I realise that this is merely a continuation Bill and that there is a commission in existence charged with the task of advising the Minister as to how the law governing rents of property should be administered. If these circumstances do tend to restrict the scope of the Bill, I cannot say that I agree at all with those Deputies who have suggested that the Minister should rush headlong into introducing new legislative proposals before the commission have delivered their report. Deputies have suggested that there are certain grievances with regard to lettings for temporary convenience, furnished lettings and houses built since 1941 and that the Minister should introduce legislation immediately on behalf of the tenants. I think that there is need for considerable caution in dealing with a problem of this kind. It must be recognised that there is a large variety of circumstances governing the letting of property and quite a large variety of tenants requiring housing accommodation. There is the tendency to regard all tenants as the very poor. On the other hand, there is the tendency to describe all householders as landlords, which is a very bad word to describe anyone in this country with this country's history.
It must be remembered that there is a very wide variety of houses. There is slum property which is, practically speaking, unfit for human habitation and which should be let at a very low rent and demolished as soon as it can be replaced by decent housing accommodation. On the other hand, there are good types of dwellings let to tenants who may be in receipt of a fairly good income and who require that type of accommodation. I do not think that, because there are some people who have to take rooms or apartments and who are very poor, everybody who lets property should be regarded as exploiting the poor. We have to take a realistic view of this problem and we cannot afford to oversympathise as some Deputies have done who seem to take the view that there are only two types of people concerned in this whole question, the impoverished tenants who are crowded into, perhaps, unsuitable rooms or apartments and the vicious, avaricious landlords who are exploiting them.
As we all know, there is, of course, another type of householder and another type of tenant. There is the householder who may be a comparatively poor person, the householder who may be the widow of some public servant or some businessman who has realised the property left to her and invested the money in an apartment house or in flats for the sole purpose of having an investment to give her a return for her remaining years and enable her to bring up her family. That type of person must be considered just the same as the tenant who feels that he has a grievance. You cannot in justice—and the Minister is the Minister for Justice—take property from a citizen without compensation and without just reason. That ought to be clearly emphasised. I am sure the Minister, who is a broadminded and a fairminded man, will consider every aspect of this question and will not allow himself to be rushed into hasty legislation tightening still further the restriction on people who may be, and who I think are, trying, firstly, to make a modest living for themselves and, secondly, to provide accommodation for any decent section of the community and who are, in addition to that, fulfilling a very useful national need in supplying additional housing accommodation, having regard to the shortage of houses.
So far as the very poor are concerned, people under a certain level of income, there is only one solution for their problem and that is to build more houses for them as quickly as possible and let them at a reasonable rent. For those who are perhaps on a higher income level, other accommodation can be provided by private enterprise. People with fairly good positions, whose positions are not perhaps stabilised, who have to travel from place to place and who are not sure where they are going to make their ultimate residence, would appreciate the value of a flat in which to live for a time. That accommodation is being provided for them by private enterprise and private enterprise ought to be allowed to fulfil that need, and not be unduly hampered and persecuted. No Government has the right to deprive a citizen of his property, which he has acquired justly out of his savings. I think that is one thing that must be clearly recognised and understood.
In addition, where a citizen enters into a contract with another citizen, with regard to the letting of either a house or portion of a house, it is not justice to set aside that contract without at least consultation with both parties to the contract. That is again ordinary elementary justice. If a citizen of this country, perhaps as an investment, provides additional accommodation for other sections of the community by setting his house in flats, he should have the right, subject to reasonable requirements, to recover possession of that house when he requires it, in order to utilise it for some other purpose or even to dispose of it if the purpose for which he has been using it has not proved satisfactory. He would be required, of course, to give ample notice to the tenants, but at least the right of an owner who has invested perhaps all his life savings in a house, to recover possession of it when he requires it, should be recognised and accepted by the Minister.
The position, as I say, is comparatively simple in this way. You can deal with the very poor in only one way, by providing housing accommodation for them and providing it as quickly as possible. With regard to other sections of the community, the duty of the State is to see that there is justice and fair play between one party and the other. There are two parties to every contract of letting, and both parties have their rights. The landlord is not always the wealthier or the more powerful of the two parties, and that fact has got to be recognised. I am sure the Minister will recognise it.
The owner of a house which is let in flats is obliged to bear the expense of keeping that house in repair. We all know that the cost of repairs in the last ten years has increased at least threefold. I think that is a modest estimate. Caught between the increasing cost of repairs and a reduction of rent, the owner of the house has no redress. He is crushed out completely. We all know that this undue restriction on the right to use property of this kind profitably or at least in a way that will avoid loss constitutes a very grave danger. House property which is used at the present time to accommodate people of the middle classes, people with salaried positions, and people who, for the moment, are not in a position to decide where they will make their permanent residence is a valuable asset to the community. House owners, in supplying this need, are fulfilling a very useful purpose. It is possible that we may drive them out of existence, or force them to allow their property to fall into decay owing to the cost of repairs, until it becomes a slum property. I think we have enough slum property in this city at the present time without enlarging the area. It should be the duty of the Government to protect property which is at present valuable, not alone to the owner but to the type of tenant who requires it and to the city as a whole. I think, in all fairness, the rent should be based on the value of the property. If a house is in a good district, very well constructed and cost a considerable amount of money to purchase, the owner has a right to obtain a rent for that house in proportion to its cost or, alternatively, the amount of money invested by the owner of the house should be ascertained and the rent based on that figure. That would be fair play.
