Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 May 2005

Vol. 180 No. 14

Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Bill 2005: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

The Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Bill 2005 is a short but vital Bill which proposes to protect the State's interests in property that has been acquired for industrial development purposes by IDA Ireland, Shannon Development and Údarás na Gaeltachta by including these bodies among the State authorities that are not bound by the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents)(No. 2) Act 1978.

Section 16 of the Industrial Development Act 1986 empowers IDA Ireland to purchase, lease and dispose of property for the establishment, development or maintenance of an industrial undertaking but for no other purpose. This was amended by the Industrial Development Act 1995 to permit IDA Ireland to dispose of properties for other purposes but only with the express consent of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

To comply with the requirement of the 1986 Act and for good estate management reasons, IDA Ireland adopted the practice of selling property by way of long lease, usually for a term of 999 years, with a covenant restricting the use of the land to manufacturing or the supply of internationally-traded services. The leases also contain provision for rent review which removes them from the scope of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Acts that entitle a leaseholder to acquire the fee simple. Acquisition of the fee simple under the Acts would result in the covenant restricting the use of the land being extinguished. IDA Ireland estimates that it has entered into over 700 such leases.

In December 1981, IDA Ireland granted a lease of a unit in one of its industrial estates to a client company which subsequently erected industrial premises on the land. The original client assigned its interest to a second company in 2000 which, in turn, granted a sub-lease to a third company in November 2004. The following day a notice of intention to acquire the fee simple interest was served on IDA Ireland by the third company. It transpired that the sub-lease had been structured in such a manner — entailing a term of 50 years plus one day, the payment of a fee and no provision for rent review — as to comply with the conditions in the Landlord and Tenant Acts entitling a lessee to acquire the fee simple. The second and third companies are connected companies.

IDA Ireland contested the application when it was heard before the county registrar on 7 April 2005 and the hearing was first adjourned to 18 April and subsequently to 17 May. However, senior counsel advised IDA Ireland that the sub-lease conferred a statutory entitlement to acquire the freehold interest. This was confirmed by advice provided to the Attorney General. On the basis of this advice, the IDA decided to negotiate a settlement and agreed a price for the conveyance of the fee simple. Having been advised by the Attorney General, I decided to grant my consent to this settlement to secure the best return to the Exchequer in the circumstances. The county registrar was informed of the proposed settlement at the resumed hearing on Tuesday, 17 May.

This case, which was first brought to my Department's attention on 2 March 2005, highlights that a legitimate scheme can be devised whereby sub-leases created by lessees can establish an entitlement for the sub-lessee to acquire the fee simple, thus extinguishing restrictive covenants in the head lease. This anomalous situation, whereby a sub-lessee can extinguish an agreement between the lessee and a third party, was noted by the Law Reform Commission in 1989 and again in 1992. This has serious implications for IDA Ireland both in the execution of its statutory functions and also in the possible loss of value to the State in any sale of its land assets. In addition, inquiries by my Department have shown that there are also similar implications for Shannon Free Airport Development Company and Údarás na Gaeltachta in the operation of their property functions related to their industrial development roles.

On learning of this issue, my Department immediately examined the matter, including initial examination of the legal and practical implications both in the specific case cited above and the general implications in respect of the impact on the role and effectiveness of the State's industrial development agencies and the assets they hold on behalf of the State. When these became clearer, the matter was brought to my attention on 13 April and a process was put in place to remedy the situation. This has led to the Bill which I am presenting to the Houses of the Oireachtas today.

High standard property solutions, both business parks and buildings, for both inward investment and indigenous enterprises are crucial for regional industrial development in Ireland. To provide attractive locations for such inward investment and indigenous enterprise, elaborate master plans have been drawn up for such estates. If individual tenants are entitled to purchase the fee simple, thereby circumventing the covenants in the original head leases, then the agencies concerned will not be able to ensure that such property continues to be used for the legislative purposes for which it was provided. In effect, the agencies' ability to control activities on their industrial estates will be undermined.

