Landlord and Tenant Bill, 1977: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. R. Burke

Before moving the adjournment yesterday I was developing the point that, while this Bill is a very comprehensive piece of legislation which consolidates and codifies all existing landlord and tenant laws since 1931, its principal feature concerns ground rent, and I wish to address myself to the sections dealing with ground rent. I will deal with the position of existing ground rents and use, but not necessarily accept, the very dubious figures of the Minister for Local Government with regard to the Coalition's building programme over the last four years. Because of delay by the Minister for Justice in introducing this measure we have seen the creation of approximately 75,000 new ground rents since this Coalition came into power. This has happened despite the fact that we assured the Minister and the House that if they introduced a simple Bill of three or four sections banning the creation of ground rents, we would give it speedy passage through this House. During his four years in office the Minister consistently refused to bring in such a Bill pending the introduction of the Landlord and Tenant Bill.

I was also making the point that the whole vexed question of existing ground rents is not properly tackled in this Bill. A legitimate campaign for the abolition of ground rents was waged for many years, particularly by ACRA, on the fundamental principle that when a man buys a house he should also buy the land on which it is built. We have had a long history of campaigning against penal land legislation during our occupation by a foreign power, which unfortunately is still in one part of our country. This legislation does not go far enough to assist the householder to remove the medieval yoke of ground rents from around the people's necks.

It was announced that the Bill would reduce the considerable legal and other costs involved in buying ground rents, but section 15 imposes on householders the costs of arbitration, the landlord's costs, his expenses and the householder's own expenses. We have there four sets of expenses. Yet the Minister tells us that the purpose of this Bill is to minimise the lessee's expenses. This whole question cries out for clarification and I hope the Minister will accept amendments on Committee Stage.

I will deal now with the right of a lessor to evict a lessee if the latter refuses to pay ground rent. There can be the ludicrous situation of a man living in a £20,000 or £30,000 house on which there is a £1 a year ground rent. If on a point of principle he refuses to pay the ground rent, the ground landlord can bring him to court and get an eviction order against him. This means that the ground landlord could take possession of this house because the houseowner did not pay £1 ground rent. This ludicrous situation cries out for action by the Minister. Yet in this very detailed Bill, 56 pages long, with various Schedules, there is nothing to protect the lessee in a situation like this.

The reasonable way to tackle this situation would be to give power to the ground landlord to take a civil action for recovery of a debt from the lessee rather than the threat and power of eviction as in the present legislation and as it will be in this proposed legislation. I would like to see the Minister accepting the amendment Fianna Fáil will be submitting on this question because it is a medieval barbarity to have this power of eviction for not paying ground rent.

I was also developing the point that there is no section in this Bill which will rectify the present situation where local authorities are the developers of estates. In my own constituency there are the estates of Donaghmede and Priorswood which was developed by Dublin Corporation. The houses in Donaghmede were built by one builder but there were various builders involved in Priorswood. The houses were purchased in the normal way, that is, by way of mortgages, SDA loans and so on. The people who bought these houses are unable to buy the ground rents because their ground landlords are the local authority, in this case, Dublin Corporation. I would like to see this position clarified on Committee Stage and hope the Minister will accept our amendment.

The problem of local authority tenants should have been tackled in the Bill and I hope the Minister will accept our amendments on this at a later stage. He has attempted to tackle the problem of ground rents but I think he has failed miserably in his approach.

I hope that the Minister will accept on Committee Stage the amendments which will be tabled by our spokesman, Deputy G. Collins, to tighten up the situation, particularly with regard to the power of eviction for nonpayment of ground rent. This is a matter which should have been tackled without waiting for a Fianna Fáil amendment to be tabled. Section 15 imposes on the tenants the costs of arbitration, the landlord's costs and expenses and their own expenses. These expenses will exacerbate an already difficult situation. The whole question of the right of home-owners to buy out the ground rent from local authorities and the situation of local authority tenants should be tackled on Committee Stage. I am sorry that the Minister having delayed legislation for so long has failed to grasp the nettle. He has met very few of the legitimate demands made throughout the campaign against ground rents.

Mr. Enright

I should like to congratulate the Minister on making a serious effort in this Bill to tackle the problem of ground rents. There has been widespread public interest and discussion on this matter and there is now a very strong demand for action.

I intend to take an objective view of this Bill. In general, it is an excellent Bill but there is one item in section 108 which worries me and I will deal with that towards the latter part of my speech. There are items in that section which need serious study by the Minister even at this late stage and which, in my opinion, require some kind of amendment.

