The Rent Restrictions (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1981, is intended to provide a measure of protection for tenants of dwellings which were controlled under the Rent Restrictions Acts, 1960 and 1967. These Acts were recently the subject of a Supreme Court decision which declared that, in important respects relating to the control of rents and the restrictions on the landlord's right to recover possession of dwellings, they were outside the provisions of the Constitution. This Bill will give tenants affected by the Supreme Court judgment protection against rent increases and against ejectment from their dwellings for a limited period of time. It will be followed by a further Bill within six months to deal on a more permanent basis with the problems in this area. For the moment we are called upon to respond quickly to a particularly grave social problem.
The Supreme Court decision to which I referred declared unconstitutional Parts II and IV of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960. The effect of this is that upward of 30,000 tenants of controlled dwellings have had their protection from rent increases and security of tenure under the Act removed. Questions were raised in the Dáil about the actual number of tenants involved. As I indicated then, there is no way of knowing what the actual numbers are. However, on the basis of past trends, my Department estimate the number of such dwellings at present to be in the region of 30,000. In any event the actions proposed here are not related to a particular estimate of the number of persons involved but are based on the realisation that a large number of persons, many of them from the poorest section of the community, are in need of protection and help. This the Government are determined to provide.
The basis for the Supreme Court's judgment was that the control of rents as operated under the 1960 Act constituted an unjust attack on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of the citizen. This was because rents were fixed without provision for review, compensation, any regard to the respective economic circumstances of landlord and tenant, any limit on the period of restriction or any allowance for modification of the operation of the restriction. This the Supreme Court held to be both arbitrary and unfair. The restrictions on the landlord's right to recover possession were considered to be so closely entwined with the rent control provisions that they had no independent existence of their own and fell to be unconstitutional as a result.
The present Bill is designed to meet the situation arising out of the Supreme Court's decision. It is a response to comments in the judgment which referred to the need for new legislation to deal with the statutory void created by the judgment and affecting this whole area. It takes into account the recommendation of the court that in the period before such substantive legislation can be enacted, courts in dealing with an application for a decree for possession arising out of the judgment should either adjourn the case or grant a decision for possession with an appropriate stay of execution.
This Bill effectively puts this recommendation on a statutory footing. It does this by continuing for six months the restrictions of the landlord's right to possession set out in the 1960 Act and by making rent increases notified after the date of the High Court decision unenforceable for that period.
Comments have been forthcoming from different quarters that this Bill itself might be unconstitutional. This I do not consider to be the case. This Bill, in its Long Title, refers specifically to certain provisions of the Constitution. The effect of these has been amplified in the explanatory memorandum circulated on the Bill. Under Article 43 the State may delimit by law the natural rights of property with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good and regulating them by the principles of social justice. Article 45 pledges the State to direct its policy towards ensuring that the ownership and control of the natural resources of the community may be so distributed amongst private individuals and the various classes so as best to subserve the common good and to safeguard with special care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community. In the face of these provisions of the Constitution, the temporary nature of the legislation and the explicit recommendation of the Supreme Court with regard to decrees for possession, I consider the Bill a proper, and indeed necessary, course of action for the Government to follow.
The six month period of the operation of this Bill is intended to provide the breathing space for the Government to prepare and initiate, within the confines set by the Supreme Court's judgment, the appropriate policies and legislation that will be called for to meet the new situation.
The suggestion was made in the Dáil that this period might not be long enough. While I realise that the work which must be completed within the next six months is considerable I am confident that the necessary legislation will be ready when this Bill expires. With regard to what future action is envisaged, the short time that this Government have been in office has not put us in the position to set out our final views on this complex subject. At this stage I can go no further than refer to the programme for Government in which we have promised to secure fixity of tenure for existing tenants in rent controlled accommodation and to provide a scheme to subsidise rents where they are beyond the means of existing tenants.
During the debate in the Dáil on the Bill a number of suggestions were put forward for amendments. Some of the suggestions had considerable merit in themselves, but they are really more appropriate to the substantive legislation which is to follow this Bill. Further, as I indicated earlier, the Bill is designed to take into account the Supreme Court's judgment as well as the relevant provisions of the Constitution. Suggested amendments to the Bill which would have the effect of negativing the Supreme Court judgment or which would conflict with the reasoning behind that judgment cannot be accepted. Having regard to the need to deal immediately with a particularly urgent situation and the limitation of the Bill to six months, I have concluded that the Bill in its present form is the appropriate and best response.
The situation facing the tenants of controlled dwellings is a serious one. Nobody in this House can be unaware of the major change in the conditions governing the controlled rented sector which the Supreme Court's judgment will bring about. The change will have far-reaching social implications with which we must cope while at the same time being fair to the interests of both landlords and tenants. This Bill will provide the necessary breathing space in which to prepare the policies needed to deal with these social problems. I accordingly commend the Bill to the House.