As well as giving rise to a situation whereby State assets are not being used for the purposes of each of the agencies' industrial development mandate, the agencies will also be faced with estate management issues in that they will not be able to enforce covenants such as "quiet enjoyment" on their estates. It is also unlikely that a tenant will continue to pay service charges if another occupier is not paying similar charges. There will also be a loss in the value of State assets. Using the sub-lease mechanism, the private sector may be put in a position to make substantial gains from property which was originally provided by Exchequer funding. There is a substantial difference in value between a freehold title and a leasehold title subject to covenants and it is clear that the valuation mechanism set out in the landlord and tenant legislation, which is based on a multiple of the ground rent, will not yield that value to the head lessor, in this case, the three named agencies.

The selling price sought by the agencies is determined by valuation, which is based on the existence of the restrictive user covenants. If the covenants cannot be enforced, the selling price of the land should be higher to reflect the freedom of the purchaser to use the land as he or she pleases. This may make the selling price unattractive to potential purchasers, including inward investment concerns, who intend to use the property for qualifying activities, and will consequently adversely affect the agencies' ability to carry out their industrial development functions.

The advice of the Attorney General was sought regarding the legislative action necessary to prevent the widespread use of the device employed in the case mentioned. The Attorney General has advised that an amendment be made to section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents)(No. 2) Act 1978, which states, "This Act shall not bind a Minister of the Government, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland or the Irish Land Commission". The purpose of the amendment would be to include IDA Ireland, Shannon Development and Údarás na Gaeltachta among the "State authorities" that are not bound by the legislation.

IDA Ireland, Shannon Development and Údarás na Gaeltachta enter into leasehold arrangements in respect of their properties in the context of their industrial development functions. IDA Ireland has estimated its ownership of State property is at risk in regard to more than 700 leases. While the current application has been settled out of court, there is no guarantee that it will not act as a catalyst for similar cases. The Attorney General has advised that the proposed legislative amendment could not apply retrospectively where a notice of intention to acquire the fee simple in land leased from one of the agencies has been served.

Accordingly, considerable urgency attaches to securing early passage of the amending provision. I, therefore, urge all Members to support the Bill, the objective of which is to protect the interests of taxpayers and the State. The Bill was introduced with a view to its passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas in one day, and Presidential signature without delay. In view of the circumstances outlined, this is considered to be of the utmost urgency and necessity.

The Bill is short, containing only four sections. Section 1 defines the relevant Acts. Section 2 provides for the amendment of section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978 by adding the Industrial Development Agency (Ireland), the Shannon Free Airport Development Company and Údarás na Gaeltachta to the list cited. The opportunity has also been taken to remove the reference to the Irish Land Commission, as it no longer exists. Section 3 provides the appropriate savers in respect of notice of intention or an application made regarding the acquisition of the fee simple before the passing of the Bill or any arbitration or appeal to the Circuit Court in respect of such a notice or application. Section 4 sets out the Short Title and the collective citation. I commend the Bill to the House and I thank the House for facilitating the presentation of the Bill.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I must make reference to the speed and the emergency nature of the Bill. The Leader of the House was only informed at 10 p.m. last night that this legislation was to be introduced and we were only informed this morning. This is not an acceptable way to do business. We realise the urgency and will co-operate in every way possible. This is the second time this has happened in a very short period and the House has not been facilitated sufficiently in getting proper notice. This morning a Government Member proposed an amendment to the Order of Business suggesting that we should not deal with this item. However, the amendment was withdrawn at a later stage. This indicates the strength of feeling and I can understand the frustration of Members, including those on the other side of the House.

However, we must deal with the legislation before us. If the Attorney General has advised that this Bill must be dealt with in such an expeditious manner we will go along with it. We are plugging loopholes in Bills at various times. Will it be necessary to return to the question of other State-owned property including that owned by the Health Service Executive and educational authorities to plug other loopholes? We should have an inventory of all State-owned properties to ensure that no loopholes exist allowing people to make profits on which the State is not getting the best return. The Minister stated that the best return for the State must be of paramount importance and those of us on this side of the House agree.

