Vol. 71 No. 10
Before we begin our consideration of the Report Stage of this Bill I should like to indicate that I have ruled amendment No. 1 out of order, as it is the same as an amendment proposed in Committee.
Amendment No. 3 is an alternative to amendment No. 2 and therefore amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will be taken together.
On Committee Stage an amendment to section 5, subsection (3), paragraph (a), put down by Senator McDonald was not accepted. This amendment was designed to secure that the rent in a sporting lease should be subject to review at ten-year intervals instead of at 33-year intervals.
In the Bill, as introduced, section 5 (3) (a) provided, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission at paragraph 93 (1) of their Second Report, for reviews of the rent during the 33rd year and during the 66th year of the term of the sporting lease. This is considered too restrictive since, if a lessor failed to act in time, he would be deprived of any chance to have the rent reviewed. Accordingly, I moved an amendment on Committee Stage, which was accepted, providing that the amount of the rent should on the application of the lessor to the court, be subject to review at any time after the expiry of the first 32 years of the term and thereafter be subject to a second review after an interval of not less than 33 years.
On Committee Stage it was the feeling of the House generally that 33 years was too great an interval between reviews of rent. Having regard to this, I now propose in this amendment that the interval should be 25 years. This would have the effect of having three reviews of the rent during the currency of the term rather than two—in the 25th, 50th and 75th years. It would, of course, be subject to the amendment of last week, that it does not have to be during each of those precise years, but can be in that year or in a subsequent year. If it were in a subsequent year, the 26th year, the second review would be the 25th year following the first review, and so on for the remaining reviews.
This is a modern piece of legislation and I would suggest that the House should take an up-to-date view of the situation. The latest statistics show that inflation this year is in the region of 11 per cent. Therefore, a rent fixed today, if the present high rate of inflation continues, will not be a very realistic figure in 33 years' time. Even in 24 years' time it will not be all that meaningful. Therefore, we are obliged to take into account the fact that for most leases the average review period at present is seven years. The Minister well knows that in cases where landlords are able to dictate the terms absolutely, such as appears to be the case where the Government lease office accommodation, the rent review period is as low as three years. This term seems to be coming more and more acceptable in business and commercial terms.
I agree that we are not dealing with business and commercial leases, but nevertheless there is a precedent there. Taking the spirit of this Bill into account, I respectfully submit a term greater than the average seven years, or the new period of three years, and perhaps in the region of ten or 14 years, as I proposed in an amendment last week, and propose again today, would be fair and reasonable. We should review the rents a little more often than in the term proposed by the Bill. If the new business tycoons or development companies feel that in order to survive in the years ahead they must have a review every three years, the same must apply to the ordinary landlord, no matter what his income.
Therefore, I believe that if these people are to have any chance of keeping abreast of inflation a period more frequent than 24 years is certainly necessary. However, I welcome the Minister's amendment reducing the period from 33 to 24 years. It is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, I would sincerely ask him to take a a second step and bring the figure down to ten or 14 years. By so doing he would certainly be mindful of the spirit of this Bill and at the same time he would be coming a little nearer to the practices prevailing in the commercial and business world.
I am glad the Minister has made an effort to meet the viewpoint of Members of the House as expressed on Committee Stage in relation to the number of rent reviews that are being allowed. I thought on Committee Stage that the period being suggested—33-year rent reviews—was far too long. Other Senators shared that view. I do not know that, apart from the proposal made by Senator McDonald, anyone was prepared to tie himself during the Committee Stage discussion to a particular period as being the appropriate one for rent reviews in relation to sporting leases.
The Minister has now brought in an amendment on Report Stage reducing the period in the first instance from 33 to 24 years and thereafter rent reviews at 25-year intervals. He has pointed out—correctly, I think, having regard to the fact that there is going to be a 99-year lease—that the effect of this is going to be that three rent reviews will now take place instead of two as under the original proposal.
Like Senator McDonald, I welcome the fact that the Minister has gone this far to meet the points of view advanced here on Committee Stage, but I am still in considerable doubt that the 24-year period is the adequate one to choose in relation to sporting leases. I am still somewhat troubled that that period is going to be too long and I think that this has two implications that we have to take into account. One is from the point of view of the lessor and is the point of view that has been advanced by Senator McDonald, that is the necessity to deal fairly and justly with the lessor who, by virtue of the legislation that we are passing through this House, is going to be out of his property whether he likes it or not, because we are going to give sporting clubs a legal right to a renewal of their leases. That in effect is a legal right to retain the property, whether or not the lessor wants to use it himself or simply does not wish them to continue there.
I know there must be a reservation in what I am saying in that in certain cases of development the lessor may be able to recover the property and that there may be compensation implications, but the position is that sporting clubs are getting a right which they have not got now and the lessor will be out of his property, a position which he is not required to put up with at present. In that situation it is important—Senator McDonald is right in making the point —that when this legislation is going through we should do our utmost to see that we extend justice and equity to the lessor. This is one of the implications that we must consider in relation to fixing the rent review period.
Another point is the effect on the sporting club. Mentally I am subdividing the implication here into two parts. One was referred to by Senator Belton on Committee Stage, the importance of the sporting club or association being able to plan adequately in advance in such a way, by reason of the security which they have, by reason of the outgoings which they will have as a result of the covenants in the lease, that they should be in a position to know in their planning programme, be it in relation to buildings or any other form of development, on the grounds that they will be there at a given rent for a given length of time. I agree that that is an important consideration and one which the House should take into account.
