With regard to the first eight amendments to this Bill, I take it that amendments 1 and 6 may be taken together and decided on amendment 1. I do not know if the Dáil will be agreeable to take amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 on the basis that they involve a revision of the figures in the Bill, are inextricable and should be discussed together.
INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL, 1926—FOURTH STAGE.
I think there are distinctions between the earlier amendments and the later ones. A different argument could be used in respect of amendments 7 and 8.
Can we take amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 together, and amendments 7 and 8 together?
Agreed.
I move amendment 1:—
In page 2, Section 2, line 25, to delete the figures "1929" and substitute the figures "1932."
The object of this amendment is to extend the period during which the Rent Restrictions Act shall continue. The proposal in the Bill is that the Act shall expire in June, 1929. The object of the amendment is to extend the period until 1932. My principal reason for that is the belief that the housing supply cannot, by anything that is foreseen, meet the demand before 1932, that certainly for that period we are justified in expecting that the supply will be very much short of the demand. As a consequence of a free market houses would automatically rise in price. I say "automatically," because the urge has been from landlords and householders to be freed from these restrictions, so that they might collect higher rentals from the tenants. It is not an extravagant prophecy to say that as soon as these restrictions are removed, with the supply of houses much shorter than the demand, there will be showers of notices for increase of rent. There will be no protection for the tenant. I am asking the Dáil to agree that the period of three years is entirely too short and should be extended at least to the year 1932.
There is a slight difference between this amendment and one which was moved on Committee Stage, which was to extend the period of control until 1933. This amendment is really for a year shorter. As Deputy Johnson said, the main question is the supply of houses. The supply of houses, we are informed, is, to some extent, affected by these Bills and Acts for restriction of rent and mortgage interest. That is the case that is made. I think it will be admitted that in very few cases of ordinary house-owners has there been any activity on their part since the first introduction of these Bills and they were the main providers of houses at the time when the first Rent Restriction Bill was introduced. Putting out of commission the main suppliers of houses was a very serious act. The circumstances of the time and the necessities of the time certainly made a case for bringing in these Acts, and the question now which concerns us is whether these Acts are not reaching the end of their usefulness.
Merely fixing the date at 1929 does not mean that in no conceivable circumstances will there be any serious consideration of the problem up to that time. Putting down 1929 is an indication that this particular method of dealing with the matter must come to an end. The 1923 Act has had a three years' course. A considerable modification is noticeable in this Act. If exactly the same set of circumstances existed in 1929 it will then be the duty of the Executive to introduce a measure for the consideration of the Dáil to deal with the problem that will then exist, but a proviso for a longer period than three years is, in my opinion, particularly unwise, in view of the circumstances, that considerable contribution has been made towards the provision of houses for the last three years. In the circumstances I must resist the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 35.
Tá.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Daly.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
Níl.
- Earnán Altún.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Seán de Faoite.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán MacCurtain.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Liam Thrift.
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies T. O'Connell and Morrissey. Níl: Deputies Duggan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
I move:—
In page 2, Section 4, line 51, to delete the figures "£52" and substitute the figures "£40."
On the Committee Stage there was a discussion on the size of the houses which should come within the scope of the Bill. In Dublin the figures were £52, £40 and £30 for the three successive years of control, and for the rest of the country the figures were £35, £30 and £26. The Minister for Justice indicated that he would be prepared to consider fixing the figures at £40, £35 and £25 for the Dublin area, and £30, £25 and £20 outside the Dublin area. On this understanding amendments, which were put down in Committee, were withdrawn, and the Minister for Justice, in accordance with his undertaking, has proposed that these amendments, Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 should be put down. I accordingly move amendment No. 2.
There is pretty strong objection to the amendment reducing the figures from £52 to £40. Some justification might be made in respect of larger houses of higher valuation which cannot be adduced in respect of those of lower valuation, but, as we are dealing with amendment No. 2, I want to say that the reduction from £52 to £40 is very great. It will, in many cases, mean that whereas in the original proposal a person paying £100 a year rent would be subject to the landlord's will after June, 1927, the new proposal is that houses of actually less rental, perhaps in the neigh-bourhood of £80, in the Dublin district, would be released in that way in June, 1927. As I said at an earlier stage, the objection in respect of these larger houses may not be so great as in respect to smaller houses. First of all, there are fewer of them and, consequently, perhaps more of them belong to the occupiers, but the distinction between £52 and £40 is too great and it brings too large a number into the landlord's power. It has been represented to me that there are many cases where father and son, mother and daughter, have been obliged to occupy the same house and that they will be mulcted and brought into the region of the landlord's will in the matter, apart from any choice, in a year's time. I do not think that the objection is so great in respect to houses of £52 valuation, but I think there are distinct objections when you come to those of £40 valuation, and I therefore oppose the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 19.
Tá.
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bloger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Seán de Faoite.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán MacCurtain.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies T. O'Connell and Morrissey.
Amendment declared carried.
I beg to move:—
In page 2, Section 4, line 52, to delete the figures "£35" and to substitute the figures "£30."
Amendment put and declared carried.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
In page 3, Section 4, line 8, to delete the figures "£40" and to substitute the figures "£30."
The objections to this amendment are very much stronger than in the case of Amendment No. 2. We are asked to make free of all restrictions from June, 1928, all houses of £30 valuation, assuming the standard rent is always higher than the valuation. That includes a very great number of houses in the county and city of Dublin and in the city of Cork. I want to draw special attention to the significance of the voting on these amendments. What I have to say applies more particularly in regard to this and to the subsequent amendment. There are eight Deputies returned from the county of Dublin, fifteen from the city of Dublin, and five from the city of Cork. These are the three places that are affected by these amendments. There was a good deal of discussion on the Committee Stage from the representatives of the county of Dublin, who are perhaps more affected than the representatives of any other constituency by this amendment. But we have the curiously significant fact that Deputy Cooper, Deputy Good, Deputy O'Connor and the Minister for Justice, who were prominent in the discussions on these proposals in the Committee Stage have not voted on a single one of these proposals to-day.
It is only fair to say, as far as the Minister for Justice is concerned, that he is unfortunately indisposed since Sunday. I do not think he will be able to return until tomorrow. I ought to have mentioned that yesterday.
