(Cavan-Monaghan): I must of necessity be very brief because after we conclude this Bill I understand the House, in order to permit the Government and the public services to be carried on, has to agree to estimates totalling over £2,000 million between now and 10.30 p.m.
The next thing I want to say is that I do not intend to follow the Minister into whatever sort of a conflict exists between the Construction Industry Federation and himself; one thing is clear and that is that the honeymoon is over and divorce seems to be imminent.
I want to thank the Minister for the way he dealt with this Bill, which was introduced at a very unsuitable time during the final days of this session although a Housing Bill has not been introduced since 1966. It was only by slaving here for entire days, practically without anything to eat, that we succeeded in giving this Bill a reasonable processing. It has certainly left the House in a much better state and that is due to the fact that the Minister listened patiently to arguments put up by this side of the House and accepted many of them, as witnessed by the fact that he put down 16 amendments to meet points brought forward on this side. I thank him for that. I still believe that, if the Bill has been introduced at a time when we could have had a Committee Stage spread over a few weeks and a Report Stage, we would have a much better Bill. For example, as regards CRVs, the Minister refused to yield to our suggestion that he should give reasons for refusing to grant these certificates and should give a decision within a certain time. The Bill stands with this objectionable provisions still in it. I am satisfied that when the first case under this Bill comes before the Circuit Court it will either be adjourned for interrogatories—a system of getting information from one of the parties necessary to hear the appeal in a reasonable way—or the judge will adjourn the case in order to allow the Minister to give reasons for refusing the certificate so that he can hear the appeal. In that case the costs of the day will be given against the Minister.
I wish to go on record as saying that I still think and that time and experience will prove before long that the Circuit Court or indeed any court is not a suitable tribunal to process appeals of this sort. A Circuit Court judge without the benefit of assessors is not a suitable tribunal to deal with these technical matters. Judges are skilled men who, through long experience, are qualified to adjudicate on differences brought before them, but those differences must be brought before them clearly and all the relevant facts and considerations put to them. That is why I believe that it would not be possible to do this in a reasonable way in the Circuit Court. We made the best job that could be made of the Bill in difficult circumstances. We shall now sit down and allow the people who apparently are very anxious to do so to get at the £2,000 million Estimates and Votes.
