Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 1978

Vol. 303 No. 8

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

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

Mr. Bruton

I want to make a few points on this Bill. As has been said a few times in this debate, a promise was made in the election campaign that a scheme would be introduced leading to the abolition of residential ground rents. This Bill does not fulfil that pledge. It provides an opportunity for people to buy their ground rents voluntarily, but it does not abolish ground rents unless every ground rent tenant chooses to avail of the opportunity offered by this Bill. If one person does not, ground rents will not have been abolished.

The Bill is little different in material respects from that introduced by the former Minister for Justice. It substitutes the Land Registry as the land agent for the county registrars who were the agents in the previous Bill. I have argued that it would be more convenient for most people if the county registrars were responsible, because they are in all the provinces and all the counties. Therefore, they are more accessible to ground rent tenants than the Land Registry. It is well known that the Land Registry are understaffed and overworked and it is very difficult to transact business there. Therefore, the transfer of functions in the Bill in that respect is unwise.

If the Minister is to fulfil his election pledge he will have to bring in another Bill doing what he told the electorate he would do. The last point I want to deal with is legal expenses. Even though the provisions in this Bill are supposed to be simple, in many cases, in addition to the purchase cost, people will have to pay a solicitor to buy out their ground rents. I would ask the Minister to see if some way can be found to obviate the need for legal costs. People buying a new house have to meet legal costs and they will have to face further legal costs if they want to buy out their ground rents. Therefore, the value of buying out the ground rent, which very often does not involve a large amount of money, could be countered to a significant extent by the legal costs.

I give the Bill a qualified welcome in the expectation that the Minister will be coming back with another Bill which will fulfil the promise made to the electorate.

Mr. Ahern

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on staying within the time limit promised. This Bill is one of the measures giving effect to the Government's proposals in the area of landlord and tenant law. Another Bill has gone through this House and is with the Seanad dealing with the abolition of existing ground rents. The Minister has stated that he will introduce legislation dealing with other aspects of the landlord and tenant laws which require amendment. We on this side of the House accept that some of them are urgent and that the Minister realises that.

Opposition Deputies have said we have broken our promise and our commitment. I said at meetings that we would provide a scheme which would lead to the abolition of existing residential ground rents. We also said six months would be the time limit. We have honoured that promise. In the area I represent we must have 50 or 60 residents' associations. They would like to see amendments to the Bill, but on Committee Stage amendments can be put forward by both sides of the House and fully discussed.

It was made clear by the Minister in Opposition that we never intended to introduce the total abolition of ground rents. It would take away rights from landlords, to a certain extent, if that were done without some type of compensation. Naturally, in certain instances, cases for compensation might have to go to arbitration, but you do not take away a man's right without giving him some consideration and perhaps compensation. I do not think it was ever intended that the State should pay that compensation. Otherwise we would have had to say where we would get the money. Nothing was said about that in the budget.

In my dealings with residents' associations over the past four or five years I found the problem was that you could make a deal with a builder to buy out your ground rent, but then there was the matter of legal costs. That was the big factor. The builder said "You can buy it out for £100 but the legal costs will be £200". Naturally that would be bad economics for any working man. Prior to the election people in many estates I know of were negotiating to buy their ground rents and would have been very happy to pay £100 legal costs and £100 ground rent. They considered that was a fair deal and were going ahead with it until they were told by the combined residents' associations and the Opposition to wait for our Bill.

Now we have the Bill. Its main feature concerns how a tenant may acquire the fee simple. People may say it is not total abolition. It is not if the tenant has no interest in acquiring the fee simple. He cannot be forced to do so because that would be taking away his rights. The Bill sets out the conditions with which any lessee or tenant must comply to contract the right to acquire the fee simple. It is a simplification of the provision that existed already. Heretofore if an individual wanted to buy out his fee simple he would have to go back through the Acts of 1958, 1967, 1971 and all the amendments to the 1931 Act in respect of building leases, proprietary leases and so on. Certainly no association in the city understood this type of thing. Now it has all been consolidated.

Another welcome feature of this Bill is that all known classes of tenants should be given the right to acquire the fee simple, something which did not exist heretofore. There always seemed to be a discrimination against somebody purchasing a local authority house and this has now been removed. In the case of most housing estates in Dublin, if there is agreement the fee simple can be got for £5.

Deputy Bruton mentioned the county registrars. I would have thought that anything that cut down on the risk of documents or papers being lost in the post or between 26 different offices would have been welcomed, but apparently not. Conversion of the leasehold to the fee simple, giving it to the Land Registry rather than to the county registrars, seems to me to be a very good idea. The Minister outlined clearly in his speech that it was not merely thrown into the Land Registry, that there was a whole new section involved, with additional jobs being created. Obviously that fact went unnoticed also. We have noticed also that the procedure for local authorities will be slightly different, in that it will be through vesting orders rather than through the Land Registry. In most cases probably a fee of £5 would clear up the matter.

Another feature of this Bill which I am sure will be very welcome is the removal of the right a landlord had for years past that if somebody had not paid up within, I think a period of 12 months, he could come in and eject them from the house. I think it was the legislation of 1931 which said that the residents owned the bricks and mortar but, just because the landlord had some small right to the property, he could come along and eject somebody. Naturally, like any creditor or debtor, he has the right to sue if there is money owed to him. That is fair enough.

There have been a number of amendments put forward by the other side of the House. Probably the Minister will come back on these on Committee Stage, and a lot more will be heard from this side of the House before the discussion ends. But the Bill as a whole is what we put to the people. We made that commitment and it can be clearly seen that we have fulfilled it. It should be remembered that Judge Conroy, who is chairman of the commission, will be called upon very soon to deal with the other matters. The second stage of the commission's proceedings has been almost completed and I look forward to stage three.

Mr. Kelly

I think you, Sir, were in the Chair when the first of what the Minister elegantly described as a trilogy of Bills was going through. You would not allow me to say anything except about the contents of the Bill actually before the House and I remember that you applied a polite and very firm rein to me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy is correct. I cannot recall, but I am sure he is correct.

Mr. Kelly

I think you politely but very firmly controlled me when I tried to put the first of these Bills into the perspective of the ones which were to come. I said on that occasion, as well as I could through the impediments you were placing in my way—quite rightly no doubt—that I never had much sympathy with the agitation against ground rents. I was accurately reported but misinterpreted and misunderstood in that regard. I should like to take this opportunity to say again what I feel about this problem.

In a society like this, which is a capitalist one, for better or worse, even people who are not capitalists—and I am by no means an unqualified supporter of capitalism—must understand that it is a capitalist society. Perhaps it will not be in ten or 50 years time, but it is at present. At present, for better or for worse, rightly or wrongly, people are permitted to invest their money in a wide variety of ways. Some of these ways have got social dimensions which are, very rightly, controlled. The question of housing is one of these.

Investment in house property—if there are tenants in the house property —will attract all kinds of social controls under the Landlord and Tenant Acts, Rent Restrictions Acts and so on. That is perfectly proper. But by and large people are entitled to invest as they please. That may be a bad thing, and perhaps the political wheel will turn to the point that that will no longer be possible. But at present, and for the 55 or 56 years that this State has run, it has been lawful. The State and the law have drawn no distinction between one kind of investment and another. They have drawn basically no distinction between one kind of operation of the market forces and another. When I hear people singling out ground rents—even though I understand well that the thing has got overtones connected with features of a very unhappy national past—when I hear people singling out this particular imposition, attacking it as though there was something different in kind about it from other situations in which one man is drawing an income which he has not earned by his sweat—at least is not at present earning by his sweat —I ask myself why, what is there about this imposition which is so objectionable?

Do not forget that during all the years when developers were putting up houses and reserving ground rents for themselves, presumably they were doing that on a calculation of how they were going to get the best return on their money. That may have been very selfish of them, very unsocial of them, but it is not against the law of this country—not yet anyway—and never was. Every developer who decided he was going to sell the bricks and mortar, as they have been described, for £8,000, £9,000 or £12,000 and reserve a ground rent for himself, in the operation of a free market, could have been faced with the competition of another developer who was simply going to sell the freehold. There was not any reason in the wide world why developers might not have sold freeholds. Many of them have done that and are doing it, putting themselves, prima facie, in a favourable position from the point of view of competition with the builder who was reserving a ground rent for himself over and above the purchase price. In that event presumably the builder selling the free-hold would have calculated his return on his investment in a different way and that would have been reflected in a somewhat higher capital price of the house.