For a great part of our history the ground rents system fulfilled the functions now covered by our planning laws. In many of our cities and towns there are fine streets and squares and terraced houses. The character of these places was preserved because the superior landlord imposed restrictions in the leases. People had to keep their houses in good repair. They were also restricted in the use they could make of their houses and they were not free to use the buildings for shops or garages. The restrictions were such that many estates were well managed and maintained and this is one of the main reasons why a very good case could be made for the retention of ground rents before the introduction of Planning Acts. This was shown very clearly in the report of the Ground Rents Commission in 1964. Judge Conroy, the chairman of that commission, was misjudged. It is obvious to anybody who has made a study of ground rents that they fulfilled a reasonably important function in the past. Following the introduction of planning legislation, the planning authorities and local authorities are now in a better position to carry out these tasks. These authorities can now ensure that estates and houses in our cities and towns are maintained in an orderly way. Many people were worried in 1964 that the local authorities would not be able to enforce the restrictions necessary for good management but the Planning Acts have enabled them to do so.

This is a most comprehensive Bill. I do not wish to delay the debate so I will now deal with section 108. This section is the key to the whole Bill because it restricts the right to create leases of dwellings. It prohibits and prevents the creation of new ground rents. I want to make the point that a person who has a title to property cannot convey to anybody else a better title to such land or property than he has himself. I would ask the Minister to consider a situation in which a developer or builder does not have a fee simple title. Because he has only a leasehold title, he is restricted by this Bill from creating further ground rents; he is not in a position to pass on a fee simple title. The Bill can present difficulties for such a developer or builder. I am putting this as a Government backbencher and as somebody who wholeheartedly supports the Bill to the Minister. I would like him to investigate this.

Let us take the case of a builder in Dublin who has 70 acres of land to develop. He can have that virgin land held under three or four different leasehold titles. The developer would normally grant leases to house purchasers subject to £5, £10 or whatever it is for each house. There was no problem there up to now. He is now in the situation whereby he has only three or four different leasehold interests and because of that he cannot convey the fee simple. If he builds houses on that land he may find that he cannot dispose of them. If he tries to give the best title he has, that is a leasehold title, there is already a rent on the lands from his superior landlord. He has a lease for 800 years, his superior landlord has a lease for 900 years and the superior landlord again has a lease for 999 years.

This man has built houses on this land. He cannot create leases now. He is not entitled to transfer subject to a rent but the solicitors for the purchasers of any of those houses would ask how the developer's superior landlord is indemnified. The purchasers would have to be satisfied that the superior landlord is indemnified. If he is not indemnified the solicitors for the purchasers would not agree to accept the titles.

The houses must be indemnified against something. If this builder builds 800 houses on this estate each of them must be indemnified against the rent. He will not be able to do this under this Bill. He could put the rent on the roads or the pathways but if the rent is not being paid by the original landlord to the superior landlord the immediate landlord can try to pursue his right against the roads. It is of no benefit to him because he cannot get the money from anybody.

The tenants may feel happy enough but the landlord can try to proceed against those paths or roads. This is a very difficult situation. Section 108 refers back to section 66. This section gives a general right to acquire a fee simple but in this instance, because it is new land for building on, the developer of the property has not a right to acquire the fee simple. Section 66 refers to section 37 which deals with the conditions to be applied in the case of a person who holds or has held land under a lease and who seeks a reversionary lease. This developer to whom I have referred is not covered at the moment in sections 108, 66 or 37. I believe it is necessary to have some amendment here.

The developer, if he was to give the best title he has, could assign the property but he would still be restricted. If there is a rent there somebody will have to be indemnified against it. He cannot transfer his rent to a new purchaser of one of the houses. Who will indemnify the immediate landlord for his rent? This will be raised on acquisition of title by solicitors for house purchasers who will have to be satisfied on this issue. I do not know if the Minister had this in mind when the Bill was being drafted.

I suggest there are two alternatives out of this. The first would be to grant leases at a very nominal rent such as 1p on each house. That would run contrary to the Bill and would be the less favourable alternative. I suggest that the developer of those lands would have a statutory right to acquire the fee simple by means of a statutory vesting certificate. He could go to his county registrar and say to him "I have 70 acres of land. The rent is £10 an acre, that is £700 and for eight years I am prepared to pay £5,600. Will you give me a statutory vesting certificate and let my immediate landlord come and prove his title? He can claim this money from me which you can pay to him. I want a statutory vesting certificate from you which will indemnify me".

