DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS), BILL, 1923.
(1) The amount by which the increased rent of a dwellinghouse to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rent shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be as follows, that is to say:—
(a) Where the landlord has since the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen incurred, or hereafter incurs, expenditure on the improvement or structural alteration of the dwelling-house (not including expenditure on decoration or repairs), an amount calculated at a rate per annum not exceeding six, or, in the case of such expenditure incurred after the second day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty, eight per cent. of the amount so expended:
Provided that the tenant may apply to the Court for an order disallowing or reducing such increase on the ground that such expenditure is or was unnecessary in whole or in part, and the Court may make an order accordingly:
(b) An amount not exceeding the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of the rates chargeable, or which but for the provisions of any Act would be chargeable, on the occupier:
(c) In addition to any such amounts aforesaid:—
(i) where the landlord is responsible for the whole of the repairs, an amount not exceeding ten per cent. of the standard rent; or
(ii) where the landlord is responsible for part and not the whole of the repairs, such lesser amount as may be agreed, or as may, on the application of the landlord or the tenant, be determined by the Court to be fair and reasonable having regard to such liability:
Provided that pending any such agreement or application the amount shall be an amount not exceeding five per cent. of the standard rent; and
(iii) in addition to any amount under this or the preceding paragraph, where in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-two the landlord has expended an amount exceeding one-third of the standard rent, or during the period of the two years 1923 and 1924 shall have expended an amount exceeding two-thirds of the standard rent, on putting the dwelling-house into a reasonable state of repair, an amount not exceeding fifteen per cent. of such excess or excesses of expenditure:
(d) In further addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding ten per centum of the standard rent:
(2) At any time or times after the date of any increase permitted by paragraph (c) of the foregoing sub-section, the tenant or the sanitary authority may apply to the Court for an order suspending such increase, and also any increase under paragraph (d) of that sub-section, on the ground that the house is not in all respects in a reasonable state of repair.
The Court on being satisfied by the production of a certificate of the sanitary authority or such other evidence as to the Court shall seem reasonable that any such ground as aforesaid is established, and on being further satisfied that the condition of the house is not due to the tenant's neglect or default or breach of agreement, shall order that increase to be suspended until the Court is satisfied that the necessary repairs (other than the repairs, if any, for which the tenant is liable) have been executed, and on the making of such order the increase shall cease to have effect until the Court is so satisfied.
(3) Any transfer to a tenant of any burden or liability previously borne by the landlord shall, for the purposes of this Act be treated as an alteration of rent, and where, as the result of such a transfer, the terms on which a dwelling-house is held are on the whole less favourable to the tenant than the previous terms, the rent shall be deemed to be increased, whether or not the sum periodically payable by way of rent is increased, and any increase of rent in respect of any transfer to a landlord of any burden or liability previously borne by the tenant where, as the result of such transfer, the terms on which any dwelling-house is held are, on the whole, not less favourable to the tenant than the previous terms, shall be deemed not to be an increase of rent for the purposes of this Act: Provided that, for the purpose of this section, the rent shall not be deemed to be increased where the liability for rates is transferred from the landlord to the tenant, if a corresponding reduction is made in the rent.
(4) On any application to a sanitary authority for a certificate or report under this section a fee of five shillings shall be payable, but, if the authority as the result of such application issues such a certificate as aforesaid, the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the fee from any subsequent payment of rent.
(5) For the purposes of this section, the expression "repairs" means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair, and any premises in such a state shall be deemed to be a reasonable state of repair, and the landlord shall be deemed to be responsible for any repairs for which the tenant is under no express liability or liability implied under section forty-two of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860.
(6) Where owing to the default of the landlord any dwelling-house to which this Act applies is not in a reasonable state of repair, the Court may order the landlord to pay to the tenant such compensation, not exceeding an amount equal to the annual amount of the standard rent, as to the Court seems just, provided that:—
(a) The right of the tenant to obtain relief under this sub-section shall not prejudice his right to seek relief in any other form of proceedings;
(b) If at the time of the application for or the making of any order under this sub-section the landlord shall undertake to put the dwelling-house into a reasonable state of repair the Court may adjourn the application, or stay or suspend execution on any such order, and if the undertaking is fulfilled the Court may discharge such order;
(c) Any sum awarded to a tenant for compensation under this sub-section shall be expended on suitable repairs to the dwelling-house, and any order awarding compensation may be made subject to any conditions that the Court shall think fit to impose for the purpose of ensuring such expenditure as aforesaid.