It seems to me a strange thing that there should be so much heat generated about a situation in which a man who calculated his investment in a housing estate, charges so much by way of a lump purchase price and reserves something for himself which, if he were not allowed to reserve it, would be reflected instantly in a higher purchase price should be held out as being a remnant of landlordism in the sense in which the word was understood in the year 1800. It seems to me a strange thing that a house purchaser who has benefited from the fact that the capital cost of a house is presumably that much lower—on the whole a ground rent is not very large when weighed against the average family annual budget— should complain about this particular incident of life into which he has entered with his eyes open. He freely signed a contract which was quite open to him not to sign. Nobody forced him to buy this particular house to which this rent was attached.

I hope there are not people so unconscionable as to represent those words as being a defence of the ground rents system as such. It is not. It is a plea for straight thinking on this and related topics. If we do not want a free-market economy, if we do not want the free play of competition and of capitalism in this field, let us say so and let us cut out the whole question of bricks, mortar and roofs from the free market area of our economy. The Constitution permits that, and I doubt if I would vote against it; but so long as that is not against the law I submit that we should not go along weakly with agitations which are irrational.

I do not own any ground rents. I do not pay ground rent: I bought my small ground rent seven or eight years ago, a very small one. I do not hold any brief for any person who owns a ground rent, but I say that this is no different in kind from any other question of investment. They all represent unearned income. A man who develops a surplus has sweated all his life for it. He has accumulated his savings, by his deciding to put money by instead of spending it on drink or on holidays. A man like that who invests his money in anything, be it post office savings or a State-issued security, is essentially putting money into other people's sweat and by way of return from that he will get the product of other people's sweat. I am not an economist, but that seems to me to be a proposition so clear that I apologise to the House for wasting time arguing it.

I cannot see any difference in the world between investment of surplus money, assuming one has earned it fairly and squarely, in ground rents or in an industrial security or in post office savings. If one gets a percentage return on that one is profiting without earning it from somebody else's effort. Exactly the same is true in regard to an investment which the possession of a ground rent represents. In this matter I am not fanatical one way or another. I would willingly go along with my party and I believe my party hold that ground rents are socially undesirable. What I object to is the weak-minded throwing of every cheap sop a political party can think of to every pressure group in the country when it comes to election time.

With the exception of the abolition of motor taxation, for which there is absolutely nothing to be said, and possibly the abolition of wealth tax which was not, I admit, promised in the pre-election manifesto, the party who made these promises had no notion of fulfilling the one in respect of ground rents, or in the terms in which that promise was made. That promise was perhaps the most unjustifiable part of their campaign.

I do not want to drag the discussion too far afield or to drag people into it who possibly do not belong in it, but I have to note that the day before the Bill was introduced one of the most significant and important Ministers— if the Minister for Justice will not mind my appearing to put the other Minister momentarily above him—the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, spoke here with considerable heat about the hypocrisy of the Leader of my party having taken the line he did about the budget. I will make allowances for others as I hope they make allowances for me in regard to things said in the heat of the moment which one might not write down and stand over if one got the chance to look at them again, but I must note that this leading member of the Government said, as reported at column 751, volume 303, of the Official Report of 7 February 1978:

I should be the last to claim perfection but I should try to claim honesty. That is why I am so vicious or so bitter in this attack—because I will not stand for hypocrisy, humbug and double talk. When I come here to make a political speech I make a political speech. I use one hand. I state my view and I stick to it. When I want to write an academic paper I know where to go and do it in academic form. I cannot stand anyone sailing under false colours, claiming to be doing one thing while doing the opposite. I am sorry for being so firm on the issue but I have my views also.

Later on he thundered:

Presumably we would have been more mortal still had we not said anything specific last summer; in other words fudged the issues, go in for the traditional approach—if you can avoid saying anything specific, for heaven's sake do not commit yourself to anything, just talk in general terms and hopefully you will fool enough of the people enough of the time to get yourself re-elected. It was because we were determined to put an end to so much of that political humbug that we said what we did in our manifesto and what we are now doing in government. We said: we will spell out very specific commitments and we will carry them through, deliberately....

It was a fine exercise in contrived indignation. I should like to hear this saintly Minister who has such a high line of morals, who is so well able to tick off men like Deputy FitzGerald, come in here and put his reputation for fairness and honesty, which I do not dispute, on the line. I am saying this because it will cast light on what is going on in the House. I should like to see the Minister come into the House and put his reputation for being intellectually honest on the line in defence of this Bill. I cannot command which speakers come in, even of my own party, even when I was Whip, and I certainly cannot do it now for the Minister's side——

Mr. G. Collins

The Deputy knows the Minister he is talking about cannot come in here during the course of this debate—that has not been the practice. The Deputy should also know that when I am speaking as Minister for Justice I am speaking on behalf of the Government of which the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, is a member.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is the Chair's job to call the speakers and neither Deputy Kelly nor the Minister will decide that.

Mr. Kelly

Of course it is a collective authority and in a sense I do not need to make that challenge because I can tar Deputy O'Donoghue with the vicarious brush of "the ground rents swindle", but so long as he does not come in to speak on this Bill he can take the line: "Well, you know, that is Gerry Collins' Bill." I do not say he would do that but I should like to see him coming in here to defend this Bill, to relate it specifically to the manifesto. I should like to see this paragon of academic virtue—I believe he may well be that—asserting in the House that what is going on here is the abolition of ground rents or even a scheme leading to their abolition.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not fanatical about ground rents one way or another. I do not go along with the kind of agitation which has been got up about ground rents because it is not a straight agitation. I am sure it is well-intentioned, but it is not straight in the sense that ground rents as an economic phenomenon are no different from a hundred other types of investment which are regarded not only as legitimate but are favoured. I would have supported the Bill the Minister's predecessor brought in and I support the general outline of this Bill, but I object to the statement from those benches that the Leader of my party is a humbug or a hypocrite when the very next day another member of the same collective authority can be brazen enough—I confess he is a genial and likeable rogue——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We should not refer to anybody as a rogue in this House. It is not parliamentary language no matter how the Deputy may have meant it. I suggest it be withdrawn.

Mr. Kelly

I meant it kindly. The Minister knows very well what I meant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it the reference to "rogue" is being withdrawn.

Mr. Kelly

Of course. I did not mean anything seriously defamatory. The Minister opposite has got a nerve which I do not believe the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, Deputy O'Donoghue, would exhibit—not yet anyway: his contacts with his collective-authority colleagues may weaken his moral fibre over the years but he has not yet got the nerve to come in here to assert that the Bill in front of us represents a scheme leading to the abolition of ground rents.

I do not want to start opening dictionaries for the House. The last time I tried to make this point you would not allow me to continue along those lines, but let me take a common expression which one runs across frequently. There were occasions in ancient history in the Greek world, in the Roman world and since, in which as a social measure in order to relieve the intolerable burden of accumulated debt and interest which the people concerned were incapable of paying off, a tyrant or sovereign authority said: "We are going to cancel debts."

That is called an abolition of debt. Suppose there were an abolition of debt today, or suppose a political party promised that there would be an abolition of debt, would a person regard it as an abolition of debt if he is told that he would still have to pay back the bank, but that he would be let off the bank charges, or that any dealings he had with the bank through his solicitor would be free of charge?

I am not the first speaker on this side of the House to make that point. I may not have as good a nose for the political wind as the Minister opposite has. I know the Minister is an old hand and I certainly will not vie with him for the honour of being a better reader of political signs, but I can sense that the public are not too interested in this piece of hookery. I know the Minister has been given a disagreeable job and I sympathise with him. Although I do not think that my party would have the hard neck to do such a thing, I can imagine a Minister of my party sitting where the present Minister is and finding himself obliged to make some show of carrying out this promise. I can imagine that Minister gritting his teeth and putting his head to the wind. I might do it myself if I had to, so I sympathise with the Minister. But I must warn the Minister that when his party begins to slip downhill in Government, this piece of hookery will be remembered and will be resurrected. I believe this Government have already slipped due to the abolition of the wealth tax. I will have more to say about that tomorrow.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not on this Bill, I hope.

Mr. Kelly

The first sod in the grave of the Government of the 21st Dáil has been dug with the abolition of wealth tax. This piece of hookery will go down in the political folklore of the country, and the Minister's children and grandchildren will hear about the time Fianna Fáil "abolished the ground rents". That will always be good for a horse laugh. This is not an abolition of ground rents. If I were in charge of the Fianna Fáil Government and found that, perhaps in the heat of an election campaign, I had made this promise, instead of going through this charade, which devalues the currency of political language by trying to make people believe that they are carrying out promises, I would tell the people that we could not abolish ground rents, that we could not constitutionally confiscate ground rents and that we could not afford to abolish them by means of compensation. They were the only two options open. It would have been fairer to say, just as my party ought to have said in relation to the promise to control prices in the 14-point plan, that it could not be done—that promise should never have been made; there is no such thing as a control of prices unless everything else in the economy can be controlled—it would have been a better use of the political function that a Government have if they had said: "Forgive us, we have not done badly; we have abolished the motor tax and the rates; we are on the way to carrying out promises in regard to tax concession and we are trying to create the jobs that we said we would create but we made a mistake in talking about abolishing ground rent." I would argue with some of those points, but some colour of substance could be advanced for them. Such honesty would have made more friends for the Minister and his party than this abuse of language. Abuse of language is an abuse of thought and honesty. It would be an interesting spectacle if the Minister who saw fit to lecture Deputy FitzGerald on hypocrisy and humbug the other day would come in here and assert to this House that he considered this Bill to amount to a "scheme leading to the abolition of ground rents".

