I move:
In subparagraph (ii) to delete all words from and including "or a lease" down to and including "to the land".
I was not aware the Minister had put down an amendment to the section, and that is the reason why it appears as an amendment to an amendment. My purpose in putting down this amendment can best be clarified by my reference to a communication which I have had from a constituent who feels he is very much affected by this Bill and who feels he is aggrieved by its present form. In the course of a letter, he states:
...My lease has four years to run. Accordingly the protection afforded to tenants by the Bill that the purchase price to by out the ground rent cannot exceed a certain number of years purchase of the present ground rent does not apply to me—because my lease has less than 25 years to run. I will first have to negotiate a new ground rent which will be the determining factor. The landlord who will be aware that I am getting out will as I see it be out to exact the fullest pound of flesh and accordingly I see a worsening of conditions for the small group to which I belong. In other words if this Bill never came along the landlord would likely be far more lenient in four years time than now. My present ground rent is £11 15s which they would hardly have stepped up to more than £14 even though they might legally have gone as high as £30. They will, I am afraid, exact the full legal right henceforth.
By "they" I presume he means the landlord. I have put down my amendment in order to try to meet this man's position and the position of those like him, who, I am inclined to agree with him, are probably relatively few, but none the less very important. The law must be made applicable justly to all citizens, in so far as that is humanly possible, regardless of whether they are numerically in the majority or in a minority of one.
My correspondent goes on to inquire if it is possible to eliminate the distinction between the tenant whose lease has less than 25 years to run and the tenant whose lease has more years to run and he says:
In a way, the tenant who has less should be entitled to any preferential treatment that is going as the fact that he has less than 25 years to go establishes that he or those who went before him have been paying the ground rent for over 75 years. In my case the estate have been collecting for 96 years and I am to be put in a very worse position than if the estate had been collecting for 75 years or less.
The Minister may argue that the tenant is protected by the terms of section 18 as to the factors that must be borne in mind in determining the new rent but clearly the very fact that the Bill excludes the "less than 25 years to run" group from the maximum purchase price fixed for the "25 years and over" group makes clear that the Minister feels that the under 25 years man should be charged more.
He also inquires, if it is impossible to meet this small group fully and to accord them justice, could there not be some effort by the Minister on this occasion to deal with the problem with which he will be confronted.
There is a great deal of justice in what this man has to say and I should like the Minister to consider it. It may be that the form of my amendment is deemed to be too sweeping to cover such a limited section of the community. I put it down in order to get the opportunity of bringing this kind of case to the Minister's notice. I do not believe the Minister wilfully wishes to impose a hardship on this section of the people but, if we let the opportunity of this Bill go by without taking all possible steps open to us to protect the interests of leaseholders, including leaseholders such as this man who has been a long time in possession of the property and whose people before him have been paying ground rent, and if we do not take this opportunity to endeavour to deal with such cases equitably, it may be a long time before we get another opportunity of discussing them. Indeed, legislation affecting property comes under consideration in this House only at considerable intervals of time.
It may be that none of us will be taking much interest in the affairs of Dáil Éireann when the next Bill to deal with this kind of problem comes before the House. Therefore, it behoves us to take all possible precautions to make the instrument as perfect as it is possible to make it bearing in mind at all times the fact that it is not within human competence to make it completely and absolutely perfect and to ensure that it will cover every conceivable situation or problem.
I would urge this case upon the Minister. Since the number of persons affected would not be very large and as it would appear that this group of persons have a legitimate claim here, leaving aside the wording of my amendment, the Minister with his officials should seek to get legal verbiage which would cover what I am trying to provide.