It was understood, Sir, that we should propound our inquiries to the Minister for Finance on the Second Stage of the Bill, and that on this Stage the Ministers responsible for the various Bills would answer the inquiries made. Is it proposed to do that on Section 1 or on Section 2?
Expiring Laws Bill, 1935—Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I suppose we will do it on the Schedule, Sir?
It can be done on the Schedule.
Whatever suits the Minister's convenience.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule as set out be the Schedule to the Bill."
I am not clear as to the procedure which Deputy Dillon proposes to follow in this connection. I did say that if Deputies would be good enough to raise, on the Second Stage, any points on which they might require further information, no doubt the Ministers affected by the Bills would be available in the House. There were really only two matters mentioned during the Second Reading that were of such importance as to call for comment. One of those related to the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act which it is proposed to renew by the Bill, and the other is the Central Purchasing Act. I think Deputy Dillon and Deputy Davin, as I said on the last occasion, spoke at some length, but, I must say, with relevance which I could not appreciate, on the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act. As I ventured to remark on that occasion, it appeared to me that their criticisms cancelled each other out. The other matter which was referred to was the Central Purchasing Act, and I do not think that there was any really important matter raised there beyond a request for some indication as to the Government's intentions in regard to that measure. As has already been indicated in the memoranda which have been circulated to Deputies, dealing with the enactments which are covered by this Bill, it is the intention of the Government to introduce a permanent measure at an early date, upon which no doubt the House will have an opportunity of expressing its views for and against the merits of the central purchasing arrangement.
At column 1146, Volume 59, No. 4, of the Official Debates, the Minister for Finance spoke as follows on the Second Stage of this Bill:—
"Memoranda explanatory of the enactments which are being continued have already been circulated to Deputies for their information, and if Deputies will be good enough on this Stage to raise any matters in relation to these expiring enactments which they think it advisable to raise, their points could possibly be dealt with at greater length on the Committee Stage by the Ministers who are more intimately concerned than I am with the operation of these measures."
There is an avowal by the Minister for Finance that he knows nothing about expiring laws. He invites Deputies to mention the points which they wish to have dealt with, and indicates that he will ask his colleagues to answer those points on the Committee Stage. Now we have come to the Committee Stage. In he pops again; mildly protests that he knows nothing whatever about the Bill, murmurs a few platitudes and sits down again. If the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who is here in the House at this moment, intends to reply to the points raised, there seems to be no reason why he should not proceed to do so. Deputy Davin raised points on the last day. Deputy Davin ran out of the House a few minutes ago in order to avoid voting in a division. All his colleagues ran out of the House with him, but he has run back again, and he is here. I thought he would have the decency to pretend that he had gone home, or had been called away for an urgent appointment. He has not. He has nakedly come back. He says publicly: "I was afraid of my life to vote against de Valera in the last division, but here I am; I have come back again."
Where are all your supporters?
The rest of his colleagues are still cowering in their committee room. I suppose they will come trundling back too.
What has all this got to do with expiring laws?
I repeat to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that I want to know whether he would consider waiving the proviso about inconvenience in the Rent Restrictions Act in regard to housing in rural areas, with a view to increasing the number of houses which will be speculatively built for the purpose of renting to tenants, as opposed to houses speculatively built for the purpose of selling to owners. Deputy Moore on the last occasion could not understand how I differentiated between speculative building in urban areas and in rural areas. It is, of course, perfectly simple to anybody who knows the conditions obtaining in the two places. In cities like Dublin, and elsewhere, speculative builders build with a view to selling their houses to the persons who will occupy them. Deputy Corish has now returned from the committee room, and he will endorse what I say——
Yes, and I will return when the Deputy is not able.
He will endorse my statement that, in places like Wexford, houses are usually built for the purpose of selling to the prospective tenants rather than for letting them. I have no doubt that Deputy Murphy of West Cork when he plucks up courage will come back into the chamber and will be able to confirm what I say that in rural areas——
None of the Deputy's colleagues will come back while he is talking.
——the speculative builder is not building for setting. I invite the Minister's attention to that problem. I also raised the question of the central purchasing business and I asked the Minister to give his view whether the central purchasing scheme had achieved the purpose that it was set on foot to achieve. Secondly, I asked him to make this the occasion of explaining authoritatively what were the Department's regulations in respect to minor purchases which obviously could not be done through the official contractors. I believe that Deputy Davin will raise the points again that he raised on the Second Stage, and I am sure that both he and I will appreciate it if the Minister will intervene and take this opportunity to explain the questions which were asked.
