Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1950

Vol. 39 No. 2

Rent Restrictions (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1950—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The object of this Bill is to continue the existing Rent Restrictions Acts in operation for a period of two years. These Acts would otherwise cease to be in force after the end of this month and I think the House will agree that there can be no question of permitting this to happen. The cessation of rent control would undoubtedly result in widespread hardship for tenants at present enjoying the benefits of control.

Senators will be aware that I have recently appointed a commission of inquiry with terms of reference which include an examination of the working of the Rent Act of 1946, as modified by the amending Act which was passed last year. I know that the commission are energetically and expeditiously proceeding with their work and I have every confidence that they will have the interim report which I have asked them to furnish on this aspect of their inquiry ready well within the period of two years for which it is proposed to continue the present Acts in operation. I say this, fully conscious though I am that the problems with which the commission have to deal are both complex and controversial.

When the interim report of the commission has been received, some time must necessarily be allowed for the examination of the commission's recommendations in the first instance by the Department of Justice and any other departments affected or interested and, eventually, by the Government; for the formulation of any legislative proposals arising out of the report and for the preparation of the necessary Bill or Bills to implement such proposals; and for the enactment by the Legislature of any Bill or Bills that might be introduced. Accordingly, it can scarcely be suggested that a period of two years is unreasonably long in the circumstances. On the other hand, all experience suggests very strongly that any lesser period would be too short. Moreover, from the point of view of the public— both landlords and tenants—it is better that there should be as little uncertainty as possible as to what the position is going to be in another year from now. This is the case, for the reason in particular that certain provisions of the 1946 Act, under which landlords are allowed increases of rent in respect of what might be described as-exceptional expenditure on repairs, are related to the pairs of years comprised in the period 1945-50, and the present Bill proposes in Section 2 that these provisions should be applied in respect of the pairs of years 1950-51 and 1951-52. It is desirable that a landlord, who might be contemplating embarking upon fairly extensive repairs (say a new roof) some time during the next year, which might well not be completed until some time in the following year, should know where he stands under the rent restrictions law.

We should not, in any event, lose sight of the fact that the extension of the 1946 Act, as proposed, need not— and will not, in fact, the allowed to preclude the enactment of fresh legislation at an earlier date if the circumstances should warrant and permit such a course. I may recall that only last year when a specific urgent case of hardship was brought to my notice, there was no delay in having the matter righted. I think, therefore, that the House will be disposed to accept with confidence my assurance that, if the need should again arise, I will see to it that proposals for dealing with the situation by way of amending legislation are promptly brought before the Oireachtas.

I think that the House must express its disappointment at the Minister's presentation of this Bill. The original Act that this Bill proposes to extend attempted to make provision for one of our most serious social problems. The 1946 Act is due to expire on the 31st of this month and the Minister's suggestion is before the House at the present moment to extend the terms of that Act for another period of two years. The only excuse the Minister puts before the House in asking us to accept his recommendation is that he has appointed a commission. It has been very recently appointed, but the problems with which it is asked to deal have existed and should have been recognised for the past two and a half or three years.

The 1946 Act covered every aspect of the letting of houses for rent with the exception of three. Under these three headings the position has not been satisfactory and, I suggest, should have been dealt with in the Bill now before the House. Quite a number of Bills have been introduced in this House, and I think that it would have been more appropriate to introduce a Bill of this nature here, to get the views of the many members here, and then to let the Dáil give its approval.

The Minister hopes that this proposed commission will be in a position to make a report at the end of two years, but he also admits that a considerable time will elapse between the presentation of the report and the introduction of whatever legislation the then Government may think necessary. He has pointed out that in order to avoid misunderstandings on the part of people who may be considering improvements in houses they are letting at present, the section dealing with that matter must be extended. But I wonder has the Minister considered another very important aspect, its effect on persons or organisations who may be contemplating the erection of houses for letting within the next two years?

We know that in Dublin and in other cities there are organisations which provide a very essential service, the erection of houses for letting purposes, and now we say to them at this stage: "We propose to appoint a commission; we are going to hold this threat over your heads for two years and then legislation will be introduced." Any organisation or business people who may be disposed to build houses will naturally hold up their activities until they see what these recommendations will be.

