Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Jul 1983

Vol. 344 No. 9

Estimates, 1983. - Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) (Amendment) Bill, 1983 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Quinn)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I should like to put on record my appreciation and that of the Government of the co-operation we got from various Members of Fianna Fáil and, in particular, the party spokesperson for the Environment. Without that co-operation it would not have been possible for us to move the Bill in the House tonight. I think it is a recognition of the importance of the issues involved in this Bill that it is being taken in this fashion. I regret very much that we were forced by pressure of time to deal with this legislation in such a hurried way. It is certainly not desirable to rush any legislation through, but in this particular instance I would point out that this Bill deals with an area which has been subject of much debate in the Dáil and Seanad over the past year and I do not think there is any serious disagreement on the principles involved or the need for the changes for which the Bill makes provision.

During the debates on the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982, last summer it was commented on all sides that the District Court was not the best forum for dealing with disputes between landlord and tenant concerning the terms of tenancy of formerly controlled dwellings. It was agreed that it would be highly desirable to set up some alternative mechanism and that this should be done as quickly as possible. The purpose of this Bill is to provide this alternative mechanism.

Before dealing with the proposals under this Bill I would like to comment briefly on the operation of the 1982 Act. I would not like anything I said today or what I said in the Seanad to suggest that I am criticising the courts in the way they have operated the Act. I recognise that they had a very difficult job to do. The issues involved, and especially the criteria to be used in fixing rents, are highly complex. At the same time the persons coming before District Justices were often unaware of their rights, not properly represented, scared and anxious about the procedures used and of the threat to their homes. The courts did the best they could in these difficult circumstances but there was no way in which they could change the formal and adversary nature of the proceedings which, as every Deputy knows, was of such concern to the often elderly persons who had to appear before them. It is my belief that the proposals contained in the Bill will overcome many of the problems for landlords and tenants coming before the courts and that the structures set up will provide a more suitable forum for the determination of the rents of the dwellings in question.

The main proposals in this Bill related to the establishment, in the first instance, of a Rent Tribunal to determine the terms of tenancies of formerly controlled dwellings. An alternative mechanism whereby rent officers appointed by housing authorities would determine such cases is also being provided for. Under the alternative mechanism the tribunal would operate as an appeals body from the decisions of rent officers. The advantages of both of these systems is that they will be able to incorporate in their procedures a much greater degree of informality than is possible under a court system. The tribunal will in reaching decisions have the benefit of expert valuing advice from its own members and this kind of impartial advice should be most useful in arriving at correct decisions.

I would hope that not just the procedures but the general manner in which cases are brought will be different under the tribunal or rent officer systems. A highly adversary situation exists in the courts, with teams of legal and valuing experts representing the landlord and the tenant and often vigorously cross-examining the opposing parties and any party who has to take the oath in the witness box. I would hope that this kind of situation would not prevail when the tribunal is sitting. Every effort will be made in the regulations setting out the procedures for use by rent officers and the tribunal to ensure that the requirements on landlords and tenants in applying to have a rent fixed are as simple and straightforward as possible and are not intimidating. In my opinion the new systems being proposed will have the very strong advantages of being less formal than the courts, less expensive, and lead to the determination of cases more quickly.

However, I would not like anyone to think that I am claiming this Bill solves all the problems of the private rented sector. It clearly does not. It is a limited measure designed to achieve a particular purpose: that of setting up new adjudication procedures in cases of dispute in relation to determination of rent and terms of tenancy. The criteria in use under the 1982 Act for the fixing of rents will still govern the actions of the tribunal and rent officers. In this we are bound by the Constitution and the interpretation of it as set out in Supreme Court decisions on previous legislation in this area. This is something which was discussed at length during the passage of the 1982 Act through the Dáil and Seanad. No amendment to these criteria is being proposed, although a declaratory statement is being added making it clear that in fixing a rent the means of the tenant is to include only the actual means of the tenant. This was clearly the intention of the 1982 Act, but it would appear that some confusion exists as to whether the eligibility for rent allowances should be included as part of the tenant's means. This declaratory statement makes it clear that under the 1982 Act only the actual means of the tenant should be taken into account. Apart from this statement, which merely clarifies the existing law, the system to be operated by the tribunal and the rent officers remains basically unchanged in so far as the criteria for the assessment of rent and terms of tenancy are concerned.

During the debate in the Seanad yesterday it was clear from comments made by Senators that certain points in the Bill were causing concern. I would like to refer to them now and thereby hopefully anticipate some of the questions of Deputies.

