DAIL IN COMMITTEE.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
In Section 34, page 14, line 65, after the word "Commission" to insert the words "under this Act," and to delete the word "compulsorily," lines 65 and 66, and in line 66 to delete the words "be extended" and to substitute therefor the word "extend," and in line 67 after the word "bog" to insert the words "for the purpose of providing turbary for the occupiers of land in the neighbourhood thereof," and to delete the word "same," line 67, and to substitute therefor the words "said bog."
It merely alters the wording; it does not alter the sense of the section.
The lay mind reads this in such a way as to suggest it does alter the meaning. It seems to me to be a weakening of the original proposal. The original section says: "The powers of the Land Commission to acquire compulsorily any untenanted land shall be extended to include power so as to acquire any bog, whether the same is or is not subject to any right of turbary of other persons than the owner."
Now, the amendment seeks to alter it so that it will read, "The powers of the Land Commission under this Act to acquire untenanted land shall extend to include powers so as to acquire any bog." I do not know what the exact meaning of the word "extend" may be, but if there is no reason for the alteration, it seems to me to raise a doubt as to whether the powers of the Land Commission would be to acquire bog compulsorily, whereas the original form made it quite clear that these powers should be extended so as to include powers to acquire any bog. By altering the wording it seems to suggest to me that the powers will be only to acquire bog for purely local fuel purposes, and only at an agreed price. As originally drawn, I rather thought that there would be powers to acquire bog for other than local fuel purposes. I do not know whether it is deliberate on the part of the Minister to make that change in the purpose, and, if there is no change in purpose, but merely a change in language, I suggest that some more justification should be given as to the reason for the change. Is it that it was not clear in the original form, or is there in fact a change in purpose and intention?
There is no change in intention. The word "compulsorily" is left out deliberately because, it is reminiscent of the Acts of 1903 and 1909. It is possible that if the wording of this section was left as it was, and if the word "compulsorily" remained, it might be then held that the bog would be acquired compulsorily under the terms of the previous Acts and paid for in cash. This is only an amending Act. There were compulsory powers to buy in the 1909 Act. It is possible that the Judge might decide that a purchase under that section would have to be paid for in cash, whereas we want to ensure that the payment should be in bonds. We make it clear that the Land Commission have power to take bog compulsorily by making the section read: "power of the Land Commission under this Act to acquire any untenanted land." They have power to acquire untenanted land compulsorily. I was going to suggest to leave out the word "extend."
It is unnecessary. "Shall include power to acquire any bog," etc. That makes it absolutely clear that we have power to acquire turbary compulsorily as we have power to acquire untenanted land, and it makes it clear that payment is to be made in bond.
Is there any necessity to include the words "for the purpose of acquiring turbary"? That is a limitation, I think, and I would be rather inclined to argue that it is a weakening of the clause to put in that sentence.
In practice there is nothing in that sentence. It is a description of the purposes for which you require it. If we left it "to acquire any bog" it would be rather a peculiar way to draft a compulsory section. You always set out the purpose for which you want it. It is mostly a descriptive clause and in practice it does not in any way limit the power of the Land Commission to acquire turbary. They will only acquire it for persons living, say, seven or eight miles away, and their discretion as to whether a man is living in the neighbourhood or not is very extensive.
Supposing in the course of inquiries into the utilisation of peat it were found possible to utilise a bog even in a small area more efficiently than the present method, then could the powers be held to extend to that bog?
I would say not. If some company wanted to acquire a large area of bog for the purpose of manufacturing peat by machine methods, I doubt if they could take it compulsorily under this Act. You can only take turbary, as you take land, compulsorily for the purpose of division. The Land Commission will have, especially in congested areas, large areas of bog on their hands, and when they are taking up bog they will take larger areas than they require. If they do not take up a particular area, and persons want it for experiments, I do not think that they could take it compulsorily, and I do not think that it was ever intended that they could.
The point I am making is that you are not looking ahead, and you are rather limiting the powers unnecessarily of the Land Commission in respect of bog. If there were new methods found for utilising bog, not necessarily the extensive schemes the Minister spoke of, but even small schemes, the powers you are now taking are limited unnecessarily. You are closing the door without any necessity for closing it. If that sentence were deleted, it seems to me the protection would be quite sufficient, and a possibility of utilising bog by new methods will then be available under this scheme.
I doubt very much that even if that clause were left out it would make any difference. Under the Bill as it stands the Land Commission have only power to acquire turbary compulsorily for dividing it amongst tenants and landless men. The Land Commission will have on hands large areas of bog as the result of the operations of this Act. They will take up practically all the bog in the province of Connaught automatically. It will vest in them as untenanted land. They will thus have very large areas of bogs on hand with no particular use for them. The same will apply to a lesser extent to areas outside that. When they buy bog they will have a lot over. The only way it can be limited is in the case where someone is looking for a particular area of bog which is not taken up, and he comes to the Land Commission asking them to acquire this compulsorily, at the same time saying that he wants it for the purpose of a small or a big experiment. The Land Commission cannot take it compulsorily. If you left out those words even they could not take it. Further, would it be the right way to do it? We are going a long way to meet people who are experimenting in turbary by keeping all this bog on hands. Would it be right to give the Land Commission power to take compulsorily a bog for purposes which have nothing to do with the relief of congestion or land purchase, especially in view of the fact that we are interfering with the rights of turbary of third persons in the bog? If the Deputy will read the section, "the powers of the Land Commission to acquire compulsorily any untenanted land shall be extended to include power so to acquire any bog whether the same is or is not subject to any right of turbary of other persons than the owner, and whether or not an advance under the Land Purchase Acts has been made for the purchase of lands including such bog, and, if made, whether redeemed or not." We are interfering with the existing rights of turbary, and it would hardly be fair not only to take bog for the relief of congestion from people using it, but to take it for experimental purposes, especially in view of the fact that in practice there will be no difficulty about it, as the Land Commission will have far more bog on hands than they will require.
Will the amendment remain as it is on the paper?
It is not quite the same. I have an amendment here.
The Minister's amendment is the same except that in line 66 the words "be extended to" are deleted, and nothing substituted. The amendment now reads:—"In Section 34, page 14, line 65, after the word `Commission' to insert the words `under this Act,' and to delete the word `compulsorily,' lines 65 and 66. In line 66, after the word `shall,' delete the words `be extended to,' and in line 67 after the word `bog' to insert the words `for the purpose of providing turbary for the occupiers of land in the neighbourhood thereof,' and to delete the word `same,' line 67, and to substitute therefor the words `said bog.' " I take it leave is given to amend the amendment.
Agreed.
Amendment as amended put and agreed to.
Question: "That Section 34 as amended stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
I beg to move to insert a new section before Section 35, page 15:
"Where a parcel of untenanted land situate in a non-congested districts county is held under a fee-farm grant, lease for lives or years renewable for ever, or lease for a term of years of which 60 or more are unexpired at the date of the passing of this Act, and the proprietor of the parcel applies in the prescribed manner to the Land Commission for an advance for the purpose of redeeming the rent created or reserved by the fee-farm grant or lease, or such proportionate part thereof as may be payable in respect of the parcel, the Judicial Commissioner shall, after hearing all persons concerned, apportion the rent if such apportionment shall be necessary and any superior rent, and order the redemption of the rent or the apportioned part thereof as the case may be, and all interests superior thereto, and fix the redemption price thereof. The redemption price so fixed together with such costs as may be allowed by the Judicial Commissioner shall be advanced and paid by means of 4½ per cent. Land Bonds and distributed by the Judicial Commissioner as if the redemption price of the rent were purchase money of land vested in the Land Commission under this Act, and the amount advanced shall be repayable by the proprietor of the parcel by means of an annuity (charged on the parcel and recoverable in like manner as a purchase annuity) calculated at the rate of 4¾ per cent. on the amount of the advance, and where the parcel is held under a lease the proprietor shall acquire and have an estate in fee-simple therein instead of the term created by the lease."
