It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 2, 1 — Order for Second Stage followed by all Stages — and 7 (resumed). By agreement business will be dealt with as follows: Supplementary Estimate for Industry and Energy, which is being introduced today, will be disposed of today; proceedings of all Stages of the Rent Restrictions (Temporary Provisions) (Continuance) Bill, 1982 will be brought to a conclusion today; proceedings on the Second Stage of the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1982, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at noon, while all remaining Stages which have not been disposed of at 5 p.m. shall be brought to a conclusion by one question which shall be put by the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment. The Dáil at its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 April.
Order of Business.
The Government have acceded to the Opposition's request to bring in a further three months stay of execution by way of a Temporary Provisions Bill on the rent restrictions legislation. Since the sense of urgency which genuinely existed yesterday morning when the Minister for the Environment introduced the Bill no longer exists, is it necessary to dispose of all Stages of the Private Rented Dwellings Bill today?
On the contrary, the sense of urgency is as great as ever. This is very much a fallback position. In my view it is essential that this legislation go through both Houses before 25 April.
I heard what the Taoiseach said, but is it the Government's intention, within the normal conventions as were indicated in January this year, to suggest that the President might refer the main Bill to the Supreme Court? If not, I do not believe that urgency exists. The House is genuinely concerned at the difficulty in arriving at a just form of legislation in this very complex matter. As the Minister said, this is the fourth attempt at providing legislation in this complex area. In my view we are doing ourselves a disservice in trying to take all Stages today since the Government have acceded to the Opposition's request for a further stay of execution for three months.
I should have thought there would have been common ground on this. It is absolutely essential that we get all Stages of the main Bill today. It is not in our competence to say whether the President would refer the Bill to the Supreme Court. From our point of view it would be infinitely preferable if he did not and the substantive Bill could come into operation straight away and the tenants would be protected from 25 April. It is only in what we hope is the unlikely event of the Bill being referred to the Supreme Court that the temporary provisions measure is being brought in to cover the intervening period after 25 April and ensure that the tenants will not be left completely defenceless. There is no guarantee about the validity of the temporary provisions we will be introducing today. One way or another, commonsense and prudence demand that we get the two Bills through before 25 April. I appeal to the House——
We have already given the Taoiseach an undertaking.
I appreciate that, but I appeal particularly to the Labour Party to see the very serious dangers that are looming here. Unless we behave with extreme circumspection and caution we could have a position where, after 25 April, tenants would be totally unprotected.
Would the Taoiseach not consider shortening the Easter Recess of 28 days in order to deal with this Bill? There are a number of very important amendments which should be discussed by the House and we are not getting the time to do it. Apparently, we are taking a month's holiday. Would the House not be more responsible shortening that period to discuss the Bill properly?
In the normal course of events that would make sense, but in this case it does not, because we have a very difficult situation with the Seanad. We have to get the Bill through the Seanad next week. Therefore there is no point having this Bill put through the Dáil after Easter. We must get it through this House today and through the Seanad next week — and even then it is a tight schedule — so that it will be in operation before 25 April.
I do not wish to get into a dispute with the Taoiseach nor do I dispute his parliamentary experience, but the House will agree that this is the fourth attempt to get legislation in this complex area. This is not simple legislation and we should not rush all Stages of the main Bill through this House if we can avoid doing so. If we cannot avoid doing so, the Labour Party will co-operate.
I do not think we can.
If we pass the first Bill which is to cover the next three months, surely the same sense of urgency does not exist?
It does.
Yes, it does. This Bill we are introducing today does not affect that urgency.
Why are we passing it?
It is very much a fallback expediency, but it is no more than that. What is essential is that we put the Bill through today and that it go to the Seanad next week.
We wish to co-operate with the Government in this regard. We hold a brief for the tenants in the main and we will do everything possible to facilitate the legislation, but in return we would expect the Minister for the Environment to go as far as possible in accepting the majority of the amendments we have tabled. If we must have this foreshortened Committee Stage today we will expect substantial co-operation in relation to our amendments. If the Taoiseach, without prejudice, can give some kind of assurance on those lines, we shall act responsibly.
I understand that some of the suggestions of the Labour Party would cause extreme difficulty in terms of the timetable we have, but what I would offer — and perhaps this could be discussed between the Party Whips or with the Leaders of the Parties if necessary — is that the House agrees to the procedure of putting both these Bills through as quickly as possible in order to safeguard the situation and that afterwards we could meet and decide what amending legislation, if any, would be desirable and would meet the wishes of the different parties. In other words, to safeguard the present situation we would like the Bill that we have put forward to go through and become law and then after Easter we could look at the legislation and agree between us perhaps to an amending Bill in order to satisfy the doubts held by different sections of the House in regard to the legislation.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I agree with what has been proposed, but with one exception. The Taoiseach seems to take the view that it would be preferable that the Bill be not referred by the President to the Supreme Court. I respectfully suggest that, in view of the fate of the other two Bills and that at best in view of the amount of uncertainty which hangs over this Bill, it would be more preferable — this may not be the right phraseology — to encourage the President to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court for a decision so as to put the matter beyond doubt now rather than to have it hanging over for perhaps years to come?
