Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 1984

Vol. 352 No. 4

Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (Amendment) Bill, 1984: Second Stage.

, Limerick East): I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for an extension of the period of operation of the special ground rents purchase scheme that is administered by the Land Registry, subject to an increase in the fees payable under the scheme.

This purchase scheme supplements the scheme of ground rent purchase that is provided by the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, 1967. It was introduced by the No. 2 Ground Rents Act of 1978; it applies to dwellinghouses and it was originally given a life of five years to 31 July 1983. However, its life was extended for a period of 12 months, that is, to 31 July next, by the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (Amendment) Act, 1983, subject to an increase in fees.

As I explained to this House in the course of debate on the Bill that became law as the 1983 Act, there were two main reasons for providing last year's extension of the life of the scheme. One was the large number of purchase applications that began to pour into the Land Registry as the original five-year period drew to a close. It became clear that, were the scheme not to be extended, many intending purchasers might be unable to lodge completed applications in time. The other main reason was that, because of mounting arrears of work arising from these belated applications, the Land Registry staff concerned would in any event have to continue their work under the scheme until well after the original termination date. That being the case there might have been little enough actual saving if the scheme had been allowed to end last year, as against providing some extension.

In the event, however, last year's rush of applications continued at such a pace that any idea of disposing of arrears within the following 12 months became impracticable. In the second place, it became clear that fresh applications made under the scheme during the period of its extension were by no means confined to applications from those who might have been unable to lodge completed applications before the original expiry date for the scheme. The fact is that, for quite some time past, the Land Registry have continued to receive fresh applications at a remarkably steady rate of about 400 per month.

Clearly, there are still numbers of ground rent tenants who are anxious to avail themselves of the scheme and who see it as a relatively simple and inexpensive way of buying out the fee simple of their properties. Given the problem posed by the arrears from last year, however, the Land Registry are yet some considerable time away from being able to deal on a current basis with even this moderate flow of applications.

It is in these circumstances that the Government have decided to propose a further extension of the scheme, this time for a period of three years. The extension is being accompanied by a further increase in fees. The fees that were fixed when the scheme was introduced in 1978 did not by any means cover the cost of administering it. This was understood and accepted at the time. It was recognised that the fees were little more than nominal and the idea was to encourage ground rent purchase.

However, last year's extension of the scheme was accompanied by an increase in the fees payable, although public funds have in fact continued to bear a significant part of the cost of the scheme even following the introduction of last year's increase in fees. The main reason for this is the large number of applications that were made at the old fees and that are still being processed. This makes it difficult to estimate what level of fees would actually cover costs if arrears did not come into the reckoning. The best estimate that can be made is that an increase of 75 per cent in the level of fees is the minimum that is needed to cover costs in respect of new applications. Provision for that increase is made in section 3 of the Bill so far as concerns applications from purchasers who are in occupation of their dwellinghouses. Corresponding increases in the remaining fees will be promulgated by way of a fees order, following enactment into law of this Bill.

Since the scheme is being extended for a further period of three years, since costs could change in the course of that period and since the increase of 75 per cent is very much a minimum estimate, it is necessary to make provision for further changes in the level of the fees so as to keep them in line with costs, and that is what is proposed in subsection (2) of section 3 of the Bill. It provides that the existing power to change fees by order will in future extend to all fees — up to the present some fees have been fixed by the statute and could not be changed by order.

Section 4 of the Bill proposes certain changes in relation to the fee payable under section 26 of the 1978 No. 2 Act. Section 26 of that Act gives ground rent tenants of housing authorities the right to buy out the fee simple, subject to certain conditions. The fee simple is vested in the purchasing lessee by way of a transfer order under section 90 of the Housing Act, 1966, and section 26 of the 1978 No. 2 Act fixes a fee of £5 for the issue of that transfer order. This fee has so far remained unchanged, despite last year's increase in the fees payable under the Land Registry scheme.

It may, perhaps, be accepted that the considerations that apply in the case of the section 26 fee are not those that apply in the case of the Land Registry fees. Nevertheless, the lowest fee payable under the Land Registry scheme was also £5 in 1978, was increased to £15 last year and is now to become £26. In the circumstances it is, I think, only reasonable that the section 26 fee should now be increased to £20, and that it should be open to variation in the future by way of a fees order in the same way as fees generally may be so varied. Section 4 of the Bill provides for these changes. Any fees order under section 26 of the 1978 No. 2 Act, it is proposed, will be made by the Minister for the Environment since the section 26 fee is payable to a housing authority. I commend the Bill to the House.

