Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 1926

Vol. 7 No. 8

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL, 1926—REPORT STAGE.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I beg to move Amendment No. 1:

In Section 4 to delete in line 51 the figures "£40" and to substitute therefor the figures "£45."

The object of this amendment would be to raise the figure for the standard rent of houses to be de-controlled in June of next year from £40 to £45. The Bill as originally introduced had the figure of £52. In the Committee Stage in the other House it was reduced to £40, and the amendment merely seeks to raise it to £45 now. Many poor people have been forced through stress of circumstances, namely, shortage of houses, to take houses at very high rents. I know of one particular case of a man earning £4 5s. a week who is paying £90 a year rent. He is no doing that from choice or through an anxiety to live in a respectable district, but merely through sheerinability to get a cheaper house anywhere else. Houses of this kind are in many cases occupied by low paid clerical workers with some regard for where they live, but unable to get a house at a reasonable rent.

These houses are peopled very often by a very numerous type of person with a small income—people who are expected to keep up a respectable appearance and generally to subscribe to all sorts of collections and to occupy a certain place in the social life in a very moderate way. They are people who are generally overlooked in matters of legislation, as they have no recognised body to speak for them and if control is to be taken off the houses occupied by this type of person, a very considerable amount of hardship will ensue. In recent years, ever since the later years of the war, newly-married couples found it impossible to get houses within reasonable rents in a great majority of cases. With the optimism of youth and the psychological atmosphere surrounding marriage they have entered into commitments that they had hoped they would be able to realise or discharge, or at all events, that conditions would change to such an extent that they might be able to get houses where the rent would be more commensurate with their income. The position has not appreciably improved.

In many cases those who got married eight or ten years ago are now in a worse position to pay than they were then. They may have families to support. Wages and salaries, generally, all round, have decreased and some are out of employment altogether, and it is just at this time that it is proposed to remove that control, after June of next year, and place these people at the tender mercy of the commercial house-owners who can then charge them any rent they like, or evict them if they so desire and sell the houses over their heads. Surely the proposal in Section 6 to enable the owner to raise the rent by another ten per cent. should be quite sufficient to meet the position without seeking to remove control altogether. I do not think the Government should seek to remove control from any house until they have given the electors an opportunity of expressing their opinions on this question.

The General Election is due in August next year and the Bill proposes to remove control of this particular type of house in June, 1927, a couple of months before they give the electors an opportunity of expressing their views upon it. It is the most retrogressive legislation that the present Government have embarked upon; they have never given the electors an opportunity to express their views on it. They have managed to keep these things in the dark until such time as they were safely implanted. I think that as the proposal is to decontrol them in June, we should limit the number to as small a proportion as possible and the amendment proposes to do that by merely raising the figure from £40 to £45. It will still be £7 lower than it was before the house-owning interests in the other House were able to reduce it to £40.

Sir JOHN KEANE

A Chathaoirligh, I ask for a ruling with regard to these amendments on the Report Stage. I noticed in the amendments on this matter at this stage that there are a number introducing principles for the first time on the Report Stage.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Of course I have discretion in the matter. I rather gather the same principle runs through all these seven amendments—is not that so?

Mr. O'FARRELL

Yes.

CATHAOIRLEACH

You are practically moving the whole seven?

Mr. O'FARRELL

Yes, and the same principle applies.

CATHAOIRLEACH

There is a remedy always in the hands of the House because if, on Report Stage, an amendment is passed which materially alters the Bill, they can have it recommitted. So I cannot rule it out on that.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

I suggest, sir, that these first six amendments fall naturally into three separate lots. That is taking 1 and 2 the proposal is that with respect to the period commencing 24th June houses in the metropolitan district that will come under decontrol will not be houses at £40 valuation and upwards but houses of £45 valuation and upwards; and elsewhere throughout the State that instead of £30 valuation the Senator seeks to insert £35. Then amendments 3 and 4 move to deal with the next period covered by paragraph (b) of the Section. Amendments 5 and 6 deal with the period covered by paragraph (c) and in each case the proposal is to raise the valuation figure both with reference to houses within the metropolitan area and with reference to houses elsewhere. Now take this first amendment. The Senator's proposal is that we ought not to decontrol in June, 1927, houses of £40 valuation and upwards and that we should be content to decontrol houses of £45 valuation.