If a developer builds four houses to an acre on a 70 acre estate that would be quite a considerable number of houses. When the houses are built the immediate landlord, recognising that the builder had invested a considerable sum of money in the erection of the houses and the development of the estate, would call the tune and hold up the acquisition of the fee simple. This could result in long and protracted negotiations before the fee simple is acquired. A solicitor for the purchaser of such a house would be unwise to close the sale because this point was not clarified. That is why there must be some statutory right to acquire a fee simple by means of a statutory vesting certificate. If such a certificate could be issued by a county registrar, the situation would be most satisfactory and the difficulties I have mentioned would be overcome. To avoid having superior landlords being in a position to ask exorbitant prices for the fee simple county registrars must be given the authority to issue statutory vesting certificates. There must be some safeguard in this matter. I hope the Minister will deal with this when replying.

This legislation is most complex and it deals with a matter which was considered by the Ground Rents Commission in 1964. That commission in relation to the restriction of further ground rents recommended that the creation of further ground rents in the case of residences and combined residences and businesses was undesirable but they were unable to recommend machinery for prohibiting the creation of such rents. While that commission was not in a position to recommend machinery for prohibiting the creation of new ground rents the Minister has done a great deal further in this regard. The provisions in this regard contained in the Bill are most desirable. The purchasing of all ground rents outright would be most comprehensive and entail Government assistance. However, such a scheme could be operated through a body like the Land Commission. It would help to simplify the titles to properties throughout the country. My suggestion is that the Government issue bonds to the superior landlords and the ground rent tenants pay the Government off over a fixed period, similar to the land annuities paid to the Land Commission by farmers. I hope the Minister will consider that suggestion.

Now that the Planning Act is in operation and that covenants and restrictions on leases and leaseholds are better looked after by local authorities, a scheme such as I have suggested to deal with ground rents should be prepared. The amount of money involved would not be considerable but such a scheme would be of great benefit to householders who pay ground rent. This section in the Land Commission which dealt with annuities would be in a position to deal with such a scheme because they have machinery to process it. They also have the expertise to look after it.

Under this Bill county registrars will have the power to arbitrate and look after the purchase of ground rents in the future. That is a good thing and it will mean that it will be cheaper for people to purchase ground rents. However, in some instances it will place a great deal of extra work on county registrars and I do not know if they have sufficient personnel to cope with this extra work. This measure will mean a lot of extra work and I can visualise this happening particularly in Laois-Offaly where the county registrar's office will have a lot more to do. I would have preferred to see this work fall on the Land Commission who have expertise in these matters. Of course so have county registrars because they are all experienced solicitors and are aware of all the problems in relation to title.

Section 6 deals with local authority residences and I can see some problems arising there. People who have council houses vested in them subject to an annuity payable in quaterly instalments may not sell or dispose otherwise of their houses without the written consent of the local authority and they are not allowed to sell to anybody who is not qualified under the Labourers Acts. In fairness to county councils, they have used a great deal of discretion to extend the scope of those Acts in a fair manner but I have seen problems in cases of fathers transferring to their sons. Some of these houses which fathers may wish to have transferred to their sons are in a dilapidated condition and need considerable reconstruction. Councils give grants and loans for that work but the father may be an elderly man and not be able to pay off the loan. I cannot see why councils do not consent readily to such transfers. People living in council houses are as entitled to transfer within the family as are house owners in Dún Laoghaire, Cabinteely or anywhere else.

An Ceann Comhairle

This seems more appropriate to another Minister. The matter of ground rents does not arise in the Deputy's remarks.

Mr. Enright

I repeat my point in regard to section 108 on the creation of new leases and would ask the Minister to consider amending that section to prevent clogging up. This is an excellent measure because it provides the machinery which the Government in 1964 did not provide in their Bill. It is highly desirable to eliminate obstacles because most people are anxious to have clear title to the property they own.

Mr. Brosnan

Like my colleagues on this side I welcome the Bill, but I do so with reservations. I welcome the Bill because I regard it as a serious if belated effort to consolidate landlord and tenant law, an effort to clear up what has been a veritable jungle. It will be a boon not only to students but to practitioners. I welcome some of the amendments provided in this Bill to existing law and some of the new provisions introduced in it. This must of necessity create new problems and new difficulties. Unfortunately some of the most glaring and major difficulties in the 1931 Landlord and Tenant Act have been left untouched and, therefore, unresolved. I shall deal with these on Committee Stage.

