Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Nov 1952

Vol. 134 No. 13

Rent Restrictions (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1952—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Bill be read a Second Time. The object of the Bill is to continue in operation the existing Rent Restrictions Acts for a further period of one year, that is to say, up to the 31st December, 1953. The present Acts give protection to a large number of tenants against arbitrary increases of rent or arbitrary demands for possession, and I think that all sides of the House will agree that there can be no question of allowing these restrictions to lapse at the end of this year. In fact, I think it most unlikely that the necessity for maintaining the present controls will cease for some years to come.

As I have said, the Bill proposes to prolong the operation of the Acts for a further year. The reason for not specifying a longer period is that it may be necessary to enact a substantial number of amendments to these Acts, or perhaps to enact a new statute of a comprehensive character, when the recommendations of the Rents and Leaseholds Commission, whose report I have received, have been studied and decisions taken upon them by the Government. This commission, Deputies will recall, was set up in October, 1950, to inquire into the working of rent control, and the Rent Restrictions Acts were continued for a period of two years in the hope that the commission would report in time to permit of the preparation and enactment of any necessary legislation before the Acts expired at the end of this year.

The commission presented their report on rent control on the 24th June last. It is now being printed and will be published shortly. Without revealing the contents of the report, which are confidential until it has been published, I can say that the commission have made a large number of recommendations, many of which are of a complex character. Obviously it would not be possible to give these recommendations the thorough examination which they require and to draft and pass into law before December next whatever legislation may prove necessary. This Bill provides the necessary "breathing-space". Examination of the commission's proposals is proceeding and during the course of the coming year the House will, I hope, have an opportunity of considering the Government's proposals in the matter.

Before concluding, I think I should say a word about the significance of Section 2 of the Bill. The present Rent Restrictions Acts contain special provisions which enable landlords who incur, or have incurred, expenditure in excess of two-thirds of the basic rent on exceptional repair work during the pairs of years 1945/46 to 1951/52 to add a graduated percentage of the excess expenditure to the controlled rent. As the Bill proposes to continue the Acts in force for a further year, it is necessary to provide for the application of these special provisions to any work carried out in the two-year period 1952/53. This is done in Section 2, which follows the precedent of the 1950 Continuation Act.

General MacEoin

I think the Minister has been very unfair to the House in his introduction of this measure. Let me say, of course, that as the Minister failed to bring in a new Bill since June last, it is essential that power be given to continue the present Act in operation but that fact does not exonerate the Government or the Minister from the responsibility they have and does not relieve them of condemnation for their actions in delaying, first of all, the publication of the report and secondly, for their failure to come to a decision on the report. When I as Minister for Justice introduced a Continuation Bill in 1950 I was jeered at, scorned, and held up to ridicule by the Minister, Deputy Boland as he then was, and Deputies sitting behind him on these benches. They charged me with shirking responsibility when I set up a commission to inquire into the matter. The Minister has been kind enough to say this evening that the commission has made recommendations of a very comprehensive and complex nature. Therefore I presume that when the Minister and his back-benchers, Deputy Moran in particular, said that any Government or any Minister could solve the matter in 24 hours in 1950—the Minister has found it impossible to solve it himself since the 24th June last and that is considerably more than 24 hours—they were not then aware of the length of time it would take to deal with the problems that have to be considered. What I particularly complain about is that the Minister has not published the report of the commission since June last and, secondly, that he now comes in with this Continuation Bill. When the Minister was in opposition, he said that I could proceed with a new Bill without the slightest trouble and that I had made a very bad case for the continuation of the existing Act. If I made a bad case for the continuation of the Act at that time, it was certainly better than the case the Minister has made for it now, because he made none at all. It is agreed however that we must have this Bill because a permanent amending Bill is not ready.

