Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Feb 1967

Vol. 62 No. 8

Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Bill, 1965—Report Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In page 11, line 6, after "therein," to insert "and, as far as can be reasonably assessed, the justifiability of the amount of such rent at its date of origin,".
—Senator Owen Sheehy Skeffington.

I appreciate the thinking behind Senator Sheehy Skeffington's amendment, but in drafting legislation we have to be, above all else, practical and ensure that whatever legislation we pass here works. There is much we would like to do, much that would probably be, in strict terms of justice, the right thing to do, but the practicality of doing it is another day's work.

I should just like to illustrate a few obvious difficulties that would arise in the event of the Senator's amendment being included. It might be a greater burden on the tenant than having twice the purchase price imposed on him, because the amount of costs and research expenses involved in seeking to prove the justifiability of the amount of rent at the date of origin, involving an appalling amount of investigation, would render the matter a fruitless exercise.

What we are seeking to do in this Bill is to provide for the great majority of tenants a system whereby guidelines are laid down and they know where they stand. We envisage that in most cases a simple exchange of letters will settle the amount of compensation. There is no point in trying to pursue the ideal; indeed in pursuing the ideal, as I have said, the expense involved might be greater than the amount to be gained.

Apart from that, there are other difficulties. One has to take the circumstances in which the ground rent was originally created. The arrangements between landlord and tenant vary considerably. There could be a high rent, for instance, but that might be in consideration of a small fine or no fine. The landlord and tenant may have agreed that it was better business for each of them to have a higher ground rent where, possibly, the tenant might not have been able to afford a high amount by way of fine. That is a practical example of how many high ground rents have been created. If you go right back to the past, you can meet tremendous difficulty. If you go back to Strongbow and investigate in what manner ground rents were created and to whom the land should be given back which was acquired by the original Pembroke Estate, that might cause a lot of historical research and might not bring any good. In practice the way we propose here is, I think, the best way. There is no point in going back to the past. There may or may not have been injustices in the creation of ground rents, but an investigation into how the matter originally started would be expensive and might be fruitless in many cases.

It is my experience, and the experience of legislators over the years, that refined justice and precise justice does not often work out in practice. If we seek to make legislation overprecise, we are into the field of morality. There may be unjust profits involved. But if you go into morality in any question of drafting legislation, you are in serious trouble. To my mind, it is better to be practical, lay down the guidelines, make the legislation simple, effective, as inexpensive as possible, and avoid fruitless investigation into the past.

Before the Minister concludes, would he indicate whether paragraph (a) of the section applies to both dwellings and businesses or applies to businesses only?

It would apply to both, except in regard to clause (iv). That is the only exception.

It applies both to dwellings and businesses?

I am thinking of paragraph (b) (1), which begins: "If it is not used for business purposes..."

It is quite clear that business premises are out of category (b) but in category (a).

And dwellings are in category (a)?

Yes. Both are in category (a) but only dwellings are in category (b).

I am obliged to the Minister.

I am disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment. He makes the point that in order sometimes to legislate we must take into account not only the desirability of the piece of legislation proposed but also the question as to whether we are quite sure it will work. The amendment I am asking to have adopted is simply to add one more consideration to the quite large number of considerations which the arbitrator must have in his mind when he forms an opinion as to the price a willing purchaser would give and a willing vendor accept. This is not aiming at precision or at laying some mandatory obligation upon the arbitrator but merely drawing his attention, as it were, to the fact that some ground rents are less justifiable than others. The Minister has drawn our attention to the danger of wanting to apply strict justice and he makes a very sharp distinction, if I understood him correctly, between justice and the law and he recognises that the law in general has nothing to do with morality.

I did not say that; the Senator is drawing a very long bow now.

I am sorry if I misunderstood the Minister. It seemed to me that he was asking us to forget about strict justice and not to try to legislate simply on the ground of morality but to take a more pragmatic approach and ask ourselves: "Would it work?"; we should forget the past and just apply a piece of legislation which will give the same compensation to the good and the bad ground landlord. That is just precisely what I had hoped we would not have to do.