I move the following amendment to this Section:—
In Sub-section (1) (c) (i) to insert after the word "repairs" in line 49 the words "and has since the third Day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, expended an amount not less in the aggregate than one half of the standard rent." I understand that the Minister has intimated his willingness to accept this and the next amendment unless other Deputies dissent. I do not therefore propose to state the arguments in its favour. The next amendment is:—In Sub-section (1) (c) (ii.) to insert the word "repairs" in line 52, the words "and has so carried out repairs since the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
Mr. O'HIGGINS
You can take it we are accepting them.
Amendments agreed to.
I propose:—
In Sub-section (1) (d) to substitute the word "five" for the word "ten" in line 5, page 10.
I have to move this amendment. The Order Paper does not state the intention of the amendment. Whose mistake it is I cannot say. I shall confess to the guilt. The word should be to substitute the word "five" for "ten" in Line 5 page 10. The effect of the amendment would be to allow a house-owner to add 5 per cent. for nothing to the standard rent as a bonus. The Bill desires to give to the houseowner a bonus of 10 per cent. on the standard rent. It is difficult to understand on what principle 10 per cent. has been decided, and the Minister may say it is equally difficult to understand why 5 per cent. should be indicated.
The only explanation I can give for that is that it brings the Bill into accord with the Dáil Decree allowing an increase of 15 per cent. from the standard rent, to include repairs. The 10 per cent. which is mentioned in the Bill is an increase to the landlord by virtue of the fact that other people were making at the time, or have been making higher profits on their investments than in pre-war times. We are told to-day, at any rate, that no such increases are being made. It may be said, on the other hand, that inasmuch as the cost of living to the landlord or house-owner has increased in the same way as for other people, therefore the landlord is entitled to an addition. If there is any title to an addition, it is to more than 10 per cent. I cannot see the grounds for fixing a sum not exceeding 10 per cent. simply by virtue of his ownership. We have already agreed to an increase upon the standard rent to cover new expenditures, interest on new expenditures.
This is a new proposal to allow an increase on a standard rent of 10 per cent. as a bonus. I do not think there is any case for any increase, but as a compromise and to meet the Minister, the amendment proposed is to allow him, just to show good feeling, 5 per cent. upon the standard rent. The fact must be borne in mind that a large number of tenants throughout the country have as a matter of fact been protected by the Dáil Decree. If this Bill passes in its present form it means that landlords will be free to increase rents by 5 per cent. more than the increase allowed by the Dáil Decree, and if they take advantage of that facility there will be a very great deal of trouble indeed in the country. The conditions are not such now as to encourage us to run that risk. Therefore I urge the acceptance of this amendment limiting the amount of increase under paragraph (b) sub-section (1), to 5 instead of 10 per cent.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The figure in the 1920 Act, as Deputy Johnson has pointed out, was 15 per cent. The proposal is to reduce that figure to 10.
I referred to the Dáil Decree, not the 1920 Act.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The figure in the Dáil Decree was nil.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It will be noted that one member of the Advisory Committee signed the report with the reservation that that 15 per cent. should stand, and in fact the 10 per cent. represents a compromise between conflicting views within the Committee, a compromise which resulted in the agreement of all members, with the exception of Mr. Judd. I personally do not consider it right, and I certainly do not consider it wise, to depart from a recommendation of this Committee on which conflicting interests were amply represented. In this respect I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment and I propose to adhere to the figure which the Committee advised me to adhere to.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 31.
Tá
- Seán Ó Duinnín.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás Ó Conaill.
- Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
- Séamus Éabhróid.
- Cathal Ó Seanáin.
- Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Domhnall Ó Ceailacháin.
Níl
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Donchadh Ó Guaire.
- Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.
- Seán Ó Maolruaidh.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
- Seán Ó Ruanaidh.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Gearóid Mac Giobúin, K.C.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Pádraigh Ó hÓgáin.
- Pádraic Ó Máille.
- Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Fionán Ó Loingsigh.
- Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir Ó Broin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Caoimhghin Ó h Uigín.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus Ó Dóláin.
- Aindriú Ó Láimhín.
- Eamon Ó Dúgáin.
- Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
- Líam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás Ó Domhnail.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Micheál Ó Dubhghaill.
Amendment declared lost.
Motion made and Question put: "That Section 8 as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
What becomes of Deputy Cole's amendment?