I went to some considerable trouble to find out the proportion and, just what effect our proposals on this decontrol would have, and I took certain typical areas in Dublin with a view to examination. I find in the urban districts of Rathmines and Rathgar you have 4,474 houses of a valuation not exceeding £25, 1,330 exceed £25, but do not exceed £30; 1,098 exceed £30, but do not exceed £40; and 657 exceed £40—out of a total of 7,559 houses. In Clontarf East you have 562 of a valuation not exceeding £25; 126 of a valuation exceeding £25, but not exceeding £30; 99 of a valuation exceeding £30, but not exceeding £40, and 51 exceeding £40—out of a total of 838. In Clontarf West you have 39 out of 1,748 exceeding a valuation of £40. That gives some conception of the proportion of our proposals and what the reactions will be. In fact it seems that none of the very large houses, houses the 1914 rent of which might be safely put at £75 or £80, will be decontrolled after June of next year.

If I were to move on and consider our figure for other areas outside the metropolitan area it stands at £30 after June, 1927, and the Senator proposes that it should be £35. Take Cork as a fair test. Out of a total of 11,827 houses, only 336 exceed a valution of £30; 10,966 are not above £20; 332 lie between £20 and £25; 193 lie between £25 and £30; and only 336 out of a total of 11,827 are upwards of £30 fixed by the Bill for the first period of decontrol commencing on 24th June, 1927. The Senator may suggest that Cork is a special case and selected because it is suitable to the argument. In Kilkenny, out of 1,978 houses, 49 are upwards of £30. In Carlow, 15 are upwards of £30 valuation out of a total of 1,156. That is the extent of our villainy!

Mr. O'FARRELL

It will be observed that this is merely one of a series of half a dozen amendments and not by any means the most important because it deals with the top figure. The fact that there are only a small number involved does not affect in the least degree the justice or otherwise of the case. This is particularly true in view of the fact that we are told one of the justifications for the Bill at all is an encouragement to build more houses. If only a few are involved you are not going to encourage a lot of new building. The Minister has mentioned Cork, and, as someone has remarked, the valuations are low there, and the small number of houses that are above the valuation in question may be due to the fact that all the Corkmen have come to Dublin, and that consequently these houses are uninhabited. The argument the Minister advanced in reference to this amendment is not applicable to the other amendments which apply to a far wider range of houses and who have far lower incomes than are involved here.

Amendment put and declared lost.

The following amendments in the name of Senator O'Farrell were not moved:—

Section 4. To delete in line 52 the figures "£30" and to substitute therefor the figures "£35."

Section 4. To delete in line 8 the figures "£30" and to substitute therefor the figures "£35."

Section 4. To delete in line 9 the figures "£25" and to substitute therefor the figures "£30."

Mr. O'FARRELL

I move:—

"Section 4. To delete in line 17 the figures ‘£25' and to substitute therefor the figure "£30."

This amendment refers to houses that it is proposed to decontrol completely in 1929. As introduced the Bill removes the control of houses in Dublin whose standard rent or valuation does not exceed £30. In Committee the figures were reduced to £25, and this amendment proposes to raise the figure again to £30. A subsequent amendment deals with houses outside Dublin, where it proposes to raise the figures from £20 to £25. Of course these figures cover a very large proportion of houses occupied by working-class people and by people with very small incomes. If it were reasonable or logical to introduce control at all because of the house shortage during the period of the war it is equally logical and equally necessary now, as the house shortage has not been relieved to any appreciable extent. In fact, making allowance for the increase in the population in recent years, the housing shortage is more acute now than when control was first introduced. It is difficult to understand why it should be considered necessary or desirable to remove control at this particular period, and, in view of the present economic state of affairs, it is difficult to understand the reason. The removal of control from the particular type of house concerned will affect a very large number of people in Dublin and also a very large number outside, and will give an opportunity for all sorts of abuses, exploitations, profiteering and evictions. I think the Government should take the views of their constituents on this matter before proceeding to embark on this legislation.

