I have notice of four Private Members' questions that have been put to the Minister for Justice on the action she proposes to take arising from recent events affecting residents of the Mespil Estate. Deputies Frances Fitzgerald, Theresa Ahearn——
Private Notice Questions. - Mespil Estate (Dublin) Disposal.
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
On a point of order, I wish to raise my objection to the decision by the Minister for Finance not to accept the question tabled by me regarding the sale of the Mespil Road flats. His decision is scandalous. He is washing his hands of a decision made by a company in which the State owns 30 per cent of the shares. It is disgraceful that the Minister will not answer questions tabled to him on behalf of the tenants of Mespil Road flats.
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
The Chair does not have control on the transfer of questions.
On a point of order, I have been here since 2.30 p.m. and answering questions since 2.55 p.m. and I am not sure which question I did not answer.
(Interruptions.)
In effect, Deputy Ahearn, that is not a point of order. I wish to proceed on this matter. I will call on Deputies Frances Fitzgerald, Theresa Ahearn, Michael McDowell and Gilmore, in that order.
asked the Minister for Justice if her attention has been drawn to the sale by Irish Life of the Mespil estate and the consequent eviction of residents from these flats; and if she will introduce emergency legislation to deal with the insecurity of tenure arising from this sale.
asked the Minister for Justice the proposals she has at this stage to protect the security of tenure of tenants in the Mespil apartments; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Justice if, in light of recent events in relation to the Mespil estate, her attention has been drawn to public concern about the absence of protection for elderly long term tenants in private rented accommodation; and if she will as a matter of urgency take steps, including legislative reform, to protect their interests.
asked the Minister for Justice the steps she intends to take to assist the plight of the tenants in Mespil Road flats, many of whom are now facing uncertainity about the future of their tenancies and a number of whom face eviction, especially as the State held a 30 per cent shareholding in Irish Life at the time it sold the flats to New City Estates; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
I wish to say first that I fully understand the very real sense of concern which has prompted Deputies to put down these questions today. I say this without in any way commenting on the positions which have been put forward by the parties immediately involved. Through the media, we have heard individual parties on both sides of this matter — by which I mean the new owners and the long-standing tenants — say, in effect, that they find themselves caught up in a situation which was not of their choosing. While I have no special knowledge of the detailed circumstances which applied in individual cases, it seems evident that the individuals concerned on both sides genuinely regret the circumstances which brought these private transactions to the public eye.
I have been asked to consider the introduction of emergency legislation. As regards amending legislation, my immediate reaction when information on this matter came to hand was to inquire as to the prospect of tackling the matter by means of a reforming landlord and tenant law. I will certainly listen to what Deputies have to say on this issue but, on the basis of the advice I have received, I have to say that the prospects of dealing with this matter by this means do not seem to be promising. I will explain why this is so.
The rights of tenants fall in the first place to be dealt with by reference to the terms of the lease or other tenancy agreement which they hold. The Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1980, gives to residential tenancies of 20 years standing a right of renewal of tenancy for up to 35 years. The Housing (Private Rented Dwelling) Acts, 1982 and 1983, are also designed to provide a measure of protection for tenants. However, the provisions in those Acts, which are the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, are confined largely to tenants of dwellings formerly controlled under the rent restrictions Acts. There are no steps open to me under existing landlord and tenant legislation to intervene in this matter. While I am, of course, considering whether new legislation is required and will listen carefully to what Deputies may have to say on this matter, I should point out that any amendments of the 1980 Act would normally apply only to leases made after the coming into effect of the legislation and would not, therefore, affect the rights of parties under existing leases or other tenancy agreements for constitutional reasons.
Would the Minister agree that it is disgraceful that tenants of long-standing were not given the opportunity to buy their flats and that it is completely unacceptable that Irish Life, at that time partly owned by the State, behaved in this fashion? I concur with the comments by my colleague about the refusal of the Minister for Finance to take this question or the question I raised some weeks ago on this matter. Questions arise about social responsibilities and ethical standards which the Minister for Finance should have addressed. I am somewhat disappointed at the Minister's response. Does she agree that there is a need for an overall review of the landlord and tenant legislation? Some tenants who occupied their apartments for 19 years were moved from apartment to apartment in order to deprive them of the rights which the legislation gives them. Does the Minister agree that an examination should be carried out to seek to give these tenants some statutory right at least?
I am considering, as a matter of urgency, what amending legislation might be possible and what could be done under it. Deputies will appreciate that amending legislation could not apply retrospective as this would create a constitutional difficulty.
