I beg to move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad's amendment:— In Sub-section 5(b), page 4, line 6, to delete the word “any.”
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - LAND BILL, 1923.
(FROM THE SEANAD.)
SECTION 1.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—In Sub-section (2) (b) to insert after the word “residence” in line 3 the words “and which at the date of the passing of this Act retained its residential character.”
This amendment is in effect to make good an omission which was made, if I may use the expression, by the Dáil itself. We had intended to make it perfectly clear that every question as to whether land was belonging to this or that category should be looked at from the point of view of its character as from the date of the passing of the Act. We omitted to make that clear. This amendment makes it clear. When considering whether a holding is residential or not, and so outside the purview of the Act, the question must be considered from the point of view of the character of the holding at the date of the passing of the Act, not from the point of view of the character of the holding two, three, four or forty years ago.
I would suggest that it would be still more in accordance with what the Minister desires if the Appointed Day were the date rather than the date of the passing of the Act. The character of the land might be a factor in determining the Appointed Day.
I put it to the Deputy that is going too far, and cutting it too fine. We have gone a long distance. I think this meets the equity of the case.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move: "That the Dáil agree with Amendment No. 3:— In Sub-section (3) (c) of Section 24 to delete in lines 6—7 the words “regularly employed on” and to substitute therefor the words “in connection with.” I want to assure the Dáil that there is no catch in this amendment. The section will then read:—“Any parcel of untenanted land which is a demesne, home farm, park, garden or pleasure ground, or any holding usually occupied by a person in connection with,” and so on. The point is this— the obvious case that one would have in mind, and which the last two or three lines of that clause were intended to cover, would be the case of a gate-house on the other side of the road opposite the demesne gates. It is not only usual but possible and quite probable that a man in the gate-house would not be working in the demesne at all. He might have a gate-house and an acre or an acre and a half behind it on the understanding that he would open the gate if necessary. What happens is that the man is regularly employed somewhere else, and that his wife or son opens the gate when required. The clause itself was intended to cover such cases when going through the Dáil, but, in fact, it did not cover such cases. It did not cover the greater number of cases that should be excluded, and undoubtedly if a man is at a gate-house in connection with such work and gets that gate-house on the understanding that he or some member of his family shall open the gate, it would be too bad that he, by reason of the fact that he got into that gate-house for such a purpose a few days before, that he should be put in the position of an ordinary farmer in future. That was never intended. Two or three lines there were intended to make clear that he should not purchase. A clause is provided further down to cover such cases or cases where a man at a gate-lodge whose wife and daughter open the gate, and who works elsewhere himself. There is another side to it. A man might occupy a house and be regularly employed in the demesne and be entitled to purchase, and in order to get as near as we possibly could we inserted the words “occupied in connection with.” There are two points of view— there are two sides to the question—on the one side you have the case where a man occupies a gate-house and is not regularly employed on the demesne, and he should not purchase, and it was never intended he should. On the other side you have a case in which a man occupies a house and was regularly employed in the demesne, and he should purchase. The words “in connection with” were words used in previous Acts of Parliament with regard to houses occupied by gamekeepers or gatekeepers, or people of that sort. The words “in connection with” express what is meant when we drafted this clause, and I would ask the Dáil to accept them.
On this point the Minister has said that the words he now suggests are, as a matter of fact, taken out of existing Acts. Perhaps they have not given rise to any difficulty, but perhaps they have never been questioned. It seems to me that the words "in connection with" are very vague and wide.
"Occupied by a person in connection with."
Is it the person in connection with, or the occupation of the place in connection with?
Occupation.
Could there be any interpretation other than the Minister's? It seems to me to be quite loose, and perhaps he would consider some suggestion such as "ordinarily employed on or in connection with."
That would not get over the difficulty. There would be cases where a man would be ordinarily employed on and in connection with a demesne who would not be entitled to purchase. I admit it is extremely hard to get a form of words which some cross-grained Commissioner or wrong-headed Judge could not misinterpret. In my opinion these words will meet the equities of the case and will express what we want. They are more in favour of the occupier than the owner of the demesne. There are cases where a man would be ordinarily employed on a demesne and occupy a holding, and would be entitled to purchase. I could not quote them at the moment, but I know there are.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
To add after Sub-section (3) the following new sub-section:—
(4) Where the Land Commission declare that any land coming within Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of this section is required for the purpose of relieving congestion the following provisions shall have effect:
(a) If the land so declared forms portion of the holding, the proprietor or tenant of the holding may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner require that the entire holding be so declared, and the Land Commission shall in that event either so declare the entire holding or withdraw from the proposed acquisition of the said portion.