This amendment is a very long one, but I think it is also self-explanatory.
No, I do not understand it.
Let me hope the Deputy will before the discussion on it is finished. The proposed new section may be divided broadly into two parts— one its purpose, and the other the procedure to accomplish its purpose. This new section proposes to deal with a special species of tenure which is largely located in the Northern Counties of this State. The object of the proposed section and the procedure by which that object shall be achieved are clearly outlined, and I think require no further elucidation from me.
This new Section fairly carries out the promise made by the Minister for Agriculture during the Committee Stage. It also carries out our intention and wishes.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: "That the new section be added to the Bill before Section 35," put and agreed to.
I beg to move to insert a further new section before Section 35, as follows:—
"Where a holding has at any time been vested in a purchaser under the Land Purchase Acts subject to a superior interest or charge the Judicial Commissioner shall on the application of the proprietor, after hearing all persons concerned, order the redemption of the said interest or charge and all interests superior to them and fix the redemption price thereof. The redemption price so fixed together with such costs as may be allowed by the Judicial Commissioner shall, notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, be advanced and paid by means of 4½ per cent. Land Bonds and distributed by the Judicial Commissioner as if the redemption price were the purchase money of land vested in the Land Commission under this Act. The advance shall be repayable by the proprietor of the holding by means of an annuity calculated at the rate of 4¾ per cent. on the amount of the advance, and the said annuity shall be consolidated so far as circumstances permit with the existing purchase annuity (if any) to which the holding is subject, and shall be recoverable in like manner as a purchase annuity."
This section also deals with the redemption of certain interests. Probably the Farmers' Party and those acquainted with the subject are aware that many holdings were vested in some superior interests at the time of purchase, and this clause proposes to redeem these superior interests. It follows on the same lines as the previous clause. The object is indicated in the first part, and the procedure by which it is carried out is indicated in the second part.
This Clause also meets our view.
I would like to know, from the Minister, is it in this section he proposes to deal with those companies of purchasers who got advances from the banks other than from the National Land Bank which he provides in the Bill. I would like to know if this is the section in which he means to deal with these particular purchasers, and why was it necessary to introduce a new section into the Bill for the National Land Bank people?
How can it be in this section? This section deals with the redemption of head rents. We will come to the other question the Deputy raises at a later stage, and I will deal with it then. I suggest a slight change in this section, with the leave of the Dáil. The last paragraph reads: "The advance shall be repayable by the proprietor of the holding by means of an annuity calculated at the rate of 4¾ per cent. on the amount of the advance, and the said annuity shall be consolidated, so far as circumstances permit, with the existing purchase annuity (if any) to which the holding is subject, and shall be recoverable in like manner as a purchase annuity."
I propose to delete the words "shall be consolidated, so far as circumstances permit, with the existing purchase annuity (if any) to which the holding is subject, and." There is an objection to consolidating the two annuities. This section deals with purchases under the Ashbourne Act. Only the interest of the occupying landlord was purchased; superior interests were not purchased, and it aims at redeeming the superior interests. Now, the annuities payable under the Ashbourne Act would not be paid into the same account as the annuities payable under this Act and in respect of these redemptions. Hence there would be a very serious book-keeping objection to consolidating them. There can be no particular objection to a particular farmer paying with two receivable orders instead of one.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: "That the new clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put and agreed to.
I beg to move the following amendment, which is down in the name of Deputy FitzGibbon:—In page 15, to add after Section 35 (7) a new sub-section as follows:—
"Where in the case of the sale of any land an agent has been employed in the management of the estate comprising the land sold, such sum as may be sanctioned by the Land Commission may with the consent of the owner of the land be paid to the agent in Land Bonds out of the purchase money on his ceasing to act as such agent."
Deputy FitzGibbon has asked me to move this amendment, which stands in his name. I do not think the amendment will require very much to commend it to the Dáil or to the Minister for Agriculture. It is not an amendment which confers any rights, but merely allows, with various consents, the Land Commission to pay the land agents something in Land Bonds for the loss of the positions which they have held hitherto. The amendment is purely permissive, and allows the land agents something in Land Bonds for the loss of their work, provided there is the consent of the landowners and others concerned.
And provided the land agents themselves consent to receive this.
Perhaps Deputy Thrift would tell us why it is necessary to put this amendment into the Land Bill. The landlord, having disposed of his property, and having received his price, will necessarily have to make arrangements to pay off all his hands, land agent as well as others. I suggest that this should be a purely private arrangement between the landlord and his employees, and I do not see why an amendment of this kind should be put into the Land Bill. I would like to have some more information on the matter from Deputy Thrift.
I do not know very much about the law on the matter, but the amendment proposes to give power to the Land Commission to transfer part of the Land Bonds to the agent out of the purchase money which would come to the landowner. The payment will be made direct, and not through the landowner. I understand there is a legal necessity for this; otherwise Deputy FitzGibbon would not have put down the amendment. I cannot speak on the legal aspect of the case, but perhaps the Minister for Agriculture would say whether the amendment is necessary or not.
Is the purpose to save transfer fees? I take it these bonds are marketable, and that there will be some fees to pay on the transfer, but if the Land Commission is going to hand these Land Bonds over to a third party, with the consent of the landowner and the agent, there are, I understand, some Stock Exchange and Finance Minister's charges avoided. It occurs to me if that is the only reason for the amendment, that it might be accepted. After all, the average agent does not come under the unemployment insurance, and, being deprived of his unemployment benefit from the State, he might well be allowed to take something from the landlord. While it is true, perhaps, to say that in most cases the agents have been worse than the landlords, still people are saying now "Let bygones be bygones," and perhaps the landlord may be allowed to make a gift to his agent for having borne the sins that he himself should have been responsible for.
I accept this amendment. If the landowners and the agents, who are mainly the parties interested— it costs the State nothing—think that these Land Bonds should be given to the agents, I do not see why we should stop them. The arrangement simply proposes to pay certain fees to the agents out of the purchase money. The State is putting up no money. The arrangement apparently suits all the parties interested, and I do not see why we should try to stop it. I do not think we should take up a dog-in-the-manger attitude in the matter.
I do not see why we should. I think it is a matter that we ought to commend. Personally I have no objection to the landowners giving away Land Bonds, even to the extent of putting them in the Liffey, if they so choose. I desire to say that I appreciate the kindly feeling that prompts this, the kindly feeling of the landowners in giving compensation to their agents, who were, I suppose, very efficient servants in their time. As a matter of fact, the landowners seem to be putting the agents on the same level as public servants, and are treating them accordingly. I hope they will do the same with their herds and with other workpeople who, up to this, have been engaged in the management of their property for them. I would have no objection even if they were to compensate them out of the bulk of the arrears. It does not matter very much to the land agents where the compensation comes from, whether it is out of the bulk of the arrears or in Land Bonds, so long as they get it. I think the landowners ought to be congratulated for the kindly feeling which this amendment reflects towards their land agents, and I think the Government and the Minister for Agriculture ought to be congratulated in providing them with the money to do that.