The Minister mentions—it is not really relevant and I am surely aware of it — the possibility that the ground rent might be very high because it was, in fact, the equivalent of a deferred payment of a loan of a big capital sum. This could be almost all in lieu of a fine. This would be obvious to the arbitrator, if it were reasonably assessed, and would not lead to any injustice. The arbitrator would recognise that this rent, though appearing high, was, in fact, justifiable and I am asking that the arbitrator should have his attention called to this fact that some ground rents are unjustifiably high and have, in the words of the Minister himself, been inflated by post-war conditions.

Senator Sheldon mentioned that it might be very far from the original ground rent, that it might be some later investor, some innocent investor, who was involved, but this, I suggest, in a permissive amendment such as mine, would be taken into account by the arbitrator in question when he tries to establish what would be a fair price in his opinion, and it is his opinion, based on a variety of views to which I should like to add the having of some regard in so far as it is reasonably feasible, for the original justifiability of the ground rent; in other words, to the basic justice involved. It seemed to me that in proposing this amendment, I was avowing a method whereby recognition would be given that some ground rents are excessive while others can be quite legitimately defended within the terms of the present system. I should like, therefore, to press the amendment and stress the fact that this is simply to draw the attention of the arbitrator to another aspect of what constitutes a ground rent and that it is permissive and not mandatory.

Question put: "That the proposed words be there inserted".
The Seanad divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 24.

  • Carton, Victor.
  • Crowley, Patrick.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • Fitzgerald, John.
  • Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.

Níl

  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Flanagan, Thomas P.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lenehan, Joseph R.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Nash, John Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.
  • Yeats, Michael.
Tellers: Tá: Senators Crowley and Sheehy Skeffington; Níl: Senators Browne and Farrell.
Question declared lost.

Amendment No. 34 has been discussed already.

Government amendment No. 34:
In page 11, lines 44 and 45, to delete "expire twenty-five years or more" and substitute "not expire within twenty-five years".
Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 11, line 58, before "or" to insert "of three quarters".

The effect of this amendment would be that the purchase price should not exceed, not as in the Bill, an amount equal to the amount of the rent, but threequarters of that amount. In practical terms, this means I am suggesting that the compensation for any given ground rent should not be 13.2 years purchase but something nearer to ten years purchase. I proposed, on Committee Stage, that it be brought down to half, which would have been about seven and a half years purchase. This was rejected by the Seanad and it was interesting to see the phalanx of the two big conservative Parties joining forces together in defence of the sacred rights of the ground landlords of this country. I would rather fear, though I remain optimistic, we may get the same kind of union of strength behind the ground landlords on the part of the two big Parties even on this modest proposal of mine. If the Minister does not concede that seven and a half years purchase is enough, he might at least agree that ten years purchase is ample. I would suggest that very few tenants will see any advantage in buying out their present ground rent at the rate of 13.2 years purchase, plus all the costs of the conveyance falling upon the tenant.

It might well be that we are wasting our time passing this Bill, because the number of tenants who will avail themselves of the opportunity to buy out the ground rent will be very small, owing to the exorbitant price enshrined in the Bill, this 13.2 years purchase. I do see an exception to this possibility that not many will take advantage of it, that is, of course, in the case of tenants where the ground lease is due to fall in soon, within 20 or 25 years, or less. In that case, tenants will be tempted, even at this high price but, otherwise, I would be inclined to suggest that tenants on the whole would be ill-advised to buy out their ground landlords because they are being offered the fee simple at a very exorbitant price, 13.2 years purchase.

The amendment implies that the terms offered to the tenant must be improved, must be made attractive. I think ten years purchase is quite dear enough and unless we make the terms more attractive to the tenants, they will be reluctant to buy or to take any advantage of this Bill whatsoever. The Minister, on Committee Stage, indicated that he was convinced that ground rents, after the passage of this Bill, would, as it were, wither away and felt optimistic enough to believe that within ten years, perhaps there would be no such thing, or very few, left in the country. I believe, on the contrary, that very few ground rents will be bought out under this Bill in its present terms.

Furthermore, it is fairly obvious that quite a lot of new ground rents will be created every year and so far from the Bill in its present terms, encouraging the whole system of ground rents to wither away, it will be bolstering it up all the more. I wish, therefore, to press this amendment which, in effect, reduces the purchase price of a ground rent from 13.2 years purchase to ten years purchase, which, as I have said, is ample.

