As the House is aware, a certain class of dwelling house would have come out of control in June, 1928, were it not that a short Act was passed extending the time to June, 1929, in order that the question might be dealt with in a comprehensive piece of legislation. That legislation I am not at the present moment in a position to introduce. In consequence, this Bill has been introduced to preserve the status quo for another year so that houses that would be coming out of control by the end of this month will remain in control for another year, or until such time as, I am confident, will be less than a year, when the new legislation will be in force. I apprehend there will not be any opposition to this Bill.
Public Business. - Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, 1929—Second and Third Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."
We are satisfied that the status quo should be allowed continue until such time as a Bill with regard to the Town Tenants is introduced. I would like to know if the Minister would give us, approximately, the date upon which that Bill will be introduced? There is much dissatisfaction, much unrest and many cases of hardship that we believe might be dealt with in a Town Tenants Bill if a Bill on the lines of the recommendations of the Town Tenants Commission Report were brought in. Otherwise, these things must continue. There are some cases in my own constituency of grave hardship to town tenants, and we are very anxious that a Bill should be brought in at the earliest possible date dealing with this matter. I would be glad if the Minister would give us an idea of the date, or on or about the date, on which such a Bill will be introduced.
The Labour Party are certainly disappointed that the Minister has not been able to carry out the promise that he made to the House on more than one occasion. I refer to the promise that a Town Tenants Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Report of the Town Tenants Commission would be introduced in the present session. The Minister, in introducing the Bill now, afforded the House no indication as to when he hopes to be in a position to introduce the promised Bill. I would like to point out to the House that the Rent Restrictions Act of 1923 expired in 1926. After its expiration, in 1927, a very large number of houses which until that time had been protected came out from under control. As a result, the landlords of these houses were able to ask, and insist upon getting, very large increases in the rents. In some cases the rents had to be almost doubled. For the last six months, particularly in the City of Dublin, the landlords had been anticipating the expiry of the present Rent Restrictions Act, and very great demands have been made upon the tenants. I can quote just two cases to give the House an idea of what is happening, and I think that will show the House the necessity there is for the Minister to deal with this matter as quickly as possible. In one district here in Dublin City two men hold a house each from a landlord; the same man is the landlord of the two houses. The leases are due to expire, I think, this month. The rents of these houses was 30/- a week, and the landlord has refused absolutely to renew the leases at rents of less than £5 a week for each house. That is an increase, therefore, of £3 10s. in respect of each of those houses. I am just giving those two instances so as to let the House see what the position is. Those are typical cases and they show the House the necessity that there is for bringing in a Bill which will protect tenants from that sort of action.
I do not want to anticipate what the Minister may be inclined to put into his Town Tenants Bill, but I want to bring before the Minister's notice the fact that county boards of health in many counties are at present increasing the rent of labourers cottages by, in some cases, five per cent., and in one county 75 per cent. That is an increase of 75 per cent. on the present rents of the cottages. I think in view of the unemployment which unfortunately exists in the rural areas as in the urban areas. and particularly in view of the considerable reduction in the wages of agricultural labourers, and road workers that some action should be taken to protect those tenants. So far as the present Bill is concerned, we welcome it in so far as it will give tenants a period of protection until the introduction of this Bill which the Minister has promised. I do hope that the Minister will be able to introduce as one of the first measures this Town Tenants Bill when the House resumes after the adjournment.
Mr. Byrne
Representing as I do the City of Dublin, I would be lacking in my duty if I did not enter a most emphatic protest at the nature of the Bill that has just been introduced by the Minister. We have here a stop-gap Bill to afford the minimum of protection and which has barely touched the fringe of the Town Tenants question. It does not touch the fringe of the question. As Deputy Morrissey has pointed out, it is a matter of common knowledge that since the valuation, which under the 1923 Act fell from £40 to £30, a considerable hardship has been inflicted on the great bulk of the tenants in this city. The Bill now before the House gives protection up to £30 in city areas and £25 in rural areas. I would like to ask this House, under the Bill as it is now framed, what proportion of city tenants or tenants in metropolitan areas or in urban areas will be protected under it? I suggest, with all respect to the House, that for one tenant unprotected in the rural areas there will be at least from ten to twenty unprotected in city areas.