My defence for not allowing the Bill to lapse two years ago was that it would be unfair to let it lapse at such short notice, that people should get an opportunity of making their case, and that, for the purpose of finding out what the case for and against the continuance of rent restrictions was, a commission should be set up. I was jeered at and told that I should set up a commission to inquire into all the commissions and the House was held up for a considerable time. It is very hard to listen with patience to the Minister's explanation now of the action of the present Government when one considers their attitude when they were in opposition. While I do admit that a Party in opposition, if they are anyway unscrupulous, can sometimes play a game that they do not play when they are in Government, I think it is a bad practice and it is a principle that should be rejected at the earliest possible moment. The problems that are presented in this House should be faced in a factual way and an attempt should be made to solve the problem, whatever it is, in the interests of the country as a whole without trying to make any political capital out of it. I cannot refrain from drawing the attention of the House through you, Sir, to what the Minister, then Deputy Boland said on the Rent Restrictions Bill which I introduced in 1950.

The Minister for Justice, who was then in opposition, said that the introduction of my Bill and the fact that I was extending it for two years and was referring the problem to a commission was a bit thick. Surely to goodness it is a bit thick to extend this Bill for another 12 months. Why should the House be asked to do that? When I was Minister for Justice I said that I hoped to have the commission's report with the recommendations it contained implemented within two years. I said I hoped to do that provided I was Minister. Fortunes, however, have reversed the position. I feel that the Department generally, and the Minister in particular, should have as much anxiety as I had to see that justice is done to all parties. I am sorry the Minister has not given us any indication whatever of his intentions. He is just asking us to renew the Bill for another 12 months. He has not told us anything of the complex nature of the recommendations which the commission have made. He has not given us any indication of what we may expect in the future, nor has he said that the commission have yet finished their report on the other aspects of the question referred to them.

The position, at any rate, is that we are being left completely in the dark. I suggest, therefore, that this Bill should not get a Second Reading until the Minister either places the commission's report in the Library or publishes it forthwith. He should do either, or else give the House an indication of the difficult and complex matters which he, as Minister, and the Government have to consider before he can bring in a comprehensive measure, or, as he has said himself, amending legislation in some respects. If I were bringing in this measure now, I think I would be more positive than the Minister and his associates were in 1950. I suggest to him that he could now bring in a measure for the setting up of a fair rent court so that under it the question of rents of houses could be settled if unfair rents are being charged or if hardships are being imposed on our people.

It is an astounding situation that property owners—and mind you they are guaranteed their rights under the Constitution—are being controlled at the 1914 level. I do not think there is any fair play in that. I should like to know what the commission have to say on it. I think the Minister should have given us some indication of what the report says on that particular aspect of the question. It is a well-known fact that both the speculative builder and those who are putting older houses in repair want to sell their houses. They do not want any more lettings, especially if any of them would come under the Rent Restrictions Acts prior to 1947. I do not like the term "landlord," and so I prefer to describe those people as property owners. They fulfil a very beneficial and important role in the community by providing houses for the people at a reasonable rent. I know, of course, that there are property owners who are unreasonable and, in some cases, unjust. It is equally true to say that there are tenants who are every bit as bad, if not worse. We all know that there are tenants who have fine substantial houses rented to them, and then proceed to sub-let them. They get from the sub-letting of rooms and flats an income that is three or four times, if not five times, the rent which they themselves pay for the whole house. That is an aspect of the question on which the Minister has not said anything. Neither has he told us what are the views of the commission on it.

On the Committee Stage of the Bill which I introduced, Deputy Moran said that any school boy could bring in a Bill to solve that problem. I have the quotations here, and if anybody challenges what I say I can give the reference. I think we are all agreed that that was said. I just refer to that to show the unfairness of the then Opposition to my Bill, and to my proposal to set up what, I think, has proved to be one of the best commissions that has ever been set up. To my knowledge, the members of that commission have worked hard in order to have their report ready in the period specified. I want, from this side of the House, to thank the members of that commission for the work they have done. I do not know what the result of their labours has been, or anything about the nature of the report they have sent in. I do feel that the Minister and the Government should have had the courtesy to let some of us on this side know what that report is like. I set up the commission, and I think that, so far as parliamentary procedure is concerned, a good practice would have been established if, in a case like this, its report were made available to this side of the House as well as to the Government. If that had been done we would have knowledge of the actual facts as ascertained by the commission, both from the property owners' side and the tenants' side.