Are we being too restrictive in insisting that IDA Ireland can only let property for industrial purposes? In Waterford we are spending €50,000 per year on private companies to store electronic voting machines, yet there is State property around Waterford lying idle. Putting those voting machines into IDA Ireland property or whatever other State property may be available would represent the best use of Exchequer money. I am sure the same is true in many other parts of the country where sites are designated as education property or IDA Ireland property. If the State has a need it should be in a position to use some of that property. In many instances we have an under-use of State property and we need to make better use of it as the Minister stated.

We cannot condone private individuals making profits at the State's expense, which is what would happen with a preponderance of this type of sub-letting of properties. We will support the Bill and facilitate the Minister. However, we hope the Government will take into consideration our comments regarding expediting such legislation given the short period of time we had to prepare for it.

I remind Senator Cummins that yesterday, Members of the European Parliament were here. I stated that it was very important for the people to vote in favour of the European constitution because one of main attractions for international investment is our membership of the EU. We need to keep up the momentum on international and indigenous investment to maintain the standards of living to which the people have become accustomed. While I understand Senator Cummins's comments about the unacceptability of emergency legislation, it is common sense to deal with the Bill. While I agree in principle that we should not rush legislation through either the Dáil or the Seanad, in the circumstances of this Bill I cannot see any complaint.

As the Minister said in his speech, "The advice of the Attorney General was sought regarding the legislative action necessary to prevent the widespread use of the device employed in the case mentioned." These properties were bought with taxpayers' money for State use and we cannot allow private individuals to make money by using State property for a purpose other than its original intention. While I am not being discourteous to Senator Cummins but with all due respect, if Waterford has empty IDA Ireland sites, he should put the heat on his representatives locally to get either an indigenous industry or an international investment. Such sites should not be empty. It hurts me personally as my husband, Pádraig White, was chief executive of the IDA from 1980 to 1990. At the time advance factories were critical in attracting industry to the country, as we had no infrastructure suitable for high-tech investment.

The properties were sold off for less than their value.

The Senator should put the heat on his local interest groups and the county manager to get investment. As we have said before in the presence of the Minister, despite having an economy growing at 5%, in some areas companies are going out of business because in many industries we are no longer competitive. We need to get replacement industries in such cases. I encourage the Senator to put the heat on the local interest groups to get investment in indigenous——

While I thank the Senator for her advice, we cannot get the Government to listen to us.

The Senator should put pressure on his county manager, etc. His suggestion about the storage of electronic voting machines seems alien to me. While there is no harm in saving money on the storage of such equipment, it would be better if we got new industry. While I do not criticise any current employees of IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, they need to become missionaries and zealots.

Yesterday, Senator Quinn suggested that the IDA used to sell Ireland as a low-cost country. I spoke to him afterwards and he accepted that this was not the case. It was never sold as a low-cost country because we were never a low-cost country. At all times when we were seeking international investments, the IDA sold Ireland as a high quality location with a large supply of highly qualified young people. Ireland was never a low-cost country. When trying to attract international investment we always had many low-cost country competitors.

I wish the Minister well in his job. There are pockets around the country where businesses are no longer competitive, for example, Waterford Crystal. We spoke of a place the name of which escapes me.

Dungarvan.

Yes, Dungarvan. There is no point in moaning and groaning if the product is no longer wanted by the market. I am not saying that is the reason that——

It is not the case that the product is no longer wanted by the market.

To compete in business, one must be innovative. The younger generation is opting for more streamlined, elegant glass.

A Chathaoirligh, this is of no relevance to the Bill before us.

We are talking about investment and industrial estates. We are here to protect buildings for international and indigenous investment. The Senator must put the heat on people in his own constituency to secure replacement industries for those affected. We are privileged to be able to co-operate with and assist the Minister and his officials with this very important legislation.

This is a very narrow Bill, and we should concentrate on it. It is clearly the will of the House that the Minister should have his Bill, so we should deal with it as expeditiously as possible. The Minister may have gathered there was a degree of angst in the House that it is being done in this way. The Minister has been prudent, having proceeded with the minimum amount of intrusion. It is the sort of thing that one could not advertise weeks ahead, in case people started establishing rights. I say that more for the House than for him. In future, perhaps at least the leaders of the parties might be told in advance so that things are not sprung on them. That would make life much easier for everyone.

