Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Jul 1924

Vol. 8 No. 17

STATE LANDS BILL, 1924.—SECOND STAGE.

I move the Second Reading of this Bill. On the last day I think I made a Second Reading speech on this measure. This Bill is to enable us to let certain Government property, or to dispose of it, and in cases that are mentioned in the schedule, to authorise that being done in these particular cases. It is rather urgent it should be done. I think I mentioned that on the last day. Otherwise, I think there is nothing contentious about the measure.

The Minister, in moving the First Reading of this Bill gave us his reasons why it was necessary to bring it in, because of the necessity for dealing with Kehoe Barracks, and one or two other places, with a view to employment, but he did not hint even at the very great importance of this Bill. What I wish to suggest is that it is a breach of the provisions of the Constitution, and I intend to oppose the Bill to the utmost, unless it is altered in such a way as to remove what I believe to be its very grave defects. We do not know what property, what land, is in the possession of the State as State lands, as distinct from the whole of the lands of the country. There are certain lands which have been held and used as State property. We do not know their extent, but we know that there are many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of acres. The Bill proposes to hand over to the Minister for Finance, to do as he likes for 99 years with, those lands, subject only to notification in a very unsatisfactory manner to the Dáil. If you read the provisions of Article 11 of the Constitution which is referred to in this Bill, you will see that it is required that:—

All the lands within the territory of the Irish Free State, and also all royalties, belong to the Irish Free State, subject to any trusts, grants, leases, etc., and shall be controlled and administered by the Oireachtas, in accordance with the regulations and provisions as shall be from time to time approved by legislation, but the same shall not nor shall any part thereof be alienated but may in the public interests be from time to time granted by way of lease or license to be worked or enjoyed under the authority and subject to the control of the Oireachtas.

Now, to give power to the Minister for Finance to grant leases and issue licences for the working of these lands under the conditions of this Bill is a renunciation by the Oireachtas of the power which the Constitution imposes, to retain such lands as being subject to the control of the Oireachtas. I realise at once that it may be a necessary, quite a desirable thing to lease certain lands for certain uses, but under the Bill the Minister is to make the terms of the leases, and all he is required to do is to notify the Dáil within 14 days that such a lease has been concluded, and it would then require specific action by the Dáil to break that lease. It does not even say that the lease shall be annulled. All it says is that: No lease shall be made or granted until the expiration of 14 days after a certain date, that is to say: "the first day on which Dáil Eireann shall sit next after the statement in accordance with this section shall have been laid before Dáil Eireann," or if a later date, the first date on which the Seanad shall have a sitting. I think that the effect of this Bill will be practically a renunciation of the powers of the Oireachtas over lands the property of Saorstát Eireann. It is handing over to the Minister too much authority. I think Ireland has suffered very, very much from the action of Ministers and Kings in handing over State property to private persons. We are confined to 99 years in this, but 99 years is time enough to do a great deal of damage and very much more recent experience of other countries has shown that Ministers have been able to do certain things with State lands, at least minerals or oils, which have caused a great deal of trouble, because they are done by the Ministers and not by the legislature.

I think we ought to guard very earnestly against the possibilities of any future Minister doing things that he ought not to do, and leaving the control or check, such a doubtful check as is embodied in Section 2. I think, in fact, that the Bill does violate Article 11 of the Constitution, but whether that is so or not, I hope the Dáil will not allow the Bill to pass in its present form. I suggest that the right method would be to deal with every such lease as is proposed by some modification perhaps of Private Bill legislation, or the lease should be attached to the schedule of the Bill presented, so that we would have the authority to check any faults in any proposal to let the property of the nation to other people. That will apply, I suggest, to every attempt to let, or lease, or license the use of State property. Sub-section 3 of Section 2 asks us to agree that the check which the Oireachtas is supposed to hold over such lettings and leasings is to be foregone in the case of certain properties. We are not even to hold that check with regard to the properties enumerated in the schedule. We are to say, these leases having been agreed to, or to be agreed to, that for six months the Minister may do anything with State property, and that the obligation to submit leases and licences to the Oireachtas will not be imposed. Surely that is asking too much. We may have the utmost faith in the wisdom, not to speak of the integrity, of the Minister for Finance, but at least we are supposed to have a certain responsibility, and while the Constitution says that the Oireachtas must retain control, we are to hand over to the Minister the power which the Oireachtas is supposed to have, and to say that for six months he may do anything he likes with these State lands. That is revolutionary, if you like. Sometimes people are twitted with being revolutionary. I say this is a revolution, a retrogressive revolution. I do not know what these properties enumerated in the schedule may be. I do not know what their values are, and we do not know what the terms of the lettings may be. It may be we are handing over to certain syndicates or private individuals property valued for a million pounds at a penny a year for 99 years. Does any Deputy in the Dáil know whether that is so or not? We do not, yet we are asked to say that the Minister for Finance is to have power to do that sort of thing for six months without any control whatever.