Deputy Dillon did not explain at the outset why so many of his own colleagues absented themselves from the House on the last occasion, or what was the reason they have been pairing with Fianna Fáil Deputies so as to bring the attendance in this House down to half its normal size. Perhaps he will take advantage of a Committee Stage of this kind to give an explanation, to which the country, I am sure, is anxiously looking forward. Deputy Dillon, who has played the part of the obstructionist in this House for some time past, had the courage, I admit, on the Second Stage of the Bill to advocate the total abolition of the existing rent restrictions regardless of the hardships that such a recommendation would bring to the majority of tenants in the cities and towns of this country. I am glad the Minister for Justice has come back to the House, because I think the Minister for Justice is the only Minister who can tell us what is the present position of the Government regarding the proposal made by Deputy Dillon and their attitude towards it, and also to what extent the Ministry propose to carry out the promises made on their behalf in the election of 1932. I understand these promises were made by the President in his speech in the constituency represented by the Minister for Justice. I am sure the promises made by the President in 1932 were not made without previous consultation with the Minister for Justice. Surely it is reasonable to expect that the Minister for Justice and his colleagues in the Executive Council would have made up their minds as to how far they are prepared to go to carry out the promises made at that particular period and which referred to the hardships imposed on the town tenants in connection with certain sections of the Rent Restrictions and Mortgage Act. I am not sure whether the Minister has had time to look into these matters since they were raised, but I am sure he will make it quite clear to obstructionist Deputy Dillon, who is always anxious to introduce something which has nothing to do with the matter under discussion, that they are not going to remove the existing restrictions, simple as they are, and that he will also give some indication to the House and to the people who are anxious to hear from him on matters of this kind, what the intentions of the Government are in regard to the existing grievances of town tenants.
Deputy Dillon has alleged that the Rent Restrictions Act has prevented speculative builders operating. I cannot see how this Act was likely to contribute in any way towards preventing speculative builders carrying out schemes, because under the Rent Restrictions Act any house that was built after April, 1919, was excluded from the provisions of that Act. I think it has not been found in practice so far, at least it has not been brought to our notice, that it has in any way interfered with speculative builders. There is in the Act a guarantee that any house erected after a certain date in 1919 would not be subject to the restrictions imposed and it has not been brought to our notice that the operations of such builders have been prejudiced as Deputy Dillon has stated. Deputy Davin raised a number of matters on this Bill. One was the Donnelly case. I am aware of the decision in the Donnelly case. That has been examined by us and if we were not satisfied that there were only very few cases of that nature something would have been done to remedy that position. The courts have interpreted the law in that case in a manner which was not our interpretation of it, and if we were satisfied that there would be any number of cases affected by that decision we certainly would have taken steps to remedy it. However, it is a matter that is being inquired into.
Speaking here on the last day Deputy Davin commented on what he considered the rather ridiculous procedure adopted by me in trying to get some solution of the town tenants' grievances. He talked about the unreasonable attitude I had taken up in asking the organisation to go through the country and get particulars of different cases. I have had several interviews with the various organisations of the town tenants and I must say that the organisations themselves never regarded as ridiculous and unreasonable the request that they should come forward with certain proposals, and that they should be able to substantiate them by examples. I have got various proposals. Some of them may seem ridiculous proposals, but whatever proposals I have got have been examined and have been very fully discussed with various deputations of the organisation. The difficulties have been explained, and I think they have been understood. Here is an organisation set up to represent the town tenants of the whole country. They say that there are certain grievances existing throughout the country with regard to town tenants. Surely it is only reasonable that I, who have to come here to the House with any proposal that is going to contribute towards a solution of these grievances, should be able to substantiate the case for it before the House by examples of typical cases. I did not ask them to do anything elaborate. I merely asked them could they not put before me definite or typical examples of their grievances. I said that as soon as these examples were submitted they would be examined and action taken. Whether or not it was ridiculous to ask them does not matter, because they have supplied such examples, and though they are far from satisfactory, they have been examined and I promise that there will be a pronouncement in a very short time as to the action that is going to be taken on them. It is not unreasonable to ask people who say that certain grievances exist to substantiate their case, and the organisation themselves did not consider it unreasonable.
Does the Minister not think that the town tenants' organisation could not produce to him cases of hardship or could not prove them unless they had access to documents in the possession of house landlords? They could not satisfy the Minister completely and they could not be expected——
I did not want them.