The other sub-division I make as regards the impact on the sporting club of a term of 24 years in relation to the rent review is that I am not sure that it will suit a sporting club to be put in a position under the legislation that rent reviews should be as infrequent as 24-or 25-year periods. I am saying that because under the section which the Minister will now amend, provision is made for the court to fix a fair rent.
I do not think that a court, given the situation of more or less perpetual inflation which we experience nowadays, will feel that it is in any sense ruled out of taking that into account by this Bill. I do not think a court will feel ruled out from fixing a rent which in some measure in the view of the court will compensate the lessor for projected inflation in the future. When one relates that to a period as long as 24 years the situation might be that a rent being fixed by the court, taking into account projected inflation over a period of 24 or 25 years, might be a very much higher rent than would be fixed if the rent review period were substantially less.
I should imagine that if the rent review period was something like 15 years then the rent to be fixed by the court, as payable by the sporting club, would probably be very much less than a rent fixed if the rent review period was 25 years. This has rent implications so far as the sporting associations or clubs are concerned, as well as the other matters I have mentioned. If we cannot do any better than 24- or 25-year rent review periods then I, at least, welcome it as an improvement on the original proposal.
The first thing I want to say is that Senator McDonald made the statement that most leases nowadays are drawn up with the provision that the rent is reviewable at seven-year intervals and that in some cases it is reviewable at three-year intervals. This is true in a sense but it could be very misleading because the sort of leases which are reviewable at these intervals in so far as the rent is concerned are not leases that are subject to the Landlord and Tenant Acts, the Rent Acts or any other Act. These are almost exclusively leases of new buildings which are not subject to this legislation at all. It would be the case of the first lessor making the lease to the first lessee and of course they have freedom of contract, to contract as they see fit.
A much more valid comparison which I think could have been drawn by Senator McDonald would have been to compare the proposals in this Bill, as amended by this amendment in my name, with the proposals in the 1958 Act relating to reversionary leases. The lease proposed in this Bill is a reversionary lease and, with certain modifications designed to suit the particular circumstances of sports clubs, it has all the attributes of a reversionary lease. Therefore, to compare the type of lease that is proposed to be granted under this Bill with any other lease the only valid comparison that can be made is with a reversionary lease under the 1958 Act.
There is no review of rent in a reversionary lease under the 1958 Act. The lessee in such a lease gets a 99-year term with the rent remaining the same for the whole of that term and the lessor has no opportunity to do anything about it no matter how great inflation might be during that very long period. For that reason I feel that the comparison made by Senator McDonald is not a valid one and that the comparison should more validly be made with the existing reversionary leases of which basically the type of leases proposed in this Bill is the same.
The arguments of Senators McDonald and O'Higgins are valid enough from the landlord's point of view but the House should seek to try to hold a balance between the landlord's interest and the sports club's interest. If there are rent reviews as frequently as Senator McDonald has advocated, possibly after the first review a great many of these clubs would be wiped out. That would be after the ten-year period because there would probably be a fairly considerable increase at that time.
Judge Conroy's commission very wisely advised 33 years and it was only with some misgivings and as a result of the views of Senators on all sides of the House on the last day that I decided to ask the House to modify that. The reason why Judge Conroy's commission recommended the 33-year period was because they felt that they would have to give these clubs an opportunity to build themselves up so that they would be sufficiently stable financially to be able to survive a fairly radical increase after 33 years.
I am endeavouring to give everyone a fair crack of the whip as far as this is concerned and I think, in all fairness, that it should be admitted that landlords have done very well out of this. They have done considerably better than their counterparts who have been forced to give reversionary leases under the 1958 Act where there is no review at all. I am tempted to make a comparison between the views on landlords attributed to me in this House in August and the views attributed to me in this House with regard to landlords in November but——
It is a different Bill.
——I will refrain from drawing too much attention to that.
The Minister had his back to the wall in August and he had no manoeuvring room. That explains the difference.
I do not think there is anything further I can say on this point but if Senators bear what I have said in mind they will agree that the amendment I have brought in today is as reasonable a compromise as one could make in the circumstances without having a serious effect on sports clubs and without departing too radically from the intentions of Judge Conroy's commission. I think it is the best that can be done in the circumstances to try to give fair play to all. I should like to reiterate once again that landlords cannot suggest that they are not getting fair play here when their counterparts, under the 1958 Act, who very often own very much more valuable property, get no review of the rent at all in a 99-year period.
Is the Minister undertaking what he said on Committee Stage, that the entire question of rent review in reversionary leases would be reconsidered in his proposed comprehensive piece of legislation? Does this promise or undertaking still hold good notwithstanding the amendment?
It does not. What I said was that I was not anticipating what provisions would be in the main Bill, if I may call it that—the Bill that was introduced in the Dáil last year but has not been circulated yet—regarding reversionary leases generally, but that if there were provisions in that Bill which would be more favourable to the landlord than the original provisions of this Bill I would consider giving the landlord, the lessor in a sporting lease, the same right. However, I am proposing to the House that they amend this provision of this Bill and I would not regard my undertaking concerning the position of sporting lessors in regard to the position of other reversionary lessors as binding any longer because I have to bear in mind that lessors and lessees in sporting leases are in a different position—a fairly radically different position—from lessors and and lessees in the full reversionary leases.