Necessity, as I say, compels this side of the House to allow the Minister to continue this Act. I think that a period of 12 months is too long. What I fear is that another 12 months will have elapsed before a Bill is introduced. Therefore we may then be faced with another continuing Bill in December, 1953. In order to force the Minister and the Government to do something, I am proposing that the Act be extended for six months only.

I am glad that the Minister has continued the sections of the 1949 Act. As he is aware, the Act of 1947 slipped up on these two particular points and when the matter was brought to the notice of the Government they agreed to amend and did amend that particular Act. I am glad the Minister is now continuing these sections, but, as I say, six months is sufficient to enable the Government to bring in the amending legislation. They should let us have the report right away, because there is no reason why a report which has been in the hands of the Government since last June cannot be published to-day. It is not necessary for the Government to wait until they have come to certain decisions upon it before the rest of the Parliament is allowed to get even one look at what is contained in the report. Therefore, I submit that the Bill should not now be given a Second Reading. The Minister would be well advised and would be treating the House better if he decided to withdraw the Bill until the report was published. Then, when we see the complex nature of the recommendations, if we feel he wants 12 months for the continuance of this measure we could give it to him. When we see the nature of the report we will know whether or not 12 months is too long and whether six months will be sufficient to allow the Government to come to a decision and bring in a Bill to make the necessary alterations and amendments in the Act.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. Lynch)

Deputy MacEoin alleged unreasonableness against the Government Party when they were in opposition. I think the Deputy is being a little unreasonable when he expects the Government to make the report available and introduce legislation within the period before the present legislation lapses or else come back again with this Bill and have it passed through the Dáil before the end of the term, as the Deputy knows it must. With his long experience of parliamentary procedure, I think the Deputy cannot allege undue delay in regard to the report which was made available in June to the Government. He should remember that the long vacation intervened and the complicated nature of the legislation which would be necessary in connection with the rent restriction code.

General MacEoin

Any schoolboy could do it in 24 hours.

Mr. Lynch

It is not an easy thing to do. I will not attempt to challenge what the Deputy has said with reference to some remarks that were made when he was Minister. I will take his word for it. If some of these remarks were made by one of the Deputies he referred to, perhaps the Deputy had in mind some particular aspect of rent restriction legislation. I do not think I was in the House at the time. At any rate, I would not subscribe to it, because it is a complex matter. I compliment Deputy MacEoin on the commission which he appointed. I think the remarks he made in reference to it will be endorsed not only in this House but throughout the country generally, particularly in any place where the commission sat to hear complaints and suggestions with regard to rents, lettings and other matters pertaining to this Act.

The Deputy is not being quite fair when he asks that the Bill should be refused a Second Reading. He knows that rent restriction must be maintained for the present at least. Assuming the report of the commission came into the hands of the Government in June last, I do not think he could reasonably expect that a comprehensive Bill based on the recommendations in that report could be introduced and passed by the end of this Dáil term. He knows also that as soon as the Dáil reassembles after the Christmas recess regard must be had to the financial business and there will be very little opportunity for new legislation from that up to the summer recess, particularly legislation such as must be based on the report of the commission. I have not seen that report and I have not the faintest idea of any one recommendation made in it. But, having regard to the number of sittings the commission held and the many difficult matters that I know must be attended to, I do not think it would be unreasonable if we gave at least one more year within which this legislation could be introduced and passed by the House.

Everybody knows that the position of landlords is becoming more difficult under this legislation, particularly landlords of old property, which is liable to go into disrepair very easily. The tendency is, if they can help it at all, not to carry out proper repairs. That not only imposes a hardship on the tenants, but eventually a hardship on the landlords if they are ultimately forced to carry out repairs which they find are uneconomic, having regard to the amount of rent they can claim in return even with the permitted increases under existing legislation. In some cases, also, the permitted increases have worked adversely against the tenants, because the different percentages that the landlord can charge for the amount of money he spends on repairs often impose such a burden on the tenant as to render it more economic for him to abandon the house altogether. The sad part of it is that the landlord, instead of taking the chance of re-letting the house, puts it immediately on the market for sale. The net position is that there are fewer and fewer privately-owned houses available for letting to people who would prefer to live in a rented house rather than in a house which they could purchase even under the various means designed to promote house purchase amongst the community.