In large outline, as the Minister knows, this Bill corresponds to part of the Bill which the former Minister, now Senator Cooney, introduced. Some of the Fianna Fáil publicity during the election related to the delay which the last Minister for Justice appeared to be guilty of, in introducing this Bill. When I was Whip, part of my job was trying to bring on business in a reasonable rhythm. There was no Minister that I pestered more about any measure than the last Minister for Justice about this Bill. The reason why it was so long in coming was that the Minister decided to incorporate, in what I took to be a Bill prohibiting the creation of future ground rents a large number of other reforms in the law of landlord and tenant. The law of landlord and tenant like any other part of the law is difficult and complex and it has to compete for the time of an often inadequate number of officials in the Attorney General's office and so on. Once I heard that, I knew we could kiss goodbye to the Bill until a very late stage in the life of the Dáil. I was right. Eventually the Bill came out, but the reason for the delay was the decision of the Minister to incorporate a large number of other matters relating to the law of landlord and tenant but not specifically relevant to ground rents. That may have been a political mistake but it was nothing more than that. It was an honest, in no way dishonourable or neglectful, operation of the Ministerial machine. The Minister may find himself involved in a similar situation in the future. It would have been a simple matter to bring in the thing in piecemeal and call it a trilogy as though it were three cantos of a poem, or three cantatas of an oratorio.

It would have been possible to do it that way, to bring in first the one that was easy, politically and legally —the prohibition of the creation of future ground rents—and to bring in the rest as and when opportunity offers, these others being of greater importance for lawyers and people affected by the operation of the law than for the ordinary individual. That might have been a more clever move, politically.

In speaking of a trilogy the Minister is merely telling the House that he has chopped up the previous Minister's Bill into three pieces of legislation, one of which is on its way through the other House and which was presented almost unchanged. The second Bill presented to the House is almost unchanged also except that it was misdescribed to the people before the election. We have not seen the third one yet. That is the situation in regard to recent reform in landlord and tenant law.

I concede freely that the Bill contains one improvement, albeit not a very substantial improvement, but it is an improvement that can be described briefly, that is, the taking away of the right of re-entry on the part of the landlord for non-payment of ground rent. That right was rarely, if ever, availed of. Perhaps it was availed of only about as often as was the right of a mortgagee to go into possession.

Mr. Briscoe

Nevertheless, it was there.

Mr. Kelly

It is good that it is being abolished. One can readily appreciate that because of failure to carry out a marginal obligation one should not be put at risk in respect of one's strongly socially-conditioned interest in one's home. To that extent the Bill is an improvement on the measure we proposed, but it is an improvement which is more ostensible than real.

There are a few words I wish to say regarding a point made by Deputy Bruton a few moments ago, and I want to join this with something said by Deputy Ahern earlier. I refer to the way in which this work is to be done. Our Bill proposed that the operation be undertaken by country registrars, of whom there are about 27 altogether, but so far as I can see the work is to be concentrated in the Land Registry. I am told by solicitors that this office has an enormous backlog of work, that even a Land Registry matter marked "expedite" takes on average about 12 months to go through. The Minister envisages the creation of a new section that would be attached to the Land Registry with corresponding extra staff and so on. No one would imagine that a county registrar could bear the burden of this work without extra assistance. Many of these people are already working under much pressure.

So far as the employment potential of this move is concerned, why are these extra jobs not being spread throughout the country, as was envisaged by us? The Minister speaks of the State's contribution to the alleviation of the ground rents situation. We, too, were making a contribution in that regard but by a different mechanism. The Minister is creating the extra jobs in Dublin, an area that is already over swollen in regard to the administrative authorities. If we are serious about decentralising the public service this is not the way to go about it. Admittedly what is involved here is only a small detail and does not compare with the resiting of a Department, but what the Minister is doing is a reverse of the process of decentralisation. I expect that most of the extra staff required will need to have legal qualifications of some kind. Therefore, would it not have made more sense, socially, administratively and so on, to distribute these posts throughout the country rather than to have another enormous office in Dublin with the resulting parking problem? From every visible consideration, from the point of view of the road system and having regard to the general rundown condition of this city, it compares not only unfavourably but shamefully with every other city in Western Europe. The Minister's plan will mean just another glass and concrete box erected perhaps by a developer and rented to the Government at a very high rate.

I concede, as Deputy Briscoe wishes me to concede, that the abolition of the right of re-entry is an improvement, although not an improvement of any quantitive material significance. I must denounce the Minister's plan to give the work to the Land Registry as being much less efficient and socially more undesirable than its distribution to all the county registrars. However, these are only points of detail. We could argue also as to whether this proposal will be feasible. Perhaps in some ways it will be feasible.

I wonder, though, whether if we are extending the social welfare content of our system into the legal field the most deserving are those who pay ground rents. The new system will cost the State a lot of money in administration costs. That would have been the case in regard to our Bill, too. Taking into consideration all the extra solicitors who will have to be paid, plus such overheads as rent on buildings and so on, there will be a lot of expenditure involved, perhaps £1 million. That is an off-the-cuff figure as I have not made any calculation. It is money that will be going into a legal social service, because that is what is involved here. I can think of more deserving recipients than those who pay ground rent. For example, we could put the money into the area of family litigation thereby helping those who at times of serious family breakdowns and so on have the added worry of the financial consideration. Would not the establishment of at least a bridgehead of legal aid into the civil field be a better way to spend this money? Effectively the money is to be spent on what is a social contribution by the State to the burdens which up to now people have had to bear themselves. Looked at in that light, there may be more deserving groups of persons—I have given the Minister an example—than the group he has elected, and for purely political electoral reasons, to benefit in this way.

I do not want to lambaste the Minister any more about this. My views and the views of everyone on this side of the House about the honesty, the propriety, of describing this Bill as doing what the electoral manifesto promised to do are clear and they will not gain by repetition. I do warn him that when he has his back to the wall, as every Government's back is to the wall sooner or later, this weapon which he thinks will be swept out of the way once the Dáil closes down this evening, will be disinterred and used with devastating effect on him and his colleagues.

Mr. N. Andrews

I have listened with great interest to the previous speaker as he went into some detail on his reasons for opposing this Bill, as obviously he does oppose it.

Mr. Kelly

No.

Mr. N. Andrews

The Deputy does not oppose it?

Mr. Kelly

No.

Mr. N. Andrews

The Deputy certainly gave the impression that he opposed the significance behind the Bill. Our manifesto was clear in so far as it stated: "Fianna Fáil will provide a scheme which will lead to the abolition of existing residential ground rents". We have had a lot of words from Deputy Kelly, who speaks absolutely superbly as a constitutional lawyer. Nonetheless, words sometimes get people into trouble and confuse those whom we represent here. Constituents are confused by the kind of speech we have just had from the previous speaker. It is natural that the Opposition would try to make the best case they can against the Government.

This Bill will inevitably lead to the abolition of ground rents. The Bill provides for the availability of the necessary legal forms at a cost of £5 and if there is arbitration the cost will be £12. I do not think there is anyone who will agree that the Bill is other than a means for abolishing ground rents eventually. Of course, compensation has to be paid. Apart from anything else, the Constitution gives protection to people who invest in any form of wealth. Ownership is protected under the Constitution. There is not anybody who will argue that persons who have invested in ground rents over the years are not entitled to compensation. It must be stressed that, as specified in our manifesto, the Bill will obviously lead to the abolition of ground rents.

Deputy Horgan, speaking on the Bill some time ago, indicated that he welcomed the Bill. That is good news. Deputy Kelly has just told me that he is also not opposing the Bill. He just says that the words in our manifesto were not accurate or were misleading. I do not accept that. Anybody who read the manifesto or the statement therein about providing a scheme which would lead to the abolition of ground rents will accept the Bill and its provisions in good faith. Deputy Horgan knows, as do most other Opposition speakers, that abolition of ground rents is not possible under the Constitution.

