Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 1983

Vol. 101 No. 6

Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) (Amendment) Bill, 1983: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

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

At the outset I would like to thank the Members of the Seanad on both sides for facilitating me and enabling me to introduce this amendment to the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982. We are initiating this legislation in this House. This is a practice I would like to see developed over the next four years as far as my own Department are concerned, not by way of flattering Senators but in full and wholesome recognition of the positive contribution Members can make to the legislative process in the Oireachtas.

The Bill is in effect an amendment to the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982. This Act, which came into operation on 26 July 1982 provided tenants of dwellings which were formerly controlled under the Rent Restrictions Acts with security of tenure and set up a mechanism for determining rents by means of the District Court. It also gave power to the Minister to make regulations regarding the registration of standards and rent books for private rented dwellings. It is with regard to the mechanism for determining rents in cases of dispute that this Bill is concerned and in other matters the terms of the 1982 Act remain as they were.

The fact that the Oireachtas has been called upon to deal with amending legislation less than one year after the 1982 Act was passed should not be too surprising to anyone who listened to or read the debates on the 1982 Act. I think it was recognised by all parties at that time that the District Courts were not the ideal forum for resolving disputes under the Act. This was not a criticism of the District Courts but a recognition that the experience of attending court would be likely to be seriously upsetting for many of those obliged to attend it under the Act. There was also a recognition that the kind of issues likely to be involved were appropriate for determination by a specialist body.

During the debates last summer, concern was expressed on all sides that the landlords and tenants of formerly controlled dwellings, many of them elderly and poorly off, would find the court proceedings unduly formal and intimidating and might indeed see themselves almost as criminals in the dock, guilty of some wrongdoing. I think — and I think I speak for all Members based on our constituency experience — that the experience of the operation of the 1982 Act has confirmed the fears of Deputies and Senators in this regard, although district justices to the best of my knowledge have done their utmost to treat elderly landlords and tenants with every consideration.

The second point that must be remembered is that the issues arising under the 1982 Act for the most part hinge on technical questions relating to the valuation of property. The district justice is required to arbitrate on the competing claims of a series of technical witnesses. I would not, of course, query the competence of the courts to deal with complex questions of a technical nature, but I consider that most reasonable people would agree that, in the particular circumstances of the cases with which the Bill is concerned, this kind of task is particularly suited to a specialist body with relevant expertise.

The purpose of the present Bill is to set up a tribunal which would replace the District Court in determining the terms of the tenancies of formerly controlled dwellings. It is hoped that this tribunal will meet the objectives of providing an informal and expert service for settling disputes between landlords and tenants. The tribunal will set its own procedures which, I would expect, would have the aim among other things, of minimising the strain on persons coming before it. The criteria which the tribunal will use in setting rents will be exactly the same as those used by the District Courts although the tribunal will be able to carry out its own inspections of premises and have expert advice directly available to it in settling rents.

The details of the Bill will be examined on Committee Stage. At this point I would only wish to highlight a few issues. The Bill provides that either the landlord or tenant may apply to the tribunal to set the terms of the tenancy. The tribunal will be drawn from a panel of persons made up of barristers or solicitors, valuers and lay persons. They will work on a part-time basis and hold hearings throughout the country as the volume of cases demands. I hope to be in a position to set up the tribunal and have it working before the end of the year.

The Bill also contains provisions to allow the Minister for the Environment to set up an alternative system under which landlords or tenants would apply to housing authorities to have their rents fixed by rent officers who would be officials of the housing authority. In such circumstances the tribunal would then act as an appeals body. Before deciding to take such a step, it would be my intention to wait for a period to see how the rent tribunal operates on its own. If it is considered, having regard to the volume of business the tribunal has to cope with, that there is a need for rent officers, I will set up such a service in consultation with the local authorities and the public service unions.

In legislating in this area we must be especially careful to ensure that we are not creating problems vis-a-vis the Constitution. Having regard to the recent history of such legislation, argument might be legitimately advanced that changes need to be made to the Constitution itself, but this is not a matter which I can pursue now: my views on the need for this change are known. Our work today is bound by the terms of the Constitution and in particular the Supreme Court's interpretation of it as seen in its judgments in relation to earlier legislation in this field.

In preparing the legislation, following representation from various groups, consideration was given to the possibility of automatically transferring cases before the District Court at the coming into operation of this Bill to the tribunal and to allowing the tribunal to review cases previously determined by the District Court. On both counts, despite our desire to go down that road following representation from various groups, we received advice from the Attorney General to the effect that such provisions would be unconstitutional. We would prefer it to be otherwise, but find ourselves constrained by the Constitution.

As a consequence the Bill provides that where a case is before the District Court but not yet heard, it may be withdrawn by the applicant, with the consent of the other party, and transferred to the tribunal. It is hoped that the fact that the cost of appearing before the tribunal will be substantially less than that of appearing before the District Court will encourage a transfer of cases to the tribunal, but this is something that must be left to the parties concerned. A second area where the question of constitutionality arises is in relation to the criteria which must be taken into account in fixing a rent. In line with the Supreme Court judgment, the overriding consideration is that the rent fixed must be the just and proper one.

The additional factors taken into account, in accordance with section 13 of the 1982 Act, include the nature, character and location of the dwelling, the other terms of the tenancy, the means of the landlord and the tenant, the date of purchase of the dwelling by the landlord and the amount paid by him or her for it, the length of the tenant's occupancy of the dwelling and the number and ages of the tenant's family residing in the dwelling.

No change is being made to the criteria set out above. This is because they are considered to be adequate and satisfactory, if fully taken into account in a balanced manner, in the fixing of a just and proper rent. In addition, the opinion of the senior counsel on the 1981 Bill indicated that only this formula would be likely to be deemed to be constitutional. The tribunal will be bound by it in the same manner as the District Court. A declaratory statement, however, has, been inserted to the effect that the actual means of the tenant should be taken into account.

This is an attempt to remove some confusion that has existed as to whether the likelihood of the tenant receiving rent allowances should be taken into account in fixing the rent. This is not an amendment to the 1982 Act but a statement for the purpose of removing any ambiguity under the Act. Apart from this, it must be emphasised that it is outside the powers of the Government or of any Minister to direct that section 13 of the 1982 Act should be interpreted in any particular way.

I think there is a substantial measure of agreement on all sides on the need for the present legislation. I do not expect, and I want to underline this, that the Bill will be a panacea for all the problems related to the relationships between landlords and tenants but I think it should present a fair balance between the legitimate rights of one group of citizens and those of another. On this basis I commend the Bill to the Seanad.

Mr. M. O'Toole

I welcome the Bill, but with slight reservations. I do not know who is to blame for the Bill which was introduced in July 1982 — whether it was Fianna Fáil, the Coalition, the draftsman or the civil servants — but it was a sad reflection on the legislation passing through this House. That Bill had been awaited for a number of years. Now, one year later, it is deemed to be unworkable, unconstitutional and does not meet the needs of the people.

We are going through a decade of legal confrontation. Every legal man, whether he be a junior or senior barrister, is trying to find a section in a Bill going through both Houses of the Oireachtas which is unconstitutional. These legal people want to be considered judicial experts. They hope to achieve this aim by finding loopholes in the legislation that we, the elected representatives are legitimately trying to enact to meet the needs of the people. When preparing such legislation, we should have at our disposal the most expert legal opinion. This is an example of how legislation is sliding through this House. There were good intentions on both sides when the Minister introduced the legislation. We will be told that the Government parties inherited this Bill from the Opposition. Regardless of whose Bill it was, it is now found to be unworkable and unconstitutional.