If house rents are not protected, it is easy for a landlord to get a fairly good rent. But, until such time as there is an overall code, without limitation as to the houses built from 1941 onwards or in the course of being built, and comprehensive legislation introduced to deal with the whole problem of house property and lettings and rent restrictions, such legislation as is now being introduced will be necessary. For that reason I suggest to Deputy MacEoin that it would be better in the interests of the community generally, in the interests of the judiciary and the legal practitioners who have to have regard to rent legislation every day, that time should be given for the proper preparation and introduction of a comprehensive Bill.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Parliamentary Secretary's contribution would have come far better from him if he were still on this side of the House, because he appreciates, as every Deputy does, the urgency for a complete overhaul of legislation in relation to rent restriction. The complaint which has been made by Deputy MacEoin is a reasonable one, that now, five months after the commission's report reached the hands of the Government, neither property owners, tenants nor Deputies of this House are aware of any particular recommendation of that report. I think that that is wrong. This is a reasonable complaint to make. I cannot see why it should take five months to bring the collective wisdom of the Government to bear on these recommendations and then to publish the report. The position now is that the Minister comes into the House with an unanswerable case. With only four or five weeks left before the expiration of the present Act no one can suggest that a completely new Bill could be drafted. Therefore, the Minister is entitled to his extension but considerable delay has taken place and I think that is regrettable. This House is asked to extend the Rent Restrictions Act for another 12 months and there is no Deputy who does not realise that that will mean 12 months' further delay. We will not see a Bill extending the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act one minute sooner than the Minister is compelled to introduce it. The passage of this continuing Bill will place another 12 months' delay on very necessary and urgent legislation.

I do not know whether the Minister appreciates the urgency of the matter but the Parliamentary Secretary I am sure does. There are thousands of houses in the city, in the City of Cork and throughout the country generally that are not controlled at all by any provision of the Rent Restrictions Act. Every house built after 1941 is on the free letting market. Any rent that can be obtained by avaricious landlords and landladies is being obtained by them. Cases have been cited—and were cited in the debate two years ago—of very exorbitant rents which are charged for new houses built by speculative builders and let to the needy or to those anxious to get married and it was urged by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary as Deputies in opposition and by other Fianna Fáil Deputies at that time that the seriousness of this problem made the case for the extension of rent restrictions one of top priority.

I, therefore, urge on the Minister the fact that the large and increasing number of uncontrolled houses makes some extensions of the rent restrictions code a matter of very intense urgency. Apart from the newer houses, those houses built since 1941 which are not at present controlled, there is the very serious problem of furnished lettings. To deal with the problem of furnished lettings which are outside the Rent Restrictions Act was one of the main purposes for which this Rents Commission was established. Again, I to urge on the Minister the fact that injustice is done every day by lettings, ostensibly furnished lettings, which are accepted by those in need of housing accommodation and which are outside the scope of the Rent Restrictions Act. I do not think it is necessary to emphasise the importance of this matter.

I was particularly astonished to hear either the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister—I do not know which—referring to a new code or a new Bill dealing with rent restrictions. I suggest to the Minister not to have that. We have a most complicated and detailed Act at the moment dealing with rent restrictions, and the only part of it which needs to be extended is Section 3, nothing else. Whatever the report of the commission may be, I hope that the country, property owners and tenants will not be faced with a new, detailed Rent Restrictions Act. All the necessary provisions exist at the moment, indeed provisions which are so complicated as to defeat their own purpose. The only thing to be considered is the application of this very complete code which already exists. All that must be considered by the Government is to what extent it should apply to new houses and to furnished lettings and what restrictions should be made in relation to what are called 1923 Act premises—premises previously controlled by the 1923 Rent Act—and premises which have a basic rent fixed on 1914 standards. Undoubtedly, some modification is necessary in these cases because of the passage of time and the change in values, but it seems to me that those are the only things that need to be considered by any Minister seeking to bring rents under control in accordance with the needs of the moment.