Ground rents over the years have provided a source of income for individuals who later came to depend on them. I know of one elderly woman who has 20 ground rents from which she would normally gain £200 per annum, but since there was agitation some years ago she has not collected her £200 because the cost of collection would be too high. This woman needs the £200 as much as anybody else, and if somebody is going to purchase the ground rent this Bill provides adequate compensation for her and relieves her of an enormous problem. I spoke to her recently and she welcomed the Bill as outlined.

The Minister has indicated that almost 60 extra staff will be provided in the Land Registray office to deal with the arrears in ordinary work, that additional staff will be provided to deal with ground rents.

The previous Government argued that it is constitutionally impossible to abolish ground rents. There is no argument there. As I said earlier, Fianna Fáil accept that. Our statement indicated quite clearly that we were not going to confiscate anything and were not in favour of confiscation. It is obviously annoying to the Opposition that they had not the foresight to use the terms that we used in our pre-election undertaking. That is only one undertaking of the grand plan for the future social and economic recovery of the country. People recognise this is very important social legislation. I have had no complaints in my constituency and have heard no complaints from anyone apart from one person who 'phoned me recently complaining that we had not kept faith with our promise. When I pointed out to him the undertaking contained in the manisfesto he accepted that and most of the members of the residents' association in my area are quite happy that the Fianna Fáil Government have lived up to yet another of their promises. This is what is frustrating the Opposition. Every time Fianna Fáil introduce a Bill in the House the Opposition wave the manifesto at us and argue about the wording of this section or that section and feel——

Mr. Mitchell

That you should carry it out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I suggest that Deputy Andrews make his own speech. Do not mind interruptions, please.

Mr. N. Andrews

I do not mind interruptions now and again. I do not think there is any suggestion that we are not going to carry out the undertakings in our manifesto. No matter how much the Opposition may wave the manifesto at us, we will deliver as we have delivered and are delivering here once again on the Ground Rents Bill.

Some people have suggested that ground rents are immoral. In their time ground rents were useful investments and private individuals and insurance companies invested in them, as they were entitled to do. Times have changed and society has different expectations. Now people expect, if they buy a house, that they are buying the bricks and mortar and the patch of ground on which the house is built, that that ground will be included with the house and that there will be no ground rent. All sides of the House recognise the right to ownership of the entire property. The amount of ground involved is very small. Society has changed its mind about the kind of deal to make with house builders. No reasonable person could argue against that.

As a newcomer to the House, I find if difficult to understand what the speakers on the other side are arguing about. They talk about legal aid The previous speaker spoke about the cost in the Land Registry office. What is wrong with that? It is money spent well and it is used to employ people. I do not see any reason to decentralise the procedure dealing with the purchase of ground rents by using the county registrars' offices throughout the country. People know that applications must come to one office and we all know the difficulties that occur when bureaucracy gets out of hand. The terms in this section are reasonable. It is right that people should be employed in one place, whether it be Dublin or Donegal. I feel that Donegal has been greatly neglected. However, I am quite happy to see the extra staff being employed in Dublin because the necessary infrastructure is there.

It has not been emphasised strongly enough that this Bill will last only for five years. After that the Bill will lapse and people may be charged sums three or four times in excess of what they will have to pay now. It must be stressed that now is the time to enter into the necessary proceedings and to purchase the fee simple for £5 or, in the case of arbitration, pay the extra £12. It is good bargain. Some people have suggested that we should seek a constitutional amendment. I think this was suggested by Deputy Mitchell. No constitutional amendment would give authority for the total abolition of ground rents without some kind of compensation. It would be unfair to people like the lady I have mentioned with 20 ground rents who could not collect them because it was too costly and she was too old. I can assure the House that she will be very happy with this Bill.

Social mores have changed and expectations have grown and the Minister for Justice is to be congratulated on the speed with which he has brought in this Bill. Deputy Kelly was complaining about his colleague, the Minister's predecessor, and told us how he niggled him to introduce his own Bill dealing with ground rents. There will never be any delay by a Fianna Fáil Government introducing measures that have been promised which are socially desirable and which are important in giving the people security. This is a small matter involving, in some cases, sums of less than £100 but people will have the security of owning thier own homes They can buy out the ground rent for a mere pittance. I have listened to and read the reports of the debate on this matter and, as a new Deputy, I cannot understand what the argument is about and who is trying to impress whom.

Mr. O'Keeffe

That is obvious.

Mr. N. Andrews

People with their own homes in Dublin are, apparently, vastly satisfied with this Bill. The Opposition are saying, as far as I can comprehend, that we promised to abolish ground rents. We did not so promise; we promised to abolish car tax and we did so. We promised to abolish residential rates and we did so. We said we would introduce legislation which would lead to the abolition of ground rents and that is what we have done. We have done so very rapidly and the Minister is to be congratulated on this. All the other measures promised will be introduced as quickly as possible. We have a programme for the social and economic recovery of this nation and we have produced it.

Certain speakers seem to want to confuse the people at large. This is unfair. That kind of politics leads to cynicism in the public mind. The cynics have had thier day and I do not believe that anybody here wants to encourage them. I feel that the approach of the Opposition to this Bill has been less than honest. They have caused confusion in my mind and that reflects accurately the kind of confusion they are trying to cause among the electorate. They have been successful to some degree. They had the floor for almost all of last week.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Because the members of Fianna Fáil would not come in to support the Bill.

Mr. N. Andrews

There were plenty of Fianna Fáil members to support the Bill but we thought that the Opposition agreed with us. Then they started to confuse the issue.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Changing tactics.

Mr. G. Collins

The Deputy should not get smart.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Keeffe has already spoken on this Bill and he should not interrupt.

Mr. G. Collins

We heard a load of rubbish from that side. They contradicted one another.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There should not be interruptions. Deputy O'Keeffe is a new Member but he is in the House long enough to know the rules. The one golden rule is that there should be one voice at a time in this House and at the moment it is the voice of Deputy Andrews.

Mr. N. Andrews

Thank you. I will not speak much longer but I want to conclude by referring to Deputy Kelly, who spoke about the humbug and saintly platitudes of one of our Ministers. If ever I heard humbug and platitudes of a saintly nature I heard them this afternoon from Deputy Kelly. No more polished humbug has been heard in this house during the past six months. The curious kind of argument the Opposition have been making has been typified by the rather unfair and mean attack by Deputy Kelly. I regret that because I admire him as a parliamentarian, as a lawyer, as a citizen and as a man who sincerely believes that his approach is right. It is unfair to ask for the Minister for Economic Planning and Development to be here to answer some curious questions. I believe everybody is satisfied that the Minister for Justice is quite capable of answering any question of Deputy Kelly's. But I suppose Deputy Kelly considers himself a leader in exile and perhaps defending his own leader, who now happens to hold that position, is part of his power play—I do not know.

Again, I welcome the Bill. Everybody I have spoken to is quite satisfied with it. I hope that any other Opposition speakers will make their opposition to the Bill clear because I do not think I can repeat often enough that our undertaking was that Fianna Fáil would provide a scheme which would lead to the abolition of existing residential ground rents. That is what this Bill does. That is what the people of the country wanted; that is what they are getting and they are quite satisfied with it.

Mr. Burke

The 1967 Act gave the tenant or householder the right to purchase a freehold. The National Coalition introduced a Bill providing a simple method of doing so by allowing the tenant to apply to the county registrar, lodge the purchase money with him and be issued with a vesting certificate which would be absolute proof of freehold title. Fianna Fáil's promise was made after the Bill had gone through the Second Stage. The present Minister then stated that he was disappointed that the principle of the abolition of existing ground rents was not in the Bill and promised to introduce a scheme leading to abolition. What did he mean? He has done nothing. In fact he has made it more difficult. We are now asking the householder to go to the Land Registry instead of to the county registrar which makes the matter more complicated in rural constituencies. The price paid to the landlord is not reduced; in fact, it is increased. A higher price will now have to be paid because the multiplier is related to the most recent national loan and the latest one was issued at 11½ per cent as opposed to the previous one at 13 per cent.

There is also the fee to the Land Registry. I think there is no public representative who has not experienced the delay that occurs in that office. It appears to be understaffed and overworked and I think it would be much better if the Minister had appointed extra staff for each country registrar's office to enable the matter to be dealt with more quickly.

Fianna Fáil promised to abolish ground rents. They have done absolutely nothing. This is why we are discussing the Bill.

Mr. G. Brady

As I see it, this imaginative legislation is to be welcomed by all. It is long overdue and non-contentious in essence. It is a serious and positive step towards alleviating a most unnecessary anomaly in property ownership. I have been disappointed at the many attempts by unsavoury contributions to detract from the Minister's intention in this Bill. I see some analogy between the inequity that did exist in the rating system and the system of ground rents. The public realise this and they will welcome this legislation. Surely this is what matters to everybody here.