The Section has been passed and I am afraid that Deputy Cole will have to come in on the Report Stage.
SECTION 9.
It shall not be lawful for any mortgagee under a mortgage to which this Act applies, so long as:—
(a) interest at the rate permitted under this Act is paid and is not more than twenty-one days in arrear; and
(b) the covenants by the mortgagor (other than the covenant for the repayment of the principal money secured) are performed and observed; and
(c) the mortgagor keeps the property in a proper state of repair and pays all interest and instalments of principal recoverable under any prior encumbrance,
to call in his mortgage or to take any steps for exercising any right of foreclosure or sale, or for otherwise enforcing his security or for recovering the principal money thereby secured:
Provided that—
(i) this provision shall not apply to a mortgage where the principal money secured thereby is repayable by means of periodical instalments extending over a term of not less than ten years from the creation of the mortgage, not to any case in which the mortgagor consents to the exercise by the mortgagee of the powers conferred by the mortgage, nor shall this provision affect any power of sale exercisable by a mortgagee who was on the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty a mortgagee in possession; and
(ii.) if, in the case of a mortgage of a leasehold interest the mortgagee satisfies the Court that his security is seriously diminishing in value or is otherwise in jeopardy, and that for that reason it is reasonable that the mortgage should be called in and enforced, the Court may by order authorise him to call in and enforce the same, and thereupon this section shall not apply to such mortgage; but any such order may be made subject to a condition that it shall not take effect if the mortgagor within such time as the Court directs pays to the mortgagee such portion of the principal sum secured as appears to the Court to correspond to the diminution of the security.
I propose the following amendment—"To insert before Section 9 the following new Section:
(1) If a dwelling-house to which this Act applies ceased to be used as a dwelling, and so continues bona fide for a longer period than two months, the Court may, upon the application of the sanitary authority or of any person appearing to the Court to be interested, require the landlord to show cause why the dwelling-house should not again be let and may order that it be again let within a period to be fixed by the Court, but not exceeding two months, and if the landlord fail to comply with the order of the Court all his interest in the dwelling-house shall be transferred to and vested in the sanitary authority for the period of the duration of this Act.
(2) A dwelling-house which is let to a tenant under the provisions of this Section shall continue to be subject to the provisions of this Act."
I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment, which is designed to prevent the abuse of houses, to prevent houses being locked up for an indefinite period. Owing to the shortage of houses people are put to great hardship and this would become intensified if landlords were allowed to lock up houses and to wait to sell them at a high price, which might never materialise. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment as it will relieve to some extent the shortage complained of.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I was somewhat puzzled with regard to this amendment and the exact meaning of "bona fide for a longer period than two months." There seems to me nothing for the Court to decide and nothing that could be properly laid before the Court. The fact of houses standing vacant in a time of shortage is undoubtedly an evil and an anomaly, but I submit that this is not the best way to deal with them. It could, for instance, be better dealt with by the Minister for Local Government imposing full rates on vacant houses. The amendment suggests an interference which I do not think is warranted by the circumstances. The house is let and the tenant dies, let us say, and it is claimed that if within two months the house is not let again, the owner could be brought into Court to show cause why it should not be forthwith let, and if he fails to let it the local authority of the area is to take over full and complete possession for the period of this Act. That I think is a fair statement of the effect of this amendment. It is too drastic an interference with the property rights of the owner to be accepted by the Government.
There is, further, the danger that a provision of this kind might well lead to the discouragement, if not the intimidation, of prospective purchasers. The owner of a house must have a certain liberty in dealing with it. He must have a fair opportunity to see whether it can be disposed of by sale and in their own interests it can be taken that owners will not only not leave houses vacant indefinitely, in the event of failure to sell that they will undoubtedly let. The idea of confiscation for a period underlying this amendment scarcely appeals to one as a wise or advisable expedient to adopt. It is open to abuse. There can be, for instance, that kind of idea got up that it would be a good thing to refrain from making any offer within the two months either to buy or to let and then bring the owner into Court to show cause why the house should not be immediately let at what to him would be an unfavourable figure. His property would be taken over by the local authority for the period of the duration of this Act. I agree that some pressure ought to be brought to bear on owners of houses to insure that they would not be left vacant indefinitely in a period of extreme shortage, but I cannot accept this amendment and I think that there are other ways less extreme of dealing with a problem which is undoubtedly there to be dealt with.