I cannot see for the life of me why that could not have been done in the five months that have elapsed since the report of this commission went into the hands of the Government. I trust that, in the early spring, in the next two or three months, the Minister will find himself in a position to introduce the necessary proposals for legislation into this House. If it has not been done before the Dáil rises for the summer, then, when it reassembles next autumn, the Minister, whoever he may be, will again be making the case: "Well, it is so near now to the expiration of the Rent Restrictions Act that it would not be reasonable to expect me to rush a Bill through in a matter of weeks. You had better extend the Act for another 12 months." I think the delay was unfortunate, I believe that it was avoidable, and I hope that the Minister, in view of the opinions given on both sides of the House, will appreciate the intense urgency of the entire problem.

Mr. Burke

I do not think that it would be wise to take the attitude which Deputy General MacEoin took to this Bill when he said that it should not be accepted but that the Minister should bring in another Bill. This Rent Restrictions Act is very important. From my experience in my own area, I feel that it does not go far enough in certain cases. The Rent Restrictions Act may not be fully known to most people throughout the country and it is their own fault if they do not take advantage of it.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear!

Mr. Burke

We must treat the matter fairly and see that no injustice is done to one side or the other. In reviewing the report of the commission the Minister is wise to consider it from every aspect and get all the advice possible. Hasty legislation for this very important matter would not serve the country. The people who acted on that commission under the last Government were very honourable people and it is above political Party concerns. For that reason we want some machinery which will be fair to all parties concerned.

There is another point which I would like the Minister to consider. I and other Deputies have been up against a problem where a man has a caretaker's agreement in a house; he falls out with his employer and he is thrown out on the roadside with his wife and family. I have met with many cases of that kind during my years in public life and I would like to see some action taken to ensure that families will be saved from the shocking position of being thrown on the roadside with their chattels.

It is possible for people to come into court and make a case that they want to take possession of a house. I have known cases where they have got people out of a house and knocked it down. Some co-operation should exist between the local authorities and the courts so that people would not be thrown out of their homes in this manner. I have been appealing to the local authority in County Dublin and to the Dublin Corporation to house people of that kind. It is even a greater hardship on people than having to pay increased rent because you cannot inflict any greater hardship on people than to degrade them by taking away their homes and leaving them on the roadside. I would like the Minister to introduce legislation to eliminate that hardship. Last week I came across a case where three families were evicted and thrown on the roadside. This is a disgraceful state of affairs which I want to see remedied. I would appeal to the Minister to frame legislation which will prevent that situation from arising.

Mr. Davin

I know as well as the Minister that in this matter Deputy MacEoin speaks with considerable knowledge of the position behind the scenes and of what has been done already during the time he was in office and since he left office to bring this whole matter to some definite conclusion. I support his suggestions as sensible and reasonable and believe that it is the only way we can assist the Minister in dealing with this whole matter and bringing in the necessary amending legislation within a reasonable period.

Deputy O'Higgins and other speakers have pointed out that the report came into the possession of the Minister and the Government in mid-June. Deputy Lynch, the Parliamentary Secretary, seems to think that the Government has not had a reasonable chance of examining that report and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government he rather surprised me by stating that he does not know what is in the report.

Mr. G. Boland

He does not sit at Government meetings.

Mr. Davin

They had five months to consider this matter and during three of the five months this House was not in session. Surely the three months during which the House was not in session was a fairly reasonable time for the Minister and his colleagues to give some attention and examination to what he describes as the complicated nature of the report and the recommendations. I have an idea that if we just leave things as they are, the Minister, if he is there this time 12 months—and there is grave doubt about that—will come up with the same old story. I do not refer to the Minister personally in that sense but it is the excuse that will be handed to him.