(b) If within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner the proprietor or tenant of the declared land so requires them to do, the Land Commission shall as soon as practicable provide the said proprietor or tenant with a new holding which in the opinion of the Land Commission other than the Judicial Commissioner (subject to the right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision shall be final) shall be equally suitable for the said proprietor or tenant and of not less value than the declared land. The provisions contained in this Act for transferring burdens and rights on the exchange of holdings by agreement shall extend to any exchange of lands effected under this sub-section.
This amendment provides for a vital omission in the Bill as it left the Dáil, and to my mind constitutes a real improvement in the Bill. The meaning of the amendment is quite clear on the face of it. The meaning of Sub-clause (a) is quite clear also. It is intended to prevent the Land Commission from saying to a man with 150 acres of land, “We are going to take 130 acres and leave you the house and 20 acres.” That would be manifestly unfair, and the effect of the amendment is to put the Land Commission in the position of taking either all the holding or none. We must make up our minds to have it one way or the other, and take either all or none of the holding. As regards Sub-clause (b) it should be noted that this section deals with purchased land. There are 20 million acres of land in Ireland, and 13 millions of them are purchased—that is to say, purchased under previous Land Acts or subject to agreements under previous Land Acts. That leaves 7 million acres of all kinds of land unpurchased. Of that there are at least 3 millions under water, waste, bog, and so forth— land that could not be called arable. That is to say, there are about 4 million acres of arable land left. The position would be something like this. It would be, perhaps, more correct to say that of the 17 million acres of arable land 13 millions are purchased. It was pointed out to me that under the Bill as it stood we gave the Land Commission power to take any holding, big or small, comprised in these 13 million acres. That is correct, and in accepting these amendments we will still have power to take any holding amongst these 13 million acres, though it has been already purchased under the Land Purchase Acts. It was pointed out that that was a very serious thing from the point of view of the value of land and also a serious thing from the point of view of security, particularly in view of the fact that in acquiring it we were not giving the market value. It was strongly urged that the effect of such provisions would be to depreciate the value of the land— land comprised in any holding—I am not talking of demesne or untenanted land—and no doubt that was a case that had to be met. The fact is that the last land we shall take will be purchased land, for the reasons I have mentioned, and we will only take it if there is no other suitable land available. The next section deals with that. But for the fact that I had the actual figures before me which show that it was absolutely necessary to take powers over purchased land if we were to make a real attempt to relieve congestion, I would not stand over vesting land acquired under previous Land Acts, but it was necessary to take that land, and we have to meet the case that was put up to us—the case in regard to the effect of such provisions on the value of land. In the operations of the Bill we would not take more than 10 per cent. of purchased land, so that 90 per cent would be unaffected in fact. As against that, the power is there to take 100 per cent. if you want to, but on the face of the Bill that would be absurd. Who is to say whose holding is in the 10 per cent. and who is to say whose holding is amongst the 90 per cent? When a man has purchased his holding and goes to the bank for an advance on the security, is he to be told that that is a taint on the holding? The mere fact that we were not going to attach under any circumstances 90 per cent. of the land made it even more necessary to deal with the case, because it would be a shocking thing to taint the whole 100 per cent. because we had to deal with tenancies. There is the further fact that in 97 or 98 per cent, if the Land Commission were taking the purchased land, they would offer a slightly better holding to the man whose holding they were taking. It is rough and ready justice to do it.
They do it for a good many reasons, in the interests of equity and because it is cheaper in the long run. They acquire untenanted land at the Land Commission price, at the resale price, and they give him a holding on it.
They transfer his annuity from the holding they acquire on to the holding they give him, and all the other burdens as well. They have really got that piece of purchased land at the resale price without doing anybody any harm, and they are in a position to resell it to tenants outside the demesne as if it were a piece of untenanted land. That is the way the Bill would operate, and in view of the fact that the Bill would operate in that way in any event, and in view of the fact that it was a serious thing that the 13 million acres of Irish land should be tainted, I admitted to the men who made this point that it was due to ourselves and to the country that we should put even the possibility of it beyond doubt, and the way to do it was quite obvious. We inserted in the Bill what we would do in 97 cases out of 100 in any event. We said, "We have to take a purchased holding." Well, then, we shall give that man land equally suitable and not of less value.
