I do not think it is necessary to traverse the ground already covered fairly adequately on this amendment. I make one final appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to delete subsection (b) of Section 10.
Rent Restrictions (No. 2) Bill, 1960 [ Seanad ]— Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
In subsection (2), page 8, to delete paragraph (b).—(Deputy Larkin.)
I have already clearly indicated the fact that I cannot accept this amendment and I have quite clearly indicated the reasons why.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Teehan, Patrick J.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Jack.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Carew, John.
- Carroll, James.
- Coburn, George.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies Larkin and Kyne.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 28:
In subsection (2), page 9, line 12, to insert "the 31st day of December, 1962" before "or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:—
Before subsection (3), page 9, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Where—
(a) an amount is expended on improvement, structural alteration or repair of a dwelling, being improvement, alteration or repair commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1961, and
(b) apart from this subsection, there would, having regard to paragraph (c), (d) or (e) (as the case may be) of subsection (2) of this section, be a lawful addition to the basic rent of the dwelling by reference to the amount,
there shall be no lawful addition to the basic rent of the dwelling by reference to the amount unless the landlord has, at least fourteen days before the commencement of the improvement, alteration or repair, served on the tenant a notice in the prescribed form, or a form substantially to the same effect, containing particulars of the work proposed to be done and the estimated cost thereof."
This amendment is designed to remedy a situation which has been the cause of some contention in the past. The House will recall that in speaking to the amendment which gave effect to the agreement between the Dublin Artisans' Dwellings Company and their tenants, I mentioned that protracted litigation had taken place because of exceptional repairs which the company had carried out on several of their properties. The position up to date has been that a landlord could come along and carry out exceptional repairs on premises and proceed to procure a special lawful addition to the basic rent in respect of those exceptional repairs. It was open to the tenant subsequently to go to court and apply to have the special lawful addition either wiped out altogether or reduced, on the basis that the exceptional repairs had not been necessary, but tenants were in the difficulty that the landlord would carry out certain repairs which, because of their nature, it would be impossible for the tenant subsequently to prove were not necessary.
This amendment provides that where a landlord wishes to carry out this sort of repairs, he must give 14 days' notice to the tenant that he proposes to carry them out. That will mean that the tenant will then in these 14 days have an opportunity of examining whether the repairs are necessary and procuring evidence to that effect. It will be open to the tenant if he wishes, for instance, to call in an architect and that architect will then subsequently be in a position to testify as to whether or not the repairs were necessary. That is all that is involved in the amendment. It is just putting the obligation on landlords to give 14 days' notice to tenants.
This is sensible. The only thing that occurs to me is that it leaves the position almost dangling in the air if it does not go the stage further of enabling the tenant to serve a notice of objection, if he does not think the repairs are necessary. I am not making any point on it except to draw it to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary.
I do not think that is necessary. It is always open to the tenant afterwards to go to court and have the rent reduced.
Would it not be better to have the thing clinched one way or the other, if it could be done?
We do not think it is desirable that a tenant should be in a position to object to repairs. After all, the obligation is on the landlord to carry out repairs. This is only putting the tenant on notice that the repairs are to be done.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 have been discussed with amendment No. 27.
They were discussed, yes.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Amendment No. 31 has been discussed. If necessary, we will move it formally now for the purpose of taking a decision on it.
We want amendment No. 31 put.
I move amendment No. 31:
Before subsection (3), page 9, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"( ) Subsection (2) (b) shall not apply to a dwelling let on the date of the passing of this Act, until it is vacated by the tenant who occupied the premises at the date of the passing of this Act."
Amendment put
The Committee divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 62.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Jack.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Carew, John.
- Carroll, James.
- Coburn, George.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Teehan, Patrick J.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 32:
In subsection (3), page 9, to delete in line 29 "or" and substitute "and" and in lines 30 and 31 to delete:
"(iii) an amount on putting the building into a reasonable state of repair, and".
What is the point of No. 32?
It is consequential on No. 33:—
We will discuss it on No. 33. It could be taken out after the decision on No. 33.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:—
Before subsection (4), page 9, to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) Where—
(a) a building consists of two or more controlled dwellings and the landlord of the dwellings expends an amount in excess of two-thirds of the aggregate of the basic rents of the dwellings on putting the building into a reasonable state of repair, and
(b) all the controlled dwellings benefit directly or indirectly from the repairs,
the following provision shall have effect for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section:
(i) a calculation shall be made in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (e) of that subsection of the sum which would be the lawful addition if the building were a dwelling having a basic rent equal to the aggregate of the basic rents of the buildings,
(ii) that sum shall be apportioned among the dwellings in proportion to their respective rateable valuations,
(iii) the said paragraph (e) shall be taken as having provided, as respects each dwelling, for the sum apportioned to it on the apportionment (and no other sum) being a lawful addition to its basic rent."
