I move "That the Seanad do not insist on the amendment originally passed by this House".
Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1982: Message from Dáil.
Dáil Éireann has disagreed to the Amendment made by Seanad Éireann to the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1982, and desires that Seanad Éireann should not insist thereon.
Disagreement on Seanad amendments are rare and insistence by the Seanad in the case of disagreement are rarer still. We, in the Seanad, can be gratified at the fact that many amendments are made in this House and accepted by the other House. There are, however, occasional disagreements and the procedures are there for dealing with the reconciliation of the disagreements. In this instance it would not be appropriate that the Seanad should attempt to insist on the amendment that it made to this Bill on the last sitting of the old Seanad. It is true it would set in motion an interesting procedure in regard to reconciliation but I do not think that invoking this procedure, which could turn out to be quite lengthy, is appropriate in regard to this Bill. Despite all the debates on the Bill in both Houses I have personal doubts about its constitutionality and in my opinion, the sooner it gets to the Supreme Court the better.
I do not want my failure to urge the Seanad to stand by the decision with regard to the Bill as indicating that I accept that the Seanad has no right to insist on amendments when it thinks fit or that the Seanad has no right to reject a Bill which comes to it from Dáil Éireann. There is a tendency from time to time to say that there is something inferior in the mandate of Seanad Éireann. That is something which this House cannot accept. In my time in the Seanad there have been few cases of outright disagreement. I remember one case in 1964, when on the Pawnbrokers Bill the Minister for Justice of the day became somewhat irked by what had been said on the Second Reading debate and refused to reply. On that occasion the Seanad, quite rightly in my opinion, the Minister having refused to reply to the debate, refused to pass the Bill and sent it back to Dáil Éireann.
There is another case which I wish to recall in making these remarks, a case which is important in the political and parliamentary history of this country. In January 1959 Dáil Éireann passed the 1959 Referendum Bill by a majority of 19 votes. In March 1959 the Seanad, which is supposed to lack the popular mandate of Dáil Éireann, rejected the 1959 Referendum Bill by one vote. The subsequent referendum which took place because Dáil Éireann had the parliamentary power to insist that the Bill would ultimately pass, the Referendum Bill rejected by the Seanad, having been passed most comfortably by the Dáil was rejected by the people by 33,667 votes. In this case the Seanad Éireann mandate proved to be in line with the popular will.
I do not think that insistence would be appropriate on this amendment at this time but there may well be times in the future when I would be arguing cogently in a different direction. I will always argue cogently that this House should maintain its right to examine legislation with due preparation and care, taking an appropriate time for the job and making up its mind as a collective House of the Legislature on the merits of what is before the House.
As one of the Senators who participated very actively on Committee Stage and supported the amendment put forward by Senator O'Leary, I would like to take this opportunity when we have a motion proposing to disagree with that amendment adopted by the Seanad, to take strong issue with the Minister for his reaction to the adoption of the amendment by the Seanad.
On the evening that that was done he issued a public statement, and a few days later, at a Fianna Fáil meeting in the Dublin West constituency, he issued a further statement. He accused Senators who had participated on Committee Stage of the Rent Restrictions Bill, and particularly those of us who had supported the amendment, of being mischievous, childish and irresponsible. It is important to take an opportunity to refute that categorically. I believe that the record of the debate on Committee Stage in this House refutes it. Anybody who looks at the record of the debate will have no doubt at all, not only that that was a serious and conscientious debate but that it was an extremely necessary debate, because it was very worrying indeed to see the number of serious issues on which the Minister did not know what was the position: for example, how the whole mechanism for rent subsidy by the Minister for Social Welfare was going to work or how the detailed regulations in relation to standards of rented accommodation were going to work.
On the amendment, the Minister attempted to add to the public alarm and apprehension on this whole issue by suggesting that Senators had put tenants at risk by adopting that amendment. He knew that was not so because there was already passed and signed by the President a continuation Act which continues the position until 25 July. There have been doubts expressed, including doubts by the Minister, about its constitutionality, but the reality is that it is already in operation and it would be doubtful whether it could be challenged in that intervening time. He also knew that it would be a much earlier date, 13 May, by which time the Dáil would have had an opportunity to consider the Seanad amendment and the Seanad would have this opportunity to consider what the Dáil had done. He was deliberately adding to apprehension, and I know that it had an effect on a number of tenants. They were worried that their position was not legally secure, and it was perfectly legally secure. That was an abuse of his position as a Minister in purporting to suggest that Senators had acted in an irresponsible manner. We had not acted in an irresponsible manner. We acted in a manner in which I hope we will continue to act, which is to look at legislation, to point out areas where it is defective and to seek to improve it.
