Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Feb 1978

Vol. 303 No. 5

Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Bill, 1977: Second Stage.

I move : "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill forms one of a trilogy of measures which are intended to give effect to the Government's proposals in the area of landlord and tenant law. The first of those Bills has already been through this House and is now awaiting Second Stage in the Seanad. It proposes a prohibition on the creation of future ground rents of dwelling-houses.

The Bill deals with the problem of existing ground rents. When these two Bills have been enacted, as I hope they will be before the end of this session, it is my intention to introduce legislation dealing with the many other aspects of the law on landlord and tenant—apart from ground rents— which require amendment. I may add that some of those matters require attention as a matter of urgency.

As to the Bill which is now before this House, I think it might be useful if I were to deal first with some general issues before coming to the actual contents of the Bill. Since the Bill was circulated during the recess it has been given a considerable amount of publicity and a number of these issues has been raised. The one I should like to dispose of first is the question of the Government's undertaking in relation to ground rents.

In the Fianna Fáil manifesto which was issued before the general election in 1977 it is said in relation to ground rents that the Government would "provide a scheme which will lead to the abolition of existing residential ground rents". That statement is perfectly clear. It has always been clear to me. The only way in which that clear undertaking might be said to have been altered in any way by me was when I actually enlarged it by promising to introduce the necessary legislation within six months of the Government's assuming office. It will be evident to any one who takes the trouble to read our undertaking and to study the contents of this Bill that we as a Government are fulfilling our undertaking in accordance with the letter and the spirit.

I am aware from the debates that took place on the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Bill, 1977— which I may call the No. 1 Bill—when it was before this House in November and December last, that there are those who would like to misconstrue the undertaking in the manifesto. They would like that undertaking construed as if it were a promise to abolish ground rents directly, leaving landlords either with no compensation or to be compensated by the State. But of course we never said that. The record is there for all to see. If we wanted to promise the abolition of ground rents directly that is precisely what we would have said and, indeed, that is what we did say and do in relation to rates and car tax, for instance.

Moreover, nothing that I have said in this House or outside it can reasonably be taken as indicating that I, or the Government, favoured abolition in that sense. On the contrary, I think it fair to say that I went to considerable pains when in opposition to make my position quite clear. I am on record as having referred to my discussions with the residents associations on this very subject. I said that they had never suggested that the ground landlord's interest should be taken over without compensation. Neither did I ever suggest that the State should be responsible for this compensation.

I should like to add that concentration on the question of compensation tends, to my mind, to cloud the real issues. I have always been clear that the real problem of ground rents is the problem of legal costs. If we can solve the problem of legal costs then, I would suggest, we have solved the problem of ground rents. If we enable tenants to get the fee simple at a fixed nominal charge for the legal work, then we have a scheme which will lead to the abolition of ground rents. That is what we have in this Bill.

The State's contribution towards the costs of acquisition as proposed in this Bill is the kernel of the whole scheme. That contribution amounts virtually to undertaking the whole task. The fees to be charged will be nominal and are the minimum which could be charged so as to avoid purely frivolous applications under the scheme.

I may be asked if I am saying that the scheme will, in fact, lead to the abolition of existing residential ground rents. While I have no crystal ball, my answer is that I think it will. Tenants will not of course be forced by this legislation to acquire the fee simple and to abolish ground rent in that way. That would be both unworkable and wrong in principle to my mind. What the Bill proposes is to provide strong encouragement for ground rent tenants to exercise their rights. I feel it will succeed in this for the following reasons.

I think most people paying ground rents are genuinely interested in becoming full owners—that is to say, owners of the fee simple—of their dwelling if they can do so without too much inconvenience and without incurring an unknown but substantial burden of legal costs. If they are not, then the campaign against ground rents cannot have been representative of the feelings of ordinary house-holders. The terms of this Bill will offer the strongest possible encouragement to them to become full owners for the very simple reason that it offers what I have already referred to elsewhere as the bargain of a lifetime. I also think that the vast majority of tenants will move quickly and will not put the matter on the long finger because this bargain will be available only for the coming five years or so.

(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, I protest strongly at the Minister's failure to provide copies of his speech. On a matter so fundamental as that being dealt with in the Bill, it is unprecedented that Deputies have not been given copies of the Minister's speech, apart altogether from the discourtesy to the House.

I am not taking the Minister's part, but the Committee Stage of the Agricultural Credit Bill was completed earlier than anticipated.

(Cavan-Monaghan): This Bill has been on the Order Paper for weeks. It is a matter of great importance and it is a discourtesy to the House that Deputies have not received copies of the speech. I protest in the strongest possible way.

The Deputy has registered his protest.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is in keeping with the mouse the Minister has brought before us.

Perhaps I should emphasise that this five-year limit is not designed to reduce the State's financial commitment to the scheme. On the contrary, the time limit may well increase that commitment because it will encourage all tenants to avail themselves of the scheme. There are good practical reasons why tenants from time to time may wish to acquire the fee simple—that is, of course, apart from the general desire to be the full owner. It may be a question of needing freedom from covenants. It may be a question of raising a loan when the lease has less than 50 years to run. But to wait until these forces operate in the case of all ground leases would not, to my mind, be consistent with a scheme aimed consciously at the abolition of the ground rent system. The limitation of the State's contribution to a period of five years is designed to introduce the concept of terminating the system—as far as dwellings are concerned. I think it will work that way too.

I should now like to comment briefly on the various provisions of the Bill and in so doing to indicate where the Bill differs from the proposals of my predecessor contained in the Bill which lapsed with the dissolution of the last Dáil.

Part II of the Bill deals with the classes of tenant who will be entitled to acquire the fee simple in their properties. Deputies may have seen from the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated in connection with the Bill that this Part of the Bill together with section 26 in Part IV is intended to be a fully comprehensive statement of the classes which are to have this right as well as of the law relating to the determination of a purchase price. It consolidates the provisions in this area which are at present contained in the Landlord and Tenant (Reversionary Leases) Act, 1958, the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, 1967 and the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1971. In addition, it provides for new classes of leases and tenancies which are to attract the right to acquire the fee simple in future and it clarifies the law as to the method of determining the maximum price.

It is in this part of the Bill that we must face up to the problem of trying to determine what is a ground rent. Most Deputies will be aware by now that there is no statutory definition of a ground rent. The essential thing about such a rent in the ordinary way is that it arises in a landlord and tenant relationship where the tenant owns the "bricks and mortar" interest in the property and, for that reason, the ground rent will tend to be a small rent in relation to the value of the entire property. At the other end of the scale there is, of course, the concept of occupational rent which is a rent payable when the landlord owns that "bricks and mortar" interest. This may appear simple enough at both extremes of the scale. Unfortunately, difficulties do arise in determining whether a rent falls within one class or another in the middle, or grey area.

The Landlord and Tenant Acts have since 1931 sought to distinguish between those two types of rents and to provide for the rights of the parties involved as appropriate to each type. The Acts did this initially by developing the concepts of a "building lease" and a "proprietary lease" as the types of leases which were taken to reserve a ground rent as distinct from an occupational rent. The problem was, however, that as time went by these concepts were found to be inadequate to describe all the types of lease which were found to reserve ground rents. As a result, in the 1958, 1967 and 1971 Acts new types of leases and tenancies had to be added to the concepts already established in 1931. The result is, to say the least, a somewhat complex body of law.