I do not necessarily disagree with that, but I think the Deputy will appreciate that the question of whether the President refers the Bill to the Supreme Court is one for himself. I was only expressing my personal opinion that from our point of view the ideal situation is that the Bill be passed today in this House and in the Seanad next week and that it then become law rather than its being upset by the Supreme Court either by reference or by a subsequent challenge. Falling short of that, I suppose Deputy Fitzpatrick is right. It is almost inevitable that it will be referred.
(Cavan-Monaghan): One way or another it will end up in the Supreme Court.
Yes, but the only reason for my expressing a preference for non-reference is that if the Bill is referred to the Supreme Court we will be relying, not very happily, during the period of referral on this rather tenuous Bill that we are passing today to save the situation. However it would be better that the main Bill become law and, perhaps, be challenged subsequently.
I would be concerned that we would not get into a discussion here on the merits of reference. This is a matter that the President at his discretion must decide, having heard the Council of State. It would be a mistake for us here, whatever our views may be — and these views may differ individually rather than on a party basis — to enter into public discussion on the matter of referral. To do so could make the task of deciding on what to do more difficult.
I accept that.
The Taoiseach's second formulation of his position is preferable to his first. He seemed to be expressing something of a particular view. We are all agreed that what would be best would be that the Bill be constitutional, but the question of what is the best way of handling the matter should be left to the President on the advice of the Council of State.
May I take it, then, that we can proceed with these two Bills on my firm undertaking that after Easter we will meet at whatever level is decided appropriate to discuss the question of amending legislation to the main Bill for the purpose of trying to meet as many points of view in the House as possible?
Yes, but without prejudice to our trying to debate amendments today.
Yes.
I presume that the House will comply with the normal legislative process and that the various amendments that have been tabled will be given proper consideration since it is desirable obviously that they be included in the Bill as it goes to the Seanad next week.
All I would say to that is that it be subject to practicalities. What most people have in mind is some alternative by way of the District Court. Our argument is very strong that there just is not time between now and 25 April to set up some form of satisfactory mechanism. In the meantime we must rely on the District Court. But we are prepared, once this Bill becomes law and the situation is saved, as it were, pro tem, to consider all other alternatives for dealing with the situation.
I accept the Taoiseach's offer in the spirit in which it is made and I am grateful for it. We can now proceed to look at this Bill again after debating it today, but the action that the Opposition side will take in respect of individual amendments will be determined, naturally, by the response of the Government. If there are areas in which we are of the opinion that the Government could reasonably accept amendments, we will reserve the right to press those amendments without prejudice to the subsequent discussion of how we should proceed with the whole matter.
Yes, but all the time bearing in mind that, if in our view whatever is involved is impractical in terms of the timetable available, that does not end the matter because it can be returned to afterwards by way of amending legislation.
Why are we so restricted to April 25?
There is in existence a saving piece of legislation which freezes the situation until 25 April. That piece of legislation expires on that date and that is why we must have new legislation before then; otherwise, tenants will be totally at the mercy of landlords.
Has the Taoiseach any intention of including on the Order of Business an item for the purpose of establishing an Oireachtas Committee to deal with the problems of marital breakdown and, if so, when he intends doing so?
The question of an all-party committee is under consideration and is something that can be discussed. It will form the basis of discussion between myself and the leaders of the opposition parties.
The first intimation I had of the Supplementary Estimate regarding the budget for Whitegate was when I came into the House this morning. The decision on Whitegate was taken by the last Government, but the money being allocated should be debated here because there arise important and complex issues in terms of our energy policies.
There is agreement that if the Supplementary Estimate goes through today on the nod, as it were, an opportunity will be provided after Easter to discuss the situation.
Could I receive an assurance from the Taoiseach that, in these circumstances, we will have an early opportunity rather than a deferred opportunity to discuss it?
Yes.
Is the Taoiseach also aware that it would have been possible to allow the Irish National Petroleum Corporation to purchase the shares with an overdraft until the matter could be properly debated in this House?
We are advised that it is necessary to have the Supplementary Estimate today. May I reassure the Deputy that, if the House agrees to the Supplementary Estimate going through today on the nod, as it were, a full opportunity will be provided at an early date to discuss the situation?
Finally, could I ask the Taoiseach when we can expect the legislation to put the Irish National Petroleum Corporation on a statutory basis which is now of urgent concern?
I will consider that.
I know it is in train.
I will try to let the Deputy have some answer to that during the course of the day.
(Dún Laoghaire): The Taoiseach might ask the Minister for Transport to make an urgent statement regarding the closure of Dún Laoghaire port as a result of the dispute between Sealink and B & I. This is causing tremendous concern in the area.
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
(Dún Laoghaire): We are coming up to Easter. The port of Dún Laoghaire depends to a great degree on traffic during the holiday periods. We do not know what is happening.
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
(Dún Laoghaire): I thought that with your permission, Sir, the Taoiseach might make arrangements to have something done to get 60 people back to work and to try to get business back into Dún Laoghaire.
Could we be told what will happen to the questions on the Order Paper today?
Deputies can receive written replies if they want them. Otherwise they will remain on the Order Paper.