The Parliamentary Secretary pretends to be worried about the difficulties concerning landlords. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of the serious problems which arise from day to day and about which his colleague, Deputy Burke, seems to know more than they do.

Mr. Lynch

Do not try to misrepresent what I said, please.

Mr. Davin

Deputy O'Higgins has properly pointed out that tens of thousands of young people anxious to get married and seeking suitable accommodation in this city and in the provincial towns, including those in my own constituency, are getting a very raw deal from landlords or the owners of houses. There is no law as far as I know to check their activities or if there is any law in existence to check their activities, full advantage is not being taken of the law.

Mr. O'Higgins

There is no law.

Mr. Davin

Prospective tenants, newly-married people, are being fleeced in the city and suburbs of Dublin and in the provincial towns. Deputy Burke has instanced several cases in support of that statement.

Mr. Lynch

The Deputy is referring to a different thing altogether.

Mr. Davin

I am suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he were fully acquainted with the conditions in this City of Dublin and some of the provincial towns—I am not suggesting he does not know his own Cork City very well—he would realise there is great necessity for the introduction of this amending legislation. I hope the Minister will stand up now and say that he agrees that Deputies, the people who are responsible for the making of our laws, should have this report furnished to them without further delay. I suspect he will stand up and say, as has been said to me in other matters: "There was a printers' strike and probably that was the cause of the delay in the printing and circulation of the report of this commission." That plausible excuse concerning the printing of legislation passed by this House has been given to me in regard to other matters. There was a case—and the Minister is concerned here-brought before a Circuit Court quite recently where a certified copy of the green Bill passed by this Oireachtas would not be accepted by a judge as evidence that that was the legal position.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling very far.

Mr. Davin

I was told that was due to the printers' strike. Go and put printers on overtime. Go and employ printers if there are any walking about and get this report which we have as good a right to see as you who have seen and been studying it for six months. We have a right to see this report without further delay. If the printers' strike is the real reason for not giving the recommendations of this commission to Deputies up to now, tell the Government printers to provide employment for unemployed printers and circulate this report without any more excuses of this kind.

I hope the Minister will tell us now that the report will be printed and circulated at once and that he will give the House an undertaking—I think it is a reasonable request to make—that the necessary amending legislation, if this Bill is passed here to-day, will be in operation before this time 12 months.

Mr. D. Costello

As I heard the Minister's remarks, he appeared to be somewhat critical of the delay by the commission which was set up by his predecessors in connection with a very difficult and complex problem on which that commission had to report. I would like to endorse what has been said here already by members of this House, that that commission was one of the ablest and best commissions set up by this House and that it did its difficult and complex work in a most expeditious and able manner. I would indeed think it very churlish of the Minister to criticise the length of time taken in dealing with such a difficult problem in view of the fact that all the Minister had to do was to consider their recommendations and publish them.

Mr. Boland

Would the Deputy give way for one moment? I do not think I made any such criticism or implied in any way that I had any objection to make to the way the commission did their work. I would not like that to go forth and I would ask the Deputy to state in what way he received that impression.

Mr. D. Costello

It was as I heard him over here. I am glad to hear the Minister say that that was not the case.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy's impression was not correct and I would ask him to withdraw the statement.

Mr. D. Costello

Certainly, I accept what the Minister says.

Mr. Boland

That satisfies me.

Mr. D. Costello

I understood the Minister made some reference to the fact that this commission had been over two years in operation and I took that to be criticism to the effect that this commission had taken so long. I do, as I say, believe that the Minister has been guilty of very great delay in giving to the House the recommendations of this commission.

It is quite obvious from the discussion that has taken place here this evening, and it must be obvious to the Minister from the reports that he has had from his advisers and from his own experience that the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, as it operates at the present time, operates in such a fashion as to bring grave hardships on landlords and tenants, and is in need of very careful amendment.

Mr. Lynch

That is the point I was making and Deputy Davin tried to misrepresent it.

Mr. D. Costello

I do not know whether Deputy Davin misrepresented the Parliamentary Secretary or not, but the point I wish to make is that the Rent Restrictions Act works hardship on both landlords and tenants.