I stand over my belief that the amendment was an improvement on the section, which is a very difficult section to apply. As it stands at the moment, the section is going to give rise to great inequities and unequal treatment around the country. There are so many subjective elements in it which individual district justices are going to have to try to apply. It may be, as Senator Dooge has suggested, that it will be referred by the President to the Supreme Court and will be determined at an early stage whether that section is compatible with the Constitution. It may be signed by the President but will await the threat of subsequent challenge as to its constitutionality. It is a bad reflection on the Seanad, for which we heard some support in the earlier speeches here this afternoon, that the speech by a Minister, repeated a few days later, made allegations in the manner in which he did, which were not in conformity with the reality of the debate, which was a very serious and constructive debate in which there was no attempt to introduce irrelevant material. When we had that debate in the Seanad it was clear that Senators on both sides of the House were deeply concerned about the tenants affected. We wanted to secure the position at the earliest possible moment and to bring in legislation to create the best balance between the rights of landlords as established by the Supreme Court and the position of tenants who hitherto had been in sheltered and protected tenancies. Many of these tenants were very vulnerable and very old.
The worst aspect of the statement issued by the Minister was that it aggravated and exaggerated their fears and created an impression in tenants that they were once again without legal security and that this was the fault of Senators. If we, as I hope we will, adopt the approach suggested by Senator Murphy that we regain for this House some of its standing and stature then it must be on the basis that this House can and should look at legislation on its merits and be prepared, even at the inconvenience of Ministers — and I certainly accept that it was inconvenient for the Minister to have to go back to the Dáil — to look at things on their merits and to propose amendments if they are warranted.
If Senator Dooge does not wish to press this, then we in the Labour group will not press it as it was a Fine Gael amendment put forward by Senator O'Leary, but I want to make it clear that the Labour Party believed that that amendment was an improvement on the Bill, that we are less happy with the section to fix rent restrictions without that amendment, that we believe it is a worrying section — worrying because it is possibly legally defective and may be so found by the Supreme Court, but worrying also from a policy basis because there are no parameters, no ceiling on the rent that a district justice may fix. A district justice in deciding on the eight or nine parameters he has to take into account in deciding what is to be a just and proper rent may fix the rent at any level. There will be no ceiling on the amount. Considering the location of some of these rent restricted properties, it could give rise to great inequity, unfairness and further worry to the tenants whom we are trying to protect.
I believe that the good faith of Senators was called into question by the Minister, and I wanted this opportunity to refute categorically that there was any substance in what he was saying. I believe that his statement contributed to the apprehension and fears of very vulnerable members of our society.
I wish to congratulate you on your appointment to the position of Cathaoirleach and to wish you luck. I am quite sure you will give to this House the appropriate and proper service that each Cathaoirleach has given to the House.
Listening to Senator Robinson, I was brought to my feet to remark that I do not think it is quite right to put the case in the way in which she has put it. By her remarks she more or less insinuates that the Minister had made the statement as though he was the person who was absolutely and totally guilty on this issue. The circumstances in which this motion was brought before the Seanad should be made known. In actual fact this very day in the making of a little programme on RTE I remarked about that issue. It is a fact that the previous Coalition Government were in the majority in this House at that time: I think it was 16 April if my memory serves me correctly. This new Seanad had not been elected. The old Seanad with the previous Taoiseach's nomination of 11 Senators was sitting in this House at that time. There was a Fianna Fáil Government then in existence. I think that Seanad and the mover of that motion in the Fine Gael Party in particular were quite wrong to take upon themselves the right to object at that time, at the point where we were ——
I do not think that arises on this motion.
If statements made in Dublin West arise on this motion I think it is appropriate that we should correct those statements. I do not want to argue with you on the matter but I believe that the Fine Gael Party were wrong to take the opportunity, and I will leave it at that.
The Government are not the Legislature and we want to make sure they never are the Legislature.
I want to make a point, and the Leader of the House I am sure is quite aware of the fact, that there was not a majority on the Government's side in the Seanad as is normal. I will leave it at that. I am sure Senator Dooge knows that quite well. It leads me to another question. We have now a Taoiseach who has sacrificed the right in this House of a political majority. I listened for many years to many of the Independents, and University Members in particular, talking about the way in which this House has been brought into the realms of party politics, how it should be stopped and the Seanad should be separate. I believe the Taoiseach made a very significant move in appointing——
Senator Killilea, again I have to call you to order.