The provisions in Part II of the Bill provide, in turn, for the addition of new classes of leases and tenancies which have been identified as ground rent leases and tenancies. However, the former practice of building on the 1931 Act concepts of "building lease" and "proprietary lease" is now being abandoned. Instead the Bill sets out all the conditions with which any lease or tenancy must comply if it is to attract the right to acquire the fee simple. This is of course a very welcome simplification of the law. I hasten to add that, as far as the substance of Part II of the Bill is concerned, it represents no change as against the provisions which were included in the Bill introduced by my predecessor. There is, however, one important change of presentation.

In the previous Bill, which was, of course, a general landlord and tenant Bill as opposed to a ground rents Bill, there was no single comprehensive statement of the classes of leases and tenancies which would attract the right to purchase the fee simple. Instead, there was a list of conditions to apply to leases which would attract the right to obtain a renewal of the lease on termination as well as a list of conditions applicable to yearly tenants who would have the right to acquire the fee simple. By way of a cross-reference, the lessees who were to have the right to a reversionary lease were also given the right to acquire the fee simple.

I think it is perhaps fortunate that this Bill, limited as it is to ground rents, could not adopt the same approach and that a new one had to be found. To my mind, there is a considerable advantage in doing things the way we have them in the present Bill. For most people the acquisition of the fee simple will be a matter entirely separate from other landlord and tenant rights, particularly in the context of a State-aided scheme. Very many people who have no great knowledge of the law will find it necessary to check their leases against the provisions of this Bill. For that reason, it seems to me to be useful that there should be one comprehensive statement of the conditions which must be complied with, and that this should be as simple and readable as it is possible to make it.

At this stage, I do not propose to go into detail as to the classes which are to have these rights. Such a discussion would be more appropriate for the Committee stage of the Bill and in that regard, the Explanatory Memorandum which sets out the categories to be newly entitled under the Bill may be of some assistance. I should like to say, however, that the general intention behind this Part of the Bill is that all known classes of ground rent tenant should be given the right to acquire the fee simple.

When I say, "all known classes", I do not want to give the impression that there is anything arbitrary about proposals to extend the right of purchase to new categories of leases or yearly tenancies. Such proposals have in the past been made only after the fullest consideration and following thorough investigation. In recent years this investigation has been done by the Landlord and Tenant Commission and the proposals in this Part are based on their recommendations. This is only as it should be, since a decision to move a tenancy from one category to another is not only a technically complex matter but one which affects important property rights.

I should now like to comment on Part III to which I have already referred as containing the kernel of this Bill, that is, the State's contribution to the purchase scheme. It is, I think, generally agreed that the main reason why people did not avail themselves to a greater extent of their right to purchase the fee simple under the 1967 Act was the legal costs of doing so. I think it fair to say that this is acknowledged in the approach which my predecessor had adopted in the Bill which lapsed. The proposals in that Bill to introduce a system of transfer by way of a vesting certificate to be issued by a State authority was intended to deal with the problem of costs.

There are, however, important differences between the approach adopted in this Bill and that of my predecessor. The most important difference—and one which is an essential feature of the scheme—is that we are in this Bill telling the tenant precisely how much it will cost him to get his fee simple. For a transfer by consent the fee will be £5 and no more. When we were debating the previous Bill we had no idea whatsoever what the intention was with regard to the costs of acquisition. At no stage was the actual fee to be charged mentioned and this was, indeed, to have been left over for determination in the context of regulations to be made after the Bill had passed. That was not, to my mind, a satisfactory approach.

There is another important difference between the scheme now proposed and that of the previous Bill. It is not merely a procedural point that the task of converting leasehold titles into fee simples is being given in the Bill to the Land Registry rather than to County Registrars as was proposed in the previous Bill. A number of Deputies had voiced serious doubts as to whether a procedure based on County Registrars would work. My own view was that it could not have worked well. I can see many problems that could have arisen if this job had been given to 26 different offices around the country. Of course, this has added significance when we are introducing a scheme which will be widely availed of, as I expect it will. On the other hand, what we are proposing in this Bill must be, from an objective point of view, more efficient and less expensive in real terms. I have made all the necessary arrangements to ensure that the Land Registry will be properly equipped to carry out the tasks to be imposed upon it under this legislation and I am fully convinced that there is no other institution of the State which could do it as well.

Some Deputies will undoubtedly be aware that there have for some time been arrears of work in the Registry and may well ask if the addition of new responsibilities will not exacerbate that position. While I realise that the ordinary work of the Land Registry is not directly relevant to the Bill, I think I should explain briefly how we propose to deal with the overall situation so that the scheme will be workable— without adversely affecting the ordinary work of the Registry. What I have arranged is that there would be a special addition of staff designed specifically to handle the "ground rents" work. In addition, other substantial staff increases in the Registry have been authorised to enable the arrears of ordinary work to be disposed of in a reasonably short time.

There remain two important aspects of this Bill upon which I should like to comment. The first is the fact that it extends the right to purchase the fee simple to ground rent tenants of local authorities. The second is the proposal it contains to abolish a landlord's right of re-entry for non-payment of ground rent.

One of the main criticisms of the Bill which lapsed was that it distinguished unfairly between ground rent tenants in the private sector and those in the public sector. There were references to making second class citizens of people who had purchased or who were purchasing their own homes from local authorities by way of leases. Under the present Bill local authority lessees will, for the first time, have the right to acquire the fee simple. The procedure will be by way of vesting orders to be made under the Housing Act, rather than by way of the Land Registry procedure under the Bill. The fee payable by the tenant will be £5.

The remaining point I should like to deal with is the question of the abolition of the landlord's right of re-entry for non-payment of ground rent. Deputies will be aware that leases normally contain a condition that in the event of the rent being in arrears for a specified period, the lessor may re-enter on the lands. In addition, section 52 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act, Ireland, 1860 (Deasy's Act) gives the landlord a right to take an action for ejectment where the tenant allows the rent to run into one year's arrears, even if the time for re-entry provided in the lease has not expired.

One of the criticisms made of the present law is that it gives landlords a security for their rent which is out of all proportion to the size and nature of their interest in the property concerned. There may have been an argument in favour of the extensive power which this enables landlords to wield when they had a real responsibility for good estate management in the interests of all the tenants. This is no longer so. The protection of the amenities is now a function of planning legislation. It follows that the landlord should no longer have a right to re-enter but should be in the same position as any other creditor. He should have only a right to sue for the debt owed him. Section 27 of the Bill abolishes the right of re-entry for non-payment of ground rent in the case of a dwelling-house but leaves unaffected the landlord's right to sue for arrears of rent as a civil debt.

Before concluding, I should like to refer once more to the part which the Landlord and Tenant Commission have played in the preparation of this measure. I have already mentioned the research and consideration which the Commission have devoted to the particular question of determining what classes of lease or tenancy should attract the right to acquire the fee simple. This is, of course, only one aspect of their work. The Commission's work will have an even more important bearing on the third Bill— which will deal with landlord and tenant matters apart from ground rent. I should therefore like to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the members of the Commission and their Chairman—Judge Conroy. They are all busy men whose time is devoted voluntarily to this important service.

I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.

Any Bill dealing with landlord and tenant law is of its nature complex. In this case the complexities are compounded by the misleading manner in which this Bill is presented as being a scheme leading towards the abolition of ground rents. The first question that occurs to me is : what has this Bill to do with the abolition of ground rents? It has nearly as much to do with it as a Bill restricting the import of butterflies from Afghanistan; it has nothing to do with the abolition of ground rents as promised by the Minister and his party. I once read a book called "The Big Lie" which dealt with the science of propaganda, and while I should not like to compare the Minister for Justice with Dr. Goebbels it appears that there is a major propaganda exercise being carried out by the Minister and his colleagues to mislead the public into believing that this Bill in fact honours their election commitment.