Mr. Davin

Yes.

Mr. D. Costello

Landlords and tenants suffer hardship because of the financial inability of landlords to carry out repairs as a result of the restrictions imposed by this Act. There is the case given by Deputy O'Higgins of numerous tenants who reside in premises erected since 7th May, 1941. The present provisions operate to set up a privileged class of landlords. There is a privileged class of landlords who are lucky to have houses which were erected before 7th May, 1941.

There is also the question of hardship resulting from at least two recent decisions which have come to my notice, as a result of which the family of a deceased tenant who had not taken out administration of the deceased tenant's estate are no longer able to avail of the protection given by the Act to the tenant. It must be obvious to the Minister that these are matters which require to be remedied, that they are matters which inflict injustices, the remedying of which should not be delayed.

I was rather appalled to hear the Parliamentary Secretary state that it was a difficult matter and had to be considered, and, as everybody knew, that financial business would take precedence after Christmas and that it might well be after the summer that we would get these matters remedied. Our main criticism of the Bill to-day is that the Minister has had this report in his possession for five months. Either he has not shown it to the Government or the Parliamentary Secretary was not present at the meeting of the Government.

Mr. Boland

He never is present at Government meetings. I want that to be clear. He does not attend Government meetings.

Mr. Davin

What is the meaning of "Parliamentary Secretary to the Government"?

Mr. Boland

It does not matter. He does not attend Government meetings.

Mr. D. Costello

Has the report been considered by the Government?

Mr. Boland

I will tell you when I am replying. I wanted to correct you about the Parliamentary Secretary. He does not attend Government meetings.

Mr. D. Costello

I would be very glad to hear from the Minister, when replying, if this matter has been presented to the Government and if a decision has been taken by the Government on it, because I would consider it an appalling state of affairs that this report should have been in the hands of the Minister for over five months if the Government have not taken a decision on it. This House and the public would be very anxious to learn if the Government have taken a decision on it.

Our criticism at this stage is that the Minister has allowed the situation to slide and has not taken any steps to remedy the matter. We feel that by introducing this legislation, which we all admit is necessary, he is merely postponing taking a decision on these very difficult problems. I consider it necessary that rent restriction should be maintained—we have to maintain rent restriction of some sort—but our present legislation should be amended. I would ask the Minister to deal with this matter expeditiously and to bring in amending legislation at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Boland

Every idle word that man shall speak, he shall render an account of it. I have been looking over what I said when my predecessor had a Bill in 1950 to continue the Act for two years. I do not think that anything I said was very wrong. I would say the same to-day in the same circumstances because, like Deputy O'Higgins, I thought there were two problems urgently requiring to be dealt with. There was one in particular about which I was being pestered. As I pointed out on that occasion, when I was Minister before that, regularly every two months I was asked about furnished lettings. I said, when the last continuing Bill was being discussed, that I did not believe our Government could have delayed legislation about furnished lettings much longer. We did not put any questions down to the Minister about it because we knew the difficulties. That is one question that was considered to be urgent then.

The other was whether houses built since 1941 ought to be controlled. When I was putting the 1946 Rent Restrictions Bill to the House I gave a warning to all those who were building houses from then on that if evidence came before the Government that they were over-charging, that they were charging excessive rents, they would be controlled. I thought that it was the general feeling of both Houses at the time that it would be unwise to control them then because, if we did control them, there was very little likelihood of houses being built for letting, except by local authorities. For that reason, they were given a certain period in which to let their house at reasonable rents and, if unreasonable rents were charged, it was a matter that would have to be dealt with.