We welcome the extension of the special ground rents purchase scheme for a further three years which scheme as the Minister said, was introduced in 1978 by Fianna Fáil to facilitate purchase. Last year I proposed that the one year extension then being given should be extended to three years, which was reasonable. I am glad that the Minister has now come around to this point of view. Administratively, it will be far more preferable.

We totally reject and oppose the proposed 400 per cent increase in fees over those which applied a year ago. This time last year the fees were £5 without arbitration and £12 plus £5, making £17, when there was arbitration. Now a fee of £26 is proposed without arbitration and an additional £63; making it £89, if there is arbitration. We are opposed to these increases on the grounds that the basic intention of the Bill was to have a very nominal fee. In our view these proposals are going well beyond that level.

We also oppose the power which the Minister is seeking under section 3 and to which he referred in his speech. This will enable him to raise these fees at any time to meet the full cost of dealing with applications by residents of dwellinghouses who wish to buy up their ground rents. Not only is the fee being increased excessively at this stage in our view but, in addition, the Minister is taking the power to increase it at any time in the future over the three year period — for instance, in six months, a year or 18 months, whatever the case might be.

The danger is that the Minister for Finance will ask the Minister for Justice in the next Estimate to meet the full cost which will be reckoned at considerably more again. We have lost totally the nominal character of the measures in this Bill and are opposed to this change. We believe that the Minister's proposals as outlined will have a disastrous effect on the scheme to buy up existing ground rents. The excessively increased charges which initially will amount to £89 where arbitration is involved will be a very distinct disincentive to those who want to use the scheme. The Minister's proposals are a very definite departure from the initial concept of the fees being nominal and from the spirit of this legislation as introduced initially. I know that the Minister will say, as he did last year when increasing the charges threefold from £5 to £15, that this is only allowing for inflation in the intervening period. In effect, to allow for inflation would have brought the fee then from £5 to just over £9. It is quite clear that going from that up to £26 and, where arbitration is concerned, to £89, is going far beyond the effects of inflation and is changing the character of the scheme. The Minister may say that we must save money where we can from the public purse and that there is a question of staff involved. He made much play of that last year in the debate on this whole issue. That is to set aside the character of the scheme and to attempt to regard it in the same way as all other schemes. The whole intention was to encourage and assist people to buy out the basic fee simple of their dwellings. This legislation was brought in because of constitutional difficulties which existed in abolishing ground rents altogether. People on all sides of the House were anxious to see an end to the ground rents system and in order to encourage that wanted a scheme introduced which would be particularly attractive. We are now departing further from that and while we welcome the extension as being wise and very helpful, the increase in fees will have a very bad effect.

I have spoken to some of the people involved in ACRA. In my innocence I thought that they might be disappointed that the fees were so increased but their approach is that they are delighted with that because they do not want people to pay any more ground rents on private dwellings. They say that this increase will be a very distinct discouragement to people to do so. It suits their overall plan of encouraging people not to buy out. Unfortunately, that is the effect of this increase.

The Minister will argue that the amounts of money are relatively small but the ground rents themselves, as the Minister said last year, are relatively small, being of the order of £80, £100 or £150. The principle involved here is distasteful. People on all sides of the House support the abolition of ground rents at the earliest possible date. It is for that reason that they have been abolished on all future dwelling houses. That has been operating now since 1978.

The Minister said that the number of applications is running at a fairly satisfactory level of about 400 a month, which is 4,800 a year. In reply to my parliamentary question of 14 June 1983, the rates at which it was running were given as follows: in the year 1980, 5,181; in 1981, 5,838; in the year 1982, 6,128. It was estimated at that time, on the basis of the seven months which had elapsed that it would be in excess of 6,000 in 1983. Perhaps the Minister, when replying, or on Committee Stage, would tell us just how many there were at that stage. I accept that there is a continuing demand but if anything it has dropped somewhat. The figure given by the Minister of 4,800 is less than any of the figures which I have quoted. On the basis of the demand continuing, however, it is well worth while extending the scheme. The danger is that the numbers will drop further following the increase in fees. I know the attitude of the people involved towards ground rents and can well imagine their approach to these increases.

