Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Nov 1952

Vol. 135 No. 1

Rent Restrictions (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1952—Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1: —

In line 23, to delete "December" and substitute "July."

The reason for the amendment is to reduce by six months the period during which the Minister is to bring in a permanent Bill. It is quite clear that there is grave dissatisfaction amongst both tenants and property owners in regard to the delay. The case has been made to me that both sides require and are anxious to obtain at the earliest possible moment permanent legislation. Speaking on the Second Reading, I repeated the criticism of my efforts when I brought in my Bill in 1951, that it would take two years which was too long. The Minister is now adding another year to what he himself and some of his supporters behind him admitted was too long a period.

I concur with that and I respectfully submit, Sir, that the Minister had in the six months between now and July ample time to bring in a permanent measure thereby meeting the wishes of both the tenants and the property owners. There is insecurity for the tenants who are not sure of what the conditions will be at the end of 12 months in regard to the protection which they have at the moment and for the landlords or property owners — I think it is better to call them property owners than landlords — inasmuch as they are afraid to make agreements with people for the renting of houses to which the Rent Restrictions Act does not apply.

With regard to the houses outside the scope of the Act, there was evidence at the time that the property owners in Cork, for instance, were increasing out of all proportion the rent of certain houses. I think that, as the Act stands, they were at liberty to do so. I am aware that in certain cases in the city, property owners are making full use of the exemptions that already exist. On the other hand, I am aware that property owners are suffering very grave hardships. I do not know what the rights or wrongs of that are but the Rent Commission was set up to inquire into all these matters and they have made a report.

I think we are suffering from a certain disability in not having that report. To-day I asked the Minister if he proposed publishing it and if the Government had decided anything in the matter. The Minister said that no decision had been taken but that the report was being published. For the purpose of assisting us on this side of the House, as well as assisting himself, the Minister should have given us an advance copy of that report so that we would be in a position to know what the recommendations were when this measure was brought in.

The Minister knows what is in the report at the moment and knows whether 12 months is necessary or not. I do not know, but having regard to the evidence which I possess, the conclusion I have come to is that 12 months is too long and six months is ample. I, therefore, move the amendment.

I would like to endorse the suggestion to expedite permanent legislation in regard to this matter. I think there is a very strong feeling that a grave injustice is being done in not having legislation of a fair and reasonable nature put into operation. We know that the report of the commission is in the hands of the Minister for a very considerable time. I think it is desirable that he should take all possible steps to introduce legislation in the light of that report.

I agree with Deputy MacEoin that it is rather unfair to Deputies generally that they had not an opportunity of seeing this report. I hope it will be made available as soon as possible. As I have said, there are grave injustices to both sides as far as this matter is concerned. Some people who are tenants may be aggrieved and others may be very much aggrieved as property owners. I know that at the present time the Secretary of the Property Owners' Association is in prison for protesting against the injustices in the Act. At least I think he is still there.

I did not hear that. What was he charged with?

As far as I know, he is in prison on a charge of having made a protest against the injustices in the present Rent Restrictions Act. There are injustices not only to the tenant but also to the owners of property, people with very moderate means who put their entire savings into building in the city or elsewhere in the county and improved their property for the purpose of providing housing accommodation for their fellow citizens. Having done that, they find that the receipts which they obtain from that property are less than the cost of maintaining the property. They find that they cannot obtain possession of their property and cannot sell it.

In many cases there are people who own a fairly considerable amount of house property who are actually starving because of the operations of the Act. We have got to view this Act from both sides, and we have got to see that justice is done. I hope that when the Minister introduces permanent legislation it will be such as will leave no scope for the widespread complaints which we hear in regard to the present Act.

I only want to say a couple of words on this. I think it ought to be obvious to Deputy General MacEoin that it would be impossible to get legislation through this House in the time suggested.

It was suggested that 24 hours was enough for me.

Do not mind the 24 hours. We have set up machinery — archaic and cumbersome machinery, I admit — to deal with a number of matters. Once we pass Christmas, we get into the financial business and the Budget. There is no other type of legislation dealt with in the period between the beginning of the New Year and the adjournment for the long vacation. I do not know what the commission has reported to the Minister, but I do know that I went before the commission and gave evidence on what I considered to be an important aspect of this problem — the position of the tenants of property owned by corporations, county councils and other local authorities. I raised it in the House on a number of occasions. The position is that the tenant of a county council house, a corporation house, a local authority house, has no security whatever. He may be served with notice to quit and possession demanded — I doubt if even that part of it is necessary — and he can be brought to court, and the county manager, who is in fact the person who operates these provisions, need give no reason whatever to the court, and he must get a decree and eviction. I consider that such a grave injustice that I went before the commission——

The Deputy is opening up a matter which is not included in this Bill.