I am very sorry to hear that that is the explanation of the Minister's absence. I have no doubt that if he were here he would be quite prepared to stand over his proposition. But can the same arguments apply to the other Deputies representing Dublin county—Deputy Bryan Cooper, Deputy John Good, Deputy Bartholomew O'Connor, and the Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Desmond FitzGerald, all representative of the County Dublin and all representative of these people affected by this amendment?
As far as the Minister for External Affairs is concerned. I might mention that Mrs. FitzGerald has been unwell for a very considerable time, and he has had to take her away to the Continent. The journey is very long—I think it took four days to get to where he went—and he cannot be back for a couple of days.
Again I express my sympathy. I may take it that if Deputy FitzGerald were here he would have voted against this proposal of the Minister to bring a larger number, an immensely larger number, within the powers of the landlords in 1928 than was originally proposed. Let us take the City of Dublin. Where are the representatives of the City of Dublin, representatives of these very large numbers of their constituents who are to be brought into the power of the landlords by this proposal of the Minister? We have one of those Deputies on the front bench amongst the Independents. Deputy Doctor Hennessy is absent. We have one Deputy out of fifteen Deputies for the City of Dublin who is prepared to stand for the landlords on this matter, all the remainder being absent and not voting on this proposal.
Perhaps they may not like to vote in favour of it.
I suspect that that is the reason. They are in fact against the proposition of the Minister, but they are not prepared to vote against it. I want to suggest to the rest of the House this consideration: in view of this immense preponderance of representative opinion from the City and County of Dublin against the proposal of the Minister, the House ought not, in the face of these facts, vote for the proposition. Let us take the City of Cork. Again that is a constituency that is affected by this proposal. We have Deputy J.J. Walsh, the only representative from the City of Cork who has braved all the dangers and who has come here to-day to vote on this proposition to raise the rents of the occupants of houses which are valued at £30 a year and upwards from the year 1928. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I may be a false prophet—but that is the proposition that the Deputy is going to vote for—to raise the rents of those houses in Cork city which are valued at £30 a year and upwards. The remainder of the representatives from Cork do not dare come to vote for that proposition.
Now there are five representatives from Cork, fifteen from the city of Dublin and eight from the County of Dublin—twenty-eight representatives, and probably not more than three out of the twenty-eight are prepared to vote for that proposition of the Minister; those three voting in fact for a proposal to give liberty to the landlords to rack-rent their tenants on and after June 1928. I wonder will the representatives of the farmers on the other benches agree to allow to be done to the tenants of houses in the towns and cities what the tenants in the towns and cities refused to allow to be done to them years ago. The tenants of the towns fought the battle of the land tenants against the rack-renting landlords. Will the representatives of the country districts now help the town tenants against the rack-renting by the town landlords? That is what you are asked to do. You are asked now to give freedom to the owners of houses in the towns or cities to rack-rent their tenants in a time of acute shortage, after a given date, that date being 24th June, 1928. I wonder do Deputies realise what they are doing.
There has been a great deal of talk about heavy taxation, and the undue burden of taxation. I would ask Deputies if they have ever considered whether the burden of taxation is greater because it is imposed by the State than it is when imposed by a landlord. So far as the tenant is concerned, he is as grievously affected by an annual charge in the shape of rent as he is by an annual charge in the way of rates, or an annual charge in the way of taxes. And when you are proposing to raise that annual charge upon the tenant in the way that is done by the amendment, you are practically telling the people that all the talk about over-taxation is so much bunkum, that you are deliberately imposing this extra burden of taxation for no value received by them. When you are dealing with social services, which cost so much in the way of taxation, people are getting some value, but when you are dealing with a tax in the shape of a rental, the increased tax that is now proposed, it is for nothing; it is merely to hand it over to the landlord, for no value whatever in return. I say that there is no justification for inviting us to support this proposal to give the landlord power to levy an additional tax upon people occupying houses of £30 valuation after the 24th day of June, 1928, and I ask the House to refuse to accept this amendment.
It is hard to reconcile the speech we have just listened to with Deputy Johnson's well-known good memory. He has given a colour to the absence of the representatives of Dublin County and others who definitely supported the principle of this amendment on the Committee Stage, and who had themselves put down amendments which went even further than this. Deputy Johnson would appear to have forgotten entirely that the whole matter was threshed out when these Deputies were present and that, as the result of the arguments, and as a compromise, these amendments were withdrawn and this one has been put forward.
Has the Deputy seen the letters that they have received from their constituents since that date?
I do not know what letters have been received. I know that for my sins I took up this matter, not in the interests of the landlords, but in the interests of the tenants. I received a good many letters since, but I did not before. The point I wish to draw attention to in this case is that the absence of these Deputies cannot be pointed to as showing that they are not in favour of this amendment, but that it points entirely in the opposite direction, that they had taken the matter as settled when the Minister promised this amendment. Deputy Johnson has chosen to represent this amendment as giving a power of rack-renting. If his eyes had not been closed to the other point of view he might have seen that what it will really do will be to make it worth while for people to put their money into houses, so that better provision may be made for housing tenants, and their conditions improved and not made worse, by a better supply of houses.
I think that anybody who considers the question at all must realise that it is that lack of confidence in houses as an investment which is largely responsible for the shortage which has put tenants in their present difficult position, that it is not worth while, and will not be worth while, as long as we have these rent restrictions in force, for money to be employed in that way, and that as long as that continues money will not be put into houses. I think Deputy Johnson was hardly fair in attributing the absence of these Deputies to an unwillingness to support this amendment. They were in perfect agreement with the Minister that the amendment was an attempt to reconcile their different points of view.
If I had any anticipation that we were to have a Second Reading debate on this comparatively insignificant amendment I should have been in my place. As it is, I can only say that I think it is rather unkind of Deputy Johnson to call attention to the fact that Deputy Norton is absent —here he is—to have called attention to the fact that Deputy Norton was absent.
He voted on the last two amendments.
Very possibly, but he did not hear the arguments. My view is, as we are to have a Second Reading debate, that in the long run decontrol will benefit the tenants.
And the landlords.
If Deputy Morrissey lets me finish my sentence I will tell him why it will benefit the tenants. It is because it will create among landlords competition to get a good tenant, and once there is free competition—I admit that it will not come in one or two years, but within a comparatively limited period—once building starts again, as I believe it will start, there will be competition amongst landlords to get a good tenant who can be relied on to pay his rent and not to damage the premises. Deputies on the Labour benches seem to argue on the principle that every landlord is immensely rich, which is not the case; that every landlord is infinitely wicked, which is not invariably the case, and that every landlord is entirely insane—
Which is not always the case.