I should like to remind the Minister now and the House of the genesis of this Bill. It was mooted three or four years ago and the Minister and his colleagues now introduce this Bill, after a long period of gestation, on the eve of a general election. It was presented with a great flourish, hailed and accepted by the Press and the other media as something wonderful, the Magna Carta of the tenants, the final remedy for all their ills. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. Unless the Minister, as was pointed out by Deputy Collins, accepts substantial amendments and changes in the Bill he will miss the opportunity he had of catering for tenants with long standing, genuine grievances, tenants who deserve to have their vexatious relationships between them and their landlords resolved. The great hopes these people have had for years are going to be dashed by the Minister. Initially the Press seemed to get the impression that this Bill would do away completely with ground rents. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is, in fact, a provision in this Bill for the creation of more and more ground rents. The Bill makes a provision for the State and local authorities to continue as landlords, in the worst sense of the word. The State and local authorities are the biggest landlords, if not actual speculators, and this Bill provides that they can continue to reserve the right to collect ground rents. I shall come back to that later.

My main criticism of this Bill is the fact that it transfers the whole of the administration of landlord and tenant law, in so far as councils are concerned with ground rents and the creation of new tenancies, from the Circuit Court to the county registrar. I believe this will create enormous problems. I believe it will make this Bill unworkable. The role of the county registrar will be enlarged. Indeed, his powers and functions have increased to such an extent that I believe he will not be able to deal with the new workload.

There is some doubt—it is a doubt I have and it is shared by many others —that the transfer of these judicial powers from a judge, who is duly appointed and sworn in in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution —Article 34, if I remember correctly —to a county registrar is unconstitutional. I do not want to embark on a constitutional debate with the Minister but I should like him to give us an assurance that this is not so. I would like him to assure us there is no constitutional objection to making the county registrar the arbiter in these matters. I believe, of course, that the difficulties the county registrar will encounter in this proposed new role will be so numerous and so complex as to make them almost insuperable. The powers proposed in section 12 are vast. The Minister is a legal practitioner and he knows well that the county registrar will have to deal at length with complex matters of both law and fact. I need not remind the Minister of how difficult these questions of law can be. Take, for example, tracing title. Very often it is a matter for experts who specialise in that branch of law. I find it difficult to visualise an unfortunate county registrar, with all the other burdens of his office, having the time and the opportunity to deal with complex matters of law and fact. Complex matters of fact will require the examination of witnesses and documents.

With all due respect to county registrars, and I am not one to reflect upon them, they have not got the experience, the training, the expertise or the disciplines that judges have in dealing with complex difficulties and involved matters of both law and fact. They are not trained for that. The county registrar is a quasi civil servant. He is not in touch with what one might describe as judicial functions. He does not even practise in the courts. He is out of touch with the rules of evidence, procedure and privilege, all of which require expertise to enable one to adjudicate correctly in these complex matters of law and fact, matters which could involve very important properties.

I am not casting any reflection on the ability or integrity of county registrars but it is too much to expect them to perform difficult duties for which they are not trained and which are properly the province of judges. I do not believe that the kind of adjudication which it is proposed to give to county registrars will be conducive to the standardisation and harmonisation of the law and of the provisions of this Bill. According to the Minister's proposals here, one county registrar will make up his mind on one matter while another may come to a different opinion on the same matter. The law will not be properly settled and fixed as is the case when a decision is made in the Circuit Court or in the High Court.

Apart from that, this adjudication of law behind closed doors is not proper in justice. In the matter of ground rents and leases with which this Bill is concerned not only should justice be done but it should be seen to be done in an open court adjudicated on by judges who are sworn in in accordance with the Constitution. They take a solemn oath to administer justice without fear or favour but county registrars do not give such a solemn undertaking. This slipshod method of dealing with the serious and sensitive problem of ground rents is not good enough. The people deserve better.

Apart from his own personal or professional limitations, the county registrar has not the staff to deal with the enormously increased workload which he will have to undertake if this Bill becomes law. This will be particularly the case if this Bill is as popular as the Minister thinks it will be and if it is availed of by as many people as we are led to believe will be the case. The county registrar has not the staff, accommodation or facilities to administer the provisions of the Bill.