More emphasis must be placed on the examination of Bills to ensure their suitability. We must ensure that when a Bill goes through this House it will be operative for at least a decade, and that is a very short period. This is a much needed Bill to deal with a long outstanding problem — the tenant versus the landlord.

I can see why the rents restriction court did not work. It was humiliating, frightening and frustrating for defenceless old people to be brought, probably for the first time in their lives and through no fault of their own, before a court, shivering in front of a barrage of legal experts and local government administrators. It is no wonder that Act did not work. I welcome this Bill because we have eliminated that court and officers of the local authorities will now be in a position to examine the case and suggest a fair rent. In the event of any disagreement at that point, either the landlord or the tenant will have the opportunity to have his case brought before the tribunal. The tribunal will be the last resort. Most of these rents will be fixed in a cool atmosphere between the tenant, the landlord and the local authority official. I do not think there will be any hassle. These old people will not be frustrated waiting for 4 July or 5 July to attend a rent restrictions court and preparing for weeks for it. This Bill will eliminate that and I welcome it.

I will quote two cases of people who came before the court. One person had the rent increased from £1.21 to £30 and another person from £2.15 to £32. These people were over 80 years of age and unable to pay this increase. I know a prosperous licensed premises in my own area that housed two families, one paying rent of 92 pence a week and the other 75 pence a week. Under the present system the landlord is unable to get any increase in the rent. There is an imbalance here. I want justice for both sides. I did not have time to examine the Bill in depth. If a person has to pay the increased charge fixed, and he or she is not able to do so, does that person have to move out, or will he or she be evicted? What period of time elapses before a review takes place when a rent has been fixed? I would like the Minister to give me some details so that we can discuss this in more depth on Committee Stage. I fear that the poor people, unable to pay the increased rents, will be asked to leave and that no alternative accommodation will be provided for them.

There will be repercussions. This area has been neglected for a very long time and we are trying to legislate for everyone, landlord and tenant. I hope there is enough flexibility in the Bill to deal with these problems because they will be cropping up every day. The local authorities will be dealing with each individual case in a humane way. As a result there may not be the same horrifying results which emerged from the rent restrictions courts over a short period. I will have more to say on that at a later date.

I am not sure how we are going to set up this tribunal. Soon I will be discussing planning boards. If the Minister decides the previous legislation dealing with the selection of a planning board was not suitable, how can he tell the House that he will select this new board and this new tribunal? When replying, could he tell me how he will differentiate between the two types of boards? How can he say one planning board is wrong and the one, which he is going to set up, is right?

An Cathaoirleach

We are not discussing the planning boards.

Mr. M. O'Toole

I was only trying to relate the two. I am sure the Minister knows what I am talking about. However, I will leave my remarks until we discuss the Planning Bill. I have told the Minister the reservations I have. How will he relate one board to the other? I am sure he will have an answer for that. I will have more to say on this on Committee Stage.

Mr. FitzGerald

I also welcome this Bill. When we pass legislation in these Houses and the President signs the Bill, it would seem logical that the Bills would not come back before either House within a period of ten years. Recently we have been updating legislation passed 40 or 50 years ago, not to mention last year. The misery that has been a feature of the 1982 Act, and the way it operated in the District Court, demand that something of a positive nature be done to clear up the mess. I am very dissatisfied with the way these courts have been operating. Section 13 of the 1982 Act asked that the additional factors to be taken into account in fixing a rent would be — the nature, character and location of the dwelling, the other terms of the tenancy, the means of the landlord and the tenant, the date of purchase of the dwelling by the landlord, the amount paid by him or her for it, the length of the tenant's occupancy of the dwelling and the number and ages of the tenant's family residing in the dwelling. I know from experience, and I have a certain expertise and knowledge in this area, that almost all those categories have been outside the normal handling of rent cases before the District Court. The only issue the District Court benches have been interested in since the 1982 Act passed has been the market rent of the dwelling.

We are dealing with many old people who were living in dwellings before 1967. The experience of one tenant after another has been that the court was only interested in the market rent. The tenant's level of income was treated as being of trifling importance. When that point was raised by those representing the tenant's interests, whether a barrister or a valuer, it was ignored. This issue did not interest the District Court Bench. That is a scandalous situation. To have a bench operate in that way under an Act passed by the Oireachtas last year, and which included a whole range of areas that should be considered when fixing a rent, is intolerable.

One point disturbs me. I understand why the Minister is not able to deal with it further than he has, when he put it in a short few words, but in relation to the review or appeal of cases that has taken place within the last year the advice given by the Attorney General was to the effect that such provisions would be unconstitutional. That is a great pity and it is going to disturb many people who faced the courts and were hoping the new rents tribunal would review the cases where there was a very high level of dissatisfaction on the part of the landlord or the tenant.

Rents fixed by the District Court in the last year have been applied for a five year period. That makes a farce of the 1982 Act. It is a pity that the constitutionality of dealing with appeals under the 1982 Act has been questioned.

We are dealing with this legislation piecemeal. This is a feature of the way the Oireachtas has been behaving in the recent past. I hope that Senators and Deputies on all sides will be prepared to face issues and that this Bill will not lead to a situation similar to that which brought this matter before these Houses, that is, a case taken about two years ago on the unconstitutionality of the Rent Restrictions Act. It would have been far preferable if people in public life had faced these issues long before that stage had been reached. All over the towns of Ireland there are to be seen, not just dwellings falling into disrepair and abandonment because of the operation of the old Rent Restrictions Act but because neither landlord nor tenant was able to deal with the upkeep and standards of maintenance, because the landlord was not getting the rent and the tenant was not sure of his or her position in the future. The housing stock was being badly damaged by the operation of that Act.

If you look over shop premises throughout Ireland, and certainly in this city, you will see floors after floors unoccupied because people do not know that the Rent Restrictions Act is no longer in operation. Great damage has been done by that Act remaining on the Statute Book for so long and by the way in which this Oireachtas delayed in bringing in updated legislation. Both Governments had to do it at the behest of a constitutional action in the courts. This makes me and everybody else in this House think in relation to other areas with which we may have to deal in the foreseeable future.

Senator O'Toole mentioned elderly people. I had the experience recently of dealing with a lady on the verge of her nineties, who lived with a certain other lady for quite a considerable time in a rent-controlled dwelling in Rathgar. There was an extraordinary build-up in relation to this lady's appearance in the District Court and she spent a month in the Meath Hospital following a black-out on the day after the court case. There was a question as to whether or not there might be a rent subsidy, or some tax relief for her under the 1982 Finance Act. She is still in a very upset condition, unsure of where she stands. One feature of the Rents Tribunal Bill was the area of subsidy under the Department of Social Welfare, which is a totally separate exercise. In the District Court there can be a backlog of six months and then you face another four, five or six months waiting for your rent subsidy to go through all the stages within that vast conglomerate Department of Social Welfare and you do not know for as long as a year where you stand. I cannot see why elderly people are put through the additional misery of having to deal with the rent subsidy as a completely different exercise, following the fixing of their new rents. Being upset at the whole change in their circumstances with the case being brought to court they then have to continue into another trauma of waiting to know where they stand with that rent subsidy.