The unfortunate part of it is that we are dealing with an Increase of Rent Bill and this is an occasion when it might be possible to have an evil, which the Minister admits to exist, remedied in this Bill and so far it has not been within the programme of the Ministry to introduce a Bill authorising the Minister for Local Government to extend his powers of pressure. I would suggest to the Minister, if he wishes to postpone the consideration of this amendment, to take a walk through his prospective new constituency and make some enquiries as to how long many houses in that constituency have been un-let and un-occupied and from there go around Gloucester street and Gardiner street and many other streets around the centre of Dublin and put the two pictures before his mind's eye and ask why these, in his own constituency, should continue to be un-occupied while people are still pressing for houses.
If the Minister says two months is not a long enough period for the landlord to hold his house for the highest price, then there is room for extension of the period from 2 to 3 or 4 months. But what we really see is that houses are vacant, and that they remain unoccupied for months upon months and years. Some houses have been unoccupied for two years, but because the landlord cannot get his price he will not let, and it is to meet the case of the landlord who refuses to let, that this amendment is put down. He will not let because he wants to sell. He will not sell at the price offered to him by a prospective tenant. He holds for the higher price. The buyer and seller do not come to an agreement, and the house remains un-occupied.
It is a fair thing in regard to the general provisions of this Bill that the house which has been built pre-war and now unoccupied, should be let to the tenant at the standard rent, plus such allowances as are being agreed to in this Bill. The amendment would still allow a landlord to seek a purchaser, and there is nothing in the Bill to restrict the price, but the amendment would restrict the liberty of the landlord to hold that property out of use pending a satisfactory price. After all it is a creation of a further house famine. When we are talking about the need for rebuilding, the needs for housing, everyone realising the difficulty of rehousing must admit that the practice that is prevailing is intensifying those difficulties. What we are asking you to do in this amendment is practically to give the effect of building probably a couple of hundred houses within the county of Dublin within three months. That surely should appeal to the Minister.
I have no census of the number of houses vacant waiting for buyers, but the numbers are very large, and as I say, the effect of this amendment, if carried, would be the effect of building one or two hundred houses within three months, and to that extent at least lessening the housing problem. The injustice the Minister fears is not injustice at all, and it is no greater injustice even on his own argument on any other part of the measure; it is simply insisting that houses built pre-war shall be let at a certain rental. The landlord says: "The first opportunity I have of finding houses vacant, I shall get outside the Bill, and wait for a buyer." I submit the acceptance of this amendment would mean in effect the building of a very large number of houses, particularly within five miles of the city of Dublin.
I would like to know at this stage if we are to interpret the Minister as recommending the Local Government Ministry that rates are to be paid for houses when idle. From the experience I had in public Boards, I find if a sanitary authority makes certain orders in connection with the insanitary condition of a building, the sanitary authority who cannot get the landlord to do certain things, orders him to close the building, and as a result the property is closed up and deteriorates, thus adding further to the housing famine. I would appeal to the Minister to consider his own suggestion again, and I hope Mr. O'Callaghan will bring forward an amendment at another stage of the Bill. It would go a long way toward settling the difficulty.
I think that Deputy Johnson did not really bring forward arguments that would support action of the drastic character proposed in this amendment. I think it introduces a principle which would operate against the filling of the housing shortage which exists. It seems to me it would tend to have a deterrent effect in the way that for instance the fixing of the scheme of fair rent courts for houses would. We might bring this possibility of having sanitary authorities to take possession of houses from the owners who decline to let, so that when those owners have got clear possession of the rights to some extent, it would be difficult to calculate to what extent it tended to deter people from investing in houses, or in going into the building of houses. We have to bear in mind, in dealing with any of these propositions in regard to houses, that the houses are not things that are there for somebody to take possession of. They have to be constructed, and if there is any possibility of people being further cut out of the rights which they would normally have as owners, the tendency would be for people to refrain from putting money into houses which they otherwise might. You might have a conspiracy to prevent people from even renting a house, not to speak of buying it, so that somebody might get it from the sanitary authority at a great deal less than the standard rent. That is a possibility if an amendment such as is on the paper were to be adopted.