We will have no difficulty in doing that. That puts it out of the bounds of possibility that, as a result of this Bill, there will be any depreciation in the value of land or any insecurity. In fact, it achieves exactly the opposite purpose, and for this reason: Where we take this land we will only do it as a last resort, because there will be no untenanted land in the neighbourhood. The owner owns 150 acres in the middle of congests. As a result of having those all round him, he has been unable to put up his land for sale. We will take him out of that position and give him an opportunity to sell. We will divide his lands amongst the congests for the first time, and so it will become valuable for the first time since he got it. So far from depreciating the value of land, we are appreciating it, and so far from making for insecurity we are making for security. It was suggested first, and I thought along these lines myself, that perhaps we might take this land at its market value. We could not do that. It would be no good for resale purposes. But we really give the owner market value by giving him an equivalent holding without doing anybody any harm. It was suggested that we should draw some line—that we should not touch any land under £40 valuation. I refuse to accept that, because we might have a case, say in Galway, Erris, Monaghan, or Cavan where the only land suitable would be a £40 or £50 holding. We might be cutting out the cases that we want. It is obvious enough that only big holdings are of any use, and only a very small percentage of the big holdings will be touched. There will be even smaller holdings than of £40 or £50 value, which may be wanted in a few cases. If we are really serious in an attempt to relieve congestion we have to take all those circumstances into account. It is absolutely necessary not to depreciate the value of land, and that is no more nor no less than what we should be doing in 97 cases out of 100. These amendments were suggested by Senator Jameson, a man whose criticism was extremely candid and helpful. They were in furtherance of a case which had to be met, and I recommend this amendment and the next to the Dáil as amendments which definitely improve the Bill in vital aspects.
We make no objection to it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment 5: To add after the Sub-section (3) a new sub-section as follows:—
"The Land Commission shall not without the consent of the owner acquire land from him under the powers conferred on them by Sub-section (3) of this section so long as there is other unacquired land in the same locality suitable for relieving congestion which does not come within the exceptions mentioned in Sub-section (2) of this section and which the Land Commission can acquire without exercising the special powers given by the said sub-section."
This deals with demesne land and purchased land, and we are not going to take them while there is other suitable land in the neighbourhood. A man has a demesne and land outside his demesne. We take land outside his demesne or some other man's land before we touch demesne land. That is only fair. It was put to me by Sir Nugent Everard, another man whose services to land purchase did not begin with this Bill, but began in 1903. It was said to me, as he put it, that we took power to take demesne land "up to the knocker." I said, "Yes, we can." I was asked could we not draw some valuation line so as to provide, for example, that when a valuation is under £200 we would not touch it. I pointed out the same objection. There might be a very small demesne in which a man lived, and which he worked as an ordinary farm. There might be just one congest or two congests in that neighbourhood, and there might be no other land to deal with them. It might be impossible to migrate them, and five or six acres might make the holdings economic. We had to have the power to take those. Therefore, we could not draw any valuation line. On the other hand, we could not promise to give equivalent land elsewhere. The least we could do was to promise that where there was suitable land outside the demesne we would not touch the demesne.
I do not think this is as easily defended as the last, because it is liable to defeat its object by being so loosely phrased. It will mean, I think, a good deal of controversy as to what is the same locality, what is suitable, and there is nothing in the sub-section as to who is to decide the suitability or whether the same barony or townland or county is the same locality. As it stands, the Land Commission shall not, without the consent of the owner, "acquire land from him under the powers conferred on them by Sub-section (3) of this section so long as there is unacquired land in the same locality suitable for relieving congestion." If it is bad land within hailing distance, or perhaps aeroplane distance, the land cannot be taken for relieving congestion, and presumably, as the new sub-section is drafted, the owner will decide whether it is suitable. It seems to me that to achieve the end, as the Minister himself has explained, something more is required, and some authority should be defined as the authority which will decide whether the land in question is within the same locality and whether the land is suitable. I ask the Minister to clarify that doubt.
The authority is the Land Commission, and there is a final appeal to the Judicial Commissioner in all cases. Only on a question of law arising under this section, the only appeal on the whole Bill, the last word, is the Land Commission or the Judicial Commissioner. Rather the Land Commission comes first, and the Judicial Commissioner has the last word in deciding any point in the Bill except any question of law arising under Section 24.