These were the two questions that Deputy O'Higgins said could have been dealt with by me in the five months and I said that my attitude in 1950 was that if the then Minister wished to do it, he could have done it. He knows as well as I do that a draft Bill was presented to the Government shortly before we left office. He is well aware of that. He is aware that it was brought before him on more than one occasion and that it was shelved. Therefore I did feel justified in saying that it was only a question of shelving the whole problem to set up a commission. That does not mean for one moment that I do not believe that the commission has done very valuable work and has been very painstaking. I am not denying that. There were urgent problems to be dealt with. I am asked: "Why did not you deal with them?" Out of courtesy to the commission I had to wait to get their report, to see what they would recommend and to see what action they proposed to take. Deputy Davin knew very well that it was an obviously good excuse that I had for its not being circulated. Undoubtedly, it was the printers' strike. I will give him the time-schedule and will ask Deputies to say whether it was reasonable or not. The report was presented to the Government on June 24th, 1952; the Government approved printing of it on 15th July; it was sent to the Stationery Office for printing on 24th July; the Stationery Office sent it to the printer on 2nd August—that is not undue delay. The complete set of proofs was received from the printers on 11th October; it was sent to the Stationery Office for final proof on 18th October; final proof was received in my Department on 1st November and final proof was passed for printing and sent by my Department to the Stationery Office on 10th November, 1952. I do not think that any fair-minded man could say that there was undue delay.

Deputy Costello wants to know if the Government has come to a decision on this report. They have not—for a very good reason. When a commission like this has concluded its sittings and has made its report, it is only right and proper that everybody in the country should know what is contained in that report. It always takes some time to get that public reaction. The people concerned, both tenants and property owners, are entitled to know what has been proposed by this commission. Then they can send their observations into the Department or publish them by letters to the Press. As I have said, it will take some time to get that public reaction. That is why the Government has not taken a decision and I have not asked them to do so. The final proof was passed on the 10th of November and this is only the 19th. When the copies are ready they will be circulated. We have had to check the proofs to see that everything was right and I submit that there has been no undue delay.

In my opinion, six months would be insufficient time in which to prepare a Bill based on this report. No one knows that better than Deputy MacEoin. It might be all right to do as Deputy O'Higgins said—but that should have been done two years ago when Deputy MacEoin set up the commission.

General MacEoin

Cannot the Minister do it now?

Mr. Boland

No. It would be an act of discourtesy to the commission.

General MacEoin

Never mind that.

Mr. Boland

I do; even if the Deputy does not, I do. The report is worth considering and it is worth while letting the people concerned give us their reactions before anything is done.

General MacEoin

It would not be nearly as discourteous as saying that the report is slovenly.

Mr. Boland

Deputy MacEoin was not here when I started. I have read again what I said to him and he can look at it. I do not think I have said anything discourteous.

When he promised to have it before the elections, I said: "Do not make us laugh". I think I was entitled to say that, as the election was over 18 months ago, and the Bill has not been produced yet. I was a bit of a prophet on that occasion. Again I say that six months will not do. It will probably be the autumn session before we have it finished. I would be surprised if we have not got the Bill—whatever Government is here—by the autumn session.

General MacEoin

Is the Minister giving that as an undertaking?

Mr. Boland

Certainly not. I give it as my opinion. If I am here, I will do my best to have the Bill, based on the report of this commission, passed before this time 12 months; but I say that at least it will be the autumn session—I cannot say anything else. There is a lot of other legislation and also the financial business. Deputy Costello is a young Deputy, and whatever he may think he will find that the spring and summer are always taken up with financial business, and we cannot avoid that. I will not be able to have a Bill ready for the session coming after Christmas, before the financial business. Therefore, it will be the beginning of the autumn session. For that reason, the minimum time is 12 months. The report will be circulated as soon as we get it printed.

General MacEoin

You will have five months' freedom inside that time. Surely that is a reasonable time for the Minister and the Government to hammer out a Bill and get agreement on it?

Mr. Boland

What about other important matters? Have we not got to talk about the other business and try to get agreement regarding the time taken up by Deputies who want to discuss those matters here?

General MacEoin

The Minister will have three months' freedom out of five before then.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy did not take the slightest note of what I said. I am tired repeating myself, but I cannot convince him. He should not be so unreasonable.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

Mr. Boland

Perhaps there would be no objection to taking it now? The Deputy has made a suggestion about cutting down time and I might as well suggest that now.

General MacEoin

This day week.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th November, 1952.