That is not to say—and I do not want it inferred from it—that rent reviews will be given more frequently to ordinary reversionary lessors. From such examination of it as I have been able to make in the week since Committee Stage, I would say that the indications are that the reviews of rent, if any, in an ordinary reversionary lease—that is, a 1958 Act lease—under the new legislation will be less frequent than the reviews I propose here so that the lessor here is in a stronger position than what is likely to be put before the Oireachtas in the other Bill.
In the event of amendment No. 2 being agreed to, amendment No. 3 will fall. Is amendment No. 2 agreed?
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, between lines 49 and 50 to insert the following:—
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and (2) the court shall have regard also to the rent payable for similar lands in quality and location."
Section 6 of this Bill, I feel, does not direct or ask the court to look at the other side of the coin and I think that justice must surely be two sided. Therefore, I propose that we should add a further subsection to this. I feel that subsections (1) and (2) fail in a very important aspect when directing the court to fix the rents. Subsection (1) directs the court to fix a fair rent for the purpose of carrying on the sport. This direction is certainly rather weighted in favour of the sports club. Subsection (2) tells the court to have regard to the general intention of the Act, which is the advancement of outdoor sports. The court may take into account the rent previously paid and this, of course, could have been fixed 24 years previously, the rent paid by other sports clubs, in the same or comparable locality, and the contribution of the sports club to the enhancement of the property, et cetera.
These two subsections, I submit, fail completely to take into account the type of land involved. There is no obligation on the court, as I read this subsection, to consider at all the soil type, the fertility, whether the land is arable or not. This is surely a valid point that the court should have regard to when it comes to fixing a rent for the property. Also, the location of the land is an important factor, vis-á-vis the nearest centre of population.
I submit that a property situated within a township—perhaps two or three minutes walk from the centre of a town —must surely be more valuable to the members of any sporting organisation than a property situated outside a town boundary and which may be three, four, five or maybe six miles outside the town. It is reasonable to assume that in most parts of the country in such circumstances there would be no public transport laid on to facilitate the members, or would-be members, of the sporting club or organisation. For that reason I submit it is a valid reason for asking the court, when fixing a fair rent, to take into account the location of the property. Surely the House will agree with this point.
Similarly, a property situated within a town boundary must command a better rent than a property situated outside a town. I feel that in justice it would be reasonable to direct the court's attention to these two points since the Bill has already directed the court's attention to ensuring a continuance of the sports club's activity in the area. I would hope the new subsection I propose in this amendment will help to direct the court's attention to the problem from the landlord's point of view. This will be more important in 24 years when the time is reached for reviewing the rent. The landowners should get a fair crack of the whip. I agree with the spirit of the Bill in what it proposes to do. All I ask is that in the fixing of the rent, which surely is very important, the landlord should get a fair crack of the whip too.
This amendment is so similar to an amendment which Senator McDonald proposed on Committee Stage, and on which I held myself obliged to speak on Committee Stage, that I am surprised we are discussing it again.
The Chair was satisfied that there was a difference between the amendments. The Chair was not entirely clear as to the difference but it felt that there was some difference.
I hope the Chair will be as lenient with some of my amendments in the future. The fact remains that some of the arguments, and all of the arguments which I put forward briefly the last day against the type of amendment which was being proposed, hold good here today. It is well that the House does not lose sight of the fact that this Bill is introduced to preserve and protect sporting organisations that were in danger of not being able to continue in existence because of their leases coming to an end. It was especially designed to preserve and to protect the activities of sporting organisations, largely in the Dublin area, whose activities were further endangered because the property which they leased had been acquired by developers on a speculative basis. These developers were then endeavouring to exert pressure to allow development to take place on those lands and to refuse to renew leases to the sporting organisation.
If we accept the amendment, as outlined, what we are doing is going about 95 per cent of the way towards defeating the spirit and the purpose of this Bill. It is all very well in talking here to explain that what is meant by the quality of the land is the texture of the soil and the subsoil. I suggest that if the courts were faced with words like "quality" they would interpret it as being its quality in relation to its uses, not just for agricultural purposes or any other purpose whatsoever.
Again, the part of the amendment which I object to is the suggestion that the courts have to take the location of the land into account and the rent payable for land similar in quality and location. We have already heard that land similar in quality and location in the Dublin area will almost invariably be land which is zoned for development. It may have industrial, residential or other uses, all of which would make it infinitely more valuable than land which is zoned for open space, amenity or recreational usage, and which is being used by sporting clubs. If the courts were to be forced by amendments like this to disregard the zone which allows those lands to continue in the Dublin area for recreational purposes, and instead to assess the rent for the land on an industrial or a residential basis, the sporting club effectively would be precluded from continuing.
The purpose of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Bill, 1971, which politicians of all parties have been looking for since 1969, would be defeated. We would have done a great and grave disservice to ourselves, to sporting organisations and to the people generally if we deprived them all of recreational facilities. I am surprised that the amendment is down again. I can only express in the strongest possible way my hope that the Bill as it stands is passed, and passed quickly, and that it receives a speedy passage through the other House. While we are talking here there are sporting organisations in the city, in the county and perhaps in other parts of Ireland which are in danger of not being able to continue. They are perhaps urgently pressing their public representatives to see to the speedy passage of this Bill. Indeed, for the benefit of the mover of the amendment and for the benefit of the House, I should like to put it on record that, as recently as today, I was asked to attend a meeting of a sports organisation who are directly affected by the implications of this Bill. I hope I shall be able to attend their meeting and explain to them that the Bill as it stands rather than as amended by this proposal has been passed.