Black is black and white is white, and the fact that the Minister pretends that the Bill honours the commitment, the fact that Government speakers will continue this pretence inside or outside the House, the fact that 84 pairs of Fianna Fáil feet will troop through the Lobbies in support of this Bill, will not transform its provisions so as to lead to the abolition of ground rents. Very simply, abolition means to do away with. The word was used very much in the context of the great abolition debate in connection with slavery, but in that case it was properly used because the problem involved was dealt with and slavery was abolished. Here, we have a situation where the Minister produces a Bill which, without going into detail, is a rehash of the Bill produced by the National Coalition before the dissolution of the Dáil. But the most serious point about it is that he produces it on the basis that it is by way of implementation of a Fianna Fáil commitment, that in effect it is a scheme leading to the abolition of ground rents. On that basis initially I have to say to the House that the presentation of this Bill has the odour of deceit and dishonesty about it. It smells of subterfuge and cynicism. It smells of misrepresentation and fraud. It amounts to a confidence trick on the public, the press and, most of all, on the thousands of householders whose hopes, aspirations and expectations were raised by Fianna Fáil prior to the election, and these hopes, aspirations and expectations have now been dashed.

What is the background to the situation? The 1967 Landlord and Tenant Bill gave the tenant the right to purchase his freehold. Difficulties arose in some cases, particularly where the tenant's immediate landlord did not himself have a freehold title and there was a pyramid of interests leading back to the ultimate freehold owner. Next, the National Coalition produced a Bill last year which provided a simplified procedure. The tenant had only to apply to the county registrar, lodge the purchase money and he would be issued with a vesting certificate which would be absolute proof of freehold title. Subsequently—this is the most important part of the whole business, that it was subsequently— Fianna Fáil promised to introduce a scheme leading to abolition. This promise was hawked from door to door by Fianna Fáil canvassers: "We are going to abolish your ground rent."

The Minister is correct in referring to small print in the manifesto. In some ways I should liken him to the shady salesman selling shoddy goods on the doorstep giving plenty of fast talk—"sign here" and so on—but when trouble arises he refers to the small print. Even taking the small print and taking the commitment in the context of its full expression in the manifesto this Bill does not in any way measure up to the honouring of that commitment. We already have the right to acquire. We have the National Coalition Bill removing the difficulties by appointing the county registrar to handle applications and issue vesting certificates. In what way is this Bill an advance on the previous procedure? It changes the system whereby you go to the Registrar of the Land Registry instead of going to the county registrar. How can anybody accept that, this being the only basic change in the Bill, it can lead to the abolition of ground rent? The National Coalition never pretended or attempted to mislead the public into believing that they were abolishing ground rents or introducing a scheme which would lead to their abolition; they merely said they were simplifying the procedure and, in fact, that is what the Minister is doing and no more.

As regards the change from county registrar to Land Registry, in many ways it is not important in the context of the major attack which I must make on the Bill, but it is important in the context of the ultimate law of this country. In many ways the system under the county registrar was a far better system, particularly for those people living outside Dublin city. I can imagine it would be far easier for a tenant of Lord Bantry in West Cork to deal with the county registrar in Cork than have to deal with the Land Registry in Dublin.

I must also point out from my own practical experience as a lawyer that the Land Registry at present is totally overworked and as a result of this and also, I think, probably as a result of inadequate accommodation, there are very long delays in the lodging of existing applications in the Land Registry. For example, we have applications under the Registration of Titles Act, 1964 under section 49 where somebody applies by way of a possessory application to the Land Registry to be registered, or somebody is not registered at all applies for first registration. It is my experience that the normal time taken to complete such an application works out, on average, at about 18 months. This then is the office which is going to solve the problem for ground rent tenants.

The other major item in regard to the Land Registry to which I must refer concerns the fee payable. It was referred to by the Minister recently in an interview published in The Sunday Press. a £5 fee, the bargain of the century. I do not know if the Minister is aware of the fee presently payable in relation to applications to the county registrar under existing legislation; perhaps it would be as well to advise him that the fee, taking into account £1.50 on the application and 50p on the order, is £2. That is the level of fee presently payable by a tenant resorting to the county registrar under existing legislation.

I ask : how can changing the system from the county registrar to the Land Registry, even if it is a sensible step —and there is an area of doubt here— be construed as leading to the abolition of ground rents? The Minister knows very well that it will not. He accepts at this stage that his Bill, apart from fixing an increased fee in the Land Registry over that presently payable to the county registrar, is basically on the same lines as the National Coalition Bill. It is worth recalling what the present Minister had to say about the National Coalition Bill. On 23 February, 1977, at column 162 of the Official Report, he stated:

One of the principal provisions of the Bill as it stands at present is an extension of the role of the county registrar in the operation of the Act. We see in it the elimination of certain impediments in former legislation and a widening of the scope of the categories who would benefit. It aims, as the Minister says, at reducing legal costs. I hope that it will achieve that aim.

He accepted then that the National Coalition Bill simplified the procedure and would reduce legal costs. The National Coalition Bill was not presented as having anything to do with abolition, this Bill is, but both Bills are remarkably similar.

To delve further into the Minister's mind it is worth recalling what he had to say in relation to abolition when dealing with the National Coalition Bill. On the same date, at column 163 of the Official Report, he stated:

There is disappointment that the acceptance of the principle of the abolition of existing ground rents is not in the Bill.

How then can the Minister suggest that a Bill he is now presenting, almost similar to the National Coalition Bill, has the principle of abolition? He gives the lie to that argument out of his own mouth. The Minister referred to the manner in which ground rents could be abolished, and I agree with him, they could be abolished only by a system of confiscation or compensation. One addition was suggested by a colleague of the Minister in an earlier debate that could be a scheme which would lead to the abolition of ground rents which would not fit, strictly speaking, under the heading of either confiscation or compensation. I shall revert to that later. In relation to confiscation the Constitution provides, in Article 43, for the protection of private property rights. Therefore it is unconstitutional to terminate a landlord's interest without compensation and any ground rents Bill providing for such would be declared to be unconstitutional by the courts. Of course the Constitution could be changed by Referendum but it is quite clear that there is no such intention. Apart from that it is no harm to mention that if such a course of action were suggested the ground rent tenants, who would appear to benefit initially from such a move—because of the diminution in the rights of private property involved in such a change—would find that the very thing they were seeking would be lost. In effect their legitimate aspiration to ownership of their own houses would not be constitutionally guaranteed. This argument is apart altogether from the question of morality of confiscation. On this point, for once, I am in agreement with the Minister. I do not believe that the question of confiscation can arise either constitutionally or morally.

Having disposed of the question of confiscation we look at that of compensation. Under this heading I am trying to divine what exactly was promised or proposed by the present administration. We had already a system whereby ground lessees could purchase by paying a certain sum to the landlord. The Coalition, while not in any way pretending that the 1977 Bill would abolish existing residential ground rents, provided a cheap and effective way of purchase by house-holders. The Fianna Fáil commitment, made subsequently, was to introduce a scheme leading to the complete abolition of existing ground rents; in other words, according to the dictionary definition, do away with them.

The only reasonable interpretation to be drawn from this commitment is that the Government, either by way of providing compensation or through some other scheme, would appreciably improve the situation as it obtained under the National Coalition Bill; in fact, as a result of this scheme, we would have the cessation of ground rents. In no way can this Bill be interpreted as leading to that end. Therefore it seems clear to me at this stage that Fianna Fáil never had the intention of providing compensation. It seems clear further that they never had any intention of producing any other scheme. Therefore the only conclusion I can reach is that Fianna Fáil deliberately deceived the electorate on this point.