It is the farmers who are doing that.
Yes, the farmers are doing it, driven by the Government. This money is provided either by the tenant in direct payment or by the State in a bonus. In any case the Government ought to be congratulated on putting the landowners in the happy position of being able to give away a slice of their bonds in cases like these. Of course, it is more commendable from the fact that most of the land agents throughout the country are solicitors.
That circumstance makes it all the happier. We know as a matter of fact that 90 per cent. of the agents are solicitors.
Very good agents they make.
The landlords are very generous, or perhaps they are very loyal in carrying out their part of the bargain. No doubt there was an understanding between them and the agents, and perhaps others, in putting this through. I know there was an understanding between them with reference to the previous Acts, under which the bonus compensated the agents for the loss of their employment. This will be a nice thing coming into the offices of our leading solicitors throughout the country who are not dependent upon this means of living. It will make them comfortable for ever. I think the landlords and the Government and everybody concerned ought to be congratulated. I do not think we ought to stand in the way at all. The State is very kindly providing the money out of public funds and out of the sweat of the unfortunate occupiers of the soil. We were told about mortgage and other charges, but we never heard of the pensions provisions that were contemplated. We did not know that this was supposed to be one of the landlord's outgoings. I am sorry we did not hear about it. We would be more kindly disposed had we heard about this. Anyway we wish them joy.
It is very refreshing to hear nice things said about landlords, but I am not at all sure that they can exactly take all the nice things which Deputy Gorey has said. There is no objection to the amendment, therefore I am not going to waste time talking about it. It merely does say that, with the consent of the landowner, these Land Bonds may be handed over to the agent. I would say that it is rather a land agents' amendment than a landlords' amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
To insert before Section 38, page 16, a new section as follows:—"The Land Commission shall have power to provide a suitable right of way or means of access to any property vested in or by them under this Act or any previous Act, subject to the payment by them of reasonable compensation in respect of any land acquired by them for this purpose."
This is an amendment which I hope will be of great value to the Land Commission and which is very necessary. We know that in the past many Petty Sessions cases arose out of the fact that there was a great lack of agreement about rights of way on lands and such things, and the impossibility in many cases of getting from one place to another. I have put forward this amendment really to convenience the Land Commission and do away with this fruitful source of litigation. The amendment provides that the Land Commission be empowered to compulsorily acquire suitable rights of way or means of access to any property vested in them or by them under this Act or any previous Act, subject to the payment by them of reasonable compensation in respect of any land acquired by them for this purpose. I hope the amendment will appeal to the Minister. It is one that will make for happy relations between neighbours, and will do away with a lot of legal contention. I think it is absolutely essential in many cases. I know of one or two cases in particular where there is not a right of way in certain places, and where they have no right to cart machinery and manure. I think this amendment will enable the Land Commission to set these things right.
The Land Commission already have the powers sought to be given to them. They have absolute powers to take rights of way over untenanted land and to retain tenanted holdings until they get whatever rights of way are necessary. They never vest a holding until they have acquired whatever rights of way they thought necessary. They have these powers already.
I know they have not exercised them under previous Acts.
They have ample powers both under this Bill and previous Acts. We all want to vest them with these powers, but there is no occasion to do it twice.
If you do not think you need them, it is all right.
I think it is desirable that the statement of the Minister should be made widely known, because I have had several requests to bring this question to the notice of the Dáil in view of the inability of small holders in the cases I have in mind to get access to roads in any convenient way. Some rather extraordinary obstacles have been placed in the way in one or two cases. If the Land Commission have these powers, then there is obviously no need to put them in again in this Bill, but what the Minister has stated ought to be made widely known.
The position is that if they take up tenanted land under this Bill, they retain the holdings until they get such rights of way as they require. If they take up untenanted land, the field is clear, and they can map out any rights of way necessary. They could not go back on the land purchased under the 1903 Act and change a right of way over the land. They have nothing to do with that; but, as far as they are dealing with land, they have absolute and complete power of control over all rights of way and new rights of way.
That is the reason I wanted to give them power under this Bill to deal with previous Acts. I have in my mind a few cases on the Shannon where land was reclaimed from the river —marsh land—to which there is no right of way, and where it is necessary one should be provided. I do not think it would do any harm, or that the ink to print the amendment will be wasted. I think you might accept this amendment and make it definite, not only under this Bill, but under all previous Acts.
I think the amendment gives more power than the Land Commission have, and I gathered as much from the Minister's answer when he stated that it would not be possible to go back now on what was done under other Acts. It might be necessary now to ensure that the Land Commission shall have power to obtain rights of way over holdings purchased under other Acts. For that reason I think the amendment should be accepted, as it certainly enlarges the powers of the Land Commission.
I do not care to accept this amendment offhand, as I do not like the drafting. Possibly we may go back on it.
If we are going to take the Report Stage immediately after this Committee Stage, we would want to have the new amendment this evening.
I will have one drafted this evening.
I am agreeable to any form of wording that will carry out the intention of the Amendment.
The suggestion is to withdraw the Amendment and consider a substituted one from the Minister on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In Section 38, page 16, to delete Sub-section (1) and to substitute therefor the following Sub-section:—
(1) Where it appears to the Judicial Commissioner that prior to the appointed day a landlord, or in the case of untenanted land, an owner, has been liable for the cleansing or maintenance in whole or in part of any watercourse, drain, embankment or other work, either alone or in conjunction with other persons, and whether under the terms of a contract of tenancy or otherwise, he may direct that out of the Land Bonds representing the purchase money there shall be transferred and applied in manner hereinafter provided Land Bonds sufficient to yield such income as in his opinion will be required for the future cleansing and maintenance of such watercourse, drain, embankment or other work, in accordance with the liability as ascertained by him of the former landlord or owner.
This Amendment is to cover cases that were put forward during the discussion that took place in the Committee Stage dealing with embankments and watercourses. It covers that class of work fairly comprehensibly. I do not see that there is any common obligation laid on the landlord towards works that were of general utility and of necessity to tenants. The Amendment gives the Land Commission power to make provision for watercourses, drains, and numerous other things, serving a large area, and to take from the landlord in Land Bonds a sufficient sum to yield what will pay for work that the landlord is now being exempted from. It is the duty of the Land Commission to see that the Bonds are held, and that the community will not suffer by the change of ownership.
I think this Amendment meets our view. We drew attention to this matter on the First Reading. There was a period of ten years mentioned, but that is removed by this amendment. The Land Commission, I think, will now have sufficient power to make things right.
The Amendment meets the objection I raised when the Bill was previously before the Dáil, that is, that landlords who were in the habit of paying for this work should continue to pay. The amendment provides that any owner who was liable for the cleansing of a watercourse, whether he did the work or not, will have to pay.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In Section 38 (5), page 16, lines 61 and 62, to delete the words "a sum to be advanced by the Minister for Finance at their request," and to substitute therefore the words "such sum as at their request the Minister for Finance shall approve of and advance."
This is merely an alteration in wording.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 38 as amended put and agreed to.