I appeal to the Minister to include within the operation of the rents tribunal some method of handling at the same sitting the subsidy as applied by the Department of Social Welfare and that there be some attempt made to resolve within a reasonable period of time the question of the rent subsidy. I do not understand why that is not part of the present legislation. What has been included in this Bill will certainly minimise the strain, as the Minister said earlier, in relation to these cases because I assume that many of these cases will be dealt with by agreement outside the tribunal and the rent officer will fix the rent in many cases where there is no axe to grind and where landlords and tenants want to get together to sort out the situation.

I would ask the Minister to consider introducing an amendment in relation to this if it is at all possible to do so, to include somewhere in the operations of the rent officer or the rents tribunal the operations of the rent subsidy as applied by the Department of Social Welfare. If we do not do that, we will continue the strain and misery that have been a feature of the 1982 Act. We must assist the majority of elderly people who need the assistance of the State and the State must get itself organised to give them as much support as does not harm their way of life and give them an understanding that we are sensitive to their position and that we will do our best for them. Very many of the people who have had to face the District Courts in the last year with regard to their rents are not used to claiming social welfare benefits. The exercise is a whole new dimension facing them in their eighties or nineties. We should try to get it into a one day sitting. I hope it will be resolved in a much more sensitive way in the future.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am glad that this Bill is before us. I am still far from happy about this whole area but one of the best speeches on the amended legislation was made by the Minister when he was in this House. I have no need to impress on him the enormous implications of that Supreme Court decision in terms of human pain and misery. The result in recent times of a succession of decisions by our courts has been the effective beatification of the market economy through the Constitution to the extent that market value of property is now probably one of the few absolutes in the whole area of Irish law and legislation and courts. The one right which is untouchable and apparently unqualified is the right of the owner of property to receive the market rent or value of the property and the market value is determined in a way which is entirely beneficial to the owner of that property. The questions of the contribution of the community to the increase in the value of the property and of the lack of contribution of the individual to it apparently are peripheral matters.

At the centre of what is being discussed here is the problem of our Constitution. I am glad that the Minister faced it frankly in saying that the solution to all these problems lies in a constitutional amendment — in this case a very useful and important constitutional amendment, one which I suspect we will be awaiting for a long time, even though there are 30,000 vulnerable people whose lives and whole peace of mind are threatened by the consequences of our present Constitution. Perhaps when the church finally gives the nod some of my conservative colleagues will come around to agreeing that that constitutional clause can be amended also, but they will probably have to wait a long time for that nod because the church itself might be made a victim of that change in terms of its own property holding. We hope and we wait.

From what I have heard from Senator O'Toole and Senator FitzGerald, people who do clinic work in constituencies, they are aware of the enormous personal suffering and upset caused to many old people by the whole court procedure. Court procedures are intimidating. Anybody who has ever been in court, even for a parking fine, can testify to the sense of being on the outside. Everybody else is on one side, effectively - solictors and the Judiciary, and the individual who is outside the court system is on the other. Senator FitzGerald put his finger on it. I was not aware and could not be aware of the details of how the courts assess matters. It is indeed extremely distressing that they would take such a narrow view of their role in determining what is a fair rent.

There are 30,000 people involved. They are, by and large, frightened, vulnerable people. I have heard most horrific accounts from people working in voluntary social work in Cork of the extraordinary suffering of old people. People who perhaps have not travelled beyond the church around the corner and the next-door shop for 10 years because they are into their nineties suddenly have to make this extraordinary expedition across the city to the courthouse to pursue a change in their conditions of life that they do not understand — all, I hasten to add, in the interests of the market economy.

There has been a kind of lobby of landlords in recent times which would tend to put a halo around them in the sense that they are the innocent victims of first world war legislation simply seeking to achieve their rights. The fascinating thing is that I understand — and I will produce specific evidence in a moment — it is not entirely landlords who have owned property for a long time who are at the centre of this lobby. I know for instance that one of the best known property speculators in Cork — he calls himself a property developer but the other term is better — instructed his auctioneer to buy up every rent-controlled property in Cork that came on the market years before the Supreme Court decision was taken. It must have been obvious to anybody in the legal profession from years back that whenever or if ever the old rent control legislation got to the Supreme Court it had no hope of surviving because it was clearly in contradiction of the basic principle, well enunciated even years ago by the Supreme Court, that people were entitled to the market value of their property.

Quite obviously then, a lot of the tear jerking and hand wringing by landlords is hypocritical bunkum. They bought up property for buttons knowing that it was effectively going to be a gold mine. Now they are seeking their maximum redress. At the centre of all of this the tribunal, of course, will make progress and be an improvement. There is no simple solution to this problem because the other story is that if people paid market rents, then landlords would be encouraged to look after and develop their property, paint it and look after the garden.

Anybody who drives through the bleak flatland of Dublin where rent contol is non-existent and you pay the market rent will testify to the fact that there is no sign of any sense of concern on the part of the large number of landlords who own large tracts of property in Rathmines, Rathgar and areas like that in Dublin. You could identify the rented properties by looking at the outside. They are unpainted, neglected and never looked after. There are very few of these beneficial, benevolent, socially conscious landlords around waiting for a market rent to be offered to them so that they can do their duty.

There is a good deal of a very old sin called greed involved in all of this. It is greed of a particularly objectionable kind because, in many cases, it is the vulnerable, the elderly, the frightened and the poor who are the victims of that greed. That is not to dismiss the minority of cases and there has been a minority of cases of landlords badly treated. I would take a good deal of persuading that it was concern for those unfortunate people that motivated the whole campaign to have this legislation ruled unconstitutional. I cannot believe it and the pronouncements and the outbursts of the individuals and organisations involved do not give me any reason to believe differently.

This Bill is welcome and I am very glad it is being introduced: It is an attempt to humanise a difficult and dreadful position. I only regret that since it is an amendment to another Bill it will only apply to the formerly rent controlled properties and that we are still left with a huge area of furnished rent uncontrolled accommodation in which live a great many of our society, our young people in their early stages at work, students or unemployed single people and indeed families who cannot afford either to buy their own house or who are not eligible for local authority housing. There is a whole area of abuse and exploitation, of shoddy housing, or breaches of the Planning Act, of the fire regulations and indeed probably of the tax code as well which needs to be identified and tackled. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that some work is being done on that area.

This area of the formerly rent controlled dwellings presents a very serious problem because of the age and poverty of the individuals concerned. It is only the worst part of a huge area of social neglect — that of private rented accommodation generally — which badly needs new regulations, at least the requirement of standards to be met, at least the requirement of enforceable registrations.

I know there are theoretical registers of landlords. I would love to know what is being done to enforce this.

With that said, I welcome the Bill. The only thing that worries me is that, since apparently nobody can be forced to wait for this tribunal or to change from the courts to the tribunal, all the greedy hordes of landlords that I have talked about who purchased large tracts of property in the years prior to the Supreme Court decision or indeed subsequent to it will, obviously, head for the District Court with the maximum possible haste to make sure that they can be heard in what they would obviously regard as a more favourable environment to themselves and their interests than the tribunal. I suspect again, because of the constitutional position that there is nothing we can do about it which, of course, is appalling. There is no way we can prevent every single landlord currently owning rent-controlled property from getting his claim on the books of the District Courts before this tribunal becomes law. There is no way in which we can force them to wait or to change. The market economy, the price of property, is the one sacrosanct value in Irish society which nobody, not even the Legislature, can threaten.