If there is any doubt about the deception we can go back further to delve into the Fianna Fáil minds. Here we have further proof of Fianna Fáil's duplicity in the matter by referring to speeches made on the Ground Rent Motion in the House on 9 December, 1975. On that date, at column 1123 of the Official Report, Deputy Collins, then spokesman for the Opposition, said:

It is part of the Fianna Fáil package in relation to the ordinary householder that not only should he be relieved of the burden of rates but also of ground rents.

Later in the same column he had this to say :

We are absolutely in favour of the total abolition of ground rents, but we are acutely aware that this could cause constitutional problems and that by doing away with one injustice you might be creating another.

At that stage the Minister was totally aware of the problems involved but still was committed to total abolition which, to any reasonable person, would indicate that he had a scheme in mind at the time, or was working on one, which would lead to such abolition. In the same debate his colleague, Deputy Ray Burke, now Minister of State, developed the argument somewhat further when he said, at column 1358 of the Official Report :

I appeal to the Government to ensure that something will be included in the new legislation to reduce drastically the legal fees involved in the purchase of ground rents. Even if that were done you still do not grasp the nettle.

We have heard that expression before somewhere——

the abolition of existing ground rents. That will remain until some Government decide to abolish them by some method and until then you will have legitimate agitation and bad feeling about the payment of this barren tax.

At that stage the Minister's colleague had in mind that some scheme other than simplifying the procedure and reducing the cost would be necessary to lead to the abolition of ground rents. At that time the Minister's colleague made a suggestion which was worthy of consideration. I wonder if it has ever been given consideration since then. On 10 December 1975, at column 1359 of the Official Report, Deputy Ray Burke said:

But some Government must produce a solution to the constitutional difficulty. This Government have a responsibility to use all the legal expertise available to them in the civil service and courts to devise a scheme that will get around this constitutional difficulty.

He went on to say:

It could be done in many ways, and one way we have suggested is by the setting up of a board similar to the Land Commission.

At that stage there were ideas floating around as to how it might be done. What is clear from the foregoing is that Fianna Fáil gave a commitment on ground rent abolition which they have no intention of honouring. Even worse, they have the gall to pretend that in some way this Bill measures up to that commitment. It is patently obvious that this is not so. I urge the Minister to cut out the humbug and indicate either that the election commitment will be honoured and the Bill amended accordingly or face the public and say that he cannot or will not honour that commitment.

As Opposition spokesman it is not for me to say how it can be done, but it could be achieved by doing it as most householders thought and expected it would be done, by way of compensation being paid by the State. If the Minister was not willing to do that he has further precedent—something along the lines suggested by his colleague when speaking on the 1975 motion.

The system of agricultural tenancies was abolished, and the abolition was achieved by the 1923 Land Act. Very simply this was done by way of the compulsory taking over of the landlord interest by the State on payment of land bonds, the vesting of the free-hold interest in the tenant subject to an annuity, with the proviso that that annuity, which was far less than the rent, would terminate after a number of years. Therefore the Minister had a precedent for a system.

If the Minister was serious about honouring his commitment, a similar system could be devised and possibly administered by the Land Commission, that is, payment for the landlords by way of ground rent bonds and vesting freehold in the tenants subject to an annuity which would terminate after a short number of years. I looked in vain in this Bill for any scheme of this nature or anything which would resemble such a scheme and failed to find anything like that.

Before coming to the Bill proper there is another aspect to which I would like to refer at this stage—the question of the cost of the purchase. Let us not forget that the basic cost to the tenants relates to the number of years' purchase he has to pay on his ground rent. This has not been materially altered except to his detriment, which I will come to in a moment. To understand the situation one has to look at the procedure under the 1967 Act. The right to purchase was there. The cost of the purchase, that is the number of years purchase of the rent which I referred to as the multiplier, arose in certain fixed instances. In most cases, and this applies to the majority of modern residential ground rents, the price should not exceed the amount which if invested at the date of purchase in the most recent Government long term loan would give a gross annual return equal to the amount of the ground rent. In simple terms, you take the interest rate on the last long term national loan, divide it into 100 and you get the multiplier.

This system has not been changed. The basis on which the amount is computed is also included in this Bill. A rather unusual thing has happened, and is worthy of mention. If a householder bought last year under this provision, the multiplier would be about 7½. This was related to the 13 per cent finance stock, which was the last national loan. What is the position today? Last Friday we had a new long term national loan introduced at 11½ per cent. What is the effect of this? The multiplier is increased to approximately 8½ years purchase. We now have the ironic situation, admittedly not totally related to this Bill but related to the interest rate on the most recent national loan, that if the National Coalition Bill had been passed last year, and if somebody had bought then, it would have been cheaper for him to do so than it will be under this Bill. The increase in the purchase money is of the order of 13 per cent as between 1978 and 1977. That is some way to lead to abolition.

At this stage it is relevant to look at a simple comparison between the tenant buying out in 1977 had the National Coalition Bill gone through and the tenant buying out in 1978 under this Bill. Under the Coalition Bill the tenant lodging his money with the county registrar would have paid approximately 7½ years purchase on his ground rent plus, unless there had been an alteration in the fee scale in the circuit office, a sum of £2 in Circuit Court fees. If he wanted to employ a solicitor he would have paid solicitor's fees, which would have been at a low rate because of the simple procedure involved.

What is the position in 1978 under the Fianna Fáil Bill? The tenant will be paying 8½ years purchase, £5 fee to the Land Registry and the same legal costs, because the same simple procedure is outlined in this Bill. I accept that this is a simple procedure. Why should it not be? It was modelled on the Coalition Bill. We now find, it is easy to argue, that a person buying out under the Fianna Fáil Bill in 1978 would be paying more than he would have paid last year had the National Coalition Bill gone through.

These points are arguable. The Minister can justify, pointing to international factors which caused a fall in interest rates to explain the increased purchase money. I accept that would be a good point, but he has been pretending he would abolish ground rents and it was up to him to deal with this factor.

Summing up the Bill, Fianna Fáil promised to introduce a scheme leading to the abolition of existing ground rents. It is beyond dispute that this Bill does nothing to implement that promise. Under the 1967 Act the tenant already had the right to purchase. The National Coalition's Bill simplified the procedure. Subsequently Fianna Fáil made their famous promise. It is interesting to look at the leaflet handed out by ACRA prior to the election. According to that leaflet, ACRA considered that the National Coalition's Bill would have done very little to end the ground rents system. I accept that point. It would not have abolished ground rents. It would have helped to simplify the procedure, but it did not pretend to lead towards the abolition of ground rents.

When the Minister was spokesman on justice for Fianna Fáil he said he wished to state that, on being returned to office, Fianna Fáil would provide a scheme which would lead to the abolition of existing residential ground rents. He said he was prepared to commit his party to introduce the necessary legislation within six months of becoming the Government. ACRA urged people to read the leaflet and judge the facts for themselves before they cast their votes in the election and to make sure their vote was a vote to end the ground rents system. God help the poor householder who thinks this Bill will end this system.