I have mentioned those facts for the simple reason that this discussion so far as it has gone seems to have drifted into a representation of the position as if there were only one type of criminals in this country and they were the people who own houses. I think that is entirely unfair. As I say, there are many people who have invested all their savings in a modest amount of house property and who depend upon the income from that investment for their livelihood. For that reason, if for no other, it is essential that we should give this commission an opportunity to consider the whole matter carefully. For that reason also, I suggest that there should be no question of rushing through legislation hurriedly without any consideration, simply on the basis that some people or some tenants have a grievance. We all know that there are tenants who have grievances. We all know that there are people with grievances amongst every section of the community but the task of the Minister for Justice and of the Government is to see that there is justice and fair play between all sections.
Before I go further, I should like to say that while I have the deepest respect for the members of the commission which has been appointed I for one do not think that the commission is sufficiently representative to deal with this whole question. I do not think there is anybody on the commission who has a first-hand, intimate knowledge of the letting of houses even from the point of view of the tenant. I do not think there is any tenant of a flat, or any owner of house property which is let, on the commission. The commission, therefore, is very restricted, so far as representation is concerned. I am sure that the members of it, nevertheless, will be exceptionally diligent and conscientious in hearing every side of the case and in weighing the pros and cons very carefully.
There is one matter which I think the commission must deal with if they are to consider the entire question of lettings and rents, that is, the question of ground rents. They must advise the Government on that matter. Nothing seems more unjust, to my mind, than that certain persons, by some means, perhaps over a long period, have acquired sites upon which houses stand and, regardless of what amount of money may be invested by the leaseholders in those houses, regardless of any improvements they have done to the buildings, the ground landlords extract their rents. Further, I think it is wrong that we should go on allowing people who know that certain land has a potential value as building sites to acquire that land and then to charge high rents for it. First of all, the Government should stabilise the value of land that is acquired as building sites. They should let all concerned know that, from now on, land will have nothing more than its agricultural value and if anyone purchases land at a high price as a speculation, knowing that the community requires it for housing, he can suffer the loss. Warning should be given in time that that type of speculation will not yield profits in future.
All credit should be given to people who provide accommodation by building houses. These people are doing a national service. The people who acquire building sites and who hold the public to ransom are like the landlords of old and are simply exploiting the progressive efforts of the community.
When we are dealing with a matter of this kind we must be just and fair to everyone. I do not see why the unfortunate private person who has built a house or has purchased a house and has spent large sums in improving it should be brought into court and have his income halved or reduced to one-third while there is no power under existing legislation to fix fair rents for houses that are owned by the corporation or by local authorities. Why the distinction? Where is the difference?
Now we are getting into a very serious and contentious matter. Apparently, it is the view of those innocent people who draft legislation that the private individual can do great wrong to his neighbour but that the democratically elected local authority can do no wrong and is infallible. There is just as much danger that a city corporation or local council can rob their tenants just as a private houseowner can rob his tenants. We cannot have one law for one section and another law for another section. The fact that people are elected to a local council does not mean that they acquire the quality of infallibility. I know that tenants have been gravely wronged in houses owned by local authorities. They have been wronged in many cases because their houses have been badly built, because they have not been repaired when repair was necessary, and because of unfair rents, cases of which a number of Deputies have cited.
The whole question of differential rents opens an avenue for grave injustice towards one tenant as against another. A local council may claim that one tenant has a certain high income and that tenant may be asked for a very high rent, while another tenant who, perhaps, has a higher income but who has a "pull" with the local authority, may get away with a lower rent. If the individual who owns a house and rents it or portion of it is to be dragged before a court for the purpose of having a fair rent fixed, there should be the same right to bring the local authority before the court if a tenant feels that he has a grievance. The tenant of a local authority should have the same rights as the tenant of a private individual.
I do not want to delay the House. I think I have said enough to indicate that there are two sides to this question, just as there are two sides to every question. It is essential that the Minister and the commission of inquiry should hear both sides of the question and should give a fair decision based upon Christian justice. Their recommendations should be fair, reasonable and constructive.
If the suggestion which I have put forward, that rents should be based on valuation, is accepted, it will be a step in the right direction. Another step in the right direction would be to ensure that any person who has invested money in a house, who has purchased it or improved it and who may require it, should be facilitated in doing so. In the same way, if an owner of a house is afflicted with an unsatisfactory tenant who is, perhaps, using portion of the house for an illegal or undesirable purpose, the owner should have adequate rights to obtain possession.
There will be no injustice to anyone if we ensure that there is always a reserve of housing accommodation. That is the one big task that faces the Government. It would be the greatest solution of the whole problem. Build more houses. Build them quickly. Let them at a fair rent. Then you can afford, perhaps, to be more fair and just to those who are fulfilling a useful purpose by letting houses or portion of houses to their neighbours.
