in putting the premises into a reasonable state of repair, he should show to the satisfaction of the court that he had spent a reasonable sum in preceding years in keeping the premises in a normal state of repair. That is not being provided for in this Bill.
As far as I can see, a landlord wanting to make eight per cent. or 15 per cent. on his money who had a good long look at this section and the corresponding section of the 1946 Act could make a great income for himself. In fact I believe that in relation to a lot of small dwellings in this city owned by a company, they have been making a tremendous amount of money over the last number of years, and that in spite of the fact that as far as income tax was concerned, they have been putting away money for repairs and are entitled to avail themselves of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, and they expend new money which they borrow, not money which they have funded for repairs, and keep the difference between eight per cent. or 15 per cent. or whatever are the appropriate rates which operate under the 1946 Act, and whatever they were now. That is the way nothing short of a racket had been made out of the provisions in relation to certain sections of the community here in Dublin.
I just do not understand that.
I told of this on the Second Stage. What I understand is happening is this. I am dealing merely with paragraph (b) which is in respect of repairs. That would be the kind of thing where a knocker is knocked off a door or a washer has to be put on a sink. Then that is taken out of the 12½ per cent.
If the landlord is liable for all repairs, he gets a 12½ per cent. increase on the basic rent. It is as simple as that. He gets it also if he is liable for part repairs.
Is the landlord compelled to put these repairs into effect or not?
He is, under different sections.
I do not see where Senator O'Quigley's point arises.
A landlord at present can put off a tenant from year to year or perhaps he is one of those people who buy up premises in bad repair and carries out structural alterations. That would be under paragraph (d) for which he would get eight per cent.; or he could proceed to put the premises into a reasonable state of repair having allowed them over the years to fall into disrepair, in which event he gets 15 per cent. on the first £100, eight per cent. on the next £100 and six per cent. on the next £100. My information is that what is happening in this city is that when premises are being allowed to fall into disrepair, or it is said that they have fallen into disrepair, landlords have in fact expended money under these headings for structural improvements or putting them into a reasonable state of repairs. They can then draw 15 per cent. on the first £100 of that under paragraph (c)——
May I say that in that case if they do not accept a State grant, they are not getting 12½ per cent. under (b). If they do accept a State grant, they get only 12½ per cent. on the original rent and not on the rent as increased under (e).
In any event, they are getting 12½ per cent. on the old rent.
In one case, they do not get it at all.
I do not understand how that arises. I see nothing which limits the operation of sub-paragraph (b).
That may be so, but in any event there are still people who will be liable to pay the landlord an increase of 12½ per cent. I do not know how many tenants will fall into that category.
Only on the original rent that would have been there anyway. If a landlord comes along and the rent is 10/- and he spends a certain amount on special repairs and he increases the rent by reference to those special repairs to 15/-, we are giving him only 12½ per cent. on the original 10/-.
The tenant is still paying 12½ per cent. Are there no circumstances in which this 12½ per cent. will not apply?
In the case of a landlord who spends money on lawful repairs and does not accept State grants, he puts the whole 15 per cent., 8 per cent. and 6 per cent. on to the rent. We are not giving that landlord the 12½ per cent. increase. There is no basic increase in the rent.
I accept that straightaway. He is getting his 15 per cent. on the first £100 in excess of two-thirds of the basic rent.
The 15 per cent. is an addition to his rent.
That is what we call a special lawful addition.
In future, he will get that. That is perfectly clear. That will be an addition in the future. I am not so much concerned about that and I shall let future tenants take care of it. I am concerned to a greater extent with people who are in a position of moving out of premises they occupy at present. If a landlord expends a capital sum of £300 in putting the premises into a reasonable state of repairs and is then entitled to claim increased rents forthwith, under the schedule to the Bill, it would be absolutely unreasonable to say that he would also get in addition to that increase, a further increase of 12½ per cent.
What I am concerned with is the tenant who is in occupation of premises where the landlord does nothing and has not to do anything, but could be held to be liable in whole or in part for repairs. That tenant will have to pay a 12½ per cent. increase on the basic rent after this Bill comes into operation. I think I am right in saying that is so. If it is so, I cannot see any justification for it, but whatever justification there may be, it is inequitable so far as the sitting tenants are concerned.