Deputy Enright said that this would not present any difficulties in Laois-Offaly but I can assure the Minister it will present enormous difficulties in the county and city of Cork and I speak with some experience and authority on the situation there. I am sure the Minister is aware of the greatly increased burden of work put on county registrars under the Juries Act of last year. In the county registrar's area of Cork city and county juries have to be called for four criminal sittings each year and usually they last for three weeks apiece. During that time a jury panel of about 600 has to be called every day. The High Court also sits in Cork city three times yearly usually for a period of two weeks. Each sitting lasts a fortnight and the same number of jurors have to be called. That means there are at least seven sittings a year and on each occasion the panel numbers between 600 to 700 jurors. That works out at something in the region of 6,000 jurors per annum all of whom have to be notified by the county registrar. Those who want to be excused have to be dealt with and this involves lengthy correspondence with them and with others. This happens to such an extent that county registrars in busy areas such as Cork, Dublin and Limerick are inundated with work of this kind.

In addition to catering for juries, the county registrar has to deal with a revision court once a year. In the Cork area such a court dealing with electoral lists lasts for four to six weeks. Now that persons of 18 years can vote the workload of the county registrars is increased further. In view of this I doubt if county registrars could deal seriously with the difficult judicial matter of arbitrating on the issues dealt with in this Bill.

The Minister has claimed that the transfer of administration of this legislation to the county registrars will be an economy but I do not think that will be the case. It means that a county registrar in Cork will have to leave the city and travel to Glengarriff and Bere Island, which is 90 miles from Cork city, and he will have to take his staff with him. Parties may have to travel from Cork city to a place 60 or 70 miles away with their witnesses and legal representatives. Apart from the inconvenience of making these journeys it would involve them in enormous expense. Alternatively the parties may have to travel from Glengarriff or Bere Island to Cork city. Then there is the matter of adjournments for one reason or another when the parties may have to return to the venue of the first sitting. Either way it would involve trouble and expense.

Instead of making the county registrars the arbitrators in these matters the Minister should consider using circuit judges who sit in most large towns and who are trained and have experience of all these matters. Alternatively the Minister could consider transferring this jurisdiction to District Courts, making each district justice responsible for the administration of this kind of law in his own area. The district justice has the premises, the staff and the experience. He is au fait with all the developments, has experience in rent restrictions and would be in a better position to deal with this matter than the county registrar. I should like the Minister to give us a good reason why the administration of the proposals in the Bill could not be carried out effectively by a district justice.

My second objection to the Bill is that it does not remove the defects contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931. In particular I refer to the mechanism which is used by landlords to prevent tenants from acquiring rights to which they are entitled under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931. The Minister must know of many cases of unscrupulous landlords employing these devices to evade the provisions of the Act and who will continue to do so under the provisions of this Bill. Instead of leasing a premises landlords use the device of leasing equipment in premises such as machinery and counters. Deputy Enright spoke about the renting or hiring of equipment in a fish and chip shop. The landlord uses the device of making a hiring agreement instead of a letting, of not giving a lease but giving a licence to the occupier for the use of the equipment on the premises or for the use of waste space at the back of the premises for an exorbitant rent and giving the premises itself free of rent. The written agreement is binding upon the occupier of the premises.

The occupier has free premises but has to pay an exorbitant rent for some convenience such as a counter or some other piece of equipment. The conditions remain good during the period of the hiring. By that means the occupier could never acquire any rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931. That device is still used by unscrupulous landlords who will continue to use it under this Bill. The device prevents tenants from acquiring the rights to which they are entitled, such as the right to a new tenancy, to compensation for disturbance and so on. When one hiring agreement is terminated the landlord may make a more onerous one.

The people being deprived of their rights are an essential part of the community. They are the self-employed—fitters, carpenters, electricians and others who enter into hiring agreements with unscrupulous landlords. They build up a trade and at the end of the hiring or licensing period must surrender the premises to the landlord. These are usually people of initiative and courage who build up goodwill in their business during the currency of the letting. They get married and build a house in the neighbourhood and are paying ground rent as well. At the end of this agreement they are faced with either destitution or a substitute agreement with more onerous terms, with a higher rent, or else they get out. In the meantime the landlord has the benefit of the goodwill which has been built up in respect of his premises, also the enhanced value of the premises and perhaps fittings that have been put in by the occupant. All that can still go on under this Bill.

The most typical example of this is the case where the petrol companies hire the petrol pump and perhaps some other equipment to the occupier for a rent of £30, £40, £60, £70 a week or maybe more depending on the situation of the petrol station. They let him go into occupation of the petrol station or the garage free of rent and of course he is debarred from gaining any rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, and under this Bill as well.