The Minister for Finance, on behalf of the State, holds a 15.3 per cent shareholding in Irish Life. I understand that even when the State owned in excess of 90 per cent of the shares, investment decisions were a matter for the board of the company, in the same way as they are for other State companies. The annual general meeting of Irish Life is due to be held on 28 May and the Minister for Finance has the power to ask his proxy to raise this issue at this meeting and demand a report on the matter. I have an assurance from the Minister for Finance that his proxy, on his and the Government's behalf, will raise the concerns of all Members in relation to this issue.
I am alarmed that the Minister stated that she has no special knowledge of the detailed circumstances regarding the sale of the Mespil flats. I am, perhaps, in a unique position in raising this issue in that the longest tenant in Mespil flats is my aunt who has been a tenant in this complex for the past 39 years. She was changed to a new apartment after 19 years on the basis that the heating system in the complex was being changed. Will the Minister take steps to give people like my aunt, who is 82 years old, security of tenure and peace during the final years of their lives? Is the Minister happy that a company in which the State has a 30 per cent shareholding allowed what can be called a sub-committee of the golden circle — one could also call them the penthouse privileged — to buy the apartments for approximately half the price people like my aunt paid in rent over the past 39 years? Did the Government know that Irish Life had proposals of this type; if it did, why did it not take steps to protect the tenants; and if it did not know, why did it not know?
As I said in reply to Deputy Fitzgerald, the State has no function in relation to investment decisions and it only has a 15.3 per cent shareholding in the company. The State has no role in relation to investment decisions; those matters are left to the board of the company. I understand the State had no such role even when it had more than a 90 per cent shareholding in the company. That is the position in relation to all State companies.
With regard to the length of the tenancies, I have some information with me. As Deputies will appreciate, I do not have responsibility for Irish Life.
The Government is trying to wash its hands of the matter.
(Interruptions.)
In view of the concerns of all of us about the tenants, like Deputy Ahearn's aunt, who have a tenancy of more than 25 years in this apartment block——
Thirty-nine years.
——it is important that we know how many tenancies there are. The following are the statistics: tenancies of 25 years and more, eight; tenancies of between 20 and 25 years, ten; tenancies of between 15 and 20 years, 43; tenancies of between ten and 15 years, 30; tenancies of between five and ten years, 45; tenancies of between three and five years, 46; and tenancies of between one and three years, 117.
With regard to the golden circle, it is important for people to realise that there was no such thing as a golden circle, according to my information.
Did the Minister ask the Taoiseach?
Irish Life is not obliged to put its properties up for public sale. I understand the company announced it was selling one block in this flat complex, the vacant block. When the announcement was made public, it generated four offers, not only for that block but for the entire complex. One of those offers was made by New City Estates which I understand was made up of eight of the original people in the consortium. The offer was £8.15 million but the currency crisis intervened and at the end of the day the 300 apartments were sold to 34 purchasers.
The penthouse privileged.
Will the Minister agree that her figures are highly misleading? She said, for instance, that 117 of the tenancies are between one and three years. Does she realise that these take into account people who were shifted because they were approaching the 20 year period and that they fit into a different category? Will the Minister agree that this 20 year protection is of no use to anyone when Irish Life and other landlords move people out of their homes after 19 years, depriving them of all statutory protection? Furthermore, will the Minister agree that most of these people do not want a 35 year lease? All they want is to be left alone paying a reasonable rent for their accommodation; they do not want the kind of protection the law affords them. Will the Minister also agree that there is no constitutional problem with applying new protections to existing tenancies, since it was done in 1980, under the provisions of the Act to which she referred, when the 30 year limit was brought down to 20 years and applies to existing tenancies? It was also done in 1977 when the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act were applied to existing contracts of employment. Therefore will she agree that there is no constitutional reason for elderly and vulnerable people living in private rented accommodation, not getting protection and that this discussion, based on vague constitutional warnings from the Minister's Departmental officials, is not acceptable? Will the Minister agree that it is open to her to introduce legislation to protect people from arbitrary evictions? I suggest to the Minister that it is not good enough to come into this House with figures——
A question, please, Deputy.
Will the Minister agree that her figures about the structure of tenancies are misleading because an awful lot of people were dumped out of one flat, put into another and, therefore, appear in the lower band of the 117 people because they had their long tenancies terminated to avoid the protection supposedly there for them?
I have no intention of misleading the House. I am giving the information as it was given to me; that is the basis on which I gave it to the House. The Government does not want to see elderly, vulnerable people being — as Deputy Michel McDowell describes it — dumped out of their apartments. It wants to give protection; that is why the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act is there. That is why this Government, in the course of its preparations for a Programme for Government, set out very clearly that it wanted to introduce a charter of tenants' rights. That is why the Minister for the Environment and others are working very diligently to bring forward that charter which, in the light of what happened this week, is needed more urgently than ever. That work is continuing and the charter will be brought forward. I am also examining urgently what amendments might be possible to the Landlord and Tenants (Amendment) Act, 1980, to provide protection in this case.