Sir J. KEANE

I suggest that this talk about consulting constituents is cant to a great extent. Elections are not fought on these issues, and do not develop on these lines. If there was a referendum there might be something in the argument. At a general election you have political cries and you do not get a clear-cut issue like this. If the verdict of the election is such as to show that these provisions are not acceptable, a new Government, when in power, can legislate accordingly. Surely that will be satisfactory? This question was already decided on the Second Reading. The amendment strikes at the whole principle of the Bill, and although you, sir, have ruled the amendment in order—a ruling which I accept—I wish to enter at least an individual protest against having vital amendments revived at this stage. There is no reason at all why they could not have been introduced on the Committee Stage, where the necessity for moving them was just as great. On the Committee Stage one would have an opportunity of having a first run at the amendments. The whole question is how the housing shortage is to be solved. If these restrictions are to continue there is bound to be dislocation. I think the housing question is the only one that is restricted now, and that there is a free market in everything else. Until you get a free market you will not get private capital to invest in houses. That will only follow on de-control. Until then you will have a housing shortage. It is only dodging the issue to try to continue these restrictions.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I do not want to say very much on this amendment. The figures set out in Section 4 were very carefully considered, and we thought them reasonable. I could go into the exact effect of this amendment and show the number of houses in Dublin, Cork, Carlow, and Kilkenny, and so on, that would be affected, one way or another, according to the fate of the amendment. The number is small. You get evidence of it when I say that out of 7,559 houses in the urban district of Rathmines and Rathgar the number with a valuation below £25 is 4,474. That is typical throughout the residential portion of the city. In Cork the number of houses not above £20 valuation is 10,966 out of a total of 11,827, so that, even our last period, that covered by paragraph (c) and the figures set out for £25 in Dublin and £20 elsewhere, do not achieve any substantial measure of decontrol. The big question, whether control is or is not to be carried on into the future will have to be decided by the Government of 1929 in the circumstances which they then find facing them. This Bill, even with its three years' graduation, as set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), achieves no measure of decontrol worth talking of. So much decontrol as is achieved has been very carefully considered by us, and is considered eminently moderate and reasonable, and I ask the Seanad to share that view.

Amendment put and declared lost.

The following amendment standing in the name of Senator O'Farrell was not moved:—

"Section 4. To delete in line 18 the figure ‘£20' and to substitute therefor the figure ‘£25.'"

Mr. O'FARRELL

I beg to move:—

Amendment 7, Section 6. To delete in line 56 the word "twenty" and to substitute therefor the word "fifteen."

The Minister said that the previous amendments did not affect a great many houses. This amendment affects everybody who pays rent under control. I apologise to the House for not having put down my previous amendments during the Committee Stage, but I might explain that I was unable to do so because I was absent from Dublin. This present amendment is a modification of an amendment defeated during the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Principal Act of 1923 enabled householders to increase the standard rent by ten per cent. Section 6 of this Bill enables the house owners to increase the rent by a further ten per cent. My amendment is that this ten per cent. should be reduced to five per cent., and I propose to accomplish this by altering the word "twenty" to the word "fifteen."

I think this is the most monstrous proposition in the whole Bill, that is to allow another increase of rent at this particular time. We find an all-round demand for economy. We are confronted with demands for reductions in wages, for longer hours of work and so forth. We have a Commission inquiring into the higher prices charged for food. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has fixed the wage at thirty-two shillings a week for workers on the Shannon. Thousands of railway men have been compelled to accept a heavy reduction in wages ranging over a whole year. The Minister for Industry and Commerce tells us that there are in the Free State 212,000 workers with a wage of twenty-five shillings a week and under. We are told that this is a poor country and that we must be prepared to accept a low standard of living for many years to come. Unemployment is developing to a deplorable extent and there is no immediate prospect of any appreciable improvement.

It is in the midst of this state of affairs that this Bill is brought along, and the house-owners are told that they may increase the present standard rate by ten per cent. At a time when employers are cutting down wages and looking for economy everywhere and when people are asked to live on smaller incomes and when the unemployed are left absolutely desolate in the great majority of cases, and when they have to pay rent—for they must find shelter as well as people who are working—this is the Government's contribution to the rejuvenation of the country and to the easing of distress. It is the proposal to enable the people who own a particular commodity to exploit one of the most essential needs of the community. You might as well allow a certain section who are fortunate enough to possess the water supply to exploit a shortage of water and allow people to die for want of it. Or you might as well allow the exploitation of fresh air, for this housing shortage is as bad as a shortage of fresh air, because housing shortage makes it absolutely impossible for the worker in the tenement to get sufficient fresh air or to develop a strong, healthy frame; and you are going to put a premium upon the shortage by allowing house-owners to increase the rents on these poor people by another ten per cent.

