I move amendment No. 1:—
In line 17 to delete "1952" and substitute "1951".
I see no reason why this Bill should be continued in its present form for a period of two years. The practice was in this House in respect of legislation of this kind for a Bill to be continued from year to year and there is a very particular reason why the House should not extend the scope of this measure beyond one year. I pointed out on the Second Stage of this Bill that the Opposition would not be prepared to allow this Bill through at all if there were any other safeguards left to the public, but the position was, if we opposed this Bill, that there would be no machinery whereby the people in houses and the people who are being exploited could get any possible protection. Therefore, we are forced to agree to this measure as a temporary measure, but there is no good reason why we should give the Minister a blank cheque until December, 1952, in connection with this measure.
We have already pointed out that there are three main matters that the Minister or the Government has to deal with in this measure. They are— the question of furnished lettings, the question of temporary convenience lettings and the question of new houses built since 1941. The Minister and the Government, by referring this matter to a commission, have simply shirked their responsibility. There is no reason why the House should continue to allow the Government or the Minister to shirk their responsibility in this matter for a day longer than is necessary. We pointed out to the Minister before that the Government could make up its mind on these three vital issues that are agitating the public mind in 24 hours, if they wanted to.
There are other matters which this commission may deal with, but on these three vital questions that the public are concerned with, it is a matter of yes or no. Are the Government prepared to cut out furnished lettings from the protection afforded by the increase of rent code? If they are, the Minister could do it in this Bill. Are they prepared to stop this loophole in the increase of rent code as regards temporary convenience? If they are prepared to do that, they can do it by one line in the Bill. Are they prepared to control houses erected since 1941? If they are, they can do it in the Bill. There is no reason why these three matters should be sent to any commission, except one obvious reason, and that is that the Minister or the Government is afraid or is unprepared to give a lead to the country.
We feel that we are forced by the vacillation of the Government to allow this legislation through as it is, as a temporary measure, but we must allow it through only for the shortest possible time. Is there any reason why the Minister cannot make up his mind, irrespective of the commission, before the end of next year? Why does he want to continue this measure to December, 1952? He assured the House that the commission now sitting will have its report in very shortly and that there will be no undue delay. Then why take power here to prolong this measure for two years? Is there any reason why this Bill should be continued so long? If it is true what the Minister states, that he expects to have a report from the commission in a short time, then there is no necessity to have this Bill continued so long.
Unfortunately, the experience of the House has been that the previous commission on this subject took five years to report. The experience of the House in respect of the plethora of commissions that we have had from this Government is somewhat similar. We are waiting still to hear from many of them. I am afraid the same will happen in connection with this commission. Therefore, I urge on the House, in view of the urgent need of a decision on these three vital matters, not to give the Minister power to continue this law for another two years. If it were only for 12 months we would have something to hope for. It would give Deputies a chance to review the position in connection with the tribunal that has been set up. We can ask the Minister the why and the wherefore if nothing has been done. Surely, December, 1951, is quite long enough to give the Government a chance of making up its mind on this question?
If this amendment is not accepted, and if the Minister wants to insist on continuing this legislation to December, 1952, I want to impress on every Deputy that those who vote against the amendment will be voting for a continuance of the exploitation of those people who are being exploited in this city and elsewhere throughout the country through this gag of furnished lettings; they will be voting for a continuance of the hardships on people who have been afforded temporary convenience and they will be voting for a continuance of the hardships among the people who have been exploited through the scarcity of housing and the people who are suffering because their houses have not been controlled since 1941. Every Deputy who votes against the amendment will be voting for the policy of putting these vital matters on the long finger.
Every Deputy knows that there is no justification for referring these three vital questions to a commission. There is no justification for the Government waiting until December, 1952, to deal with these vital issues. I recommend this amendment to the House and I suggest the House should extend this measure only until December, 1951.