I agree that, in view of the present circumstances, it is unfortunate that the owners of dwelling houses should be free of rates while those dwelling houses are unoccupied, and I would undertake to consider, from the point of view of the Local Government Department, whether we could not introduce something into this Bill on the next Stage making it possible to have the owner of a dwelling house, which would come under this Act, deemed to be the occupier when the house is unoccupied and liable for rates. As the law stands at present, the rates are not on the building but on the occupier of the building. There is some difference between Poor Rate and Town Rate, but, broadly speaking, the rates are on the occupier, so that when the house is un-occupied, except where there are special provisions, the owner of the house is not liable for any rates. It would certainly be in the nature of considerable pressure on the owner of a house if he had to pay the full rates of that house during the time it was unoccupied. He certainly would not leave it unoccupied for any length of time except he was convinced that he was not being offered what he considered a fair price and that there was some reasonable prospect of being offered a fair price for the house.
I think if we did that we would put sufficient pressure on owners of houses to let or to close with some person who is offering to purchase. I would like of course to consider the matter with some greater care than I have been able to do up to the present before actually agreeing to a provision of that sort. However, I do think that if it is not likely to create difficulties in other directions or have effects which might lead to litigation and confusion in the matter of rating, we might introduce such a provision. It does cut across the ordinary principle of rating, but if it were possible at this time of emergency in housing matters to introduce such a provision, I think it would certainly lessen the likelihood of houses being wantonly—if one may use the word—kept vacant for any lengthy period.
Did I understand the Minister to say that the occupier was liable for all rates? If so, I do not think it is correct.
He did not say "all rates"; he said there was a distinction.
I agree that it is a very desirable change to saddle the owner of an unoccupied house with certain responsibilities to induce him to let, and not to hold out for an exorbitant price. I hope that in any case that change will be made. I very much doubt that it would be possible to bring it into the scope of this Bill, but in any case such an amendment would not satisfy the requirements. I wonder whether, when the Minister uses the argument that the adoption of such an amendment as this would deter building, he seriously thinks that within the next five years, or within the next three years—the scope of this Bill as it is drawn—there is any likelihood of speculation in housebuilding for the purpose of letting. People will build houses, I have no doubt, for their own use, and the Minister, I am sure, is anxious to encourage that, but I very much doubt whether he has any anticipation that people are going to build houses for the purpose of letting within the next three or four years. If my observations are at all accurate, the chances are almost nil that any such prospect is in front of us, so, if this view is correct, the adoption of this amendment would have no effect in deterring people from building houses. I think the amendment ought to be accepted, and I ask the Dáil to support it.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
There is just one aspect that perhaps may be stressed, supplementary to the remarks of the Minister for Local Government which is this aspect, if you fix a period and say after so many weeks or so many months if that house is not let it will fall into the sanitary authority of the area——
The point is if the house is still vacant then the owner shall show cause why he should not let it.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
If the house is not let or sold within a particular period, it falls then to the local authority of the area for the duration of the Act. The amendment is silent as to what would happen at the expiry of the Act, but presumably a tenant in possession would remain a tenant in possession. The danger of that course is that you would have a situation in which a circle would be drawn around that particular house, and people would be told to "keep off from that; it is in its incubation period; one of these days it will be falling to the local authority, and you will get it for nothing." That is the kind of situation you would create by a provision of that kind. The waiting game, the Deputy knows as well as I know, in rural areas in particular is very easily played, and people very often are very easily discouraged. If it becomes known that they cannot go into a certain house or a certain farm without a certain amount of good-will from their neighbours, then, in fact, in 75 per cent. of the cases they do not go in. So a charmed circle would be around this house that would be about to fall into the Local Authority for two or three months, as the case might be, and the Local Authority would, no doubt, see its way to dispose of it at a very much lower price than the owner would dispose of it.
They would let it at the standard rent.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Well, they would see their way to let it at a very much lower rent than the owner would. I could not accept the amendment. It is, I think, a dangerous principle. I consider that the undertaking that the Minister for Local Government has given is an honest and reasonable attempt to meet this particular evil, but we ought not to set about to relieve one evil by a greater one, and that I think would be the tendency and would be the net effect of the Deputy's amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 34.
Tá
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.
- Liam de Róiste.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Ailfrid Ó Broin.
- Tomás Ó Conaill.
- Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
- Séamus Éabhróid.
- Liam Ó Daimhín.
- Cathal Ó Seanáin.
- Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.
Níl
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Donchadh Ó Guaire.
- Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.
- Seán Ó Maolruaidh.
- Séan Ó Duinnín.
- Micheál Ó hAonghusa.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
- Seán Ó Ruanaidh.
