I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7 to delete lines 29 and 30.
This section has been debated both on Second Stage and on Committee Stage. I have considered the points made by the Minister of State on Committee Stage with regard to the retention of the section. It is quite clear that there are cases which he has given which would justify an absolute exclusion of tenant right, such as in all cases under the section which would result. I still think the section unwise.
I take the view that this whole code has been historically concerned with securing justice, the particular justice being the protection of the rights which somebody occupying a property as a tenant would develop by virtue of his own activity in that property. It would be unjust to allow a landlord to take advantage of the tenant's desire to stay in the place where he is carrying on his business. Because of his desire to stay in that place the landlord is able to rack rent him, is able to make the tenant pay to the landlord a price for what the tenant has created himself—the goodwill of his own business. If that is a matter of justice as between the landlords of property and their tenants, I see no way in which, if the State is excluded, the State can be required as a matter of right not to exploit the tenant, not to force the tenant to pay to the landlord for what is the landlord's own property at this stage, that is, the goodwill of his business.
If it is regarded as just that the tenant should have this right as against an ordinary landowner, it seems to follow that the tenant should equally be protected if he finds himself the tenant of a Minister or of the State. I said that I recognised the cases mentioned by the Minister of State, the position of the Minister for Defence, the position of the Minister in relation to airports, to the foreshore, the position of the Minister in relation to tourist development and such other cases as he indicated. The way to deal with this—and it is not going to be dealt with here but I would like the Minister to think about the matter between now and this Bill reaching Dáil Éireann—is to provide for the known cases such as have been garnered by investigation so far where it is proper that there should be exemption and to provide for the extension of these exemptions, if necessary by ministerial order in appropriate other cases that turn up.
No one should put the interests of any tenant ahead of the security of this State, the defence of this island. Therefore, there could be no question of a position being allowed to arise where the Minister for Defence's control of his own property could be hampered. That is an obvious case. I understand the Minister's position to be that, although he has been very helpful to this House, in half a dozen cases where, as a result of investigation, like situations exist which he knows about, there may be other cases he does not know about because there have been Departments that have not replied, having completed their investigation. In the course of the business of running this country other cases like those he has given may turn up. Let him take power so to provide, so that under an appropriate section in an appropriate case the Minister can be protected against that situation. Let us have the normal situation exist in the normal case where the State may be given property.
We have enacted Bills in this House in the last few years to provide for cases where property was given to the State, not to investigate these particular cases but there may have been tenants in these cases. I think there were tenants in some of these cases. It would be unthinkable that a tenant of a private landlord with rights against that landlord—rights to stay on there, live there and carry on his business—should suddenly find himself stripped of his rights because the donor has given over his interests to the State and the tenant no longer has the rights that he had before the donor gave his interests to the State. That is only one illustration but I gave others on Second Stage and Committee Stage. This is a hangover of the old principle that the King can do no wrong. This is a hangover of the proposition that in these matters the State should not be subject to the same control as private people. In these kinds of matters the State should be, and nobody's laziness in the administration of the State's property should be an excuse for this section.
I appreciate the background to the section. I accept what the Minister said, that it was the legal view that if an Act did not say expressly that the State was bound by it, it was not. Historically, that legal view is related also to the legal view that the King can do no wrong, a principle which itself was knocked down in the last decade and should stay knocked down. I do not like this section. I do not believe for one moment that my amendment is going to be accepted. I would ask the Minister to give further thought to the matter on his way to Dáil Éireann to see if there is not another way of protecting the very real interests he desires to protect by this section and which I agree should be protected, while at the same time preserving the rights and the justice of the case from the point of view of the small men who may be affected by this provision.