We call on the Labour Party to oppose these enormous increases in fees which change the character of the legislation and to support our amendment which will prepare the way for the abolition of existing ground rents on dwellings which come under the control of the local authorities. There was a very extensive debate this time last year and I do not wish to delay the Minister by extending this debate in this area. We covered then the situation in relation to local authorities. The local authorities or the housing authorities are the ground landlords. This applies to many areas throughout the city and the country. Some of them are areas like Blanchardstown, Donaghmede and Tallaght where land was provided by the local authorities and consequently they are the ground landlords.

In these cases where the ground rents are under the Government's control through the local authorities, we have been requesting the Minister to provide a scheme for the termination of these ground rents to show cause on the part of the State in relation to the abolition of ground rents. We have put down an amendment the purpose of which is to give power to the Minister for the Environment, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to fix by order a termination date for ground rents on dwelling houses which come under his own control or the control of the local authorities or the housing authorities.

The Minister is doing something similar in relation to fees. He is introducing a section which will enable the Minister for the Environment to set the fees which should be charged in future. The Minister for the Environment may be put under pressure to bring fees up to a level which would no longer be nominal. Other than that, it is an administrative arrangement.

We are suggesting that there should also be a simple enabling section in the Bill which would allow the Minister for the Environment to make plans to bring in a termination date for these ground rents. This should be the first step. Legislation should be introduced in the near future to bring to an end ground rent on dwellings generally. That is a broader matter which may be pursued later. In this Bill we have an opportunity to give the Minister for the Environment power to set a termination date. The Government can consider what date they want to set and how it should be set. That would be a useful development in this Bill.

Some 300,000 householders are affected by these ground rents. Around 10 per cent of them availed of the purchase scheme. As the Minister said, about 400 a month are continuing to avail of it. In our view it is time to advance the whole process of terminating ground rents on dwellings, especially where the local authorities are involved. On Committee Stage the Minister may be able to tell us more about the income which local authorities receive from these ground rents. The amounts of money are very small. In 1980, the figure for Dublin County Council was £11,000. This would involve the big tracts of land on the outskirts of the city including Tallaght, Blanchardstown and Donaghmede. I assume the figure has not changed very much since then.

Dublin Corporation gave a figure of £120,000. The difficulty in collecting this money and the desirability of doing away with ground rents ultimately would indicate that we should provide an enabling section in this Bill to allow the Minister for the Environment to introduce a scheme which would set a termination date. We had detailed consideration of this question this time last year when the one year extension was given. The points made then are still relevant. The only change since then is the Minister's proposal to extend the scheme for a further three years. We welcome the extension for three years. We are opposed to the size of the fees and we want to amend the Bill to enable the Minister to set a termination date for ground rents controlled by local authorities. It is time this was done. We will discuss it further on Committee Stage.

I am sure the Minister is aware that The Workers' Party are opposed in principle to the idea of ground rents. We consider it a feudal rent which has outlived its time, and for which no service is provided by the landlords who are in receipt of this rent. It provides no service to the householder or the community at large. Perhaps ground rents had the function when they were introduced of requiring leasehold tenants not to engage in certain developments, and so forth. At this point they have no social function and are purely a means of exploiting householders who are already more exploited then they ought to be.

Various schemes were introduced over the years to cope with this problem. The campaign organised by the Association of Combined Residents' Associations was largely instrumental in pressurising various Governments to introduce reforms of the system. The reforms which have been introduced to date have been quite useful. The one which has been most useful of all was the prohibition on the creation of new ground rents. The denial of the landlord's right to evict a person for non-payment of ground rent was a milestone on the road to the elimination of ground rents.

The scheme we are discussing today was introduced in 1978. It was an amendment of an earlier scheme of 1967 which allowed householders to buy out their ground rent. It was proposed by the then Government as their scheme for the final determination of this problem. The fact that six years after the introduction of that purchasing scheme hundreds of thousands of householders are still paying ground rent to landlords is a measure of the opposition there is to ground rents and the very idea of paying these landlords any more money.