Will the Minister just direct me to the section which says that?
Section 27, Amendment 7.
Yes, but does that include the questions of locality and suitability?
I am coming to that. First I want to state the position. In one case, and in one case only, is there any appeal from the Judicial Commissioner, and that is on a question of law arising under one section, Section 24. The question of suitability and the question of locality are questions of fact. I was pressed very, very hard indeed to give an appeal on the question of price, and I pointed out that it was absolutely impossible to let any Court, except the Judicial Commissioner, say whether land should be worth £5,500 or £5,525. But we ought not to argue about certain matters, and there are certain things clear in the Bill. One is that the last word on every question is the Judicial Commissioner, except on a question of law arising under Section 24. The question of whether, in fact, land is suitable and, in fact, is in the same locality is a question for the Judicial Commissioner. Deputy Johnson wants more definition and more precision. We are giving wide powers, I have admitted that, very wide powers indeed, to the Land Commission, and it has been my aim the whole time to define the powers of the Land Commission as far as possible. But when you do give very wide powers to the Land Commission it is extremely difficult, in one direction or another, to define them without finding that you are cutting down their powers, and without finding that, though you are perhaps effecting our purpose as far as one particular section is concerned, you are defeating our purpose as far as another section is concerned. It would be impossible to make that section more precise; there is no question of doubt about it. "In the same locality" is as precise as we can make it. "Suitable"—I have cast about for a form of words and for a formula that would make that section more precise, and at the same time give the same wide and extended powers, and I could not do it. This will give big powers to the Land Commission. The Judicial Commissioner, who is running this in the future, has a great chance, and will be able to effect a complete metamorphosis in certain parts of the country, and we must assume that the man who is the Judicial Commissioner will be a very able man, a man who will know his work, and who will be able to interpret the Act in the spirit and letter. I do not think that there can be any question for a judge as to what is the meaning of "in the same locality" once he has the facts of the case before him, or as to what "suitable" is, or whether we could not get closer to it. Personally, I am satisfied with that suggestion as it stands, which was the suggestion of the Senator himself, and I would have been prepared to accept something, I think, on that which would not have given the Land Commissioners as wide powers as "in the same locality," but it was the suggestion of a Senator, a Senator who has been extremely candid and helpful on the Bill the whole time. I am perfectly satisfied that that leaves the Land Commission with all the powers they require, and, as far as you could do it, effects the purpose which it is intended to effect.
If the Minister does give me the assurance that there is no question about the powers of the Land Commission to decide, I am satisfied. My only reason in making the point was that it seemed to me that there were doubts, but on that assurance I am quite agreeable.
I gave it about five hours' thought, and I could not get a more suitable form of words. I think the Deputy would find himself in the same dilemma.
Amendment agreed to.
I move: "That the Dáil agrees with the Seanad in this amendment:—
To add after Sub-section (4) a new sub-section as follows:—"Nothing in this Act shall render it obligatory for the Land Commission to acquire untenanted land which is intermingled with woodland, or the acquisition of which would, in the opinion of the Land Commission, be detrimental to the preservation of woodland and to the interests of forestry, and where any lands vested in the Land Commission under this Act are wholly or practically surrounded by lands under timber, or intermixed with woods, the property of the owner of the lands so vested, it shall be optional to the owner to require the Land Commission to purchase such timber, lands or woods."
The first four or five lines really mean little. They only mean that the Land Commission shall have the option as to whether they should purchase lands which are intermingled with forestry. They have that already. The second part of it means that in the event of their buying 100 or 200 acres of land, which is under the same tenure as 500 acres of woods, that they are not to take the 100 or 200 acres of land and leave the 500 acres of woods on the owner, but that they should take all. I do not think the Land Commission should be allowed to take 100 acres of good arable land and to leave the owner 200 or 300 acres of land where there is a demesne of any use, but that they should be forced to take the whole of it and vest the woods in the Forestry Department.
Amendment agreed to.
To add a new sub-section at the end of the section:—"Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Judicial Commissioner on any question of law arising under this section may appeal from such decision to the Court of Appeal, but there shall be no appeal from any decision of the Judicial Commissioner on any question of price."
I beg to move "That the Dáil agrees with the Seanad in this amendment." I have already explained its significance.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 28.
In Sub-section (6) (b) to delete, in lines 10 and 11, the words "and whether redeemed or not," and to insert in lieu thereof the words "unless redeemed."