The Bill proposes that, where a person has applied to the District Court to have his case determined and the case has not been determined at the time of the commencement of the Act, he or she should have the right to withdraw the case, with the consent of the other party, and transfer it for hearing before the tribunal. Consideration was given to providing for the automatic transfer of such cases to the tribunal and we wanted to do so, but we have been advised by the Attorney General that such action would be unconstitutional. Similarly, the tribunal could not be given the power to review cases already heard by the District Court except in so far as the cases come up for review in the normal fashion after the five year period had elapsed. At the same time, I expect that landlords if they look at the new legislative provisions carefully, will realise that there are many advantages to both the landlord and tenant in having cases dealt with by the tribunal. They will have the advantage of a more expeditious and less cumbersome hearing of their applications and have the positive advantage that the costs of appearing before the tribunal should be substantially less than that of appearing before the District Court. It is clearly to the landlord's advantage that many who now have cases listed in the District Court — and there are approximately 900 in the Dublin area — should transfer them to the tribunal. It is obvious the tenant will consent to that transfer.

A second point to which I would like to refer relates to the provisions in the Bill for the setting up of a rent officer service. Many Senators yesterday expressed a preference for the dual system, of rent officer and appeals tribunal, to the single tribunal system. I would tend to agree generally with this view but there are good reasons why at this stage the Rent Tribunal has to be set up on its own. The first reason is that we are anxious to bring this Act into operation as soon as possible. We expect to be in a position to have the tribunal in operation within a few months but we would not be able to set up the rent officer service within the same time scale. The second and more substantial reason, is that in this area we are faced with many uncertainties. We have as yet no accurate figures for the number of rent controlled dwellings in the country or of the number likely to require their rents to be fixed under this Bill. We also need more information on the distribution of these cases throughout the country. Other imponderables include the likely attitude of landlords towards the tribunal and the number of cases that will be transferred from the District Court lists, the likely number of appeals, the speed with which cases can be determined by the tribunal and so on. In dealing with so many uncertainties it seems prudent to allow for alternative mechanisms for determining rents but unwise to commit oneself to a particular course of action without knowing all the facts. I can, however, assure Deputies that if, having seen how the tribunal system operates on its own, it becomes clear that a better service can be provided by the dual system involving rent officers then such a system will be established without delay in consultation with the local authorities and the public service unions.

I consider the Bill to be an important step towards dealing with the problems which landlords and tenants of formerly controlled dwellings have faced since the Supreme Court decision last year. I hope and believe that the structures being provided for in the Bill will endure and that it will be a long time before further legislation in this particular area will be required. I recognise that the mere passing of laws does not of itself remove the problems faced by landlords and tenants but I believe that the new structures will be found by both sides to be much more satisfactory than the present arrangements. On this basis I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Molloy

The Fianna Fáil Party give a wholehearted welcome to this Bill. The Minister need not offer an apology for the short period allowed for the debate. We recognise the time restrictions on the Minister and we thank him for having ensured that this legislation was finally brought before the Dáil in this session. It would have been a great tragedy if the Dáil had risen without this legislation being brought before it and enacted before the Summer Recess because otherwise the present very unsatisfactory situation would have continued up into next October-November. If there is any issue which has given more concern to Deputies and occupied their minds more during this session it has certainly been the plight in which many, many people have found themsleves in having to present themselves before the District Court to have their rents reviewed. The decisions made in many cases have caused a great deal of anguish and distress to many people. As Fianna Fáil spokesman on the Environment I have had occasion to meet some of those affected. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the committees in Dublin, Cork and other areas formed in order to bring pressure to bear on the Government to introduce this legislation as quickly as possible. I congratulate those concerned citizens for the good work they did and the service they gave to many tenants and, in some cases, to landlords who are also badly affected. They are to be thanked publicly here. I congratulate each and every one of them, particularly the Dublin action committee who were in the forefront of the campaign to have this legislation brought forward.

The original Bill, which we are now amending, to establish that rents could be reviewed in the District Court was introduced by Fianna Fáil in Government. The reason why it was done and the way it was done was because the then Minister and the Government were advised in the light of Supreme Court decisions that it was imperative to establish immediately a procedure as otherwise a much worse situation would develop and the only procedures which could be availed of immediately was the District Court. It is important it should be put on record here that it was never the intention of the Fianna Fáil Party that the District Court should continue to be a forum where rent decisions would be made in relation to formerly controlled dwellings. It was our policy to establish as soon as possible a rents tribunal. We recognised that the adversary situation which existed in the courts, as the Minister rightly said, would not be at all a suitable environment for the many tenants involved, most of whom were elderly and would never have had experienced the trauma of a courtroom or judicial procedures which they would find very strange indeed. As we know, they were a cause of great distress to many and it was imperative that what had been provided, which was introduced as an emergency, would operate for only the shortest possible time.