I am surprised that Senator McDonald put down an amendment, which although it may not be the same, has the same implications as that put down on Committee Stage. I am a member of a golf club that stands as freehold and of a football club whose grounds are freehold. Therefore, I have no vested interest personally in what I am going to say.
I agree thoroughly and fully with what Senator Boland has said. This applies especially to golf clubs, but also possibly to football and hurling clubs throughout the country. There are many golf clubs in the vicinity of Dublin but there are also golf clubs near Cork, such as Douglas, Little Island and Muskerry. How are they going to fare, if Senator McDonald's amendment is passed here? In Limerick, the Minister's constituency, there are two golf clubs.
Three.
How will they fare if Senator McDonald's amendment is passed? I agree with every word Senator Boland has said. If there are sporting grounds within an area that is at present suitable for building on, whether it is for residential, industrial or any other type of building, the rent then put on this sporting club will be of such an amount that it will put it out of existence completely. At present in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway there are not a sufficient number of such sporting clubs to accommodate the people who want to spend a weekend out in the fresh air. I am supporting Senator Boland on this and I am afraid I cannot see my way to supporting Senator McDonald on this amendment.
Is there a split in the party?
Our disagreements concern the shooting of rabbits only.
I rise to reply to Senator McGlinchey's speech. However, I do not know if it would be entirely in order. Now that I am on my feet I want to say this——
Pouring oil on troubled waters.
Perhaps the Minister's party could do with someone like me at this time. I wish to say this for consideration by the Minister in relation to the two viewpoints which have been very squarely, honestly and forthrightly put by the Fine Gael Party to him, and I think it is right that that should be done. The two viewpoints should be advanced for consideration by the House. Obviously there is a great deal to be said for the point of view of a sports club in the vicinity of a city like Dublin, or any other large urban area, having regard to the huge increase and ever-increasing values of land for development and building purposes. It is quite clear, and I have no doubt Senator McDonald would appreciate this, that sports clubs of that sort would simply not be able to keep pace with the rent fixed in accordance with development value. I am quite sure that Senator McDonald was not envisaging that kind of case—what he is concerned with is what might be regarded as the more agricultural type of land in a rural community which is used for sports club purposes— and in that category the arguments advanced by Senator McDonald in connection with this amendment were reasonably made and argued by him.
This conflict is bound to be there between the interests of the owners or lessors on the one hand and the interests of the sports clubs on the other hand. The essence of this is the degree of help which the Oireachtas is prepared to provide for keeping sports clubs in existence. We have chosen by means of this Bill to provide assistance, in a way which may at times come out of somebody else's pocket, such as those of individual owners or lessors.
We as one of the legislative bodies should be prepared to advocate direct subsidies to sports clubs in order to enable them to pay rents which would be fair from the point of view of the lessor and which they normally, having regard to increased land values, would not be able to pay. It is a subsidy either way. On the basis in which we are approaching it, particular individuals may, by having to accept less for their land than it would ordinarily be worth in the open market, are providing the subsidy at our behest. It could also be dealt with through some Government Department, possibly the Department of Local Government. There should be machinery whereby subsidies would be paid direct to sporting associations to enable them to continue and to meet increased costs.
On the last day when there was a similar amendment to this put down, Senator Boland so devastatingly——
Answered for the Minister.
——and forcefully spoke against Senator McDonald's amendment that I confined myself to saying I had nothing to add, like the second senior. Senator McDonald is a very brave man to put down this amendment and I have not a great deal to add to the statements made by Senators Boland and Belton. They are perfectly right in what they said.
Senator McDonald does not seem to have read subsection (2) as carefully as he might have. If he refers to lines 41 and 42, he will see that the matters which the court is asked to take into account and which are set out thereafter are:
without prejudice to such other considerations as it considers relevant.
This is fairly wide but I should be loath to direct the court's attention specifically to the question of location for the reasons clearly stated by Senator Boland. It would be inviting the court to fix a rent that would put any normal club out of existence overnight and the reference to quality, which is the only new word in this amendment as against the amendment put down on the last sitting day, mystifies me but I take it to mean quality from the point of view of agricultural user.
Agricultural usage.
If this is so it would be a most misleading concept to ask the court to take into account because the use of the word "quality" would confine the court to a purely rural context. Senator McDonald is thinking in terms of a purely rural context. He is not thinking in terms of a club in, say, suburban Dublin, or the suburbs of any city where the strange situation could exist that a club owning very valuable land within three or four miles of the centre of Dublin might have a very poor type of soil and that would be brought forward as a reason why the rent should be kept down. That would be ridiculous because no one would ever consider using land of that kind for agricultural purposes. These are some of the side effects of Senator McDonald's amendment. If this amendment were accepted it would have the effect of wiping out the majority of leasehold sports clubs anywhere near a city. As Senators Boland and Belton have said, it would have the effect of vitiating the entire purpose of the Bill. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
On a point of explanation, I should like to point out that on Committee Stage I tried to emphasise that there is a considerable difference between the urban and rural problems under this section. At no time did I wish to interfere with or propose any legislation for the problems of Dublin city. Dublin people have the happy knack of thinking of their own county to the exclusion of the rest.