—which is not always the case; that every landlord is prepared to extract a rack-rent by letting to a tenant who will be here to-day and gone to-morrow, probably not leaving any assets behind him, by taking a tenant who will damage the property far more than the additional rent that he will pay will compensate the landlord. That is not the case. You have got to get back to normal commercial conditions. You have got to get back to the atmosphere that exists in every other sphere of life, the atmosphere of free bargaining. The tenant will gain from that as well as the landlord; at least the well-conducted tenant will. The tenant who takes a tenancy for three months or six months and then departs leaving the premises in very bad repair, possibly will suffer, but I do not know that it is any business of the Oireachtas or of the Labour Party to protect that type of tenant.
Are they all of that type?
They are not, and in the poorest houses they are not. But the good-class tenant will gain, in the long run, because the landlord realises that it is to his own advantage or her own advantage—a great many landlords are women—to get a good tenant and to keep him. Decontrol will produce that situation which existed in the past. I do not believe there was a town tenants' agitation or a case of rack-renting before 1914. There was no grave or serious discontent as to the conditions of tenancies in towns, certainly not in the way that Deputy Johnson has held it to be in the City and County of Dublin. There were houses being built. There was great competition, and the tenant was able, in many cases, to pick and choose. I hope Deputy Johnson read the letter by the President of the Irish Auctioneers' and House Agents' Association that appeared in the Press, I think, on last Saturday, describing the conditions in the County of Dublin. He is a man who is prejudiced rather in favour of letting than selling, because, on the whole, a lease gives a commission more often than a sale. That was the condition in the County Dublin before the war, and it was advantageous to the tenant. On the whole rents in the County of Dublin were not considered excessive. I was a representative of the County of Dublin for a period at that time, and I got no representations as to unfairness of the existing laws. We want to get back to that condition, a condition of free competition among landlords and builders to supply the needs of the tenants, and in the long run this Bill is going to work in that direction.
I do not agree with Deputy Cooper that this amendment is more or less tabled for the purpose of doing good to the tenant. It would give the landlord a free hand to charge what rent he likes. There is no legislation to prevent him charging 100 per cent. or 300 per cent. to an incoming tenant over and above what the outgoing tenant was paying. Surely that is not in the tenant's interest. I agree with what Deputy Johnson said as regards the representatives of the farmers. It is up to the representatives of the farmers to support the tenants in the towns, because it is a well-known fact that were it not for the people in the towns the farmers would not be the owners of their homes to-day. We find here to-day a body of good, solid representatives on the Farmers' benches being led away be the sweet words of the Ministers and their supporters on the Government benches. We find them being led to believe that an amendment like this is tabled in the interests of the tenants. With control gone, and with the competition of tenants, the landlord would be able to select a good tenant who would be careful in looking after his property, while he could charge 200 or 300 per cent. extra on the rent. Surely the farmers' representatives are not here in the interests of the rack-renters, the evictors or the bad landlords. I think it is up to the farmers' representatives to support the demands of the people of the towns, and it is up to every honest-minded Deputy on the Government benches to support their demands.
As I have said before, these Deputies went to the country and told the people that if they were returned they would support legislation on behalf of the town tenants. This is legislation against the town tenants, and it is up to Deputies to fulfil their promises and to vote against this amendment. It is up to every honest-minded man who gave his pledge to the people of the country to do that. Of course, the Government has only to press the button and they can have a huge majority. Their supporters will flock in like bees into a hive and surround the queen bee —the Minister in charge of whatever Bill is under discussion. I ask the Dáil to vote against this rack-renting proposition. If passed, it will mean that when a house of from £20 valuation upwards becomes vacant, the landlord can have the choice of putting the house up for sale, or accepting the highest rent offered. There is no question of fixity of tenure. The whole Bill is in the interests of the landlords, and this amendment is introduced to give them more rights, and possibly to put more profits into their pockets for houses that they might have bought at cheap prices, probably twenty-six years ago.
We are giving them an opportunity now of having these houses decontrolled, with the result that they can charge what they like for them, or sell them at prices that the occupying tenants cannot afford to pay. Does the Saorstát Government stand for evictions now? Surely that time is passed. I heard Deputy Gorey laughing. He must bear in mind that if all the farmers' representatives of the Saorstát were of the same mind as himself, you would have a lot more evictions than you have. We want to put an end to evictions. We want to get the representatives of the people to see that justice is done, not to a particular class, but to the masses of the people. I ask the Dáil to vote against this amendment and not to give the landlord an opportunity of saying, in 1928, to a tenant: "That house you are living in now is decontrolled, I will have to charge 140 per cent. extra, because it cost me so much to erect, or it cost my father so much to buy, and I am not making any profit on it." The result will be that the tenant, not being able to pay the rent, will be evicted, and he can throw up his hands and say: "Thank God I succeeded in getting my own Government."
I am sorry that Deputy Cooper has again flown, but as he spoke, apparently with some authority, on behalf of some people at all events, about conditions in County Dublin, I, as a representative of County Dublin, wish to controvert completely many of the things which he said in connection with rents for houses in County Dublin. I have in mind at the moment one case where a person who desired a house went to the owner of a vacant house and asked him to let the house. This particular man was prepared to pay one year's rent in advance, and he thought that that bait would induce the landlord to let the house, but when he went to the landlord the minimum terms on which the landlord was prepared to let the house was £50 for the key and two year's rent in advance. I think that is evidence of the exploitation of tenants which will go on when houses are decontrolled at a time when there is not sufficient houses to supply the demand of the community. I think Deputy Cooper cannot be altogether unaware of the fact that a good deal of exploitation is going on in the case of recently-built houses where those houses have been let. Deputy Cooper made a point about tenants not writing to him complaining about the rents charged for the houses which they occupied, but after the speech which Deputy Cooper made to-day one must compliment the tenants on their good sense of judgment. One might as well write to a landlord as write to Deputy Cooper if Deputy Cooper's sentiments then were just the same as they are now.