I am dealing with the time.

And he is going to give them 12 months more.

That matter is not in the Bill and the Deputy cannot open that subject. I have ruled out an amendment on that ground.

I merely want to put it this way, that, if the report deals with that matter, it will necessitate a great amount of consideration not only by the Minister's Department but by the Department of Local Government.

And now as to the date, which is the subject matter of the amendment.

It will require a considerable amount of consideration and discussion, and if the Bill can be brought in within the period mentioned, I think the Minister will have done good work. What we want now is an Act that will really operate. Deputy Cogan has referred to injustices and there are injustices, as anyone who has any experience of dealing with the matter in a practical way will realise. The value of money has changed enormously in the period since these Acts were first introduced and what is necessary is that we should make a reasonable attempt, and in that matter we must be guided by the Minister, to solve the difficulties and abolish the abuses and injustices. I have every faith in the commission set up that they will have brought in a report which will enable a Bill on sound lines to be produced, but that cannot be just done within 24 hours or six months.

Six months easily.

It would be well worth the extra six months to have it done right.

Mr. O'Higgins

I support this amendment, which I think is a reasonable amendment. It was suggested on Second Reading and I think a case was made for it then, as a case has been made for it now. I do not think we can afford to be complacent about this problem, as Deputy Cowan appears to be. The facts are that a commission was established two years ago to inquire into this entire problem of rent restriction, in its effect on property owners and in the way in which injustices were caused to and suffered by tenants. That commission was given, in effect, two years to work because the Act we are now asked to continue was a two-years Act. That commission reported to the Government in June last, nearly six months ago, and nothing apparently was done by the Minister or the Government to deal with whatever proposals were made by the commission in that report. That, I know, is a complaint more proper for Second Reading, and it was made then, but the facts are that, since June, the report has not been published and has not been made available to Deputies or to the country.

Now, six months later, the Minister seeks to continue the existing legislation for another period of 12 months. In doing so, he has the support of Deputy Cowan who says it is not possible, in view of the time of the year, to prepare the necessary legislation. That is all very well, but our argument is that the Minister should not be in that position. He should have introduced the necessary legislation long ago. We are concerned now with ensuring that, in 12 months' time, we will not find the Minister making exactly the same case, that we are approaching Christmas and nothing can be done. For that reason, we are asking the Dáil to say that six months is time enough, and more than time, to enable the Minister to put in legislative form whatever proposals the Government may have, arising out of the report which they have had before them for the past six months. I do not think that is unreasonable.

May I say to any Deputy like Deputy Cowan or others who may feel complacent about this matter, that I am not speaking in relation to property owners? Their case has been urged. I wanted to point out the position in which tenants in this city and throughout the country find themselves now. The tenants of new houses built since 1941, and of furnished houses, are paying exorbitant rents. They are paying these rents now, and the Minister proposes that they shall continue to pay them for at least another 12 months. That is wrong, and something which should not be tolerated by any Deputy. Unfair and exorbitant rents have always been the concern of our people right through the years in relation to land, and many other matters. It is the purpose of the rent restrictions code to ensure that no landlord can make a profit out of a housing shortage at the expense of the lowly-paid worker or low income group. We on this side are asking in this amendment that we insist on ministerial expedition in dealing with this serious problem. I was interested to hear Deputy Cowan refer to the position of tenants of local authority houses. I underwrite every single word he said.

He tried to say it.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Deputy made the case very fairly and very properly. There are evictions every day in the City of Dublin because, once the managerial order has been made by the Dublin Corporation putting a tenant out, no case need be made for it.

The Deputy knows that is not relevant.

Mr. O'Higgins

I will tie it up with the amendment, if I may.

Tieing-up is right.

Mr. O'Higgins

I agree with Deputy Cowan that it is an injustice. Does Deputy Cowan, or any other Deputy, think we are behaving properly if we do nothing about that injustice and allow it to continue, as the Minister suggests it should continue, for another 12 months?

But Deputy Cowan went and gave evidence on that point to the commission, and that shows how much he thought about it.

Mr. O'Higgins

I would like to hear Deputy Cowan now.

You can read my evidence.

Mr. O'Higgins

I have a lot to read.

The Deputy will find that it is very excellent evidence. Of my own volition, I went to the commission and gave evidence on the matter.

