It is necessary that final and statutory authority for all grants voted by the Dáil since the enactment of the Appropriation Act in July last should now be made. Hence, this second Appropriation Bill is necessary. I think I need only formally propose the Second Reading of the Bill.
Committee on Finance. - Appropriation Bill (No. 2), 1947—Second and Subsequent Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I gave notice last night of my intention to raise on the adjournment the subject matter of a question which I addressed to the Taoiseach yesterday.
If the Deputy would allow me for a moment. I know that it is customary to have a fairly wide discussion on an Appropriation Bill—that is, on the normal Appropriation Bill which gives statutory authority to all Votes just before the Summer recess. This Bill is quite different in character because it merely gives statutory effect to certain Supplementary Estimates passed in recent months and which are set out in the Bill. Departments of State do not enter into this, there being no money for them. I am in the position that I do not know where the discussion will end. If I thought it would end early I had intended to let Deputy Norton in for half an hour on the adjournment, as well as Deputy Byrne, to discuss the points they have raised.
Is not this an Appropriation Bill pursuant to the Emergency Budget?
It is.
That being so, surely it has the form of an original Appropriation Bill and not the form of a Supplementary Estimate. It is a Supplementary Budget.
I suppose that is the case.
I only raise it as a matter of record.
I think the Deputy is right. In that case then if there are points the Deputies wish to raise, whether they are or are not covered by the appropriation in this Bill, if there is not too wide a discussion on them it would be just as well to take them now, as when this Bill is concluded.
Has notice been given to the Ministers or it it proposed to adjourn the questions now?
No. If this covers the Supplementary Budget it covers a fairly wide field and it might be as well to discuss those points now or, at least, to mention them as at a later hour when there might not be time to do it.
I am satisfied to let the Appropriation Bill go through on the understanding that I get an opportunity of raising the other matter before the House adjourns.
If we conclude in time, I am allowing Deputy Norton in and also Deputy Byrne.
I take it there is no decision to adjourn to-night. The House could meet to-morrow.
It could; but I think most Parties have expressed a desire to adjourn to-night.
I cannot afford to throw out the dirty water until I get in the clean water. If the House by any chance discusses the Appropriation Bill until 10.25 p.m., Deputy Byrne and I cannot fit in a question on the adjournment. I want to provide against that possibility.
Hence I suggest that the Deputy might get in on this Bill.
I do not know whether the Taoiseach intends to be here during the discussion.
I do not know.
I am satisfied to raise the matter now, but I can get in in another way, namely, by not agreeing to the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill being taken to-night, which will ensure that the House will sit to-morrow and that I will have an opportunity of raising the matter on the adjournment.
I am not prohibiting the Deputy from raising it now.
I gave notice to the Taoiseach that I intended to raise the matter and I think the customary practice is for a Minister to be here.
The time for the adjournment has not yet arrived.
I give notice now that I will oppose the Committee Stage of this Bill being taken this evening in order to make sure that the Taoiseach will be here when the matter is raised.
What is the Deputy's grievance? Is he not fully entitled to raise this question on the adjournment as was determined to-day?
If there is time on the adjournment.
Without giving any notice to the Government, he said that he is going to change his attitude. He suggests that the Taoiseach, who has presumably got no notice of the Deputy's intention to change his mind, should be here to convenience him.
May I put the Minister's mind completely at rest? I would prefer to raise the matter on the adjournment, but I want to make sure that there will be time for raising it, and I can make sure of that by opposing the Committee Stage of this Bill being taken to-night. We can come back to it again if there is time after the adjournment discussion.
I cannot decide that.
I am exercising my constitutional right in opposing the Committee Stage of the Bill being taken to-night.
We will have to take a vote on that in order to resolve it.
You will have to take more than a vote. You cannot steamroll five stages of the Appropriation Bill through in one day when no notice to take all stages was given.
We can go on with the Second Stage now.
I am quite willing to let the Bill go through so long as I get an opportunity of raising the other matter.