I wonder why the Government has failed to carry out the promises that they have made to give effect to the report of the Town Tenants Commission. That Commission reported over twelve months ago. No doubt we will be told that parliamentary pressure and many other causes have led to the postponement of this Bill, but I think that in a National Assembly of this sort, when time has been found for the introduction of a Bill for the preservation of grouse, partridge and other game, time should certainly have been found for the introduction of this long-needed measure of reform on behalf of town tenants. In February last the Minister, replying to a question of mine, said he hoped to introduce legislation on this subject at an early date. On last Wednesday he said he could not fix a date for the introduction of this Bill. I had a letter this morning from Waterford asking me: "I wonder could you tell me whether the promised Town Tenants Act will be in force this year or not?" I am sorry I cannot. The letter goes on: "I am lessee of a house in Tramore, the lease of which will run out in March, 1931. If I could be sure of not getting my enterprise confiscated by the lessor in March, 1931, I would spend £300 in rebuilding out-offices and making certain improvements in the house. The whole cause of the housing shortage is the cost of building materials. Recently a gentleman built a new house in Tramore, and in doing so he got the timber for it in Liverpool at a cost £80 less than he could get it here. The labour cost does not count so much."
Hear, hear!
Mr. Byrne
Of course that is not my own opinion. The letter goes on: "The attitude of these ground landlords puts a full stop on building enterprise. The sanctity of contracts is all nonsense. Most of the titles were of a confiscatory origin and the improvements made in towns like Tramore were the result of the people's industry and enterprise. I shall be glad if you will let me know whether the long promised Bill will materialise within the year." There is scarcely a week of my life in which I do not receive communications of this kind. I wish to point out to the Minister that in Dublin City, through vacant business premises alone, there is a yearly loss for the ratepayers amounting to between £11,000 and £12,000. In my area in Talbot Street I know of houses and business premises that were idle for eight years. I know of other houses that were idle for five years and the whole reason is that the rents demanded by the landlords cannot be earned by the tenants. Now we have a Bill brought in to protect rateable valuations up to £30.
Under the 1923 Act, Section 3 (1), in county boroughs, urban areas and metropolitan areas houses were protected whose standard rent or rateable value did not exceed £60, and elsewhere £40. This differentiation recognises one principle and that is that in order to equalise the difference between the rates in rural and urban areas a larger measure of protection should be given to the tenants in the cities and towns. The Minister never told the House why that ratio of protection was reduced to the level that obtains under this Bill. If the Minister can explain why this ratio of protection, which originally stood at 50 per cent., should be reduced to 20 per cent., I think it is his duty to let the House hear what it is. The number of houses controlled in the city of Dublin at a rateable valuation of £30 is almost negligible. It affects only what I might term cottage property. Proof of the housing shortage in the City can be easily shown by the fact that for the new houses that have been built no application will be entertained by the Commissioners unless the applicant has a family of something like eight children, apart from the heads of the house. At present in the City it is almost impossible for a newly-married couple to get a house. It may be suggested that the houses that have been built by the Commissioners have relieved the situation. I say that housing in Dublin is now practically in as bad a position as it was three to four years ago.
Surely the Deputy is not entitled to go into the question of housing generally on this particular Bill. This is a continuing Bill regarding rent restriction.
Mr. Byrne
With all respect, I am entitled to show that the Bill is inadequate to deal with the existing condition of housing in this city.
Not with the condition of housing.
Mr. Byrne
With the condition of restrictions on housing. I am entitled to show that the Bill is inadequate and that the restrictions under the Bill are grossly inadequate. In order to show that I must refer to the position of housing in Dublin City.
The Deputy cannot enter into a debate or housing.
Mr. Byrne
I have no intention of doing so.
There may be a point in asking for information regarding the report of the Town Tenants Commission and going into the matter somewhat briefly, as Deputy O'Kelly and Deputy Morrissey did, but it would not be relevant to go into the details in connec-housing or into details in connection with the report of the Town Tenants Commission.
Mr. Byrne
The amount of control given under this Bill is entirely and grossly inadequate. In order to substantiate that I have to refer very briefly to conditions in the City. I am not dealing with the housing question, but purely and simply with the Rent Restrictions Act as affected by this Bill. In doing so, I suggest I am quite in order.
I will hear the Deputy further.
Mr. Byrne
I will not take up very much time on this point. I will point out that it is generally regarded that in cities and towns the hygienic density is 50 persons per acre. In Mountjoy Ward there is a density of 117.6, in the Rotunda Ward 113.2, Wood Quay 138.3, and in Inns Quay 103.1. In twenty great cities in England the density is 17.3. The density in Dublin is over 38.5. The death-rate in Dublin City is 20.1 per 1,000 persons. I do not intend to go any further into those figures. I merely quote them to show that the Bill is entirely inadequated to deal with the existing situation in Dublin. I would like to deal for a moment with cases affected in my own area.