When I think of a rent in a rural area where the majority of sporting clubs are on something in the region of £10 per acre, I think that is reasonable, and in this amendment I sought to have the court take into account the quality of the land. If it were tillage land it could, on a conacre letting basis, command a price of around £40 per acre per annum. Most of the golf clubs in the rural areas are freehold. The sports clubs have the goodwill of the owners. In the case of the golf clubs, which are a bit more formal, the rent would be almost nominal. They would not have the grazing rights and would be paying less than £10 per acre at the most. This is all I sought to have clarified in this section.
Even in this small country, broadly based legislation such as this does not tend to work out evenly in the context of the city of Dublin versus the rest of the community. I expect the same holds good for other big centres of population. The problems I have tried to highlight are the problems which a farmer who finds himself in the position of a landlord will be faced with when his rent is reviewed in 24 years. By virtue of the fact that this section remains unaltered, it is almost certain that no landowner in his right senses will facilitate a new golf club or any sports club in the future because the dice is loaded against him in a very definite way. This is a mistake and a pity because we need to have more sporting facilities in the country. It is highly important that in the midlands especially and right across rural Ireland we should have more sporting facilities to attract perhaps a better share of the tourist industry. For that reason this Bill will deter landowners from facilitating new or proposed sporting arrangements. I very much regret that I did not make the reasons for this amendment clearer. I did not intend that there should be a misunderstanding on the scale that has come about, but I want the House to accept that I submitted this amendment in good faith. I have no apology to offer anybody for the fact that my first thoughts are rural-based. This is what I am here for. I am elected on the Agricultural Panel and my mandate comes from the people who own land. Therefore I think I have made the point and I will withdraw the amendment.
I rise to say a few words on the Final Stage of this Bill which I regard as a disgrace. It contains trivial amendments of legislation which requires radical alteration. I am not the only person who thinks this. Radical alteration is recommended in the Report on Occupational Tenancies, which is not dated but which is referred to in a release of 3rd March, 1970, from the Department of which the Minister is the head, in which he promised that there would be legislation—and we are talking about nearly 20 months ago—dealing with this report and in particular with the question of extending leasehold renewal rights and the right to purchase the fee simple to new classes of tenants. The report recommends radical changes which I look for and do not find in this Bill. I find trivial amendments——
The Senator will appreciate that this is the Fifth Stage and on the Fifth Stage the only matters that may be discussed are what are actually in the Bill.
Of course.
The Senator may not discuss what is not in the Bill. That is a matter for the Second Stage.
I would accept the Chairman's ruling with pleasure, but that does not prevent me from pointing out that this Bill, which does not contain things which I am prevented from referring to on the Fifth Stage but which ought to be in the Bill before the House, does contain the confession of a total blunder by the Department in previous legislation proffered to the Houses of Parliament. Looking at the Bill—and the Cathaoirleach rightly points out we should be looking at the Fifth Stage—and directing the attention of the House particularly to section 10, we find here an egregious blunder which now, four years later, it is properly attempted to correct, while many other defects in our law relative to the position of landlord and tenant are not dealt with in this Bill notwithstanding the statement of the Department on 3rd March, 1970, that they would shortly be embodied in legislation.
The position at this moment in the city, as the Minister must know if he listens to the addresses that reach his Department, is that people who are concerned with their business are in the position that they have been told by the Minister that legislation is going to run from the 3rd March, 1970. It should be in this Bill but it is not and it contains a correction of an egregious blunder. Does the House know how egregious a blunder it was? Anyone in this House who had a dwelling house or any other premises held under lease up to the enactment of this Bill, when enacted, could not sell it if he held it under a direct lease without producing to the purchaser consent from, let us say, the Pembroke Estate or the Proby Estate to the sale of his interest in the premises, the property that he thought he owned. He could not sell it. A difficult purchaser could say "Go to blazes" and be right in saying so.
A large part of the Bill is, I suppose, the ideological reflection of the underlying economic reality that is the Fianna Fáil Party. Sporting clubs are looked after, but unfortunate lessees who, 20 months later, are still waiting to hear what their rights will be do not know what their rights will be. Their lessors and their mortgagees do not know what their rights will be and business will be paralysed. It is just not the way that public business should be done.
This Stage requires me, as the Cathaoirleach will no doubt tell me, or should tell me, to look at, and simply look at, this Bill. But he cannot properly say that I cannot put it up against a blackboard which will contain sketched out along its contours all the things that are not being dealt with in the Bill.
I am afraid that blackboard would not be in order.
I should have thought I might have encouraged the Cathaoirleach to take the same concern as the Minister and his Department take in the sporting approach to this whole affair.
Golf has rules.
Yes, indeed. I accept that, and I think they should be applied. There is one blunder which is corrected by section 10 of this Bill and to which I have referred. Would the Minister, when replying to this Stage at about six o'clock when I have finished, deal with the question of the rights of sub-lessees to reversionary leases? This is a question which I am sure the Cathaoirleach will allow me ask: whether this Bill deals with this question; whether or not it embodies the rights or clarifies the position of sub-lessees with regard to reversionary rights. I have in my laborious fashion tried to read the Bill. But I wonder whether the Minister would tell me exactly what is in the Bill, for example, whether the recommendations which have been made in a report described as the Landlord and Tenant Committee——
I think the Senator is well aware of what is in the Bill.
I do not think the Cathaoirleach has any right under the rules to presume anything about my awareness of what is in the Bill. After all the Bill is introduced by the Minister——
The Senator is having his fun.