The point is this. We provide for the Land Commission, when considering whether they can make an advance to a tenant purchaser, that they should take into account any advances that he has previously received, and our idea was that they should take into account any previous advances under any previous Acts, whether they had been redeemed or not. If a man who has got advance, let us say, on 100 acres, under a previous Act, and redeemed that, and now owns his land absolutely in the fact that he got an advance should not be taken into account—the fact that he redeemed his advance and paid it off should not be taken into account. I think it is fair, in all the circumstances, but the real point is that it makes no difference, because the Land Commission's power to retain the holding is absolute. They may retain the holding because it is £3,000 or over, and they may retain the holding under the next section: "Any holding as respects which the Land Commission declare that it is not in the public interest that the holding shall be resold to the tenant as aforesaid whether on the ground that the improvement of the holding is essential and practicable or otherwise." So that really it is as broad as it is long; but if we are interested in having the equities of the case stated clearly on the face of the Bill I think this would be better done by the amendment than by the Bill as it originally stood; but it makes no difference. I move that the Dáil agrees with the Seanad in this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I beg to move: "That the Dáil agree with the Seanad amendment, No. 9:—
In Sub-section (3) to delete, in lines 49-50, the words "In fixing the compensation payable to the tenant under the said section," and to substitute therefor the words "The compensation payable to the tenant shall be fixed on the basis on which resumption prices have heretofore been fixed under the said section and in fixing the price."
This is merely an amplification of what is already in the Bill. I was asked to make it clear, and I agreed to do so.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move: "That the Dáil agree with Amendment 10:—In Sub-section (1) to delete, in line 63, the letter `g.' " This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 32.
I move: "That the Dáil agree with Amendment 11:—To insert after the word `shall,' in line 36, the words `if the owner so requires and.' " It was suggested that there might be trouble if the owner refused to purchase. I pointed out that it was provided for in the last two lines. However, some people wanted to make it plainer, and we inserted the words "if the owner so require."
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move: "That the Dáil agree with Amendment 12:—To delete, in lines 61 and 64, the word `may,' and to substitute therefor the word "shall,' and to insert in line 62, after the word `tenant,' the words `(if he so require).' " This is another amendment which makes no difference. I may say the word "shall" was in here at the beginning. The Dáil will note that it is the Land Commission may or may not resume. If they do not resume, then it should not be that they "may resell," but that they "shall resell"; but it does not interfere in any way with the rights of resumption. The reason "may" was put in in the beginning was somebody thought of the contingency, what would happen if the tenant refused to buy—a most unlikely thing—and we got over it by inserting "shall if he so require."
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move: "That the Dáil agree with Amendment 13:—To omit, in line 4, page 16, the words `whether redeemed or not,' and to substitute therefor the words `unless redeemed.' " I have already explained the significance of this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
This amendment is a proposed new section before Section 35. It reads: "To insert before Section 35 a new section, as follows:—
"Where the Land Commission have acquired any land from an owner under this Act, they may purchase from him any demesne or other land in his occupation adjacent thereto at a price which in their opinion represents the selling value thereof, and in such case may resell the whole or any portion of that land to him, as if he were a person to whom advances might be made for the purchase of a parcel of land under this Act. The provisions of Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 3 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, shall apply to any resale under this section."
That is to say, the Land Commission may, if they like, do what they used to do under the Act of 1903—buy a man's demesne and resell it to him. This, of course, does not interfere with our powers to take any demesne land we like for the relief of congestion, but this has in mind demesnes which we do not intend to touch, and which would be left to the owner. We would be taking a man's untenanted land at a certain price; this untenanted land may be heavily encumbered. We are taking his tenanted land at a certain price, and we are also taking his untenanted land at a certain price. In certain circumstances it may be that the man will come out of the whole deal very badly, and it was put to me that in these circumstances we should at least have some sort of relief clause similar to what was in the Act of 1903, and that there is far more reason for it now, in such a case where a man is heavily encumbered and is coming badly out of the whole deal. We could say, "We will do you a good turn; we will buy up your demesne at our own price, we will resell it at our own price, and then advance the money for the re-purchase." The net result is that we give him a certain amount of money at 4½ per cent., and it is completely at the option of the Land Commission.
I suppose this is to deal with the case of impecunious owners who want something to go on with?
That is so.
Is it a plea for the hard-up landlord?
If the Deputy wants an exact answer to that, I say that it is not a plea, but it is in the interest of the landowner who is very heavily hit by the provisions of this Act. It does no one any harm.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 36.
