I move:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, inasmuch as the Rent Restriction Code has become so complex and in many respects so inequitable and uncertain, especially in so far as it is related to rents payable in 1914, the purpose of fair rents would best be served by the substitution of a comprehensive Fair Rent Code analogous to the Land Act, 1881, and requests the Government to submit suitable legislation for this purpose.
This motion raises no very controversial matter, but, none the less, I think, directs the attention of the House to a matter of some consequence to a very large number of people. It is true that the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, removed certain ambiguities in the old legislation and reduced the opportunity for open exploitation of tenants by landlords, but it does leave the whole rent restrictions code in an utterly chaotic state, and I am informed by experienced practitioners that already it is becoming evident that the new code, created by the superimposition of the 1946 Act on the previous Acts, bids fair to produce as much or more litigation than all the previous Acts combined did in their day and that the bulk of this litigation arises not from aggrieved tenants availing of the provisions of the new Act but is made necessary in order to clarify the position created by the new Act taken in conjunction with all previous Acts.
All this code was primarily designed by the Oireachtas to prevent an undue rise in rents in a time of housing shortage, but, ancillary to that prime purpose, there was a clear intention to ensure that houses of equal quality and convenience would command approximately equal rents. The result of the code has been very much different. To ascertain the lawful rent of a house, the inquiry is not primarily related to the usefulness of the house, or to what it costs the landlord to erect or purchase it, or to the value which it represents to the tenant who pays rent for it, but to the answer to some or all of the following questions: Was it built before 1919; if so, was it let in 1914 and, if let, at what rent; if it was not let in 1914, what would it have fetched if it had been let in that year; if it was not built before 1919, was it built before 1941; if so, was it let in 1941 and, if so, at what rent; if it was not let in 1941, what rent would it have fetched if it had been let in 1941; if it was built before 1919, did it become vacant after 1926; and if it was built before 1919 and became vacant after 1926, what was the poor law valuation of the house when it was vacated?
Conceive that medley of speculation applied in a multiplicity of cases all through the country for the purpose of ascertaining what rent the tenant ought to pay now. Complex as that procedure is, if it produced a coherent result, we could bear with it, but it does not. I do not think it is much of an exaggeration to say that if you wish to inquire into what rent was actually being paid in 1914 in respect of a house in this country, you are engaging in something approximating to archaeological investigation, the answers to which are extremely undependable, and, as a result of this peculiar criterion, I am informed by experienced practitioners that, instead of ensuring that all similar houses are liable to a similar rent, it is not uncommon to find two houses side by side, virtually identical, the rent of one of which, as a result of having been let or not let at a particular rent prior to 1914, is double that of the other, although the amenity value of both is the same. That can arise.
If you have a 1914 house the rent of which is the 1914 rent, plus 20 per cent., and which is identical in all particulars with a 1941 house, under the law as it stands, it could be that, though these houses were in all particulars virtually identical, the rent of one would be £65 and of the other £110. That is not all, because, suppose you had a house in 1914 and you had a widowed sister or a relative in some part dependent on you and to help out the exiguous income of that relative, you admitted her as a tenant at little more than a nominal rent to your house, that is the basic rent upon which the rent of your house is to be controlled to-day. If you were a kindly landlord, a just man—leave out the question of a bereaved relative or anything of that kind—who felt it right to charge not more than what seemed a fair rent in 1914, you are entitled to that fair rent, plus 20 per cent., to-day. What other commodity is selling in the world in which we live at the 1914 price, plus 20 per cent.?
But if you were a bloodsucker in 1914 who sucked out of the person in a difficult situation the last penny that person could afford to pay, is your iniquity marked by the rent code as operated now? Not at all. We may indeed say, with the Scriptures, that the children of light are not as wise in their generation as the children of this world, because the child of Mammon who got the last drop he could out of his tenant 30 years ago is now congratulated, the unjust steward comes in for his commendation and is told that he did well to make friends with the Mammon of iniquity. As a result of that the law is going to ensure that he gets more in 1944 for each house than the child of light who tried to be fair and just.
Now you will have two houses side by side, one of which was owned by a rack-renting landlord and another by an honest landlord in 1914. The honest landlord is getting the rent of 1914, plus 20 per cent, and the rack-renting landlord can cock a snook at him and say: "I told you 30 years ago that you were a damn fool, and Dáil Eireann has confirmed my estimate." All this means that there is uncertainty, that there is no equality of treatment, and that there is unnecessary litigation in order to ascertain what the law ordains. Nothing is worse from the point of view of the citizen than that people should not know their rights. Nothing is worse for the community than that the people should be forced to have recourse to legal proceedings before their rights are defined. Nothing could be worse than that the operation of law should be manifestly unjust, so as to permit one landlord to charge £65 for his house and the landlord holding the house next door, identical in all particulars, should be allowed to take £110.
I therefore suggest a simple remedy. This whole rent restriction scheme, the wisdom of which many may question, has created a situation in which rent control of some kind or another has become a necessity. Without going into the merits of the whole system of rent control, if we have to have rent control, let it be a fair rent control. Let all men be equal before the law. Let every landlord get justice and no more than justice. Let every tenant get justice.
If you go to a person now who is poor and who has been called upon to pay an excessive rent and you say to that person: "No one can deny that your rent is manifestly excessive comparing it with the rents of all your neighbours and you ought to go to law to get your rights," that person can say quite truthfully and, indeed, prudently: "No one but a lunatic would go into court against a rich landlord and face the possibility of protracted litigation when the law itself is so uncertain that, if you bespeak the opinion of three lawyers, you will get three different opinions as to what the result of your litigation is likely to be."
I, therefore, suggest to the House that there should be established either in the local authority area, as is the practice in Great Britain, or in any other area that the House, in its wisdom, may think right to define, a rent tribunal for each part of the country where it appears the services of such a tribunal are necessary and before which any tenant who feels that he is being charged an unfair rent for his house can appear, and that that tribunal, having regard to the average rents paid in the neighbourhood for the same kind of accommodation, will be entitled to fix a fair rent for that particular lodging, whether it be a room or a flat or a house, whereafter the landlord will be obliged to charge that and no more.
It is unnecessary to pursue a proposal of this character into all the detail of administration at this stage, as we are concerned here to-night to consider only the principle as to whether fair rent tribunals, such as the Ashbourne Act established for the purpose of rented land in the old days, or fair rent tribunals such as the British local authorities all over England are operating, should be set up. I think they should. I think it would simplify the situation very considerably and that in a very short time you would get equitable standards fixed all over the country for particular types of houses, so that any person living in a street of small villa houses would know at once that, if all his neighbours were paying 8/- per week and he were being asked for 12/-, he was being manifestly overcharged and would go to such a tribunal and ask the tribunal to fix a fair rent.
That would work both ways. There is no need to multiply examples. I do not profess to have expert knowledge of housing and rents and landlords' agreements as some of my colleagues here have. I do not come here as a specialist to deal with specialist problems. I am concerned simply with the general principles of equity and justice as between fellow-citizens, and, to me, the fundamentally important principle that the law should be clear and available to everybody, rich and poor alike. As it stands, I think it is not clear and, in effect, it is not readily available to rich and poor alike. As it stands, I do not believe that it gives to everybody equal privileges.
As is stands, it appears to me that the landlord who was a child of light in 1914 is now severely penalised by his own Government in comparison with the child of Mammon. That appears to be unjust. The whole procedure appears to be inexpedient and for that reason I invite the Dáil, at its leisure and with due circumspection and care, to substitute for the whole complex and complicated code a simple measure designed to produce justice and equality in respect of landlords and tenants for all.