The Minister's proposals today are acceptable in some respects and unacceptable in others. The proposal to extend the scheme is welcome, but the Minister could have accepted an extension of the scheme last year when he was proposing a one year extension, when I was proposing a five year extension and the Fianna Fáil spokesman was proposing a three year extension. The effect of the Bill before us today is to extend the period for four years in all since June of last year. The Minister's argument last year that if he were to accept our argument for a five-year extension he would have no grounds for arguing against a permanent scheme is just as valid today as it was then. There is no argument for not having a permanent scheme until such time as all the residential ground rents have been eliminated.

I oppose the Minister's proposal to increase the fees. As the spokesman for Fianna Fáil has indicated, when the scheme was introduced the fee of £5 was intended as a nominal fee in order to encourage people to purchase ground rents. The Minister now seems to be going totally against the spirit of that measure by introducing a charge of £26, which is totally unacceptable. I am not happy with the fact that the Minister proposes to take powers to enable him or the Minister for the Environment to fix fees by order rather than having to come before this House to vary the fees in the next few years. He is proposing that he or his successors or the Minister for the Environment may by order vary the fees as they see fit. That is not an acceptable situation either.

The whole matter of the abolition or termination of ground rents is still not being dealt with by this Government. Given the history of this scheme, there is no reason to believe that in another three years the 300,000 householders involved will have caved in and bought out their ground rents. The Labour Party who are also in Government are on record as being totally opposed to ground rents. They have declared this on numerous occasions and at their annual conference prior to the 1982 General Election they called for the Parliamentary Labour Party to refuse to support a Fine Gael Government unless they got a promise to abolish ground rents, but today they do not even think it worth their while to come into this House and contribute to the debate. The running sore of ground rents will continue so long as the nettle of abolition is avoided.

On other occasions when the matter of abolition was raised the Minister argued that there was a constitutional problem and he said one could not abolish ground rents without providing for compensation. The point the Minister has missed on several occasions is that The Workers' Party's position at all times has been that compensation should be paid. However, if one examines the situation for most householders it is they who should be entitled to compensation in view of the fact that they have not been getting any service whatever for the rents they have paid during the years. It has been proposed on many occasions that where there is a dispute over who should pay compensation a tribunal should be established to enable decisions to be made as to who should receive and who should pay compensation.

This Bill is extending the scheme and it is to be welcomed for that reason, but sections of the Bill are not acceptable and they will be opposed by me today. We have proposed a number of amendments. I urge the Minister and the Labour Party element of the Government to come to grips with the matter of ground rents and to make a final decision to abolish them. They should ensure that the necessary machinery for doing this is established immediately.

In the past year in this House The Workers' Party have proposed a termination date for ground rents. I note the Fianna Fáil spokesman has indicated that they support the idea of a termination date for ground rents. I note also that in the published documents of the Labour Party they also support this. Unfortunately, when The Workers' Party proposed such a Bill in this House last year neither the Labour Party nor Fianna Fáil supported that Bill or even supported it to the extent that it could be discussed here. Given the history of this problem and the history of the promises to date by the Labour Party, by Fine Gael and by Fianna Fáil, we must question their seriousness with regard to this issue.

I urge the Minister not to bother us here in three years' time with a request for a further extension but in the meantime to introduce a Bill that will lead to the abolition of these rents.

, Limerick East): I thank Deputy Woods and Deputy De Rossa for their agreement to the principle of what I am proposing here, namely, the extension for a further three years of the purchase scheme under the 1978 Act.

Deputy Woods asked a number of questions about the numbers involved and he quoted some figures. For the record I wish to give the following data: the number of applications under the scheme from 1/8/1978 until 31/5/1984 was 44,465. Of these, over 20,000, that is, 45 per cent, were lodged since the 1/1/1983. Thus, almost half were lodged when the scheme began to terminate: in other words, people were trying to get in before the scheme terminated. There is a guesstimate that there are almost 250,000 residential ground rents. The arrears on hands at 31/5/1984 amounted to 16,968, that is, 13,083 applications made with the consent of the landlord and 3,885 applications for arbitration. The Land Registry have estimated that this means an applicant would have to wait two or five years for his vesting certificate, depending on whether it is a consent or an arbitration case. The number of applications completed during the period since the Bill was introduced, from 1/8/1978 to 31/5/1984, was 27,497. With almost 17,000 applications on hands in the Land Registry one can see the reason for the waiting period.