I must confess I find it difficult to understand why it should have taken so long to bring this Bill before the House. We, in Fianna Fáil, have consistently raised this issue here by way of parliamentary question, by Private Notice Question and special motions as well as representations to the Minister and, indeed, to several Members of the Government other than the Minister directly involved. When one examines the Bill and sees the procedures in it one is somewhat disconcerted to find that the Minister is admitting it will take him some months to establish the tribunal and one finds it difficult to understand why it should have taken so long to introduce a Bill which on the face of it appears to be a very simple Bill. It is even more disconcerting to discover that we shall now have to wait for some months before the tribunals are established. The short Bill taken just before this one should be a sufficient indication that where there is a will there is a way. A court decision made late in June affecting the granting of loans by building societies raised a difficulty which this House has very quickly resolved within a matter of a few weeks. The difficulties which those residing in rent controlled dwellings have been suffering were well recognised a long time ago and I am sure those concerned must wonder why the Department and the Government have taken so long to prepare a Bill which does not appear to us on this side to be very complicated. I do not wish to be over-critical and, having said that, I would urge the Minister to do his utmost to ensure the tribunals are in operation as quickly as possible.

There are some points we will deal with when we reach the Committee Stage if there is time. It is not our intention to make any long contribution to the debate but we would hope the Minister might tease out some of the sections in greater detail. Having perhaps carped a little over the delay from December until July in the introduction of the Bill I would thank the Minister and the Minister of State and I congratulate them both. I hope the tribunal and the rent officer procedures to be established will prove successful. It is a great pity that the cases already decided cannot be transferred. Those who have had their cases decided have had to suffer the consequences. Had the Bill been introduced earlier they might have been able to take advantage of these new procedures. It is a tragedy which can only be solved in the event of an appeal but unfortunately a period of five years must elapse before that appeal can take place.

In regard to allowances, it seems extraordinary that any court would seek to include allowances paid by the Minister for Social Welfare as part of a person's income at the time the person stood before the court. That is an extraordinary interpretation and it is one which acts to the detriment of the tenant. It is unfortunate that, despite the great faith and trust people have in the independence and fairmindedness of the Judiciary, in many cases there was utter astonishment at the manner in which they were dealt with and at the decisions arrived at. The increases granted were considered excessive by many Deputies in many cases. They seemed to bear no relationship whatsoever to the means of the tenant or the tenant's capacity to pay. The latter seemed to play a very small part in the judgment. I hope a much more humane approach will operate under the new tribunal and rent officer system. On my first reading of the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum I took it that both procedures would come into operation as quickly as possible and I thought both would be available to either landlord or tenant immediately on the passing of this Bill. I regret the tone of the Minister's speech where he seemed to indicate that he intends to proceed immediately only with the establishment of the tribunal and at a later stage set up the other system whereby rent officers will be available to hear cases.

I would like to welcome the proposal to have the dual system. It came as a very pleasant surprise and I congratulate the Minister on the initiative shown in proposing the dual system. I encourage him to proceed with it. It is an excellent idea because the rent officers will be available throughout the country in a very broad spread in every local authority area. If it is difficult to establish even yet, from what the Minister has said, the number of rent controlled dwellings and the number of tenants affected, obviously one could not plan the thing with any great accuracy. If it is possible to appoint rent officers in areas where appeals may be coming forward I am sure they will deal with the cases adequately. The appeal procedure to the tribunal would seem to me to be very satisfactory. The general tenure of the Bill is excellent and one to which we can give our wholehearted support.

I would like to thank the Minister for responding to the many urgings he got from this side of the House and from the concerned citizen's committees outside. Even if we had an acrimonious discussion on environmental issues during the earlier part of this week we have no difficulty in readily agreeing with the Minister on this measure which shows the positive attitude which we in Opposition will take to issues as they come before us. We encourage the Minister to come forward with legislation of this kind in other areas where there is a great social need for improvement in legislation.

Mr. De Rossa

The Bill is, unfortunately, another fire brigade action in an area which saw another fire brigade action a day before the recess in 1982. It attempts to fill in the gap in the Bill brought in in 1982. I cannot for the life of me see why it took from early last year until now to introduce this Bill. The blame for the delay does not lie totally on the shoulders of this Government. The previous Government were in power until November last year and, following repeated promptings from me, we were informed on numerous occasions that the tribunals were ready, nearly ready or in the process of being ready just as the Coalition Government have, from time to time, told us they were in the process of being prepared and so forth. We are now told, despite the fact that this Bill is being brought in, that it could be the end of the year before the tribunals actually become effective. If that is the case this Bill, in effect, will be a joke because there is no landlord who will switch from the courts to the tribunals. It may be possible to argue that they would switch from the courts to a tribunal if the only reason they wanted to do so was to enable the tenants to have an easier atmosphere to operate in.