Deputy Morrissey stated that a great deal of forestalling had been going on. I would ask one question, namely, what has happened generally so far as Dublin City is concerned since the protection was reduced from £40 to £30? Rents of decontrolled property have gone up 100, 200, 300, and even 400 per cent. I can speak with actual knowledge of these figures. I can speak of demands made in my own street within the past month where a tenant, who was paying £120 and taxes, was met with a demand for a renewal of the lease at £360. Is it humanly possible that these rents in the economic conditions prevailing in Dublin can be earned by business men? If those rents are not paid, what does refusal mean? It means that the unfortunate tenant is thrown on the street without anywhere to go. I passed along the North Strand on Sunday last, a place within a few hundred yards of where I live, and I saw three empty shops. One bore a big label, "Removed to larger premises"; another was blocked up, and the third was shut. In each instance I knew the circumstances that applied. In two cases the tenants were people whose tenancy extended over sixteen years. The original rent was 25/- a week, and it was increased under the Rent Restriction Act to 35/- a week. When the extent of protection dropped from £40 to £30 these houses became decontrolled. I should point out that these were combined business and dwelling-houses.
In two cases before the last tenants came into occupation several tenants had been in possession, and in no case had they been able to make these holdings pay. They came in, built up a connection in sixteen years, and created a means of livelihood for themselves and their family.
The moment the premises ceased to be controlled the landlord stepped in and served notices to quit. The tenants offered 50/- a week to be allowed to stay on. The throwing out of these unfortunate people had a double effect as, in the first instance, it left them without a home, and, secondly, destroyed their means of livelihood after sixteen years. Under the glorious Act of 1906, which was at that time hailed as the great charter of liberty for town tenants, they did not receive a single penny for compensation for loss of goodwill or disturbance. This is the law existing at present. As I say, an offer of 50/- per week was made for a holding on which the original rental was 25/- per week, but the demand was for £5 per week for a shop and small dwellinghouse on the North Strand.
I speak with experience of the business streets in Dublin, and I say that £5 a week could not be earned in some of the principal streets much less in a highway or byway of that kind. If the Minister will reconsider the position in view of the facts which it is my duty, as the representative of that area, to bring before the House, I will be glad, and I also hope that he will see his way to make a considerable difference in the figure set down in the Bill so far as Dublin is concerned. Perhaps he would review the rates paid in rural areas and compare them with those paid in urban areas. I think that the case which I have made cannot be refuted. In Cork there is a rate of 17/9 and in the rural areas of 9/6. In Dublin City the rate is 14/8 and in the rural areas 12/-. In Limerick City the rate is 21/10 and in rural areas 8/2. In Waterford City the rate is 16/- and in rural areas 10/8. The same applies to Clonmel, Drogheda, Kilkenny, Sligo and Wexford. The rates in Sligo are 17/6 and in the rural areas 9/9.
What do all these figures mean? They mean simply what I have said, namely, that protection under the Rent Restriction Act is inadequate and unfair to those who live in cities and towns. I ask the Minister to do one very simple thing, namely, to increase the valuation applicable to cities and towns to the old figure of £40. There is no doubt that the greatest possible hardship has been inflicted on tenants of premises in cities and towns when the limit of protection was reduced from £40 to £30. At present there are many people who are about to be dispossessed of their holdings. I also ask the Minister to include a provision in the Bill providing that any order or judgment for possession will be reviewed by the tribunal which is to be set up. The increase in protection given in metropolitan and urban areas amounted to £10 and this restores the old rate of protection from twenty to fifty per cent. There can be no doubt that if the Minister increases the amount of protection under the Bill no undue hardship can fall upon property owners in this city.
I would also ask the Minister whether any attention will be paid to the rents that have been charged for houses which have ceased to be controlled and which have been turned into flats. The amounts charged for flats in the city of Dublin are almost more prohibitive than the rents to which I have referred. In the majority of cases these self-contained flats are merely misnomers. It simply means turning one house into three or four different apartments which, of course, comply with the statutory conditions. The rents charged in Dublin for these flats range from £150 to £200 a year. £120 a year is paid for a couple of rooms which are styled a flat. These are typical figures of the exorbitant demands made in Dublin and which, to quote one newspaper, "have made the capital of Dublin one of the most difficult cities in Europe in which to find suitable living accommodation. The middle-class people in Dublin find it impossible to obtain houses to rent in the city or suburbs." The moment a house becomes vacant it is turned into self-contained flats and the landlord is able to get anything from £400 to £500 a year out of it. Can the Minister justify such a condition of affairs? If it cannot be justified, surely under this Bill the amendment which I have suggested should be incorporated. I could show the Minister, though I am sure there is no need, dozens of notices to quit which have been served in Dublin. Here we have a Bill to give protection to houses of a rateable valuation of £30. What will £30 protect when 30/- weekly is the charge made in many instances for two rooms?