Surely there is this justification for it: it applies in cases where the landlords are liable for repairs in whole or in part. In other words, if a landlord is liable for repairs, he is getting a 12½ per cent. increase under that section of the Bill and under a Landlord and Tenant Act. We have put in a provision and a stipulation whereby the tenant can compel the landlord to carry out the repairs for which he is liable. The position is quite clear. Statutorily, the landlord must carry out repairs for which he is liable. These repairs have increased five-fold in some cases and have doubled in other cases. If the landlord must carry out these repairs, we are giving him a 12½ per cent. increase on the rent. Surely nothing could be fairer or more defensible than that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 9, before subsection (3), to insert the following subsection:—
"( ) Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply in the case of any controlled dwelling to which section 31 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931 (No. 50 of 1931) applies and for the purposes of this subsection, the word ‘rent' in the said Section 31 shall mean the basic rent".
I put down this amendment because I find it very difficult to reconcile the provisions of Section 31 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, with the provisions of this section. Section 31 of the 1931 Act provides:—
In any contract entered into after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation a dwelling-house at a rent not exceeding—
(a) in the case of a house situate in the County Borough of Dublin or the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, thirty pounds per annum;
(b) in the case of a house situate elsewhere, twenty-five pounds per annum;
there shall, notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary, be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the tenancy, and an undertaking that the house will be kept by the landlord during the tenancy, in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation ...
It goes on to say that:
nothing in this section contained shall affect the liability of the tenant or occupier of any such house for any wilful act or default of such tenant...
There is a further proviso preventing any option or exemption by the landlord or tenant within that section.
In other words, the law relating to the letting of a house at a rent of £30 or under in the county and city of Dublin, and at a rent of £25 elsewhere. is that the landlord is obliged to keep it in a state of repair "reasonably fit for human habitation." That is his obligation. He is not thanked for it: he is obliged to do it; and he is obliged to keep it in that state during the whole course of the tenancy.
The difficulty I find is to reconcile that with giving the landlord an increase under paragraph (e) of this section to put his house into a reasonable state of repair when he is already obliged to do so under the 1931 Act. Section 31 of the 1931 Act and Section 10 of this Bill seem to me to be in conflict. Under the 1931 Act, the tenant can exact what he requires from the landlord, whereas under this Bill and the 1946 Rent Restriction Act, the shoe seems to be on the other foot, and the landlord can exact money from the tenant for doing what he is obliged to do by Section 31 of the housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931.
We cannot accept this amendment either, and I should like to point out to Senator O'Quigley that Section 31 of the 1931 Act refers to houses "fit for human habitation" whereas paragraph (e) refers to "putting the dwelling into a reasonable state of repair". There is all the difference in the world, of course, between these two phrases, but apart altogether from that, the principle here is not new. The principle enshrined in paragraph (e) is, of course, the same as that in the 1946 Act. If a landlord carries out special repairs or exceptional repairs to put the premises in a reasonable state of repair, we give certain lawful additions to the basic rent. The fact that he is compelled by a different section of a different Act to keep the place "fit for human habitation" does not, I think affect it at all.
If we want to encourage this expenditure by landlords to put their premises into a reasonable state of repair, we should not be prevented from doing so simply because of a provision of the 1931 Act. In other words, either the provisions of paragraph (e) are desirable in themselves or they are not. I think the whole balance of argument is in favour of their being desirable, that is a good thing to have these provisions to encourage the landlord to carry out these exceptional repairs. The fact that the provisions of Section 31 of the 1931 Act are there does not really affect that issue at all.
It surprises me that there should be thought to be a world of difference between making a premises fit for human habitation and putting it into a reasonable state of repair. I do not see that there is such a world of difference, for it would not be fit for human habitation if it were not in a reasonable state of repair and if it were in a reasonable state of repair, it would be fit for human habitation.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has made any great effort to reconcile the apparent conflict between Section 10 and Section 31 of the Act to which I referred.
There is nothing inconsistent in compelling a man to do something and then rewarding him for his effort, is there?
Except in this respect: in the 1931 Act he is obliged to do that at his own expense.