The Land Registry estimate that if the scheme were to continue after July 1984 on a self-supporting basis the fees would need to increase and I have made that point already. What is at issue here is to allow people the opportunity to continue to purchase. The scheme was introduced with the intention that it would be a scheme of limited duration, that at the end of five years people could still purchase but they would have to go to a solicitor and pay full legal fees if they did not avail of the opportunity over the five-year period of working through the Land Registry at nominal fees. The fee that applies in the vast majority of cases is the fee required on consent applications. The fee for a normal detached or semi-detached house ranging in price from £33,000 upwards to any price one likes to pitch will be a sum of £26 as a result of what I am proposing here. A fee of £26 to deal with the legal end of the purchase of ground rent is not a very large amount, and if somebody wants to consult a solicitor I am sure it would cost a lot more. We can talk in terms of percentages but the reality is that it is being increased from £15 to £26 and that will apply in the majority of cases. The arbitration case is going from £51 to £89 because it costs a lot more and there are more administrative and legal costs.

We must watch the ordinary case where an individual resident acting for a residents' association puts in an application and they usually have an agreement with the landlord, have the consent and can get their ground rent for £75, £80 or £90. In that case the legal end will cost £26 so that even though people will talk about the increased fee, we are speaking about an overall fee of only 26 per cent in most cases.

Deputies have said that the principle is distasteful and of course it caused many problems in the seventies and is still causing a certain amount of concern. The difficulty is that compensation would have to be paid. People have a right to private property under the Constitution. The right to an annuity under ground rent legislation is a form of private property. We have the conflicting interests of two people with a right to private property, the landlord as a result of the original contract and the person who owns the house. When we speak about ACRA, in the vast majority of cases we are speaking about people who own their houses. We are also talking about houses built prior to 1978 because one cannot impose a ground rent on houses built after that. I do not know what compensation would amount to but various estimates between £40 million and £70 million have been suggested to compensate landlords for their loss of revenue as a result of abolishing ground rent.

Where is that money to come from? From the taxpayer and who is the taxpayer? He is the person paying PAYE in the house you are trying to relieve of ground rent. That would mean another of these transfer payments which have bedevilled the country in recent years. A man would be paying extra tax in order to get an extra benefit from the State. The result would be that the level of compensation would be up to the full multiple of 7.2 or 7.3 whereas individual residents' associations at present can negotiate with a landlord and come out with multiples of 3½ or 4. If the State agree to compensate the landlord they will end up paying twice as much as individuals would pay because individuals can make a better arrangement with landlords.

The objection to the increase in fees falls into the same category. If we leave the fee at £5 although the scheme is costing £26 per application on the consent side and at least £89 or £90 in other fees which do not even cover the full cost, where is the money going to come from? I have to go to the Minister for Finance to look for extra money which will have to come from the taxpayers. Circular transfers make no sense. Why should people who own their own houses and are taxpayers have a further imposition put on them so that they can get benefit back from the State in ground rent? Why not bring the fee up to the suggested figure of £26 which is roughly what it costs to process the application? There are no free meals any more; I do not think there ever were although there was a time when we were borrowing so much that people did not realise that they had to pay for services. It is reasonable to continue with a fee which meets the costs and which will be a lot less than if we abolished the scheme and people had to consult solicitors and pay full legal fees.

To abolish ground rent on the lines which Deputy De Rossa suggested amounts to confiscation. We cannot confiscate property without compensation which would have to come from the taxpayers. I am surprised that The Workers' Party should suggest something along these lines because we are talking about people who own their own houses. They may not be very well off but at least they are better off than those who do not. We are talking about people in private estates which were built prior to 1978, of an asset which starts at £30,000 and is, on average, much higher. The Deputy seems to think we should put a scheme together so that the taxpayers would compensate people who pay ground rent. It does not make sense when you realise that the old age pensioners, the poor and people in local authority houses, would be paying that tax to relieve householders of the burden of paying £15 or £20 per annum. People should have the freedom to relieve themselves of the burden of ground rent if they wish. However, I do not think people see it as a financial burden. They are annoyed at the principle of paying ground rent. They can buy their ground rent under this scheme which will be extended for another three years. If they want to avoid the increase in fees they can apply between today and the last day of July and they will be able to avail of the fees which pertain at present.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share