On section 1, which is the effective section in this two-section Bill, I should like to refer to some of the comments the Minister made in his reply. It seems as though he is operating on a wish and a prayer. He hopes this Bill will not be challenged because he admits there may be a problem in relation to it, and he hopes that the other legislation will come into effect and will not be challenged. Specifically this House ought to know at this stage if there is likely to be a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 26 of either or both of the Bills. If I am allowed to ask about this one only, is this Bill likely to be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 26?
Rent Restrictions (Temporary Provisions) (Continuance) Bill, 1982: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
It would be highly improper for me or, I would suggest, for any Senator or Deputy or anybody else in the country to suggest to the President that any Bill should or should not be referred to the Supreme Court. In the final analysis, this is a matter for the President, and it is not my intention here in this Chamber today to make any comment on the referral of this Bill to the Supreme Court. As the Senator will be well aware, that is a decision for the President alone. He can ask for the advice of the Council of State. He does not have to take it, as far as I am aware. It is a matter for himself. He has seven days from the time the Bill gets to him to make a decision on that.
Obviously I accept fully that it is not the Minister or, indeed, the Government who would take the decision to refer. In his reply on this Bill the Minister expressed concern about its potential constitutionality. When that was done previously an indication was given that there was at least some possibility of a reference, knowing that the actual decision to refer is a matter for the President, on which he may, and normally does, consult the Council of State.
I want to make it very clear that it is not my desire or intention in any way to exacerbate the situation by further alarming already far too alarmed people, but we are legislators and there has been a tendency to avoid the problems in the past. We have not looked carefully enough at the situation. We have not faced up to the situation and it is about time we did. It is about time we got away from a kind of wish and hope of a Minister that all would be well and came to a decision.
I appreciate that this is an awkward time for Senators because we are a leftover Seanad going up for re-election. Many Senators are actively involved in that. It is a pity when we are discussing something of such social importance and such deep concern to a very vulnerable sector that there are not more Senators here to pursue very actively on the record the particular issues which arise. If anything, the Minister's reply has further concerned me, because it appears to share the anxiety about the constitutionality. It is for that reason I wish to know whether it is likely to be referred.
First of all, it is not my business as Minister to defend the presence of Senators but I do know that at the start of business today there was a very full Seanad attendance which reflects very honourably on the Members of the Seanad who are taking their business very seriously and the matters before this House very seriously indeed, even during the course of a Seanad campaign when the ballot papers are actually out. The presence of so many Senators here today does great credit to the Senators who are taking this matter very seriously.
I want to say to the Senator that I am not operating on a wish and a hope. In the response I gave to the Senator I was highlighting my fears about the Bill's constitutionality. I did this in the Dáil too. When the main Bill was originally introduced I did not introduce a temporary measure because of my fears with regard to its constitutionality. It was in response to contributions made both by Fine Gael and Labour that I decided, because this is a non-party political issue, to bow to the wishes and advice of both Fine Gael and Labour. Therefore I agreed to the introduction of the temporary Bill. It is not a wish and a prayer. All I am doing is voicing a concern about its constitutionality, and the situation which would arise for the unfortunate tenants if it were found to be unconstitutional.
I specifically provided in section I that the Act shall have effect until the 25th day of July 1982 or the date of the commencement of the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982, whichever first occurs, and shall then expire. The main Bill should be passed as soon as possible to remove alarm, fear, anxiety and concern from the unfortunate tenants and many landlords. It should be passed as soon as possible for the reasons expressed by Senator Robinson and for the reasons I expressed both in the Dáil and Seanad. The Supreme Court decision was made on 30 June last year and we cannot continue to pass temporary legislation. I am as concerned about that as anyone else. I am fearful about the constitutionality of this Bill. I want to get the main Bill through to protect the tenants' and the landlords' rights as soon as possible.
May I make a point in connection with the Minister's reference to Article 45? He said both in the Dáil and here that he would hope to fall back on Article 45 to guarantee the welfare and the interests of the weaker sections of the community. Article 45 of the Constitution comes closer to the democratic programme of the first Dáil and to the social vision — which inspired the founding fathers — than any other Article in the Constitution. If that Article were in the main body of the Constitution many of our problems would not arise and the balance which the Minister seeks between private property and social justice would be established. But Article 45 is a wish and a prayer, to borrow Senator Robinson's phrase; it is a pious aspiration. It is, to speak irreverently, pious codswallop for the simple reason that it is not cognisable by the courts and therefore until it is in the main body of the Constitution no Government and no court will take it seriously.
Reluctantly I would have to take issue with Senator Murphy on that last point. The High Court has, in an ingenious way, made at least partially cognisable, the direct principles of social policy in relation to a case on the equality of bar waitresses to be employed in a bar in a case about 1973.
However, I wanted to take up the main thrust of what I have said, what Senator Murphy has said and indeed what the Minister has said in his reply, which is that this is a very difficult and worrying area. We know now precisely what the nature of the problem is. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are going to continue and indeed accelerate the constitutional review — which Senator Murphy mentioned and to which the Minister did not respond — given this kind of difficulty, and it is not an isolated example?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is irrelevant to this section.
Perhaps the Minister would like to answer all the same.
No, I would not.
He would not like to answer?
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.