: I move amendment No. 10:
In page 11, line 20, to delete "five" and substitute "twentyfive".
This amendment relates to the period of time during which the simplified procedures for purchase of dwelling houses shall continue. Section 18 provides that these simplified procedures shall have effect only in relation to applications made under that section during a period of five years. The amendment proposes that this period should be increased to 25 years. This would mean that householders would have a much longer time during which to take advantage of the terms of the Bill.
There is a rather long tradition in respect of ground rents. I am sure that the Minister as well as Deputy Enright and I had in mind ensuring that every person paying ground rent would have the option and should be encouraged to buy out his ground rent. It seems clear that if this is the object it will not be achieved within a five-year period nor even within a 25-year period. If we are genuinely anxious that householders convert their titles into freehold by taking advantage of the Bill, is it not obvious that the longer period in which they have to do that the better chance there is of the desired situation being brought about.
I have no doubt that by substituting a period of 25 years, far more people will take advantage of the legislation. On Committee Stage the Minister referred to the need to put a time limit on the Bill. The main point he made was the need to introduce a sense of urgency so that people would take advantage of the Bill. That sense of urgency is there already, on the part of those who intend taking advantage immediately of the legislation. These are the people who will apply to the registrar to purchase their ground rents very soon after the Bill is enacted. However, by no stretch of the imagination will the number of people who will be involved initially go anywhere near the total number paying ground rent. This Bill, as is the case with most landlord and tenant legislation, is very complex and many householders do not understand fully what it is all about.
In view of the rather complex legalities involved I do not blame people for not understanding the legislation. It will be a long time before many of them become aware of their entitlements under the legislation. That awareness may arise only by chance when, for instance, property is passing to another member of a family or when there is a marriage settlement or in the event of someone selling a house and moving to another. At that point they would be likely to wish to take advantage of the legislation. I do not accept the Minister's point that there must be a relatively short time limit in order to encourage people to take advantage of the Bill. People involved in a tenant organisation who are involved actively in following this legislation will be all right. They know the situation. There is no need for any pressure to be brought to bear on them. They will be standing by waiting for the registrar's office to open. However, that situation applies only to a certain section. Let us look after all sections. It was my intention originally that there would be no time limit but if the Minister insists that there must be a time limit, let us make the period one during which many more people would be enabled to take advantage of the legislation.
The second point made by the Minister on Committee Stage related to the amount of effort and money the Exchequer would devote to manning and maintaining the ground rents section of the Land Registry. Surely the Minister must accept that with the effort that is put into establishing such a section and into recruiting the necessary personnel and providing all the necessary trimmings that go with that operation, it is not sensible to impose a cut-off point after five years. The major expense involved would have been incurred already and in the main the only continuing expense thereafter would be the payment of the staff but since at that stage the staff would be civil servants, presumably the Minister could find other jobs for them in the Department. I suggest that the proper course to adopt would be to allow the staff continue doing the job for as long as necessary. If the Minister accepts that it will be necessary to extend the legislation for longer than five years why should he draw the line?
I do not want at this stage to appear to be speaking politically or to raise the matter of words like "abolition". If we are seriously interested in giving ground rent tenants the opportunity to buy out, let us put it on the Statute Book and give them a reasonable time in which to do so. The period of five years is not a reasonable time. I would hazard a guess that the majority of people will not be able to take advantage of this Bill during the five year period. There are many examples I could give of categories of people who will not be able to do so. The obvious thing to do is to extend the time. If the Minister wants to put some limit on the provisions of this Bill, the recommendation we have made is that it should be increased to 25 years. That is not unreasonable. If the life of this part of the Bill were extended to 25 years, there is a fair chance that most people would have knowledge of the situation and would have the opportunity to take advantage of it. In such a situation it might be difficult to have any sympathy for people who would not have availed of the section at the end of that time.
I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment and to accept that the five-year period is too short. If there has to be a time limit, the period of 25 years is much more reasonable. If we are seriously interested in achieving the end of the ground rents system, then by changing the limit from five years to 25 years we have a far greater chance of the majority of householders taking advantage of the provisions of the Bill. If we do not change, any pretentions about achieving the end of the ground rents system cannot stand up. I cannot put it more strongly than that.