I move:—
To add to Section 39, page 17, a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) On the vesting of any land under this Act the exclusive right of mining and taking minerals and digging and searching for minerals on or under that land including such mineral rights as may be superior interests shall vest in Saorstát Eireann:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply
(a) to any mine or quarry which is being worked or developed by the owner on the appointed day,
(b) to any stone, gravel, sand or clay. Provided also that where any such rights vested in Saorstát Eireann under this sub-section are at any time hereafter let leased or sold the person who would have been entitled thereto if they had not so vested shall be entitled to receive 25 per cent. of any rent purchase money or any other net profit received in respect of the same unless his interest shall have been purchased in the meantime by Saorstát Eireann.
Before the Minister replies to the amendment, which is clearly an official amendment, I would like to ask him if the amendment as moved does fully cover the rights that are predicted in Article 11 of the Constitution?
Because it says here that "all these minerals, or rights of mining and taking minerals, digging and searching for minerals, are vested hereafter in Saorstát Eireann," and it adds a proviso that this section shall not apply to any mine or quarry that is being worked or developed by the owner on the appointed day. But under Article 11 of the Constitution there is a still further proviso which, presumably, being in the Constitution, governs this. It is not expressly stated in the amendment, and there might, with clarity, be included in the amendment a statement that such vesting shall be subject to the trusts, grants, leases or concessions. It might quite argueably prove to be the case that a farmer might not himself be mining, but he might have granted certain leases and concessions, which are not dealt with in the amendment, although they are implied in the Constitution, and in order to make the amendment square with the Constitution I think an addition of such words would be to the advantage of the amendment.
Well, of course, the word "owner" there would be construed to be the person who had the lease.
Yes. These are the words of the previous Acts.
I am opposed to the second proviso, because it seems to me that there are no grounds for paying anything for minerals which are not worked or developed and probably have not been known to exist, and why the owner should be entitled to receive 25 per cent. compensation for things that he did not know existed, or, if he did know they existed, has not made any use of them, passes my understanding. It seems to me to be throwing a gift into the air unnecessarily, and I will ask the Deputy to justify the second proviso if he can.
I think that the second proviso can be easily justified. We are taking up this land compulsorily, and the owner would not part with it but for that fact. We do it on a wholesale scale, and we are giving him no option. If we happened afterwards to find a gold mine in an area of untenanted land which we have taken up, it is only fair that the owner who had to part with the land at fifteen years' purchase should get something. That is only equitable and just. It would be a different thing if we were buying the land voluntarily, but here we are taking up all untenanted land compulsorily, and taking it up at a price which no one pretends has anything to do with the value of any minerals in it. I think that is an answer to that.
The explanation makes it clear, I think, that the Dáil should oppose this proviso. I take it that it is in order to move the deletion of the second proviso, and I therefore beg to move it. I take the view quite definitely that land which has gold under the surface, which has been lying there unworked, such land having been purchased even compulsorily does not justify the State in paying this 25 per cent. to the landlord. He is not losing anything. We are compensating him for the loss of property which he did not know he possessed. He cannot be said to have purchased the estate in the belief that there was gold there, or copper, or any other mineral; and if he did, and held it out of use, knowing that there was mineral wealth there, he should pay compensation to the State for not having used it, knowing it was there. Certainly no compensation should be paid to him because you have taken from him that which he was making no use of, either for himself or anybody else. The proposal is unfortunate. I think we were told, in one of the discussions, that it is agricultural land we were dealing with, and the landlords' rights, at least the landlords' rentals, were being purchased.
Yes, I beg your pardon. We are dealing with untenanted land in this, but, nevertheless, it is agricultural land, and the fact that these minerals are not being worked, and have not been worked, seems to me to take away any claim in justice or equity, or even any claim upon generosity, that the landlord may have for any compensation for those unworked minerals. As is more likely still, the existence of those minerals might not be known at all to the landlord, but we are to compensate him for their loss. That is over-generous, and I think that no claim for any such compensation could be justified, and ought not to be asked for, and I urge the Dáil to delete this second proviso in this new sub-section.
Deputy O'Maille has proposed a new sub-section, and Deputy Johnson has proposed to amend the proposed new sub-section by deleting this second proviso. "Provided also that where any such rights vested in Saorstát Eireann under this sub-section are at any time hereafter let, leased, or sold, the person who would have been entitled thereto if they had not so vested shall be entitled to receive 25 per cent. of any rent, purchase money, or any other net profit received in respect of the same unless his interest shall have been purchased in the meantime by Saorstát Eireann."
I am not very much concerned with the amended amendment proposed by Deputy Johnson, but I wish to ask the Minister a question as to how iron ore stands. This question of iron ore is a very important one.
We must first dispose of this amendment to delete the proviso.
With regard to the amended amendment by Deputy Johnson, it does seem that the co-operation of the party from whom the land would be taken would be a valuable asset. I think it is only fair that the person whose land had been leased or sold should be entitled to the 25 per cent.
With regard to the amendment proposed by Deputy Johnson, I am pretty certain what the effect of the amendment would be, but to this extent I am in doubt, that I am not quite certain of what the exact meaning of the words proposed to be deleted are. Let me take a hypothetical case. Here is a parcel of untenanted land that becomes vested in Saorstát Eireann. At some future date there may be a considerable deal further on, and in time valuable mineral properties are discovered in that land. Supposing at that time Saorstát Eireann should decide not to sell that land. What I am putting is, that if at some future time the State decides not to sell that land but to lease it, which is a practicable course to adopt, and which, if its own geological surveys prove valuable properties to exist there it would be very well advised to adopt. In that case, is it to be the effect of this amendment that the person who owns land at the moment and suspects no mineral virtue or value to be contained in, is he to get 25 per cent. of the profit of the working of these minerals hereafter? If it be the case that you have a large profit, a deduction of 25 per cent. from that would mean that the venture would still be worth working, but if the net profit was small the reduction of 25 per cent. might prove it was not an economical proposition. Therefore, by binding the future in this way the State and the national wealth may be injured, and I urge that the whole of this might be considered. As the matter now stands I am prepared to vote for the adoption of the amendment by Deputy Johnson, because this second proviso unnecessarily binds the future, and may prove of injury to the industrial development of the resources of this country.
Am I to understand that the object of the amendment is to do away with all the interests of the owners absolutely? If not, what is it then? Some of the people who have purchased under previous Acts got minerals, and some were retained by the landlords, and others were vested in the State, according to the voluntary agreements they made. I would like to know how far the amendment proposes to go with regard to this amendment. Are the people who actually owned the land to get nothing at all?
Are the people who are actually in possession to get nothing at all? Twenty-five per cent. seems to me to be a small amount; it is little enough, too little to my mind. To cut away that twenty-five per cent. altogether seems to be going a little too far. Perhaps the Minister's word "confiscation" would apply here.
I have nothing further to add to what I said before. The reason we provided twenty-five per cent. for the owner is quite clear. We are taking the land compulsorily; we are taking it on a wholesale scale. If gold, coal, or iron were subsequently discovered under neath it, the least we might do is to compensate the owner. With regard to Deputy Figgis's point about twenty-five per cent. out of the net profits, if there were any profits at all, it would not be possible to take twenty-five per cent.
I saw the misapprehension my first words created, and I showed exactly how from a business point of view, what I said stated is correct. If it were yielding a net profit of twenty-five per cent. it could afford to pay twenty-five per cent., and would still be an economic proposition, but it with a deduction of one-quarter the net profit were not more than five or seven, it might still be an economic proposition, but with the deduction of twenty-five per cent. it would cease to be. To fix an arbitrary twenty-five per cent. in advance is not economically wise if the mineral resources of this country are to be developed, because the margin of profit available for the working of a large number of them must necessarily be very small, indeed.