I hope the Minister will see that this Bill is not the sort of Bill that should be brought in in any circumstances, certainly not the sort of Bill that should be brought in in the last few days of this half of the session with the intention that it should be rushed through. I am sure ways can be found for having an agreed Bill in respect of the Kehoe Barracks for instance, which it is presumably intended and which we are assured is to be handed over to somebody to facilitate rehousing—a very desirable and a very urgent proposition and it can be done, and I am sure it can be done by agreement, but let us have the agreement and let us know the terms. I do not know whether these other properties referred to in the schedule have to be dealt with so rapidly or so urgently, but even if they have, let us know exactly the terms and the conditions of these leases. We cannot say that we are retaining authority and control when we are simply handing over the power to a Minister to do as he likes for six months even without reporting. He need not report the terms of the leases for six months for any property he hands over during this six months. After that he has to report and no licence shall be made or granted until fourteen days after the Dáil has sat. It does not mean to say that the Dáil shall have sat for fourteen days. It may be sitting for, say, a day or two, or the Seanad may sit for a day or two when the Dáil is not sitting and then fourteen days after that day the business is done and cannot be abrogated except—bear this in mind—at the gravest risk of having to pay heavy compensation. That I maintain is a breach of the intentions of the Constitution and whether it is so or not I think we should not allow this Bill to pass in this form. We should not give it a Second Reading. We should impress upon the Minister the necessity for dealing with this urgent question in a way much more satisfactory and not to give general powers to Ministers for Finance to lease public lands and property subject only to the very anaemic kind of check which is suggested in Section 2.

I was impressed, as I always am impressed, by Deputy Johnson's Constitutional point but considering it carefully, as I have had time to, I think it can scarcely be said that this Bill violates the Constitution because these lands are vested in the Oireachtas. It is impossible for the Oireachtas to control them; we can't have a joint sitting of the Dáil and Seanad to discuss the terms of a lease. That would be reducing Parliamentary Government to an absurdity, and surely the normal and constitutional manner for the Oireachtas to act, and the Constitutional method of dealing with the matter is through a Minister appointed by the Oireachtas. I think that is so, and, therefore, I think in this Bill we are conferring a power which is a constitutional power, and which constitutionally we have a right to devolve on the Minister, but I agree with Deputy Johnson that we should be very careful in dealing with public lands and public property. I agree with him in his criticisms of many of the details; though I shall not vote with him on Second Reading, I probably shall vote with him on the Committee Stage if he proposes to delete Sub-section (3) of Section 2. I do not think his suggestion to refer all these leases to a Private Bill Committee is a really sound one. We are not very rich in barristers, and I expect that the only barrister who was then in the Dáil would rise to propose a vote of thanks to Deputy Johnson because it would mean that barristers would appear before the Committee, and that the cost of any such transfer of land would be greatly increased. When you are buying land and also when you are leasing land, one of the heaviest items of expenditure is your bill of costs. If a barrister's fee is to be added on to that bill of costs, and a barrister's work is to be included in that bill of costs, the transfer of State lands would be such an expensive business that you will find very few people willing to take it on. Now I want to get some information, and I think this is a suitable occasion, as to the policy to be pursued with regard to lands and properties taken over from the British, and especially taken over from the British War Department. Is it proposed to follow up the Kehoe Barracks experiment? Are any other barracks to be used for housing in Dublin? If so, I would suggest that the most suitable for the purpose are the Arbour Hill Barracks. They were built by the British as married quarters, and they consist of small self-contained flats that would require very little money to convert into residential quarters. I think, if there is any proposal to use any more barracks for the housing problem, these barracks are the most suitable. I do not know whether Arbour Hill Prison is at the Minister's disposal, whether it has been vacated, or whether he thinks it desirable to have it.

I see in the schedule of this Bill a reference to a rifle range. The other point I want to know is, what policy is being pursued in dealing with rifle ranges and the artillery range? I think there are two artillery ranges which the British Government formerly used for that purpose. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture made a rather cryptic statement when we were dealing with another Bill. He said he had taken over several hundred acres from the Minister for Defence. That is not covered by the Bill, and I tried to find out where they were, but I got no information. The Government might very easily go too far and make a mistake in getting rid of some of these lands until we have definitely decided to follow the policy of Denmark, and that, I take it, will not be until Deputy Johnson is in office. These rifle ranges and artillery ranges are absolutely needed if you wish to keep your troops in a state of efficiency. The money expended there is money well spent, because the straight-shooting soldier eats no more and is three times as valuable as a soldier who shoots badly in the hour of battle, so I hope we may get some idea of whether it is proposed under the Bill to follow the procedure adopted in the case of Clonmel rifle range, which is given away already. Our Army is about the same strength as the British Army was here in 1914, and, therefore, we ought not give up any of the training land that they possessed, for protecting ourselves in war.