Another mean device which is used by unscrupulous landlords and which will prevent a tenant, in this case a real tenant, not an occupier, from acquiring any rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931 or under this Bill, is that whereby the landlord refuses to give the tenant a lease for three years or more, three years being the statutory period under the 1931 Act to entitle a tenant to certain rights. He can let the premises for a period of three years less one day, or one month, and after the termination of that period the landlord takes a formal surrender of the premises. He usually demands the key, which terminates completely the tenancy of two years and nine months or whatever period less than three years it happens to be. During that period no benefits or rights have accrued to the tenant. On the following day the landlord can make a similar agreement, and so it can go on ad infinitum. The period of the second, third or fourth lease can never count along with the period of the first lease. There must be a full three-year period before he is entitled to any rights and a large number of periods of less than three years are useless.

Another variation on that theme is used by others in that at the end of the tenancy they compel the tenants to convert themselves into a company. They give them a lease for less than three years as individuals. Then they are turned into a company, and then perhaps on the next occasion they become another company under a different name and so on again ad infinitum. The tenancy of the company is different from that of the individual. At no time will the individual be the predecessor in title, as the legal phrase goes, of the company; nor will the company be the predecessor in title of the individual. The combined leases or tenancies can never benefit the tenant. There are various tunes which can be played on that instrument.

The same social ills and hardships follow from these arrangements. A man sets up a home and a family and has to face destitution or unemployment or else submit again to the landlord's demands for a new tenancy on new and more onerous terms. Again the section of the community which is affected are those people of some consequence and significance, people with courage and initiative. They are the people who suffer most under this insidious system. Nothing has been done by the Minister to rectify that situation. I am not suggesting this is done wholesale but it is done too often.

If a person is entitled to own his home he should not be debarred from owning his working premises where very often he spends a lifetime. The Minister tries to distinguish between premises which constitute the family home and premises connected with the person's occupation. He tries to justify the fact that he is doing nothing for those by saying that people are not so sensitive about occupation tenancies as they are about their homes. In other words, they are entitled to have their homes without any snags like ground rent, but the Minister would appear to think that they are not sensitive to the situation in regard to their working premises and that they do not need to be in full, freehold possession of premises in which they make their living.

I do not accept that thesis at all. The individual has a moral right and should be given a statutory right to purchase outright the premises in which he makes a living, be those premises a chip shop, a garage or anything else. These licences are only a subterfuge to enable the landlord to prevent people from having those rights. The courts are not allowed look behind the words in a written agreement to see what is the real meaning intended. There should be some provision in this Bill to deal with this situation.

The sort of people who are denied these rights are carpenters, fitters and so on. These are the people who, more than any others, help to keep the economy going. They should be catered for in this Bill. The legislation in this regard is so farcical as to bring into disrepute the whole law of the land. This Bill affects everybody, either directly or indirectly, but I suggest that it will be administered inadequately by county registrars through no fault of their own but because this new additional burden is being foisted on them. The Minister should consider seriously transferring the administration of this legislation either to the District Court or to the Circuit Court.

There is a provision in this Bill which renders the State and local authorities immune in respect of the purchase of freeholds. This is understandable in so far as certain types of local authority housing are concerned —for example, where a local authority would retain their hold on these dwellings so as to be able to cater for certain groups of people or for an ad hoc situation. However that is not so in the average case. What happens is that the local authority sell sites fully serviced to people such as civil servants, gardaí, and solicitors.

These people would not qualify now for local authority loans, but at a time when they did so qualify, provision was made in the mortgage for repayment during a period of 20 or 25 years. On the expiration of the term of the loan the mortgagee should have been entitled to full ownership of the property. People like to own their properties in full and without snags but in these cases the local authority insist on retaining ground rent rights for the further period of the lease which was either 74 or 79 years.

That situation is unjustified. Why should local authorities be above the law? Much emphasis is being placed on the provision in this Bill to prevent further ground rents being created and for the purchase of those that exist but why is there specific provision for the perpetuation of ground rent in some cases? Deputy Enright mentioned the necessity for a continuance of the situation in parts of the country. In some areas such covenants are necessary and desirable in order to prevent the despoiling of the countryside or of premises, but there is ample provision for local authorities under the planning laws to enable them to interfere in order to prevent any such despoliation.

The Minister must be aware that there is much dissatisfaction in relation to this provision. I trust that when he is replying he will be able to indicate a change of mind or at least to be able to assure us that there is justification for it.