Mr. Ferris

I want to make a short contribution on the Bill, first of all to welcome it. Those of us who were involved in the previous legislation almost predicted that this development was inevitable. It is not making a party-political point to say that it has been Labour Party policy since the bringing in of this environmental legislation, that a rents tribunal was an essential part of any legislation dealing with this problem and was inevitable. The Minister is on record in this House and in our party as having held that belief for a long time. In fairness to my colleague, Senator Robinson, when the Bill was going through she even tabled an amendment at that time suggesting that a rents tribunal should be the determining factor, but then decided to withdraw that amendment on the basis that she would wait and see how the District Courts matched up to the challenge that the Private Dwellings Act, 1982 gave them in this area. It is because of what has happened in the meantime that it has now become inevitable that the Minister would write in this necessary amendment setting up a rents tribunal system.

We have all heard about the plight of old people. This is particularly relevant in the cities, Cork and Dublin. In the country it has not been so widespread. People were petrified so to speak at being summoned to court, to have their rents re-determined under this Act. It literally frightened the lives out of old people who had never before had recourse to that kind of formality. As Senator FitzGerald pointed out, there were cases where the health of the people involved was put at risk by this whole process which we have been constitutionally forced to take account of. In trying to ensure a measure of fair play for people on both sides involved in these disputes, the unfortunate old person in the middle who has been in a special category in the social field and would be unable to meet a large rent that might be settled by the court, found this whole process most upsetting. I will not question some of the decisions that were made, but certainly many of them would raise anybody's eyebrows, although I realise they were working within certain constraints. I am glad that the Minister in his opening remarks, set some sort of norm by which cognisance should be taken of a person's ability to pay.

Senator FitzGerald has raised a very important point on this and I would like to hear the Minister's reply. Perhaps there are constitutional problems in this. The Minister said that the tribunal will still act under the same constitutional restraints as the District Courts have had to act. He further says that the tribunal will be bound by these same constitutional debarments but that declaratory statements have been inserted to the effect that the actual means of the tenant would be taken into account and that this was an attempt to remove some of the confusion that has existed as to whether the likelihood of the tenant receiving a rent allowance should be taken into account in the fixing of the rent. That was not an amendment to the Bill, but a statement for the purpose of removing any ambiguity under the Act.

There are ambiguities under the Act in this particular area because there is a time lag between the setting of the rents and the tenants discovering whether or not they qualify for any subsidy from the other Department. The less time lag, the better, especially for old people and people on fixed incomes, particularly those on small pensions of a fixed nature who are extremely worried because, for the first time, they are faced with astronomical rents in comparison with what they have been paying.

I welcome the fact that in this Bill there is provision for appropriate officers in the county council to assist, particularly as the county council is supposed to be recognised — by all of us who are members of it — as being specialists in the area of housing and housing rents and have been such for a long time. I remind the Minister that many rate collectors at county council level are idle and available since the court decision on rates has been found again to be unconstitutional. They are on terms of contract of employment and probably cannot have their employment terminated. Here is an area which would not involve any additional expense and I would ask the Minister to take this into account in his consultations with the local authorities and the public service unions on the possibility of employing rate collectors in this field of assistance. The Minister said that he would be calling on them at some future date but not immediately because he now wants to see how the tribunal will work. Last year we waited to see how the courts would work. Now we find we have to initiate the tribunal and I do not think we should wait too long before bringing in assistance from the Department of the Environment at local authority levels. The manpower is there, the expertise is there and it could make a very useful contribution in ensuring that people's cases are heard quickly and that decisions which are restrained by constitutional debarments are arrived at in a fair manner. This legislation tries to ensure that ordinary poor people will not be frightened out of their wits by the courts' procedure, and this tribunal will be a more humanitarian way of dealing with problems at that level. I welcome the Bill, as will everybody else.

Mr. Smith

I join with my colleagues in generally welcoming the provisions of this Bill. As the Minister has said, it is an attempt to balance the legitimate interests of both tenant and landlord. It removes a legislative vacuum created by a recent court decision. In spite of their best efforts the District Courts were not the most satisfactory way of dealing with this matter. The establishing of the tribunal should, and I hope will be an immense improvement on the existing situation.

This is the fourth or fifth piece of legislation that we have had in this rather complicated and complex area. There is a long history dating back from the earlier part of this century when rents were fixed. The economic climate was then far different from today's. In spite of what Senator Brendan Ryan says it is not all a problem for one particular side of the community. In fairness to what he has said, the vast bulk of those people who are affected — and badly affected — by the recent court decision are relatively poor, on pensions and have no means of being able to pay substantially increased rents. Equally, there is a minority of situations of relatively poor landlords and relatively wealthy tenants, and that is in need of remedy also.

This situation has developed over recent times and Senator O'Toole referred to the Supreme Court's decision that certain Acts which have formed part and parcel of our legal system for many years are unconstitutional. I am not trying to say that the Supreme Court was wrong in that decision. There is a delicate relationship. The independence of the courts must always be recognised. However, it seems that the decisions reached sometimes do not appear to be for what I would call the "common good".

The rights of private property and the manner in which this matter is enshrined in our Constitution obviously leave the Supreme Court on a tight-rope. As times change, social pressures and economic situations change. We must have a more enlightened approach, which would try to take into account the balanced needs of all the sectors in our community. There are people who will never own their own houses. Their interests have to be protected. We have had recent examples where old people are frightened by the trauma of going into court, many having lived their whole lives without ever having been involved with the law. They have tried to face up to that experience and the cost of valuers, auctioneers, estate agents, legal advisers and matters of this kind but are financially incapable of coping. Nevertheless, we can get a Supreme Court decision which would appear, at least — and I know the constitutional constraints that are there — to be incapable of taking these considerations into account. I hope the tribunal will be less formal than a court and less costly. I welcome the establishment of the tribunal.

I welcome the statement by the Minister that the hearings will be held throughout the country as the volume of cases demands. Regarding the Minister's statement establishing an alternative system under which landlords or tenants would apply to housing authorities to have the rents fixed by rents officers who would be officials of the local authority, are we talking about further appointments in the local authorities or are we talking about using the existing facilities to cope with the situation?

In relation to the advice given to the Minister by the Attorney General that we cannot cater under this tribunal for those cases which were decided last year and which caused much upset, has his Department given any consideration to some measure to alleviate the undoubted hardship which has been created for many old people where their rents have been substantially increased? I know it can be argued that some of the rents paid relative to the property were very small. The fact is that old people on fairly static incomes found themselves moving from a rent of a couple of pounds a month to, perhaps, £25 a week or £25 a month. It is the kind of increase which they should not be asked to cope with. I ask the Minister, when replying, to state if any consideration has been given to any measure which would alleviate this hardship.

Problems experienced in the District Court were referred to earlier. How do we decide on a fair rent to the landlord and tenant where we have to take into account the financial position of both parties? How does one know that the full financial position particularly of fairly wealthy landlords will be placed before the court? Is it necessary for them to produce evidence of their income?

I recognise that it is a complex problem — but it will be impossible to handle unless one has reasonable access to information of this kind. With those reservations and the questions I put to the Minister, which I hope he will deal with in his reply, I welcome the Bill. I hope that it will deal with the problems which have arisen from recent Supreme Court decisions and that it will allay the fears and traumas which many old people have experienced in recent times.