- Micheál de Duram.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Sir Séamus Craig.
- Gearóid Mac Giobúin.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig Ó hÓgáin.
- Pádraic Ó Máille.
- Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Fionán Ó Loingsigh.
- Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir Ó Broin.
- Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus Ó Dóláin.
- Aindriú Ó Láimhín
- Eamon Ó Dúgáin.
- Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás Ó Domhnaill.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Séamus de Burca.
Amendment declared lost.
Question "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
Questions: "That Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) This Act shall apply to any premises used for business, trade, or professional purposes, or for the public service as it applies to a dwelling-house, and as though reference to "dwelling-house,""house," and "dwelling" included references to any such premises, but this Act in its application to such premises shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—
(a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of section eight:—(d) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding twenty-five per centum of the standard rent.
(b) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of section four:—
(d) The premises are reasonably required by the landlord for business, trade or professional purposes or for the public service, and the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available; or that the premises are bona fide required for the purpose of a scheme of reconstruction or improvement which appears to the Court to be desirable in the public interest.
(2) The application of this Act to such premises as aforesaid shall not extend to a letting or tenancy in any market or fair where the rent or conditions of tenancy are controlled or regulated by or in pursuance of any statute or charter, or to any letting or tenancy from year to year or for a term of years.
(3) When any order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any premises to which this Act, by virtue of this section, applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, has been made or given before the passing of this Act, but not executed, and, in the opinion of the Court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given if this Act had been in force at the time when such order or judgment was made or given, the Court may, on application by the tenant, rescind or vary such order or judgment in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.
(4) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.
I beg to move the following amendment:
To insert before sub-section (1) (a) line 55 the following:—
"That where a dwelling house and business premises are held in common as an Annual Letting, this Act shall not apply unless it is shewn that the value of said premises for residential purposes alone is more than one-half its annual letting value for the combined purposes of trade and residence, and accordingly in case the annual letting value of any premises for the combined purpose of trade and residence is shown to be more than double its value for residential purposes alone, nothing in this Act shall affect the right of the owner to recover possession of same or otherwise obtain a competitive annual rent."
I am proposing this amendment for the purpose of relieving hardships, for there have been cases of hardship brought under my notice in relation to the Rent Restriction Act for some time past. There is no clear distinction drawn between business houses and houses used only as dwellings. This Act was intended to safeguard the tenants, but surely it was not intended to inflict injustice or injury to business and trade? It is inequitable that the tenant for a business house should be able to prevent the owner from getting possession of his own premises, or from getting a competitive rent. It is not just to the individual, nor is it to the interests of the State. I feel the amendment is necessary and its acceptance cannot impose any hardship on any class that needs protection. These who hold these premises are not the class that so much need protection. The insertion of this sub-section cannot do any harm.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I would draw the Deputy's attention to paragraph B (2), sub-section (1), Section (3), which reads: "the application of this Act to any house or part of a house shall not be excluded by reason only that part of the premises is used as a shop or office, or for business, trade or professional purposes." Section 3, which includes that sub-section, has been passed, and I submit the Deputy's amendment is inconsistent with it and is, perhaps, inadmissable in consequence.
My softheartedness has, perhaps, been responsible for this peculiar situation. The Deputy handed in the amendment yesterday when we were in the midst of this Bill, and I told him if Section 16 were not reached until later, I would allow the amendment to go in. The Deputy had ample time to put in the amendment in time, but he did not do it. I allowed him to put it in, but if the Minister can prove it is in conflict with Section (3), sub-section (1), paragraph B (2), I shall certainly rule it out.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The portion I refer to reads: "The application of this Act to any house or part of a house shall not be excluded by reason only that part of the premises is used as a shop or office or for business, trade, or professional purposes." As I read the Deputy's amendment, the contention is put forward that where a dwelling house and business premises are held in common as an annual letting, this Act shall not apply except on certain conditions. I think that the gist of the amendment cannot be reconciled with the sub-section which has been passed by the Dáil. There is the further apparent inconsistency, that there is a provision that business premises should be controlled under Section 16. That has not been passed, and therefore it does not arise. I do not think it is strictly open to the Dáil to discuss the Deputy's amendment, inasmuch as it has passed some thing which is repugnant to it.
The Deputy's proper course would be on Report to endeavour to amend Section (3).