I have the same objections, among others, to this amendment as I had to the last amendment proposed by Senator Sheehy Skeffington, on the ground that it will catch everyone, good and bad original landlords who charge exorbitant rents, innocent purchasers, and everyone else. In answer to my argument on the previous amendment, Senator Sheehy Skeffington said: "But I am only asking for discretion. All this could be taken into consideration." That does not apply in this case because there is no discretion. In so far as he answered my argument at all on the previous amendment, his answer does not apply in this case. I have been trying to make out how 7½ is half of 13.2 and so far I have not discovered how it is. It was a slip of the tongue I am sure.

The main difficulty I see is that this is not fair to the innocent legitimate owner of a ground rent. It would catch a landlord who imposed an exorbitant ground rent and was still the owner, but if he had sold it, the innocent purchaser would suffer. In the same way, ground rents which were not exorbitant would be caught as well. Senator Sheehy Skeffington says he does not think the terms of the Bill are attractive and that 13.2 years is an unattractive figure. I would say that 13.2 years is about the best figure. There seems to be a tendency at the moment for interest rates to drop. If interest rates drop, the number of years purchase will go up. At present the interest rates are all against the landlord and not the tenant.

I would not agree that 13.2 is unfavourable. I would say you would probably be very lucky to get it because interest rates are dropping slightly and 14 might be nearer to the normal figure by the time this Bill becomes law. Most of the talk I heard in the past about ground rents was based on a much worse figure. People were quite glad to come to an agreement with the landlord on the basis of 16, 17 or 18 years purchase. I think the tenants should be strongly advised not to listen to Senator Sheehy Skeffington. While the interest rates are high, now is the time to buy them out.

I want to urge the House to listen to Senator Sheehy Skeffington on this point because I think he has made a very good attempt to bring home to the House one of the weaknesses in the Bill. He made the point that we are not writing into this Bill any incentive or encouragement to anyone to buy out his ground rent. I should like to advert to one consideration which obviously must arise, but which has not been alluded to by anyone since this debate began, that is, the fact that apart from the very high rate of purchase, 13.2 years, a tenant will also have to bear in mind — and it is only right that we should remind him — that once he has decided to buy out the fee simple, he automatically becomes liable for Schedule A tax. This will automatically be payable in the future by the owner of the fee simple.

I should like to share Senator Sheldon's optimism about the level of the ground rents but, candidly, I think he has his facts a little mixed. I can recall, within a reasonable time, when the level of ground rents was running around 11 and 12 years purchase. That is not a very long time ago. It is only since the early 50s that they have risen to anything like their present level. They seem to have reached their peak now. If you put yourself in the position of a tenant with a ground rent of £15, which is about the average that young people are obliged to pay for the honour of living in a house, and also has to produce a sum of £250 or thereabouts if he is interested in buying the ground rent, and must thereafter pay Schedule A tax on top of that, I do not think you will find that is an attractive proposition.

Although I was most enthusiastic about the introduction of legislation for this purpose, quite frankly I have come to the view that in this Bill, at any rate, we are not providing the answer to the problem. We are not disposing of ground rents as such. We are perpetuating the system for a long time to come. We are not giving any encouragement to people who have a desire to become the owner of the bit of land on which their houses are built. I strongly appeal to the House to listen to Senator Sheehy Skeffington on this amendment and to support it.

We in Belmullet wanted to buy out our ground rents and after a lot of haggling and bargaining, we bought them on 10½ years purchase and we thought we did very well. Our landlord was very reasonable I must say. We eventually agreed to 10½ years purchase. The legal costs were admittedly very high but this is a matter that deserves consideration at this time. I wish to be honest and say that I have not heard any complaints about this Bill. Since that effort in Belmullet things have worked reasonably satisfactorily and I commend everyone affected to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. Things have not changed radically in ten years and if we bought at 10½ years purchase ten years ago, 13.2 years or 14 years would not be out of the way today. I am just giving my experience in my own town and assuring the Seanad that we have had no complaints or very few. I, therefore, strongly advise anyone who comes under the terms of the Bill to avail of it and purchase his ground rent.

First of all, the Seanad on Committee Stage decided this matter by 32 votes to six. Therefore, like the majority of Senators I see no merit in the amendment. I am as anxious as Senators Crowley and Sheehy Skeffington to see a proper system of ground rent purchase and to ensure that this system of tenancy will disappear. Already the signs are that it is disappearing with the knowledge that this Bill is in draft and that it has been discussed in both Houses: people are getting out of ground rents and there is a general effort by landlords to get rid of them to such an extent that deflation is setting in in the market.

