(Cavan-Monaghan): Section 4, as drafted, states:
This Act shall not bind a State authority in its capacity as lessor or immediate lessor of any premises.
In simple language that means that the State is to be absolved from all the burdens which the Bill imposes on ordinary landlords. On the other hand, under the Bill the State will enjoy all the rights and privileges which are being conferred on tenants. The principal benefit which the Bill confers on tenants is the right to a new tenancy. That is laid down in Part II, which states that in certain circumstances a tenant or lessee whose lease or tenancy expires is entitled to a new lease from his landlord or lessor. If the landlord or lessor fails to give a tenant a new lease, that tenant has a right to go to court. If he satisfies the conditions laid down in Part II of the Bill, he is entitled to a new tenancy.
Indeed, the rights of the tenant are being improved considerably. Up to now the occupier of a business premises which was not held under a lease from year to year was entitled to a new tenancy only if he had been in occupation of that business premises for seven years, but that period is being reduced now to three years so that a tenant of a business premises whose tenancy has been terminated is entitled to a new tenancy if he has been in occupation for three years. This is a very considerable improvement in favour of the tenant, but for the first time in legislation there is the provision in section 4 which excludes the tenant from any of those rights as against his landlord while at the same time, if the State finds itself in the position of tenant or lessee, it will enjoy all the benefits, privileges and rights in favour of a tenant without having to be burdened with any of the obligations of a lessor or landlord if it finds itself in the position of either. This situation is entirely unreasonable.
The Minister has stated that he is not changing the law, that the law has been always that the State was not bound by the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1931, that Act which we are updating and re-enacting here. I do not accept that. It has never been so decided or adjudicated on by the courts. The State is not bound by the Rent Restrictions Acts, but that is a totally different matter. The exclusion is written into the Rent Restrictions Acts. I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right. In addition there is a very different situation in the Rent Restrictions Acts regarding residential dwellings dwellings that were provided specifically by local authorities and by the State as residences for people who needed them. It would be only reasonable that the State should have control of such dwellings in order to ensure that they would continue to be used for the purpose for which they were built.
This Bill was introduced in the Seanad and debated there. Section 4, which excludes the landlord from the obligation imposed on landlords under this Bill, was debated at length in the Seanad but the absurdity of the provision became apparent when it was pointed out that a man could enter into a lease with a private individual for 50 years and that when that lease had another three years to run the landlord's interest could be bought by the State, thereby robbing the tenant of his right to a new tenancy. That proposition was outrageous and the Minister had to see the reason of the argument put forward in the other House. Under that section as introduced in the Seanad a person would not only be robbed of his rights against the landlord where the landlord was the State and where the lease was granted in the first instance by the State, but he was robbed of those rights also where the State bought a landlord's interest with even only a short time to run. That proposition was so outrageous that it could not stand up to investigation. The Minister makes some virtue out of the fact that he is putting that defect right. Under the amendment as introduced by him the position will be that where the State purchases a landlord's interest certain limited rights will still accrue to the tenant provided he brings himself within the section, but he will be entitled only to one renewal.
It is my considered opinion that the Minister is changing the law by reason of section 4, unless he is relying on some old British dictum to the effect that the Crown is above and beyond everybody, that the Crown can do no wrong, that the Crown is all powerful and almighty and that he is substituting the word "State" for the word "Crown". That is the only dictum on which the Minister could hang his argument, but I do not believe that our courts would hold accordingly. If what the Minister says is right, why was it considered necessary to write into the Rent Restrictions Act, as I believe has been written in, that these Acts do not apply to local authorities or to the State? For the first time the Minister is putting in a privileged position a body well able to look after itself, that is, the State. Usually the State is not short of cash if its finances are properly managed and, even if the State finds itself in difficulties, it has ways and means of getting money to run its services. However, what the Minister is doing in this legislation is putting the State in a privileged position. If, for example, a young man leases a premises from a private individual and builds up a business there and after spending 30 years in that business, during which time he builds up a very valuable asset and goodwill, the position would be that he could then acquire a new lease thereby protecting his assets. However, if the Minister has his way, a young man who would rent from a Department of State on a 31-year lease a building that had just been constructed could be thrown out without any compensation at the end of that time.
Is the Minister saying that people who, shortly after the foundation of this State, took leases on valuable property in the GPO in this city had no rights? Is he saying that people, some of them from my native county, who took leases on portion of the GPO, one of the most valuable shopping centres in the city, did so in the knowledge that when their leases expired they could be thrown out without a penny compensation? That is so absurd as not to stand up to any serious investigation.
I do not believe that it was ever the law or that it was ever understood to be the law. The first time it ever appeared in any Bill was in the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, 1978. I believe that where the State as tenant or lessee reaps the benefits it would not otherwise enjoy were it not for this Act—it would not have the benefits of a a new tenancy were it not for this Act; it is doubtful whether it should have them at all, but they are in the Bill and I am not quarrelling with that—and where it shares the benefits conferred on tenants, it should shoulder the obligations imposed on landlords. That is not an unreasonable proposition.
The State is well able to look after itself. In most cases it does not have to have a building in a particular place. If you want to go to the Inspector of Taxes you have to find him out. If you do not find him, he will find you. The State is not in competition with anybody. The State is a monopoly. It does not matter to the State if its offices have to move 100 yards or half a mile one way or the other. Therefore, in my view, it is most unjust to seek to amend the law as the Minister is seeking to do.
It is true that the amendment is an improvement on section 4 as first written into the Bill. Section 4 simply says that the Act did not apply to the State in its capacity as a landlord or a lessor. The amendment gives certain rights to a tenant who is bought over by the State. It gives certain rights to a tenant who has had his remainder interest bought over by the State, but only a limited interest. It is quite wrong that that should be. The reasonable thing for the Minister to do is to delete section 4 and let the State take the burden of this Bill as landlord and the privileges of this Bill as tenant.