There are other Deputies concerned also. I am making a submission, Sir. It appears that you are prepared to hear on the Appropriation Bill the two Deputies on the matters they wish to raise provided they do not go too wide.
Yes. Deputy Byrne says that he only wants a few minutes.
Deputy Norton's grievance is that the Taoiseach is not here to hear him. I think the way out of the matter is that word should be sent to the Taoiseach. The Minister could send word to the Taoiseach as to the difficulty that has been created.
We have done that.
That has been done. In the meantime I shall hear Deputy MacEoin.
This Bill deals with fairly substantial sums, including the sums provided for in the recent Supplementary Budget, and the subsidies voted out of the sums to be raised by that Budget. It also gives the Minister for Finance power to borrow the whole of the £6,000,000 required for the subsidies. At this stage I would expect the Minister for Finance to give us a summary of the financial situation as it is at present and to tell what steps he intends to take to raise the £6,000,000 other than those mentioned here. In my opinion, the Central Bank should be utilised for the establishment of the credit that we require instead of the method outlined in the Bill.
I would also expect the Minister at this stage to say whether he is going to follow the British system of reduced rates of interest on the money borrowed or give us some indication as to the probable cost. When introducing the Supplementary Budget, he did tell us that he did not intend to borrow; that he intended to raise all the money by direct taxation and by the imposts that he has put upon the poor man's tobacco and pint and on whiskey, motor cars, etc. Of course, I understand that this gives him authority to borrow the money, but I think the House is entitled to get some indication as to the sum he is likely to borrow. The Minister for Education is deputising for the Minister for Finance, and I think he should give us much more information than he has given.
The Minister hopes to be here.
We have got very little information on the whole matter. As I stated on the Estimate for rates on Government property, this Bill provides for an additional £12,600 for that purpose. Last night the Minister for Local Government said that I was wrong when I stated that the rates next year would be increased all over the country by an average of from 4/- to 6/- in the £. I am perfectly satisfied that my information is well-founded; that next year the rates will be increased and that there will have to be a greater increase than this in the next Appropriation Bill.
I suggested to-day that Standing Orders could be suspended, as we have suspended them to-night to meet the Minister for Justice, to enable the Government to bring in a one-section Bill eliminating that section from the Military Service Pensions Act. I regret to say that the Government did not see fit to do so but, on the other hand, twitted me with the charge that I was making a crossroads election speech. At no time in my career have I ever made the rights of my comrades the subject of a crossroads debate. I think that those who were associated with me in recent years on the Military Services Pensions Committee attached to the Longford Brigade will testify that at no stage did I attempt to make any use of it whatever for political purposes. I should be long sorry that anybody else should do it, and I should certainly be the last to do it myself but the Minister for Local Government saw fit to make that assertion.
He did not make it on this Bill.
He did not but we are here voting money for the Government for these purposes——
Is this not the question of the Medal?
Yes.
Surely it will not lose its value in the new Parliament?
It will not, but when a new Government comes in, it might for a considerable period forget these people who are in want now. In this particular case, the person concerned has a disability pension of 10/6. That is practically his sole means of support. He is unable to work. I assert here that he is entitled to a military service certificate and a military service pension. I assert that the fact that he was captured prior to the 1st April, 1921, that he was imprisoned during three months of the qualifying period, in itself, without his scars or wounds, was sufficient to qualify him. That being so, the present position is that that person is left until a new Government or a new Parliament is assembled. There are combinations in this House who if they formed a Government might not be very favourably disposed towards such a person. I, therefore, would rather that the thing were done now. I think the maxim that you should never put off until to-morrow what can be done to-day is a good one and I think we should even sit to-morrow if necessary to enable the Government to pass that one section. I agree that this Appropriation Bill must pass. I am not going to detain the House on the matter, but I trust that this will be the last of these Bills this House will have to meet, that budgeting for the year will be done at the proper time and that there will be no necessity to have an Autumn Budget again.