I do not want to see another amendment in this area for some years. I am mindful of the independence of the courts and the fact that they have served this country well. There is room, without changing the Constitution, for debate on certain areas which have changed over the years in the light of changing social situations. A more enlightened social view should be taken in matters of this kind. We should not present the Legislature on such consistent basis with decisions which seem to lean over in favour of one sector against another. I am reluctant to go into this area because it could be easily misinterpreted as condemning our courts. It is not meant to do that but to convey the impression that many of us hold that the courts can be out of touch with reality and with the changing situation developing in our country. We should move towards the situation where there is greater flexibility and account taken of pressures which can be caused on individual sectors of the community by decisions which lean so heavily in favour of one group against another. It is impossible to quantify the effect of those and the trauma they have created. If there is any mechanism by which the views expressed here could be strongly indicated to the Judiciary, perhaps there would be some scope for the elimination of the kind of decisions I have referred to.

Mr. Durcan

I join with the other Senators in welcoming the Bill. The Bill gives effect to the commitment by the Government in the Joint Programme for Government to set up a fair rents tribunal. However people must understand what the Bill does. The Bill simply transfers from the District Court to the proposed tribunal or to a rent officer the power to determine the terms of the tenancy of a dwelling which formerly was restricted and which is subject to the terms of the 1982 Act. In doing so, it is important that we realise it is simply a change of scene from the District Court on the one hand to a tribunal on the other hand.

Many comments have been made in recent times in the press on the distress and unpleasantness which many people experience when they come before the District Court in relation to matters of this nature. I appreciate that. It is reasonable and fair comment that people experience such feelings. I would like to be assured, however, that when a tenant or landlord comes before the new tribunal the same feelings will not be experienced. In so far as the Bill effects a change, it is in one sense an administrative change. A tenant or landlord who has no experience of going beyond the end of his street, who may be an elderly or disabled person, will instead of having to go to the drafty, dreary, cold, miserable courthouse have to go to wherever the tribunal sits. That is unless the situation will develop whereby rent officers will actually travel out and meet people in locus. If that happened, a different situation would arise.

Many people, in particular old people, experience difficulty in dealing with administration whether that administration be in the form of a court or tribunal. The Bill brings to life the difficulty we are experiencing in society, that the legal system is gradually collapsing and increasingly, due to the inadequacies of the court system, we are transferring to tribunals and like bodies various functions which more properly could be exercised by the courts. We see the effect of various decisions under labour legislation.

We have a whole plethora of tribunals sitting around the country. If we had a properly constituted court system and a commitment by Government to adequately fund the court system—that is something which is of concern to the Minister because the maintenance of courthouses is a matter for local authorities — and if we had a system at District Court level of travelling justices who could specialise in various areas, then perhaps the need for this Bill might not arise. It might be possible to have one or two experienced justices dealing with landlord and tenant matters who would travel on a constant circuit throughout the country and would have an opportunity of dealing with cases arising under the 1982 Act at various venues.

This Bill does nothing to change or alter the principles on which the terms of the tenancy will be fixed. It simply changes the administration. That is the point that must be grasped. There are one or two aspects of the Bill which may be more appropriate to Committee Stage but I will mention them briefly at this stage.

Section 6 deals with rent officers. Subsection (4) of that section provides that housing authorities may make arrangements for the joint discharge of the functions of rent officers. I do not know if that function should be more properly exercised by the Minister. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

I am a little confused about section 14 which deals with the declaration of interest. Having read through that very lengthy section it seems to me that there is a basic principle of natural justice that nobody can be a judge in his own court. Here we are in section 14, by and large, legislating for that situation. I accept that anybody with a declarable interest should not be involved in the determination of any matter under this Bill but I wonder if it is absolutely necessary to legislate specifically for that. It is already covered by our natural law.

Other than that, I welcome the Bill. It may provide an easing for tenants and landlords and for people who would normally have to go before the courts. I welcome it on the basis that at the moment there are not sufficient funds available to provide for proper facilities within our court structure. Speaking beyond this Bill, it is regrettable that we are setting up so many subsidiary quasi-judicial bodies to deal with many aspects of administration in the State which could be better dealt with by a properly funded District Court.

Mr. O'Leary

This is like a long-playing record. During the short period I was in the Seanad on the last occasion there were two different measures introduced by two different Governments. There was a Bill introduced in 1981 which was referred to the Supreme Court by the President and was found not to be in conformity with the terms of the Constitution. There was the one which was ultimately passed into law, Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982, which was not referred to the President and the constitutional validity of which has yet to be tested in the court. It will be. There is a very good reason why it has not been tested so far. I will deal with that later.

As I and many other Senators said on the passing of the 1982 Act it has a doubtful legal basis. It is a doubtful interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment which dealt with the striking down of the original legislation, which was the Blake v. Madigan judgment and the judgment which related to the referral of the earlier Bill passed in December 1981. As a result of that, the Minister of the day, acting on advice, arrived at the conclusion that the overriding consideration was that the rent must be a just and proper one. As was argued extensively and at great length in this House on the last occasion, in the opinion of some people who were Members of the House at that time that was an improper extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the two relevant cases. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court, at that time, referred to the question of the just and proper nature of the transaction but it was in a different context. I will not repeat in great detail what has already been said in the Seanad on 16 April 1982, at Column 651 of the Official Report which dealt specifically with that point.

During the course of the passing of that legislation, suggestions were made by a number of people that it was possible that the legislation would be unconstitutional for precisely the same reasons that the earlier legislation has been unconstitutional. That legislation has not been challenged by any litigant. There is a good reason for that. It is that the series of challenges to this legislation, which culminated in the Blake v. Madigan judgment, were landlord-financed. They were financed by people who felt — it was shown afterwards properly felt — that they were being unfairly treated by the previous legislation. The possibility of a tenant having the kind of finance necessary to mount a challenge to the constitutionality of any Act, particularly somebody who is living in a controlled dwelling, is very remote. Therefore, I have always felt, and I expressed the view at the time, that the challenge to the Act which now stands would come from the landlord side. Of course, landlords being rational people would only challenge something which was not working in their own interest.

We should not let this occasion pass without placing on record the unsatisfactory interpretation given to the Act by a number of district justices.

The Act, which is referred to in the Bill before us, was referred to in the Minister's introductory speech when he said that the terms of the tenancy were to be taken into account, the character and location of the dwelling, the means of the landlord and tenant, the date of purchase of the dwelling by the landlord, the amount paid for it, the length of time for which he owned it and the length of time for which the tenant occupied it. What has happened is that when a rent has been fixed in respect of a particular dwelling, that rent has applied to all similar dwellings in a particular terrace, for example, irrespective of the means of the individual or of the landlord. The very worst fears of those of us who were afraid that the mechanism of the District Court was not suitable for the examination of this case have been realised. For that reason above all this Bill is to be welcomed. However, we should not let the occasion pass without expressing our disappointment that in the interim period the matter does not appear to have been dealt with in accordance with the criteria set down by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I, as a Member of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas on that occasion, did not agree that this should be the case but it was decided. Being the true democrat that I am, I accepted it and I would have expected everyone else to accept it also. It appears to me that there was reluctance by the District Court to enter into the minute examination which was called for by the Act which we passed in 1982.