I believe the general consensus would be that the rents tribunal would attempt to set the fair rent which was set in the Bill originally when the courts at present are establishing what are termed market rents. That is the key to the problem which most tenants face when they go before the courts. The courts are setting market rents and that is the big complaint. Many tenants are upset with the trappings of the courts, the cross-questioning and so forth. It is important to get rid of that. That is one of the advantages of a tribunal or housing officers. The key factor is the rents that are being set by the courts at present. I can see that any landlord who is anxious to get increases in rent will certainly have his applications in before the end of this year. As the Bill stands there is no way those cases can be transferred from the courts to the tribunals unless the landlord agrees. I cannot see that any savings he might make in relation to legal costs between the courts and the tribunal will be attractive enough to overcome what could be a substantial loss in terms of the rent he might get between the courts and the tribunal.

The original Act was introduced as a result of a High Court action by private landlords on the basis that they felt discriminated against because rent restrictions only affected a small number of people and under the Constitution they were being discriminated against because 90 per cent of private rented housing was free of control. That is the basis on which the Rent Restrictions Act was struck down. In effect, the failure by the House to introduce rent restrictions and security of tenure for all private rent tenants was the cause of the Rent Restrictions Act being struck down by the courts. Promises to introduce total rent control have been made on numerous occasions over the years by the Labour Party, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and they have failed to do it to date. Still, as I said, we are faced again with fire brigade action tonight to introduce tribunals which should have been introduced 12 months ago. As the Minister said that it will not be possible to have them effective before the end of this year this Bill in my view will end up as a joke. There will be no protection for the tenants who are presently faced with increases in rent.

The other serious dereliction of duty, as far as I am concerned, on the part of this Minister for the Environment and the previous Minister for the Environment is the failure to introduce the regulations under section 26. I have raised that matter on numerous occasions in the House and I have been told they are in the process of being discussed with various interests and that they will be ready quite soon. This also has a great bearing on the rents that are being set in the courts. Those rents are being set on the basis that the landlords have complied with the agreements in relation to repairs, that all the repairs necessary have been carried out. Once the rents are set the tenants have no power until these regulations under section 26 are brought into effect to force the landlords to comply with the Act and to carry out the necessary repairs to bring the houses up to standard.

The landlords are getting rents on the basis that these houses are marketable commodities. The rents are being set on the basis that they are up to standard, that they have all modern conveniences, that they have toilets and running water. Many of them have not got these facilities but the rents are being set on the basis that they have them. Still the tenants have no right to force the landlords to carry out the repairs. The Minister of State who is present in the House at the moment, was very scathing when we introduced a series of amendments last year changing "may" to "shall", requiring that these regulations be made mandatory on the Minister, that the Minister must introduce these regulations. The regulations have still not been brought in. If a constitutional case was taken in the morning I believe the Minister would be found to be in dereliction of his duty for not bringing in those regulations. He has failed to implement the Act passed in July 1982. That is a serious dereliction of duty, not only to this House but to the thousands of tenants who have come before the courts and who will come before the courts over the next six to seven months.

While this is a welcome move even at this late date it is not enough. It may even be too late for most of the tenants faced with these landlords. It is interesting to note a letter which appeared recently in The Irish Press where the leader of the private rented tenants association offered to withhold their money from the banks if any farmers are evicted because they do not pay their loans. I wait for the day when these landlords withdraw their money from the banks in protest when one of their tenants is evicted for not paying the rent. I doubt if we will see that day. It is interesting to see the class alliance appearing between the landlords and the big farmers.

The main defect of the Bill is that the tenants will not have the right to withdraw cases which are brought before the courts and place them before the tribunals unless they get the OK from the landlords. I cannot see any landlord in his right mind agreeing to a switch from the courts and having the rents being set at the moment put before the tribunal. I will be interested to hear the Minister of State telling us the latest date that he can make effective this legislation before us. I would like him also to explain the constitutional grounds, which he states the Attorney General has indicated, which would prevent the switch from the courts to the tribunal at the tenant's request.

The rent officers proposal in this Bill is a good one. The Minister of State is committed to establishing rent control right across the board for all private rented dwellings and I hope that in the very near future he will bring in similar rent legislation and similar rent officers to control the disgraceful exploitation by landlords of young people in particular in this city and towns all over this country when no standards whatsoever are set and rent increases can be demanded five times a week. There is no limit whatsoever and the tenants have no security of tenure.

This legislation is limited. The Bill effectively will expire in 19 years. If, as I predict, most landlords enter their applications for rent increases before this tribunal sees the light of day the tribunal effectively will be dealing with rent reviews every five years, and after 19 years when this legislation expires, unless the Minister acts, we will have no control whatsoever on private rented accommodation. I appeal to him while he is in his present position to introduce long-promised reform in the area of private rented accommodation.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to see what steps can be taken to ensure that this legislation becomes effective immediately. Under section 26, whether it is the courts or the tribunal who will adjudicate on the rents, the regulations are essential if justice is to be done in regard to the thousands of tenants who find themselves in the hands of these landlords.