My view of the matter in connection with County Dublin is that there are not sufficient houses to supply the popular demand and that exploitation of tenants will go on until such time as there are sufficient houses to supply that demand. Decontrol is going to intensify the exploitation of tenants rather than to alleviate it in the way Deputy Cooper talked of. Deputy Cooper talked of relinquishing control and of going back to pre-war conditions in the matter of house letting. Everybody knows that the shortage of houses is now much greater than in pre-war days, and if we are going to get back to free bargaining in the matter of house letting, then I think we ought not get back to free bargaining until such time as we are satisfied that the number of houses for letting to the public is sufficient to prevent landlords charging exorbitant prices for their houses. I think that in County Dublin, especially in South County Dublin, there is a terrific demand for houses. Tenants are prepared to pay very exorbitant rents, and that is not to be wondered at, considering the scarcity of housing accommodation. I think if this amending Bill goes through in this manner it will simply enable the landlord to exploit the tenant, and it will give no protection whatever to persons who are tenants of houses at present or who intend to become tenants in the near future.
I am afraid we have strayed away from the amendment. Deputy Norton made that quite clear when he referred to this amendment and then corrected himself and called it an amending Bill. We have had a debate on de-control. We have decided the principle of de-control. Deputy Gorey need not interest himself in the question of de-control at all.
Some remarks have been made in connection with our attitude to this amendment. Some Deputies take exception to laughter coming from some of the benches. I do not think that Deputies should be annoyed if they raise a laugh, because it is really paying a compliment to some Deputies that they do not deserve. We have heard a lot in this debate about honest claims and just claims. I do not think there are two more abused words in the language than "honest" and "just." We have heard housing accommodation in Dublin and in some of the other towns in Ireland talked about very eloquently by Deputies, although these Deputies said not a word at all about the real cause of the shortage of houses. It would probably be out of order to go into details now. One thing is clear: that we have not enough houses to go round for the people, but the direct road to having cheap houses is to have more houses, and plenty of houses. I think that the principle of de-control as embodied in this amendment will aim at that, and for that reason I think it should be commended. If these restrictions are removed the chances are that somebody in Dublin will be tempted to start building houses as a commercial proposition, and that is the direct road to better houses and cheaper houses. We hear no references at all to the rents that are asked from tenants of flats or rooms, and when Deputies stand up here to talk about people who own houses they never tell us how much people are charged for rooms and flats in these particular houses. There are people who deserve consideration besides people who own houses. They are people who want home accommodation and they have to confine themselves to one room. It would be interesting if Deputies told us what people have to pay for this room accommodation.
If you were here the last day you would have heard all about it.
I say this Bill is the only direct road to better and cheaper housing accommodation, and I have no apology at all to make for our action.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 26.
Tá.
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Proóinsias Bulfin.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donnchadh O Guaire. Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Daly.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Seán de Faoite.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- David Hall.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán D Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Norton.
Amendment declared carried.
took the Chair.
I move:
In page 3, Section 4, line 9, to delete the figures "£30" and substitute the figures "£25."
Inasmuch as this has particular reference to districts outside the metropolitan area, and includes smaller towns as well as the City of Cork, I think it would be well to test the feeling of the Dáil upon this amendment. The amount is down to £25 now, let us bear in mind, in respect to places outside the metropolitan area, and I will ask the Dáil to declare its feeling in regard to these figures.
The Deputy has mentioned Cork. I wonder has he made any examination in regard to the valuations of residential houses there? Cork has not been re-valued for a great number of years; I do not know that it was ever re-valued. Very valuable houses would not have a higher valuation than £30. The vast majority of valuations of residential houses in Cork is under £30—under £20, as a matter of fact. In County Dublin I know one particularly fine residential house with a valuation of £26 a year.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 24.
Tá.
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin. Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Seán de Faoite.
- David Hall.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and S ears. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Norton.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment 6 (Deputy Johnson) not moved.
I beg to move Amendment 7:—
In page 3, Section 4, line 17, to delete the figures "£30" and substitute the figures "£25."
Strong as the objections were to accepting the last amendment, the objections to accepting this are even stronger. It gives landlords freedom to deal with houses, and to evict tenants in a much greater number than Deputies appear to imagine. It is proposed, at the end of three years from now, that all tenants of houses of £25 valuation will be charged a higher rental than they are paying now. Baldly and plainly that is the meaning of this amendment, and, as in the last instance but one, we were dealing with houses of £30 valuation, a very much greater number of houses of £25 valuation are brought in under this amendment. Thousands of houses in Pembroke, Rathmines, Dún Laoghaire, as well as in North Dublin, and in some parts of South Dublin, are brought within this category. It is a notice embodied in this Act to those tenants, with the signature of every Deputy who votes for the amendment, that on and after the 24th day of June, 1929, their rents shall be increased to such a degree as the landlords are able to extract. There is to be no restriction whatever, and the notice that Deputies who vote for this amendment are going to give to the occupants of those houses is that, on and after that day, they will be bound to incur an increased rental, or to leave their houses.
I draw the attention of Deputies to that aspect of the question they are now asked to decide. The proposition made in defence of it, the only justification proposed in favour of this action, is that, in the meantime, before 1929, house-builders will be so encouraged by the prospect of being able to get whatever rent they can, from existing tenants of old houses, there will be such a competition that instead of having a shortage of houses by that day he supply will equal the demand. That is optimism I cannot share, and can see no possible justification for. We have had three or four thousand houses built in two or three years in and around Dublin. The proposition we are asked to accept now is that within the next three years, ten thousand or perhaps twenty thousand houses will be built, so that the supply and the demand will approximate, and that the real value in a free market will have been arrived at.
I say until you can show some evidence that the supply will equal the demand that there is no justification for placing this power in the hands of the landlords. Deputy Gorey told us that it was necessary to take into consideration the charges upon tenants of rooms. He imagined, sweet innocent, that was a subject that nobody else had ever given any consideration to but himself. I would ask any other Deputy who is impressed by the fact that tenants of houses do charge, and are able to obtain, an exorbitant rent for rooms that are sub-let, why that is the case? It is the existence of this inordinate demand for a supply of houses which is not present that incites the tenant of a house to sub-let at an excessive rent. That existing fact will apply just as readily and with greater force to the owner of a house after this restriction is removed unless the supply of houses is somewhat equivalent to the demand. We are concerned in this case with the tenants of houses of £25 valuation, and I ask Deputies to recognise the immense number of houses in that category that are in the County Dublin, in North City Dublin and to a lesser extent in South City Dublin, whether they are prepared to serve this notice of an increased rental upon the tenants of those houses, as on and from the 24th June, 1929.