When this Bill was in the Seanad, we inserted subsection (3) and our object in doing so was to deal with a case where the landlord carried out exceptional repairs on a premises which had a number of dwellings in it; in other words, a multiple dwelling. There is some doubt about the present position. If a landlord of a multiple dwelling incurs exceptional expenditure on that dwelling, there is a doubt as to whether he can apportion that expenditure over all the tenants in the building for the purpose of the special lawful addition to the rent. The present position is that it would have to go on the tenant immediately affected. If a landlord put a new roof on a building, the present position is that the tenant immediately under the roof would have to bear the full brunt of the special lawful addition that would arise as a result of the expenditure incurred in putting on that roof.
In the Seanad, we wanted to deal with that position and enable that expenditure to be apportioned over all the tenants and we introduced subsection (3) for that purpose. On further examination, however, it seems that subsection (3) might not achieve what we want. It is our intention that in that sort of case, the special lawful addition would, first of all, be determined in relation to the total expenditure and then divided up over each of the dwellings. What subsection (3) does at the moment is this: it divides the expenditure over all the dwellings. It is then possible that a landlord would get the full 15 per cent. on the expenditure applicable to each dwelling. Instead of getting the graduated scale of 15 per cent. on the first £100, eight per cent. on the second £100 and six per cent. on the remainder, he could possibly get 15 per cent. on the entire expenditure.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that It will work out this way: first of all, we take the total expenditure and work out the total special addition in relation to the building as a whole, and then divide that special lawful addition over each tenant.
In other words, divide the percentage instead of the expenditure.
Divide the increase rather than the expenditure.
Does this have relation to a series of flats in one house, or can it be applied to a row of houses in one row?
No, not to a row of houses in one row. We would have liked to deal with that but we were not able to do so. This relates to a single house only.
With all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, if two houses are semi-detached, are they not in "a building"?
It does not apply. We envisaged a row of houses where a landlord, for instance, built a gable end which would be of benefit to the terrace as a whole. We thought that expenditure might be spread over the different houses but I am advised it would be impossible to do that.
I do not want to spend time trying to trip up the Parliamentary Secretary and I trust he will acquit me of that intention. A terrace of houses or a pair of semi-detached houses have a common chimney stack. Suppose repairs are carried out to the chimney stack, will the resultant increase in rent be distributed between the two houses?
No; they would have to be related to one house or another.
How can that be done?
The Parliamentary Secretary might look into the matter at his leisure. We all know that common chimney stacks have two sets of valuations on two adjoining houses, but it may well be that where the flue in the chimney stack may be letting water into one house and doubtless in time into another house, it is necessary to repair the whole stack if an enduring repair is to be effected. Does the term "a building" cover that type of house or is it restricted to one building subdivided into flats?
It is restricted to one building subdivided into flats.
The Parliamentary Secretary might look into the matter and take steps, if he wishes, between now and Report Stage.
What happens if there is a joint chimney stack?
That also is doubtful, unless it can be established what proportion of the expenditure is attributable to each house.
Then what do you do?
Put it on one house or the other.
Surely that is all wrong.
The Parliamentary Secretary says this amendment deals with multiple dwellings. I think he referred to the question of cost where exceptional repairs were found necessary in the case of a roof of a multiple dwelling, where the tenants may be directly or indirectly affected. There are many multiple dwellings that have return rooms not under the main roof, and where the tenants in the main portion of the dwelling would find it difficult to show that they were directly or indirectly affected by the repair to the return section of the house.
The position will be that the expenditure will be divided over each dwelling in accordance with the rateable valuation.
Manifestly, the Parliamentary Secretary must see the flaw here with which I am concerned. Perhaps it could be made the subject of examination between now and Report Stage. Let us take a pair of semi-detached houses. Suppose the repairs to the roof are of such character as to persuade the landlord that the only rational way to deal with the situation is to put a new roof on the house and he does so. Is it argued that you cannot apportion that between the two houses but must charge the whole cost to one house?
No; that is not the point. Presumably, if there is a terrace of houses and the landlord replaces the roof on the whole terrace, the cost would then be divided and so much would be attributed to each house. It is a perfectly normal situation.
How does he do it? Under what section?
I do not think the Rent Acts are concerned with that at all. Where there is expenditure in relation to one house what I am concerned with in this section is dividing it over the dwellings inside the house. This section is not at all concerned with the situation envisaged by Deputy Dillon. I do not see any difficulty of apportionment in that case. I think it is perfectly permissible to apportion it over a row of houses.
The point arises out of the suggestion that the words "a building" can properly be applied to a pair of semi-detached houses. A row or a terrace of houses perhaps would not be deemed to be "a building". Would the term "a building" cover an isolated pair of semi-detached houses?
We do not mean it to apply.
There must be something which permits a landlord to make an apportionment because otherwise, he cannot do it. I do not think there is anything in this Bill to prevent him.
There is nothing to prevent him.
I could go further: unless there is something authorising him, he cannot charge.
There was a case which cast some doubts on whether or not you can apportion inside one house. No one has ever suggested that you cannot apportion as between one house and another.
I think the other case will put bad ideas in people's minds. The Parliamentary Secretary could clarify the position by saying: "the valuations or such other methods as the court may deem just". Would that not meet it?
We will have to look at it.
That shows the value of parliamentary debate.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.