asked the Minister for Justice if, in respect of the past ten years, he will state (a) the number of times in which the provisions of section 45 of the Larceny Act, 1916 were used to enforce the restitution of stolen goods, or money to the value thereof, to the original owner of the goods; (b) if he will give information as to the number of victims of crime whose stolen property or its value has never been restored to them; and (c) if he will give information as to the number of convicted perpetrators of thefts who are at liberty, but have not made reasonable efforts to restore to the victims of their crime the property stolen or money to the value thereof.
Ceisteanna—Questions . Oral Answers . - Larceny Act Provision .
34.
: The statistics sought have not been kept either by the courts or the Garda Síochána and their compilation retrospectively from original records, if it were possible at all, would involve a very substantial amount of staff time and effort that I do not consider would be justified.
The question of the application of section 45 of the Larceny Act, 1916, in any particular case is entirely a matter for the court and I have no function in the matter.
: I am sorry that the figures are not available because they would have enabled us to judge whether the legal system was effective in this matter. Is the Minister satisfied that people who are the victims of crime, where the criminal can restore the property or money to the value thereof after his conviction, are having such property or the value thereof restored to them?
: I am satisfied that what the Deputy says is the position.
: I did not say anything. I was asking the Minister a question.
: I would need separate notice of that question because I do not think it is covered in the original question.
: Is the Minister aware of a case, of which I gave him notice about a month ago, of an old lady who was beaten up and robbed of £2,800 in cash? The perpetrators of the crime were subsequently caught and convicted and released on good conduct having served part of their sentences and the lady has not got back one penny of the money which was stolen from her.
: There is a letter on the file which will be issued to the Deputy this evening or tomorrow in connection with this case.
: Can I take it from the Minister's reply that he is satisfied with the legal position in this matter? Not having seen the letter I am at a disadvantage.
: If the Deputy would wait until he gets the letter I would be quite prepared to discuss it with him then.
: If the Minister had given the information I would not have had to wait and could have settled the matter here and now.
: I have often had to wait for information myself.
35.
asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of difficulties being experienced by current house purchasers who had signed contracts prior to the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, 1978, where such contracts provided for a leasehold title and who are now unable to enforce such contracts or obtain mortgages and the steps he proposes to take to remedy the situation.
: I am not aware that the position is as stated in the question. I am aware of a newspaper report of a statement said to have been issued by the Deputy in relation to these matters. I regard the statement, as reported, as being misleading and, in certain respects as I shall explain, liable to do harm.
Since what the Deputy is contending is that the Act created difficulties that would have been avoided—and that could still be avoided—if policies advocated by him were accepted, I have to make it clear that I am not prepared to accept his policies and I am in no doubt that house purchasers generally would also reject them once they knew what the Deputy's policies implied.
Certain transitional difficulties— nothing like as big as the Deputy suggests—were inevitable if the sale of new dwelling houses by way of lease was to be ended. I was not prepared, and am not now prepared, to abandon that objective simply to avoid those transitional difficulties. It was a matter of Government policy that the law would put an end to the sale of new dwelling houses by way of leasehold. It was not enough that the law should prohibit new ground rents as there are other facets of leasehold ownership inconsistent with what houseowners in general rightly expect. This policy required a cut-off date to be provided for in the Act and excluded the idea of allowing leaseholds to be created after that date even if there was a prior contract to give a leasehold. There were consultations with representatives of the legal profession on all this and it was accepted by them that it was important to avoid the uncertainty which such an exclusion would create.
The Incorporated Law Society issued clear warnings to their members, both by public advertisement and by individual letter to each member, about the need to have leases completed before the cut-off date unless there was an agreement to give a freehold after that date. I have no reason to think that those warnings were disregarded—indeed I would be astonished if, in view of the seriousness of the matter, any solicitor had disregarded them.
I have seen no evidence, beyond the Deputy's statement, that thousands of householders are affected and I invite him to send me the evidence on which that statement is based.
A suggestion in the Deputy's public statement, as reported, is that house purchasers are being called on to pay what is referred to as an additional premium in order to get a freehold in a case where the contract was for a leasehold. The clear implication is that it is improper for a builder to expect any such payment. Such an implication is unfair and is, I suggest, liable to lead to unjustified acrimony between builder and purchaser. I am in fact aware that in certain cases extra payments have been sought, but the only cases that have come to my notice are cases in which the contract to give a lease also provided for a ground rent to be paid, and the builder is now offering the fee simple for an additional sum approximate to what one might call the "formula" purchase price of such a ground rent under the 1967 Act. I obviously cannot and should not comment on figures that may be under negotiation but it should be clear that the law could not compel a builder to give fee simple where he had contracted to give a lease subject to a ground rent unless he got reasonable recompense for loss of the ground rent. The builder is entitled to seek a reasonable quid pro quo for the loss of the ground rent which the purchaser had agreed to pay.
There may, of course, be cases where the builder has not himself a freehold interest but only a lease. Such a builder is now legally entitled to take steps to get a freehold and he obviously has a very strong commercial interest to get it as soon as possible. Any delay will no doubt cause some temporary inconvenience but that is unavoidable unless we are to have uncertainty in the law in the future. It is in the long-term interests of the purchasers even in those particular cases that they should get a fee simple.
I would like to emphasise that I have no evidence and no reason to believe that any builders are seeking to use the Act to go back on a sale in a situation where it is open to them to provide a fee simple instead of a lease, or are seeking to enforce a higher payment than the approximate equivalent of the ground rent for which the contract was signed. If they should do either of these things, I am advised that the house purchasers can depend on existing law to protect their interests. If that were to turn out not to be so, I should certainly be prepared to look at the matter again and without delay, but I have no reason to believe that there is any need for that.
I would conclude by again inviting the Deputy to send me the evidence on which he has based his statement and, subject of course to the principles I have outlined in this reply, I shall see whether there is any avoidable problem.
: Do I gather from the Minister that he accepts that there are people in this difficult situation?
: Having read the Deputy's statement in the paper and coupling it with the question, I would say to the Deputy that if he has any evidence that would point out to me that there is something wrong which needs to be corrected I am quite prepared to do something about it right away.
: Is the Minister aware that the Land Registry have now indicated to practitioners that all leases involving house purchases not filed for registration prior to 16 May will be rejected and that accordingly those purchasers will find themselves unable to register their titles?
: I am not aware of what the Deputy has said but I am prepared to inquire into it.
: The remaining questions——
: Sorry for pushing this, but it is a rather serious matter.
: We are five minutes over Question Time.
: I accept that. But it is very serious for, I believe, many hundreds if not thousands of people. Has the Minister made any inquiries from members of the legal profession involved in conveyancing practice as to the extent of this problem?
: Again I should like to tell the Deputy that I have had no complaints whatever, nobody getting on to me either as individuals or people like the Incorporated Law Society. There is nobody, to the best of my knowledge and belief, making any representations to me about such serious difficulties as the Deputy seems to think exists.
: Will the Minister accept that at least a half dozen members of the profession have been in touch with me in recent times indicating in one case that a problem of very serious proportions had arisen?
: I do not doubt that a number of the Deputy's colleagues have been in touch with him, but I should like to assure the Deputy that they have not been in touch with me.
: Will the Minister agree that, if hard evidence becomes available from members of the profession involving considerable hardship to many current house purchasers, he would take the necessary steps by way of introducing amending legislation if required to cover the situation?
: I should like to assure the Deputy—and I say this for the third time—that I would welcome any evidence he has which would show where the difficulties are and if anything has to be done about these difficulties I shall do it.
: The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.