I most earnestly ask the Minister to consider the very vital problem that exists and that is involved in this Bill. I hope that when he replies he will hold out some hope that the measure of protection will be increased from houses of £30 valuation to those of £40 valuation. I would be glad also if he would inform the House of how outstanding mortgages will be affected if the present Bill becomes law. Will it be possible for mortgages to be called in if no provision is made for them under this Bill? I will be glad to have a statement from the Minister in that regard, because that is a matter that affects another very deserving section of the people. In speaking to the Bill I have no wish to do anything unjust or unfair to the property owners of the city, but I do say that there should be an even measure of justice between landlord and tenant at the present time. That does not exist. I hope the Minister will give some definite date as to when the Bill incorporating the more comprehensive measures to which he referred will be introduced. As I have already stated, the report of the Town Tenants Commission is twelve months old. Many anomalies exist under the present conditions, and as was stated in the letter from Tramore which I read, The Bill as now framed, instead of encouraging the building of property and of helping the improvement of property, is a means of accentuating the horrible system under which people are forced to live at present.
I rise to suggest to the Minister that he should change the terms of the Bill and, instead of definitely limiting it, that he should postpone de-control until such time as the Town Tenants Bill becomes an Act. The uncertainty that exists at present is having a most disturbing effect in the city. We have had already examples of that in Dublin, and I have heard of many in Waterford. There is a considerable amount of disturbance caused by the anticipation of de-control. Notices to quit have been issued in many cases, and the feeling caused as a result has given rise to a considerable amount of disturbance amongst the people. I would suggest that this sort of hand-to-mouth legislation and constant postponement should not be continued as a policy, but that it should be definitely stated in the Bill that de-control will not take place until such time as another Bill dealing with the whole matter is brought in.
I join with other Deputies who have spoken in hoping that an early date will be selected to bring in the long promised Town Tenants Bill. I know nothing of the conditions of tenants in Dublin. My experience of house property and of tenants is confined entirely to country districts. I had a very long experience of local government work, beginning as far back as the year 1890, so that I understand the working of the different Land Acts. There must be something wrong when all of a sudden all over the country—it seems to be fairly universal from what Deputy Morrissey says—there seems to be a desire and a determination very largely to increase the rents of the lower-paid people in the country, the people who can least afford it. In fact Deputy Morrissey did not go too far when he said that in certain instances an increase of 75 per cent. had been demanded. That, with whatever rates the tenants will have to pay, will bring the weekly rent up to a very high figure, a figure that, to my mind, it will be impossible in the case of very many of these people to pay. The matter is very serious. I can understand that in some cases, with the passage of time, the rents of the cottages press hardly on the different Boards, but it must be remembered that when these Land Acts were introduced—I think it was in 1883 the first one was brought in—there was no idea that they should be self-supporting entirely. The rent charged at that time was a shilling per week, but if they were to be made self-supporting the real rent should have been about 2s. 7d. It was not supposed that they should be self-supporting and the persons who were at that time members of the Board agreed that it was to the interest of all parties that labourers should be properly housed at rents they could pay. At that time they certainly could not pay 2s. 7d. per week, and the rent was fixed at 1s. The public rates had to make good the deficiency. That was at the very beginning of the building of labourers' cottages. The arrangement was acquiesced in and approved of at that time, and I do not think it is reasonable to expect that the enormous rents that are in some cases charged for the houses of labourers should be paid by them entirely. That was not the idea when the original Act was passed.
I do not think it reasonable to expect after the fall that has occurred in wages—the necessary fall, because the farmers have no longer the money to pay the big wages in many cases that they previously paid—that the holders of cottages should pay an increase in rent up to 75 per cent. and even more. It is not reasonable nor is it to my mind just that they should have to pay that increase along with rates, and I think that something will have to be done to deal with this matter. Of course I understand that in many cases the rates are extremely high, but I think that it is not fair that the occupiers of the poorest houses should be made suffer for that. Some of the houses are certainly not a credit to civilisation. Consequently I hope that something will be inserted in this Bill that will restrain the ardour of some of these bodies which are to my mind pressing rather unduly hard, in the interests of the ratepayers, of course. The sooner the Bill dealing with the position of town tenants, not only in this particular but in many others, is laid before the House, the better it will be for all concerned.