What has happened since the previous Act that makes this proposal necessary? It is admitted that where there is a shortage of 22,000 houses only something like 2,800 have been built. While the population has increased, old houses have tumbled down and yet, because it was necessary during the war to institute control it is proposed now to allow the house-owners to increase rents, to a figure not paid at a time when prices were at the peak and when everybody was employed.

The Minister justifies this proposition by saying that it only means, in many cases, fifty shillings a year of increase. That means very little to people who have sufficient money to pay it. It is a very big amount to persons unable to pay the existing rent. It is a very big amount to the man with only thirty shillings a week with a wife and family to support, where every penny has to be counted. Putting something on the existing rent in such cases is a terrible proposition. I never heard anything like the manner in which this argument is advanced that by allowing the house-owners to put this increase upon the rents, and by taking off control you are encouraging people to build houses. Anything more futile or untenable than this argument was never advanced, seeing that no new houses are controlled at all. There is no control on houses built since 1919 and the owners of such houses can charge any rent they like, so far as exploiting the public is concerned, and no matter what you do in this particular matter, you are not promoting an effective supply of houses in the future. Still we have this argument thrown out because it is the only argument that can be adduced to allow this to go on. Senators may pass these things and be half asleep while these things are under discussion, but they had better consider whether these things are not going to be brought home to them later on.

I warn the House that when these rent increases are put on a lot of people who are asleep now will wake up and create an uproar. At this particular period when unemployment is in such a desperate condition that the Government throw up their hands because of their inability to deal with it, when these people find that the landlord is sending them a demand for increased rent you are pretty sure to have some fun. I never saw anything done so cavalierly as this has been done. It is time that something would happen that would rouse Senators to a sense of responsibility because of the inability to deal with unemployment and the various economic misfortunes that have fallen upon the country. But to come along now with an additional burden upon the people would be screamingly funny if it was not so desperately tragic.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has victoriously carried through legislation setting up what might be called slavish conditions, and has robbed railwaymen of their rights under his Bill, and the Minister for Justice has now to keep pace with him. He meets the case of decreased employment, reduced wages and increased responsibility by putting on an increase of rent but only, he says, of ten per cent. Not a dozen tenants, he adds, will refuse to pay that.

I am going to vote against this proposal, and I am going to divide the House upon it. I certainly hope everybody will realise the implication contained in this proposal. You are not putting this on to the wealthy tenants—I am not concerned with those people. Probably they can afford to pay. But I am concerned with people who are struggling to try to pay the present rent, and the majority of whom are asked by this House and employers throughout the country to give up a substantial part of the incomes that they have at the present time, and on top of that they are now asking them to pay this additional rent of ten per cent.

Sir JOHN KEANE

The Senator has not told us why one section of the population, owing to increases in prices, should have its reward in increased wages, doubled and trebled, while the other section of the population who, out of its small savings, own one or two houses, should be restricted in the increase of the value of their property by only ten per cent. on pre-war prices. Because something was not done before to remedy that is no reason why it should not be done now. For all those years, since control was instituted, house owners had to be content, in the interests of the tenant, perhaps in the interests of the public, to get a miserly ten per cent increase, whereas they have had to pay for their commodities, including labour, anything up to double and sometimes two-and-a-half pre-war prices.

Mr. O'FARRELL

May I remind the Senator that this ten per cent. means a ten per cent. increase on investments. It does not mean money spent during the period of the war, and to that extent it is different from money spent on labour now.