One of the most disappointing features of Opposition speeches is the assertion that is bandied about that Fianna Fáil have not fulfilled their election pledge. It is important to set the record straight about this immediately. I shall quote a statement issued by ACRA, the watchdog of residents' associations and right in the front line of this perplexing problem. They stated last June that 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. I am prepared to commit my party to introduce the necessary legislation within six months of formation of Government.

It is spelled out there in black and white and the statement cannot be tampered with. It is there for everybody to see.

I may be accused of taking a partisan view if I refer to an interview reported in The Sunday Press on 15 January last in which Seán Cryan quizzed the Minister on this very point. His opening question was: “Did you not promise to bring in a Bill to abolish ground rents?” The categoric answer was: “No, not a Bill to abolish ground rents directly but a scheme that would lead to the abolition of ground rents and this we have done”. This is clear, emphatic, straight talk.

Mr. O'Keeffe

It is a pity we did not have it before the election.

Mr. G. Collins

I shall deal with the Deputy when I am replying because he has deliberately misled this House with his party line.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Minister and Deputy O'Keeffe, Deputy Brady is in possession. Deputy O'Keeffe will get some other opportunity to speak but not in this debate because he has already spoken. The Minister will have plenty of time to deal with the whole debate.

Mr. G. Collins

I will deal with Deputy O'Keeffe.

Mr. G. Brady

During the interruptions somebody mentioned "before the election". That is very reason why I quoted from the ACRA page. This was before the election. There is an inherent danger now, it is apparent from some contributions to this debate, that the public would be confused by a very straightforward proposal to abolish ground rents, and I suggest to ACRA that they get in touch with all their residents' associations—there are a hundred or so of them in Dublin and perhaps many more not directly affliated to ACRA—to inform their members of this scheme. I suggest to the Minister that he formulate some scheme whereby all tenants are informed of his intention when this Bill becomes law. This is most important. No matter how well-intended legislation may be there is always a danger that the public will not avail of it. I appeal to the Minister to use his influence to bring about some scheme to circularise all tenants so that they are made aware of this legislation. There are number of reasons for this, but the most important one is that the legislation covers a period of five years and it would be a pity if the scheme ran out of date just because people were not aware of what was there for them to avail of. Of course extra staff will be employed in the Land Registry office to cope with the initial inquiries.

Much has been said about the inequity of ground rents. One incident which comes to my mind and is on record is that when the Earl of Pembroke was striding out his estate in Dublin he was brought to Merrion Hill and given the opportunity of casting his gaze across Dublin. His footman went out and marked the land as far as he could see, and this was deemed to be his estate. Fortunately for those living on the north side of the city at Clontarf and Howth there must have been a mist in Dublin at the time because the peninsula of Howth is not included in the Pembroke estate. That is not a system of ground rents that stands up to fair measure.

What causes me some slight concern —I am sure the Minister is aware of this—is the possibility that at the arbitration stage there might well be some delays. It will be very necessary to maximise the effort at a highly efficient moving operation to cope with the number of inquiries that will flood in as a result of this welcome legislation. Deputy O'Keeffe said that it would be possible to do for £2 what we are doing for £5. He was doing a grave injustice to ACRA and this could cause immense confusion because it is on record that Deputy Cooney, the then Minister for Justice, said when replying on Second Stage of this lapsed Bill that £25 would be the minimum figure to cover the necessary costs at that time. It is necessary to make quite clear that no party political gain whatever arises from legislation of this kind because it is legislation running right across the board for every resident who is lumbered with the insecurity of ground rent.

The Minister and his staff are to be congratulated on the succinct and simple formula put forward in this legislation. It is easily understood, it is uncomplicated and it is non-contentious. My fear, if I have one, is that the general public will not be informed in sufficient numbers to avail of the provisions of such excellent legislation. It is up to every Member of this House to unite behind the Minister and to give every possible support to him in making known to the public that this legislation is in their interest.

Mr. Briscoe

Last week the Opposition criticised us for not putting in speakers. One speaker following the Minister was Deputy Woods and he made a valuable contribution. One reason why we did not put in speakers was that we were quite satisfied with this excellent legislation. We want it to go through as quickly as possible so that the people can benefit from it. We have been misunderstood in this respect. We have 83 members able to speak on this side of the House. The Ceann Comhairle may not speak. If we were to put in all the speakers we could and might possibly put in on this measure we could be accused by the Opposition—as we were before— of being arrogant or pushing our weight of numbers around. However, they want to hear from us so we are going to oblige them. There will be plenty of speakers from this side of the House.

The opposition decided to engage in a filibuster for reasons of their own. All right. No doubt they will accuse us of filibustering, but I do not think that charge can stand up, particularly in view of the speeches we have heard from the other side. Therefore it is incumbent on us on this side of the House to make our contributions to this most valuable legislation. It is not difficult legislation to talk to. Many years ago in a debate on the Constitution the then Taoiseach, Deputy Eamon de Valera, said that he could not make up his mind whether those on the Opposition side of the House were lawyers masquerading as politicians or politicians masquerading as lawyers. Listening to the arguments put forward by some of these lawyers, particularly their spokesman, Deputy O'Keeffe, from whom I would have expected better, I was amazed. The arguments put forward so far have reminded me of a former Member of this House who wrote a very famous book—I was going to say novel; in a sense it was—in which he gave two reasons why he resigned from an auspicious body, the second reason contradicting the first and neither of them being the real reason, because the real reason was that he was sacked. I will not identify him other than to say that I understand he works for The Observer now.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I thought the Deputy was referring to Deputy Kevin Boland.

Mr. Briscoe

The Observer is the paper he works for, so Members may draw their own conclusions. I want to draw attention to the speech of Deputy Barry Desmond last week. I am quoting from column 885, Volume 303, of the Official Report, of Wednesday, 8 February 1978 volume 303, column 885:

The legislation could have been enacted had we given it the priority it deserved. Unfortunately, the Cabinet for reasons best known to itself did not give it absolute priority as a result of which the Bill fell on the dissolution of the Dáil.

That Bill was introduced last February

Mr. G. Collins

January.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister has corrected me, January. The election did not take place until June. The dissolution of the Dáil was in mid-May. There was adequate time if the then Government had been serious.

When the Minister was Opposition spokesman on Justice he and I met a deputation from ACRA. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong but my recollection is that at no time did that body expect people to have their property confiscated. They understood, in a most reasonable manner, that compensation of some sort would have to be paid. The question was how. We thought long and hard on possible ways of achieving a solution. Deputy Kelly quite rightly said we cannot abolish ground rents constitutionally. To introduce such an amendment to the Constitution in a referendum would be throwing the baby out with the bath water because the rights to private property are enshrined in our Constitution. By agreeing to such an amendment to the Constitution, in future years people might fall victim to a Government who might decide to use it to confiscate other property.

Deputy Kelly said it was unlikely that ground landlords would use their powers to enter. He said they have done so in very few cases but he was glad to see that right going in the Bill. Similarly the Government would be unlikely to use the power to which I referred in the future to abuse the rights of the people, but it would be possible.

In June 1977 a sub-committee of ACRA circulated a document entitled "Ground Rent and You" stating their various aims. Their stated aim was to prohibit by law the creation of new ground rents. We have fulfilled that pledge. They also referred to the abolition of existing ground rents. In this Bill we are providing the machinery to abolish existing ground rents. They referred to compensating aggrieved parties. This is very important and it underlines what I said previously. There are some poor ground landlords as well as very wealthy ground landlords but at no time did ACRA wish to see ground landlords penalised.

They published the response from the Coalition Parties. They published our policy and quoted a letter received from Deputy G. Collins on behalf of Fianna Fáil in which he said that with reference to recent discussions with the ACRA sub-committee on ground rents 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 introducing the necessary legislation within six months of the formation of the Government. As the Minister said in his Second Stage speech, if he can be faulted on anything it is that it is a month later than promised.

Mr. G. Collins

It was not a month later than promised. I introduced it on 14 December.

Mr. McMahon

The Minister would not let Deputy Briscoe speak last week.

Mr. G. Collins

When the Deputy is ready to come in and speak for himself he can do so. I hope he will be a little more sensible than some of his party members who have already spoken.

Mr. McMahon

Why did the Minister not let him speak last week?

Mr. G. Collins

The Deputy should speak for himself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies please. Deputy McMahon will have an opportunity to speak if he wishes.

Mr. Briscoe

They looked for an argument and now they are getting one they do not like it one bit.