I would like to register my protest against this amendment, as I did against the last one. As far as I can see, the acceptance of the amendment will mean that the occupiers of houses of £25 valuation will be completely at the mercy of the landlord. I do not believe that if the amendment is accepted it will mean that more houses will be built. Houses with a valuation of £25 do not spring up like mushrooms in the night. Neither do I think that the landlords and builders are so interested in the welfare of the people, that because the valuation of these houses is reduced from £30 to £25 it is going to be an encouragement to them to build more houses of the same value. Consequently, the question of more houses to accommodate people living in rooms does not arise on this amendment at all. As Deputy Gorey mentioned, the people who are living in tenement houses could not afford to pay the rent that would be charged on a house with a valuation of £25.
Therefore, I do not see how, under this amendment, you are going to relieve the congestion that prevails as regards the large number of people in the Saorstát who are without houses. In my opinion the acceptance of the amendment will mean that a large number of people who are at present able to rent a house will be driven into living in rooms. The landlords will be put in the position that they can increase rents to such a degree that people able to rent a house now, will no longer be able to do so. These people will have to go into rooms, and houses can only be rented by those who have larger incomes than the old tenants. In my opinion, if this amendment is passed, you will have more people than ever obliged to go and live in rooms or in tenement houses.
From the industrial point of view, the amendment does not aim to do anything at all. Its aim, as far as I can see, is to put more money into the pockets of the landlord. Under it you are giving the landlord a free hand, and you are going to let him have his pound of flesh as well as his pound in cash. I ask the Dáil to vote against the amendment, and to see that landlords are not allowed to charge rents which would be beyond the means of the people to pay. I would be in favour of the acceptance of this amendment, if we got a guarantee that a number of houses would be built in Dublin, Cork, Waterford and other places. We have no such guarantee, and it is simply throwing dust in the eyes of the people to tell them that the amendment will be instrumental in having more houses erected. That is nonsense, and is only political propaganda from the capitalist's point of view—political, in that the supporters of the amendment can go to their own class and say: "We as members of the Dáil gave you an opportunity of increasing your rents, so elect us again."
The Deputy is judging other people by himself.
No, I am not thinking of myself in that respect at all. The amendment should not be accepted and we should do justice to the people and not give the landlords an opportunity of fleecing them. I do not blame the Government.
Why not?
The Government are elected by the people as members of this House, and if they are slightly influenced by the capitalist class, that is their sin and not ours. The landlords can say to the Government: "We are the people with capital, and without capital you cannot run the State. If you give us a free hand we will be able to raise capital with excess profit. If you do not give us a free hand we cannot support you and give you the money to run the State." Consequently you cannot blame the Government, but you can blame the supporters of the Government. I ask the Deputies who pledged themselves to the citizens of the Saorstát to be men at least for once and say that there is to be an end to rack-rents.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 27.
Tá.
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- John J. Cole.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- John Good.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Daly.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Seán de Faoite.
- David Hall.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Norton.
Amendment declared carried.
I move:—
In page 3, Section 4, line 18, to delete the figures "£26" and substitute the figures "£20."
I am quite sure there will be few Deputies representing country constituencies and small towns who will be influenced by this amendment. I know there is a very considerable feeling in the country that Dublin and County Dublin do not matter, but at least Galway, Waterford, Limerick, Cork, and the small towns in Mayo are affected by this amendment. I will ask the House again to divide upon this proposal to bring in houses of £20 valuation and upwards. That would cover a very considerable number of houses in the country towns, and I want the House to record itself as being either in favour of or against this attempt to impose further rents upon the town tenants in the country districts.
Deputy Johnson's plea would carry greater conviction had it come from a country Deputy. Apparently country Deputies belonging to the Labour Party, with the exception of Deputy Doyle, have such complete confidence in Deputy Johnson that they feel themselves at liberty to fly. Deputy Johnson has not put forward any argument at all. The whole Bill has been drawn up on a basis of comparison of value. Taking the metropolitan area on the one hand and the rest of the country on the other hand, a definite ratio has been arrived at. Deputy Johnson now suddenly asks us to throw over that principle of reduction in the original Bill which has been accepted and carried by a majority. I think it would require more argument, particularly from country Deputies, before the Dáil should accept Deputy Johnson's amendment or even be persuaded to waste time taking a division on it.
Perhaps the President might agree to a compromise on this amendment? The amendment proposes to delete £26 and to substitute therefor the figure £20. That means that there would still be an increase of £1 more than in the two previous amendments. Perhaps the President would agree to leave this amendment over with a view to a compromise?
What hope you have.
It is the first time that I asked the President to agree to a compromise.
May I remind the Deputy as to the stage at which this Bill has now arrived—the Report Stage? Before I could even entertain his proposal I presume he will admit that I would have to see if it was practicable.
What about a compromise?
We are at the Report Stage of this Bill now.
The President would have time to consider the amendment during the tea interval. An increase of £3 means a good deal to shopkeepers in country towns. If the figure is fixed at £26 a large number of these people will suffer. I would ask the President on this occasion to reconsider this matter and agree to a compromise by making the figure £23.
If the Deputy put to me a particular town or towns, in which there were a number of houses with a valuation of £23, in respect of which there was a landlord who was exceedingly unjust, and where there was no alternative accommodation, there would be some case for considering his proposal. He has not given evidence of any particular cases of hardship and my information is that outside Co. Dublin the valuations are much lower than in County Dublin.
That is understood. I do not like to delay the House.
Deputy Lyons cannot make another speech.
It would take me more than an hour to explain the valuation of houses in the different towns that I know of, but I could prove that there are many houses where the valuation is over £20.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 28.
Tá.
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- John Good.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán MacCurtain.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Máirtín O Conalláin. Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Daly.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Seán de Faoite.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Norton.
Amendment declared carried.
The following amendment stood on the Order Paper:—
9. In page 3 to add at the end of Section 4, after line 21, the following words:—
"The tenant of any house to which this section applies may at any time within six months of the expiry of the period referred to in this sub-section which applies to the house or part of the house of which he is the tenant make application to the court to determine what is a fair rent for the house or part of the house having regard to the special circumstances of the case and the fair rent so determined by the court shall be the rent payable by the tenant during the continuance of the tenancy."—(Tomás Mac Eoin.)