Sir JOHN KEANE

It represents ten per cent. upon probably all they had to live upon. If the Senator demands that for the future, renters shall not exist in the community—a doctrine held in certain quarters and exploited in certain countries—his argument is one, I hope, that will not find favour in this country. I hope, as a community, we have not gone that far. You can only increase the prospect of saving and thrift by allowing people to get their reward and taking their share of enhanced values. I do not blame the Senator for his point of view, because he is trying to put the other side of the case. But people who invested their savings in house property have suffered very grievously by control and incidentally suffered further by a flaw in the Act, and should at least be entitled to this very small increase on their pre-war rents, which only allows them to participate to the extent of about one-third in the increased values due to high prices.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am inclined to regret that the Senator was not here when this matter was being discussed on the Committee Stage and when an amendment substantially similar to that which he has now moved was before the Seanad. On that stage of the Bill I followed the course of four typical houses, and showed how far in 1914, in 1923-24, in 1924-25, in 1925-26 and 1926-27, they were affected. I showed that the rent as it will be under the provisions of this Bill, of these houses which are really typical, is, in fact, less than the rent paid by tenants in the years 1923-24 and 1924-25 and will be only very slightly more, almost negligibly more, than the rent paid last year to the landlord. In fact, previous to the Bill it amounts to no more than this: that they give to the house-owner some of the benefit of the fall in rates. For the benefit of the Senator let me take a house the valuation of which is £33. The rates in 1914 were £18 17s. 5¼d. and the rent £60. The rent of that house under legislation in the year 1923-24 was £81 18s. 10d. In 1924-25 it was £80 19s. 7d., with the falling rates— the Senator knows how the standard of rent is arrived at—and there was the permitted increase in the rent, the increased rates, and then there was those other permitted increases for repairs and so on. In 1925-26 it was £77 13s. 7d. In 1926-27 it was £79 17s. 4d. That is, less than 1923-24, 1924-25, and slightly more than what was paid last year. When we talk of driving rents back to the peak period let us see what the rent of that house was in 1920-21. It was £87 5s. 10d., so we are not driving rents back to the peak periods.

Mr. O'FARRELL

That is a reduction in rates.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Yes, out of a reduction in rates that is, from that down from £81 18s. 7d. in 1923-24 to £79 17s. 4d. this year, under this Bill. In fact, it simply gives to the house-owner some little benefit from the fact that the rates are gradually coming down. Take another example. A rent of £36 in 1914 was as high as £48 12s. 5d. in 1923-24, as for £48 1s. 11d. in 1924-25, as £46 5s. 11d. in 1925-26, and under the Bill £47 16s. 4d., a rise of about £1 in the year. Take another example. Take £32, the 1914 rent. That would be £42 18s. 10d. in 1923-24, £42 9s. 7d. in 1924-25, and £40 19s. 7d. in 1925-26, and in 1926-27, with the Bill in force, it would be £42 8s. 11d. That is, at any rate, to be the issue in the social revolution with which the Senator threatens us. The Senator talks about the 10 per cent. increase in the rent, just to pick out one inaccuracy and correct it. The Senator's statement was a clever amalgam of inaccuracy. It is not a 10 per cent. increase on the rent. It is a permitted increase of 10 per cent. on the standard rent but not an increase of 10 per cent. on the actual rent.

Mr. O'FARRELL

It is a permitted increase of 10 per cent. on the standard rent.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Does the Senator know how the standard rent is arrived at?

Mr. O'FARRELL

Yes.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Perhaps the Senator would tell me how.

CATHAOIRLEACH

This is not an examination.

Mr. O'FARRELL

The Minister should know.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am very doubtful if the Senator does know. If he did he would not talk of a permitted increase of 10 per cent. on the standard rent being synonymous with an actual increase of 10 per cent. on the rent payable by the landlord. It is no such thing. An amendment, of Senator Farren on the Committee Stage, to delete the permitted 20 per cent. increase on the standard rent, was defeated, and we went very fully into the merits of the matter. Senator O'Farrell having been absent from the Committee Stage comes along now on Report and moves that the increase allowed be 15 per cent. Presumably he approves of a permitted increase of 15 per cent., unlike Senator Farren, who approves only of 10 per cent. I do not feel like treading the ground we travelled very fully on in the Committee Stage. I think the Senators are conversant with the case for the increase and that it is a very small latitude to people, who after all are the owners of the houses, in dealing with their property. My own feeling is they are entitled to do a bit of a growl about the fact that it was so small. It reduces the increase on the actual rent of the average house between 30s. and £2 in the year, and it is simply giving to the owner of the house some benefit from the fact that the rates are gradually but surely coming down and that the rent has been falling steadily for the tenant for the last three or four years. I stand fully for the proposal in the Bill and I do not consider by doing so that I am inflicting any of the hardship on the general community the Senator speaks about.