In the case of the four hundred tenant proprietors who hold in fee, subject to an annuity, and who have now untenanted land, if the Land Commission seizes their land for sub-division, will this suggestion not apply to them as well as to the landlords? I take it that where the Land Commission seizes the tenant proprietors' land for the purpose of relieving congestion, the particular man who holds in fee, subject to an annuity, would be similarly in the position of getting this twenty-five per cent.
He has not the minerals; the minerals are reserved to the Land Commission.
But it is untenanted land.
Land held in fee, subject to an annuity, is not untenanted land; it is purchased land.
According to this Act, land held in fee is untenanted land.
I think the Deputies generally have been more or less convinced that the purchase scheme of this Bill is fair, and while being fair to the tenant, is not ungenerous to the landlord. That was the claim that was made, and under that claim Deputies have been induced to vote. Those who voted on these grounds surely are not going to be persuaded to add something to their generosity to the landlords at the expense of the State. The landlord is in possession, or has been in possession, of certain rights to draw rent from agricultural land. These rights have been purchased and are being purchased at a price which the Minister has urged, and which Deputies generally have been persuaded to agree is not unfair. They are parting with their control of that land for the sum which has been mentioned by the Minister in promoting this Bill. Deputy O'Maille comes along and says that if it is found at some future time that under this land which has been purchased by the Land Commission, there are minerals which the landlord knew nothing about, or if he did know anything about them, had taken no interest in them to work or develop them in any way, and if the Land Commission makes use of those minerals by leasing them hereafter or selling them, then the person who is now selling the land is to get twenty-five per cent. unless his interest shall have been purchased in the meantime by Saorstát Eireann. Are we to understand from that that he retains his mineral rights?
What is meant by saying "unless his interest shall have been purchased in the meantime by Saorstát Eireann"? An interest only exists if this proviso is put into this Bill. I take it that unless this new sub-section is inserted, the present landlord's interest in the minerals ceases.
Not under Clause (a), because that provides for any mine or quarry which is being worked or developed by the owner. That I can quite understand, and I am prepared to concede. But we are dealing with mines or minerals which are not being developed or worked by the owner, and which, in all likelihood, the owner never would have developed. He possibly had no conception that there were minerals under his land at all. We are asked to ensure that that landlord who, on the passing of this Bill, would have no rights in those minerals, receives a payment of twenty-five per cent. in rents or purchase money which may accrue to the Land Commission by virtue of a subsequent arrangement they make with a company or an individual who undertakes to develop these minerals. I say that is unnecessarily mortgaging the Land Commission's future. It is giving away money; it is quite gratuitous and unnecessary. It is telling the landlord or his sons that henceforward we are, at least, conceding they had a right in those lands; that all the statements that have been made in the Dáil and in other places regarding the method of acquisition by the landlords, may have been true in regard to agricultural land, but are not true in regard to the minerals under the land. We are asked to say that whatever may have been the fact in regard to the land as agricultural land, and however truthful is the contention that people who work the land were the true owners, subject to the national needs, so far as the minerals are concerned it is suggested that the landlords are perfectly entitled to twenty-five per cent. of any profits that may be made out of the sale or purchase. That is unnecessary.
It is a gift that has not been asked for. It is asking the Dáil to say, "While you have been so generous to us with regard to your agricultural land, you have been so friendly disposed to your tenants and the fact that you have not kicked up too much of a row over the 15 years' purchase justifies us in saying if there is any bonus to be thrown away we will give it to you; if any luck comes to the State by reason of the fact that there are minerals under the lands, we are going to give you 25 per cent. of this luck." I wonder what necessity there is for introducing this proviso? I do not think there has been any good argument put up in making so generous a promise. Surely when the landlord has given up all his claim to the agricultural value of the lands which he is selling we have no right to come along and say to him "We will secure you, at least, 25 per cent. of any profits we may make because of any discovery of minerals under that land in the future. You need not do anything to help to work these minerals but because your father or grandfather or great grandfather obtained possession of the surface, we are going to secure you 25 per cent. out of the profits we may make if these minerals are found there at some future time." I am surprised at the Minister accepting this amendment in its present form. I am sure Deputy O'Maille, now that his attention has been called to it, will agree to delete the second proviso, and allow the new Sub-Section to finish at the word "claim."
Deputies will have to remember that we are not dealing with tenanted land exclusively. We are dealing with the untenanted land, with land that the landlord is farming. We are taking up such land. We are acquiring it compulsorily. The landlord is in the same position now with regard to a very great part of the land we are taking, just in exactly the same position as the farmer is in relation to his own holding. We are taking up this land compulsorily on a wholesale scale, not at the market price but at a certain price for sub-division to tenants and congests.
It is a fair price, having regard to the prices that the tenants are able to pay for it. It has nothing to do with the market price, nothing whatever. It is a much smaller price than was given under the previous Acts. The Land Commission is retaining for itself the minerals on this land, and without any attempt, of course, in any way to pay for them. If there are any minerals they do not go to the tenant-purchasers; they are retained by the Land Commission. We do not profess to buy them; we simply retain them for the Land Commission. They are there. If it is found afterwards that there are valuable mines in these lands, say gold or silver or lead or copper mines or anything you like the Land Commission, who have never paid a penny for these minerals, and I am sure they have not paid anything extra which would go in some way to pay for those minerals, are asked to pay a very small percentage of the price to the owner from whom we are taking the lands compulsorily, and who conceivably might have worked these minerals if the land had been left to them. In the previous Acts of 1903 and 1909 there is a similar provision, and I am willing to change that provision slightly to make it read like this: "Provided also that where any such rights vested in Saorstát Eireann under this section are at any time hereafter let, leased, or sold, the person who would have been entitled thereto if they had not so vested shall be entitled to receive such a share of money in respect of the same or for profits as shall be hereafter determined by the Oireachtas." That will leave the whole question open to the Oireachtas afterwards. They can say how much the owner is entitled to. I put it to the Dáil that it would be grossly unfair, having taken those lands, having reserved these minerals, if the owner who was not paid for these minerals, and whose land was taken compulsorily, and who in that sense will not have an opportunity of working them, that the State should make any profit out of these things, and that he would be entitled to nothing. Under the 1903 and 1909 Acts there was a proviso similar to the last proviso here. I am offering now to change this as I suggested.
It seems to me there has been a doubt in Deputy Johnson's mind about this matter. If that amendment were accepted I rather fancy that the whole section would be quite contrary to Article Eleven of the Constitution. Deputy Johnson's amendment would mean that the landlord would not get 25 per cent. of any profit acquired in the working of the minerals of the lands. In that case you will be able afterwards to come in, and claim all the minerals under Article Eleven of the Constitution which says "Saorstát Eireann shall claim the mineral rights, subject to any valid private interest therein." I take this clause suggested as in the nature of a bargain, to give a certain percentage in the case of minerals. In return for that the landlord surrenders his rights. If this Bill becomes law, Deputy Johnson says there will be no private interests. I think that admits the landlord has private interests in any undeveloped minerals. If we passed this section it takes from the landlord all these valuable private interests. We may be doing something that may land us afterwards. He can come in under Article Eleven of the Constitution, and say, "Under Article Eleven of the Constitution you have no right to take these from me; they were given to me by the Constitution and I claim the whole mineral rights now. I will take the whole profits arising from them." I submit this will be a very proper bargain to make. It costs the State nothing. For that the seller would be giving up all his rights as guaranteed to him under the Constitution. The State will get 75 per cent., and the present owner 25 per cent., and for that offer the seller would be giving up all his rights which are guaranteed under the Constitution. I think, as the Minister has said, it is only fair to give him something for his present rights.
