Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

When I saw this item listed for business, my mind was cast back to doing a module on property law and land law. My mind was cast back to some of the more obscure ends of that area, including turbary rights, resulting trusts and so on. I was not expecting as interesting a contribution as Deputy O'Callaghan's brief history lecture. It was quite fascinating in its way. This issue is grounded in the colonial history of Ireland and the ownership of property by some of the large British lords. As this legislation and various other pieces of legislation and court cases have shown, this still has very real consequences. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that those who have a leasehold have the opportunity to purchase the freehold, which has very practical implications. It gives the people who enjoy the property and businesses certainty and full ownership rights over their properties.

A few years back it was revealed that the State was paying ground rents to landlords such as the Earl of Pembroke for buildings on Merrion Square, and the Duke of Leinster, who owns land on which the National Library of Ireland is located. These ground rents, which are a reminder of the legacy of our colonial past, are also known as leaseholds. The State's ground rent bill for Iveagh House, over which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade presides, is paid to an absentee landlord.

The same applies to Dublin Castle I believe. The money involved here is relatively small: the ground rent for Iveagh House is a mere €257, the ground rent for the Four Courts is €200 and the bill for Dublin Castle is €7 - some people might say there are outstanding historical debts in that regard.

In 2015 Deputy Pearse Doherty submitted a parliamentary question requesting the ground rents payable by the State, by name of property, by name of landlord and by amount payable. He received a list outlining a bill of approximately €4,000 paid annually by the State to holders of land title through a form of rent that dates back for centuries. While the amount paid by the State is nominal, the principle is important. It also interferes with people's ability to enjoy their property and their certainty in their property.

Approximately 250,000 ground rents exist in the State. Some of these will have a negative impact on homeowners who wish to sell their homes but are restricted in doing so due to provisions that mean the leaseholder is entitled to recoup a proportion of price for which they believe their house would sell. Many would fear that when their lease ends they will not be able to afford to buy out the lease or pay the substantial increase in ground rent which may be demanded.

I hope the Bill succeeds in highlighting the vulnerable nature of tenancy in general. Ground rent landlords essentially demand money for nothing. I believe they have no place in a just society. It is an archaic situation which has been allowed to persist for far too long. The Government has been promising to address this for some time. I know the Minister spoke about potential constitutional issues with what is being proposed, but I would like to see the detail of those. It has long been our belief that ground rents should, where possible, be abolished. Some of the arguments made about rent caps suggested there were constitutional issues there also, but ultimately rent-pressure zones were introduced. We would like to see the constitutional issues explored.

The delay in bringing this forward is another illustration of the attitude of successive Governments to landlords and the reluctance to tackle landlords in the private rented sector. The demands of tenants in the private rented sector in recent years for a fair rent and security of tenure have not been met. In the past few hours, the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, was lauding the concept of co-living units - tenements in reality - which is another hat tip to those seeking profit from the housing of citizens of the State. It is not simply, as we are often told, a question of balancing the rights of the tenants and landlords, as the home of the former is very often just the business interest of the latter and there is clearly a structural inequality regarding the landlord's strong position in the Irish market.

I wish to highlight an example of how these issues interfere. A constituent of mine was selling his property in south County Cork in order to move elsewhere for employment. He had agreed to sell his house to Cork County Council to what he believed or was told was a family in need of social housing. He was very pleased with that. However, a number of weeks later a solicitor for Cork County Council was told that because there was a ground rent there was a lease to the house. As the ground rent had belonged to Viscount Middlesbrough since 1755 and lasted for 350 years, the county council could not buy the house. This constituent was amazed that something like this could exist: he owned the house but not the land upon which it was built. A British landlord had owned this property for 350 years - 1755 is before famine and rebellion - far off in the mists of time and yet this was having an implication for this house being transferred to social housing tenants. It is appalling and disgraceful. This could have been used to house a family in need of social housing. There are countless homes across Cork city and county. That constituent was very frustrated and I share his frustration.

This issue has been ongoing for some time. I am glad to see some progress but we need a great deal more. I look forward to seeing the Committee Stage amendments and we will engage with them. We will support the legislation, but a great deal more is needed.

See this speech in context