Amendment put.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I ask for a division.

CATHAOIRLEACH

You should be satisfied with a show of hands. I was not asked about this particular amendment, but if a question of order had been raised I should have great difficulty in allowing it to be moved because it was substantially the same as the one moved by Senator Farren in your absence.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I submit on a point of order that if an amendment such as the 10 per cent. amendment is moved on Committee Stage it should be quite in order to move 5 per cent. on the Report Stage.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Standing Order says:—"If the Chairman is of opinion that it is substantially the same as an amendment which has been rejected on the Committee Stage and that the subject matter thereof has already been sufficiently debated."

Mr. O'FARRELL

If five per cent. is substantially the same as ten per cent. my amendment is out of order.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am suggesting on this particular amendment that you might be satisfied with a show of hands. You are always reasonable, Senator, and that is why I did not like to press you.

Amendment put and, on a show of hands, declared lost.

Government amendment:—"8. Section 7, sub-section (1). After the figures ‘1923' in line 63 to insert the words and figures ‘and prior to the 24th day of June, 1926, by the Principal Act, or, in case such agreement was made on or after the 24th day of June, 1926.'"

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The amendment was introduced to ensure that in respect of the period from June, 1923 to 1926 the landlord shall not be entitled, by reason of the validation effect of the section, to a greater permitted increase than that given by the 1923 Act.

In other words, it was suggested in a letter which appeared in the public Press, and I would like to mention the matter with gratitude, that the wording of the section was possibly going further than we had intended, and that it would enable the landlord to recover this further permitted increase of ten per cent. retrospectively.

Our intention is to validate agreements made, provided those agreements were within the range permitted by the legislation then existing, not to validate all agreements at whatever time made that are within the range permitted by this Bill that we are now considering and in the course of enacting. To make it quite clear that is not the position we propose to insert this amendment. I think it would be found quite clear that we do not propose to validate agreements that were outside the range of the legislation which existed at the time such agreements were made.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not quite see what exactly you propose to do after 1923. Do you propose to put in the words "by the principal Act" twice?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Yes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Government amendment:—"9. Section 9. To delete in line 61 the word ‘while' and to substitute therefor the words during any period not exceeding six months during which.' "

Mr. O'HIGGINS

This is merely a drafting amendment. We accepted an unofficial amendment in the Dáil and a draftsman was not pleased with the language. This and the following amendment go together:—

Government amendment —"11. Section 9. To delete all from and including the word ‘Provided' in line 66 down to the end of the section."

Amendments, 9 and 11, put and agreed to.

Government amendment —"10. Section 9. Before the word ‘tenant' in line 64 to insert the word ‘suitable.'"

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It was suggested to me that the word "suitable" might be inserted on the ground that a landlord should not be penalised where he bona fide was unable to get a suitable tenant who, having regard to the size of the house and the rent to be paid, would be in a position to occupy it without undue depreciation. I may add the issue is one which would have to be determined by the courts. The local authority, if it is not satisfied that the house owner was in fact unable to get a suitable tenant, will not remit the rates and if the owner of the house wishes to appeal against that his only remedy would be to appeal to the courts.

The court would then have the onus of determining whether the house was being kept vacant in a bona fide way because of the inability of the house-owner reasonably to secure a suitable tenant or whether he was keeping the house vacant unreasonably in a time of house shortage with a view to not letting it at all, but possibly with a view to selling it. No local authority would remit the rates unless they were satisfied that there was a valid defence. Any appeal from their decision in the matter would have to be to the courts.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Government amendment—Section 14. After the word "due" in line 59 to insert the words "by a landlord or any sum claimed to be recoverable by a tenant."