Mr. McMahon

Deputy Briscoe did his best last week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Briscoe.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy will have to take his medicine. This will be one of the finer Bills on which we can look back with pride. Having studied the contributions by the Coalition Parties last Wednesday, it appears to me that they did not study the Bill or read the Minister's speech. One Deputy contradicted another. One Deputy contradicted himself in the same speech. Now we will straighten out a few matters. i apologise to the Minister for saying he did not introduce the Bill within six months. In fact he did. We have lived up to our promise on this.

The community candidates and Sinn Féin, the worker's party, put forward their policies. People were urged to read a particular leaflet and judge the facts for themselves before casting their votes and to make sure their votes were votes to end the ground rent system. Many people read that leaflet and voted accordingly and that is one of the reasons why we are here today and the Opposition are over there. That is democracy. People know that when Fianna Fáil give a pledge they live up to it.

I should like to refer to the ACRA document. One of the points they made was about the failure of landlords to demand ground rents from lessees over a period of years and the compensation due to lessees. They said the right of eviction must be taken from the landlord. That has been done. In regard to the manner in which he can gain entry they said he would have to go to the courts in the same way as any other debtor would, and the landlord would have process of recovery in debt only for arrears in ground rent due, if any, up to the termination or cessation date. They said local authority tenants must also be included in the legislation. We have done that. They quoted certain articles of the Constitution to make their case for introducing the kind of legislation which would abolish ground rents outright. There is no way.

The Minister can correct me if I am wrong but one of the figures he quoted in his Second Reading speech as to the estimated cost to the State of compensation was £30 million minimum. Some people gave a possible estimate of £100 million. We learned recently from the Minister for Economic Planning and Development that £30 million could create 4,000 jobs. No sane political party could ask any Government to use £30 million—I am speaking about minimum figures and I think we would all agree that £30 million is a very low minimum—in place of 4,000 extra jobs.

I should like to say what this means to many people who have to pay ground rents of, say, between £12 and £20 annually. Most of the houses built in the last ten years would carry ground rents of approximately £18 to £20 a year. One must remember the irritation these bills cause, particularly to elderly people—it is not that they have not the money to pay—who resent the bills coming in perhaps twice a year, £9 every six months. I am quite sure such people will be pleased to avail of this opportunity of the £5 bargain of the century in order to purchase their ground rents. It is extremely important that such people know their rights because many of them are the last to hear of new legislation. I hope that ACRA, as the central body of residents' associations, will ensure that every residents' association affiliated to them, in turn, informs everyone within their area, so that everybody will know they can now buy out their ground rent for £5. The Minister has stated that where there is any question of title or where further searches have to be made then there may be a fee of £12 involved whereas previously hundreds of pounds may have been charged.

Criticism has been levelled at the fact that the Land Registry office in Dublin is being used instead of the county registrars. In this respect the Minister has considered very carefully the economics of it. He has arranged that a separate section will be set up to deal exclusively with ground rents. Extra staff are being taken on—qualified and experienced people—which will ensure that most of the applications coming in will be dealt with expeditiously.

Criticism has been levelled also at the Minister because this Bill legislates for a period of five years—people have five years within which to buy out their ground rents. Many people may have been given the impression by members of the Opposition that if they have not lodged their applications within five years they may not come within the scope of the provisions of this Bill. That would be misleading and untrue. Anybody who has lodged within five years their claim to acquire the fee simple will come under the provisions of this Bill, and there is no question about that. I am quite certain that within six months or a year from now there will be questions tabled to the Minister asking him how many applications there have been from people to buy out their ground rents.

The Minister in his introductory remarks on Second Stage, at column 788 of the Official Report of 8 February 1978 said:

I have always been clear that the real problem of ground rents is the problem of legal costs.

Everybody will agree that that has been the big problem.

In an interview with the Minister in The Sunday Press of 15 January 1978 he was asked:

If ground rents are banned for the future, is not that an admission that they were always immoral?

The Minister went into quite a lengthy explanation but the most important part of it was when he said:

But when the Government of the day in 1967—and it was a Fianna Fáil Government—brought in a Bill giving tenants a legal right to buy out their ground rents, they did not ban the creation of further ground rents because they were afraid, and with very good reason, that to do so at that time would have pushed up the prices of new houses for young couples to a serious degree, causing great hardship. Taking account of the interest rates prevailing at the time, which would nowadays be considered very low, the capitalised value of a ground rent then could have been of the order of £200 to £300 at a time when the house itself might have cost about £2,000 to £3,000.

The prohibition of grounds at that time could have pushed up the price of houses by as much as 10 per cent, maybe more, but nowadays the price of houses has escalated up to ten times over, and today, taking account of current interest rates, the abolition of a ground rent wouldn't be likely to push up the price of a new house by more than 1 per cent and it could well be less than that.

One per cent of the cost of a house as against 10 per cent in 1967. That was one of the arguments advanced— I remember it well because I was in this House two years at the time— when this Bill was introduced. It was one of the arguments we heard then against abolition, because our primary objective was to keep down the price of houses. Had ground rents been abolished then, as the Minister stated quite clearly, it would have meant a large percentage factor increase in the price of a house.

I should like to refer to certain passages of Deputy O'Keeffe's contribution which I have marked. At column 797 of the Offical Report for Wednesday, 8 February 1978, he said in relation to our pledge to introduce a scheme which would lead to the abolition of existing residential 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.

That is the most dishonest interpretation that could have been put on it. As I have said, I do not know whether we have lawyers masquerading as politicians or politicans masquerading as lawyers, but that can be construed only as a deliberate misrepresentation of the statement on our scheme to abolish ground rents.

An Ceann Comhairle

The accusation that a Deputy deliberately misled the House is not in order.

Mr. Briscoe

The remarks he made had the characteristics he attributed to us.

An Ceann Comhairle

There may not be a reflection on an individual.

Mr. Briscoe

I have quoted what Deputy O'Keeffe said about our pledge and I will direct his accusation against us back on him—I am using his own choice of language against him. I would be surprised if I were not in order in doing that. Deputy Kelly agreed that the Minister for Justice is doing more than the Coalition Bill would have done, and Deputy Desmond welcomed the Bill saying that it does more than the Coalition Bill.

When the Coalition introduced their Bill the then Minister for Justice, now Senator Cooney, promised to deal with the question of legal costs after the Bill had been passed, that it was something they would have to look at. Therefore, there was no way of knowing what the legal costs would be. We have spelled them out at £5. I would have expected Deputy O'Keeffe, as Fine Gael spokesman on Justice, to have researched the legislation introduced by his party but which they did not have the political will to see through. At column 798 Deputy O'Keeffe is reported:

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.

The Minister made it quite clear he was aware of Land Registry delays. He said these delays would be taken care of, that more staff would be recruited, that a special section would be set up. Deputy O'Keeffe made no reference to that. Consequently, I assume that he was so busy following his own script that he did not listen to the Minister, although he spoke immediately after the Minister. At column 799 Deputy O'Keeffe is reported as having said:

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.

I question that, and I am sure the Minister will have an adequate reply. What Deputy O'Keeffe said is that a person can buy a ground rent for something of the order of £2.

Mr. Belton

The Bill was not passed.

Mr. G. Collins

The 1967 Bill was.

Mr. Briscoe

There is nothing in the Coalition Bill about legal fees. Later on in his speech, reported at column 802, Deputy O'Keeffe quoted a statement by Deputy Collins when in Opposition:

We are absolutely in favour of the legal 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.

That only helps the Minister's case. At no time did the Minister for Justice say we would introduce legislation to abolish ground rents outright. He said there would be constitutional difficulties and today Deputy Kelly said that constitutionally we cannot abolish ground rents. In our discussions with ACRA, to the best of my knowledge we never said: "Gentlemen, if we are returned to office we will abolish ground rents." If we had said that we would have been fooling them and discrediting ourselves. We do not stoop to this kind of tactics. We have always spelt out things as they are. Those people on that deputation know what was stated. At column 802 of the Official Report, Deputy O'Keeffe quoted Deputy Ray Burke, developing the argument further, as saying:

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——

Deputy Ray Burke was appealing to the then Government to drastically reduce the legal fees involved. The then Government were not prepared to do this. That was evidenced by the legislation they produced. I cannot understand the quotations which Deputy O'Keeffe chose to illustrate his case against this Government. We would love to be able to make a present of ground rents to people if that could be done without penalising other people. As I stated earlier, not all landlords are wealthy. Many of them depend on their ground rents as their only source of income. These people form quite a sizeable proportion of the people who will be affected by this legislation and they have rights which we are protecting. Nobody could reasonably argue that these people do not have rights to be protected. At column 803 of the Official Report Deputy O'Keeffe said——

Mr. O'Keeffe

What about finishing the quotation from Deputy Burke?