I wish to point out now that this 13.2 years is not a mandatory purchase figure. It is the maximum. The phrase used in section 8 (b) is that the compensation price shall not exceed the formula price — this will encourage more and more arrangements of the sort Senator Lenehan cited: landlords will have to come in and deal with their tenants. Where the landlord has to convince hundreds of tenants of his need to sell, in any such package deal the compensation price will be considerably below 13.2 years purchase The 13.2 figure is the price which will decide the recalcitrant landlord to deal. In such a case it is legitimate and desirable to fix a ceiling which will adequately compensate the landlord for a right which he does not want to yield. Surely we should give him sufficient to enable him to maintain his income by investing in a type of security traditionally equated with ground rents — Government stock. If you have a willing tenant and an unwilling landlord it is only right to compensate the landlord adequately.

The landlord wanted 16 years purchase.

And you horse-traded him down to 10½ years. The landlord in Belmullet wanted 16 years purchase and they horse-traded him down to 10½ years. If that happened ten years ago it is only reasonable to assume that the maximum of 13.2 years provided in the Bill will work out at ten years or even eight years in negotiation. As to the purchase price of ground rents, immediately after the war it was 25 years purchase but prices have been gradually depressed since then particularly since this Bill was introduced. Senator Sheldon mentioned people who were not creators of ground rents but purchasers of them. Often they involve charitable institutions who have invested in ground rents.

Trinity College are great landlords.

Some institutional investors in ground rents bought them immediately after the war for 20 years to 25 years purchase. I have been speaking about inflated ground rents in that sense — not in the sense of the tenant paying a higher ground rent but in the sense that there was an inflationary market in ground rents. Some twenty years ago ground rents were seen as a good source of institutional and private investment. The market fluctuated between 25 years and 20 years purchase and a good many institutions and individuals bought at these prices. Now they are being brought down to a maximum of 13.2 years. The principal point to note here is that the formula provision, which works out on current rates at 13.2 years, is a maximum and will encourage landlords to get out of ground rents.

We shall have many arrangements for group purchase of ground rents during the next few years. All the advice I have got is to that effect. All the advice I have got from every person I have interviewed is that once this Bill becomes law ground rents will go, that it is only a matter of time. That is my feeling also because common sense dictates this will be so once you have this compulsory right of purchase.

On the point made by Senator Sheldon that here there is no discretionary power being asked for, that this, to use his phrase, will catch everybody as it were, I am fully aware of this and recognise that in suggesting something less, ten years purchase, I may be unjust to some tenants and unjust to some ground landlords. What I object to is the principle in the Bill as at present drafted making absolutely sure that no ground landlord will lose anything by it. His income has to be protected and he does not have to pay even a portion of the costs. Whether his ground rent was justified, whether it was a racketeering one or a modest one, he will be paid down to the last penny.

In proposing ten years purchase, I feel I am making a big concession because many tenants have paid over and over. Senator Lenehan said that ten years ago they arranged in Belmullet for the buying out of ground rents and it is obvious that if similar arrangements had been made ten years ago throughout the country all tenants would have by now bought out. Now we are told the purchase price will amount to something like 13 years. Senator Sheldon pulled my leg about the 7½ years I mentioned and pointed out that this is not half of 13.2. What I had in mind during the Committee Stage debate was what the Minister had in mind on Second Reading when he mentioned 14.8 years. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that 14.8 years was mentioned by the Minister as the ceiling. I am aware that the figure will vary and I said on Committee Stage that 7½ was half of the upper figure having in mind the Minister's figure of 14.8.

What I am now asking is ten years purchase and this seems to be fair all round. Deputy Sheldon referred to innocent investors — I am surprised he did not mention widows and orphans because there is a great preoccupation nowadays with widows and orphans who turn out to be the main owning class in the country. I remember that when we were talking about derelict sites it was pointed out that practically every derelict site in the country was owned by widows and orphans. This preoccupation with widows and orphans seems to be more prevalent on this Bill. I am not convinced that ten years purchase would do an injury solely to the landlord. I feel it is too high a figure for many tenants but it would at least be a compromise and would provide some incentive, as Senator Crowley said, to tenants to buy out their ground rents.