(who resumed the Chair): Amendment 9 introduces a new subject—the fixing of a fair rent. I have serious doubts as to whether the amendment would be in order on any stage of the Bill, but it certainly is not in order on this stage. That will also apply to an amendment by Deputy Lyons.
Do you say, A Chinn Comhairle, that the same thing applies to the amendment which I have down?
Yes; it is identical with this amendment.
Can I get no guarantee from the Minister in charge of the Bill that he will introduce a provision to cover this amendment in the Seanad?
I do not think we could discuss the amendment. The Deputy must take some other opportunity to raise the question.
Will I get an opportunity after amendment 15 has been dealt with?
There will be no opportunity for raising the question on this Bill.
If it was in the interests of the landlord would I get permission to raise it?
It would be more desirable for the Deputy to sit down.
Amendment 9 not moved.
I move amendment 10:—
In page 3, before Section 5, to insert a new section as follows:
5.—(1) Where the landlord of a dwellinghouse to which the Principal Act applies and of which both the standard rent and the rateable value exceed £15 is in possession of the whole of the dwellinghouse at the passing of this Act, or comes into possession of the whole of the dwellinghouse at any time after the passing of this Act, then from and after the passing of this Act or from and after the date when the landlord subsequently comes into possession, as the case may be, the Principal Act shall save as hereinafter mentioned cease to apply to such dwelling-house.
(2) Where part of a dwelling-house to which the Principal Act applies is lawfully sub-let, and the part so sub-let is also a dwelling-house to which the Principal Act applies, the Principal Act shall not by virtue of this section cease to apply to the part so sub-let by reason of the tenant being in or coming into possession of that part, and, if the landlord is in or comes into possession of any part not so sub-let, the Principal Act shall cease to apply to that part notwithstanding that a subtenant continues in or retains possession of any other part by virtue of the Principal Act.
(3) "For the purposes of this section the word ‘possession' shall be construed as meaning actual possession and a landlord shall not be deemed to have come into possession by reason only of a change of tenancy made with his consent."
In the discussion in the Committee Stage, Deputies Thrift and O'Connor proposed that dwelling-houses should cease to be controlled when they became vacant. The Minister for Justice undertook to consider the matter and accordingly, amendment No. 10 has been put down. The amendment is, however, limited to houses whose Poor Law valuation exceeds £15. The amendment also takes care to protect any sub-tenants there may be where the sub-tenancy is also a dwelling-house within the meaning of the Principal Act. This means that where the landlord gets possession against the tenant of a house whose valuation exceeds £15, control ceases, but subtenancies remain protected even against the landlord until they become vacant. The Minister for Justice in Committee indicated that even if he were to accept the proposal to decontrol houses on vacancies occurring, he would restrict it to cases where such vacancy arose by the voluntary surrender of the tenant. On further consideration, having regard to the fact that tenants are fully protected and cannot be put out without proper cause it became clear that there was really no point in limiting the proposal to cases of voluntary surrender. Every vacancy must be presumed to take place in a proper manner for sufficient cause and without undue pressure from the landlord.
I should like to know whether it is necessary, in order to make the amendment effective, that it should refer to the Principal Act as well as to the 1920 Act.
The 1920 Act is out of date.
I take it then that the effect will be that these houses will cease to be controlled so far as the Principal Act is concerned and will cease to be controlled as far as the 1920 Act is concerned.
The 1920 Act is dead.
It is the 1923 Act which is operative. We will now take Deputy Johnson's amendments to the proposed new section.
I move amendment 11, which is as follows:—
In line 3 to delete the figures "£15" and substitute the figures "£20."
My reason for this amendment is that the number of houses of £15 valuation occupied by clerks, artisans and shop assistants is very much greater than the number of the larger houses, and the number of those people who would be in a position to take houses at the larger figure when decontrolled is much smaller. Even accepting, for the sake of the present argument, the contention of the Minister, that it is desirable to move towards decontrol, it is too big a jump to exempt all houses down as low as £15 valuation once they have become vacant. I said on the Second Reading that I could see some reason for exempting houses that have once become vacant, inasmuch as most of those houses in and around Dublin are not re-let but sold. But that applies more particularly to the houses of £20 valuation and over.
I would point out in this respect that the sub-tenant, as I may call him, of a house which has been altered into different dwellings is not by any mean clear in this case. In the case of tenements, once they have become vacant, provided that part of the house which is the tenement is of £15 valuation, any charge could be levied. I think if the figure of £20 is inserted it will meet the case that was made and avoid what would be a hardship to a big number of people aiming at that particular kind of house. The argument is stronger in the case of portions of houses sub-let, that is to say, made into a separate dwelling, and it is unwise, I think, that freedom from restriction should be made applicable to that class of dwelling.
I accept the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In line 5, after the word "dwelling-house" to insert the words "by the voluntary surrender of the tenant of the tenancy."
I put in this amendment because of the fact that the Minister has drawn special attention to the needs for some such provision, and while it is true, as the President pointed out, that there is a certain protection in the case of the tenant who has paid his rent it is possible for the tenant to be deprived of his tenancy, and the house, in that way, could become decontrolled. I think we could find at least an ingenious house-owner, more particularly an ingenious house agent, who could find many ways of putting the tenant here, to any degree a defaulter, out of his house for the purpose of securing freedom to impose any rent he liked. Therefore I think the Minister's first thought was the wiser and that we should have words inserted to the effect that such decontrol should arise only when the house was voluntarily surrendered. I think it is desirable that these words should be inserted.
I am not aware that there is any necessity for the insertion of those words. In no case can a tenant void his tenancy unless he does not pay his rent or damage the place to some extent. I think it necessitates a certain definite and positive act on the part of the tenant before he would surrender any rights he had and I do not see the necessity for the insertion of the words.
Would the Minister consider the position of the tenant who, by sickness or unemployment, would be unable to pay regularly and in whose case an application is made for resumption of possession? Owing to the law in the matter the Justice has to give that possession. With this kind of inducement to a landlord there is very much greater likelihood of that course being adopted by him to bring pressure upon the tenant than there would be if there were not this prospect of freedom from restriction.