There are some other matters in the Minister's brief to which I had intended to refer but I shall leave them for the moment as they may be more appropriate to the next Stage. Deputy Collins reminded us that in recent times there have been very few demands for ground rents in cases where the rents had been paid down through the years.

It was well known that many so-called agents have been collecting ground rents for years for landlords who do not exist and who have not existed for many years and they are pocketing the ground rents. The Minister should make a provision for the prohibition of that malpractice. Some onus should be placed on the agent or landlord to show his entitlement to a ground rent before making the demand.

This is a consolidating Bill but there are no reforms at all. The big snags which are seen in the 1931 Act are still there. The law can be abused and exploited by unscrupulous landlords. Unless the Bill is substantially amended it will not serve the purpose for which it was intended. Good legislation, especially legislation such as this which is social legislation, should reflect the spirit of the times, should reflect the problems, the desires and the consensus of the citizens. This Bill does not do that. The philosophy of the Just Society which we heard so much about some years ago is not reflected in this Bill. Unless the Minister makes substantial changes in this Bill he will fail to deliver the new deal which he and the Government promised to the tenants of this country.

Mr. E. Collins

The Bill before the House has been widely welcomed not only by the House in general but by people who reflect public opinion. The Minister is to be congratulated for bringing in this Bill. It is a consolidating Bill and also a reforming Bill. It substantially simplifies the code of law in relation to landlords and tenants. I do not agree with the last speaker's concluding remarks. The Bill is substantially reforming and reflects the social need of our time. It is a progressive piece of legislation. The last Government could have brought in a socially desirable Bill such as this but failed to do so. This Bill is one of a number of socially desirable Bills which the Minister has introduced in the short time of his Ministry. It is a reflection of the social conscience of this Government. This Bill is another contribution to the evolving of the Just Society to which the last speaker referred. We will be seen as a socially just society where exploitation is not tolerated by the Government. Our Government have a better record in relation to countering exploitation than the previous Government can boast of.

I am not a legal person and I will not deal with the legal intricacies of the Bill but instead with the social improvements the Bill will bring about. The prohibition of the creation of new ground rents on dwellinghouses is a major step forward. There has been much wild agitation in relation to the question of ground rents in the past few years which have not been justified in the context of the Constitution of our country. This emotional issue was used by a number of bodies such as Sinn Féin, who are very prone to get on every and any bandwagon in order to be destructive and vocal against any Government but more particularly against the present Government. The Minister in his speech was quite right when he said he believed that one of the fundamental aspects of this agitation in respect of the abolition of ground rent could be described as an emotional rejection of a system which allows the landlord an unreasonable degree of control over the tenant's family home. The Minister considered the question of ground rents in the context of our Constitution. I agree with him also when he says that it would be wrong to have any element of confiscation in this legislation. That is a proper interpretation of the Constitution as it should apply to this question. It relates to the protection of one's personal rights under the Constitution.

Landlords perhaps are looked on as mostly of the rack-rent or exploitation type but they are not necessarily so. Many poor people are landlords and many charities depend on revenue from rents to exist and to carry out their charitable functions. The local authorities are landlords in relation to council houses particularly, which are provided for people who either do not want or cannot afford to buy houses of their own. One must maintain a balance to ensure—and this Bill does —that the local authority carry out their functions in this sphere. I will digress if the Ceann Comhairle will allow me, and say in passing that the purchasing schemes of local authorities in relation to council houses do ensure that those people who want to buy out their houses are allowed to do so on very advantageous terms. That is as it should be, not only because tenants of council houses who want to buy out their houses should be allowed to do so but they should be encouraged to do so at special rates, not so much to give them a capital gain, which happens anyway, but to relieve the local authority of their subvention in respect of housing subsidies.

Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the prohibition of the creation of new ground rents on dwellinghouses is a major step forward which could have been taken many years ago. It is perfectly within the Constitution. The Minister went rather deeply into this in his speech. There is a general body of feeling, which is reflected in this House, in favour of restricting the creation of new ground rents and this measure will be welcomed.

The second major achievement of the Bill is the simplification of the buying out of existing ground rents. The county registrars are now the arbiters of any dispute that arises in this matter. This arbitration procedure which was originally introduced under the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, 1967, has been extended to all matters with which this Bill deals, with certain minor exceptions. The procedure which allows the county registrars to deal with this matter will have two effects. One will be to eliminate unnecessary delays if one has to wait for a court sitting thus allowing the matter to be dealt with more speedily. The second advantage will be the reduction in expenses in relation to the purchasing of the fee simple of a property. One is always slow to go before the courts if this can be avoided, and the existence of a permanent person, so to speak, who is readily approachable and accessible is a constructive step forward in this field of legislation.