The Minister made one reference to the fact that the Law Reform Commission had picked this up in 1989 and 1992. I wonder whether that stimulated any re-examination by the bodies. Another matter not raised, which is not entirely germane to today's discussions, is the holding of State property and whether it might be better utilised. Property held by all sorts of Departments apart from that of the Minister might be managed more aggressively than at present. The Bill is necessary, and I commend the Minister on his care for the property, restoring the position to how it was intended to be.

Fáiltím roimh an Aire, agus tréaslaím leis as an reachtaíocht seo a chur os ár gcomhair. I commend the Minister and his officials on being so prudent and expeditious on our behalf.

I also compliment Senator Cummins and the Opposition for the co-operative attitude they have taken in this matter. This underlines that we are here to represent taxpayers, and this Bill is about protecting the State coffers. We would all agree that, if this were happening at a later date and we had serious issues on the table, we would be somewhat embarrassed and critical that we were endeavouring to close the stable door after the horse had bolted.

I agree fully with Senator Maurice Hayes in this regard. This emergency legislation is exceptionally focused. At a time such as this we can send out very good signals that we custodians of legislation and democracy work in a united fashion when required. I do not believe there is any political kudos to be gained from representing this as something wrong or negative. I take the opposite view, and I could hear that from the benches this morning. Everyone realises this has to happen. I am fairly sure that it can happen again in future.

That also underlines the sorts of progressive developments that are taking place. Years ago we might not have had the opportunity to recognise that anomalies arise from success. Where they do so, we must respond to them. The same is true of a private business. If one stands still, one will probably not be criticised. If one is making progress and accepting the consequences, on the other hand, one must be sanguine that someone may hone in on negativity and miss out on the 99% of aspects that are positive. I am certainly fully supportive of this legislation and I have no doubt that, in a broader sense, it will be seen as a credit to all involved in public service, irrespective of party political allegiance.

I join with my colleagues in welcoming the Minister to the House to debate this emergency legislation. It is welcome that such decisions are being taken and that a problem identified at an early stage can be addressed legislatively to ensure the State's best interests are protected.

Obviously, I am particularly interested in the Shannon Development aspect and would at first hand have recognised the importance of the property portfolio of the company. Its track record in building much of that property portfolio, its management and the maintenance of its availability to industry in the area has played a critical role in the development of the entire mid-west region. It must obviously be protected. There is an ongoing debate regarding Shannon Development and other State assets about whether it is necessary for the State to continue to own them. Might it be better for the State to focus on the formulation of policy rather than involving itself in the continued maintenance of an asset base? I feel it is important that the State continue to do so.

That is why it is important to protect those assets through this legislation and that the State remain able to provide the necessary facilities in an appropriate manner, not only for indigenous companies or some of the smaller enterprises of whose incubation and birth Senator White has spoken. It must also remain able to attract overseas investment and provide facilities for overseas companies to come to the region. The IDA carries out that function throughout the country. That debate is ongoing and, as Senator Maurice Hayes has said, for another day. I do not want to complicate or slow the legislation's passage this evening.

I support the Bill in the strongest possible terms, as I do the work of the IDA and Shannon Development. Their portfolio has continued to grow. They have carefully managed and maintained it, providing very good facilities to ensure job creation, growth and sustainability in the region. We are talking about a microcosm of economic activity, and the property associated with both the IDA and Shannon Development ensures that such growth and activity are fostered in a very progressive manner under the direction and ownership of the State. That has been greatly welcome, and although the economy has changed, it is just as relevant today owing to the changing demands and needs of industry. It is important that the State be there and able to respond by providing different types of facilities.

This point is particularly true regarding the technology parks Shannon Development is now developing. It has already done this very successfully in Tralee and Thurles, and is now developing one in Ennis. That takes care of future developments, particularly in the high-tech and knowledge-based sector, so that they are able to adapt in a way that ensures that facilities are available to attract companies, not only with grants but also with the necessary infrastructure.

At times it is often difficult to convince property owners to target a specific new area. They like to go with the blue chip clients and bank on that. For new developments, it is important that the State is to the fore in providing the facilities that are needed until private investment can take over and get the standard leases associated with blue chip companies.