Senator Lenehan, quite rightly, spoke about legal costs. Of course, the legal costs under this Bill fall entirely on the tenant. I quite agree with Senator Lenehan that it could transpire in many cases that the legal costs would be very high.

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent agreement between the landlord and tenant that the landlord would bear the costs.

There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the landlord from making a present to the tenant but the understanding under this Bill is that the cost would be paid by the tenant. The picture painted by the Minister of landlords anxious to sell, and being beaten down by horse trading well below the maximum of 13.2 years purchase, is something which I am afraid I cannot see. I am afraid this is an illusion. The Minister also says that ground rents will disappear under this Bill but I am afraid he is deluding himself when he says that. I regret that the basic preoccupation in the Bill, as it stands unamended, would appear to be that whatever else is sacrificed the ground landlord must be protected and must not lose a single penny. For that reason I wish to press this amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 12, between lines 3 and 4, but in section 18, to insert the following subsection:—
"(2) Where the purchase price of the fee simple or any other interest in land being acquired under this Act has been determined by arbitration under this Act, the county registrar who made the determination shall, if requested by a party to the arbitration to do so—
(a) state whether in making the determination he has had regard to a matter or matters of the kind referred to in section 18 (1) (a) (viii) of this Act, and
(b) if he has so had, specify the matter or matters.".

This is an amendment in which Senator Sheehy Skeffington and I find ourselves on the one ground. He suggested on the Committee Stage that where the county registrar has regard to matters other than those specifically mentioned which he considers relevant to the determination of the purchase price he should specify what those matters were. At the time I said that I would have an amendment drafted on those lines and this is it.

I should like to recognise that the Minister has fully met the point I made on Committee Stage. I wish to support this amendment which seems to me to be a valuable addition.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 40 have already been disposed of.

Amendments 37 to 40 inclusive not moved.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 13, line 30, to delete "from time to time remit" and substitute "remit, before giving its decision,"

This amendment is designed to meet a point raised by Senator O'Kennedy on Committee Stage. It makes it clear that there is no question of the Circuit Court on an appeal being made to it referring the whole matter back to the same county registrar and to virtually make him hear the appeal himself. This was not the intention and this amendment makes it clear that it was not so. The object of the subsection is simply to enable the court to refer back a specific point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 may be discussed together. The Chair is prepared to recommit in respect of amendment No. 42.

Why is it being recommitted?

The matter was not substantially raised on Committee Stage.

I am anxious to find out the circumstances in which one can have an amendment recommitted.

Bill recommitted in respect of Government amendment No. 42.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 15, to delete all words from and including "Where" in line 14 down to and including "is" in line 16 and substitute:
"Where a lessee under a building or proprietary lease is, by virtue of a covenant, condition or agreement (whether contained in the lease or in an ancillary or collateral agreement, not being a mortgage),".

The main reason for recommitting this is that it was not substantially raised on Committee Stage. We had a look at the section since the Committee Stage and have devised those three amendments to tighten up the prohibition proposed by section 30 of the Bill on ground landlords confining lessees to insuring with a particular company or through a particular agent. The object of the section is, of course, to prevent a situation in which a lessee who wishes to borrow money subsequently from another insurance company will find that he may have to insure twice. I do not want this prohibition avoided by the device of the lessor putting the restriction to a particular company or agent in a separate contract or by providing, not that the lessee shall insure with a specified insurer or agent, but with any insurer or agent to be selected or approved of by the lessor. This amendment should stop these two particular loopholes. At the same time, I do not want the extension proposed by the amendment to be so wide as to bring in mortgage contracts which are independent of the granting of the lease, and these are, therefore, being excluded. The important thing is to make sure that collateral agreements are included here in the prohibition. That is the reality of the amendment.

I agree with the text of this amendment. I have always thought it a particular imposition and something in the nature of an impertinence on the part of landlords to have the right to prescribe the insurance company with which tenants must insure, and that failure to do so would probably mean the forfeiture of the lease. That, to my mind, was one of the irritating things of a lease which needed to be rectified. I am glad to see that this Bill is doing that. One can, however, see that in ancient times landlords, because of all the maligning statements which had been made about them, had some justification for nominating the insurance company. In those days insurance companies were not as well prepared as they are in recent times. I begin to wonder whether or not insurance companies, who are falling like ninepins in England at the present time, are as good as they were. The onus was on the landlord about insurance companies and if an insurance company collapsed that was his business.