I think that the change suggested by the Minister does meet the case I had in mind. I am not speaking without definite relation to certain pieces of untenanted land where 25 per cent. would debar development. Take the land in Co. Kilkenny within the area of the Leinster coalfields, where there is only one seam possible to work at 21 inch thickness. As now worked, it does not show a greater profit than 6 or 7 per cent. If 25 per cent. were taken off, the proposition would be reduced to a line ball proposition. I congratulate the Minister on removing the 25 per cent., and leaving this question to be decided in the future by the Oireachtas—not only as a question of justice, as a question of right, and as a question of valid interest, to which Deputy Thrift has referred, but also as a question as to what such available rights or property, hereafter discovered, can bear in order that their working and development may be made profitable.
Deputy Johnson's amendment is still before the Committee. In Amendment 33, in the proposed new Sub-section, he proposes to delete the second proviso.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 40.
Tá
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Liam Ó Briain.
- Tomás Ó Conaill.
- Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
- Liam Ó Daimhín.
- Cathal Ó Seanáin.
- Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.
- Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.
Níl
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Donchadh Ó Guaire.
- Seán Ó Maolruaidh.
- Seán Ó Duinnín.
- Mícheál Ó hAonghusa.
- Domhnall Ó Mocháin.
- Seán Ó hAodha.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Darghal Figes.
- Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
- Seán Ó Ruanaidh.
- Ailfrid Ó Broin.
- Pilib Mac Cosgair.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Sir Séamus Craig.
- Gearóid Mac Giobúin.
- Liam Thrift.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig Ó hógáin.
- Pádraic Ó Máille.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Fionán Ó Loingsigh.
- Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus Ó Dóláin.
- Próinsias Mag Aonghusa.
- Eamon Ó Dúgáin.
- Peadar Ó hAodha.
- Séumas Ó Murchadha.
- Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Alasdair Mac Cába.
- Tomás Ó Domhnaill.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Séamus de Burca.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Deputy Johnson's amendment is lost and Deputy O Maille's amendment, No 33, is now before the Committee.
I accept the suggested change made by the Minister for Agriculture.
My suggestion was to make the second proviso read as follows:—
"Provided also that where any such rights vested in Saorstát Eireann under this sub-section are at any time hereafter let, leased or sold the person who would have been entitled thereto if they had not so vested shall be entitled to receive such share of any rent purchase money or any other net profit received in respect of the same as shall be hereafter determined by the Oireachtas unless his interest shall have been purchased in the meantime by Saorstát Eireann."
Before this is definitely put, I would like to recur briefly to the point I made before. I understood the Minister to say that the word, "owner," in the amendment, included the leases or concessions, but the leases or concessions I have in my mind are those held by third parties. If the Minister is convinced that the third party rights protected by the Constitution are adequately covered by the word "owner," I do not press the point, but I think it is worth inquiry.
The word "owner" is supposed to cover all. If he is not working it, the Section does not apply.
Supposing the owner of a certain parcel of untenanted land, whose land passes to the Land Commission, has made, over a certain portion of the land, a lease to a third party who has not yet begun to work it—in that case the lease exists, but the working has not yet been started by a third party. Is that case covered by the amendment?
I thought the point the Deputy was on was whether the word "owner" included the lessee. It does.
Even though he has not started working?
Provided he has a sod turned. The Land Commission must be satisfied that the owner, provided for there, is about to work the mine or quarry.
The new amendment proposed to this amendment is:—"In the second proviso to delete the figures and words `25 per cent.' and substitute the words `such share'; and after the word `same' to insert the words `as shall be hereafter determined by the Oireachtas.' "
I am not quite sure of the position. Are we dealing with the second amendment or with the Section?
We will have to take the amendment of the Minister as an amendment of the amendment before us.
I admit that it is possible this suggested amendment is an improvement upon the fixed rate, but it does not satisfy me as to what I think the Dáil should ask. What is created by this sub-section in this new form, as it seems to me, is a new landlord's interests. With this sub-section inserted the landlord's present interest in the minerals which are hidden and have not been worked, and may not be known to the landlord—these interests are transferred to the Land Commission, that is to the State. What the new sub-section now proposes to do is in effect to create a new interest for the landlord. It suggests that "unless his interest shall have been purchased in the meantime by Saorstát Eireann."
It is suggested to leave these words out "shall be entitled to receive 25 per cent. of the rent, purchase money or any other net profit received in respect of the same" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "as shall be hereinafter determined by the Oireachtas."
The Minister's suggestion is to delete the words after the word "same" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "as hereinafter shall be determined by the Oireachtas."
I admit frankly that goes still further and simply says, for the satisfaction of somebody, I do not know whom, that the Oireachtas may, with the permission of this House, do something in the future. It simply does nothing, as a matter of fact. It says that future Parliaments may make up their minds what they wish to do, and if that is a fair interpretation of it, I will make up my mind on the subject before we come to the Report Stage.
Amendment 33, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Question: "That Section 39, as amended (by the addition of the new Sub-section), stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment 34, to delete in Section 41, lines 39 to 42, the words "by a Co-Operative Farming Society (in this Part of the Act called the Society), or by a body of Trustees, by means of advances made by the National Land Bank, Limited (in this Part of the Act called the Bank)," and to substitute therefor the words "by means of advances."
The object of this amendment is for the purpose of giving tenants similarly situated as tenants of the Land Bank, and who are paying interest in lieu of rent to other banks, the same treatment I think it would be very unfair to provide for tenants that have the good fortune in this case to be tenants of the Land Bank and to leave tenants out of the benefit of this Bill who have the bad fortune in this case to be paying interest in lieu of rent to other banks.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle at this stage took the chair.
This amendment is one of a series in my name, Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41. I think we might deal with them all when dealing with the one. I think the tenants who are dealing with other banks should be put in the same position as those dealing with the National Land Bank, and that is the object of these amendments.
The purpose the Deputy has at heart is effected already in the Bill. If he looks at Section 30 of the Bill he will find it reads as follows:—
"Where the owner of a parcel of untenanted land which is vested in the Land Commission by virtue of this Act uses and cultivates the same as an ordinary farm in accordance with proper methods of husbandry; then
(a) If the price of the parcel together with the value of any other lands in the possession of the owner as ascertained by the Land Commission does not exceed £3,000 the Land Commission shall, unless in their opinion it ought to be retained for improvement or enlargement or for utilization in connection with the relief of congestion, re-sell parcel to the owner at the said price, if before the appointed day he has undertaken to purchase it at that price."
Now in the Congested Districts, that is in the whole province of Connaught and in the counties of Kerry, Donegal, and part of Cork and Clare, all the untenanted land bought by landless men will vest in the Land Commission as untenanted land. It is practically all fee simple land and the Land Commission will have the power to re-sell back to the owners. That I take it meets the case which the Deputy has in mind so far as the congested districts are concerned. Now in regard to the case outside the congested districts he will find that that is provided for in Section 33 which reads:—
"The Land Commission may purchase any untenanted land which they consider necessary for the purpose of providing parcels of land for any of the persons or bodies to whom advances may be made under the provisions of this Act, for such price, payable in 4½ per cent. Land Bonds of equal nominal value, as shall be agreed upon between the owner of such untenanted land and the Land Commission, and such land when vested in the Land Commission shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act relating to the providing of parcels of land for the persons or bodies aforesaid."