I want to look at the Bill in a general way now. There are a number of points I will be raising with the Minister on Committee Stage. I am glad the Minister, who is attempting to mislead everybody, has had the sense of propriety not to include in the long title to the Bill any suggestion that it will lead to the abolition of ground rents. I commend him for that. Section 4 provides that the Act shall not bind a Minister of the Government, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland or the Irish Land Commission. It is interesting to refer back to what the Minister had to say in this regard on 23 February 1977. As reported at column 165 of the Official Report he said:

Whereas on the one hand the State is being protected as a tenant, on the other hand the State is not giving the same protection to its own tenants. It protects itself as a tenant, but its tenants are not protected. If I am wrong perhaps the Minister will correct me, but if I am right perhaps he will say why the State's tenants should be excluded from the protection of the Bill.

If I am wrong perhaps the Minister will tell me why the State's tenants should be excluded from the protection of the Bill.

The Bill can be criticised on one other score, although the Minister points to this as a fact in favour of the Bill. I would not argue with him too much about it. The Bill has limited terms of reference in that it deals only with ground rents. The Minister accepts that there are considerable problems in the landlord and tenant field particularly following the Byrne and Loftus decision in the Supreme Court. There is the problem of business tenants whose leases have expired and who are seeking renewals. The National Coalition dealt in one Bill with three items, the trilogy to which the Minister referred in his opening statement—future ground rents, existing residential ground rents and general landlord and tenant reform. The Minister seems to make it as an excellent point in favour of Fianna Fáil that they are being dealt with in three Bills. I will not fall out with him over that.

Let us have the three Bills. Where is the Bill dealing with general landlord and tenant reform? The result of tackling the problem in this way is that the National Coalition measure covering the three points fell on the dissolution of the Dáil and has been gone for almost a year and major landlord and tenant reform has been put in abeyance. I appreciate that there are pressures on the Minister, but the Bill dealing with future and existing ground rents is largely a rehash of the National Coalition's measure. I would ask the Minister to produce another rehash as quickly as he can to cover general landlord and tenant reform not have these measures in one There is no reason why we should general Bill, or by the reintroduction of the National Coalition's Bill, or in three separate Bills before the Dáil very quickly. All the ground work has been done, and further delay will cause further problems in the landlord and tenant field.

I will not go into detail on the various sections of the Bill. People have been in touch with me about the definition of subsidiary and ancillary. There are people who have dwelling houses on land which might not be considered totally subsidiary or ancillary.

I suggest to the Deputy that details on the sections should be left to Committee Stage.

That is reasonable. I will be coming back to the Minister on that point. There is one important aspect I want to refer to the Minister at this stage. It might involve some recasting of the Bill in view of the change from the county registrar to the Land Registry. It might seem a technical point, but I want to refer it to the Minister and his officials. Section 8 replaces section 3 of the 1967 Act.

It should be noted that apart from the sections of the 1967 Act which are repealed and which are referred to in section 7 of the new Bill, the jurisdiction and procedure under the 1967 Act for acquisition of the fee simple and arbitration by the county registrar have been left intact. As a result of this there is one fundamental matter that needs clarification. Part II of the Bill extends and restates in new terms the heads of qualification to acquire the fee simple. There are references throughout Part II to "the arbitrator" but there is no statement as to whether the arbitrator is to be the county registrar or the registrar of titles. Section 21 (3) of Part III of the Bill indicates clearly that the registrar of titles is for all purposes the arbitrator under that part in substitution for the county registrar and section 21 clearly indicates he will be arbitrating in relation to claims by persons entitled to acquire the fee simple by virtue of Part II. It is clear from section 17 (1) that the termination of the purchase price of the fee simple by arbitration under the 1967 Act or under this Bill is to be handled by the registrar of titles rather than the county registrar. It is curious, therefore, that in the sections dealing with the purchase of the fee simple down to section 17 it is not very clear if this is to be the case, that the registrar of titles is to have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of determination of the right to acquire the fee simple under Part II, leaving the county registrar with his jurisdiction to determine the right to acquire fee simple under the 1967 Act. That point is rather complex but it is worth referring to at this stage so that it may be considered. There seems to be a possibility of duplication or crossing of jurisdiction under Part II unless this point is clarified.

I have little fault with other aspects of the Bill apart from some details. It is generally a rehash of the provisions of the National Coalition measure dealing with the purchase of existing ground rents. I am glad to see the Minister has retained the issue of the vesting certificates. The very words of the present section are similar to the provisions of section 73 of the National Coalition measure dealing with the issue of a vesting certificate by the Land Registry instead of the county registrar. As has been suggested by the Chair, it would be right to defer detailed comment on the complex points in the Bill until Committee Stage.

In the main my criticism is not with the form of the Bill. I approved of the measures in the National Coalition Bill, of which this is a rehash. My criticisms must be with regard to the manner in which the Bill was presented. It is altogether wrong and misleading to suggest that this Bill has anything to do with the abolition of ground rents, and on that basis I make my main criticism.

The subject matter of this Bill has been rarely out of the public mind in recent years. It has given rise to considerable agitation. It is an emotive subject and it arouses strong feelings of resentment in those who are the victims of the system and in those who have a strong social conscience on the subject. For many it represents an expression of the divide that exists between the haves and the have-nots in our society, between the landed, whether native or alien, and the men and women of no property.

So far as the Labour Party are concerned, we have long been opposed in principle to a system under which an individual is forced to pay year after year a rent for the site on which his house is built without ever getting nearer to ownership of that site. Our opposition to that system is on record. As far back as 1961, a Labour Deputy, the late Seán Dunne, sought leave to introduce a Bill that would do what was proposed in the Bill that passed this House before Christmas, namely, to make illegal the creation of new ground rents. Needless to say he was refused leave to introduce that Bill. He probably would have been realistic enough to realise that it would have taken 16 or 17 years for people in control of this House to catch up with his thinking on that occasion. To say the least, he was 17 years before his time on that issue.

During the past week I have read an editorial comment in the Cork Examiner that the Bill that was passed by the Dáil before Christmas and the current Bill before the House were the only efforts at social reform which this Government have made since they came to office, or which they are likely to make in the near future. If that is so it is a poor reflection on the Government. The Bill that passed through this House before Christmas made provision only for enactment of part of the Bill that was before us at the time of dissolution of the last Dáil. On the Minister's own admission the current Bill is just another instalment of that, with a few changes. Perhaps those changes are for the better and are made as a result of the discussions that took place. Nevertheless this Bill is not one that we consider ideal. It is not what we hoped for, it is not what the tenants, their various organisations and the public generally, expected.

We do not believe that the Government are great social reformers, but there was an unequivocal commitment given by Fianna Fáil to provide for the abolition of ground rents. Deputy O'Keeffe made that point most ably, but it must be repeated by anyone who wishes to speak on this Bill.

In the section dealing with local government in the Fianna Fáil manifesto there are 11 paragraphs. Paragraph 9 is headed and underlined "Ground Rents" and it states that Fianna Fáil will provide a scheme that will lead to the abolition of existing ground rents. Fianna Fáil spokesmen were adamant about this matter during the election campaign; they would abolish ground rents, without qualification or modification. There were specific statements on every platform where this matter was raised—in effect on every platform in the country. The words were not recorded and we cannot harness them now but I do not think we need to at this stage. We can refer to the clear commitment given in the manifesto.

The Minister tells us the position is clear but it is not clear to anybody else. It cannot be said that this Bill provides for the implementation of the Fianna Fáil promise. It provides for a less expensive and simpler method by which tenants can purchase ground rents and it brings in other categories of tenants, but nobody can say it will lead to the abolition of existing ground rents. It will not do that, because the onus will be on the lessee to take the initative.