The last speaker, Deputy Brosnan, expressed reservations about the correctness of using the county registrars for this purpose and about the county registrars' ability to deal with the complex questions which can arise in relation to such arbitration. I take the point. Deputy Brosnan has wide experience in this field, and perhaps two things should be done in this respect. The first and most important is that the offices of the county registrars should be properly staffed to deal with this question of arbitration and the complementary question of the keeping of a register in respect of such arbitration. I do not think that the county registrars' offices as presently staffed would be capable of dealing with what must be a fairly serious widening of their functions and there is not the necessary expertise which will be required to back up the county registrars as arbiters. Also the county registrars in carrying out this function, in the course of arbitration should be empowered to call in assessors on any cases before them or about to be brought before them. There will arise many complicated cases, not only of law but of commercial importance, which will require that assessors be called in.

Commercial dealing, not only in relation to dwellinghouses but more particularly in relation to business leases and so on, can be very complicated and can involve a frightening amount of money. These suggested measures would be welcomed by the county registrar.

The question of landlord and tenant rights has always been historically a matter for debate and critical concern. In my constituency there is a case which is perhaps typical of the history of landlords and tenants in Ireland. I am speaking of the Cappoquin Estate Co. Ltd., the landlord with a substantial tract of property including the town of Cappoquin, County Waterford. Historically it has given rise to much public concern. Down through the years the tenants have felt very aggrieved at the attitude of the landlord to their right either to renew their leases or their tenancies, or their right to purchase as ground tenants the houses in which they live. On occasion there has been an outcry, and quite properly so, about this situation. The tenants have not been dealt with fairly. They made submissions to the Landlord and Tenant Commission. The Minister is fully aware of their concern. He met a deputation some time ago and they put their case to him directly.

I take it this Bill will ensure that the rights of tenants in dwelling houses in Cappoquin will be protected. I hope the tenants in Cappoquin will now find it easier either to renew their leases or buy out their ground rents. I trust the Minister has taken the necessary steps to ensure that. As I said, there has been an unfortunate history of landlord and tenant aggravation, so to speak, down through the years.

The rights of landlords should also be fairly protected. One always feels it is the tenant who is being exploited, but one must also acknowledge that, on occasion, the landlord has lost certain rights relating to property which he owns. It is essential in any legislation to protect the landlord and the tenant fairly and equitably. I admit the balance is often complicated and it is difficult to ensure that both sides are equitably protected. The Minister has made a good effort to do that in this Bill.

Section 57 dealing with sporting leases provides:

A club or organisation ... carrying on some outdoor sport, game or recreation ...

I wonder why the word "outdoor" is used. Many sports are played indoors such as squash, badminton, and so on, which should have equal rights with outdoor sports in this Bill. I raise this point because it struck me on reading the Bill. I am sure the Minister will clarify his attitude on this matter. I am quite pleased with the provision about sporting leases. Anything the Government can do to make life easier for sporting clubs is to the benefit of the community as a whole and deserves the support of this House.

All in all I welcome the Bill. It is a significant step forward socially and legislatively on the whole question of landlords and tenants. It is another reflection of this Government's concern to ensure that we all live in a fair, just and equitable society.

Mr. Timmons

I do not wish to delay the House. I have been in the House for some hours and I found the discussion most interesting. I wish to record my disappointment that the Bill does not go far enough in that it does not seek the complete abolition of ground rents. As other speakers have pointed out, ground rent has been a source of friction and, in many cases, has poisoned relationships between communities and between landlords and tenants in the city and country.

I also wish to express my disappointment that local authorities have been excluded from the provisions of this Bill. In the constituency I represent many local authority houses are almost 45 to 50 years old and the lease has only about 40 years to run. Some owners are finding it difficult to dispose of their houses because of the short leases. I appeal to the Minister before the Bill goes through to make some provision to deal with this injustice and, in some cases, discrimination against local authority owner-occupiers.

Yesterday the Leas-Cheann Comhairle ruled out the question of flat-dwellers. I fail to see why they should not be provided for in the Bill. There are glaring injustices in that area. Most city public representatives have experience of the difficulties of flat-dwellers. Many of them have been exploited, particularly newly married couples and single people seeking accommodation. In many instances, landlords have acquired property and developed it without planning permission and rented accommodation at exorbitant rents.