Mr. G. Collins

Deputy O'Keeffe was fairly selective in a very dishonest fashion.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must be allowed to continue.

Mr. Briscoe

I am quite happy to finish the quotation. Deputy Ray Burke said in relation to the nettle, "We have heard that expression before somewhere." Then he finished the sentence:

—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.

Does the Deputy agree that this is a method?

Mr. O'Keeffe

Finish the quotation.

Mr. Briscoe

That is the end of it. The next line is:

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.

That is the Deputy reading into Deputy Burke's mind what Deputy Burke was thinking. Deputy Burke did not say that. I am now quoting Deputy O'Keeffe who stated at that stage that the Minister's colleague had in mind——

Mr. O'Keeffe

Quote the scheme the Deputy produced?

Mr. Briscoe

I have looked at that. I am quite happy to make my own speech. I am satisfied from reading anything Deputy Burke stated there that at no time was there any commitment or any suggestion that we should abolish ground rents outright. There was an aspiration to do that if it could be done without hurting a large number of people. If we introduced a Bill in this House to do that the Deputy would be one of the first people to attack us vigorously for doing such an unconstitutional act. I cannot believe that the Deputy would be in favour of introducing a constitutional amendment which would deprive people of rights to private property. I do not believe that the Deputy wants that and I am certain that no member of his party wants that.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Quote Deputy Burke's suggestion.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Burke suggested setting up a board similar to the Land Commission.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Exactly.

Mr. Briscoe

That is Deputy Burke's opinion with which I would not agree and with which the Minister obviously does not agree. People do not want bonds, they want money in their hands. I am sure the Deputy has dealt with many cases in the Land Commission and he is well aware that people would rather have the money than the bonds. I agree with the Minister in his wisdom and I am satisfied that his judgment is correct. The Minister when concluding his speech did not forget to compliment the members of the Landlord and Tenant Commission who played such an important part.

It has already been stated that many of the parts of this legislation were contained in the original Bill introduced by the Coalition. We have improved their Bill considerably. This has been admitted by certain Deputies, particularly Deputy Barry Desmond who lives in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown constituency where this is a real problem. I am certain that the people in that constituency will admire his honesty in welcoming the Bill. Deputy Desmond considers that the Bill does not go far enough, but no Bill will ever be introduced that will go far enough to satisfy all Deputies. We will do what we can in the best way we can. If ACRA are correct in assessing the will of the people to be enabled to buy out their ground rents, then within one year or so this Bill will be proved to have been a success.

Later on, at column 805 of the Official Report, Deputy O'Keeffe went on to say:

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.

That is not true because no legal fees were set out in the Coalition Bill. I am satisfied that people will be able to judge that for themselves. At column 806 Deputy O'Keeffe stated:

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.

Again, that was another contradiction from the Deputy, who went on to say:

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.

I shall not detain the House by quoting the entire speech.

Mr. McMahon

The Deputy has quoted a lot of it.

Mr. Briscoe

I am not a lawyer but I know that people are sometimes in awe of solicitors or barristers and are reluctant to argue legal points with them. I have no wish to denigrate the legal profession but from my years of experience as a public representative I am convinced that the ordinary man in the street often knows more about law than some solicitors. I am not including in that all lawyers, but it can be said of quite a number of them. Perhaps Deputy O'Keeffe will agree. It has been said that lawyers sometimes learn more in their first year of practice than they learn in all the years of study leading up to their degrees. Many of the arguments put forward, for purposes of political expediency, by Deputy O'Keeffe would not be accepted even by somebody studying law. One could drive a coach-and-four through many of his arguments, but I appreciate that he was speaking from the point of view of political expediency.

In concluding his remarks Deputy O'Keeffe said, as reported at column 809 of the Official Report, to which I have referred already:

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.

I can only wonder whether the Deputy has been quoted correctly. In any case, that statement is very naïve and one that I would not have expected from a spokesman on Justice. Whatever else he may have to say about the Bill he must not say that it has nothing to do with the abolition of ground rents. However, on Committee Stage he will have an opportunity of clarifying what he said.

I would recommend generally the perusal of an article on this subject which appeared in The Sunday Press of 15 January. Perhaps it is an article that that paper could publish again after the Bill has been put through both Houses. It contained full and useful information and was couched in language that was easy to understand. It contained no lofty language, as Shakespeare said: “Where be not its quiddities and its quips”. The article referred to the legislation as “the bargain of the century”, and rightly so.

The Minister and his officials have worked very hard on this Bill. They have made many improvements in it. The opposition have expressed concern regarding the number of speakers offering from this side of the House and have interpreted this to mean that we are not in favour of the Bill. Let me reiterate that the party unanimously are happy with the legislation. While people would like always to see more being done in any sphere, there is no one in this party who is against the Bill. It is an improvement on the previous Bill. However, if it is the wish of the Opposition, we shall be happy for many of our members to speak on the Bill and when the Opposition decide that they have heard enough we shall call it a day.

Mr. O'Keeffe

There has been a big change in the past few days.

Mr. Briscoe

Had we put in more speakers we might have been accused of filibustering, but there is plenty of time so far as we are concerned. Many of our Deputies are anxious to speak on the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward two great pieces of legislation and, particularly, in bringing them forward within the time promised by us.

Mr. McMahon

He was pushed into doing so on the day before the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Briscoe

I am sure that the people would not have complained had we been a month or so late, but we have delivered on time. Unlike the Coalition in regard to their 14-point plan, we are keeping our promises. We can be proud to go before the people at the time of the next election.

Mr. O'Keeffe

You can promise them again that the ground rents will be abolished.

Mr. Briscoe

I have met with representatives of ACRA and I am satisfied that at no time were they under any illusion that there would not be compensation. That is stated in their document.

Mr. McMahon

But what did the Fianna Fáil representatives say on the doorsteps before the election?

Mr. G. Collins

I shudder to think of what some of the people opposite were saying even about each other. Incidentally, I noticed that Deputy O'Keeffe did not defend Deputy Cosgrave in Killarney recently.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I should like to have details of that.

Mr. G. Collins

I read about it in The Kerryman.

Mr. O'Keeffe

This is the first I have heard of it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. Deputy Briscoe on the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

What we said was understood generally by the people and accepted by them. They are very pleased with the way in which we are fulfilling our promises.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Briscoe said that at no time did ACRA favour the abolition of ground rents.

Mr. Briscoe

I added the words "without compensation". That is what they said in their document.

Mr. Belton

If you abolish some thing, you wipe it out completely.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy is omitting to complete what I said. I read from the ACRA document.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Belton.

Mr. Belton

I would refer the House to column 181 of the Official Report of 23 February 1977 where it is reported that Deputy Ray Burke had this to say:

A campaign for the abolition of ground rents has been waged for many years, particularly by ACRA, on the principle that when a man buys a house he should also own the bit of land on which it is built.

Mr. Briscoe

I thought the Deputy was quoting me.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Briscoe said that at no time did ACRA favour the abolition of ground rents without payment.

Mr. Briscoe

They understood that compensation would be paid.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Belton, without interruption, please.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Burke believed that ACRA had a campaign. Much has been said of a scheme that would lead to the abolition of ground rents. It is very difficult to know exactly when Fianna Fáil changed their mind in regard to the abolition of ground rents. It is clear beyond doubt that originally they favoured the abolition of ground rents, as can be seen from their statements at the time the Coalition Government introduced the Landlord and Tenant Bill. On 23 February 1977 at column 163, Volume 297, of the Official Report, Deputy Collins as he then was, now the Minister, stated:

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

I suggest that the abolition of ground rents was as much in the Coalition's Bill as it is in this Bill. Deputy Collins, as he then was, was very disappointed.

Mr. G. Collins

Would the Deputy take a point of information form me? Perhaps, in the interests of fair play all round, the Deputy might read the full extract there, because the disappointment the Deputy is talking about is not my disappointment. This is a point that was cleverly overlooked by other speakers of the Deputy's party during the course of this debate, and falsely implies that I said that I was disappointed.

Mr. Belton

The start of the quotation is:

The Bill provides that no new ground rents can be created. That is a big step forward and one with which this party are in full agreement. We have been committed to it for a considerable time.

Mr. G. Collins

Right.

Mr. Belton

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

Mr. G. Collins

Would the Deputy carry on for the next four or five lines?

Mr. Belton

Yes:

It is fair to say that those involved in this area had great hopes that this would be catered for in the Bill, particularly having due regard to the statements made in recent times——

by Deputy Richie Ryan and I think it is Deputy Tully.

Mr. G. Collins

That is right.

Mr. Belton

You expected it.

Mr. G. Collins

The Deputy now fully understands that the implication he was trying to infer is not there?

Mr. Mitchell

Are these interruptions by the Minister in order?