An Ceann Comhairle

If Deputies wish to contribute to the debate they should stand up.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I have already indicated that I wish to speak.

Mr. Molloy

Nobody indicated from the Government side and Deputy De Rossa was called. The Government have not got their speakers here.

An Ceann Comhairle

As far as the Chair is concerned, if a Deputy offers and is not called and does not offer when another speaker is being called he may have changed his mind. This is a short debate and that should be recognised and contributions to it should be short.

Mr. S. Walsh

I welcome the Bill and I am sincere in saying that I wish to co-operate in every way in having it passed. At times when legislation is introduced here in the House we remark that it is very important legislation, but this is one of the most important measures ever to come before the House. I compliment the Minister and Minister of State on introducing it. I regret very much that it has taken so long to come in. I appreciate that a number of Deputies wish to speak on this and I hope we will co-operate with the Ceann Comhairle so that we will be able to have discussions on sections of the Bill on Committee Stage. A number of the sections are of the utmost importance to everybody, both landlords and tenants. I hope that when the tribunals are set up they will act in a fair way. Some sections in the Bill could be very sensitive and will require co-operation from everybody if the best is to be achieved by the Bill.

This Bill is very necessary. Deputy De Rossa touched on something of concern to everybody, particularly people in Dublin looking for housing accommodation and living in flats. I refer to insecurity of tenure. I hope we will discuss this on Committee Stage. I hope this Bill will receive the co-operation of everybody here tonight.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I realise that the time at our disposal is short. As a member of the Labour Party I am happy that the Minister of State, also a member of my party, has introduced this Bill tonight. He gave an undertaking earlier in the year that it would be in before the summer recess. Even at this late hour it is to be welcomed.

Old people particularly have undergone hardship and trauma as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision. People who all their lives had paid their rent without fail found themselves in the surroundings of a courthouse and they could not come to terms with this. That no longer applies. I regret very much that the Constitution did not permit of some appeals mechanism which would give the tenant the right to appear before a tribunal or an officer of the Department. Deputy De Rossa referred to something of a rather sensitive nature, that is the market value of rented houses. In Cork two separate groups were extremely active in the field on behalf of tenants and one point of great concern to them was the market value applied to certain houses many of which were little more than botháns when people took possession of them originally and many of them had earthen floors. People spent their savings of years in up-dating these houses and making them more comfortable. Then the landlords would demand outlandish rents, something in excess of 800 per cent of what they had been paying. That is the type of demand confronting people.

The Minister was a little easy on the courts system where very little attention seems to have been given to the question of whether the title to these properties was in order. Some of them were very much in doubt. People who wanted to purchase these houses were told they were not for sale but good reasons were never given and I suspect that in many cases the title may have been faulty. The courts did not take due cognisance to this matter.

Section 17 gives the right to enter and inspect dwellings and this will allay to some extent the concern expressed by Deputy De Rossa about the valuation of buildings. The members of the tribunal can go and inspect a building and I hope they will do so in order to assess the real value of the premises and the appropriate level of rent. It is not possible to apply market values to things which are not in the market place. Some of these properties are in obscure areas of Cork and the same criteria are being applied as in the more fashionable parts of the city.

I would question the qualifications of some of the people who have been valuing properties. Values have varied considerably depending on which side the valuer was representing and this caused a lot of confusion among older citizens.

I am happy that the Minister of State was instrumental in introducing this measure. There has been some criticism about the time scale and I will not attempt to measure my experience against that of Deputy Molloy who was for many years a senior Government Minister. He must know the legalities surrounding the introduction of any legislation and the time involved in drafting it. The Bill shows the commitment of the Minister of State who, prior to his appointment, pioneered many of the ideas contained in the Bill.

Mr. Wyse

I welcome the Bill. Its introduction at an earlier stage would, however, have eliminated much anxiety among older people and those living alone who have been dragged through the courts by merciless landlords whose main concern was to increase their personal incomes at the expense of people living almost on the breadline.

The Minister was good enough recently to receive a deputation of Cork representatives from all parties. Many tenants in that city were being threatened by landlords with exorbitant rent increases or eviction and they eventually brought many unfortunate people before the courts. This was the practice in some cases in Cork and the Deputies decided to meet the Minister in order to expedite the introduction of the Bill. This was a major social problem in my constituency, affecting not only the old but also young married couples with children on whom exorbitant demands were made. For many of them the worst aspect was the thought of being dragged through the courts. The setting up of the rents tribunal will be a more humane approach for both landlords and tenants.

