Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and the Bill itself. The area is undoubtedly very complex, as Senator Cummins said. It requires simplification, and the Bill represents a step in that direction. The fact that 150 pre-independence statutes will be abolished by the Bill and that we are venturing back to early Norman times to bring about a self-contained statutory approach to land ownership and conveyancing is to be welcomed.

As the Minister of State noted, the Bill deals with various facets of ownership and transfer of land. Ownership is probably a critical area. Fee tail, the fee farm grant and leases for life are to be abolished. Fee tail, which was one of the last remaining benefits for the male of the species, is now being abolished as part of the overall thrust towards equality and will no longer exist to give preference to the male heir. The abolition of the fee farm grant is sensible because many solicitors have found it extremely difficult to identify the payee in many situations where fee farm grants applied. The abolition of this measure is a recognition of the need to update the law.

Senator Cummins addressed the question of ground rents. Legislation enacted in recent years has enabled people to purchase ground rents, often at a multiple of the annual rent. This measure was welcomed at the time and has been utilised since then. In many instances, the State, through its various agencies, including local authorities, would have commanded these ground rents in certain circumstances. Many, if not all, local authorities have now made moves to allow people to purchase their freehold.

However, existing legislation and this Bill do not address another issue which is surrounded by many difficulties, some of them constitutional. Much of the old commercial and residential property in many towns across the country, including my own town of New Ross, is owned by estates dating back to colonial days. The Tottenham estate was the local landlord in New Ross. Unfortunately, the fact that these properties are often owned by people who are absent from the area and, in many instances, the country, has given rise to dereliction, blight and a lack of development in many towns. These estates have no interest in or commitment to their properties other than obtaining the rent that is due and, occasionally, maximising the capital value through a sale.

I do not know how this state of affairs can be dealt with because discriminatory legislation, which is desirable, would be involved. I know of many people who have made considerable investments in properties they were renting from these estates only to subsequently find that the freehold reflected the increased and enhanced value which their investment brought about when they came to purchase it. Such a scenario is unfair and should be addressed because it gives rise to blight in many towns, particularly town centres. I am unsure of the best way to deal with this issue. It is possible the issue has not been addressed because it is so complex but there is a very strong argument for doing so to allow people to buy out the freehold of such properties at realistic prices rather than prices which reflect investments they made to enhance and protect the properties they rented.

There is a need to simplify future interest, which is dealt with in Part 3. I understand it may be dealt with under trusts of land. This relates to situations where landowners wished to pass land through the male members of the family to keep the family name on the land holding and would try to determine the ownership of the land indefinitely. It has also given rise to significant changes in the entire structure of agriculture, thereby, posing difficulties for people who were in possession of those farms and who may find it difficult to pass them on. Trusts of land, which in the past have been set up to ensure that land is held for the benefit of children, minors and incapacitated persons, will be simplified by the Bill.

Powers of appointment, which are used in family settlements, are reasonably uncommon. It is essential that co-ownership continues. I appreciate what the Minister of State said about the differentiation between joint tenancy and tenancy in common. I welcome the fact that the Bill allows for joint tenancy to be changed in this fashion, subject to the agreement of the various parties to the joint tenancy, so that any expectation an individual might have of acquiring the entire property can be addressed. Tenancy in common is necessary because many businesspeople and families deal with the matter in this fashion and it allows their property interest to be passed on to whoever they wish through their will.

I understand that the Bill will not interfere with the issue of appurtenant rights, although there might be a need to simplify it. Easements are a very common feature of all contracts, particularly where a considerable amount of land is now being released because of the wise decision of the former Minister for Finance to reduce capital gains tax. I believe this decision has released a considerable amount of land for both residential and commercial development and has been a significant driver of our economic development. It is important that legal effect can be given to easements across other parts of land which are retained in the ownership of the original landowner for various services.

It has been recognised that the fact that owners of apartments only possess a leasehold interest in the ground, a situation which management companies enforce through leasehold arrangements like leases relating to apartments, represents an anomaly. Varying conditions, which are enforced legally, can apply in these agreements. Difficulties arose in endeavouring to do this for successors in title for freehold property. This very obvious anomaly has now been corrected by this Bill. I believe everyone would welcome the fact that any easements or positive or negative conditions applying to an agreement would carry through to successors and assigns.

Conveyancing, which the Minister of State addressed at some length, has become exceptionally complex and there is a very compelling argument for simplifying it. The amount of legal documentation which must be completed to convey a house is very significant and the fees involved are commensurate with the amount of work involved. Any measure which simplifies conveyancing is a step in the right direction. In a previous debate in the House it emerged we should try to ensure that the conveyancing of property would not be the sole prerogative of the legal profession. It is undoubtedly an area of expertise, as significant investments are made because land is an expensive commodity.

We want to ensure that all documentation on transfers is correct and not open to challenge due to administrative errors. None the less, it is an area in which matters could be undertaken by others than just those in the legal profession. More than legal expertise is required, namely, administrative expertise. In the not too distant future, I hope this issue will be examined in the interests of bringing competition and consumer protection and choice to the area.

The statutory period of title to be shown on local contracts is to be reduced from 40 years to 20 years, which is a step in the right direction. The issue of mortgages and security thereof is fairly standard. Given the number of mortgages on properties, it is important to protect the financial sector. It is equally important to ensure as much simplification of the area as possible.

I welcome that the Minister of State signalled in his speech an emphasis on e-conveyancing, as there should be a greater drive in this regard. From the Law Reform Commission, we know that e-conveyancing can only be effectively done in respect of registered land. The compulsory registration of land, which has been extended to counties Longford, Roscommon and Westmeath from counties Carlow, Laois and Meath, should be accelerated to achieve full e-conveyancing. In conjunction with moving away from the registration of deeds, this would be ideal. Whatever resources are necessary should be invested because a considerable portion of the Exchequer's revenue is derived from property through capital gains tax, stamp duty and corporation tax on developments and the like. The funding stream derived from property should be invested to ensure we have a greater and more efficient system.

Like Senator Cummins, I wish to acknowledge the role played by the Law Reform Commission in this matter. I welcome that the Bill emerged from a partnership between the Department and the commission. Equally, I take on board the Senator's point about previous debates in the House wherein Law Reform Commission reports were not as fully embraced as people in the media suggested they should be. We should not accept willy-nilly everything that comes from the commission. It is imperative that policy is evolved from these Houses and the people elected by the public.

While the commission should have an input and its contributions should be carefully considered, I suspect that attempts are made not just by the commission, but also by some beyond it to define policy rather than having it formed in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I would resist such a step. We have read various reports of the commission that in my opinion were advisory instead of prescriptive in policy terms. We should be careful not to promote a situation in which we take on board everything the commission tables without using our own judgment.