I move amendment No. 1: —
In line 23, to delete "December" and substitute "July."
The reason for the amendment is to reduce by six months the period during which the Minister is to bring in a permanent Bill. It is quite clear that there is grave dissatisfaction amongst both tenants and property owners in regard to the delay. The case has been made to me that both sides require and are anxious to obtain at the earliest possible moment permanent legislation. Speaking on the Second Reading, I repeated the criticism of my efforts when I brought in my Bill in 1951, that it would take two years which was too long. The Minister is now adding another year to what he himself and some of his supporters behind him admitted was too long a period.
I concur with that and I respectfully submit, Sir, that the Minister had in the six months between now and July ample time to bring in a permanent measure thereby meeting the wishes of both the tenants and the property owners. There is insecurity for the tenants who are not sure of what the conditions will be at the end of 12 months in regard to the protection which they have at the moment and for the landlords or property owners — I think it is better to call them property owners than landlords — inasmuch as they are afraid to make agreements with people for the renting of houses to which the Rent Restrictions Act does not apply.
With regard to the houses outside the scope of the Act, there was evidence at the time that the property owners in Cork, for instance, were increasing out of all proportion the rent of certain houses. I think that, as the Act stands, they were at liberty to do so. I am aware that in certain cases in the city, property owners are making full use of the exemptions that already exist. On the other hand, I am aware that property owners are suffering very grave hardships. I do not know what the rights or wrongs of that are but the Rent Commission was set up to inquire into all these matters and they have made a report.
I think we are suffering from a certain disability in not having that report. To-day I asked the Minister if he proposed publishing it and if the Government had decided anything in the matter. The Minister said that no decision had been taken but that the report was being published. For the purpose of assisting us on this side of the House, as well as assisting himself, the Minister should have given us an advance copy of that report so that we would be in a position to know what the recommendations were when this measure was brought in.
The Minister knows what is in the report at the moment and knows whether 12 months is necessary or not. I do not know, but having regard to the evidence which I possess, the conclusion I have come to is that 12 months is too long and six months is ample. I, therefore, move the amendment.