I do not know what powers the Minister will have in regard to cases pending court hearings. I believe it would be an infringment of constitutional rights if the Minister were to interfere at this stage. Nevertheless there are complaints from the courts about the enormous backlog of cases and I see no reason why the Minister should not have the matter examined and direct that these cases be removed from the courts and passed to the tribunals. I have no doubt that he is aware of the backlog.

Section 13 deals with appeals by the landlord or the tenant to the High Court. If the landlord takes the case to the High Court the tenant will be at a disadvantage because of court costs. The Minister should try to clarify the matter further. He can refer a matter to the High Court but can he also refuse to do so?

It is important that the operation of this legislation should be properly monitored and if there are difficulties the Minister should not hesitate to come back to the House and amend it. He will have our total co-operation in this matter. I ask him to avoid any unnecessary delay in its implementation so as to prevent people rushing to the courts before the establishment of the tribunal.

Deputy Molloy referred to the many groups set up to defend people whose rights were being infringed by landlords. I thank the legal advisers who made their services available without cost. This proved that they too were aware of the need to protect some unfortunate people. I also thank the Minister for receiving us on a number of occasions, enabling him to bring various problems to his attention.

Mr. Allen

The number of Cork Deputies here tonight shows the effect of the Supreme Court decision on a large number of families in the Cork area. Since the time is limited I will be brief and formally welcome the Bill. The Minister has been true to his word in bringing this legislation before the Dáil during this session. I spent a number of days in the Cork District Court listening to cases being dealt with. The fear and anguish of many of the tenants who were brought before the court depressed me. They were strangers to the legal system and found the whole procedure a formidable experience. That convinced me of the need for a tribunal.

It worries me that district justices seem to be ignoring the provisions of the Bill and seem to split the difference between the landlord and tenant valuations. They do not take into consideration the circumstances of the landlord or the tenant. This gives rise to anxiety. Members of the legal profession have expressed their concern to me about this matter.

District justices are not above the law themselves and should implement the law as it is written and not as they feel they should interpret it. I know people have the right of appeal to a higher court but most of the people brought before the courts have no resources. They are inexperienced in legal procedures and are just glad to have the whole thing over. I hope that some of the decisions will be contested. They have not been to date. If any of them had been, the rate at which the cases were pushed through Cork District Court with indecent haste would have been much slower. There would have been many cases left to be heard by the tribunal when it is set up. Unfortunately many cases in the Cork area have been heard and I am disappointed that they cannot be referred back to the tribunal. I accept that the Minister has received the advice of the Attorney General in the matter and that nothing can be done about it.

I welcome the Bill. I hope it will help people who are still waiting to have their cases heard.

Mr. Wallace

I welcome the Bill. When the business of the House was arranged last week I was disappointed that it was not on the Order Paper. I hope that we will get through it before midnight. I thank the Minister for bringing it before us.

Deputies from Cork had a motion on the Adjournment recently regarding the problem in Cork. I was the speaker on behalf of Fianna Fáil on that occasion. I outlined the situation as it prevailed in Cork at that time. I am glad the Minister has said that the courts are not the answer to the problem. The decisions reached by the courts have been more in favour of the landlord than the tenant. Tenants have no recourse open to them.

I attended Cork District Court and what the elderly people had to go through was an indictment on each and everyone of us. I am concerned about the decision reached by the courts. All matters must be taken into consideration by the tribunal. In some cases people had spent a lot of money on houses which they occupied for 50 or 60 years but this was not taken into consideration by the court in reaching its decision.

I am disappointed that it will take a few months before the tribunal is set up. Surely we can get off our knees and tackle the problem. By the time the tribunal is set up there will probably not be any cases left to be heard. As Deputy Allen said, the majority of them have been dealt with in Cork because the landlords went to the courts. It is not good enough that we should have to wait for a few months before the Bill comes into operation. We have co-operated in trying to get the Bill through before the Recess. We do not want to give the impression that we are anti-landlord or anti-tenant. We are for the good of the people. I thank the Minister for bringing the measure before the House.

Mr. MacGiolla

I welcome the Bill but should like to reinforce the points made by the last two Deputies. It is unfortunate that this Bill has taken so long to come before us and that the decisions reached by the courts have been unjust. They have not been based on the law. There is no doubt about that. Sections 13 and 26 were not taken into account by the courts when making their decisions. Why those decisions cannot be appealed to the rent tribunal I do not understand.

What redress have tenants for wrong, faulty and unjust decisions? In section 13 it specifically states that the means of the landlord, the means of the tenant, the date of purchase of the dwelling, the amount paid by the landlord for the dwelling, the length of the tenant's occupancy, the number and ages of the tenant's family must be taken into account. It further states that the gross rent should be reduced by an allowance for any improvements made.