I am very glad to hear Deputy Wolfe taking up the case of the tenants of labourers' cottages and the tenants of urban authorities also. Deputy Morrissey has referred to some Boards of Health increasing the rents of cottages by something like 5 per cent. I can also refer to a case—the case of Naas Urban Council. While I do not like to criticise the action of any local authority in my constituency, because I know from experience the difficulties with which they have to contend in carrying out their duties, on the present occasion I think it is my duty to bring the following facts before the House and before the Minister with a view to seeing whether he can do anything when introducing the Town Tenants Bill to restrain local authorities from fixing excessive rents. I call them rackrents.
From what Deputy Wolfe said I knew he was referring to Naas Urban Council. When that Urban Council was set up there were some fourteen labourers living in labourers' cottages, who had the bad luck to come under their control. What have they done recently? They have increased the rents from 1s. to 2s. 6d., an increase of 150 per cent. That is what we get when we come under our own national Government. Our own national Government are backing up this arbitrary action. On these fourteen cottages there is a loss to the ratepayers of £2 8s. per year. That is not a large amount for the ratepayers of the urban district to lose. I brought this matter before the Minister for Local Government's Department. I would ask him to use his power, as I think it is not too late, to step in and see that justice is done to these unfortunate tenants.
I suspected that Deputy Wolfe was not in order, and Deputy Colohan has now confirmed my suspicion.
In another case of six houses the rent of 6s. was increased to 10s.; surely that is not reasonable. It would mean a loss of £134 per year to the ratepayers, and would involve an extra rate of 5½d., spread over the urban area. We know that the council are trying to make these schemes economic ones, but the losses that were incurred by a former council were due to their allowing the work to be jerried up in a way that they had to get sanction for a £1,000 loan to reconstruct them. They allowed the cottages to be put up in that way, and their architect, whoever he was, was to blame also.
The Minister for Justice was not to blame.
Another case was where an extra room was built.
The Deputy must not discuss labourers' cottages.
It is not labourers' cottages; it is town tenants now. When the room was finished the roof was leaking and the man could not inhabit it. Is it fair to throw the expense of this jerried work on the tenant? I ask the Minister to step in. If increases are made, let them be equitable. Some increases may be justifiable, but you cannot justify an increase of 75 per cent. on the houses on the Dublin Road and 1/6 on the labourers' cottages. You have taken away all the benefits which the Labourers' Acts gave to these men simply because they happen to come under the control of the council who, in their desire to become arch-economists in the interests of the ratepayers, want to saddle them with a rent which they are not able to pay. I ask the Minister for Local Government especially to look into this matter and bring peace to that unfortunate county town of ours.
I think there is no analogy between town tenants and the tenants of urban councils. Urban council tenants have the privilege of being able to elect their own landlords for three years, whereas the town tenants are bound to landlords for all time. This question of the town tenants has been before us for the last six or seven years, during the time I have been here anyhow, and we are nearly as far away from the solution now as ever. It is nearly time it was solved. I would not like to see the powers of increasing rent taken from the urban councils and county boards of health. I have been a party not alone in increasing rents from 1/- to 2/6 but from 1/- to 7/6, and I did it in the interests of the poor and of the labourer. There are a great many tenants living in these houses who should not be living at all in them. The only way, to my mind, to establish an eviction-made-easy is to increase the rent to an intolerable extent and you will get rid of them. That is the way we have in the County Cork. We succeeded, and I hope you will take a leaf out of our book.
With regard to the question of labourers' cottages ——
On a point of order, this is a Bill to extend and increase the Mortgage Rent Restrictions Act for another year and I submit these discussions on labourers' cottages are absolutely wrong. They are Second Reading speeches on a Bill not yet introduced.
When labourers' cottages come under the control of an urban council the occupiers become town tenants.
Do labourers' cottages built under the Labourers Acts, come under the Rent Restrictions Act?
If they do not there is no doubt whatever that the discussion is irrelevant.
Deputy Colohan referred to jerry-built cottages. It would be a great economy if these were handed over at a nominal rent of a penny a year and taken off the rates.
Mr. Byrne
That suggestion would do more harm than good.
I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the great number of villages and small towns in the country which are not specifically referred to in the report of the Town Tenants Commission. When a Bill is drafted due consideration should be given to these villages and small towns. The circumstances of the leases and tenancies of these are far different from the urban and city areas. As far as I could read into that report, they are not dealt with at all. Leases are given from 25 to 99 years, and the tenant has not only to carry out all repairs, but if you go into the details of these towns you will find that the previous tenants have built the houses from the very ground, built new houses. They are mixing up tenancies with landlordism. Whereas the question of the land surrounding these towns has been settled the question in the towns themselves has not been settled. They are in a different category from the cities and urban areas, where there are certain grievances about indoor and outdoor repairs and things like that. As I pointed out, tenancies are yearly and the leases are for long periods, but the rent is exorbitant in comparison with the towns and cities. The landlord has no responsibility whatever beyond the power he has, at the end, of refusing the lease, and the aspect of town tenancy should be dealt with when a Bill is introduced.