I want to avail of this opportunity, with your permission, Sir, to raise the subject-matter of question No. 5 yesterday relating to the continued incarceration in a British jail of certain Irish prisoners. I want to approach this matter, not in any desire to be captiously critical, not in any desire to indulge in recriminations but, instead, to base my case on the plea that the Government should take action in this matter on humanitarian grounds. I am not concerned in the slightest with the politics of those who are at present serving sentences in British jails. I am not concerned to express any appreciation, either of whatever politics they have or the methods adopted by them to achieve whatever aims they have. That does not arise at this stage, except perhaps that it might be desirable for me to say, in order to prevent possible misunderstanding, that I do not agree, and never have agreed, with the methods which they employed to achieve whatever aims they wished to achieve. But the fundamental fact remains that these political prisoners—because, in fact, that is what they are—have now served approximately eight years in British jails in respect of the charges which were brought against them. One might well think that in the year 1947, having regard to the period through which we have passed since 1939, that the world would have become sufficiently enlightened, sufficiently broad in its understanding and sufficiently humanitarian in its outlook, to recognise that men who have served a sentence of eight years in British jails have, at all events, expiated whatever crimes may have been charged against those who are the subject of this discussion to-night.
Many of these men, of course, whilst they were charged with certain offences, took no steps whatever to defend themselves. They simply declined to plead or to bring forward any evidence in their own defence. Out of a sense of loyalty to others they were prepared to put up with whatever sentences were imposed by the British courts of the period. I think it is established beyond all doubt that if some of them, at least, had endeavoured to defend themselves, it would have been impossible at that period for any judge or jury in Britain to have been satisfied of the guilt of some of these men. I think nobody will attempt to deny that the sentences imposed upon them, sentences ranging in many cases up to 20 years, were very harsh sentences indeed. I think nobody will attempt to deny now that if men were charged with similar offences to-day, the sentences would not be nearly so severe as those imposed in 1939.
One can understand, even if one does not agree with what happened, that the sentences reflected the tension and the strain in Great Britain at that period. I think there is very little doubt that in ordinary times the sentences would be much less severe. The whole atmosphere, without question, added considerably to the severity of the sentences which were then imposed, but we to-day can look on this thing, not in the heat and the passion, the tension and the strain of 1939, but in the calmness of a post-war period. Times have changed considerably since 1939, not only in Great Britain but throughout the world. Britain is now at peace and whatever dangers threatened her in 1939 have passed away.
Even Britain herself, having sailed into the calm waters of peace, has released from imprisonment many of her own citizens who were guilty of sabotage, and even those British citizens who were guilty of treason were treated with less severity than the Irish prisoners who are now serving sentences at Parkhurst Prison in Britain. Britain has, since the conclusion of hostilities, released hundreds of thousands of prisoners-of-war, and even those enemies of Britain who were engaged in the devastating air raids on undefended towns of Great Britain have been released and repatriated. In all the upsurge which followed the conclusion of hostilities in Europe there was one class of prisoners that got no exceptional treatment and they were the Irish prisoners serving sentences, long and grossly severe sentences, in British prisons.
I think nobody will contend that these Irishmen undergoing sentences are criminals. They are not toughs, as one finds in many of the gaols in Great Britain; they are not the dregs of humanity at ebb-tide; they are men of high ideals, misguided men of high ideals who allowed their zeal for their ideals to lead them to take wrong paths and to do things which on sober reflection they must realise they had no moral authority to do and which they must realise was even unwise of them to do from the point of view of achieving whatever ideals they sought to achieve. Those who have visited them in Parkhurst Prison have not been slow to recognise that those prisoners are men of character and their bearing and dignity as prisoners evoked the admiration of many people of British nationality who visited them for the purpose of ascertaining the circumstances under which they were imprisoned and to obtain from them their viewpoint as to how they stood in relation to efforts to secure their release.