In modern times and in an economy that watches its affairs apparently somewhat better than our neighbours in the matter of insurance — though we have had that unfortunate experience with the Equitable Insurance Company — perhaps this restriction is not so necessary. For that reason I support it. In fact, I think this restriction was put in not so much at the behest of landlords as at the behest of people who were drafting the laws, who were in fact agents for the particular insurance company. I do not think it removes from landlords any protection and I support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 15, line 18, before "or" to insert "or an insurer selected or approved of either by the lessor under the lease or another person".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 15, line 18, before ", the covenant" insert "or an agent selected or approved of either by the said lessor or another person".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 45:
In page 15, line 45, after "tenancy" to insert "but does not include a mortgage by subdemise".

This is another amendment of section 32 which was amended in earlier stages in the Dáil and Seanad. When the House accepted an amendment to section 32 of the Bill on Committee, I expressed the hope that we had now got down to a final draft of this section which is intended to secure that no party to a lease shall be obliged to pay the solicitors' costs of the other party to the lease.

That is the intention. It has been pointed out to me that, as the section stands, it would extend to mortgages by subdemise which are in the form of leases though only so because mortgages of this kind have some advantages over mortgages by assignment. It was not the intention of the Law Society, which pressed for the inclusion of this provision in the first instance, that it should cover mortgages but, rather, the ordinary kind of lease. Accordingly I propose in this amendment to exclude from the application of the section mortgages by subdemise.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Now that we have come to the Final Stage and the end of the Bill, there are a few matters I should like to say about the Bill and what it contains. It will be generally agreed that we have had a good debate on the Bill. There were 51 amendments put down on Committee Stage and 47 on Report Stage. I estimate that about 35 amendments have been made to the Bill during its passage through this House. For that we on all sides of the House can take a share of credit. It would be ungracious of me were I not to pay tribute to the Minister for the manner in which he has met a number of amendments. Everybody in the House, though we have not got all the amendments we would like, appreciates the manner in which the Minister has met these amendments. He has had the open-mindedness to depart from the original text of the Bill as passed by the Dáil after a good debate and has acceded, in some measure at any rate, to the wishes of the House. I can only regret that the Minister is so weighted down with Ministerial advice that he will not follow his own good sense in relation to matters of principle. I believe that as a politician if the Minister were to shake off the shackles imposed on him by the cautious advisers who surround him, he would be a far better Minister.

And the legislation enacted in this House would be more in accordance with what people want.

The Senator will remember that the Minister is responsible.

I agree, but he comes into this House and mentions the names of certain identifiable officials. Perhaps it is not good parliamentary practice but I do not want to dwell on it. Speaking for my colleagues, we appreciate the manner in which the Minister has met a number of matters we suggested.

The Bill, to my mind, is almost the last stage in the campaign long waged in this country to make people owners of their land. In this Bill we are going a stage further in making most dwelling-owners or giving them the opportunity to become, as far as the law can make them, full owners of their dwellings, and we are extending that to a number of businesses.

I do not agree with the view expressed by Senator Sheehy Skeffington and others, that this Bill, because of the financial provisions in it, is so costly that it is not worth anything to a great number of persons who hold no leases. The contrary is the position. The Senator may perhaps be excused for expressing that view because there are other things which this Bill will enable the owners of leasehold premises to do which up to now they could not do. Most of the leases drawn up by landlords long ago, and indeed by modern landlords, were carefully drawn in the interests of the landlord. The lease was prepared by the landlord and the tenant paid for it. We have rectified that in this Bill.

In all these leases there were restrictions, so that if a person wanted to do anything with his property, even with the walls inside, he found he was prevented from doing that by covenants in the lease. The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, provided that in certain cases there should be written into the lease that the consent of the landlord should not be unreasonably withheld. Very often that involved people going into court. With this Bill all these restrictive covenants go and people become full owners of their property and are able to do all these things, subject only to the restrictions imposed on them by the Town Planning Authority. There are a wide variety of things they can do which up to now they could not lawfully do, or do only at risk so long as they remained tenants.