That is the clear indication and I could tell Senator Lenihan something about that if the occasion arose but it does not arise here relevantly. This is not merely my own opinion. I have taken counsel with some learned colleagues on this subject.
On the far side of the House?
Oh, no. My learned colleagues on the other side of the House—they share this difficulty with me. As far as these derogatory kind of remarks are concerned, I do not think they come extremely well from professional colleagues. I do not extend that kind of remark to Senator Lenihan or to Senator Ryan. I hope I do not and I hope I shall not. There is another observation I could make but I shall not do so as I do not want to go along that unpleasant road.
The difference between Section 10 and Section 31 is that under Section 31 the landlord was obliged at his own expense to keep the place in a state fit for human habitation; under this Bill, he may be compelled by the tenant to do the same thing, but the tenant has to pay for it or the landlord at his own option may spend money on putting the premises into a reasonable state of repair but if he does he visits his expenditure on the tenant.
Section 31 is a public health matter. It is a provision to ensure that the landlord will at least carry out the minimum repairs necessary to make a dwelling fit for human habitation. The other provision is an encouragement to entice landlords to put the premises into a reasonable state of repair, to spend money on improvements and repairs which substantially improve the premises. I think the Senator is confusing two completely different sets of circumstances and two completely different principles.
Under the 1931 Act and the ordinary contractual tenancy, the landlord must keep the premises in an ordinary state of repair. A provision like this, however, envisages expenditure over two-thirds of the basic rent for two years. That is no ordinary routine; that is not just putting the premises into repair which the landlord may be made liable for under Section 31 or under the tenancy. Expenditure of two-thirds of the basic rent is something over and above and apart from the ordinary legal obligation of the landlord to keep his premises in a reasonable state of repair. It is something far above that and apart from that. It is something over and above the legal obligations of the landlord, as would be quite apparent to anybody with common sense if he read the section. The landlord may put the premises into repair under Section 31 or under the contract, provided the landlord has that obligation, but this is a case of exceptional capital repairs coming to two-thirds of the basic rent. This is to cover that work and it is an entirely different thing.
All that would be correct if I were talking about exceptional repairs. What subsection (e) speaks of, however, is a reasonable state of repair and there is not a word about exceptional repairs or exceptional expenditure.
There is already provision for that in the 1931 Act and in the contract.
I can be told that I am talking nonsense, that I am referring to a public health matter, that I am referring to landlord and tenant agreements, but all those kind of remarks do not alter the fact that sub-paragraph (e) which I am seeking to amend merely applies to expenditure where the landlord is putting the premises into a reasonable state of repair.
It is the amount of the expenditure.
The amount of the expenditure has nothing to do with it. It might be more costly to put into repair a premises with a basic rent of 5/- a week than to do the same thing to a premises with a basic rent of 50/- a week. What the section has to do with is a reasonable state of repair. It means that over a period the premises has been allowed to deteriorate. It does not involve structural alterations or anything of that kind. It might mean putting on a new roof but not putting in something completely new. That is the kind of thing provided for in paragraph (c) where improvements are dealt with. This is merely maintaining an old dwelling in a reasonable state of repair, the kind of thing envisaged by Section 31 of the 1931 Act. I felt right in drawing attention to that inconsistency which I saw and which some of my more learned colleagues have seen in this. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that this is the way the law should read and if he is satisfied with it, then there is nothing more I can do except to withdraw.
There is only one further point in support of what I have said. Section 31 of the 1931 Act has always been there. In spite of that, increases have been given under the corresponding provision of the 1946 Act. Therefore it is obvious that even though the obligation was always there upon landlords to keep their premises in a state fit for human habitation, the court has given this special addition in accordance with the 1946 Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 9, before subsection (3), to insert the following subsection:—
"( ) For the purposes of paragraph (c) and (e) of subsection (2) of this section ‘dwelling' means only the premises of which a tenant is in sole and exclusive occupation and possession."
This amendment is of considerable importance to people who, in the main, would be occupying flats and dwellings of that kind. We have had a deal of discussion about sub-paragraph (c) which deals with expenditure on the improvement or structural alteration of a dwelling and paragraph (e) which deals with expenditure on putting premises into a reasonable state of repair. I am seeking to achieve that tenants of dwellings should be liable only in respect of structural alterations or improvements or money expended in putting into a reasonable state of repair that part of a dwelling or house which they occupy exclusively. The reason for that is that any other liability on the part of tenants does not work out in accordance with the intentions of the Legislature.