I want to make a relevant point.
The Senator's third irrelevant point.
The Taoiseach has appointed two distinguished people from the North, Senator Robb and Senator Mallon, and I express the joy of the whole Seanad and indeed the public at large at their coming——
What has this to do with the motion?
Motions similar to this one can appear quite often if those two very fine and brave people, who have not been asked to back the Government but have been given the freedom to express their views——
I have to call the Senator to order. What you are saying is not relevant to the motion.
It is very relevant because we could have similar motions to this——
Senators
Chair, Chair.
It is very important that I make the point. It is very relevant to the motion before us. I do not think a situation like this should have arisen and the Seanad should not have been allowed to be used by certain individuals at that particular time. I hope that it will never happen again. If we want to make the Seanad a forum of discussion, which so many of us believe it should be, I do not think we should use politics in it one day and not use politics in it the next day. Either make it a political Seanad or do not make it a political Seanad. We have a glorious opportunity this time of not making it a political Seanad.
As a University Senator, though not really of the university, I was not here when this amendment was put. Many people presumably would have expected that I would have been a great supporter of that amendment. I would support many things that members of Fine Gael particularly tend to aspire to, often when it is safe to do so, and when there is no possibility of them having to pay for the consequences of their actions.
I spoke here when the first Rent Restrictions Bill was put before this House and so did at least one supporter of the Government at the time, Senator Quinn, and pointed out the inadequacies of that particular piece of legislation. The then Government rammed that legislation through this House with their safe majority, without any concern for rational debate, rational amendment or anything like that. To be fair, Senator Robinson was the one exception on the Government side who abstained on at least one vote on that particular Bill. What I find fascinating is how people rediscover their social consciences when they are distanced from office but their social consciences disappear when they have the burden of office on their shoulders. I speak as one who came into this House with a view to defending the interests of those whose interests are rarely heard.
This particular piece of legislation is extremely important to a relatively small, uninfluential but extremely vulnerable group in our society. I, for one, deeply resent a lot of the party politics that came into this because it must have been known that the amendment would not be accepted by the Dáil. It must have been known that there was no possibility of that amendment being accepted. I do not understand the motivation for an amendment when the previous legislation left tenants in those properties open to unqualified, blind market forces. There was a minimal period of adjustment but effectively rents were to be determined by blind market forces. I fail to see the consistency of those who advocated this amendment which has now been rejected by the Dáil but who could not even find time for a couple of days to consider rational amendments to that particular piece of legislation when it came before us in the early days of the last Seanad.
I think the Bill is appalling. It is an appalling reflection on our society that we cannot legislate about property without having to give deference to an antiquated Constitution and to rulings of the courts which I suspect are influenced as much by the class background of the members of the Supreme Court as they are by anything else.
As one who has a strong commitment to the poor, the voiceless and the deprived, I resent the way a piece of legislation, which is extremely important to the welfare of the most vulnerable in our society, seems to have become a political football. Social justice is a safe issue as long as you do not threaten powerful interests and as long as you do not have to take the consequences for your good ideas. I wish to God that people had not played politics with the poor, which is what they did with this piece of legislation. I wish to God that people who did not see fit to take exception to the initial legislation did not claim then to rediscover their social conscience when they were in a temporary and obviously ineffectual majority.
I do not want to follow Senator Ryan in the attribution of motives of one kind or another in the discussion here on the Bill. The French have a saying "The absent are always wrong". I have a great affection and regard for Senator Sean O'Leary who I think graced the House while he was in it. I believe, knowing him, that the amendment which was his brainchild was put forward in good faith.
It was an amendment with which I did not happen to agree. I said it was his brainchild, a kind of complicated actuarial brainchild, but I did not believe that it would achieve the purpose, if implemented in the law, which he hoped it would. His point was that it would help to fix a limit to rents and, therefore, favour the tenant and by extension the people who Senator Ryan calls the under privileged, the poor and deprived. I thought that it could equally be interpreted as giving the landlords the benefit of a generous and statutory provision for a maximum value. Therefore, I thought that the amendment was ambiguous and I voted with the Government against it.