I have spoken to members of the British Parliament who visited those men at Parkhurst and one or two were glad to indicate that in their view the continued incarceration of those men as if they were criminals was wholly unjustified in the circumstances in Great Britain during the past few years. Members of the British Parliament have recognised that these men are not toughs; that they were not such a menace to society as the types of men who, in the main, occupy the gaols for prisoners with long sentences; that, instead, they were men actuated by high ideals wrongly guided and canalised into directions which have led them into the unfortunate position they now occupy.
Even in Great Britain among enlightened, progressive-minded people of all shades of political thought there is a widespread demand for the release of these prisoners. A motion on the subject was tabled in no less august an assembly than the British House of Lords, where the British Government was asked to take steps to release the prisoners, so satisfied were the liberal-minded people promoting that motion that the circumstances were such as to justify their liberation. Yesterday's issue of the Manchester Guardian contained a letter from a person described as Brigadier Eric Dorman Smith, a former Minister of Agriculture, and, I think, he expresses the minds of average liberal-minded Englishmen when he writes to the Manchester Guardian in these terms:—
"In Parkhurst Prison there are still a number of young Irishmen undergoing sentences for Irish Republican Army offences in Great Britain before the recent war. Since the war Great Britain has liberated India and Burma. Before that liberation she pardoned Indian and other officers and men who, when on active service, deserted to the Japanese and served in arms against her. Surely in such circumstances the time has come to pardon these young Irishmen whose offences are far less serious. Surely also it is the proper time for a generous measure of justice."
If one can find this liberality of mind, liberality of conscience and humanitarian outlook on the part of progressive-minded people in Great Britain, is there not a greater obligation on us here, their own kith and kin, functioning in a Parliament established by the efforts, perhaps of themselves, but certainly of their own kith and kin here, to take some steps to ensure that all the influence we can bring to bear on the British Government in this matter is utilised for the purpose of securing the release of these Irish prisoners?
In my view the time to review the position is long overdue and, whatever views the Taoiseach may have had because of his natural disappointment with the activities of these people in the past, I think that now, in view of the headline being set by people in Great Britain, and in view of the state of the public mind on the matter in this country among people of all shades of political thought, the Taoiseach ought no longer delay in making the necessary representations to the British Government to secure the release of these prisoners.
I confess I cannot understand the attitude of the British Government in this matter. They cannot justify the continued incarceration of these prisoners on the plea that it is necessary in order to safeguard British interests. These prisoners are no menace to post-war Britain. These prisoners are incapable, even if at large, of being any menace whatever to the British Government or to British interests either internal or imperial. Holding these prisoners in British gaols for a period of eight years, with no promise of an amnesty and no promise of a speedy release is, in my view, open to the interpretation that something more than Britain's safety is at the bottom of their continued detention and that there is an element of a vendetta against these prisoners which has not been shown by the British Government to many people whose acts of sabotage and treason against Britain wrought, or were capable of wreaking, much more damage to her interests than these prisoners could have inflicted upon her.
I do not want to discuss the internal affairs of Britain, or the actions of the British Government vis-a-vis its own citizens, although one can hardly refrain from expressing amazement that some well-known international Fascists can strut around Britain to-day while those young Irishmen must be incarcerated in a British gaol.
I said at the outset that I did not want to introduce any rancour into the debate vis-a-vis the attitude of the Government towards the prisoners. I want instead to enlist the goodwill of the Government and the co-operation of the Government in approaching the British Government to ask them to release these unfortunate prisoners.
The Taoiseach talked about "stultification" yesterday if he were to make representations at this stage. I would suggest to the Taoiseach that this is not an occasion for putting a premium on starchiness. This is not an occasion for standing on punctilio. This is an occasion for making allowances for the youth of many of the prisoners; for the circumstances and atmosphere at the time they were charged with these offences in Great Britain. He ought to recognise that these men are our own citizens and every government in the world endeavours to exercise all its powers in order to defend its own citizens and even to endeavour to secure clemency for them if these citizens cannot be defended in relation to the laws of another country.