Take, for instance, a house in any of the poorer streets in Dublin where five or six families live in five or six self-contained dwellings but share certain facilities such as toilets. Without reference to them, the landlord may decide to expand and improve these facilities or to put in a new stair or do certain other repairs and improvements in the place which have no effect on their particular comfort or condition. When it comes to paragraph (e) the landlord is entitled only to 15 per cent. on the first £100 on the excess and 8 per cent. on the next £100 and six per cent. on the remainder.
Up to the present, the landlord has said to each tenant: "I have expended, say, £300 in putting in these bathrooms and in carrying out these other repairs, in fixing the roof and so on" and he has charged each of the tenants 15 per cent. on the first £100. That type of situation has been the subject of most costly and fruitless litigation recently in the Courts: I do not know if the cases have been reported. This point was decided, I think, in the High Court and, on appeal to the Supreme Court, was not dealt with, the Supreme Court holding that the way the case had come before them by certiorari was not correct. Therefore they did not deal with other aspects of the case. It seems impossible to deal with any system in the case of repairs for those parts of a dwelling which are common to a group of tenants and to say that they should be liable to pay any increase in respect of such expenditure by the landlord. It would be far better if the increases were confined solely and exclusively to the premises which the tenants themselves are in occupation of.
In the first place, that is the way they get immediate and direct benefit. The other is like repairs to a roof, plastering an outside wall, and so on. They are not something by which they benefit directly. As far as I can see, so long as they hold the premises at the moment the landlord is entitled to charge either 8 per cent. structural alteration, 15 per cent., or the rates set out in the Second Schedule in respect of money spent in putting the premises into a reasonable state of repair. My amendment would get over that difficulty and that hardship and would, furthermore, make workable from that kind of situation the increases provided under paragraph (e) of subsection (2). I do not know how it can be worked out at present in the situation I have described.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider well before he rejects this amendment. If he is not disposed to accept it at this juncture he might, on reconsideration, find it an amendment which would make the Bill a good deal more equitable and a good deal more workable. I think the prevailing view is that as far as expenditure in the circumstances I have particularly described is concerned it is impossible to know in what way the provisions in paragraph (e) could be applied to the tenants in the application of the expenditure.
I can assure Senator O'Quigley that this amendment will receive and has received very serious consideration. I am not at all disposed to reject it out of hand. I assure him we are giving the whole situation very earnest consideration. There are two aspects of it, however. In one case there is a tenant, say, on the top floor of a building the roof of which has been repaired. Unfortunately, the effect of Senator O'Quigley's amendment would be to put all that expenditure on one tenant. I do not think we contemplate that that would be equitable. The other type of situation is something like a stairs which is common to a lot of tenants. I think Senator O'Quigley's idea is that such expenditure should not be put on to any tenant but should be borne by the landlord as part of the general upkeep of the premises and not attributable to any particular dwelling or any particular tenant. That is the difficulty we see.
We are concerned to know what exactly to do about it to be equitable. I do not think anybody would accept that where, for instance, a roof was repaired only the tenant immediately beneath that roof should be concerned. I think the law at the moment is that expenditure can be apportioned. As I understand the situation, that decision was given in the District Court, confirmed in the Circuit Court and has not been upset. Therefore, it is to be assumed that it is possible to apportion the expenditure between different tenants in a building.
I do not know whether the Senator wants me to go any further than that at the moment. All I think I can do here is to assure him that we will look into it very carefully and if we can do anything to meet him we will do it.
The law is that the expenditure can be apportioned but as I understand it the law in operation on the basis of expenditure under paragraph (e) is that each tenant pays 15 per cent. on £100, which was never intended. I think that is the way the law is interpreted because the Courts found themselves in the position that they could not deal with the situation in any other way on the basis of valuations or the basis of a ratio. I think that is part of the difficulty. However, at this stage, in view of the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary, which I appreciate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 22nd June, 1960.