Although it will be optional for a lessee to avail of the scheme many who would like to do so may not have the money to purchase their ground rents, so it is impossible for anyone to predict the extent to which the scheme will be available. During a radio interview on Sunday last a spokesman for the Department of Justice said that numerous inquiries had been made about the scheme and that residents associations wished to buy their ground rents in block. Even in that sort of situation I am sure that some people could not afford to purchase. On the other hand, there are bound to be some people who will not want to avail of the scheme, but at least they have a choice. There is no choice for the person who cannot afford to avail of the scheme. Consequently, ground rents as such will remain.

In their sub-committee report, dated 14 December, 1977, ACRA demanded as their sixteenth point, that any scheme introduced by the Government in fulfilment of their promise to abolish existing ground rents should be compulsory so that ground rents would vanish forever. There is some justification for that request. I take the association's point that to enact legislation of the kind that we enacted here before Christmas in regard to this issue is to recognise that ground rents are wrong, that they impose a hardship and an injustice on those who pay them. That point having been recognised, it should have been carried forward into this Bill by providing for the ending by compulsion of existing contracts for the payment of ground rents at least in so far as these apply to owner-occupied residences and properties. It may not have been a simple matter to have implemented such a measure in the last Bill, but there has been commitment to such a provision and given the will this could be implemented.

About this time last year the Minister, then in opposition, expressed his disappointment regarding the omission in the Bill introduced by the then Minister for the abolition of ground rents. At that time Deputy Collins quoted two of the then Ministers, neither of whom was Minister for Justice, on the subject of ground rents. He quoted one of these Ministers as having said that ground rents were a medievel anachronism and constituted a private tax by the wealthy on the poor. I agree with that. Deputy Collins quoted the other Minister as having said that ground rents were an abomination. I agree with that, too. He went on to say that those two Ministers were expected by those interested to devise a scheme for the abolition of ground rents.

The Minister will surely pardon us for issuing the same challenge to him now. He holds the relevant portfolio. When speaking on the subject last year he did not confine himself merely to referring to ground rents as being anachronistic and abominable but added that in office he would introduce a scheme that would lead to their abolition. What we have here is essentially the same Bill as that of which the Minister was so critical at that time. It was after the then Deputy Collins had become aware fully of what that other Bill contained that he gave his commitment not only in the manifesto but in a letter to ACRA that led people to believe that in power his party would do something far more radical in this regard. Therefore he stands charged, as Deputy O'Keeffe has said, of having misled the people on this subject.

There is a five-year limit on the application of this Bill so far as residential ground rents are concerned. There would be some credibility in what was promised if, instead of providing for this five-year limit the Minister were to say simply that five years from now ground rents will cease.

From the tenants' viewpoint they have paid many times over for the land on which their houses are built. There are exceptions, and I referred to those while speaking on the occasion of the previous Bill. Some of the people collecting ground rents have inherited them, so that they have not had to put any energy or thought into this source of income. Perhaps the obsession with property rights has not gripped this party to the same extent as has happened among others, but I would ask those who are most jealous of property rights and who are afraid to implement a scheme that would lead to the abolition of ground rents for fear of opening the door to all sorts of take-overs by the State if they can instance any other case of property rights comparable with this one. Can it be just or equitable that the property rights of some individuals extend to the point where they encroach on the homes of others? ACRA quoted, and with relevance, from the Constitution in support of their case, and made the point that ground rents may not be constitutional. They quote paragraph 2. 1º of Article 43 which 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.

Paragraph 2. 2º of the same article puts the State's duty even more emphatically. It reads:

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.

If there is any case for delimiting those rights, surely the ground rents area is such. I do not presume, however to be able to interpret the Constitution, but those who have expertise in that area have expressed the view that to delimit rights in this way would be unconstitutional. If that is so the option open to the Minister was to have sought an amendment of the constitutional provision. I am sure he had ample support from his own benches to have proceeded in this way, and I do not think that the people on these benches would have been unsympathetic either in regard to any such move.

I suppose it is a consolation to a non-legal person like me to find the experts saying that the Bill is complex and difficult and that some aspects of it can be dealt with only in a general way.

Part I of the Bill deals with definitions, regulations, restrictions, expenses and repeals. A residence is defined as a dwelling that does not include a separate or self-contained flat. We had an argument on this question during the Second Stage debate on the other Bill and I recall the Minister telling us that he had an open mind in this regard. I do not think the matter was ever finalised. That Bill has not yet passed through Seanad Éireann. Perhaps when he is replying the Minister will tell us whether he has had any new thinking on the definition of "dwelling". If at all possible the definition should be extended to include a self-contained flat. There are restrictions on the application to the State of the provisions of the Bill. I find no fault with that.

I look on the State as the custodian of the common good and I would not equate the State with the private landlord in this regard. The State is subject to pressures to which the private landlord would not be subject. The present Minister had very strong views on this when he was in Opposition and I would ask him what it was that changed those views.

Part II of the Bill sets out the classes of persons entitled to purchase, residential and otherwise. The Memorandum makes the point that it sets out to implement the recommendations of the Second Report of the Landlord and Tenant Commission extending the right to purchase to new classes of tenants and to local authority tenants. In so far as we can accept the Bill as it is, I welcome this as an improvement on the previous Bill. It was an omission in that Bill which, I feel, would have been corrected by an amendment on Committee Stage had we discussed it. It is a welcome improvement, and I give credit where it is due.

Section 8 sets out the general right to acquire the fee simple and the following sections state the conditions which attract that right. As public representatives we have all received representations on this matter which we have passed on to the Minister. As someone who has no expertise in this area, I should like to have defined exactly what "subsidiary" and "ancillary" mean. Is there such a thing as maximum ground rent? Is it subsidiary or ancillary to a house or is it subject to a loose interpretation?

There is another point in the alternative conditions which the subsequent section lays down. There is the question of a lease being for a term of 50 years. This confuses me somewhat, though possibly it is a simple matter. It is stated that the rent reserved must be for an amount which is less than the rateable valuation. I hope that someone will tell me why this is so.

Section 13 is welcome in that it deals with expired leases. It extends the right to purchase for one year after the coming into operation of the Act to persons whose lease has expired and who would have the right to purchase anyway but for the fact that the lease has expired up to eight years before the commencement of the Act. We all know of cases of this nature and it is the type of case which often comes to the notice of a public representative in the course of his or her duties. Most of us will welcome this provision. Often landlords will not entertain the idea of a renewal of tenancy and this places the tenant in a very difficult and precarious position.

Section 17 deals with the purchase price and all the factors which will be taken into account in determining the purchase price. Section 17 (2) (b) states:

where the land was held by the person acquiring the fee simple under a lease which has expired or is held by him under a lease which will expire less than twenty-five years after the date of the service of the notice under section 4 of the Act of 1967 or of the application under Part III of this Act, the rent which, in the opinion of the arbittrator, would be reserved by a reversionary lease under the Act of 1958 of the land granted for a term commencing on the expiration of the first-mentioned lease.

It appears to me that in some cases the purchase price will be greater than the tenant may have expected. Deputy O'Keeffe made the point that it will be greater by virtue of the fact that interest rates are down. This is another aspect which will make the purchase price for many tenants higher than they would have expected. Section 17 (3) indicates how this would graduate depending on what remains of the 25 years mentioned.

I now refer to the current interest yields on Government loans. ACRA were critical of this and made the point that they did not agree with a system related to a national loan. This is fundamental to the whole question of compensation and whether we think it is warranted to the extent of providing a substitute or alternative income in perpetuity for those who would lose the annual income provided by ground rents through the coming into operation of this Act.