I move: "That the Dáil agree with Amendment 15:—To add at the end of the section the words `In exercising the powers given by this section the Land Commission shall have due regard to the reasonable requirements of the owner.' " It speaks for itself. I think it will commend itself to the Dáil. I hope the Land Commission will do that in any event.
SECTION 37.
I move Amendment 16: To insert after the word "lease" at the beginning of line 52 the words "renewable for ever," and in the same line after the word "years" to delete the words "renewable for ever."
This is a drafting amendment. The clause reads: "lease for lives or years renewable for ever." Someone wanted to know whether "renewable for ever" applied to both lives and years. It was suggested that it should be made clearer by making it "lease renewable for ever for lives or years."
"Renewable for ever for lives or years?"
Yes. I have the opinion of a very good lawyer on this. He says that it is plainer this way. Some member of the Farmers' Party inquired whether "renewable for ever" applied to both lives and years, or whether it was only the years that were renewable for ever. I pointed out that "renewable for ever" applies to both lives and years. It was stated, and I agreed, that it would make it clearer if we made it read "lease renewable for ever for lives or years."
It may satisfy you. What has Deputy FitzGibbon to say to that?
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move Amendment 17: In Sub-section (1) to insert after the word "Commission" in line 29 the words "upon application in that behalf made to him by the Land Commission."
Amendment agreed to.
I move Amendment 18: In Sub-section (3) to insert after the word "final" in line 43 the words "save where in this Act otherwise provided."
The amendment speaks for itself. It refers to the right of appeal in Section 24.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 44.
I move Amendment 19: In Sub-section (5) to insert after the word "owner" in line 14 the words "or his lessee."
The amendment also expresses the intention which we had, and which, I think, was implicit in the Bill without it.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 46.
I move Amendment 20: To insert before Section 46 a new section as follows:—
"The definition of ancient monuments contained in Section 14 of the Irish Land Act of 1903 shall include any monument which in the opinion of the Land Commission is of archaeological interest and shall where the Land Commission so declares also include the site for the monument and such portion of the land adjoining it as is necessary to prevent injury and afford access."
The only person, I understand, who knows anything about this is Deputy Alton. He will say whether it is right or wrong. I believe myself it improves the Bill. I understand in the previous Act the word "archaeological" was left out, and the provisions only applied to historical monuments. It is considered by people who know something about the matter that it is necessary that monuments of some value from the archaeological point of view should also be looked after, and I agreed. We have also taken power to take whatever portion of the site is necessary to prevent injury and to afford access.
I congratulate the Minister on this modification of his Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move Amendment 21: To delete in lines 15, 16, 17 and 18 the words "when the Bank shall have satisfied the Land Commission that they have repaid to the Society or body of trustees such deposit as aforesaid," and to substitute therefor the words "When the Bank shall have lodged with the Land Commission such deposit as aforesaid."
It would be impossible to explain Amendment 21 without explaining also Amendment 22. They hang together. We thought it well to take over all the Land Bank Societies, good, bad and indifferent, and to give them all a chance. Far the greater number of them are in a flourishing condition, but there are a certain number of them which are not. Our aim was to take them all and give them all a chance of getting on their feet, having regard to the fact that they are getting more money now at 4½ per cent., and that we were paying one-tenth of it, and so on. There might be one or two Societies which were absolutely impossible, and it is well that the Land Commission should have a certain control of the deposit. I think the Dáil understands what the deposit is. The deposit is a deposit of one-third of the purchase money, which must be lodged with the Land Bank by the Societies before they make an advance. We thought it right in the event of any holding being absolutely no security or of any Society being no security whatever for the advance we were going to give them —in cases, for instance, where they bought the land far too dear—we could use that deposit for the purpose of redeeming some of the advance, so that the land would be security for the amount of advance which we would charge on it. We give the Land Commission the advance. The Land Commission is our agent in this matter. If they did come across a case where the lands are not security by any means for the amount of the advance they would have to make, then they are using public money, and it would be against public policy to make the advance. We give a way out by giving a discretion to use portion of the deposit to pay off some of the money, and make an advance for the balance. That is, I think, in all the circumstances, fair, especially in view of the fact that they must be taken over and that the Land Commission must make the advance.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 51.