Will the Minister inform the House when exactly New City Estates made its offer or proposal to Irish Life? Is she aware that at least two months before the sale was concluded with Irish Life New City Estates circulated a prospectus offering these flats for resale, thus lining up for themselves a windfall profit in what must be the sweetest property deal——
I must interrupt the Deputy. The matter of the sale of this property is one for Irish Life, not for this House. Questions to the Minister for Finance have been fairly consistently ruled out of order for that reason. I must remind the Deputy that it is not an avenue to be pursued in the House.
A cover-up.
The sale of these flats is a matter not only for the Minister for Finance but for the tenants and indeed is a matter of public concern. Is the Minister concerned that Irish Life sold these flats at a knock-down price, a price for which one would not buy a dog box in Ballsbridge, much less an apartment in a desirable location? In relation to the commitment the Minister has given the House — that these matters will be pursued at the annual general meeting of Irish Life on 28 May — will she say whether questions will be put in relation to them? Have investigations or inquiries been made of Irish Life to date regarding the manner in which they conducted the sale with New City Estates?
My information is that inquiries have already been made of Irish Life in relation to the whole matter which is now public. At the beginning of my response to Deputy Frances Fitzgerald's question I gave a commitment that, at the annual general meeting of the company to be held on 28 May, the proxy representing the Minister for Finance and the Government will raise this matter. He will also raise the concerns not just of the Government but of all of the Members of this House and will seek a report. The Deputy can be assured that that will be done.
Did the Minister get the advice of the Attorney General?
I will allow one further very speedy round of supplementary questions from the Deputies who tabled these questions. I will call first on Deputy Shatter.
Will the Minister agree it is unacceptable for what was originally a State company, one that still has State investment, to shift tenants around by subterfuge, suggesting that heating systems needed to be changed and, by so doing, deprive them of their rights under landlord and tenant legislation? Will the Minister, in conjunction with her other colleagues in Government — within the context of the annual general meeting to which she referred — take steps to ascertain whether Irish Life is currently behaving in the same way towards any other tenants in investment properties owned by it? Will the Minister make it known to Irish Life that it is not acceptable that elderly people, who do not know their legal rights, be deliberately disadvantaged in this manner?
With regard to the constitutional issue, as the Attorney General has an interest in the matter, will the Minister indicate whether she sought any advice from him as to the constitutionality of retrospective legislation, or whether she may need to seek the advice of a different law officer in the unfortunate circumstances of this case?
The Government does not accept that elderly people should feel threatened or disadvantaged by any company, public or private. This applies particularly to Irish Life because the Government owned in excess of 90 per cent of the company and still retains a 15.3 per cent shareholding therein. We do not accept that the constant moving around of elderly tenants is a good practice. The concern expressed by Deputies on the opposite side of the House has already been expressed by the people on this side of the House.
In relation to the position of the Attorney General, it is important — because of the innuendo by Deputy Shatter and another Member — that I should clarify his position. He purchased two apartments, both of which had sitting tenants, who still remain in them. He made no contact with them either to evict them or to raise their rents. That will remain the position.
The Minister said in replying that there was no question of a golden circle. Will she agree that it is highly unusual, in circumstances of this kind, that New City Estates should have sold these apartments in a private sale, that the public at large were not entitled to make an offer for any apartment, that — as she said — there were 34 owners, which would mean that most of them have an average of at least ten apartments? Will the Minister agree it is highly inappropriate and very suspicious that these apartments were sold by a kind of word of mouth process to certain individuals? Will she make the full list of all the purchasers available since she appears to have such information?
Unfortunately, I do not have the information as to the eight in the consortium, about which I spoke, at the time of the original offer, or the names of the 34 purchasers, although quite a number of those names are now emerging in the media. If I had, I would be delighted to give it to the House. I have forgotten the first part of the Deputy's question.
Does the Minister not think it strange that these apartments were not advertised in that even somebody selling a property for, say, £10,000 or £15,000 generally advertise to get the best offer?
My information, from Irish Life first, is that it is not obliged to put its properties up for public sale and that the New City Estates offer came as a result of Irish Life publicly announcing that it was selling the one vacant block. As a result, as I said, it informed us it had received four offers, one of which was from New City Estates, which it said was the best offer. I admit I am not well up in property deals. Therefore, I am not sure how companies like New City Estates do their business.