I am sure we will have an opportunity to discuss the future of Shannon Development, but I do not want to complicate things today. I hope we get to do so before the end of this session.

I thank Senators for their comments and for facilitating the passage of this Bill. I regret the fact that there was such late notice given to the spokespersons about this. The Cabinet meeting was one day late this week and that delay caused some of the difficulty. We approved the decision to pass this legislation yesterday evening, which left little time to inform others. It is important that the Oireachtas is always taken seriously and the concerns of Members on the passage of legislation must be taken into account.

The local authorities have specific statutes in the legislative framework governing the disposal of their properties and that is a reserve function of the individual council members. All members of the Government have been made aware of this situation and any further impact will have to be assessed. It points to the need for on-going risk management processes of the property portfolio of the State and its agencies.

The question was asked if IDA Ireland is being too restrictive in the covenants that it applies. I support the view of IDA Ireland that we need to be patient on inward investment. We need clear ideas on where certain industries should be located. IDA Ireland has built up much expertise in this field and it has a sense of what is required for foreign direct investment and how it should be accommodated. The issue is to have key infrastructure available with all of the utilities in place. The danger is that people get impatient when the land and utilities are provided but are not being completely used within 12 months. I have met representatives of different chambers of commerce who have articulated this to me. The key infrastructure to bring in foreign direct investment could be inadvertently removed. We therefore need to be patient and work with the local authorities to develop the proper infrastructure.

In IDA Ireland industrial estates there is also room for indigenous manufacturing companies. However, this legislation does not preclude that debate. That can be continued in the debate on how IDA Ireland uses its land assets. The key issue is the protection of a State asset.

Senator White was correct when she stated that industrial development is vital to our economy, especially in the development of the regions. It is clear that the Senator believes in the self-reliant ethos. I have never tried to tell Deputies and Senators to get industries up and running themselves, but this is a new angle. Sometimes politicians promise to do all that they can, but this is a new way of looking at things which reverses the psychology of the situation. I was in Carlow and Kilkenny last week and I am was conscious of the employment issues there as I met with representatives of IDA Ireland. We have land solutions in the south east which would facilitate inward investment. I am sure that there will be better days ahead for Waterford and for the south east.

I will be travelling abroad with IDA Ireland on another mission to convince companies to invest in Ireland. We have had good success this year. Senator White referred to the missionaries and the zealots. The young generation of IDA Ireland executives in the US and across the globe are in that mould. It matters to them that they win investment for Ireland and it is a joy to watch them perform. In some of the meetings with CEOs, I could sense that they would like to have those people working for them. They are working in a very competitive environment, especially in regard to taxation and that is why corporation tax is so critical.

I thank all members of the Opposition for their responsible co-operation with this Bill. Prior to the enacting of this legislation, anyone could get a letter of intervention and we could do nothing about it. Senator Maurice Hayes described this dilemma well in his contribution. The Law Reform Commission noted it in 1989 and 1992 in a general sense and not specifically with regard to industrial land.

The OPW has assumed greater responsibilities with the broader State property portfolio. The State still needs to manage collectively its property portfolio in a more cohesive manner. As we have created a devolved structure in some Departments, we do not have a clear picture of what the State actually owns. For example, schools were often owned by the religious orders, but the State had an involvement with grants and so on. VECs and local authorities are devolved structures and what is policed by the centre can sometimes be construed as interference.

Táim buíoch do Seanadóir Ó Murchú as ucht an tachaíocht atá tugtha dó don reachtaíocht agus as ucht an méid a duairt sé maidir leis an reachtaíocht seo. In particular, I thank him for his comment that we have worked in a united way to intervene quickly to resolve an issue that protects the taxpayer and the State assets. I am glad that Senator Dooley did not wish to discuss the complexities of Shannon Development today. I accept gratefully his invitation not to do so. Perhaps we will engage with that issue on another day. This legislation also protects the asset base of Shannon Development and Udarás na Gaeltachta. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Now.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank the Minister and accept fully his explanation in regard to the lateness of the legislation following last night's Cabinet meeting. I compliment his officials on their work also. We are all here to protect taxpayers' money and we have done a good job in this regard today.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share