That gives the Land Commission power to buy untenanted land voluntarily from these people, and of course they will want to sell it and to make advances for the person or body to whom advances may be made under the provisions of this Act which is for the purposes of Section 29. Now between Section 33 and Section 29 the Land Commission have ample power to deal with cases so far as there is any merit in the case. They can buy the land voluntarily and resell it to the body or the trustee or the individual. Between these two Sections they have ample power to deal with every case which has any merit in it. There will be cases that they will not deal with, and rightly so, but so far as genuine cases go, they have ample power. The reason we have a separate Section for the Land Bank is because the land was bought under peculiar circumstances. The method of buying was peculiar, and all the conditions attaching to Land Bank sales were unique, and we thought it better to have a separate Section dealing with this separate case in which landless men bought land, and we have divided that matter in the Bill between Sections 33 and 29.
I ask leave to withdraw these amendments.
Before the amendment is disposed of I would like to know what would be the position of a bank that has advanced an amount in excess of the value.
The Land Commission will have to do the best they can.
It will be an extremely knotty problem.
I know one case in Kilkenny and Carlow where the land was bought for £64 an acre and the bank advanced the money on the guarantee of the trustees. There is one case in Carlow in particular which will be a very knotty problem. Are you going to deal with the other banks on the same basis as the Land Bank? The Land Bank started about the same time advancing money for the purchase of land; the other banks came into competition with them. I have another case in which the tenants are subject to the ordinary landlord's rent and also to interest on a mortgage which brings the land up to £6 an acre. I do not know how you will deal with that.
We will not be able to solve all these cases here, and the Land Commission will have to do the best they can in each particular case. It is quite true that land has been bought very dear all over the country, and it will be very hard to deal with many of the cases. I assume the Land Commission, if they consider the land security at all, will finance the transaction up to 4½ per cent., and will try to relieve the tenants from the interest which they owe to the bank.
In Kilkenny I know of a case where the Land Bank advanced money at the rate of 7 per cent.
We cannot do any more than I have stated. We will provide the machinery, and it will be for the Land Commission to do the best they can to enable the tenants to pay off the debts they owe. There will be cases of very great difficulty, but I do not propose, under this Bill, to solve every problem connected with the land question.
Amendments 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 by leave withdrawn.
I beg to move Amendment 42, which proposes in Section 52, line 13, after the words "provisions of" to insert the words "Part IV. of." It is merely a verbal amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question put: "That Section 52 as amended stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
I beg to move Amendment 43:—To delete Section 55 (2), page 22, and to insert in lieu thereof the following:—
"(2) The first registration of land the registration of which is compulsory under the Act of 1891 shall be and shall be deemed always to have been a valid entry of the lands on the register under the said Act notwithstanding that the owner was dead at the date of such first registration and the person entitled to the lands on the death of such deceased owner shall be entered on the register as owner on application to the registering authority."
This new sub-section is the same as the original sub-section, except that the wording is different.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question put: "That the new sub-section be added to the Bill."
Agreed.
I beg to move Amendment 44:—To delete Section 56, page 23, and to substitute therefor the following:—
"After the passing of this Act no application or agreement to fix a judicial rent under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts in respect of any holding shall be listed for hearing or filed."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question put: "That the new section be added to the Bill."
Agreed.
I beg to move Amendment 45:—To add to Section 57, page 23, a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) Where the proprietor sub-divides his holding for a limited period by way of family arrangement or for other similar reason the Land Commission from time to time may by general regulations authorise the registering authority to register the person claiming under any instrument executed by the proprietor which creates such temporary sub-division and shall be deemed to have assented to any sub-division to which effect has been given by registration pursuant to such regulations."
The effect of this amendment is to provide for registration in cases in which the owner sub-divides his holding, as, for instance, under a family arrangement or in similar cases.
I would like to be quite clear as to the effect of this amendment. The new sub-section speaks of "by general regulation authorise the registering authority to register the person claiming under any instrument executed by the proprietor." It seems, from the original reading, that where there was to be any sub-division, it would be with the consent of the Land Commission, which rather suggests an individual application for consent and a consent in respect of individual cases; but the new sub-section speaks of "general regulations," and rather suggests a general assent to sub-division in a class of cases, but not in an individual case where an individual application is made and an individual assent given. The case seems to call for a separate application and a separate assent in every case rather than for "general regulations" covering a whole class of cases. Some words seem to be required to say that the Land Commission shall, subject to these "general regulations," make the assent that is spoken of under sub-section (1).
The object of the amendment is to apply to a class of cases which are quite common. Very often a farmer by his will leaves the holding to one member of the family, but, perhaps, directs that his widow shall have the right to reside in a particular room of the house, or something or that kind. Technically, that is a sub-division, and it is in order to ensure that every case like that might be dealt with by general regulations, rather than that a special application should have to be made to the Land Commission, that this amendment is introduced. The registering authority will deal with cases of that kind rather than the Land Commission.
Will the registering authority have any discrimination, subject to the general regulations? If the general regulations were to apply to a whole class of cases, such as the Minister outlined, would the registering authority have to decide whether an application came within these general regulations or not?
The registering authority would necessarily decide that.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Question put: "That Section 57, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
I beg to move the following amendment, which is down in the name of Mr. Burke:—In Section 61 (4), page 24, line 17, after the word "for" to insert the words "a County Borough Council or" and in line 25, after the "if" to insert the words "County Borough Councils" and in line 27, after the word "by" to insert the words "a County Borough Council or."
Sub-Section (4) of Section 61 gives power to an Urban District Council or Town Commissioners to purchase a parcel of land for tillage. The object of this amendment is to give similar powers to a County Borough Council.
I think this amendment is intended to fulfil a promise that was made on the Committee Stage. It was promised at the time to find a form of words which would meet the discussion that took place, and I think the amendment satisfies that.
Amendment put, and agreed to
Question put: "That Section 61, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
I beg to move:—
In Section 63, page 24, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) After the passing of this Act the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 36 and Sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, in so far as they relate to the payments on account of sinking fund after the expiration of five years from the vesting of land in the Land Commission or the purchase of land by the Congested Districts Board shall cease to have effect as regards land purchased by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board under any Act prior to this Act.
I am accepting this amendment. It is merely a matter of book-keeping, and is to provide that the Land Commission are not liable for Sinking Fund within the period of five years in respect of sales under previous Acts.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 63, as amended, put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 64 (2), line 57, page 24, after the word "unexpired" to insert the words "at the date of the passing of this Act."
This is merely for greater clearness.
Amendment put and agreed to.
With your permission, as you are otherwise engaged, I shall move the amendment standing in your name, which is as follows:—
In Section 64 (2) (a), page 25, line 5, after the word "land" to insert the words "and there shall be payable to the tenant such compensation as the Judicial Commissioner may declare him entitled to in respect of any sums he may have expended on improvements. Such compensation shall be payable in 4½ per cent. Land Bonds."
