I should like to start by congratulating the Minister of State on his appointment to the Department of the Environment. I wish him well. His experience as a member of a local authority and the way he represented the people of Dublin in his term as Lord Mayor augur well for his future behaviour in the Department of the Environment. On a very personal basis I wish Deputy O'Brien well as Minister of State at the Department of the Environment.
He is very fortunate to have the advice of such a fine body of civil servants as are in the Department of the Environment. As Minister for the Environment until Tuesday of last week, I can say that in the eight months period I was there I never failed to be amazed at the courtesy, advice and loyalty of the civil service. They were superb. I should like to take this opportunity to put on the record of the House my appreciation of the civil service in general.
I welcome this Bill. It was prepared by our Government in anticipation of the Supreme Court decision which was handed down eventually on 29 June. The decision of the court, which declared that Parts II and IV of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, are unconstitutional, has the potential of being the single biggest element of social distress ever arising from a court decision. The Bill attempts to tackle this problem, albeit by way merely of a holding operation for six months.
I should like to expand on why I consider that decision to have this potential for causing distress. The Rent Restrictions Act, 1960 is entitled:
An Act to make provision for restricting the increase of rent and the recovery of possession of premises in certain cases and to provide for other matters connected therewith.
The control effected by the Act is said, in the judgment of the Supreme Court, to extend to between 45,000 and 50,000 dwellings. In the estimation of the Minister of State and of the Department, the number is 30,000. This represents a considerable gap between the two figures and it is something that I should like the Minister of State to refer to when he is replying.
The problem arising from the court decision is that the vast majority of those dwellings affected by the decision are occupied by elderly people who are on fixed incomes, mainly pensions. These people will not be in a position to meet the vastly increased rents likely to be demanded by the landlords. In addition, these elderly people are the least well equipped, either mentally or legally, to handle the distress caused by the threat of eviction from their homes. We must remember that the dwellings in question are mainly pre-1940 dwellings. It is a source of major concern in this House that so many people in these circumstances should find themselves facing eviction or, if not, the payment of vastly increased rents. I regret deeply that the court in its wisdom did not not accept the case of the Attorney General. He made the case that the legislation which the Supreme Court was deciding on should be examined for invalidity under Article 43 of the Constitution. Section 2 of that article provides for the regulation and delimitation of property rights in accordance with the principles of social justice and the exigencies of the common good. Section 1º of Article 43 reads:
The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, had the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.
Section 2º of that Article reads:
The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.
Section 2. 1º reads:
The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.
The same Article at 2º provides that:
The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.
The Attorney General said that this impugned legislation is justified by section 2º of Article 43 and accordingly no question of non-compliance with that Article arises. He said that the power of regulation or of dealing with the rights of private property is vested in the Oireachtas by reason of Article 6 of the Constitution and that it is to be presumed that, in exercising that power in relation to Article 43, the Oireachtas in acting intra vires and with due regard to the direct principles of social justice as set out in Article 45 which are not cognisable by any court, and that the court's power to condemn this legislation under Article 43 cannot arise unless it is shown that it is not permitted by Article 43.2º. The Attorney General said that what the Oireachtas had done is permitted by Article 43.2º and that no question of injustice requiring State action under that provision can arise. He went on to say that Part II of the Act must be tested for constitutional validity and that it cannot be held to have lost that validity by the mere passage of time or by changes in economic circumstances, which is central to the whole judgment, and that even if the State had any duty to review rent control, it did so in 1967 and again in 1971.
I am sorry that the Supreme Court did not agree with that submission but by rejecting the Attorney General's case and declaring both Parts II and IV of the Act to be unconstitutional, the court in its judgment, at least recognised the very special feature of this case and the particular social problems that it would cause.
I should like to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in its judgment. The judges said that in the particular instance of this case, because of the special features of it and because of the consequences involved, the court considered that some further observations were called for. They observed that the removal from the affected tenants of the degree of security of possession and rent control which they have enjoyed up to now would leave a statutory void. We are attempting today, albeit on a very temporary basis to fill that void. The court assumed that the situation created would receive immediate attention and that the relevant legislation could be expected to provide for the determination of fair rents, for a degree of security of tenure and for other relevant social and economic factors.
That section of the court's judgment vindicates totally the decision of the previous Government to introduce a Bill. That decision was announced on 29 June. It also vindicates the decision of this Government to bring this Bill before the House. As the Minister of State has said, this temporary measure awaits the consideration of both the implication of the judgment and the long-term measures that are to be taken.