In considering whether District Courts are suitable tribunals for the examination of these kinds of civil matters, due note should be taken of their apparent failure to meet the challenge which was presented to them by this legislation. I readily accept that they would have found themselves in difficulty anyway because if they had examined the various criteria laid down by section 13 of the 1982 Act, they would have found themselves constrained by time. I agree that we would in any case have needed the tribunal even if they had gone into the matter in the detail which they should have done.

In the consideration of any further legislation which comes before this House of the Oireachtas, we should take due note of the apparent failure of the District Courts to administer satisfactorily the Act which we are now proposing to amend. That is one of the reasons why I welcome this Bill.

There are a number of other points I wish to make before dealing with the Bill. I notice that the Bill includes a declaration that the actual means of the tenant should be taken into account. Those who draft legislation and the Ministers who are responsible for legislation should recognise that points made in this House should be taken seriously. The point was made quite forcibly in the House, not by me but by other Members, that there was some confusion as to whether the district justice would be entitled to take the means of the tenant as inflated by an allowance given by the Department of Social Welfare. That matter was not satisfactorily dealt with in the hurry to get legislation through. As a result of that, we now have this further declaration as to what the real meaning of the Act is. I agree with it but it should not be necessary. The small points which are made on a non-political basis by Members on all sides of the House should be taken seriously by Ministers because they are not made in order to get maximum publicity. I can assure you, you will not get any publicity for a contribution like that. It is not made for that reason. It is made so as that there would be an improvement in the legislation. That is so whether it comes from the Opposition or the Government side of the House. One of the advantages of having legislation such as we have before us today is that because it is initiated in this House we might have greater opportunities of persuading the Minister to accept amendments to it, recognising as I do the necessity to enact this legisaltion before the Houses of the Oireachtas go into the summer recess.

I am disappointed that the Minister sees the rent officers as an alternative system which he does not propose to introduce initially. I am in favour of a rent tribunal but I am also in favour of a filtering system. I am not in favour of the rent tribunal being burdened with a large number of cases. If we had rent officers, their recommendations, subject to the appeal to the tribunal, would be accepted by both the landlord and the tenant in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, the rent tribunal would have more time to examine in detail the cases referred to it. The tribunal will become bogged down in a large number of cases because we will not have this filtering process. I would recommend to the Minister that he appoint rent officers, not necessarily in every local authority. If it is required to change the legislation so that different criteria can apply in different parts of the country that should be done.

There is a clear need for rent officers in Dublin. There might be no need for rent officers in other parts of the country. I suspect there is a clear need for them in Cork. In other parts of the country where there might be only 20 or 30 controlled dwellings in a county or 100 controlled dwellings — some of which may not be the subject of an application — the use of the tribunal might be quite justified. The Minister should not be too worried about the necessity for the same system to apply everywhere.

If the Minister divided the country into regions or introduced a local authority structure into it, he could bring section 6 into operation in respect of Dublin and Cork only until it was shown that a demand existed in the rest of the country. It is very important that we should respond to that demand in a reasonable way so that we do not overburden the rent tribunal with repetitious and unnecessary cases. The activities of a rent officer would be a considerable benefit in getting the landlord and tenant to arrive at an agreement at an early stage or to accept the first rung of the quasi-judicial process.

There is another reason that I am in favour of rent officers. Whether we like it or not the question of determining the level of rents does not begin and end with controlled dwellings. There is a need for a tribunal or a system of rent evaluation in respect of properties which are not controlled dwellings. Some of the sections of the 1982 Act applied to all properties, for example, the registration provisions. This is obviously a precursor to the extension of various controls to the area not presently covered by section 13 of the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act.

Dwellings not covered by this would, by and large, be dwellings that were built after May 1941 or dwellings which had a multiple use, apartments and so on. It is important, while retaining as the norm the capacity of the landlord and tenant to arrive at their own agreement, to recognise that in certain circumstances vulnerable people need the support of a system. I am talking about vulnerable landlords and vulnerable tenants. They both need the support of a system. That system should not be a tribunal system initially. It should be a rent officer system backed up by a tribunal system. I am very much in favour of the use of rent officers in the initial stages. It is consistent with the way in which the general development of our housing policy should go. That is why I am in favour of the utilisation of the rent officers at an early stage to assess in respect of this limited number of cases how they actually perform and whether they reach the degree of satisfaction to landlord and tenant which I expect they will. Very often between the landlord and tenant there is a kind of love-hate relationship and it only requires the introduction of a sympathetic third party to allow both sides to arrive at a satisfactory conslusion to the problems which for them are very personal problems but which probably are very like other problems which have been considered from time to time by either a tribunal or a rent officer.

For all those reasons I welcome the Bill. I would like to hear the Minister speak about the possibility of introducing the rent officers at an early stage, particularly of introducing the rent officers in respect of some local authority areas only. If that could be done not only would it be, as the Minister says, a short-term measure to overcome a particular problem but it would be laying the basis for the longer-term solution to a longer-term problem which will require additional legislation in years to come. If we have a firm base on which to build and if we have firm experience based on the operation of rent officers in some local authority areas then the consideration of that serious problem will be a far less daunting task than it would otherwise be.

It is important that the Bill should be passed into law quickly. I am not happy, as others have also said, with the position that the applications already before the District Court shall by necessity have to remain before the District Court because I am not confident that the very complicated criteria which we have laid down are receiving as full consideration as I expected they would receive under the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982. Other than that, I think the Bill is a step forward and the Minister will have our enthusiastic support.

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

I would like to thank Senators for the way in which they have responded to this legislation. Part of the response from all sides is based upon the fact, as a number of Senators have already indicated, that we are not coming to this particular matter de novo. The House has had two separate occasions on which to debate the broad issue of landlord and tenant relations. Everybody's view at the time was that the District Courts should not be used and that some form of rents tribunal would be a preferable system to the utilisation of the District Courts in their present state, in deference to what Senator Durcan accurately described in many cases throughout the country.

Pressures of time during the previous administration required that the legislation be enacted in the first instance and that we would come back as Government of the day to the establishment of the rents tribunal. That is what we are now doing. Therefore, this Bill has to be seen, as Senator O'Leary rightly pointed out, in the context of the main Act of 1982.

Senator O'Toole in his opening remarks questioned why such an amendment was necessary so soon after the legislation. In what I have just said I have given the indication as to why that was the case. Deputy Ray Burke, in the Government of the day, indicated to the House that other things being equal he would have liked to have been in a position to introduce the rents tribunal, but because the constitutional action had left the courts, so to speak, exposed, there was a need to introduce legislation immediately and to come back on the rents tribunals.

On the question of the appointment of the members of the tribunal and the analogy or comparison made with An Bord Pleanála, which the House will have ample time to discuss next week, it is not really fair to compare the two because in An Bord Pleanála's case we are setting up the unique procedure for appointment which the Minister for the Environment has frequently indicated would not apply to other boards or indeed to other operations. In this instance it is envisaged that the tribunal will have a chairperson appointed and then there will be a panel of people drawn from the skills that I referred to earlier and whose time will be called on as the need arises. Therefore, they would not, as in the case of An Bord Pleanála, be highly-paid, full-time people.