Mr. G. Collins

The Deputy accepted a point of clarification in the interests of truth and fair play.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am opposed to this type of dialogue across the House but, unfortunately, the Deputy and the Minister seemed to agree to it. I am not in favour of it.

Mr. Belton

If I may be allowed to quote——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy to continue without interruption.

Mr. Belton

If I may be allowed to quote from the same volume of the Dáil Official Report, at column 180. Deputy Raphael Burke said:

The second element in the ground rents question is the whole vexed question of existing ground rents and how to handle them. Proposals have been introduced in this Bill giving power to the county registrars but I suggest that the Bill does not meet the legitimate demands made for the abolition of ground rents.

That was Deputy Burke.

Mr. G. Collins

He was right in saying that because the Bill introduced by your Minister was not going to lead to the abolition of ground rents.

Mr. O'Keeffe

No more than this one will.

Mr. G. Collins

My Bill will, and the Deputy knows it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Belton is on the Bill and should be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Belton

I continue with a quotation from Deputy Burke at column 181:

A campaign for the abolition of ground rents has been waged for many years, particularly by ACRA, on the principle that when a man buys a house——

that is what I quoted for Deputy Briscoe before he left the House. Surely the Minister will agree that if ACRA waged that campaign for many years on the principle that when a man buys his house he should own it, that implies that he should not have to pay anything further?

Mr. G. Collins

No, Sir, it does not. It does not imply that he should have it without compensating the person who legally owned it.

Mr. Belton

That he should legally own it.

Mr. G. Collins

He did not say that. Be fair to him.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Burke stated that. It is in the official Dáil Debates.

Mr. G. Collins

The Deputy is being selective in his quotations, as was his party's spokesman.

Mr. Belton

I started that quotation, as the Minister asked, from the beginning.

Mr. Mitchell

The record is there, whether the Minister likes it or not.

Mr. G. Collins

I will have something to say about your contribution when I get a chance. You have contradicted yourself five times.

Mr. Belton

The Minister told us he was introducing a trilogy of legislation to deal with ground rents and other matters relating to the Landlord and Tenant Acts. The first was a Bill to prohibit the creation of future ground rents, which is now before the Seanad and which, please God, will soon be law, and the second was the present Bill. I do not know at what stage the Government decided to change because they themselves believed at one time in the abolition of ground rents. They probably realised, as Deputy Cooney, now Senator Cooney, had stated on several occasions, that there was a constitutional barrier to abolishing ground rents. They knew, as Deputy Cooney had told them, that ground rents could not be abolished without reference to amendment of the Constitution.

The supporters of Fianna Fáil gave the impression to ACRA and some people fairly well connected with Fianna Fáil, maybe not directly members of ACRA, but members of prominent associations affiliated to ACRA, that Fianna Fáil were going to abolish ground rents. I can remember, as can any member of my party here in Dublin, meeting with members of ACRA who were out actively canvassing for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. G. Collins

Does the Deputy not know that a nephew of the former Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the former Deputy Jones, was chairman of ACRA? Is he implying that he was canvassing for Fianna Fáil?

Mr. Belton

These were not candidates or relations of candidates, just ordinary members.

Mr. G. Collins

He was chairman of it.

Mr. Belton

When we asked why they were canvassing for Fianna Fáil they said Fianna Fáil were going to do away with ground rents, Fianna Fáil were going to abolish ground rents. We told them the truth, that Fianna Fáil could not abolish ground rents without amending the Constitution, and they did not believe us. They told us they had an assurance from Fianna Fáil that ground rents would be abolished.

Mr. G. Collins

Do you know that the assurance was in writing, clearly spelling out what we were going to do, which we are going to do?

Mr. O'Keeffe

That was the escape clause.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Mitchell

It was not in the Limerick Leader. Does the Minister remember the bit in the Limerick Leader about the rates?

Mr. G. Collins

When the Deputy is here as long as I have been and when he does as well at the polls as I do, he may talk.

Mr. Belton

The Minister is not satisfied that this Bill will lead to the abolition of ground rents.

Mr. G. Collins

It will.

Mr. Belton

If I may quote from the Dáil Official Report of 8 February 1978, Volume 303, column 788, where the Minister says:

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.

Mr. G. Collins

I do.

Mr. Belton

You are not definite.

Mr. G. Collins

The Deputy's party are advising them not to participate in the scheme. Deputy O'Keeffe is trying to confuse the issue so that they will not participate in the scheme. He is trying to sabotage the scheme.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Utter rubbish.

Mr. G. Collins

It is the truth. You cannot get away with it. You would like to sabotage it.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I said that this scheme is exactly the same as our scheme.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. The Deputy in possession must be allowed to speak.

Mr. O'Keeffe

The Minister is deliberately misleading.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. G. Collins

On a point of order, is it in order to say that the Minister is deliberately misleading?

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies are becoming disorderly or over enthusiastic and I would ask them, once and for all, to permit Deputy Belton to continue without interruption.

Mr. Belton

I suggest to the Minister that this Bill goes no further towards the abolition of ground rents than the Coalition Bill. It may differ in some detail.

Mr. G. Collins

In the most important detail, the financial one.

Mr. Belton

I quote from the Minister's speech on the 23 February 1977 as it appears at column 162 of the Official Report:

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.

Mr. G. Collins

That is right. I said that, but the Minister could not specify what the cost would be and in reply to the debate he said it would definitely be not less than £25.

Mr. Belton

The Minister stated that the cost would not be fixed until the Bill was passed. The Minister will recall, as Deputy O'Keeffe has stated, that if that Bill were law today the cost of applying to the county registrar to purchase ground rent would be £2.

Mr. G. Collins

Perhaps Deputy O'Keeffe should explain the matter to Deputy Belton. If Deputy Belton thinks that the full cost would be £2, Deputy O'Keeffe has succeeded in misleading him in the same way that he has misled many other members of his party.

Mr. Belton

That is the present cost. As well as that, the Minister will agree that the National Coalition Bill provided for a multiple of seven-and-a-half as against eight-and-a-half years' purchase under his scheme. At least he will agree that the cost of purchase would have been lower.

Mr. G. Collins

The National Coalition did not introduce anything. They wrote out a blank cheque and did not sign it. They did not have the political will to make progress.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Belton has the right to continue, without interruption.

Mr. G. Collins

I apologise to Deputy Belton.

Mr. Belton

When a previous Motion on ground rents was before the House the Minister said that it was 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. He said that Fianna Fáil were absolutely in favour of the total abolition of ground rents but were acutely aware that this could cause constitutional problems and that by doing away with one injustice another injustice could be created.

Mr. G. Collins

Quite so.

Mr. Belton

The Minister will agree that no other meaning could be taken from the words "we are absolutely in favour of the total abolition of ground rents".

Mr. G. Collins

I was not going to break the Constitution or deny people their rights.

Mr. Mitchell

Is the Minister allowed a running commentary on a Deputy's speech?

An Ceann Comhairle

No. I do not want a running commentary and I do not want it to be invited either. I would appeal to the Minister to allow Deputy Belton to continue.

Mr. Belton

The Minister was aided and abetted by the present Minister of State at the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy, Deputy Ray Burke. He appealed to the Government to ensure that something would be included in the new legislation to reduce drastically the legal fees involved in the purchase of ground rents. Even if that were done, the Government are not grasping the nettle. The Minister is on record as saying that he is aware that the problem must be dealt with by drastically reducing the cost.

Mr. G. Collins

I was the spokesman. The Fine Gael spokesman could not agree with what Deputy Mitchell said last week.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister will have the opportunity of closing the debate.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Burke went on to say that ground rents would remain until some Governments decided to abolish them by some method and he said that until then there would be legitimate agitation and bad feeling about the payment of this barren tax. Finally, he said that some Government must produce a solution to this constitutional difficulty and that the Government have a responsibility to use all the legal expertise available to them in the civil service and in the courts to devise a scheme to get around this difficulty. Deputy Burke believed that the Government should produce a solution to the constitutional difficulty. I wonder if he agrees that the Government now in office should produce such a solution by using all the available expertise.

Mr. G. Collins

He is quite happy with what I am doing and that the scheme will lead to the abolition of ground rents.

Mr. O'Keeffe

The Government copied our Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Belton is speaking on the Bill. The Minister should allow him to continue.

Mr. G. Collins

I will deal with this when I speak. We will not bring in the guillotine as was done so often before.

Mr. Belton

The only Deputy who has dared to speak so far on the Government side is Deputy Woods. He said at column 819, Volume 303 of the Official Report of 8 February 1978:

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.

He recognised that this only gave to residents' associations the power to make deals with ground landlords to assist in the abolition of existing ground rents.

Debate adjourned.