The Senator will not make otherwise disorderly matter orderly by the simple expedient of asking: is it in the Bill——
This is a formula which could engage our discussion for quite a while and I imagine we would all enjoy it.
——otherwise it would be open to the Senator to read the entire report and inquire whether it was in the Bill. I think it is a matter for the Senator himself to read the Bill and find out what is in it.
I am not aware of a rule. I would be glad to be told of a rule under which I cannot address a question to a Minister through you, Sir.
The Senator can certainly address any question he wishes to the Minister provided that it arises directly out of the 11 sections contained in this Bill.
Indeed, I would not presume to do otherwise. However, after 20 months of careful consideration by a highly intelligent Minister and advised by a good Department—although we may have been distracted by golf clubs and other "friendlies" or whatever they are, from the reality that may be in this Bill —does the Bill contain implementation of the report which was promised to be implemented in a statement issued on 3rd March, 1970? A Chathaoirleach, I know you are finding this very trying but only the Minister can answer me.
The question has been asked, but the Senator would not be——
Surely the Minister would be in order in saying whether or not this Bill contains certain provisions and no doubt he will be reasonably entitled to tell us, if it does not contain what I should have thought it would contain, why it does not contain it.
The Minister would not be in order in replying to that question. The Minister in replying will only be in order in explaining or answering questions arising out of what is in the Bill. He would not be in order were he to raise the question of why certain matters were not in the Bill. He would have been in order on the Second Stage but not on the Fifth.
With great seriousness, I should have thought that you could not ask the question: "who is in your room?" without saying "who is not in your room?" I am putting this question and I do think, a Chathaoirleach, that it is a serious one. There are serious interests affected by it. I am quite sure the Minister has pondered very much on these 11 sections. He has also pondered on the recommendations that he received from the experts as to what ought to be in the Bill. I know that I cannot talk about what ought to be in the Bill. I am simply asking the Minister, through you, Sir, to tell us what is in the Bill and I imagine he cannot skilfully do that without telling us what is not in the Bill, which is what the city of Dublin wants to know about and certainly the profession of which I am a member and of which the Minister is also a member.
Very briefly I should just like to say that this is a retroactive piece of legislation which is designed to preserve existing sporting facilities rather than to foster and perhaps extend the existing facilities which we have throughout the country by way of helping them so that possibly more could take part in field sports. As we all know, inflation is eating into even our sporting budgets. While we have a section in the Department of Education who are starting to do something about it, nevertheless nothing really tangible has been done with the exception of the loan charges that the Department of Local Government are paying towards the erection and financing of swimming pools. An extension of this theme is desirable.
However, I regret that it was necessary to have a retroactive aspect included in this Bill. Again, section 3 gives a period of 15 years to a sports club to apply for a sporting lease. This, of course, is a period which the Bill gives to the sporting club or organisation to allow them to plan ahead, but I think the long term is too long and while it gives ample scope to a sporting organisation to plan their future development it is totally unfair to a landlord who is himself subject to a superior lessor, because should the lease of the sports club landlord expire within the 15-year period it would very definitely place the landlord in a less advantageous position with the superior lessor compared with the sports club's position with its lessor. I would have no objection to this section of the Bill if the ordinary tenant or lessee had the same concessions or new rights vis-á-vis leases as this Bill now proposes to bestow on sports clubs.
I regret to say that this Bill never attempts to see the other side of the coin. I hold the view that the court having considered the club's case should give equal consideration to their lessor or the landowner or the farmer, as the case may be. Perhaps we did not draw a clear distinction between the siting of these facilities in the large urban centres of population, and the amendments that I tabled were designed more to ensure continuance of the facilities that we enjoy in rural Ireland. It is important that we should have done that. There is a clear conflict of interest between what I think is desirable in a rural area as compared with conditions in the cities. Justice should be done here. Justice was never a one-sided thing and I hope it never will be. This Bill in no way attempts to see the other side of the coin.
I do not criticise this to defeat the entire spirit of the Bill; as a matter of fact I fully subscribe to the underlying principle that sports clubs must be facilitated and helped. With the five-day week and with people having more time on their hands it is important that sporting facilities should be available. Nowhere are they more important than in rural areas. We have discussed section 6 at length today and I do not intend to add any more to what I have said on that section.
On Committee Stage I felt that the Minister's comments were rather harsh and I very much regret that. I looked upon it as my duty to propose certain amendments and I did so in good faith. With regard to the Synod of Bishops which has just completed its third session in Rome, does the Minister seriously suggest that any Bishop who uttered a contrary view——
Is the Synod in the Bill, Sir?
They debated the documents so keenly that people thought that these people were against the Church. I have been accused— quite wrongly—on Committee Stage of being totally against sport of all kinds. I should certainly like to clear the record, because this was not the case and never has been the case. However, I hope that the Minister will avail of the opportunity when this Bill is being debated in the Dáil to take a few further steps in the right direction and reduce the review periods. We will need to preserve all the facilities we now have and this Bill will do that. There is also a necessity to enable new clubs to get under way because there are altogether too few outdoor sporting facilities throughout the country. This is the one aspect of the sporting scene that this Bill missed and in that regard the Minister can improve this Bill when it is going through the Dáil.
I should like to welcome the Bill in so far as I can identify the areas to which Senator Alexis FitzGerald has referred, that is the improvement in the situation in relation to certain types of sports clubs, the improvement in certain types of leases in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire and some tidying up of earlier legislation by means of section 10.