I want to say that I am concerned with two sections of the community who are affected by this Bill, namely, the ordinary householder who has to pay a weekly, monthly or yearly rent, and the shopkeeper, the merchant or trader in the cities. I do not want to repeat a lot of what Deputy Byrne has said, but I certainly say there were many sentences which he gave utterance to which very largely cover my views so far as they relate to the city tenancies. We do know that the agricultural community in the old days, before the introduction of many Bills which ameliorated their lot in many ways, suffered in the same way as city rent-payers and shopkeepers suffer to-day. When the farmer in pre-Land Act days made improvements on his holding he was penalised by the landlord. That is exactly the thing that is going on to-day in so far as city shopkeepers are concerned. I could give you instance after instance of cases in the City of Cork where men who, by their industry, assiduity and, very largely, owing to their personality, have built up very good businesses. With what result? I can give you a case where a shop had been rented for something like twenty years at £80 per annum. Everybody who became a tenant of it either failed in business or gave up trading because he found for some reason or another that the business was not doing there. Eventually a good business man got into the house and, as I have said, by virtue of his personality, business methods and other attributes that go to make up a successful businessman, he built up a very large and lucrative business. What happened? The landlord served him with notice that on and after a certain date his rent would be increased by 200 per cent. He got another message subsequently to the effect that another 50 per cent. would go on. The Bill does not give any protection to a trader of this kind.
I do know, of course, that no matter how good the intentions of the Minister for Justice may be people will be found who may be able to evade the law and drive a coach and four through many of its provisions. Definite, concrete cases have been brought to the notice of the Minister by Deputy Byrne, cases that have occurred in the city of Dublin, and I can easily vouch for similar cases in the city of Cork. Something should be done to protect what I might term the vested interests of certain traders. I do not want to repeat myself, but we have had a very big agitation in this country to prevent the farmer being exploited by the landlord, when the farmer was an industrious and good worker. We can advance, with equal force, the same argument on behalf of the city tenant. There are in the city of Cork, as in Dublin, many rapacious landlords who are not satisfied with ordinary profits. These people will have still a great field for their activities unless something better is done by way of relief for tenants than has been attempted in this Bill.
I suggest that the Minister would take into consideration the alteration of the figures in the Bill, do as Deputy Byrne suggested, and thus bring a very large amount of relief to business men, many of whom have to struggle very hard to pay the rents they now have to pay. It would also be the means of stabilising very largely business in this country. It might possibly be said that the numbers affected are so small that they might not bear any relation to national business, but there must be thousands of these tenants who do not know how they stand, and who, from day to day, are expecting that they will get notice to the effect that their rents will, on and after a certain date, be increased by fifty, one hundred or two hundred per cent. I could bring under the notice of the Minister, if he so wished, the cases to which I have made reference. I join with Deputy Byrne and other speakers who have asked that the figures be so adjusted as to bring some measure of relief to the tenants to whom I refer.
Most of the Deputies who have spoken have drawn attention to the position of traders, particularly in regard to their position of insecurity under this Bill. There is no sense, to my mind, in asking that the amount of protection be raised from £30 to £40 unless we are going to discuss a Bill of a permanent kind. The last Bill was brought in at the end of the period covered by a previous Bill. The Minister probably knows that the Bill that is now expiring, in some people's opinion, was not in force for some days after it should have been in force, with the result that hundreds of people in Dublin were served with notices to quit. It was only when enquiries were made as to what the position was in regard to the Bill that was passed through this House that people were reassured. The Bill had to go through the Seanad and receive the signature of the Governor-General and people were rather uncertain as to their position, the previous Bill having almost expired. We are now getting up in a haphazard manner and discussing pros and cons which to my mind are out of place altogether. What I would like to ask the Minister, and I think the House ought to insist in getting a definite statement, is when he proposes to introduce a permanent measure. Deputy Byrne put to the House many points we all know are absolute facts. But what good is the airing of these things going to do? We are now discussing another temporary measure.
Mr. Byrne
It would have kept these three men in their houses if the temporary Bill had been in operation.
I agree, but Deputy Byrne should remember that when these figures were being introduced he agreed to them.
Mr. Byrne
I was not in the House.