There is in section 17 (2) (g) a point which I found very amusing in reading through the speeches made when the Coalition Bill was before the House. It relates to the cost and expenses of the lessor in investing money. The present Minister waxed very wittily on this. He pictured himself as the lessee and the then Minister as the lessor going off to invest his money and he being responsible for the cost of transport and other expenses. It makes pleasant reading. I should like to know whether the Minister was misinformed then or what has changed his mind on that score. It does not seem fair that this expense should be taken into acount in determining the price. The present Minister made a very good suggestion at that time when he said that there should be recognition of the number of years for which the tenant had been paying ground rent. If this were taken into account it could lead to a situation where the purchase price might be nil. From the tenants' point of view this appears to be a very relevant point.

There is the question of the position of people who have paid a site fine and whether credit is given under the Bill for this. There is also the matter of the failure of landlords to develop estates and provide amenities which they had covenanted to provide. This should be reflected in the price, if price there has to be.

There is the common problem of the ground landlords who cannot be traced. This could be a difficult problem, and there must be some cases where they cannot be traced. Does the property revert to the State and, if so, has the tenant the right to purchase? This is a point which needs mention.

Part III of the Bill deals with the duration of the provisions. It is applicable only to applications made within five years of the commencement of the Act. I see that people are entitled to acquire the fee simple in a dwellinghouse by virtue of Part II and to do so they may apply to the Registrar of Titles.

Section 20 deals with vesting by consent and section 21 deals with vesting by means of arbitration where there is not consent. The references to the county registrar in the 1967 Act are substituted by reference to "Registrar of Titles". This will provide for the registration of title under the Registration of Title Act, 1964.

Now the Minister says the fees are very reasonable. I am not in a position to argue whether they are more reasonable than those charged hitherto. I would like to know from the Minister how the fee of £5 was arrived at for the issue of a vesting certificate where the applicant is in occupation of the dwellinghouse. What steps did the Minister take to ascertain this was the correct fee? How was the £12 arrived at in the case of an arbitration?

Section 23 (2) provides:

The Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may by order fix the fees to be taken in the Land Registry for the purposes of this Part, other than the fees mentioned in subsection (1), and may revoke or amend any such order.

Is it possible all the necessary homework has not been done? Could these fees be altered or will they stand for the duration of the Bill? It seems to me that under this provision they could be upped at any time. Fees and prices unfortunately do not go down. If they can be altered with the consent of the Minister for Finance it is difficult to know what we are legislating here in regard to fees.

I am concerned like others that the facilities and staff available in the Land Registry may not be sufficient to cope with the work this Bill will impose. This is a legitimate worry and I hope the Minister will assure us he has taken steps to ensure staffing arrangements and facilities will be adequate. In my experience the existing staff are most courteous and helpful. There is a backlog and unless staff and facilities are increased the office could not cope with the increased volume of work this Bill will impose.

Section 27 removes the right of eviction in regard to those entitled to acquire the fee simple. Any covenant giving the lessor the right to take possession where rent is in arrear shall not be enforceable. That is fair enough. It is time that right was removed. It is a right given under section 52 of the Tenant Law (Amendment) Act of Ireland, 1860. The provision is not being repealed before its time. This is a welcome reform. Unfortunately re-form comes slowly, very slowly indeed, in the area of ground rents. Where property rights are involved a great deal more reform is needed. This Bill is by no means the implementation of the promise made by Fianna Fáil in the last election and does not fulfil their commitment to abolish ground rents. I trust this Bill is not the final step and I hope the law will be further amended so that justice will be given to the many people who have been victims of this vicious system down through the years.

I welcome this very important Bill and I congratulate the Minister on introducing it so speedily. I am disappointed the Opposition speakers have not been vocal in praise of the new features in the Bill, features designed to lead to the ending of ground rents. I have no doubt that this Bill will in a short time lead to the removal of existing ground rents. I would like to hear in this House calls on the residents' and tenants' associations to implement this measure through their negotiating procedures. They have here a framework which will enable them to do for their members the kind of deals and make the kind of arrangements which will facilitate the speedy and early removal of existing ground rents. I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill so speedily before the House. He has now introduced in two separate measures new legislation which was urgently requested by the people and urgently required by them.

The first measure passed by the House has prohibited the creation of future ground rents and this Bill will ensure that tenants can avail of its provisions to buy out existing ground rents and I am certain tenants will be quite happy to do that. I have worked with these people for a number of years. I know what their problems are and I know they will welcome this Bill. I say that with every confidence having worked with them at grass-roots level. People want things to be done for them but they also realise the Minister must act within the framework of the Constitution. In this measure the Minister very skilfully proposes provisions meeting constitutional requirements in the abolition of existing ground rents. I congratulate the Minister on implementing the manifesto promise made so clearly and so unequivocally.

Deputy O'Keeffe made a number of criticisms in this respect. So did the Labour Party. In June 1977, prior to the election, ACRA said in response to requests: "As a result of our efforts on your behalf the following situation has emerged. Coalition: Fine Gael— Labour: the introduction of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, 1977, first promised in 1973. That Bill, to which ACRA proposes 40 amendments, would have done very little to end the ground rents system."

What will this Bill do?

That Bill has lapsed with the dissolution of the Dáil. No statement of intent in relation to ground rents has appeared in the manifesto and Programme for Progress issued by the National Coalition.

There is honesty for you.

Then Fianna Fáil: The following letter was received by ACRA from Deputy G. Collins, spokesman for Justice on behalf of Fianna Fáil.

With reference to recent discussions with ACRA sub-committee on ground rents, I wish to state that having been returned to office Fianna Fáil will provide a scheme which will lead to the abolition of existing residential ground rents——

Where is the scheme?

The letter goes on: ——and I am prepared to commit my party to introduce the necessary legislation within six months of the formation of Government.

This the Minister has done because people asked him to do it. His party formed a Government and the Minister has done what he promised within a period of six months. I congratulate him on the speed of his action and the type of action which he has taken.

Deputy O'Keeffe has also voiced another criticism. He has said that if the Coalition had gone ahead with their Bill it would have been cheaper for those who had been buying out their ground rents. If we had all done the things we should have done at the time they would have been cheaper. If you did things sooner than later in a period of inflation they would be cheaper, but this can hardly be used as a criticism of the Fianna Fáil Government, that the Coalition did not do what they could and should have done when they could and should have done it.

The Dáil was dissolved.

On 6 June 1974, before the local elections, the Coalition issued the following statement as a press release from the Department of Justice:

The following statement has been issued by the Government Information Services on behalf of the Department of Justice: At their meeting on 6 June 1974 the Government decided that legislation should be prepared on the basis of proposals that had been submitted by the Minister for Justice, Mr. Patrick Cooney, TD, on the subject of ground rents. Accordingly, the Minister intends to introduce legislation as soon as possible which will contain a provision to prohibit the creation of future ground rents.

The Government was also concerned with the difficulties regarding title and legal costs being experienced by persons wishing to buy out their ground rents under the 1967 Ground Rents Act and will seek to include proposals in the new legislation to ameliorate these problems.

Which were included.

The statement continues:

In coming to their decision the Government took cognisance of the view expressed in the Ground Rents Commission Report of 1964 in favour of a prohibition on the creation of future ground rents. An extension of the right to purchase ground rents is also under consideration.

I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe that if the Coalition had acted when they said they would act it would have been cheaper. Everything would have been cheaper if it was done at that time. Obviously, there was some lack of will in relation to this action. Even when the Bill was ultimately brought before Dáil Éireann at the beginning of last year it was quickly removed because there was disagreement about its contents. It did not come back before the House was dissolved in the middle of May.