Ask the Taoiseach.
Has the Minister ever heard of anybody selling 300 properties and not advertising them?
No, I have not heard of it.
Does it not sound like a sweetheart deal?
Does the Minister not think it would be possible to introduce legislation to cater for circumstances in which people have been removed from their accommodation or have had their tenancies interrupted on the basis of misleading information? In those circumstances could the Minister introduce legislation to ensure that continuity of tenancies would be respected?
As I said, I am examining, as a matter of urgency, the question of whether amending legislation should be introduced to try to come up with a solution to this problem, if possible, Deputy Shatter and Deputy McDowell seem to think it should be possible to come up with a solution but it is my information that we may run into difficulties in making it retrospective to apply to existing tenancies in this case. Everything that can be done under the 1980 Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act will be done. The Deputy can also rest assured that if action needs to be taken under the legislation for which the Minister for the Environment is responsible it will be taken. As I said, in advance of the formation of this Government and its Programme for Government it was Government policy to have a tenants' charter which the Minister and a number of others are working on as a matter of urgency.
Deputy T. Ahearn rose.
A brief question, Deputy, as I want to bring these questions to a close.
Is the Minister aware that the tenants who remain in Mespil Estate are faced with a massive rent increase and that the vast majority have no idea who their new landlords are? At least two tenants have been lucky in that generous purchasers have made a humane offer to them. Nevertheless, will the Minister agree that tenants may lose their homes because they are unable to meet the massive rent increase and that while Irish Life did not act illegally it acted immorally?
I understand — I have to depend on information provided by the company — that 14 tenants received notice to quit, all of whom were offered alternative accommodation within the complex, while another 30 were asked if they wished to sign new one year leases with a rent increase of between 30 per cent to 40 per cent, 25 of whom have accepted.
I call Deputy McDowell for a final question.
Sorry, a Cheann Comhairle——
I do not think the Minister has concluded.
I trust the Minister has concluded.
First, will the Minister indicate to the proxy of the Minister for Finance that it is not the first time this happened in the case of Irish Life; in the case of Wilton Court 300 yards away——
Let us stick to the subject matter before us today.
——this arises out of a discussion held earlier — the complex was sold by Irish Life in 1984 for half its value and immediately offered back to the tenants by the purchaser——
Let us not go back in history.
Will the Minister also agree that in every instance where landlord and tenant legislation was introduced the new provisions applied to existing tenancies and that there was no question of the legislation applying only to leases signed after the legislation had been passed? Will the Minister explain to the House——
Deputy McDowell, let us come to a conclusion. I have to dissuade Members from the notion that they may debate this matter now; they may not.
Will the Minister explain to the House why it is appropriate that business tenancies have an entitlement to 35 year leases after a period of three years while vulnerable tenants in their seventies and eighties must remain in occupation for 20 years and face eviction in their last few years without any protection?
We are having repetition.
I will take the second part of Deputy Ahearn's supplementary question first. She asked a specific question in relation to tenants who do not know where they stand. It is my information that Irish Life is now acting as an intermediary between New City Estates and the tenants; that tomorrow an information office will be opened on the estate in the management company's offices with which the tenants are familiar——
What about an explanation?
——and that a circular will be issued this evening by Irish Life to each of the tenants affected.
Saying that they are sorry.
Deputy McDowell asked if I would bring to the attention of the proxy of the Minister for Finance certain matters in relation to the annual general meeting. There is nothing wrong with the hearing of the Minister for Finance and he heard what Deputy McDowell said. I have dealt with that matter already. I said that the Minister for Finance will be asking his proxy to raise this issue at the annual general meeting on 28 May. The Minister for Finance has nothing to hide and we want a full explanation. Members on this side of the House are just as concerned as Members of the Opposition about this matter and we want it clarified. As I said, I am examining, as a matter of urgency, the question of whether amending legislation is necessary in regard to the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1980, and Deputy McDowell can be assured that all necessary steps will be taken.
A final question from Deputy Gilmore.
Will the Minister encourage the proxy of the Minister for Finance to make inquiries at the annual general meeting to be held on 28 May about the independent valuation which Irish Life claims it obtained on the flats and which its representative declined to make public on radio this morning and ensure that this independent valuation is made public or available at the annual general meeting?
I am sure the Deputy appreciates that he does not need to suggest this to the Minister so that he suggests it to his proxy; as I said, the Minister for Finance will be asking his proxy to raise this issue at the annual general meeting. All the questions which are the source of concern to the public and Members of this House will be raised, on behalf of the Minister for Finance and the Government, by his proxy.
That disposes of questions for today.