I would ask the Minister to inform the House as to the type of measures he intends taking. He refers to the Gaiety Theatre document in which he says is an undertaking to ensure fixity of tenure for tenants in rent-controlled accommodation. This party will be seeking and demanding that such measures will be provided because this whole question is basic to the social structure of so many of our cities and towns. We will be fighting hard for the implementation of these measures when the new Bill is before us.
It would be nonsensical to provide a section which would guarantee fixity of tenure without introducing also a section which would provide for a scheme of fair and reasonable rents and which would provide a scheme to subsidise rents in the event of the less well off not being able to meet their rent demands.
Would the Minister of State spell out exactly what he has in mind for the legislation which will be brought in, rather than merely referring to the Gaiety Theatre document when he says it will provide a scheme to subsidise rents beyond the means of existing tenants? How does he see this operating? Does he intend that the supplementary welfare allowance scheme will be used or is there to be a special fund set up? How is this to be financed? It is difficult to see, although I admit that at the time of drafting this legislation we in Government had in mind using the supplementary welfare allowance scheme as a system of subsidisation of the excessive rents which were envisaged. The Minister should spell this out, not just for the benefit of the House but for the 45,000 to 50,000 people involved, who are suffering mental torture arising from the Supreme Court decision. Many of them are old people who are not used to dealing with the courts and the laws of the land and with this threat of eviction.
The Minister of State referred to a mechanism to fix rents which would be fair both to the landlord and to the tenant. I compliment the Minister on the idea of the mechanism. It is something we will be seeking in the further Bill which the Minister's Government will have to introduce. We will be looking for uncomplicated but effective machinery, uncomplicated to the extent that it will not create mental or legal difficulties for the tenants; uncomplicated in the sense that the tenant who has a disagreement with the landlord, or vice versa, can have it settled satisfactorily in a non-legalistic way to bring to a conclusion any disagreements between tenants and landlords. I envisage that this mechanism would be extended, not only to deal with the problems of rent but also to deal with the problems of repairs to property and any other matters which cause difficulties between the landlord and tenant. The whole relationship between the landlord and tenant should be directed by this mechanism to be set up. Would the Minister of State expand on the section of his speech which referred to the mechanism? He also referred to the Gaiety Theatre document and the tax allowance for tenants of privately rented accommodation. I have a question about that on the Order Paper for later on. I will wait for the reply from the Minister for Finance to that question.
There is also a reference in the Gaiety Theatre document to a fair rents tribunal. Would the Minister of State give the details so far worked out on this fair rents tribunal? When does he envisage it being brought into operation? Is it intended to use it for tenants caught up by this court decision? Does he intend to extend the operation of the tribunal to previously decontrolled tenancies?
In the forthcoming legislation we will be seeking a proper system of registration for all landlords. This register will be of major benefit to the community and to tenants for the future in their properties. Whether the register will be run at a national or local level is a matter for the Minister to decide but it must be fully comprehensive and list all landlords in the country. With regard to the Bill itself, section 4 refers to the increase in rent being unenforceable for six months. I admit this was a problem when I was involved in the drafting of the legislation as to how it was going to operate. The fact that it is unenforceable is one thing but it does not say in the legislation that rents cannot be increased. It will mean that the follow-up legislation will have to come much faster than the six months envisaged in the legislation before us today. I hope the Minister of State will expand on the operation of section 4, from the point of view of both the landlord and the tenant.
Have the Government given consideration to the submission that is reported to have been made by a spokesman on behalf of the landlords who, I understand, has requested the President to refuse to sign this Bill, pending either a meeting of the Council of State or its referral to the Supreme Court as to its constitutionality? It would be in the interests of the tenants, those people I referred to earlier, who are suffering such distress at this stage because this legislation has not yet been passed and because all the publicity that the spokesman on behalf of the landlords has received with regard to his submission to the President, if the Minister of State spelled out the course of action which his Government intend taking if the President decides to send this to the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court gives an immediate ruling that the Bill is unconstitutional. I am not a lawyer but I do not think the Bill is unconstitutional. I think the Supreme Court have requested Parliament to fill the statutory void that is left as a result of the decision of declaring Parts II and IV unconstitutional. I hope the Minister of State will spell out for tenants who are suffering mental torture at present not knowing if they are going to be evicted or what exorbitant rents they are going to have to pay as a result of the Supreme Court decision, what immediate course of action this Government have in mind to protect this less well-off section of our society which is not in a position to defend itself from so many of our landlords.
Once again, I welcome the Bill. I am glad that the Government followed the line being taken by the previous administration. What we have before us today is the Fianna Fail Government's Bill which was announced on 29 June, in response to the Supreme Court decision. I ask the Minister of State, in reply, to respond to the questions which I have put to him.