I support Senator Eoin Ryan's motion that we do not press the amendment. At the same time, I must support Senator Dooge when he said that this House has its rights and its obligations under the Constitution to put forward amendments to legislation. It would be neglecting its duty if it did not do so when it saw fit. While I take Senator Killilea's point, I think the point the Minister had in mind when he made a speech which offended Senator Robinson and others, was that it was the lame duck nature of Seanad Éireann at that stage which made the amendment objectionable. The Constitution says nothing about lame duck Seanads. Here is a House of the Oireachtas, legitimately constituted, doing its business with responsibility, and it had every right to pass that amendment. I support Senator Dooge, in principle, and I share some of Senator Robinson's resentment at the Minister's speech. The principle I accept, but at the same time I support Senator Eoin Ryan's motion.
I would like to welcome Senator Honan to the Chair. I regret not your presence in the Chair at the moment, sir, but her physical absence because I would have liked to express to her my hope and belief that she would bring to that position the dignity and elan and the impartiality we would expect of her, and to express to her the belief that if it should happen that, by accident or otherwise, my conduct would not be totally orderly, it would not be in any way a personal affront to her, but might arise from other matters. I would like also to rectify an omission, since much reference has been made to the previous debate and the previous House. On that occasion I omitted to observe the normal courtesies and to welcome the Minister on his appointment, and I would like to rectify that omission now. The fact remains that the Minister chose to make a public issue of the right of the Seanad to consider any legislation that goes before it. Senator Murphy made the point that it was the right of the Seanad, whether it is a lame duck or whatever it happens to be, to consider legislation in an adult and mature fashion. A rather convoluted reference, which I did not fully understand was made by Senator Killilea, as to whether the Seanad was political, to the occasions when the Seanad could be political, could not be political and should not be political. So far as most of us are concerned, when there is serious legislation before the House, the Seanad is political, and whether he meant party political or not is irrelevant.
Much reference has been made here to the part played by ex-Senator O'Leary. In fairness since he is absent, reference again should be made to that. All I can say is that as I listened to the debate — to Senator O'Leary and Senator Robinson who were the leading speakers on the matter — it became clear that the legislation we had before us was unsatisfactory in a number of important respects, and furthermore that this legislation was likely to lead to legal action, and possibly to be questioned in the Supreme Court. It seemed to me and to all on this side that we would be failing totally in our responsibilities as legislators and in our responsibility to the people, if we did not make this point very clearly and underline the fact that we believe this legislation was unsatisfactory and it should be amended — it must be remembered that all the speakers asked the Minister to amend it. It was an intelligent, mature and adult debate in which the speakers in this side of the House pleaded with the Minister to reconsider this legislation and, as I said at the time, "let us try and tease out this legislation and make sure we do not have to come back again with yet more legislation to deal with these problems".
Senator O'Leary, I believe, made very important contributions on a few occasions — in mentioning his name here in this context I would like to say that as a colleague I much regret his absence from this House and hope it will not be a permanent one — and the people of Ireland and this House have much to regret in his absence.
So far as this House is concerned, it is our duty as elected representatives under the Constitution to consider any legislation or motion that comes before us in a responsible fashion and to deal with it in a responsible fashion. I am not totally in agreement with the decision that we should allow this Bill to proceed without some form of constitutional objection to it, but, on the other hand, we can say that our confidence that this is not a satisfactory Bill and that it will be challenged will be vindicated, and the sooner it gets to the Supreme Court and the sooner it is challenged and clarified as to whether it is effective legislation, the better for all.
First, I should like to say that it is a pleasure to be here in the Seanad today. I would like to congratulate Senator Honan on her appointment as Cathaoirleach. I would like to congratulate each and every Senator on their elections, some of them for their re-election and others elected for the first time. In particular I would like to welcome Senator Robb and Senator Mallon from Northern Ireland and wish them well in the Seanad. I know they will have many fine contributions to make to the work of the Seanad. Finally I would like to wish the Seanad a longer term than the last Seanad, and I know that I am echoing all their prayers for that particular thought.
I would also like to thank the Seanad for agreeing not to press this amendment, but to accept the decision and the judgment of the Dáil in this matter. As to the issues raised by Senator Robinson with regard to the rights of the outgoing Seanad or the rights of the Seanad, I do not want to get into controversial debate on it, but could I say that that debate took place on 16 April and this is now 13 May. If this Bill is to be referred to the Supreme Court by the President, the Supreme Court has 60 days in which to make their judgment and the existing temporary legislation which everybody will admit is of a very dubious constitutional nature in character, runs out on 25 July. If the previous amendment had not been pressed, and if the President had referred it, we would have had nearly a month of decision-making and consideration by the Supreme Court over at this stage.
Question put and agreed to.