Very many men and women of influence and integrity here and in Britain want to secure the release of the prisoners and I would put it to the Taoiseach on broad humanitarian grounds, since these people who are incarcerated are our own citizens and in view of the fact that they have served eight years' imprisonment in British jails, that the Government here should now recognise that these men have more than expiated any charges made against them, and that they should make representations to the British Government to secure their release.
It was stated that one thing which would influence the British Government in respect of their release was the fear that their release might embarrass the Government here. The Taoiseach, in his reply to Parliamentary questions yesterday, said that he desired to make it quite clear that any suggestion that this Government would be unfavourable to the exercise of clemency was without foundation. I would like to see that put in a more definite way and I would like to see that viewpoint expressed from this angle: not that our Government were not unfavourable to clemency, but that our Government expected the British Government in the circumstances now existing to extend clemency to these prisoners and to release them all as evidence of a gesture to build a new spirit of goodwill and a new concept of cordial relations between the peoples of the two countries. There is one thing that we can do. We can make it clear beyond question that any suggestion of the release of these prisoners would not embarrass the Government here, by asking the British Government in an open and positive way to release these prisoners.
I think in this matter that there will be nation-wide support in favour of the demand for the release of the prisoners and that this view would be reflected by members of the Taoiseach's own Party in this House on this issue this evening if they were free to express it. You have only to discuss the matter with independent citizens to realise that there is a widespread demand that the prisoners should be released. I would suggest that the Taoiseach, in order that our position in relation to the prisoners should not be misunderstood and in order that he should give expression to the view of persons of every political shade in this country and in Great Britain, that he should now ask the British Government to release the 28 Irishmen who are still in Parkhurst Prison. If the British Government do that, they will be extending to these prisoners no more generous treatment than they have extended to others.
I would suggest to the Taoiseach, as this is the last day on which this House may sit, that the Government should make the necessary representations to have these prisoners speedily released and restored to their families before Christmas.
I would like to support the plea made by the Leader of the Labour Party on behalf of these men. I would like to make it quite clear that I have no wish to make any political capital out of this matter, and I appeal to the House to treat this matter away from political issues but purely on a humanitarian basis.
As the Taoiseach certainly knows and as the members of the House have probably read in the papers, a number of influential people in England connected with political affairs and with cultural affairs have interested themselves in the case of these prisoners. The matter has been discussed in the British House of Commons and in the British House of Lords. I understand, as I believe the Taoiseach also understands, that one of the objections raised to the release of these men by members of the British Government—"objection" is too strong a word— but one of the grievances raised is that there has been no indication from the Irish Government that the release of these men would not cause embarrassment to the Irish Government. I understand from Lord Killanin and from Mr. Eoin O'Mahony, who have both devoted their time and energy to trying to secure the release of these men in a most selfless way, that an indication from this Government here that their release would be welcomed would weigh considerably.
I want to measure my words carefully and not introduce any discussion about the matter, for I feel that the less discussion there is about it the better. I regret one or two remarks which the Taoiseach made yesterday in answer to supplementary questions. I would appeal very sincerely to the Taoiseach to give a very clear indication—if it could not be done officially it could be done unofficially—that far from embarrassing them, the Irish Government would welcome the release of these men. I feel that if the Taoiseach made that clear, either in this House or through the various channels open to him, then these men would be released before Christmas.
I think that Deputy Byrne wanted to raise something? It is a brief matter, and the Deputy might not get the opportunity later.
I do not wish to butt in and destroy the atmosphere created by these pleas for the release of the prisoners, and the Minister might wish to reply to them.
The only point is that I thought that there might be some other question.
There do not seem to be any others.
If there are not any others I am prepared to speak at this stage. If Deputy Norton were addressing the British Government, then, naturally, I would have no objection whatever to his speech. I think I have made it as clear as it is possible to make it, that the suggestions that we are against the release of the prisoners are untrue and without any foundation whatever. I say that not only now but I said it months ago. I know that that is known to the British Government. I made it equally clear yesterday that there was no question whatever of our being opposed to any clemency being extended to these prisoners.