Under the first two I have mentioned, this is an improvement which is very welcome. I hope I shall be allowed to say to the Minister that I look forward hopefully to further legislation in the areas to which we are not allowed refer at present.
I should like to make a few brief comments on the Bill. First of all, I think we must appreciate that the Minister has had certain difficulties in trying to be fair both to the lessor and the lessee. I should like to say that I hope this Bill will encourage not only private clubs but also municipal authorities to take a more active interest in the provision of sporting facilities, not only golf but other facilities, too. I should like to ask a question or two concerning section 2, specifically subsection (4) where it says:
If the qualifying land ceases to be primarily used for the purpose of carrying on the sport ...
Does that mean that if the nature of the sport is changed, if a different type of sport is carried on, the lessee can be given notice by the lessor to vacate the property? In other words, if you have a club in this ecumenical sporting age for Gaelic football and they decide to change and to play rugby football, does the word "the" sport put them in jeopardy as regards the lease? Perhaps there is a simple answer to that, but as it reads at the moment it suggests that if the particular sport of the particular club is altered their lease becomes invalid. I hope I am misreading that.
There is a further question I should like to ask the Minister. If a club engages in more than one sport, which is not unusual as I think the Minister will agree—there could be a golf club which has a tennis court and pitch and putt and things like that—if they cease to operate their chief sport, which is golf, is their lease in jeopardy again? Furthermore, I should like to ask the Minister—I am not a lawyer and I hope my questions will not sound too stupid—if a lessee gets a lease from the lessor what does he get? Is he leased only the surface of the land and do any other rights, such as mineral rights—and I am not being facetious in asking this question—remain with the lessor? Perhaps the Minister would clear up these points.
There have been a number of comments on the period of revision, which the Minister has agreed to reduce from 33 years to 24 years. I should like to say that the shorter the period for revision the higher will be the initial rent. I see some merit in having a long term rather than a short term for revision because obviously if the lessor will give a lease for 99 years and there is a revision every seven or ten years he will ask for a higher starting rent. This would be a greater imposition on a sporting club than a lower starting rent with a revision every 24 or 25 years. This is a fact that should be kept in mind. Generally, I welcome the Bill. I think it is necessary. I hope, with the Minister, that it will lead to local authorities taking greater interest in the provision of sporting and recreational facilities, particularly in urban areas where there is a grave shortage of these facilities. My own city of Limerick is no exception in that regard.
I will take the specific points raised by Senator Russell first, while I remember them. He referred to subsection (4) of section 2 which reads:
If the qualifying land ceases to be primarily used for the purpose of carrying on the sport, the lessor of the sporting lease granted under subsection (3) shall be entitled to terminate the lease on giving three months' notice to the lessee.
"The sport" is defined in the second and third lines of section 2 (1) as "some outdoor sport, game or recreation". I would read the opening two lines of section 2 (4)—"If the qualifying land ceases to be primarily used for the purpose of carrying on some outdoor sport, game or recreation" as meaning that if two outdoor sports, games or recreations, were carried on and one of them was given up the club lease would not fall in.
As regards mineral rights, it is very hard to answer this question offhand and all I can say is that with a short lease the usual thing would be to reserve the mineral rights to the lessor. Ninety-nine years is comparatively short as some of these leases go. In fact, in a lot of the 99-year leases the mineral rights are reserved to the lessor so that I should imagine they would continue to be reserved to the lessor. In any event, I should imagine that a great deal of the land that might be affected by leases of this kind would be registered land under the Registration of Title Acts. If that land had been vested in the original tenant by the Land Commission subsequent to 1903 the Land Commission would have, in the vesting order, reserved the mineral rights for themselves. This applies, as Senators probably know, to the bulk of what I might call rural land, or rural agricultural land and, indeed, it applies now with the growth of cities to quite a good deal of suburban land which, 50 years ago, would have been purely rural agricultural land.
I do not want to interrupt the Minister but I think it would be correct to say that a lease of lands would include minerals if the lessor had the right to make a lease of minerals which would be true of, for example, land acquired prior to 1903, or freehold land. An ordinary lease of lands would, I should have thought, include the rights.
Of course, it would be open to the lessor if the lease was being made by consent of the parties and it would be open to the court on application by the lessor to put in a covenant excluding the mineral rights from the leasing of the lands.
With respect, it would not be unless the lessor had excluded the right.
I do not think the problem is other than academic.
Not altogether because, for example, a golf course is very often leased from a landlord with very substantial estates and the mineral rights very often are owned by the landlord in that case. In other cases they are owned by the State in which cases it would not arise.
Section 5 (1) states:
A sporting lease shall contain such convenants and conditions as may be agreed upon between the parties or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by the Court.
I think that that section is wide enough to allow the parties, by agreement, to have the mineral rights reserved by the lessor if he wishes to keep them and if the lessees, as normally would be the case, have no interest in them. It does not suit the lessees to have mineral rights because presumably their golf club or football field will be dug up if the rights are exercised.
We are on the Fifth Stage of the Bill. The temptation to make Committee-like interjections has arisen because certain points have been raised too late. I would remind the Seanad that as certain points have been raised too late during the course of the discussion of the Bill it shows the disadvantage of the points not being made earlier.
The Cathaoirleach advises us to ask questions arising out of the section of the Bill and I think that is what we are doing.
An Cathaoirleach did not invite anybody to interrupt when the Minister was concluding.
