I understand that the Minister for Justice is anxious to make a statement on this Bill at this stage, and I am therefore prepared to give way to him.
PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
As the House, I am sure, is aware, a Commission has been sitting to inquire into the condition of town tenants, and the report of that Commission we expect will be received some time next week. I anticipate that that report will be a very far-reaching one, and will go minutely into the whole question of the relationship between tenants and landlords in towns. In these circumstances I would venture to suggest to the proposer and seconder of this Bill that this is not a very opportune time for discussing this measure. It would, I suggest, be better to wait until the report of the Commission is before the House. In the meantime, however, I see that a certain class of tenant would lose the protection of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Act in June next. It would be too much to anticipate that the report of the Commission would be received and considered, and that legislation would even be introduced, much less passed, through the two Houses, before next June. In consequence we would be prepared to extend the time limit of £30 houses, or houses over £30, from June, 1928, until June, 1929. Before that time I am satisfied that the report of the Commission will be received and considered and that legislation dealing with the entire question will be introduced. I see that if the report of the Commission would safeguard in possession of the houses they now occupy some of the persons who would cease to be safeguarded next June, it could be unfair to these persons, because there had been a short period between the expiration of the present Act and the introduction of the new Bill, during which they might be put out of possession, that they should be deprived of their rights under existing or contemplated legislation. In consequence we would be willing to accept this Bill, provided that in Section 4 the words "June, 1929," were inserted instead of 1934, and that the last part of Section 4—"and as if clause (c) of the said paragraph were deleted"— were also deleted from the Bill. That would mean that if Section 1 of the Bill stood, if Section 2 were deleted, if Section 3 were allowed to stand, if Section 4 were amended, as I have suggested, by putting in the figures "1929" in lieu of the figures "1934," and if the last few words, "and as if clause (c) of the said paragraph were deleted," were deleted from this Bill, we would be prepared to accept it. That is to say, that next autumn the entire of this question can be debated and considered by the House under the new legislative proposals which will be introduced certainly before June, 1929.
Perhaps if I intervene at this stage it might save further discussion on the measure. I take it that the Minister's suggestion is that he does not propose to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, on the understanding that I am prepared to accept the amendments which he announced. I might say that our chief object in introducing the Bill was because the Government had given no indication up to the date of its introduction of their attitude towards the houses which were coming from under control in June next. That was the real urgency of the measure. We knew that there were something like 5,000 houses which would be decontrolled next June, and the occupants of these houses were anxious to know what their position was. No indication of that has been given by the Government. The proposal, I understand from the Minister, is that he is willing to agree that those houses which would come from under control in June, 1928, under the existing Act will have the period of control extended for them to June, 1929. The Minister mentioned £30 houses, but I take it he means houses which would come from under control in June, 1928, under the present Act— that is, houses from £25 to £30 in some cases.
Mr. O'CONNELL
We hold our own views with regard to control and as to the measure of control that should operate in the matter of rents while conditions remain as they are, but this proposal of the Minister brings us a certain distance along the way. While not giving away any of our views as to what we consider should be the law in these matters with regard to control, I am prepared to meet the Government to the extent which the Minister states, because it will give us a year's breathing space at any rate. If the Minister promises to bring in a Bill dealing with the whole question of the relations between landlords and tenants, in the autumn session of this year, we can fight out the whole issue on that. In the meantime, the promise which the Minister has made will relieve the situation so far as these five or six thousand tenants all over the country are concerned, and our object in introducing the measure will have been to a considerable extent achieved. I would be prepared to give the undertaking that I will accept the amendment if a Second Reading is given to the Bill.
We are satisfied with the arrangement that has been come to. We have had many representations made to us by people in Dublin and elsewhere who would have been affected if this arrangement had not been come to, or some such Bill as that proposed by the Labour Party had not been introduced to continue the protection of those tenants coming out from the protection of the Act as it stands. The Minister for Justice promised that the Commission that has been sitting upon the question of town tenants and their grievances will report in the course of a week, and that that report will receive the early consideration of the Government, and then I presume legislation will be introduced. I take it that in any such report and legislation there will be protection afforded to the people who would otherwise be improperly and unduly affected if the law as it stands were allowed to remain unamended. Everyone knows while there is such need as there is just now, and as there has been for years, for adequate houses, not alone in Dublin, where the need is felt to a greater extent than in other places, but all over the country, it would be a grave injustice to many people if the Rent Restrictions Act were withdrawn.