I know that the question of these prisoners is under review. I know that there is a practice of review and that that practice is being carried out in this instance and that the sentences are under review. One of the dangers of debates such as this is that, because in most cases there are two sides, when the Government is attacked it might possibly, in defending its position, be led to deal with aspects of this question which might not be at all helpful to the prisoners. Some people think that results are only got by talk. Results are very often got much more effectively by not talking. I know that these sentences are being reviewed. I believe they will be reviewed on their merits. I believe it is known to the British Government, as it is to Deputy Norton and to anybody else who has studied the matter, that a number of these sentences undoubtedly appeared to everybody at the time to be imposed for the purpose of example. I do not, in any way, want to prejudice any examination that may be made of these sentences. Just as we, if there were matters of considerable importance to us under consideration, might be inclined to resent representations that might be made without due regard to our side of the question, so, I think, other Governments are likely to do that too. In any case, for us to make formal representations is out of the question. By "formal representations" I mean just exactly what I say—formal representations. For the reasons—and I do not want again to go into these—that I have given already, I can only say that we have indicated quite clearly that there is no attitude on the part of this Government which would give any foundation for the statement that we would not welcome the release of these prisoners. I think I should say no more. My own belief is that the less that is said here by us on this particular matter the more effective will it be in securing the release of the prisoners.
Deputy Byrne was promised an opportunity of raising a certain matter.
Does that completely finish the debate?
It does, apparently, but that is for Deputies to say.
I can assure the House I will not be five minutes. The Minister promised I could get in on the adjournment but, as the matter can be raised here, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the alarming position in the City of Dublin in connection with evictions from tenement houses the owners of which are anxious to get possession in order to demolish them with a view to adding to their business concerns or to extend or to build premises that are not for the former residents of the houses. The Minister quite recently in this House told me that the people have a remedy. He said that the law is there for them and that he thought they are fully protected by the various Acts of the House. I thought so, too, but every day in the week people are showing Notices to Quit to me. Only yesterday as I was passing through the City Hall on my way to a meeting, seven women came to me and asked me if I could do anything for them to get them a room because they had been threatened with eviction from Clanbrassil Street. I understand that their houses are wanted for business purposes and that the owners are getting these people out on the ground that these houses are old and possibly dangerous. Because of that excuse the verdict is given in favour of the owner. The verdict is given in favour of the man who allowed that property to get into such a rotten condition that it had to be condemned or a notice put on it to put the house in order. Time after time the sanitary authorities go into these houses and the owners continue to pay the fines. They will not carry out the necessary repairs. They pay the fines until such time as the Dangerous Buildings Inspector investigates. He says that the building is dangerous. That plays right into the hands of the owner of the rotten property, who orders the people out without offering them adequate alternative accommodation or any compensation.
I think we had an Act of Parliament about 1918 or 1919 which provided for adequate accommodation and compensation in that connection. It went into disuse or it was withdrawn—I do not quite understand or follow what happened. In York Street, in New Street, in Aungier Street, in Summerhill, in Clanbrassil Street and in Marlborough Street, there are tenement houses which the owners are anxious to acquire. They are evicting or threatening to evict the people who live in them and who have no other place to go. If the Minister has any doubt about people having no place to go I can show him a letter of yesterday's date in which a man says:—
"I wish to state my case to you. My wife, child, and myself are stopping in the Dublin Union in separate places because after travelling the city of Dublin I cannot get a place in which to live."
It may be news to the Minister and to members of the House that in the Dublin Union to-day there are families who were evicted from their homes and who have nowhere else to go. The corporation could not accommodate them and the old houses were falling down. These families in the Dublin Union are becoming a matter of serious concern to the Dublin Corporation Housing Department. The tenants of these houses, which the owners want to acquire for the purpose of making a handsome profit, would seem to have no protection.