Deputy O'Keeffe's criticism is hypocritical and I, as a reasonable person, would not accept it as a reasonable criticism of the Minister, especially a criticism of the Minister who said that within six months he would cover both aspects of the Bill in abolishing future ground rents and in providing a scheme for the abolition of ground rents.

We are still waiting for that.

The second point made by Deputy O'Keeffe related to the price. He is trying to raise the issue of price and trying to claim that the price will grow suddenly as a result of this Bill. It is obvious that he is oversimplifying the question of price. Deputy Mrs. Desmond also referred to the price being tied to the current market price of the most recent national loan or that type of security.

The first point that must be made is that the device of tying the price to the most recent national loan type of security, as set out in section 17, clarifies the maximum purchase price. It puts a ceiling on the purchase price. It does not say that the purchase price should be the equivalent of a particular national loan type of security or the current market value of that type of security.

It has the same wording as the 1967 Act.

It does say that the price should not exceed such an equivalent. In addition, one must consider the fact that ground rents cost money to collect and that tax must be paid on them. They are not as valuable an asset as they used to be. I have no doubt that this legislation will pass through the House because the people have put 84 Fianna Fáil Deputies here to see that it does. The Deputies opposite know in their hearts that ground rents are dead in market value. The present value of ground rents is not near the maximum purchase price. I believe the Minister has provided a scheme which will lead to the abolition of existing ground rents.

The question of price is one that can be thrown up readily and often to confuse people. The market value is the price which one has to consider. In considering the market value it becomes a matter of negotiation and discussion. This is why I would call on the residents' and tenants' associations to bring their combined strength to bear on the negotiations to ensure that those who are reluctant to depart from the maximum price will come to a reasonable market value for ground rents which in business terms is considerably below the maximum price to which the Deputies referred.

Accordingly, I welcome the measures in this Bill. It contains some new features which are important to ordinary people. For instance, the procedural methodology has been simplified. Applications will be determined by one single authority, that is the Registrar of Titles, and this will compare with the previous Bill which would have introduced a variety of county registrars, each acting individually in relation to ground rents. It is a better procedure and one that will lead to a simpler and speedier removal of ground rents.

I also welcome the significant extension of the right of purchase. It is in the Bill in a variety of ways, but I particularly welcome the extension of the Bill to include the purchasers of local authority houses. It has often been said that purchasers of local authority houses have been treated as second class citizens, and I am glad that the Minister gives them the absolute rights which apply to other citizens who are purchasing their residences. In that sense, it is over a hundred years since Michael Davitt gave that type of authority to the tenant farmers. I am sure our Minister will go down in history as the man who gave this right of purchase to the tenants of our local authority houses. It is a significant step and one at which the Opposition may now smile, but I am surprised that they are not weeping bitter tears because they had neither the courage nor the consensus to continue what many of their members must have suggested was the right thing for them to do: remove this problem of ground rents.

Another feature which I welcome is the retrospective element of eight years. That is very important for those caught in the situation where their lease has expired over this period. That is welcome from the point of view of the residents. One of the most important aspects of the Bill, and one which will have considerable effect on the market value of a house, is the abolition of the right of the landlord to evict. I suppose I should not be surprised if the Opposition have little understanding of practical business market values particularly when one considers the state they left our country in before they surrendered the reins of office. The landlord will no longer have the right to evict, he can only pursue for damages and that will not be a particularly rewarding, interesting or exciting venture for a landlord. It will have the effect of making landlords negotiate fair and reasonable deals with residents.

We all know of the many cases which have been going through the courts as a result of long delays caused by the National Coalition on this question. The thousands of people waiting for a court decision will thank the Minister for being decisive and clear-cut in removing this right of landlords. If there is a conflict in future there is no way the dreaded word, eviction, can be used. I also welcome the fixed legal fees, £5 for ordinary cases and £12 where negotiations take place, a provision which did not exist in any previous draft legislation. I believe people look for a reasonable, negotiated price in purchasing their ground rent and, in addition, reasonable, fixed legal fees. I am sure many house-holders will rejoice once they realise the implications in this Bill for them.

Another important feature is that there will now be simplified procedures where there is no agreement as to the purchase price. I note that the lessee is only required to serve notice on the immediate lessor. The Bill provides for 95 per cent of our population who can quite readily under these measures buy out their existing ground rents but I would be obliged if the Minister would consider hardship cases that might arise. I would be obliged if he would consider cases where people are unemployed, the cases of widows, pensioners or those suffering hardship. He should make a special provision for such people.

The Bill provides for ordinary tenants and residents the framework and the simplified basis under which they can buy out their existing ground rents at what I am sure will be reasonable costs. It is up to the residents and the tenants' associations and individuals to negotiate purchasing deals at a firm marked value. I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill and I hope it will be given a speedy passage through the House.

I will not detain the House because I agree with the Bill generally. By and large it contains what the National Coalition had in their comprehensive Bill. The Bill contains a number of changes, one of which gives local authority tenants the right to purchase their fee simple. That would have been contained in the Bill introduced by the last Government before debate on it concluded in the House. It was not my intention to speak on this Bill because I am anxious to see such legislation given a speedy passage but one must contribute when one realises that promises have been broken. Fianna Fáil before the last election made it clear that rents would be abolished. After the election they announced that they would introduce a Bill to do away with new ground rents and implied that another Bill would follow abolishing existing ground rents. The Minister mentioned this and sought to make it clear by quoting provisions in their election propaganda. He told us that it was their intention to provide a scheme which would lead to the abolition of existing ground rents. The Minister apparently stands over that because he mentioned it in his speech today. There is nothing in the Bill that will abolish existing ground rents. It is the same in essence as the National Coalition Bill. We did not say that our Bill was leading to the abolition of ground rents. We gave the facts and said that this would not be possible without changing the Constitution.

This is a question of election promises being broken. They said they would adhere to the propaganda circulated during the election campaign and honour it. They are not honouring their election propaganda in this Bill. They have broken a promise, no matter how the Minister might like to juggle with words, because they are not abolishing existing ground rents. If they said that in approximately ten years' time existing ground rents would cease everybody would know that ground rents would be abolished then. There is nothing in this Bill which implies that. They are hoodwinking the public. I believe this will be a forerunner to more broken promises in the next year. We have another broken promise in relation to jobs. What will be the next one?

Why did the Government not reintroduce the comprehensive Bill which the previous Government had ready, and perhaps add a few changes to it? I believe they really wanted to mislead the people. In the Coalition Bill ground rents could be bought out through the county registrar, but in this Bill it is the Land Registry. I understood there was some commitment to decentralisation on all sides of the House, but this is a typical example of going back to the old system, that it is all happening in Dublin. Deputies from rural constituencies will want to know why they have to go to the Land Registry in Dublin and why they cannot have the matter dealt with in their own counties.

The Minister said that additional staff will be provided to deal with the extra work. Surely it would be better to have them employed in the various places throughout the country rather than employing them in Dublin? The Land Registry are over-worked. While promises of additional staff have been made I believe the office will be cluttered up with extra work and staff. It would be far better to decentralise, and work would be far more efficient. I can see Deputies in rural constituencies inundated with problems because of holdups in the central bureaucratic network which will be set up. I ask the Minister to reconsider the idea and go back to the old system of the county registrars. Under the National Coalition Bill it would have only cost £2 to process through the county registrar. In the Land Registry it will cost £5. I am not quarrelling with the extra £3 but the extra expense should be considered. It is more personal to have the county registrars dealing with this.

Debate adjourned.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share