We believe the protection these people have, such as it is, under that Act ought to be continued until legislation is introduced and the position safeguarded, or until houses are provided in adequate numbers by the Government or otherwise to enable competition to bring down the rents of houses that are already considered too high. We are satisfied that the passing, as an unopposed measure, of this Bill will give the people that protection until such other legislation as may arise out of the Town Tenants Commission report will be introduced. I imagine that a year from June ought to be quite enough time to have the matter thoroughly considered by the Government to have legislation introduced and passed. At any rate, we are prepared to wait and see what the nature of the report will be and the recommendations it will make, and what the nature will be of the legislation to be introduced by the Government later on, provided that in the meantime proper protection is guaranteed under the Bill to the tenants concerned.
While I am strongly opposed to the continuance of the Rents Restriction Act, as I was opposed to the measure when it was before the House on a previous occasion, and while I am satisfied, in view of the experience I have had on this question, that one of the things that prevents us from getting the houses we are all so anxious to get is the existence of the Rents Restriction Act, yet, in view of the statement made by the Minister for Justice that it will be necessary to discuss the whole problem later on in the year, I am not disposed to take up the time of the House in discussing the problem now. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to accept, in the circumstances, the statement made by the Minister.
There is a little difficulty in my mind. This Bill is not a Town Tenants Bill, or a Bill which proposes to amend the Town Tenants Act. I presume the legislation the Minister refers to will be a Bill arising out of the Town Tenants Commission and dealing with town tenants. I would like to know if it is the Government's intention to embody in that Bill its proposals dealing with the relations between landlords and tenants in general and not merely in relation to town tenants, because one class of the community that would suffer by the cessation of control would be the rural tenants, who would not be covered by a Town Tenants Bill.
In reply to Deputy Lemass, I cannot, of course, not having seen the report, definitely state what the report will contain, but I do undertake that legislation will be introduced dealing with the question. If there is any class of tenants in the country whom our Bill will not affect, it will be open to Deputy Lemass to move an amendment to that Bill, and the whole matter of relations of landlords and tenants, not what I call town tenants cases, will be opened up. There are, you may say, roughly, two classes of houses. There are agricultural holdings which stand in a completely different class altogether and which are protected. Then there are dwelling houses, the vast majority of which are in towns. There may be some of them not in towns, and the words "Town Tenants" may not be applicable to them, but while I cannot foresee exactly——
Would the Minister add a third class—the business houses?
The business houses are almost all in towns, not the whole of them, no doubt. There are business houses in country districts, but they have always come in, more or less, under "Town Tenants." The old Town Tenants Act dealt with business houses, to some extent, in country districts. The whole matter will be open for discussion, and when you have a question of the relations of landlord and tenant, it certainly could not be ruled out as being foreign to the issue to introduce any amendment you wished to have in legislation dealing with every class of house. As far as this particular Bill stands, I agree with Deputy O'Connell, and I recognise his attitude. He is accepting my suggestion without prejudice. If he finds that our Bill is not drafted or amended as he would wish it to be, he has a free hand to act and to introduce this measure in identical terms again before next June.
I take it there is complete agreement as to what the House wants to do, but is it suggested that we should pass the Second Reading of this Bill and then proceed to amend it by deleting Section 2 and amending Section 4?
Mr. O'CONNELL
That is the suggestion as I understand it: That we should agree to the Second Reading and then the Government will table their amendments to the measure.
The arrangement is one that I have had no opportunity of considering. I would like to consider before it is actually done whether it would not be simpler for the Bill to be withdrawn and for Deputy O'Connell or the Minister to introduce a Bill with one operative clause, a clause prolonging the control until June, 1929. It might be quite a sound procedure to give this Bill a Second Reading and to amend it in the way suggested, but I would like a little time to consider it. I would suggest that, instead of taking the Second Reading now, it should be put down as first business to-morrow. Seeing that it is not opposed business, we could then to-morrow consider it in the way we thought best.
On a matter of order. If a Second Reading were to be given to the Bill now no point of order would arise with regard to the amendments which the Minister would desire to make on the Committee Stage. From the point of view of order it would not be altering the principles of the Bill in Committee; it is merely a question of the extension of time, and from that point of view I submit that there is no reason why the Second Reading should not be taken now. Deputy O'Connell has intimated that we are prepared to accept the amendments which the Minister desires to make, so that we could have the Second Reading to-night and perhaps have the Committee Stage taken on this day week.
There is no hurry yet. What does the deletion of Section 2 amount to?
If you amend Section 4 as I have suggested Section 2 becomes really meaningless. Section 2 rather qualifies Section 4. Section 2 merely qualifies Section 4 by saying that a certain class of houses is to be safeguarded until 1934.
I was only anxious to find out what the amendments involved from the point of view of procedure.
The net result of the amendment I have suggested would be that that class of house that is not now decontrolled will remain controlled until June, 1929.
Instead of 1934.
On a point of order. Would it be in order by any means to introduce agreed amendments on Second Reading?
No; we must pass the principle of the Bill and have the amendments in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, April 25th.