Mr. O'Higgins

I trust the Deputy, on his own volition, will now follow up his evidence by supporting this amendment, because the amendment seeks to cut down the period during which these people will suffer this injustice by putting the closure on any inactivity of which the Minister may be guilty, in saying to the Minister: "You have had six months now from the passing of this Bill for the purpose of introducing the necessary legislative proposals which will ensure, in Deputy Cowan's case, that tenants of local authorities will not be evicted without good reason and that tenants of newly-built houses will have a fair rent clause to protect them and ensure that they will not be evicted without good reason."

Evictions from newly-erected houses and from furnished lodgings are far too common in this city at the moment. The problem is a very serious social one. Newly-married couples requiring houses are compelled to pay rents which ordinarily would not be countenanced under any fair rent code. We should not, by any default of ours, allow that situation to continue for one minute longer than is necessary. The Minister and his colleagues in Government have had the report before them for the last six months. The Minister has had six months to consider the report. I think the Minister has been dealt with very fairly and will be dealt with very fairly if we give him another six months—that is a long period—to prepare the necessary legislative proposals.

On the Second Reading, Deputy O'Higgins made a speech with which I thoroughly agreed. He said then that there were two outstanding problems to be solved; one was the question of furnished lodgings and the other was rent overcharging on houses constructed since 1941. On the Second Reading, I said I could not visualise the Government of which I was then a member remaining in office very much longer without bringing in legislation to deal with these problems. As a matter of fact, towards the end of 1947 I was given a Bill dealing with the matter. My successor was given the Bill on two or three occasions, but instead of legislating to remedy these urgent problems, which undoubtedly could have been dealt with and which I could deal with now by bringing in a Bill, he preferred to set up a third commission to inquire into these questions.

Now when a commission is set up and when that commission makes a report it is only fair to everyone concerned, both property owners and tenants, that he or she should be made aware of what that report contains. On the Second Reading, I read out here a time schedule which, with the permission of the Chair, I now propose to read again. This schedule shows that, so far as the Government is concerned, there has been no delay. Deputy Davin anticipated me by saying that I would blame the printers' strike. Deputy Davin is quite right; that was the reason for the delay. Deputy Davin knew that and tried to forestall me.

The Government was presented with the interim report on 24th June last. The Government approved the printing of that on 15th July. That is not a long period; it is not quite three weeks. On 24th July it was sent for printing and for circulation to Deputies. The Stationery Office had it ready for printing on 2nd August. That is, a week later they sent it to the printers. We had to wait until 11th October before we got the proofs back. Nothing could be done between 2nd August and 11th October because of the printers' strike. We received the proofs on 11th October and on 18th October, a week later, they were sent to the Stationery Office for the printing of the final proof. That is, one week later. The final proof was received in the Department on 1st November. We passed the final proof and sent it to the printers on 10th November. I am told that it is now almost ready for printing. We are completely in the hands of the printers so far as that is concerned. That is the cause for the delay.

Undoubtedly, we could have brought in a Bill dealing with the two matters urgently requiring attention. The second point mentioned by Deputy Cowan will be dealt with in another code, together with some other somewhat complex problems.

On the Second Reading I said that I would be guilty of grave discourtesy to the commission if I were to bring in a Bill before the report of the commission was published. The Minister in the inter-Party Government who set up the commission said he expected to have the report in two years. I think he hoped to have a Bill passed at the end of that two years. At that time I said there were urgent problems. Today these problems are more urgent still. There was a Bill in the Department. I could have introduced a Bill before this but I preferred to wait for a comprehensive report from the commission. What Deputy Cowan has said is quite correct. First of all the report must be published so that interested parties will have an opportunity of making representations to the Government in connection with the report. The Government will then have to come to a decision and it is after that stage has been reached that we will be in a position to bring in a Bill. That Bill will be introduced towards the end of next summer. There is no doubt about that at any rate. If we accept Deputy O'Higgins's amendment the effect of it will be that the present Act will expire six months hence.

In other words, the Minister will have to compel the House to pass it.

Mr. Boland

That is so. I would remind Deputies that this year the financial business was not finished on 31st July. We got the Estimates through in consideration of our bringing in Supplementary Estimates now. We are still engaged in the financial business that should have been completed by the 31st July and frankly it is impossible to do what Deputy MacEoin has suggested. There is no shelving on my part. The time schedule I have read out demonstrates clearly that we have lost no time in connection with this matter. It simply cannot be done. I could bring in a small Bill but, out of courtesy to the commission, I am not prepared to do that.

The Minister has given us a time-table to show there was no delay. What the Minister would like the House to believe is that he got the report and said: "I will not read that. Take it away and print it." Surely both the Minister and his colleagues in the Government have read and re-read the report several times during the past six months. Surely they have examined the proofs. They know full well what they ought to do after six months' examination.

Mr. Boland

The public do not.