It is not exactly in direct conflict with the Section that has been passed. What has been passed provides that because a portion of the house is occupied in business, it shall not, therefore, be excluded. The one, I think, is an amendment of the other, and it is not in direct conflict with what has already been done. In my opinion this is perfectly in order.
I am glad the Deputy is in complete agreement with me. I am suggesting that he should amend Section (3) on Report. His amendment is not, therefore, before the Committee now.
It is regular, I suppose, on Report.
I move the following amendment: "In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (a).”
The object of the amendment is to put the owner of business premises in the same position with regard to the bonus, as I call it, as the owner of the residence. Section (8), sub-section (1), paragraph (d), which has been adopted, says that there may be a further addition to any such amounts over and above the standard rent, the amount not exceeding 10 per cent. of the standard rent. The proposal in Section (16) is that when the Bill is applied to business premises, the landlord shall be entitled to add an amount not exceeding 25 per cent. of the standard rent. The amendment seeks to limit that increase under this head to 10 per cent. Deputy McGoldrick and other Deputies from distant parts of the country are very familiar with the smaller shop-keeper.
Apart from the general question of the economic utility of the small shopkeeper, there is no doubt that if 25 per cent. is allowed to be added over and above any other increases that are allowed they will be badly hit, and there is no case made, except in the case of competitive rents. The Bill itself is a restriction upon the right of the landlord to levy that toll, and he has power to levy that toll because of the high cost of building to-day. It is just as difficult to build a shop or business premises as it is to build residential premises. If we believe the stories that come to us from Donegal and Kerry and other parts of the country, the shop-keeper of to-day is not in as good a position to live out of his trade, and the Bill is going to authorise an increase of 25 per cent. for these business premises as against an increase of 10 per cent. for a house-owner.
Yes, that may be so. I quite understand that the evil under this Bill may not be as great as the evil under British legislation. That may be said of many things, I hope. We are not talking of British legislation as a criterion in all respects. I submit it is necessary for the Minister in asking that business premises shall be placed in a position two and a half times worse than the tenant of the house in relation to the landlord, to explain and to justify to the Dáil the difference. If he can satisfy the shop-keeping element in the country and those who speak more particularly for the shop-keeping element in the Dáil that such provision is desirable, then I think the Dáil would accept it. I would like to hear the Minister's justification.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It is refreshing in those days of party bitterness and strife to find one man who can rise superior to his economic and political prejudices, and to find Deputy Johnson taking the high ground of abstract justice and pleading so eloquently the cause of the middleman, whom some of his colleagues occasionally refer to with a certain irreverence as "bloated."
This is the least bloated one.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The 1920 Act controlled business premises for one year, and the 35 per cent. was allowed. It is, to a certain extent, a concession to control them again at all, and the reduction from 35 per cent. to 25 per cent. which the Committee recommends is decidedly fair under all the circumstances. The shopkeepers—shall we put it at the lowest, and say—the shopkeepers are not the least fortunate class in the community at the moment, and there is no reason that I can see why they should make their increased profits without paying a somewhat increased rent. Almost from the start of this Bill the mentality seems to have been that anyone was entitled to a profit except the landlord. The word "landlord" is a word that has certain associations of ideas calculated to create prejudice. If you call him a person who owned houses it would sound ever so much better, but when the word "landlord" is mentioned Deputy Davin's blood boils, and he talks of people who are thrown out on the roadside, and so on, forgetting, as I said yesterday, that in very many cases the circumstances of the bloated landlord are not nearly as good as the circumstances of his tenants, and that a great many landlords were people who were living on certain annual rentals at a time when the purchasing power of money was very much greater than it is at present. These rentals have not increased in proportion to the decreasing purchasing power of money, leaving a great many of these people in very dire straits and in very bad circumstances indeed.
The conventional picture of the bloated landlord is not in accordance with facts. This middle man for whom Deputy Johnson pleads is not the least fortunate person in the community at the moment. For the most part he is more fortunate than his landlord. I will not depart in this respect from the recommendations of the Committee. No case has been put up for such a departure, no case sufficient to warrant the disregard of the advice of the Committee who can well be called experts on this very technical subject. The contention used to be that direct contact of producer and consumer was the ideal to be aimed at, and that the elimination of the middle man was desirable. It will be interesting to hear if that, as an economic programme, has been abandoned by Deputy Johnson and by his colleagues.