Mr. O'HIGGINS

On the Committee Stage I undertook to meet Senator Sir John Keane, by extending Section 14 to meet a case where action was taken for alleged overpayments of rent. This amendment carries out that promise.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I am very grateful to the Minister for meeting me but I am not quite clear how the amendment does carry out the intention. In the amendment now proposed, there seems to me to be one loophole. What my amendment, which follows, seeks to secure is that on any action not merely for the recovery of rent but also for the recovery of possession, or alleged overpayment, all issues should be tried together. Perhaps I am wrong in point of law. Perhaps the Minister may have been advised and is quite correct.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Recovery of possession is in fact covered by the Principal Act.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I see the point.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment 13 not moved.

Government amendment—Section 14 after the word "under" in line 62, to insert the words "The Principal Act or"

Amendment put and agreed to.

Government amendment—Section 14. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section (2) as follows:—

"(2) The court shall, if satisfied that any error or omission in a statutory notice, whether served before or after the passing of this Act, is due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the landlord, have power to amend such statutory notice, by correcting any errors and supplying any omissions therein, which, if not corrected or supplied, would render such statutory notice invalid, on such terms and conditions as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the court to be just and reasonable and, if the court so directs, the statutory notice as so amended shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as a valid statutory notice."

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The effect of this additional sub-section is to enable the court to rectify errors which they are satisfied were unintentional—to rectify bona fide mistakes. The Principal Act was rather rigid in that respect and statutory notices were involved, where ordinary clerical mistakes were made. There is a feeling that the courts should have power of rectification where there is no question whatever of bad faith or a desire to evade the provisions of the Act and so on. The court will be very easily able to determine that issue. It might happen that in big offices dealing with many tenancies a purely clerical error would creep into the statutory notice. Hitherto under the legislation that existed even in the case of such an error the whole matter was invalidated, and we think there should be just this much elasticity—that where the court is satisfied that the mistake is entirely unintentional it should have the power to set it right without any such consequences as prevailed in the past.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Might I ask what is the need for this? Has there been a lot of errors in cases coming before the courts in the past? Is there any reasonable demand or cause for this? Are landlords to be released from the responsibility for making out a correct statutory notice in this connection any more than any other section of the community?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

In a greater number of cases brought to my notice, I am satisfied that the provisions of the Act have been unduly stringent. They did not cover cases of mere office mistakes such as might occur anywhere. Again, I have found that in some cases it is not altogether easy to make these calculations. It is not reasonable that in every case house-owners should be compelled to seek legal advice. It is in those cases where there is a bona fide mistake that the courts have the right to review the matter. There is a feeling voiced in several quarters that all those landlords are wealthy people, with a great deal of office machinery and staffs at their disposal, but there are quite small people in country villages who let a house for £15 or £20, and they deserve some protection in this matter.

Mr. FARREN

The objection that I have to this sub-section is, that it is retrospective. I do not think there is any necessity for that. On the Committee Stage we had the same complaint from the Minister with regard to agreements that were made, and that were against the law. If the landlord entered into an agreement that was contrary to the Principal Act with regard to the amount of the increased rent, would that be looked upon as an error?

CATHAOIRLEACH

That would not be covered by this amendment. This would only refer to an error in the statutory notice.

Mr. FARREN

It seems to me there is no necessity to make it retrospective.

CATHAOIRLEACH

There are cases where probably there are notices pending upon which no action has been taken so far. There must be a certain number of notices pending, and they are to be followed by taking possession or taking action or proceedings of that kind; this amendment would then apply. I think the only case this amendment would cover is the case where the preliminary notice had been served, but has not yet been followed up. It would not touch previous decisions or any agreements in any shape or form.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Does it not leave the tenant open to some abuses where the wrong amount is demanded? The tenant disputes the amount. The tenant is brought into court and the court allows the statutory notice to be corrected, and no penalty is imposed.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The court has power to make terms. For example, they can compel the landlord to pay the costs of the action. The amendment says "on such terms and conditions as respect arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the court to be just and reasonable." The court is not bound to do it, but if it does it can make such terms and conditions as it thinks reasonable. The court has complete jurisdiction over it—to make whatever order it thinks fair and to impose any conditions it thinks fit. I do not really think it is intended to apply to, nor will it hit, any case that has been concluded or in which there is an agreement.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Amendment No. 16 stands in my name, but I do not think any purpose will be served by moving it now. I beg leave to withdraw it.