On a point of order, is there some reprobation to be attached to a Senator who raises a point on the Fifth Stage which has not been raised on an earlier Stage?
No. The Chair is merely disapproving of the fact that the debate on the Fifth Stage is not proceeding by way of single contribution.
The Chair also made the point that there was a disadvantage attaching to the fact that points are being raised at this Stage which have not been raised on an earlier Stage. Surely this is not a right of the Chair, if that is the formula that I should choose. I am sure I can be advised by the Chair as to the formula I should use when I wish to disagree with an opinion emanating from the Chair.
The Chair was commenting on the raising of matters on the Fifth Stage in so far as they could not be determined at this Stage by way of amendment and indicating that they gave rise to discussion such as we have had in the past few minutes which is, in its essence, disorderly.
I would have accepted with equanimity what the Chair is saying, were it not for the last word. Supposing I had been called away on urgent business during the first four Stages and found myself here at the Fifth Stage, is it seriously offered to the House that I am acting disorderly, when this Bill is to pass on to Dáil Éireann, in raising a point that has not been raised in the first four Stages?
It has not been said at any point that it was disorderly to contribute on the Fifth Stage. It is disorderly to interrupt on the Fifth or any other Stage.
Senator Alexis FitzGerald spoke very successfully about what he regretted was not in the Bill. It has already been pointed out to me, by the Chair, that it would be disorderly for me to reply but so far as I can I would remind the Senator that there is a Bill on the Order Paper of the Dáil which is a comprehensive Bill.
That Bill was put down by me as long ago as last December, if I remember correctly, and I hoped at that time that within a period of two to three months I would be able to publish it. I have since found, notwithstanding the strenuous efforts of my Department, that we still cannot publish it. It has been back and forth from the draftsmen many times. It is a very large Bill. It proposes to repeal the 1931, 1958 and 1967 Acts and it will eventually also propose to repeal what we are debating at such length today and we will then ultimately have the one Act. Senators who are familiar with landlord and tenant law will know that the drafting of such law is one of the most difficult things of all. You have only to look at section 2 of this Bill to realise the sort of sections you will have in the comprehensive Bill. My recollection is that some of the sections I saw in draft extended to over three pages. If the new Bill is to elucidate the law I am not certain that it would achieve that effect if it has to contain sections of such great length. That is not to say that I can guarantee it will not contain sections of great complexity but I hope it will be found possible to make it somewhat simpler.
I cannot accept the Senator's argument that business in the city of Dublin is at a standstill because we are having drafting difficulties with the Landlord and Tenant Bill, 1970.
Am I disorderly in saying that I did not say that?
I could not say. I am flabbergasted.
My recollection of these office blocks that spring up around the place from time to time is that they are always advertised in about five pages in each newspaper as fully let before they are opened, or indeed before they are half-built in some cases. I am not aware that either lessors or lessees are under any disadvantage. It may be that there are certain types of lessors and lessees who cannot make final arrangements with regard to leases until some of the remaining matters referred to in the statement of 3rd March, 1970, are dealt with in a Bill which is to be published. As soon as it is published they can make their arrangements.
Senators will note that much of what is referred to in the statement of 3rd March, 1970, is contained here and all the most urgent parts of what is referred to in that statement are contained in this Bill. I would have preferred, had it been possible to do so, not to have to bring in this short Bill separately from the main consolidating Bill but I found that sports organisations, in particular, were in dire straits in some instances. I felt, in fairness to them and in view of the fact that it was in the interests of the community as a whole that these sporting club premises should be maintained, that it was right that I should bring in this Bill.
Senator FitzGerald made great play of section 10 and what he described as the blunder that it seeks to correct. There was an inadvertent error in section 10 of the Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1967. In fairness to my predecessor and my Department I should point out that if an error of this type, which happens from time to time, does go through it is, to a greater or lesser extent, the fault of every person who is a Member of either House of the Oireachtas. The difficulty that has arisen since was caused, so far as I can remember—I have not got the full details with me now because I did not anticipate the point being raised—by one section being amended in the course of the debate in one of the Houses and it not being adverted to at that time that the amendment of that section would have a completely unintended effect on another section which, on the face of it, did not seem to have anything to do with the matter that was being amended. It was very unusual that such an error should arise and indeed the difficulty of spotting the error was borne out by the fact that the error was in existence for about two years before anybody adverted to it. I understand that a solicitor for a building society adverted to it and my predecessor immediately, on seeing the error that had been made, undertook to have it rectified at the earliest possible moment, which we are now doing. It is, of course, being rectified retrospectively so that in any case where this unintended provision was not complied with the title to any property that was involved will not be affected.
The matters that are dealt with in this Bill are the most urgent of the matters referred to in the statement of 3rd March, 1970. I cannot at all accept that grave inconvenience is being caused to a large number of people by our failure to-date to produce the other Bill. I do accept that inconvenience may be caused to some people and I greatly regret that but, on the other hand, it is in the long-term interest of everybody that when the Bill is produced it should be as good as it can be humanly made. I have no doubt that even when it is produced there will be many errors in it because landlord and tenant law is, from the draftsman's point of view, very difficult to draft. It is almost impossible to cover every case that you want to cover in the way that you want to cover it. At the same time, it is best to take things slowly and to try to get everything as correct as we humanly can.
It is fair to say that the vast majority of the House have welcomed this Bill— its provisions and its objectives. I would ask the House, accordingly, to pass it.
