When this Bill was read a Second Time I directed the attention of the House to the fact that we find it necessary to re-enact the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923. All Parties in the House concur in the view that that Act is still necessary. It is agreed by everyone familiar with housing conditions, particularly in our city areas, and in urban districts, that the Act is still necessary. I directed the attention of the House to that fact. There is a housing shortage in existence. The local authorities in the rural areas are doing their best to meet the shortage but, on the Second Stage, I asked the Minister for Finance to invite the attendance of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health on this stage of this Bill, to tell the country whether Deputy T. Kelly, in his capacity as chairman of the housing board of the Dublin Corporation, accurately represented the situation when he said that the only reason why the slums are not more rapidly disposed of is because the corporation cannot raise the money requisite to do the job. It is perfectly clear that the slum problem is still extremely grave, but what is worse is that it now appears that publicity hunting individuals are prepared to exploit the sufferings of the poor in these slums.
Expiring Laws Bill, 1936.—Committee.
The Deputy was allowed to refer to that particular matter on the Second Stage of the Bill. He may not re-open it at this stage. The relevance of the matter was, in the opinion of the Chair, very doubtful even on Second Stage. Opportunities for reviewing the Acts dealing with housing are afforded on the Estimates and on the Minister's Vote, or at any time by a substantive motion. The subject of the housing condition of the poor in Dublin is not, in the opinion of the Chair, relevant at this stage of this Bill.
May I press the Minister to tell us if, and when, the Government will offer this House a more satisfactory method of dealing with the housing shortage than the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act. When the Government asks the Dáil to re-enact that Act, they take upon their shoulders the burden of telling us when they are prepared to give a better and more effective remedy for the evil that that Act is designed to remedy. If it is irrelevant on this Bill to discuss the evil which we wish to abate by the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, then we must forbear referring to it. I feel that in dealing with this Bill the Minister should take some steps to explain why, in the existing circumstances, he thinks it necessary, and how long he thinks he is entitled to come before this House wringing his hands over an evil that exists and telling us he has nothing better to offer than the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act to abate it.
I rise to give notice of my intention, in the event of the Courts of Justice Bill passing into law, to make an amendment on the Report Stage of this Bill, by deleting the reference to the Courts of Justice Act, 1929, in the Schedule.
Does either of the Ministers propose to give us any information as to what their attitude is to the evil which the Rent Restrictions Act is designed to remedy, and when they think other measures will have made the continuance of this Act unnecessary?
I am accepting the ruling of the Chair in the spirit and in the letter.
The Chair has not ruled on that.
Neither of the Ministers present is immediately responsible for the Rent Restrictions Act.
I notice that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is here, and he is the Minister primarily responsible for houses in this country. The rents which we propose to restrict are rents charged on houses. I would like the Minister to tell us when he thinks there will exist sufficient houses in the State to ensure that the rents on the houses referred to in the Rent Restrictions Act will no longer require to be restricted. I do suggest that, when the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is present in the House, he has a clear duty to give us that information.
I gather that there is no Minister in the House responsible for this portion of the Schedule dealing with the only point that has been raised. I gathered from the Minister for Finance that he was not responsible, and the Minister for Local Government is not responsible. I simply want to know what Minister is responsible for proposing the renewal of this Act.
The Deputy is aware that any Minister may act for any other member of the Executive Council.
But this particular Government seems to ignore that.
May I point out that possibly most members of the Executive Council are interested in one or other of the Acts which figure in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Bill, but it has never been the practice of the House to require the attendance of all the members of the Executive Council who may be interested in the Acts contained in the Schedule to this Bill?
The Minister has said that neither he nor his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, accepts responsibility for the Rent Restrictions Act.
I did not say that.
What does the Minister say? Does he accept responsibility for the Rent Restrictions Act, and, if he does, is he prepared to explain it to the House, or is his colleague the Minister for Local Government in a position to tell the House what steps he is taking to provide a better remedy for that evil than the Act responsibility for which both Ministers disclaim?
The Minister in his goodness of heart has been trying to add to the Deputy's knowledge of the procedure of the House.
The House has been given a parcel labelled in this form. The Executive Council sends it up to the House, and there is no Minister to answer for what is in the parcel. That is the position, and if that be the case it is surely making a mockery of Parliamentary proceedings. When a measure comes before the House some Minister must have responsibility for it. There is a reason for the inclusion of the measures set out in the Schedule in the Expiring Laws Bill. They are open to criticism. The Parliament of the people is entitled to discuss them, and Parliament is entitled to hear the Minister's defence for them.
And the Deputy will get that in due time, as has already been pointed out by the Chair to his colleague.
The position is that we are getting this parcel of Bills, and that no member of the Executive Council is responsible for them. Surely the members of the Executive Council are not ashamed of them. There must be some reason for them.
The House is not getting Bills. There is this one Bill.
Your ruling, Sir, has been twice appealed to as an excuse by the Minister for not answering a question as to when other legislation will be substituted for the legislation that it is now proposed to renew. Am I to understand that your ruling was intended to prevent a question being asked or to prevent that question being answered, because twice the Minister has given that interpretation of your ruling?
The Chair ruled that a debate on housing or on the slum problem or a review of the Housing Acts would not be relevant on this measure. That is clear and simple.
May I again put the question as to whether that ruled out the question that is now raised, because the Minister has taken shelter behind the allegation that it does rule out the question and rules out an answer to the question as to when other legislation will be introduced to replace the legislation that it is now proposed to re-enact. I suggest that your ruling did not rule out that. I am not asking for a justification of your ruling, but what I really want to know is the scope of your ruling: whether it rules out the question and rules out an answer to that question.
The question before the House is whether or not this Act should be renewed. On that question, the Deputy is not entitled to ask the Minister to give an exposition of the present housing position. He is entitled to ask how long the measure will be continued, or why it is necessary to continue it for the next twelve months.
I now respectfully beg leave to administer that interrogation to the Minister——
The Deputy must frame and put his own interrogation.
——modelled on the words employed by the Chair. May I ask the Minister how long he considers it will be necessary to continue this Act, and if and when he proposes to take measures to abate the evil which this Act is designed to remedy, thereby making its further continuance unnecessary?
The Deputy has departed somewhat from the words used by the Chair, particularly towards the end of his question.
And he has departed also from the question put by Deputy O'Sullivan.
The Minister is able to answer none of the questions.
May I remind Deputy Dillon of the remark which was once made in regard to Alexander Pope? He put the question: "What is an interrogation mark?", and the answer came: "A crooked little thing that always asks questions".
On a point of order. Is the Minister's refusal to answer the question put by Deputy Dillon due to a lack of responsibility or lack of knowledge?
That is not a point of order.
It is a question.
But not one to be answered by the Chair.