There is a discretion left to the court in that matter. An order for possession shall not be given unless the court consider it is reasonable, and I must say that while a very strong sentimental case can be put up in respect of matters mentioned by Deputy Johnson we must remember we are not dealing here with the ordinary commercial case. We are dealing with a case in which profits are restricted out of all proportion to ordinary commerce, to the wages of the individual concerned, and so on, and I must say that, while a very strong sentimental case can be put up in respect of sickness and unemployment, an equally strong case can be put up in respect of a considerable number of people who have small property, and whose only means of support is out of this property, and who would be very hard hit if, in the case of three or four houses which they own, it happened that the three or four tenants were unwell at one time. The guarantee in respect of those people is that the court must consider what is fair and reasonable. One person has the court behind him in respect of those rights. The other person has no rights except those in this Act, and it is those rights which are restricted.
They will not be restricted when this is passed.
The court is there. We shall not take from the court any power it now has to see that this possession is to be reasonable and fair.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment 10, as amended, put and agreed to.
I move Amendment 15:—
In page 3, Section 5, paragraph (a), line 28, to insert at the end of the line and within the inverted commas the words and figures following "or the period of the two years 1926 and 1927, or the period of the two years 1927 and 1928."
It was indicated in Committee Stage that there was no reason why the extra allowance for extraordinary repairs should be limited to cases where repairs were carried out during the two years 1925 and 1926. Amendment No. 15 proposes the addition of the two periods '26-'27 and '27-'28. There would be no point in bringing in the year 1929, as the Bill is limited to the 24th June, 1929, the middle of the year.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 3, Section 6, sub-section (1), lines 47 and 48, to delete the words and figures "Section 12 of the Principal Act or recoverable by the tenant within the meaning of Section 15 of the Principal Act" and to substitute the words and figures "Section 1 of the Act of 1926, or Section 12 of the Principal Act, as the case may be, or recoverable by the tenant within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act of 1920 or sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Principal Act, as the case may be."
In the Committee Stage Deputy Thrift suggested that provision should be made to ensure that Section 6 of the Bill as introduced should cover the 1920 Act as well as the 1923 Act. In other words, Section 6 of the Bill is designed to stop repayments of permitted increases under the 1923 Act on merely technical grounds. It is necessary that increases under the 1920 Act should also be covered. The amendment achieves this.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 4, Section 7, sub-section (3), line 25, to delete the words and figures "sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Principal Act shall not" and to substitute the words and figures "Neither sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act of 1920, nor sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Principal Act shall."
Exactly the same point arises here as in the case of amendment No. 16.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 4, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—
"Section 16 of the Principal Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house while such dwelling-house is empty or unoccupied for the purpose of the execution of additions, alterations, or repairs thereto or by reason of the landlord therefor being bona fide unable to obtain a tenant therefor at a rent equal to the standard rent and the increases permitted by the Principal Act as amended by this Act.”
In the Committee Stage the Minister for Justice undertook to consider whether some provision could not be inserted in the Bill to cover cases of hardship arising under Section 16 of the Principal Act dealing with rates on unoccupied houses. The cases of hardship are where the house is kept unoccupied for the purpose of repairs or where a suitable tenant cannot be found. Amendment No. 18 covers the point. There have been cases where population shifted leaving us as many as 20 houses, in a given town, vacant. No tenants could be found at any rent and it was great hardship on the landlord to be compelled to pay rates.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 19:—
To add at the end of the section the words:—
"Provided that the period of exemption of liability for rates in respect of houses which are empty or unoccupied for the purpose of the execution of additions, alterations or repairs to shall not exceed three months."
In the discussion on the Committee Stage the question was raised as to the legitimacy of the effort to find a bona fide tenant and the period of exemption. Under the proposed new section there is no period fixed during which the house may be considered unoccupied for the purpose of the execution of additions or repairs. For the purpose of evading responsibility for rates a landlord might easily put in a couple of ladders, a whitewash brush, and declare that while those remain there the house is under alteration or repair. By that means he could prove, if there were a very slow-motion plasterer— perhaps Deputy Good knows of such——
Perhaps that is not beyond the knowledge of Deputy Johnson.
I have heard Deputy Good speak of such matters. In such a case, this house, being unoccupied, would be exempt from rates for two years, and the Pembroke or Rathmines Urban Council would be deprived of rates on this house, and, therefore, would be unable to meet the loss on fines and such like losses imposed upon them by another Bill. I think it will be seen that there is need of some period to be applied to this section, and I suggest three months.
Would not the period depend on the nature of the repairs, alterations, or additions? There are some cases in which three months would be ample, but there are others in which it would be wholly insufficient.
I do not like to confine it to three months. I have in mind a house, such as that which I mentioned to Deputy Johnson this afternoon. I refer to a good dwelling house of £26 valuation, and in connection with which it took four or five months to complete the necessary alterations and repairs. If considerable alterations and repairs were made in respect of a house, if they occupied more than three months, and if, in addition to that cost, the landlord was liable for rates, I think it would be unfair. I have not made up my mind definitely on the merits of this proposal but I think the period should, at least, be four months.
I am not confining myself to three months. I put that period down because it was necessary to indicate some period. My purpose would be served if there was a period fixed, even if the court had power to exercise discretion and fix the period. I do not mind whether the period is four or six months; in fact, I would prefer to leave it to the court in cases where there was no agreement with the local authority.
The introduction of the court is a great complication.
Then I am prepared to alter the period to four months.
I am not sure that the period should not be six months, as the assessment is made in respect of twelve months calculated in two moieties. If the second moiety were brought in from October to April for the execution of repairs it would be better. I rather favour six months. A period of four months means an operative decimal in respect to rates, but it is an unequal decimal, and I suggest that the period should be six months and we could have the matter considered. A different suggestion may come from another place. If six months were put down it would not matter much, and it would achieve the purpose of the Deputy.
I am prepared to have the period fixed at six months for the purpose of having the principle established by the Dáil.
The proposal is, therefore, to alter the amendment to read "not to exceed six months."
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Amendment 18, as amended, put and agreed to.
I propose:—
In page 5, Section 11, line 23, to delete the words and figures "(or the years 1926-1927)" and to substitute in inverted commas and brackets the words and figures "(or the years 1925-1926, or the years 1926-1927 or the years 1927-1928)."
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 15.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 5, before Section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—
"On the hearing of an action for the recovery of any rent claimed to be due in respect of a dwelling-house to which the Principal Act as amended by this Act applies, the court may, on the application of either party, at such hearing determine any question arising under this Act which can, in the opinion of the court, be conveniently determined on such hearing."