The point made by Senator Alexis FitzGerald about the fears that many of us had in relation to the operation of the District Court is very true. He referred to a particular case in Rathgar — and we share the same constituency — and I do not think he exaggerated. His description by way of example could be repeated by many people, not just in the city of Dublin but also in Cork where I have had some direct experience. Indeed, I think I recognise the terrace to which Senator O'Leary was referring on another matter. He raised two other points. One was the tear that many of us had — and indeed Senator O'Leary underlined it — that despite the clear intention and best desire of Members of this House and, indeed, Members of the other House, that the market rent should not prevail and that in the fixing of a just and proper rent the District Court should have regard to the eight factors that are set out clearly in section 13, it appears that many district justices — not all of them, I want to be very clear about this — did not appear to take account of this in the manner that we wanted them to.

That raises the delicate question of the balance between the Legislature and the courts. It is something that in a democracy we have to be very careful about. I want to underline and stress my support for the commitment to the courts system. Perhaps if we were to invest more time and energy into the operation of the system of courts we would get a better performance in the manner that Senator Durcan was outlining earlier on. In so far as this House on two separate occasions clearly talked about factors that would be other than market factors exclusively, then it is proper that we very clearly restate them and I welcome very much the points that have been made by a number of Senators in that regard.

Senator FitzGerald raised two other major points. The first point was the ability to transfer mandatorily the 900-odd cases that are currently listed for hearing with the District Court to the tribunal. That may be a very desirable objective but it is not, according to the best legal advice that is open to us, available to us. On a personal note of regret, we are constrained and that is the situation. However, there are two positive incentives that may induce the landlord side to begin with for themselves, with the consent of their tenants, to transfer to the tribunal. The legal costs involved, it is anticipated, will be far less in the tribunal and also the time. There will be no loss of income; if the landlord has applied to have a case with the District Court the date from which its application has been made will be the starting date for any determination. Secondly, in all probability, subject to the establishment of the tribunal, having regard to the fact that 900 cases are listed with the District Courts, his or her case will be taken up much sooner. I would hope that the message would go out loud and clear from the Seanad to landlords in this position, that in all probability it is in their better interests, with the agreement of their tenants, to transfer to the tribunal.

The other point was the streamlining of the procedure in relation to social welfare allowances. We have initiated some discussion with my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, with a view to seeing how we can remove some of the gaps and lumps that are there at present to achieve the objectives that Senator FitzGerald is looking for.

Senator Brendan Ryan, in his contribution which I welcomed, in his general support for the Bill talked in terms of the broader application of this legislation to the whole area of the private rental sector. In relation to the interpretation of the Constitution Senator Smith in his subsequent contribution echoed him, not using the strength of phrase that Senator Brendan Ryan used; I am referring to the beatification of the market economy within our Constitution which is a view that I share with him on a personal basis. Senator Smith very clearly indicated that there is a need within the delicacy of the relationship between the Oireachtas and the Supreme Court in regard to the democratically expressed desires and wishes of all Members of this House — there appears now to be unanimity coming from all of the parties in relation to this — for the court in its full and total independence to have regard to the social objectives and indeed to the change in social context within which legislation and economic forces have to operate.

On the extension of the legislation and on the application to it — indeed Senator O'Leary referred to it also: an effective system of rent evaluation was the phrase he used — the position here is that we need to move with agreement and with consensus on both sides. It is essential that fairness in every sense of the word, not market fairness, not some kind of bureaucratic fairness, but fairness with all factors properly balanced is what should operate.

One of the problems in relation to the private rental sector is that we lack accurate statistics. Senator Ryan uses the figure of approximately 30,000 people being affected by this private rented dwellings legislation. That is an approximate figure. The fact that it is frequently repeated does not give it any greater accuracy. Its accuracy is highly questionable. The real answer is we simply do not know. We have a guesstimate. It is a guesstimate of a guesstimate at the very best. In relation to the total extent of the private rental sector it is somewhere in the region of 90,000 dwellings but our census data is not as accurate and not as precise as this and is not as frequently monitored but many houses which were built as private rented dwellings and many advertised as being for rent in the newspapers of our major cities are in fact houses which would otherwise be categorised in the statistics available to us now as privately owned dwellings.

I would share the view of Senator O'Leary and Senator Ryan, and indeed others, that there is a need to move into this area to find an effective system of evaluation that provides the correct balance between the legitimate interests of both sides. In doing that, and I want to be very clear about this, we should learn from the mistakes of the past with particular reference, and I say this as Minister of State with overall responsibility in the Department of the Environment for urban conservation and urban renewal, to what fixed rents did to the housing stock throughout our towns and cities, as Senator FitzGerald rightly pointed out.

Senator Ferris, my colleague, in welcoming the Bill indicated that it was an addition to the 1982 legislation and I think rightly focussed on the necessity to deal with the problem of the social welfare payments and in particular the rent allowances. The question of the declaratory statement that he raised — and he was followed by Senator O'Leary — is an important one. The legislative point made by Senator O'Leary is something that I personally take on board very much. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom in relation to the drafting of legislation. The teasing out process that both Houses of the Oireachtas can provide is an essential legislative filter that should not be avoided. In so far as I have any personal say in these matters, I would certainly welcome and respond to the spirit of what Senator O'Leary was saying.

Having said that, it is quite clear what we are trying to say in this instance, that it is the factual means of the tenant that are the means and only those means are to be taken into account when the fixing or assessment of a rent is being contemplated by the tribunal or by the rents officers. There is no way that the anticipated rent allowance that the tenant would be legally entitled to should be added to his or her means and a quasimarket rent subsequently fixed. That defeats the entire purpose of the measure and it is contrary to what we are trying to achieve.

Senator Smith in his substantial contribution covered some of the points that I have already referred to, the relationship between the Supreme Court and the powers of the tribunal under the parent legislation, so to speak. It is clearly our intention, subject to proper consultation with the local authorities and the public service unions, that there would be no net additional increase in staff. From my own personal knowledge I am quite confident that housing authorities throughout the country not only have the expertise and the desire to participate in this area but that they also have the available personnel. I think it was Senator Ferris who referred to that as well. Obviously, these are matters of an administrative kind that need to be discussed in consultation with the various other parties involved but the points that the Senators have made in relation to the utilisation of existing resources will be taken into account when we go to move in that area.

Another point that Senator Smith raised was that of the relationship between social welfare, the rent allowances and the actual means. I have dealt with that already. The Senator rightly referred to the implicit element of decentralisation in the principle of this legislation. This is not going to be another Dublin based body. I am sure, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, you will welcome the spirit of that sentiment even from a jackeen like myself. For too long we have tended to concentrate effective decision making in either Dublin or Cork without recognising that in addition to having to go through the process of availing of rights in a tribunal there is the extra difficulty of travelling to Cork or to Dublin. We are availing within this legislation if operated in full of both the filter system that Senator O'Leary talks about for every local authority or where two or three local authorities can come together and appoint a rents officer. Not every housing authority will have to have a rent officer. There is provision in the subsections of the relevant section to enable the local authorities, in Connacht for example, to decide to appoint a rent officer who will adjudicate for Galway, Mayo and Roscommon and so on, if the need arises. We are building that flexibility into the legislation because of the statistical poverty we have in relation to this whole area. If we had a clearer statistical picture our legislation could be more finely honed and tuned in. We have not. Therefore, we want, without coming back to the House again, to give ourselves that flexibility. That flexibility is only there for that particular purpose.