I am aware of a case pending on Friday week in which the tenants have been under the same landlord family for about 140 years. The present landlord is 86 years of age. No improvements were ever carried out by the landlord in the memory of the tenants. The tenants' parents and grandparents lived in the dwelling before then. All improvements made had been carried out by the tenants. They know that when they go to court the landlord's valuer will value the house based on the improvement made by the tenants. They know that the terms of the Bill will not be implemented by the courts. They have seen other people in exactly the same position as they are and they are well aware of this. This Bill will not be signed by the President by tomorrow week. What redress have these tenants? Why can they not appeal to have their cases brought before the tribunal if the Bill has been passed by this House and by the Seanad even though it may not be law?

Could the Minister ensure once this Bill becomes law that at least the cases pending be withdrawn from the courts and brought to the tribunals? That is only just and fair and every Deputy will see the need for this action. Some lawyers may say that it is unconstitutional, but it is difficult for any Deputy to see how something is unconstitutional which ensures that there is no discrimination against one group of tenants compared with others and whose cases just happened to be pending within the next few weeks or months before this Bill is passed. Why should something which ensures justice for them be unconstitutional? The Minister should ask his advisers to agree some formula which ensures that the provisions in the Bill allow for all cases pending from midnight tonight be withdrawn from the courts and brought before the tribunals?

Mr. Lyons

Like the other Deputies who have spoken, I welcome this Bill to amend the 1982 Act. Over a period of time and during the term of office of a couple of Governments, there has been great co-operation on legislation introduced here. Because of my interest in this matter and because of the constituency which I represent, I have contributed to every debate on this subject and the records will show that.

On 31 March 1982, when contributing to the Bill then before the House, I expressed the reservations which many have expressed since and it was not that I was looking into a crystal ball. I said at that time that the District Courts were not the places to have rents decided. That was not a criticism of the Judiciary or the court system. There is only one person for the Army and that is the soldier. On rents matters the people proposed in this Bill are the correct people to take these decisions. That is why at that time we encouraged the setting up of rents tribunals. We expressed reservations then and now about taking people moving into the autumn years of their lives to courts in which they had never previously been. They did not want to have anything to do with courts and had a fear of them. We all realised that. The then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Raphael Burke, said — and I am paraphrasing — that as soon as the controlled elements of rents had been sorted out in an Act that was acceptable and seen to be constitutional, he would proceed as expeditiously as possible with the setting up of the rents tribunals.

Like other Deputies, I am dissatisfied that it has taken so long to have legislation passed for the appointment of rents officers and the establishment of the tribunals to take the place of the District Courts. In practice many cases have been heard in these courts and many of the reasons given in the House why the District Courts were not the places to hear these cases have been borne out by some of the decisions which have been taken there. Mar adeirimid as Gaeilge, más maith is mithid and that the setting up of the tribunals has taken far too long is my only criticism. Each Deputy went through the trauma of the previous Act and the continuance Bills and, more importantly, the trauma experienced by the people concerned was unbelievable. I must pay tribute to the associations which formed ad hoc in my constituency and other places around the country to keep us public representatives and Dáil Deputies acquainted with what was happening so that we, in turn, could put all the pressure possible on the Government of the day. I compliment the Minister of State in taking a Private Members' Motion from the Deputies in Cork of all parties for which we nominated speakers to impress on the Minister and, through him, the Government the necessity of setting up these tribunals and appointing these rents officers.

The Bill mentions that any applications which have been made to the courts will be heard by the courts. I regret this decision of the Attorney General. I hope that as from tonight any case which has not been heard will not be heard in the District Court. It is a pity that that cannot be done for the people who have waited so long and so anxiously for this legislation and they may be beaten at the eleventh hour. I regret that we could not say to those people that as soon as this Bill is passed through the House and signed by the President all cases not heard will be referred to the rents officers and the tribunals. If that is not possible, it should be made abundantly clear to everybody that from midnight tonight, 7 July 1983, no further applications for decisions in the District Courts be received or noted and that as from now these cases will be dealt with in the manner suggested by this legislation.

I also hope that the precedent set in the hearing of these cases in the District Courts will not be taken as a guideline by the tribunals. If that is allowed to happen this legislation will have no effect. We will see to it that the decisions of the District Courts will not be the guideline for future decisions in the tribunals or by rents officers.

Everybody is in such agreement that to say more would be superfluous, but had we the time, we would have had much more to say. We have been keeping up to date on events. Other speakers wish to contribute and I will conclude by complimenting the Minister for bringing in this legislation. Better late than never.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

At the outset, I wish to repeat what I said during the Planning Bill debate here last week. This Bill is the most socially desirable legislation. I am glad the Minister of State has beaten the deadline before the Recess to introduce the legislation and I share his viewpoint. However, welcome though it is and helpful though it may be, it does not solve the problems or rid us of the difficulties and hardships caused to so many people in the categories mentioned because of the Supreme Court decision. The fear of the consequences of a court-case and the financial hardship it might impose has caused much mental anguish and suffering to many of our older citizens, and it is not always confined to older people. The interest of Cork Deputies shows what a problem it is on the Cork scene. It is also a problem in Dublin, Galway, Waterford and elsewhere.