This amendment is introduced to meet what was intended to be covered by an amendment which Deputy Good moved in Committee. I think it is identical with what he has in mind, except that it is left to the discretion of the court to deal with the matters referred to, whereas in his amendment it was made mandatory on the court.
I would have preferred my amendment, but I am satisfied to accept this as a compromise.
It says "on the hearing of an action for the recovery of any rent." Should you not have alternatively "for the recovery of possession?"
That is in the Principal Act.
Then it is unnecessary?
Yes.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 5, before Section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—
"Where a tenant retaining possession under the Act assigns or sublets his tenancy or any part thereof and the rent received by the tenant exceeds 50 per cent. of the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord the tenancy shall cease to be subject to the provisions of the Act of 1920, or the Principal Act, and of this Act."
This was an amendment about which we had a great deal of discussion in Committee. I think that everybody thought that we had come to a certain amount of agreement on the matter, but I understand there is a definite reason why the Minister has not adopted something on the lines suggested in this amendment. I would like to take this opportunity of raising the point again, without, however, going over the arguments at length. I understand that we will be told that, to a certain extent, this has already been met under the present law, inasmuch as a definite decision has been given that a sub-tenant becomes to his tenant exactly as the tenant is to his landlord, in so far as the Rent Restrictions Act applies. There are two things to be said in that connection. First, that that fact is not sufficiently known, is not known perhaps at all, and, secondly, if that is the case, it makes the case for this amendment even stronger. If it is not in accordance with the present law that extortionate sub-letting should go on, it is clear that something further in the law is necessary. I think an amendment of this kind will have a definite, deterrent effect on a tenant from attempting to sub-let at an extortionate rate. If he attempts to sub-let at an extortionate rate he will be afraid of losing the rights which he possesses as tenant. It may be said that the amendment does no harm, but I think it may do some good, and that there is a case for it.
I think there is a very strong argument in favour of this amendment, and one must recognise that the position that has been created by sub-letting, is a position unlawful in itself. All this sub-letting that has arisen out of the exigencies of the case, and it has been admitted to be a more or less insoluble problem, arises against the law. Because in an enormous number of cases, if not in all cases of letting, there is already a clause against sub-letting. The tenants cannot sub-let in contravention of the arrangements under which they have taken the houses, in a vast number of cases. All that this amendment asks is, where the tenant does sub-let, owing to overcrowded conditions, that, at all events, he shall not profit unduly out of doing that. I think that is a reasonable proposition, and I should like to express the opinion that it will be very effective in the matter of this question of sub-letting.
I am afraid I rather gave the impression that this was exactly the same amendment that I put forward at the Committee Stage. I did not intend to give that impression because it is not the same. I have altered one word. I altered the word "house" to "tenancy," in order to make it clear that if this more than 50 per cent. is demanded, it shall only affect the actual tenancy, and it shall bring the house outside the provisions of the Act. It does not permanently put the house in the position of being affected by the Rent Restrictions Act.
I think I said the last day this subject of sub-letting and of sub-tenants making exorbitant charges was a very thorny one. In approaching its solution by this amendment we are faced with having to admit that we base a case in law upon what is an unlawful act. A sub-tenant is charged a rent in excess of what is laid down by the Rent Restrictions Act. And by having the law broken we proceed to make the law operative. I do not know that it is an advisable way to proceed. What this particular method of solution might mean is that a sub-tenant in a house persuades his immediate landlord that he ought to take a higher rent. The moment the landlord agrees that sub-tenant lodges an objection and the house is decontrolled. I am not satisfied that this is going to solve it. I do not know that Deputy Thrift ought to press it. Sub-tenants have, in my opinion, certain rights. I think they could exercise them. They have made no move towards exercising these rights, and while they are a much down-trodden class, if one can believe the stories of the exaggerated impositions that they have to meet, they ought to make some effort to put themselves right and to be relieved from those overcharges. Our proposal for dealing with gradual decontrol is a definite settlement. This will be more decontrol. To that extent the amendment offends slightly against the principle of the Act.
We have asked for up to this what I mentioned to Deputy Johnson a few moments ago, the voluntary surrender of all those premises. This is something that is not voluntary. It has its second disadvantage in the fact that those sub-tenants may have been receiving those rents for some considerable time. In one case that I heard of, there have been sub-tenants in a very small house, and very considerable sums in excess of the ordinary rent paid by the tenant have been received for something like ten or fifteen years, perhaps even longer. On the whole, I do not think that Deputy Thrift ought to press the amendment. At the most, decontrol being gradually arrived at, this problem will solve itself. The question then that we have to consider is whether or not, by an amendment of this sort, perhaps creating a very considerable amount of litigation, the results will repay us for the costs and disturbances that will take place.
I quite admit that I cannot see what the effects of this will be from the purely legal point of view, and in view of what the President has said, I am quite prepared to withdraw it, and perhaps it can be argued elsewhere. I have done my duty.
Certainly.
I think it must be borne in mind also that while the protection of the Act is afforded to sub-tenants of what is called a dwelling-house, provided it was a dwelling-house before 1919, the case of a house which has been constructed, or reconstructed, and turned into two dwelling-houses, or if rooms are let, as a separate dwelling-house and that that has only been done since this date in 1919, there is no protection at all. The protection only applies in the case of a dwelling which was a separate dwelling in 1919.
How is it that this amendment, which was discussed on the Committee Stage, is in order and the amendment I tabled was not in order?
On a point of explanation. My amendment was not moved on the Committee Stage.
No, but it was on the Paper, and the Deputy withdrew it. There was some discussion on it. I am very pleased that the President is not accepting this amendment, which is one that would certainly do an injustice to a number of people. The only houses to be decontrolled are houses that have been erected up to 1919, and if the tenants of these houses have no other way of living——
I understand that Deputy Thrift has said that he does not press the amendment, and in discussing it further I think we are using valuable time to no great purpose.
Deputy Thrift desires to withdraw the amendment. Does Deputy Lyons object?
Let him withdraw away.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
Division.
How many Deputies demand a Division?
rose.
We cannot have a Division in order to have only one Deputy in one lobby.
Question put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage ordered for Friday, 28th May.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.10 and resumed at 7 o'clock,
in the Chair.