I move that the Bill be read a Second Time.
Expiring Laws Bill, 1931—Second Stage.
One of the Bills which is being continued is the Increase of Rent and Mortgages (Restriction) Act, 1923, and I would like to get some indication of the Government's policy as to that Act. Earlier in this year I asked the Minister for Justice a question as to whether he intended to introduce proposals for legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Town Tenants Commission in respect of fair rents for occupying tenants. The Minister replied that the recommendations were made at a time when it was anticipated that the Increase of Rent and Mortgages (Restriction) Act, 1923, would expire at the end of 1929, but as the Act had been continued up to the end of this year, the recommendations had to be considered in that light. He added that it was intended to allow this Increase of Rents Act to expire this year, but as no decision has been reached as to the action that had to be taken by the Government when the existing Act expires at the end of the present year in the meantime the extension of the existing restrictions is not under contemplation.
Subsequently I asked the Minister if the Government had as yet considered this policy in connection with the Town Tenants Commission. I was informed by the Minister that it was intended to continue this Rent Restrition Act for another year. I am anxious to find out what policy that indicates. Does it mean that the Government are to allow this Rent Restrictions Act to operate until after a general election and then allow it to lapse and substitute nothing for it, or does it mean that the Government have decided to invent some proposals for legislation on the lines of the Town Tenants Commission? It is important that we should know this. The earlier indications of the Government were that they intended to do nothing and not to substitute any form of restriction. Now we are to have the Rent Restrictions Act to continue for another year and we want to know why. Is it twelve months' grace for the tenants or is it to afford an opportunity to the Government to prepare and to introduce considered proposals for dealing with the situation? This Bill and the explanatory memorandum which is being circulated in connection with it is really an apology for the Government's inactivity during the past year. Deputies who have read the explanatory memorandum will notice that in relation to practically every Act which is being continued it is stated that permanent legislation is urgently needed. That is stated in relation to the Corrupt Practices Commission Expenses Act, 1869, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1917, the Local Government Temporary Provisions Act, 1923, and the Courts of Justice Act, 1929. In each case permanent legislation is needed, but that permanent legislation has not been forthcoming. Consequently the Government adopts this method of continuing the temporary Acts for another period. I think the Dáil should express its dissatisfaction in an emphatic way, particularly in respect to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1917. I know that members of Cumann na nGaedheal were particularly concerned in this matter because they introduced a Private Members' Bill to amend that Act. That Bill was withdrawn and the inducement to withdraw it was tantamount to a trick. We were told that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was going to introduce a permanent measure within a very short time, and that consequently it was not necessary to proceed with a Private Bill. That was two years ago, but the permanent measure has not yet been brought before the House. I can consider the action of the Minister for Industry and Commerce as nothing but a very unscrupulous trick, played to prevent the Dáil acting in a matter of urgent public importance, concerning which the Minister apparently had not yet made up his mind.
There is one other point in relation to the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1883. It is a temporary Act, and it is proposed to continue it for another year. I would like the Minister for Local Government to tell us why he has not taken advantage of the Housing Bill before the Dáil to make that Act permanent, as it is apparently the intention that it should be renewed from year to year. One of the provisions of the Housing Bill which will be discussed to-day proposes to suspend a section of the Labourers Act of 1883 for five years. Apparently the Government contemplates that the Act will be in existence at the end of five years. If that is so, surely it is better and more desirable that the Act should find a permanent place on the Statute Book than continuing it in an Expiring Laws Bill from one year to another.
I want to protest against this practice of having a number of Acts put into one general Bill within a month of the end of the year and continuing them for another year. I do not know what particular merit there is in the practice. I cannot find any merit in it. Many of these Acts have been carried over from the British time and I can see no reason for adopting this method except possibly that it is the method adopted in another place. It leads to very great uneasiness, especially in the case of an Act like the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923. People do not know what is going to happen until a question is put down by a Deputy towards the end of the year, when they learn that it is to be continued for another year. There is doubt in the minds of the people and there is uneasiness as to what is going to happen. If the Act is not included in the list it automatically expires at the end of the year. I would like to hear from the Minister the cause for continuing this practice of having an Expiring Laws Bill year after year. If any of these Acts can be embodied in permanent legislation, steps should be taken to have that done. It would be much better from the public point of view if the people knew exactly what Acts would expire and what new legislation would be brought in.
Deputies who complain of the practice of having an Expiring Laws Bill are pushing at an open door, a door that has been open for a very long time, because it would be the desire of the Government that there would be no such Act necessary at the end of any year. If Deputy O'Connell would look at, say, the Motor Car Act of 1903 and consider how long we have been endeavouring to take that Act out of the Expiring Laws Bill, by the preparation and enactment of the Traffic Bill, he will understand why some other Bills are still put into the Expiring Laws Bill. If the Deputy takes the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1923, if he realises that that is an Act under which, to a large extent, we are carrying on considerable sections of local government at present, coupled with the fact that it is very desirable to codify our whole Poor Relief Acts and coupled with our intention to introduce a measure as early as we can that will radically change the organisation of local government so far as county councils and boards of health are concerned, he will realise that we cannot simply with a stroke of the pen wipe out that Bill.
Mr. O'Connell
It could be met by making them permanent.
I would be very glad to take the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act and make it permanent, but I have been anxious to have more experience of its working. I think is is working pretty satisfactorily. As it is, I see no reason why it would not be made a permanent Act right away, but let us have a few more years' experience, particularly under a re-organised local government system, to see if further changes are necessary. If we could by one Bill make the Combined Purchasing Act a permanent one I would be very glad to do it. Deputy Lemass raised a question with regard to the Rent Restrictions Act that the Minister for Justice must not have had notice of. I will draw his attention to the various points raised by the Deputy, and the Minister will have an opportunity of replying on the Committee Stage. With regard to the other matters the Deputy raised, to some extent I have answered them in my reply to Deputy O'Connell. If I take the Parliamentary Election Act and the Corrupt Practices Act, that whole question has been very thoroughly examined and the situation very much memorandised. I have gone into it to a considerable extent myself, without having come to conclusions which would enable the Executive Council to say what was to be done. The matter has been very fully examined. I do not think there is any great urgency in it, but as early as last year I thought I was on the eve of dealing with it. The matter has not been entirely lost sight of, and it is our general desire to get rid of it. As far as the Labourers Acts are concerned Deputy O'Connell thinks that we are being led by the consideration of what happens on the other side.
The last occasion on which people on these benches were invited to look at what was done in a neighbouring Parliament the invitation came from the Deputy's benches. We are not too much impressed by things done on the other side. We look at our own problems in our own way. The Labourers Act has been included in an Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill since 1888. As Deputy Lemass said, it is quite reasonable that we should enshrine in permanent legislation what portions of it we require. It is quite reasonable to suggest that the Housing Bill at present before the House ought to have codified all our housing law. I considered that and decided that the time was not yet ripe for that. The Housing measure before the House is in the nature of a precursor Bill. Beyond housing enactments that might be required as titivations to the present Bill, this Bill is a precursor to the main housing measure which will do for housing law what the traffic Bill has done in respect of traffic. The Housing Bill does not compare satisfactorily with the Traffic Bill because the Traffic Bill is a codifying Bill, whereas the other Bill represents, to a large extent, legislation by reference; there was no other reasonable way of dealing with the matter. That is the explanation I have to offer about the Labourers Act. It will also serve as an explanation of why we cannot at one blow do away with this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, though we appreciate, as well as Deputies on other benches, that it should be done away with.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage to be taken to-morrow (Thursday).