I am not going to deal with the question of these lands that are generally classed under the description, roughly, of "handed over by the British." There are other classes of land which, I think, are very important. For a variety of reasons a number of ordinary farms have become vested in the State. Take the case of one that happens to have been brought to my notice, and I know that other Deputies are in very much the same position, the case of land which originally passed into the hands of a certain farmer as a result of a loan he got from the Board of Works. Gradually, in the course of time the annuities were not paid up. After a while, as a result of the ordinary legal process, the land was vested in the State. The land itself is a wretched bit of land, and, perhaps, the valuation of the whole thing would, in the case of some tenants, amount to about £10 a year. The position at present as the result of Article 11 of the Constitution is this. The Board of Works, or the State, cannot sell to the tenants, who, I understand, are technically trespassers, or squatters, on the land. I doubt very much if they could lease the lands to them. It seems to be absurd that Private Bills should be introduced to deal with such a situation. It is this land especially that I am interested in. We all have a certain amount of interest in what generally goes under the high-sounding name of State property, but I would remind Deputies that there is a great quantity of property of the type I mention, and unless legislation is passed quickly there are all sorts of avenues for trouble in different parts of the country.

The object of the Bill is to secure that when an occasion arises for disposing of State property, the necessary arrangements will be carried out in accordance with the Articles of the Constitution which Deputy Johnson thinks we are invading. It requires that such property should be controlled and administered by the Oireachtas, in accordance with such regulations and provisions as shall be from time to time approved by legislation. If we were to let Kehoe Barracks on a lease to the city of Dublin, obviously it would be an extravagant thing to imagine that we should go in to administer and control it. It would be both extravagant and useless. So that in that respect the words "control and administer," I think, come in before the lease is made.

May I point out to the President that there is nothing in this Bill to compel the Minister for Finance to ensure that the property shall be used in a certain way.

No, it would not go into the Bill. It would go into the lease.

Then we have no control over it.

In the case of a lease that is made in respect of lands, no matter how much one wishes to keep control, or exercise that particular word known as administration, obviously when the lease is made somebody else is a party to the bargain, and I have never heard of a lease being made in which the person who gives the lease has control and administration. The word "lease" occurs in the Article, and I do not know of anyone who would accept a lease in which you would allow the superior landlord to go in, control and administer property in respect of which he was going to spend a considerable sum of money. In the other case that is mentioned in the schedule, that is the drill field, I think the Clonmel Corporation is in this position, that they have actually put buildings on the property. Speaking from recollection, I should say that they got authority to do that from the Minister for Local Government at the time of the existence of the Provisional Government. At that time the Constitution had not come into law, and no particular system was drawn up regulating the letting or the leasing in that particular case. A difficulty arises now in respect of the title, which should certainly be amended. But granted that there is to be a lease, and a lease is mentioned in this Article, I have never heard of a lease which gave the landlord authority to control and administer after the lease had been granted.

When a landlord lets ground for building houses of a certain type he retains the control, at least within that limit. If the land is to be used for the putting up of a casino, let us say, has the head landlord no control?

Yes, it is the lease that comes in there. That would be the kind of premises mentioned in the lease.

Exactly. That is what I want to have control over.

As far as that is concerned, the control is specified in drawing up the lease.

Who will have that control?

The Minister for Finance, when he makes this regulation under the lease. Let us take Kehoe Barracks. In that case an agreement is made in respect of which certain houses are to be erected there, houses for the working classes, of a certain size. Once they are erected no control can be exercised in respect of them, neither can any administration be exercised. It could not possibly be done in connection with the lease. What the word "lease" means is its generally accepted meaning, but the Minister for Finance and the Government are not waiving their rights under Article 11 of the Constitution. When the words "Minister for Finance" are mentioned here, although appearing to give certain powers to one individual, that is the term that is used in connection with very much larger property than this. Some particular Minister must be responsible. In the case of the Minister for Finance, it is in the Constitution that it is essential that three particular Ministers should be in the Executive. They are the President, the Vice-President, and the Minister for Finance. In that case you cannot separate the Minister for Finance. You cannot select any other person in respect of whom the responsibility could be greater than that of the Minister for Finance, so that it is not an individual here; it is the Executive Council. The fact that information is to be given to the two Houses of the Oireachtas is a sufficient guarantee that nothing in the nature of a bad bargain for the State could be made. Kehoe Barracks has been already dealt with. Those premises mentioned in No. 3 and 4 of the Schedule have been burnt and destroyed. The re-building would cost the State a very considerable amount of money. In order to provide for a certain thoroughfare that the city of Dublin requires, some property must be yielded. It is an advantage to the State to yield this property in this particular case. It is not necessary to spend the money in order to put the buildings up. If they were put up and the particular thoroughfare had to be constructed afterwards, we would have spent so much money and got nothing for it. The other premises—23, 24 and 25 Pearse Street—were a recruiting depot for the British, and are of no service to us. The sooner we let them the better the advantage would be to the State.