It would have been very easy, to my mind, for the Minister to have dealt with these three problems. The first is the problem of furnished lettings. It should not have been beyond the capabilities of the Department to draft legislation to cater for and protect the persons concerned. We know that in some few cases there may be victimisation in the letting of houses which would have been let in the ordinary way but which, in order to evade the law, have been equipped with a small amount of furniture and let as furnished dwellings. It should have been possible for the Minister to draft a section covering that aspect of the question. There is also the aspect of houses let for temporary convenience which are not covered by the present Rent Restrictions legislation and the question of houses built since 1941. That is another problem, but surely not a problem beyond the imagination of the Department and the Minister to tackle by the drafting of legislation.

I do not wish to call people who let houses, landlords. I believe that there is no such body of persons in the country at the present time. They can probably be called householders. Injustice can be done to householders as it can to tenants as a result of certain regulations and it should be possible to introduce here a short Bill catering, with the help of various organisations, for tenants and householders alike. I am sure that each body concerned would put very definite views before the Minister if he first brought his proposals before the House, but no provision has been made for that. The Minister said that two years is not a long period but it is quite long for people who are suffering injustice or even for people who are suffering from an imaginary grievance. That position could have been rectified by the introduction of a short measure and if the Minister thought that the commission should go on and make its recommendations there would be no trouble about that.

Another aspect of the problem which has been given a lot of consideration in recent years is the question of ground rents but there is no question of asking this commission to make recommendations in connection with that problem. It may be that it is a problem that should be tackled as a separate issue and considered apart from the question of rent restrictions and whatever legislation may be thought necessary to cover the letting of houses.

There is very little we can do and we must give the Minister this Bill. If we do not, the regulations at present governing the letting of houses will cease as from the 31st December so we have been presented more or less with an ultimatum. We must accept what has been put before us and wait for a period of two and a half or three years before we can give the consideration to this problem which should be given to it.

I do not think I have very much to add to what I have already said. The Senator who addressed himself to the matter made a few rather peculiar statements, but I do not feel called upon to refute them. For instance, he mentioned a period of two and a half years. The legislation must be through both Houses within the two years. There are other matters that have to go through the Houses just as well as this matter of rent restrictions. Through the Chair, I should like to remind the House that the rent restrictions code, as at present existing, was passed in 1946. At the time it was passed the Government which was then in office had all the information that they say I have now at their disposal. There was no reason why they should not have included it at that time—as they are asking me to do it overnight now.

I am sure that dwellings and furnished flats have been in existence in Dublin since the city was built. Surely, if the matter were as simple as Senator Hawkins would have us believe, the Government which was in office when the Bill was going through in 1946 would have done something about it.

Senator Hawkins said also that I did not refer the matter of ground rents to the commission. Again, he would have us believe that everybody in the country has a short memory. The previous Government rejected violently a motion in the Dáil to include ground rents. I have not rejected the matter: it is being partially examined in one aspect. When that aspect is reported on by the commission I hope to be able to take such steps as may then be necessary. However, I am not going to commit myself or the Government of the day without having all the legislation required. I said in the other House that the ground rents question is not as simple as it looks. At what stage, and how, are you going to stop people from putting ground rents upon land on which you have built a house? If the system of ground rent owners were abolished to-day I think we could hardly pass an Act to prevent them from starting the system again tomorrow—and then you would have a new crop all over again. That is just one point that cannot easily be handled. I assured the Dáil and I now assure the members of this House that I am aware of the urgency of the measure.

I have done my best to get the commission into action. I think it is an energetic commission and I have urged the members of it to bring in an interim report on certain aspects at an early stage. I am satisfied they will do so. I think that the House and the country should be grateful to them for the energy they are displaying in dealing with the matter at the moment.

On the question of temporary convenience lettings let me say that a rather awkward situation would be created if, for instance, some legislation were passed that would prohibit my giving a house to a person for my convenience, for a week, a month or six weeks and then to say that, because I did that, I was at a loss. The matter is not as simple as Senator Hawkins would have the members of this House believe. Anyhow, these matters have been referred to this commission and I trust that all the legislation necessary will be through both Houses within the two years—and that is not bad.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.
Bill put through committee without amendment, reported, received for final consideration, and passed.
Barr
Roinn