It means that it was pigeon-holed and left there for somebody else to read. But that is not true. The Minister did read it and the Minister knows well what it is proposed to do. The Government has had six months in which to examine it and prepare legislation. The main argument of the Minister was that it would be discourtesy to the commission. I am glad they think that much about the commission now because they did not think much about it when I set it up.

Mr. Boland

When they are there we have to show respect for them. It is the least we can do.

The Government or the Minister is afraid of being charged or suspected of being discourteous. You were not always so particular about commissions. We remember a "slovenly" report. It is a good thing that the Government will be careful about all commissions in the future and will not disregard them as being of no importance.

I submit that the Government have had ample time to have the legislation ready. I submit that a promise made by a previous Minister should not be broken by his successor. The promise I made was that within two years——

Mr. Boland

And before the general election, too, you said. Remember that.

I said that if the Dáil gave me that Bill then—continuing it for two years—I would undertake that if I were still Minister I would have the report brought in and legislation introduced and carried through the House within two years. That was a positive and a definite undertaking by a Minister. I respectfully submit——

You did not anticipate the printers' strike.

Nor that Deputy Cowan would change sides and make it impossible for me to carry out my undertaking. I admit that that was an unforeseen eventuality. I realise, however, that some things are uncertain. There are Deputies with uncertain minds—Deputies who talk one way and vote the other way. I admit that the Deputy gave evidence on this matter. Let him now demonstrate that he was not paying mere lip service to the people he talks about.

I want to impress the point that a promise made by a Minister of State should be fulfilled by his successor unless there are very grave reasons for not doing so. To my mind, the printers' strike is a futile excuse for the Minister to make. He says that because of the printers' strike they were not able to read the report and that, consequently, they were not able to decide upon it. That is sheer nonsense and poppycock.

Mr. Boland

I did not say that.

The Minister should honour the bond. I submit that six months is ample time to fulfil the undertaking given by his predecessor.

I should not speak again except for the attitude adopted by Deputy O'Higgins when he referred to complacency. There has been no complacency in this connection as far as I am concerned. I have been pressing for this Bill for a long time. I took such a serious interest in it that I prepared and submitted evidence and subjected myself to cross-examination by the commission. I hope the commission will have dealt with that aspect of the matter in their report because it is a matter which affects well over 100,000 tenants—houses occupied by people in corporation dwellings, county council cottages and other dwellings built by local authorities. In my view, it is one of the vital matters of the new Bill.

The present Bill does create new hardships; that has been stated. There may be some tenants for whom it creates hardships—as Deputy O'Higgins stated—particularly tenants of furnished lettings and tenants of houses built since 1941. There are, however, other types of hardships that have to be considered. A case came to my notice in the past day or two of a room in the city that was let to a man and his wife at £2 a week. The man availed of the machinery under the present Act. He went to the District Court. The District Court decided that the proper legal rent for that tenancy was 4/5 a week. That is a substantial reduction. That machinery will continue to operate. It is an unsatisfactory type of machinery, and, being unsatisfactory, it will take some time to have it properly considered and to enact legislation that will work for at least ten, 15 or 20 years.

Mr. O'Higgins

Surely the Deputy does not consider that £104 a year for one room is proper?

Under the machinery in operation at the moment it was reduced from £2 a week to 4/5.

Mr. O'Higgins

And it is a proper reduction?

Yes, under the machinery. In other words, it has operated to repair a grave injustice to the individual.

Mr. O'Higgins

I thought that the Deputy's point was that it was an injustice to the person who let the room.

The Deputy knows that that is not what I said. I shall be amazed if, when the Bill comes before the House, Deputy O'Higgins is not more concerned for the position of the landlord rather than for that of the tenant. I shall be on the tenant's side all the time.

Mr. O'Higgins

I shall always be on the right side.

That is the problem —what is the right side? Deputy MacEoin knows from experience how difficult it is to get Bills through the House. In actual fact, a change of Minister brings about a change of situation. We had the Adoption Bill, which, for three years, we were pressing the then Minister to introduce.

Mr. O'Higgins

What relevance does that bear to this matter?

Where is it now?

I think it is in the Seanad.

I think that that remark by Deputy Captain Cowan is a proper interjection by him.

It does not appear to be relevant to this debate.

It is a matter of time. The present Minister came into office and the Bill went through this House in a flash. It had the goodwill of everybody except——

It had the goodwill of everybody.

Except Deputy General MacEoin.

We are not discussing that Bill now.

It is not through the Oireachtas yet.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is part of the window dressing.

It is going slow now.

We cannot control the Second House of the Oireachtas.

Some members of it.

What about Noel Hartnett?