We should go forth from this House on the passage of this Bill in the knowledge that it confers wide benefits, much wider than not having to pay ground rent. It makes people full owners and gives them greater freedom to develop their property than they had heretofore. If a person owns a house at the present time, it is for use as a dwelling only. If it happens to be the much talked about widow, she cannot take in a boarder without the written consent of the landlord. All these restrictions will go once the fee simple in the property is acquired. I hope that message will go across to all persons who have to pay ground rent at the present time so that they will reap the benefits of this Bill in a form more advantageous than in terms of £s.d.

The debate was marked by some interesting developments.

Are these developments incorporated in the Bill?

They are. They relate directly to the attitude we adopt to landlords in the past and in the future. Senator Sheehy Skeffington who apparently was all against landlords saw a defect in the Bill. He was all in favour of them as far as the future is concerned and wanted to give them compensation where I would give them none. This is one of the anachronisms that developed in the course of the debate. On another occasion someone suggested that the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party were a great conservative Party coalescing together. That, of course, is not so. You have the Fianna Fáil Party at other times saying that Fine Gael and Labour are the Coalition Parties. The only thing to be deduced from that is that, wherever there is reason, you find people coming along to Fine Gael——

That is very abstruse.

——and siding with them. The Minister and his Department will, I am sure, have a close look at the operation of and the manner in which this Bill works out in practice. There remains the problem of future ground rents which is left dangling for future action under the provisions of this Bill. I hope that, in time, the Minister — and more particularly his colleague, the Minister for Local Government — will take the appropiate action to provide that the scarce commodity of land in the vicinity of Dublin and other towns will be made available at reasonable prices for the building of houses, shops and other necessary structures of that kind. I think that the question of the price of land, equally with the prices of other commodities, requires Government action if the matter is not to get out of hand. In so far as this Bill permits the creation of future ground rents, I hope the Minister and his colleagues in the Government — for whatever short time they will be there— will take note of these developments and take appropriate action when that is called for.

This is the best we can do with this Bill. In many ways, it is a great experiment. We have all had our say upon the Bill. It may well turn out that there are defects in it. If they do manifest themselves in any short space of time, I trust that if the Minister is still Minister for Justice he will not hesitate to come into this House about the matter. I am all for experimenting within reasonable limits. I am sure no Member of the House will blame the Minister if it becomes apparent that amendments to this Bill are necessary. If they are, we ought to have them at the earliest possible date that a sizeable number of them, or any important one of them, become clearly necessary.

The amendment which has been made to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1860, Deasy's Act, is one which will be received with universal approval by the legal profession. They know the unconscionable use made of it in the past by landlords and the tremendous hardship that has been caused to tenants because of the provisions that were contained in sections 10 and 18. I rather gathered at some stage that the amendment to Deasy's Act was not in order having regard to the Bill as read a Second Time. I rather gather that that was an interpretation that was open to the Cathaoirleach in deciding upon these matters. At the same time, this amendment will be very welcome. It may not be the best amendment possible to these particular sections but I think it should be borne in mind that it is the best that can be done in a short space of time and pending the more widespread amendments and the more through and far-reaching amendments that we hope will be the result of the deliberation of the commission which is at present sitting to consider general landlord and tenant law.

I should like to thank the Seanad for their help on this Bill. Legislation of this kind is very proper to Committee Stage debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas. Any legislation concerned with the property rights of people needs to be looked at very carefully. That is what the Oireachtas is for. I think we should welcome constructive amendment of such legislation. We had constructive proposals on this Bill, particularly in relation to what Senator O'Quigley stated at the end of his remarks.

I want to assure the Seanad that this is a new departure. There may be difficulties in the operation of the Bill, when enacted, but they are difficulties that can be remedied fairly quickly. I intend to come forward within the next 12 months with further landlord and tenant legislation arising out of the present commission's deliberations. I expect an interim report very shortly from them on certain improvements to Part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931. The intention, then, is to have a comprehensive Act dealing with all the landlord and tenant laws since Deasy's Act, 1860. It is very necessary that we should have that at this stage because modern society is finding that our present landlord and tenant legislation does not entirely equate with our present needs.

There is no question here of my being influenced by over-cautious advisers. The main point of difference in this House involved Senator O'Quigley advocating the retention of a court system and my advocating a form of statutory arbitration by county registrars. That was a new departure whereas Senator O'Quigley was advocating the old conservative, retain-the-present, approach. I was personally involved in the decision to have arbitration. It will make for a more expeditious and less expensive procedure which will be to the benefit of the tenant. There was no question of my advisers being in on it.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share