I beg to move Amendment 22:—
To insert before Section 51 a new section as follows:
The deposit when lodged with the Land Commission shall be invested by them, and the income from such investments so far as not required to recoup the Land Commission for unpaid instalments of purchase annuities (if any) in respect of the advance made to the Society or body of trustees under this part of the Act, by whom the deposit was originally made with the bank, shall be paid to such Society or body of trustees until the deposit is utilised otherwise by the Land Commission or repaid in whole or in part to the Society or body of trustees under the following provisions, namely:—
(a) It shall be lawful for the Land Commission at any time before the advance is certified to be repaid, if they are not satisfied with the security for the same, or if the purchase annuities have been allowed to fall into arrear, to utilise the whole or part of the deposit in redemption pro tanto of the advance.
(b) It shall be lawful for the Land Commission at any time, if they are satisfied that the deposit is not required as security for the advance to repay the whole or any part thereof to the Society or body of trustees who originally lodged the same with the bank or to their lawful successors.
(c) Such part of the deposit as shall not have been utilised under the foregoing paragraphs shall, when so much of the advance as is equivalent to the value of the deposit remaining with the Land Commission shall be certified to have been repaid, and provided that the Land Commission are satisfied with the security for the unredeemed portion of the advance, be repaid to the Society or body of trustees who originally lodged the same with the bank or to their lawful successors.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 69.
I move Amendment 23:—To insert before Section 69 a new Section as follows:—
The powers for the apportionment of an annuity or the discharge of portion of a holding from liability in respect of an annuity conferred on the Land Commission by Sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, as extended by Sub-section (1) of Section 67 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, may be exercised by the Commissioners of Public Works as regards an annuity charged on a holding in repayment of an advance made by the said Commissioners for the purpose of the purchase thereof pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.
The Land Act of 1870 gave the Board of Works power to advance for the purchase of land, so that the Board of Works was the first body in the country to deal in land purchase, not the Land Commission. A number of advances for the purchase of land were made in the same way as the Land Commission is making advances now, and while they had power under the Act to agree to the sub-division of the holding, they had no power to agree to the sub-division of the advances. It was probably a drafting mistake in the Act. The result was that their power to agree to the sub-division of a holding was no good, because they had no legal power to apportion the advance. We are giving them power to apportion the advance, which, in addition to the powers they have already got of sub-dividing, will put them in the same position as the Land Commission in regard to the holdings that have been purchased by advances from them.
Amendment agreed to.
I move Amendment 24:—"In Sub-section (2), line 11, to insert after the word `lease' the words `renewable for ever,' and in line 12 to delete the words `renewable for ever.' " I have already explained the significance of that.
Amendment agreed to.
I move Amendment No. 25:—To add at the end of Sub-section (3) a new Sub-section (4) as follows:
"(4) The expression `relieving congestion' means the provision of land for the relief of a person or persons having an uneconomic holding or uneconomic holdings or for a person or persons whose holding or holdings has or have been acquired for the relief of persons having uneconomic holdings."
This definition of relieving congestion, if anything, widens the power of the Land Commission. It does not refer to any valuation. It is really an expression of what the practice has been.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 72.
I move Amendment 26:—To add at the end of the section the following:—
"Provided always that any Rules of Court made to carry out the provisions of this Act, in so far as they concern the relief of congestion, shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and if either House shall, within twenty-one days of such Rules of Court being tabled, pass a resolution annulling such Rules of Court, such Rules of Court shall be annulled, but such annullment shall not prejudice or invalidate any matter or thing previously done under such Rules of Court."
This amendment as a matter of fact, was unnecessary, because the Land Commission must lay its rules on the Table as the law stands at present. It adds nothing or subtracts nothing.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 27: Second Schedule: To insert in the Schedule in the proper columns the following:—
|
3 ED. VII. Cap. 37. |
The Irish Land Act, 1903. |
Section 56Sub-section (3) |
This should be inserted in its proper place between the third and fourth items. It is the last of 3 Ed. VII. Under this section, which we are now repealing, the local Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages had to notify the Land Commission of the death of any owner of a purchased holding. The Land Commission a great many years ago used to notify the local Registrar of Titles on getting notification from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Some years ago the local Registrar of Titles notified the Land Commission that they did not require such notification, and the Land Commission since that time have ceased to give such notification to the Registrar of Titles. Nevertheless the local Registrar sends up the information, because he gets 2s. 7d. for each entry. There was no necessity to continue that, and the repeal of this section will save us £70 per year.
Amendment agreed to.