In Marlborough Street the owner has succeeded in getting out seven families. The Minister very kindly gave me advice on the matter recently, but the fact remains that the owner has got the seven families out. The house was originally bought by him with the seven families in it for £200. The house is now advertised in the Press for £2,500. The owner when he bought the house appreciated that there was a business premises next door. He is now advertising it for £2,500. The corporation is not in a position to house those seven families because they have so many claims upon them from basement dwellers. That brings me to the question of repairs. Some members may say that if the houses are in bad repair why does not the corporation go in and repair them? Will the Minister give us power to go in and repair them? If we were given that power we could do something to ease the housing shortage until such time as we have building material available.
There is another house in Marlborough Street which also contains seven families. There is a common lodging house next door with six beds in each bedroom for which the owner charges 1/- per bed per night. His income must average about £1,000 a year. He served notice on the occupiers, saying that they would have to get out because he wanted to carry out repairs. The corporation architect gave evidence that the repairs could be done without putting the people out. The owner produced another witness who said the repairs could not be done while the people were in it and the court gave a decision in favour of the owner.
I shall not detain the House but I do ask the Minister to consider the present position. I know where his sympathy lies.
Mr. Boland
I understood that the Deputy would confine himself to the case he raised by question here about one particular house. He dealt with that, but he also ranged over a wide area of the city. He said that houses were acquired by the local authority as dangerous buildings for the purposes of demolition.
I hope I did not give the Minister that impression. I had no wish to mislead him. I said that even since I raised the question further cases have come to my notice where the owners are trying to acquire property, knock it down and sell it as a business speculation.
Mr. Boland
This particular man in Marlborough Street was disturbed when the matter was raised here in the House and he sent a letter to the Aliens Sections of my Department, in which he dealt with each case specificially. I verified the cases of most of the seven families concerned. In no case was anybody evicted. They were all provided with alternative accommodation and compensated. Some of them were anxious to get out for one reason or another.
When the matter was raised here on a former occasion I said that it was practically impossible for an owner to evict seven families because of the operation of the Rent Restriction Act of 1946. He might get one family out. There are certain things that the tenant may do which automatically gives power to the owner to put the tenant out. There is also a provision to prevent undue increases in the rent. I think it is practically impossible to evict tenants now unless for non-payment of rent or some breach of covenant. The Rent Restriction Act is ample to safeguard the interests of all tenants. I have been asked on occasion whether it is possible to inform tenants of these safeguards. The Press give it ample publicity and I think that is probably the best way of informing the public. Surely people should realise that they have certain rights.
Will the Minister inquire into Clanbrassil Street and No. 48 Marlborough Street?
Mr. Boland
73 Marlborough Street is the one I got. I was not aware of the other. I inquired about the one the Deputy raised. I inquired about each tenant and I know that not one of them was evicted. Alternative accommodation was provided and they were compensated.
I wonder would I be entitled to say a few words with regard to the matter raised by Deputy Norton.
The Deputy is under a misunderstanding, I am afraid. Lest there might not be time on the Adjournment for Deputy Norton and Deputy Byrne, I announced that I would allow them to raise those matters on the Appropriation Bill instead of on the Adjournment. The matter raised by Deputy Norton would not, ordinarily, arise on this limited Appropriation Bill because it is outside its terms, but he was allowed to raise it and was quite satisfied that it was a concession. When Deputy Norton had spoken, the Taoiseach waited to see whether any other Deputies wanted to speak and asked whether any other Deputies wished to speak on the matter. When Deputy MacBride finished speaking, no other Deputy rose and that matter is concluded. Deputies got their opportunity and the matter is outside the scope of this Bill.
I accept your ruling. I understood, however, that this matter could be discussed all through the debate on the Appropriation Bill.
The Deputy may remember that the Taoiseach asked if anybody else wished to speak. I said that there was no indication of any other Deputy wanting to speak.
I understood the same thing.
I cannot help that. It was made quite clear.
Very well.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill put through Committee without amendment, reported, received for final consideration and passed.
This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.