One of the phrases that caught my attention in Senator Smith's description of the court procedures was the need to allay the fears and remove the trauma that people frequently experience in the court process. As Senator Ryan said in his own description — this may offend the lawyers among us — there is an implicit suggestion of criminality for anybody who is summoned to go to court. The procedure, the paraphernalia, the ritual surrounding the courts and the archaic language that is frequently used — which certainly offends my particular Republican sentiments — all go to distance the person from the procedures directly at hand and to make them somewhat uneasy and therefore produce the fear and the trauma that the Senator so accurately described.

One of the main objectives behind the tribunal — and you cannot write this into legislation but you can certainly move to try to achieve it — is to decriminalise, in a psychological sense, the entire procedure of effective rent evaluation and to respond to the difficulties of people, particularly elderly people who have lived all their lives in a particular house are now forced somehow or other to justify their tenancy of it. From what I have heard from the Senators today we will be able to move to achieve that with good, positive co-operation from all sides.

Senator Durcan made a very good case which I hope the Minister for Justice will pick up in relation to the need to restructure and support the whole judicial system and the courts system including such Minister's responsibility for maintaining the courthouses and not having them falling upon the backs of local authorities. In saying that, he did make the fair point that it applies to a broader area of interest than the particular operation of this legislation. He also correctly pointed out that this is a commitment of the present Fine Gael-Labour administration in relation to the Joint Programme for Government. In saying that, I want to acknowledge that we would not be able to honour that commitment if it had not been for the co-operation of the Fianna Fáil Party in this regard.

Two minor points which he raised related to the operation of sections 6 and 14. On Committee Stage I will come back to the question of section 6 (4). On the question of section 14, whether it was really necessary to include what would otherwise be a factor of natural justice, I have no legal expertise so I cannot comment very learnedly on it. Our desire in setting out such an extensive section in section 14 was not only to cover the natural law point but also to set down clearly the procedures in relation to how it should operate in this legislation and to remove any ambiguity that might arise accordingly.

Senator O'Leary began rightly by setting the context in which the legislation was first initiated and talked about the possibility of future Supreme Court action. There was a suggestion at one stage that the 1982 Act would be subject to a constitutional challenge and I understand that some preliminary proceedings did start in that area.

He rightly pointed out that the landlords are rational people in so far as they pursue their economic interest as landlords and that therefore if the system is seen to operate in their interest they will not proceed to challenge it. He pointed out that the previous actions had been initiated by landlords. I would like to think that within the context of obtaining an effective system of rent evaluation whatever procedures we introduce in our society would be seen to be both in the interests of tenants and landlords and that what I would regard as the basic human right to shelter that our society should extend to everybody, should be something that should be extended to individuals in their personal capacity and the necessary relation between the capital cost of the building and its rent in order to maintain it and to cover its cost and so on should not be confused.

If people, through no fault of their own, are unable economically to house themselves adequately then we as a society should give them assistance but that assistance should in no way, as we have learned in the past, interfere with the provision of net additional housing or indeed the maintenance of the existing housing stock involving dire consequences as we have seen from parts of our older urban areas. Therefore, and I should like to emphasise this to landlords who may read this legislative debate, it is our clear intention to provide a fair and effective system which will, with all due respects to Senator Durcan and other legal colleagues, be a more effective and less expensive system of rent evaluation than is currently available to them.

The final point that Senator O'Leary made related to the utilisation of rent officers and the tribunal. I am concerned, as indeed all of the politicians in both Houses are concerned, that we should move to have this tribunal established as quickly as possible. It may be that there is a need, and I agree with this personally, in the Dublin and Cork areas in particular for the filter system of a rent officer and a tribunal. We are not really sure; a lot depends on how many of the already listed 900 cases opt to transfer to this tribunal. I have already referred to the fact that, as he indicated himself, around the remainder of the country there will not necessarily be need for a rent officer in every local authority and we have made provision for the pooling of resources in that area. But we will be in a position, following the enactment of this legislation, to move quickly and decisively to establish the tribunal and in concert with that, depending on the way things move — and in all probability it will be necessary at some stage in the near future — to avail of the provisions in relation to rent officers having regard to the consultative process that I have described.

I hope I have covered all the points raised by the various Senators; those that I have not we can take up on Committee Stage. I commend Second Stage to the House and thank Senators for their support.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next Stage?

Professor Dooge

As Members of the House are aware, it is necessary to get this Bill back to the Dáil so that they can deal with it tomorrow. Accordingly, I hope that we can have all Stages completed this afternoon. I would suggest, in order to allow consideration of possible amendments, that we might take an early lunch break now and if Members agree we could resume at 1.30 p.m. or perhaps even 2 p.m. and take Committee Stage then. As regards the Order, I would like an order for Committee State today.

Mr. M. O'Toole

I do not like the precedent of initiating a Bill in the Seanad and then asking us on this side of the House for a quick conclusion. Furthermore, while I am dealing with that, may I say that it is not easy to put down amendments in the time available. Indeed, the Leader of the House has now indicated that we should adjourn in order to get time to put down amendments. There is no time at this stage because you cannot rush out, get amendments and try to get them in, have your lunch and be back here to debate them. This is why I feel that it is a wrong precedent to initiate a Bill and then ask for its conclusion on the same day. I know it is not a guillotine operation at this time. As the Minister has rightly said, the tribunal should be set up as quickly as possible and with the Summer Recess in the offing if we put this back for another week it might not get under way until the end of the Recess and the next sitting and then it might be into 1984 before it would become law. For that reason we on this side of the House are not going to hold up this Bill but I would like that in the formation of the Riar na hOibre our views should be considered. On the Order Paper, we have coming after this Bill a Committee Stage Bill which will also involve the Minister. There should be some recognition for spokesmen on this side of the House and people dealing with the environment. The criminal justice item could have been made item No. 3 on this occasion and so give the Minister an opportunity to have a break and give the people on this side who will be contributing to item No. 3 a break also. I hope that the Leader of the House will keep this in mind for the future. We do not intend to hold up the Bill in any way and if he wishes to take the next Stage now or adjourn for lunch we are in a position to agree to that.

Professor Dooge

I am grateful to Senator O'Toole for the consideration he has shown. I do appreciate the difficulty in that we have this Bill which is urgent and also another local government Bill at an advanced stage. If it would help the Senators in regard to the preparation for the Committee Stage of this Bill we could pass on to the next item on the agenda and return to this at 4 o'clock or even 5 o'clock. This, indeed, was an alternative I had in mind and in view of what Senator O'Toole has said, he might find that more convenient though, as he says, he may well be involved in the measures that will be brought in in the meantime.

Mr. M. O'Toole

I know the Minister is a busy man and I will agree to whatever the Minister wishes to do. I do not mind which Bill is taken at this stage but I do not like the method used in what has happened today and I would not like it to happen in the future. We will handle it as best we can within the very limited time at our disposal to deal with the Bill. If the Minister would like to leave it until later or go ahead now we are prepared to facilitate him.

Professor Dooge

I think the Minister would probably prefer if we came back at 2 o'clock. It does not matter whether we take the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Bill in Committee Stage today. This Bill does matter; so, if we come back at 2 o'clock we are making a declaration that there will be no restriction on the Committee Stage of this Bill and I think that is perhaps a better attitude to take. I certainly will keep in mind the question of business items coming one after the other and I am sure Senator Eoin Ryan, who has occupied the position of Leader of the House, will realise that there is a principle that once you catch a Minister it is just as well to keep him because sometimes if he gets away you do not get him back again.

Committee Stage ordered for today.

Sitting suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.