It is only held up by the ordinary machinery of the Second House.

Again, to delay.

Deputy MacEoin and Deputy O'Higgins know very well that, no matter how much we may say here that this Bill should be introduced as a matter of urgency, it just cannot be done. Deputy O'Higgins has suggested that if the amendment is passed, it will mean that this House will be under an obligation——

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister.

——to pass the Bill within six months. Not only will the House be under an obligation to pass it, but the Seanad will be under an obligation to pass it within that period. Obviously, that is not treating the matter seriously. No one can say that any Bill that would be introduced into this House at the moment would be passed within a period of six months. Deputy O'Higgins knows that no matter what Bill comes before the House at the moment, it is being held up and no Bill would be held up more than a Rent Restrictions Bill, because on every side of the House we have Deputies who believe that the landlord has certain rights and other Deputies who believe that the tenants have all the rights. Then there are still more Deputies who try to keep an even balance between the two sides, so that a Bill of this kind would be subjected to long discussion and there would be many amendments on it. It would be practically impossible to have it out of this House within six months. Then it has to go to the Seanad and would have to be dealt with in its various stages by the Seanad. Deputy Dunne smiles the smile of a most knowing individual.

I am just thinking of what a great help you are.

Are you quite sure that the Minister will not put down an amendment to extend it for another year?

It might be very strange but I think it would be better if the Minister would put down an amendment to extend it for another year.

Mr. O'Higgins

A measure of that kind would go through the House very quickly.

Mr. Boland

We had a very long Committee Stage, and a very difficult Committee Stage on the last Bill.

If the forthcoming Bill is worth putting before the House at all, it will be a Bill worthy of consideration and examination by every Deputy.

Mr. O'Higgins

There have already been four extensions of the present Act.

The surprising thing about the last Act was that it was supposed to be the Act to end the whole trouble.

Mr. Boland

It was a consolidating Act.

It did not unfortunately end all the trouble. Deputy O'Higgins knows that if this matter were handed over to-morrow to a committee of lawyers, they would not have a Bill ready within a period of six months.

Hear, hear! Nor in six years.

If we handed it over to a committee of trade unionists, with Deputy Davin in charge, it would be 60 years before we would get the Bill. Deputy Davin knows that is so.

I would come to pretty quick decisions on it.

I think Deputy MacEoin should not press this amendment. If we can get a good Bill within a year, we shall be doing very well. Deputy MacEoin hoped that he would have the Bill within two years but the commission which he appointed reported only three months ago.

Six months ago.

Under the time-table which the Deputy had, he expected that they would report within three months. They did not report within that time.

Oh, no. I said that we expected them to report within the last six months, and that we would have a new Bill before the House before the present Act expired.

The Deputy could not speak with precision on what the House would be likely to do. I should not like to be asked to speak on the Second Reading of the new Bill without seeing the report of the commission and I have not seen that report yet as it has not been circulated yet. I should like some time to examine it. Deputy Dillon gave us the history of an average simple Bill in this House not so long ago and, judging by what he said, I think the Minister is very optimistic if he thinks that the new Bill will be law within a period of 12 months. So far as I am concerned, I shall give every help but I think it is ridiculous to suggest that it can be done within six months because that would mean that you must dragoon the Dáil into doing something within a limited period of time and nobody has authority to do that. Similarly nobody has authority to dragoon the Seanad into doing something within a limited period of time. While we operate our democratic system of government, under which every member has a right to put down amendments and argue them, nobody can say that you will have any particular piece of new legislation passed through the House within a period of six months. It is not a question of forcing the Minister, a suggestion which might be understandable, but it is trying to force the 147 members of this House and the 60 members of the Seanad to do a certain job within a period of six months. No Deputy has the right to do that.

I thought you were boss.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted, stand"—put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 65; Níl, 39.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Duignan, Peadar.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Gallagher, Colm.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Maguire, Patrick J.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Cafferky, Dominick.
  • Carew, John.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Davin, William.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finan, John.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keane, Seán.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Sweetman and T.F. O'Higgins.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Boland

The Seanad is meeting next week, and in the circumstances perhaps the House would agree to give me the remaining stages now.

Why not leave it over for another day?

Mr. Boland

The Deputy can do what he likes.

The Minister can have the remaining stages now if he will give an undertaking to bring in his Bill and have it passed within the next 12 months.

Mr. Boland

I will give this undertaking—to do the best I possibly can. That is as far as I can go. I do not know when it will be circulated, but I will do my best to have it passed by this time 12 months.

Agreed, that the remaining stages of the Bill be taken now.

Bill received for final consideration, and passed.

Barr
Roinn