Deputy Byrne was in the Party that did it. That is as far as I am concerned with it. I would like if the Minister could say now when he hopes to be able to put some portion of the recommendations of the Town Tenants Commission into a permanent measure. There are two sides to this question. There is the side of the tenants, and there is also the question of people who bought houses in the hope that they would be able to go into possession when the rents restriction period expired. This applies even to houses of £30 valuation. These people probably would never have bought these houses if they had not been led to believe that this legislation would expire at the end of the year and that they would be able to get possession of the houses. I think it is just as hard on a person who has put his savings into a house in the belief that he was going to get possession of it as it is on the people who are in the houses. What we want to do is to try and protect the person who wants a house and the person who is in a house. This legislation was first introduced to protect people against speculators in house and business property. If the Minister would say now when he hopes to bring in a permanent measure he would save the House a lot of time in discussing "somebody in my street" and "somebody in somebody else's street." We should simply discuss what figures we want in the Bill.
The Rent Restrictions Act, I believe, was first introduced as a war measure. The war is over for ten years, and I think it is time that control should go. I have listened very carefully to the speeches made. I will not discuss the point raised by Deputy Byrne. Perhaps there is a grievance there where a shopkeeper builds up a business, and, when the owner of the shop finds that it is more valuable than when he first let it, he increases the rent. I do not hold any brief for that, but I do hold a brief for property owners, and I say that they must be protected equally with the tenant. We heard a lot about profiteers—about the landlord who is grinding his tenants and so on. I daresay there may be some of these, but I do not think it is fair to apply it all round. We find the very same when we come to the tenants who sublet portions of their houses—they are the greatest profiteers. As a member of the Pembroke Council I know what happened when they went on strike there and would not pay. They had part of their houses sublet for twice the rent which they were paying to the Council. That is beside the question, however.
I have sympathy with the Minister because I know there is a Town Tenants Bill in the offing. Were it not for that, I would ask him to carry out the legislation which has been passed and which specifies that houses of £30 valuation should be decontrolled this year. I think it would be only fair, and property owners were expecting it. As I have said, this Rent Restrictions Act was passed as a war measure. We know that the workers' wages were increased by almost 300 per cent.—at least the tradesmen's wages were— and the cost of living means rent as well as food. Compare the cost of repairs to house property to-day with what it was pre-war, and the rents to-day as against pre-war. The cost of repairs is at least two-and-a-half times as great as it was pre-war. Tradesmen's wages in the city of Dublin are three times what they were pre-war, and the cost of material is two-and-a-half times what it was pre-war. These are things which must be taken into consideration when you talk about profiteering, and what property owners make out of their property. I shall not ask the Minister to stand by the law that was passed removing control from houses of £30 valuation this year, as there is a Town Tenants Bill to be introduced very soon, but I will ask him to take into consideration that property owners have rights as well as tenants. Deputy Byrne said that when houses are vacant they will not be let. Certainly not. What landlord will let a house when perhaps there will be legislation passed that he will not be the owner of his own property? Houses are different from land. They have to be put up brick by brick and the landlords had to put them up. That is different altogether from land. That is the reason why when houses become vacant to-day the landlords are afraid to let them. The sooner we get back to the old position, that the landlord must be protected as well as the tenant, the better it will be for the house builder and the property owner.
I do not intend to deal with any of the points raised in this discussion, because this Bill is introduced for one purpose only— to carry on the existing law. That was clearly pointed out by Deputy Briscoe. All the other speeches were speeches which would be germane to a discussion upon the Second Reading of the new Town Tenants Bill, but they have nothing to do with this particular Bill, which carries on the status quo, or purports to do so, for another year. In the meantime I am confident that a Bill dealing fairly and equitably between landlords and tenants, and settling, as well as they can be settled, the various points in dispute between landlords and tenants, will have been introduced and carried through this House and the other branch of the Oireachtas. I have been asked when I anticipate I shall be in a position to introduce that Bill. It has proved to be a very difficult measure indeed. When you come to work out details, it is very hard to work them out so that your will be just to both classes, both to the houseowners and to the tenants of houses. I think it is better that that Bill should come before the Dáil carefully considered and thought out, and thoroughly pondered over, rather than that a Bill should be rushed through without having received due care and deliberation. The preparation of it has proceeded to a certain extent, and I trust that in the Recess, between the rising of the House and the sitting of the House again for its next session, the Bill will be reduced into complete form, and, in consequence, that it will be introduced pretty early in the next session. In the meantime, this Bill is only carrying on the existing state of affairs for a period which is normally a year, but which, I anticipate, will be less than a year. As time is running out undoubtedly, I will ask the House to pass this Bill now, and since it is a Bill which cannot, in its terms, in any way be amended, and as it is very urgent that it should be put through quickly, I ask the House to pass it through all its stages to-day.