The amendment is to carry out an undertaking that was given on a former Stage, that where in a congested district a holding had been created by a very recent letting and the tenant had incurred expense in putting improvements upon that holding, and where the letting was declared void by reason of its having been made with this Act hanging over its head, that such tenant should be entitled to such compensation for his improvements as the Land Commission thought fit to give him. This is to carry out an undertaking given by the Minister, and it is only doing justice to a tenant whose holding is upset.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 64, as amended, put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 67, page 25, line 38, after the word "may" to insert the words "after consultation with the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland."
I want to commend this amendment. I think it is a very good sign to find that Ministers are prepared to incorporate in Acts of Parliament a suggestion of this kind, that the chief officers of a trades union be consulted before any legal rules are drawn up. I think it is a very desirable precedent to create in the law, and I hope it will be followed by other Departments as well as the Department to which the Minister for Agriculture is responsible. There are quite a number of cases where the chief officers of trades unions might well be consulted before any decisions are taken by Departments, and I commend this amendment to the Dáil.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 67, as amended, put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In the First Schedule, Part I., page 26, to add after the figures and words "70 per cent." the following words:—"With the exception that where the tenant of any holding in respect of which judicial rent is payable shall apply to the Land Commission for an inspection of the holding, on the ground that the holding is inadequate security for the advance to be made in pursuance of the provisions of this Act, and the Land Commission are satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for such application, the Land Commission shall cause such inspection to be made, and on the report of their Inspectors, and without a hearing in Court, shall fix the standard purchase annuity in respect of such holding on the same basis and having regard to the circumstances specified in this Act as if the holding were subject to a rent other than a judicial rent, and the decision of the Land Commission shall be subject to an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision shall be final."
I am not accepting this amendment. If I may say so, it is a most annoying amendment. It alters the whole scheme of the Bill. We could easily go back to the old system under which every holding would be inspected. That might be the fairest way, but it was in response to the demands of the unpurchased tenants and the various other Land Associations that I dealt in this system of averages. I believe it is sound as far as it goes, and applies to judicial rents. Deputies want to have it both ways. They want to have an average, and if the tenant is not satisfied with the average, then they want that they should be able to apply to the Land Commission and have a new inspection.
I would be ashamed to have that in an Act. Why should not the landlord apply also if he thinks the rent is too low? Let us do injustice if we like, but hide it if possible. I would not accept this at any price because it alters the whole scheme of the Bill. We agreed that as far as judicial rents were concerned that a specified reduction would be given and that was recommended for two reasons. (1) expedition; (2) having regard to the fact that rents were regulated by law and escaped the inflation due to the war that any little injustice that would be done by an average would be so small that it would not make any difference. Here we are back to the old scheme under which any tenant that likes could apply to the Land Commission to come and value his holding. That would hold up the sales for a very long time and would, in fact, bring us back to the system in the 1903 Act. This amendment would mean that wherever a tenant thought he could get his rent reduced he could apply to the Land Commission, but if the landlord thought the rent was too low he could not apply. A provision of that sort in an Act would not be a credit to the Dáil. It would not be what you call even-handed justice, and I will not accept it. We fixed this 35 per cent for first and second term rents with a view to having it so low that it would cover any cases, even special cases, and I am satisfied that no hardships will be done by the automatic application of that rule. In fact, Deputy Gorey practically admitted yesterday that the tenants were perfectly satisfied with the 35 per cent. reduction.
I said nothing of the sort. I said they would accept it because they had no other alternative. I want just to draw attention to a few peculiar cases of evicted tenants.
I know they are peculiar cases. These tenants or their children could not go into a Court while the original owner lived. There are some cases in County Kerry. After the original owner died the children went into Court during the war years and a high rent was fixed that counted as a third term. In these peculiar circumstances there is a hardship. There are only a few of them —they would not be half a dozen. These are the only cases I have in mind that this might apply to.
As a matter of fact, during the war strangely enough the average of rents was reduced. The average reduction during the war was practically as great as the average reduction before the war. There may be an odd case, but we cannot help that. I do not suggest for one moment that there will not be odd cases where there will be some hardship, but the number will be extremely small. If I pretended that I could introduce a Land Bill that would not do some little hardship in some cases I would be pretending to do what I was not able to do. The advantage of this procedure is its expedition, and I cannot depart from it at this stage. The whole scheme of the Bill rests on it.
I quite agree that it would be a big question if it referred to judicial tenants, and would be very annoying.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment by
In the First Schedule, Part I., page 26, to add a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) in the case where the judicial rent payable in respect of the holding has been adjusted by agreement between landlord and tenant, the average yearly rent actually paid by the tenant during the period of ten years, up to and including the gale day next preceding the passing of this Act, shall be deemed to be the judicial rent payable in respect of the holding, for the purpose of determining the standard annuity as aforesaid.
This Amendment has been debated already and is covered by a Section that was put into the Bill yesterday, providing that the Judicial Commissioners shall say whether the actual rent is the judicial rent or the abated rent.
I think the agreement we came to covers all that is in the amendment, and I will not move it.
I move:—
In the First Schedule, Part I., page 26, to add a new paragraph as follows:—
"Provided that in the case of a holding subject to a judicial rent fixed by agreement on the reinstatement therein of a tenant, who or whose predecessor in title had been evicted therefrom, the standard purchase annuity shall on the application of either the landlord or the tenant made within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, be fixed in accordance, with the provisions of Part II. of this Schedule as if the rent were a nonjudicial rent."
This Amendment meets the only case that could possibly arise, that is to say, where evicted tenants are reinstated as future tenants, or reinstated under a specially high rent. The amendment enables the Land Commission to inspect such holdings and fix a fair rent on the value of the holdings under Part II. of the Schedule.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
The following amendment stood in the name of
In the First Schedule, Part I., page 26, to add a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) in the case where the judicial rent payable in respect of the holding has been fixed by agreement between the landlord and tenant on the reinstatement of the tenant in his holding after having been evicted, the Land Commission, on the application of the tenant, shall cause the holding to be inspected, and shall fix an annual sum upon the same principles as a judicial rent upon receiving the report of their Inspector and without hearing in Court, and such annual sum shall be deemed to be the judicial rent payable in respect of the holding for the purpose of determining the standard purchase annuity as aforesaid, and the decision of the Land Commission shall be subject to an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision shall be final.
This Amendment is the same in substance as the one that preceded it, except that in the other one the application can either be made by the landlord or the tenant.
You could not have it otherwise in decency.
As the Minister has agreed to the other amendment I do not move this one.
First Schedule, as amended, put, and agreed to.
On behalf of Mr. Duggan, I move:—
In the First Schedule, page 26, to insert in appropriate place:—
|
3 Edw VII (ap 2
|
The Ireland Development Grant Act, 1903.
|
The Whole Act.
|
I have already explained the reason for this amendment. This Bill earmarks certain sums for certain purposes which will be voted now yearly by the Dáil.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Second Schedule as amended put and agreed to.
The amendment which I suggest in place of Amendment 30. which was withdrawn, is:—To insert before Section 38, page 16, a new section as follows:—"The powers of the Land Commission to expend money on the improvement of land sold, or agreed to be sold, under the Land Purchase Acts shall include power to provide, where necessary, rights of way to and from such land, and for this purpose they may in the prescribed manner make orders conferring and defining such rights of way and fixing the compensation, if any, to be paid to the owner of the land over which such rights of way have been conferred or defined."
I take it that such land includes all land purchased under all the Acts.
I beg to move the amendment suggested by the Minister.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: "That the new section stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