The Minister said they expect to be in a position to have the tribunal in operation within a few months. I do not accept that. Why not have it in operation by 1 August? The personnel of the tribunal have to be appointed. I welcome the way in which these appointments are to be made. I am glad the Minister of State has had a late conversion. These people will be appointed by the Minister. It is important that the personnel should be kind, considerate people. I see no reason why they should not be appointed immediately. Staff from the Department could be seconded on a temporary basis until permanent staff are available. There is no difficulty about accommodation. It can be found in the schools which are closed at the moment.

I do not always agree with Deputy Mac Giolla, but he said that from midnight tonight every case should be withdrawn from the courts, if one party so wishes, and transferred to the tribunal. The tribunal could work throughout August when the courts are not sitting. Some of the court decisions have caused hardship. If saying that means that I am being critical of the courts I am sorry, but it has to be said. There have been 14-fold, 20-fold and 24-fold rent increases. I hope the tribunal will take all the circumstances into consideration because the pendulum has swung very sharply since the Supreme Court decision.

This legislation is needed urgently. We are co-operating in facilitating its passage through the House. There may be little pitfalls in legislation which is rushed through the House but we want to get this through quickly. I always respect the advice of the Attorney General. As legislators we must realise that there are problems and hardships which must be faced up to. I welcome the Bill with reservations.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Quinn)

On the question of why existing cases cannot be transferred to the tribunal, the advice from the Attorney General is that no Government can knowingly introduce or promote legislation which they believe to be unconstitutional. In effect the Constitution states that once a law enacted by the Oireachtas confers rights on any citizen, be he landlord or tenant, that citizen has a right to avail of the provisions of that law. In this instance the 1982 Act enabled a landlord or a tenant to apply to the District Court to have a rent fixed. We cannot take away that right once it has been given. This is a legal opinion based on a considerable number of precedents.

I hope the President of the District Court and the President of the High Court will take into account the unanimous view of all Members of the House and that the courts will co-operate as far as possible in attempting to encourage landlords to transfer their cases. I presume that in the main it will be landlords who will be resisting such transfers. It is our obligation to establish a climate in which the landlords will see it is in their interests to transfer.

There is one good reason why it will be in their interests. Under the 1982 Act, in addition to having the rent increased, the landlord can look for compensation. If the landlord applied two months ago to the District Court and the court does not take that case until late December of this year or January of next year the new rent fixed by the court will be payable only after all the requirements of the legislation have been met, including registration.

There is provision in law — but so far the courts have not granted it yet — that a landlord may be entitled to compensation from the time his application went into the court to such time as the court made the decision. To our knowledge no District Court judgment has granted any such compensation. Landlords who are waiting in the queue are unlikely — it would appear from our knowledge to date of the operation of the courts' system — to get the benefit of compensation for increases in rent retrospectively. That is another advantage which I hope the landlords will avail of for transfer to the tribunal.

I have listened carefully to all the comments made by Deputies in regard to the urgency to establish the tribunal. Because of the experience of Deputy Fitzgerald, a former Minister for Finance and for the Public Service, I will take on board the spirit of his sense of urgency. We have already begun to explore the possibilities and the constraints.

On the question of why it took so long to get to this stage — it has taken a long time — there are three reasons. First, the change of Government did not facilitate matters. We had the benefit of some preparatory work, indeed a considerable degree of it, which had been initiated by the previous Administration, but the change of Government and the pyramid structure of decision making in a cabinet system meant that this went to the bottom of the queue. The formulation of a budget and the fiscal policy surrounding it preoccupied cabinet time. And third, there was the necessity for the Attorney General, because of the constitutional claims that had been made on the two previous Acts — this Bill was an addendum to those — to have a full look, more than would normally have been the case, at this legislation. That scrutiny went on not so much in secret but in the confines of the civil service, acting in a traditional manner.

In view of the way Deputies have responded to this, and Senators yesterday, if we had the legislative committee which will be set up in the near future, this legislation and queries in regard to its constitutionality could have been teased out. That could have been done earlier if such a committee had been in existence and in such circumstances we would not have been caught in the queue. As Deputies will recall, the Attorney General had to agonise over a constitutional amendment for a long time earlier this year.

Mr. Molloy

Unnecessarily. It was quite unnecessary for the Attorney General to waste time over the matter.

Mr. Quinn

I realise that Deputies may want to query some points in Committee. We had a very comprehensive Second Stage debate in the Seanad yesterday and many of the points which may not have been fully covered tonight, were teased out in the Committee Stage in the Seanad.

Question put and agreed to.