Have they not already been sold? I passed that way recently and there were notices. "Sold," by a certain firm.

I think it is a lease in that particular case. I take it that this particular schedule that has reference to it would rectify or settle that. I am sure that if they have been leased it would not be legal unless this measure were passed into law. There is a very considerable amount of land in Tallaght, and I do not think it will be required.

Would the President say what 16 Sackville Street, or O'Connell Street, is?

That is one of these premises that have been destroyed, formerly used by the accountants' branch of the post office. I mentioned that in connection with the thoroughfare required by the city, and I do not know that anybody is willing on that particular site to give way. If the Government waives its right in respect of that particular property it means a little moving up or down in the case of other properties, which will enable the thoroughfare to be constructed. With regard to the matter mentioned by Major Cooper I think we have too much property, military barracks, fields, and other property. I do not know that the military authorities have considered the question of rifle ranges, but when the new Minister for Defence takes up duty one of the first matters that will come before him will be what particular properties are necessary to keep.

This question of barracks must be considered in the light of what will be economic, having regard to the fact that this is a very scattered organisation. In Dublin city alone something like twenty different posts have to be maintained day after day. I do not know whether the barrack that has been mentioned by the Deputy is the same as has been mentioned to me. McKee Barracks have been mentioned to me as barracks which it is more than likely we would be able to let. In the case of the barracks that the Deputy mentioned, I think there are certain people in occupation of residences there. I do not know that they are really entitled to them, and I gave instructions some time ago to take up the matter with the British Government. They are, I think, soldiers serving with the British Army at the present moment, and I think it is unreasonable in a case like that of the city of Dublin, where there is such dreadful congestion, that we should not be able to make that accommodation available for the Corporation. In one other case where there are married quarters—Griffith Barracks, I think— those have been let to some industrial firm which started business here and could not find accommodation for its employees. Those barracks have been let, but all those things are subject to the passing of this measure.

Will the President bear in mind in dealing with McKee Barracks that portions of those barracks are mere stables and are not fit for human habitation.

I know that. But there are something like 150 dwellings there immediately suitable for occupation. They are occupied at present.

Has the President considered the position of Beggar's Bush Barracks? They had been vacant before the war and the site would be a very good site for building.

The whole question of these barracks in the city is under consideration. I am not in a position to give definite answers at present to these questions, and I do not think I will be able to do so until after the recess.

In view of what the President has said regarding the question of the barracks being under consideration, will he undertake that nothing very drastic will be done in the matter of selecting what barracks will come up until he can satisfy the Dáil that our defence problem as a whole has been properly envisaged, and that the giving up of the barracks will be decided in the light of what we know to be a definite and systematic policy.

Might I ask the President if he has considered the question of letting the married quarters in Newbridge Barracks to the people of the town? There is a great deal of congestion there.

No. All those matters are merely in the incubation period. They are there for consideration, but we have not been able to devote the time or attention to them that they would deserve. In any case the disposal of the barracks would have to meet with the approval of the military authorities. In the case of Kehoe Barracks, the letting there met with the approval of the military authorities, and I take it that they have in mind the defence needs of the moment and any defence needs that may possibly arise. Military questions and the possibility of attack are, of course, problematical, but they had these matters under consideration, I am sure, when they recommended us to dispose of those barracks.

There is a bigger point, that the Dáil is even more concerned with the question that our defence problem is properly envisaged than the military authorities, and it was from that particular point of view I raised the matter.

That might arise on the Army Bill which we will introduce after the recess.

Question put: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 40, Níl, 8.

Tá.

  • Pádraig F. Baxter.
  • Séumas Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • John Conlan.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Henry J. Finlay.
  • John Good.
  • John Hennigan.
  • William Hewat.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Séumas Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • P. McGilligan.
  • Eóin Mac Néill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Patrick McKenna.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Risteárd O Conaill. Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
  • Donchadh S. O Guaire.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Séumas O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Séumas O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig K. O hOgáin (Luimneach).
  • Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • Nicholas Wall.

Níl.

  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Motion declared carried.
Bill accordingly read a second time.
Committee Stage fixed for Friday, the 25th July.

resumed the Chair.

When will the further Stages be taken?

Perhaps Deputy Johnson will be in a better humour on Friday, and will allow me to take all the Stages.

If the President will accept all my amendments I will facilitate him.

If the Deputy gives early notice of them, I will give them favourable consideration.

Top
Share