The Minister forgets that there is more than one middleman and that we cannot get rid of them both at once. Let us get rid of the worst first. There is nobody else to plead the cause of the small shop-keeper——
Mr. O'HIGGINS
If there is nobody else to plead the cause of the small shop-keeper then it is left to us, I am sorry to say. I would wish that the Minister, or one of his colleagues, was thinking of bringing in a Shopkeepers Purchase Bill, and buying three-fourths of them out, on the taxation of the fourth, but inasmuch as that desirable end is not being sought for by the Ministry, my only suggestion is that the landlord, who in this case has not done anything at all to warrant the increase of his income by virtue of his ownership of these shops, should not therefore be rewarded. We should take out of the mouths of some of the shopkeepers such justification as they have for increased prices to the consumer. If you are going to add to the rental they are to pay, they have at least that little modicum of excuse for higher charges and higher profits. I want to remove if possible that excuse, so that we can then go fiercely to the shopkeeper for overcharging the consumer.
Amendment put and negatived.
Motion made, and Question: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
Question: "That Sections 17 and 18 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) This Act may be cited as The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923.
(2) Except as otherwise provided, this Act shall come into operation on the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and shall continue in force until the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twentysix.
Provided that the expiration of this Act shall not render recoverable by a landlord any rent, interest, or other sum which during the continuance thereof was irrecoverable, or affect the right of a tenant to recover any sum which during the continuance thereof was under this Act recoverable by him.
I beg to propose the following amendment:—"In Sub-section 2 to delete the words `twenty-six' in line 20, and to substitute therefor the word `thirty.' " The object of this amendment is to increase the period during which this Act shall run, for the simple reason that there is no prospect whatever of the evil being remedied by 1926. It is unwise, I think, to let the public and the prospective builders of houses that the Minister has in mind lie under the delusion that there is any prospect whatever of this control ceasing by 1926. There may be a chance of its ceasing by 1930. It is for that reason I propose the amendment to make the date 1930.
I am afraid I cannot agree with Deputy Johnson in this amendment, because I think that by the time we reach the year 1926 our backs will be completely broken under this burden, and to prolong it until 1930 would be more than we could possibly bear. I am not so pessimistic about the future as Deputy Johnson, as I believe in the near future there will be a proper Town Tenants Bill, which will do justice to all concerned.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I am glad, despite the fact that I have not been able to accept many of Deputy Johnson's amendments, he still thinks the Bill good enough to double its life. The period of three years was selected because it is about as long a time as we felt we could measure in this particular matter of housing. If the conditions at the end of that time are such as to require the renewal of the Bill or the extension of its life, then the Parliament of the day will undoubtedly deal with that. The lifetime of this Bill will run until about the last year of the Parliament that will be elected in a few months' time. I think that the Constitution provides for four years as the normal life of a Parliament. There will be ample opportunities for the Parliament of 1926 to consider the situation and decide whether or not this Bill is required to be extended. It may possibly affect the situation in some way if the Bill is not considered immediately before the election. As to Deputy Hennessy's remark, I am sorry that he has such a bad opinion of the Bill, and, having that opinion, he made no representations to the Ministry responsible for bringing it forward with a view to improving it.
I had not time. We are so rushed with Bills it was almost impossible to do so, but I intend to do so before we are finished.
It is a fair rule in family life that the parents should so conduct themselves that the children should not have abnormal difficulties facing them in their youth. The Minister wants to hand over to the successors of this Parliament what appears to be quite likely a fierce conflict over the question of rent restriction. I am not so confident as the Minister appears to be that the next Parliament will be so willing to pass legislation as beneficial as that of this Parliament, and no doubt they will have very much to concern themselves with. I would much rather that tenants, in towns particularly, should not have to run the risk of a fierce conflict with the Parliament of that day on the question of the removal of the Rent Restriction Act. I admit quite freely, and I give the Minister all credit, that this Bill is a very great improvement upon the old British Act, though it is worse than the Dáil Decree, and it is a very much better Bill indeed than the Bill which is now before the British House intending to amend the Act of 1920. This I say all on condition that the matter we were discussing last night is embodied before the Bill leaves the Dáil—namely, that the provision that any agreements that are to be allowed between the landlord and the tenant are subject to the restrictions embodied in the Bill. I give the Minister all credit for having brought in a Bill which is fairly good. It might be better, and it would have been better if he had the good sense to accept our amendments; but we cannot expect everything from the Minister, though undoubtedly he will improve with age.
Amendment put and negatived.
Motion made, and question, "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