Mr. Byrne
The Minister said that no arguments had been adduced which were relevant to the Rent Restrictions Act.
To this Bill.
Mr. Byrne
To the Bill before the House. Is there no relevancy in the inadequacy of the protection given in the City of Dublin and in some rural areas where the rates are 21/2, as compared with 5/- in others? Is there no relevancy in the inadequacy of protection given in this Bill? These are two points to which the Minister did not reply.
This Bill extends the status quo for a certain time. Deputy Bryne's complaint is that this is not a Bill of a completely different character.
Mr. Byrne
No.
It is. He says that the existing law should be altered by this Bill—that is to say, that a new Bill of a completely different character should be introduced.
Mr. Byrne
I never said that.
The Deputy said the law should be altered to increase the limit from £30 to £40. That is an alteration of the existing law?
Mr. Byrne
Yes.
This Bill does not purport in any way to alter it—it purports to carry on the law as it is, and any suggestions for the alteration of the existing law are not germane to this issue at all.
Mr. Byrne
In a word, this Bill is sacrosanct, whether hardship is inflicted by its passage or not.
Would the Minister consider the suggestion I made, in view of the disturbance?
As far as Deputy Little's suggestion is concerned, I am satisfied that the new legislation will be through within a year. I can almost say definitely that it will be through, but if it is not, there will have to be another Bill of this nature. But it may be taken that the present system will not be altered—the existing law of control will not be altered until such time as our proposed Town Tenants Bill becomes law.
There is a point of importance which I should like to bring under the notice of the Minister. Section 2 of the Act of 1926 states that the Principal Act shall continue in force until the 23rd June, 1929, and shall then expire. I am wondering if it is necessary to amend that particular section.
It is amended here to 1930.
Section 2 of that Act states that the Principal Act shall expire this year.
Section 2 of the Act of 1928 is hereby repealed.
Is Section 2 of the Act of 1926 repealed?
Of 1928.
Did I understand the Minister to say it would not be possible to introduce amendments to this Bill?
There could be no amendments except to alter the period, either to make it shorter or longer.
Mr. Byrne
There will be no amendment of the rent protection provision of the Bill?
There could not be unless in an entirely different Bill.
Mr. Byrne
Could there not be an amendment——
If Deputies want to put in amendments they should send them to me and I shall tell them whether they can move them or not.
Mr. Byrne
I shall send in amendments; let there be no doubt about that.
I shall ask the House to take the Bill in all its stages to-day.
Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
I ask the House to take the Committee Stage of this Bill now.
Mr. Byrne
I object to the Committee Stage being taken to-day.
I move that the Committee Stage of the Bill be taken to-day.
Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Section 2 of the Act of 1928 is hereby repealed and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that Section 4 of the Act of 1926 shall be construed and have effect as if clause (b) of the paragraph thereby inserted in the Act of 1923 were amended by the substitution of the year 1930 for the year 1928 and as if clause (c) of the said paragraph were deleted.
I am not quite clear as to the Minister's reply about the point I raised. The Act introduced last year was practically the very same wording as this Bill, but it does not refer to Section 2 of the Act of 1926, but it refers to Section 4 and alters the wording of Section 4.
A certain class of houses became de-controlled at one period and another class of houses became de-controlled at a later period. The class of houses that became de-controlled in 1928 were, by a later Bill, carried on to 1929, and by this Bill carried on to 1930. The date for the de-control of the other class of houses does not expire until April, so that both classes of houses will be protected by this Bill for another twelve months.
Does Section 4, as amended by this Bill, override Section 2 of the Act of 1926?
I have not got the Principal Act with me at the moment, so that I am not able to tell you exactly the number of the Section.
If the Minister finds it is not so will he have it altered?
Yes, but this Bill effects the purpose which it is meant to achieve.
Would the Minister make an alteration on the Report Stage if it were necessary?
I want to take the Report Stage to-day. I shall guarantee the Bill is all right to achieve its purpose.
Mr. Byrne
Is it the intention of the Minister to put the Bill through all its stages now?
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to. Title agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported without amendment.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported without amendment.
Would it not be good policy for the Minister to procure a copy of the Principal Act in view of the points raised? If we are to pass the Bill through all its stages it would be well to make sure that it is all right.
It is right. I merely cannot carry the number of the sections referred to in my head.
I am referring to Section 2 of the Act of 1926.
The question before us is: Are we to take the Report Stage of this Bill now?
We will take it to-morrow.
Ordered: That the Report Stage be taken to-morrow.