Before Question Time we were discussing the constitutionality of the Bill and there were some fears raised on that matter. I think we are all satisfied that the Bill is constitutional. Taking into account what the Supreme Court said, the principles on which the Bill is founded and its temporary nature, I am confident that its provisions are not in conflict with the Constitution. This, too, was evidently the view of the former Government as implied in their statement of 29 June that they had authorised the introduction of legislation on the same lines as the present Bill. Both sides of the House appear to agree that it is constitutional. If one examines the Supreme Court decision, it is quite clear that it would interpret what we are doing as correct and proper.
Deputy G. Birmingham asked whether we were going to have two standards, one for controlled tenants and one for uncontrolled tenants. This Bill deals with controlled tenants only. Anything else will be dealt with in legislation which will be coming before the House at a later stage. There is no need to worry about double standards because we are only dealing with the controlled section.
Deputy Sherlock raised the question of assistance in payment of rents and was concerned about the supplementary welfare allowance. He felt it might not be sufficient to meet the difference between the new increase and what tenants could afford to pay. That is a matter which will be dealt with when we are bringing major legislation before the House. Where hardship is involved it will be met in a just way.
Deputy Keating said that the Bill should be concerned with justice. We are proposing to do that. Given that we are operating within the constraints of a Supreme Court decision, it will be just and will be seen to be just.
Deputy Mervyn Taylor was concerned about section 4. If two people agree on payment of a particular rent, there is very little we can do about legislating for that. I know he was making the point that there could be an element of fear or threat at the time. We will be informing people that they are not required to pay an increase but if they decide, for whatever reason, to have a mutual agreement, there is very little we can do about it.
Deputy McCreevy asked if it was an on-going six months and if it was a ploy to procrastinate. That is not the case because we are operating on the basis of a constitutional issue. The Supreme Court deemed the present structures unconstitutional and it is on this basis that we have made it a six months extension. Other Deputies were seeking a longer period but I do not think we would get away with that. It is not a question of getting it in for six months and then coming back and getting it in for another six months and so on. We could not do that even if we wanted to. I hope that allays any fears the Deputy may have on that issue. Any fears expressed by the Deputies will be taken into consideration in preparing the new legislation. There is no question of legislation coming before this House without taking into account every aspect of the Deputies' views.
I again thank the Deputies for their contributions in this matter. Temporary legislation is always unsatisfactory. However, given that this decision was taken only a little over a week ago, I had no choice but to bring this Bill before the House as quickly as possible, to allay the fears of many people who are, and will be, affected by the decision of the Supreme Court. Given that the Supreme Court has made its ruling basically in their favour and that the Supreme Court held that legislation was necessary to fill the void, it is only prudent, right and fair that landlords await the substantive legislation and do not bring pressure, or seem to be bringing pressure, in seeking increases. As the Bill stands, they will not get these increases.
To request the President not to sign the Bill is not right or proper. Everyone must be aware that a time must pass before my Department can examine all aspects of the matter and bring in the necessary legislation which will take into account the decision of the Supreme Court and be seen to be fair and equitable to everybody. I assure all sides that there will be no delay in bringing in this legislation. It will be complicated and will take some time to prepare and it is necessary that we have this moratorium of six months. I would ask the people involved to take no further action, in the best interests of everybody. People who are vulnerable, for example the elderly, will be protected in every way. Fixity of tenure is very important, as far as I am concerned, in ensuring that the rights of tenants are protected.
Regarding decisions of the tribunal, supplementary welfare allowances will be paid to meet the difference between the rents charged. It is important that people know that and that they do not feel themselves in a limbo position while awaiting substantive legislation. This Bill is in accordance with the Supreme Court decision and we are asking only for a reasonable time stay. There is nothing unconstitutional about that, or in conflict with the Supreme Court decision.
I thank again the Deputies for their constructive views. I would ask that all Stages be completed as quickly as possible. We will thus allay the fears of many of the 30,000 tenants who may be affected, particularly those who are elderly or in poor circumstances.