It has been done by a body like the Meredith Commission. The Minister surely has given some consideration to the report made by that body. Does he suggest to the House that there is nothing contained in the report or recommendations of the Meredith Commission which would justify his bringing in a Town Tenants Bill since 1932?
I should like to remind the Deputy that the demands put forward now are very different from those that were made before the Meredith Commission. The case which is being made about compulsory purchase was not even raised before the Meredith Commission.
It was considered before President de Valera made that promise in Castlerea.
I do not know what the promise was.
The promise was that if they got into office in 1932 one of the first Bills to be introduced would be a Town Tenants Bill.
That was not a promise. It was a statement. I compliment the Minister for Justice because he has told us exactly what we wanted to know. He has answered the queries put by Deputy Davin and myself. Would the Minister for Local Government be good enough to give us his views on this central purchasing scheme?
Deputy Dillon asked if the Minister is satisfied with the operations of the Central Purchasing Act which has been in operation, I think, almost since Saorstát Eireann was established. We are quite satisfied with the working of that Act. We think that it has in two particular ways been of considerable benefit to the country, as a whole, and to local authorities. It has contributed to the establishment here of industries that, were it not for the opportunities offered by the combined purchasing scheme, might not be established. Some of these industries are in a good way of business, employing a considerable number of hands, and doing well for themselves and for the local authorities that they exist to supply chiefly.
We are also satisfied that the operations of the Act have saved the local authorities a very considerable amount of money. It would be difficult to get anything like an exact figure. Probably after long examination and analysis of the prices paid, taking different times and circumstances into consideration, the prices paid 15 and 16 years ago for certain commodities by local authorities and the prices paid over the period of the last five years or so, we might be able to get some kind of estimate. But I am told by the Department that many thousands of pounds have been saved and that that has not resulted in the goods supplied being of any less value. The goods supplied have been equally good products and in many cases of better materials than were supplied under the old system. That I am sure of.
Deputy Dillon raised on the last day another point about the difficulties local authorities had to encounter with regard to what he termed, I think, minor purchases. I think Deputy Dillon referred to small things like screws, nuts, and bolts required for engines, water works, etc. So far as these things are concerned, no difficulty has ever been put before me since I became Minister. I have never heard of any difficulty having arisen with regard to these small matters. If the Deputy is aware of any cases where there were difficulties raised by the combined purchasing department, or the Department of Local Government as a whole, as the result of purchases of that kind having been made locally at a higher price than these goods could be bought from the contractors, whoever they are, I would be glad to hear of them. My view is, and I think it is the view taken by those in charge of the combined purchasing section, that in matters of that kind, where an urgent necessity arises, and they have to buy locally for immediate purposes, there is no question raised as to the price. It is only where they can provide for stocks by looking forward that their stocks and the prices paid are examined, and if any question arises with regard to purchasing locally at a price higher than they could have purchased from the contractors, then there is a liability to surcharge.
I appreciate the Minister's observations. The net difficulty about minor purchases is that when you pay, say, 6d. for a certain small quantity of screws, the Local Government auditor may surcharge——
Mr. O. Ceallaigh
It is always remitted.
——because you did not get that small quantity at the contract price. I quite recognise that the Department is reasonable and subsequently remit the surcharges, but where there is no established rule what actually happens is that there is a long correspondence about each detail. It would be simple enough to pay 2d.—I would not mind that—in order to get the screws quickly and submit to the surcharge, but it is the persecution of having to write about ten letters and having the merchant lying out of his money, which is no more than 6d. or 1/-, waiting for the secretary to the board of health or the secretary to the county council to pass the bill for payment, which gives rise to trouble. Perhaps the Minister will look into that and see if some general ruling could be given to remove the necessity for that unnecessary correspondence.
I will see.
Was the Minister's attention directed to the question of surgical instruments, and did he investigate the operations of the contractor supplying surgical instruments which proved wholly unsatisfactory to certain local medical officers and a county surgeon?
There was only one case where the question of supplying surgical instruments came under my notice and that was in relation to a new hospital. I have not had any case brought to my notice about supplies to older hospitals and dispensary medical officers. There have been some difficulties between the surgeons of a new hospital, certain local authorities, and the Department with regard to the amount to be paid and the quality of the surgical instruments to be supplied. We have got the representatives of the local authorities, the medical officers concerned and the chief inspector of the Department of Local Government to come together and I think the matters have been all satisfactorily ironed out.
Question put and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.