Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 11 Dec 1925

Vol. 13 No. 18

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ALLOTMENTS) BILL, 1925—REPORT STAGE.

I move:—

In page 2, Section 2 (1), line 35, to delete the words "may resolve to" and substitute the word "shall."

This amendment is designed to make it mandatory on the local authority, when it is of opinion that there is a demand for allotments, to proceed with the powers given in the Bill and provide for such allotments. The Bill leaves the matter entirely within the option of the local authority, in respect of whether there is land available or not, or whether it is possible to make an agreement or not, to proceed and I desire that the local authority will realise that it is an obligation laid upon it by legislation, that where there is such a demand, and where local authorities are satisfied there is such a demand, it shall be looked upon as a duty on their part to do their utmost to provide these allotments.

I think that according to arguments that have been adduced on all sides, where there is a number of citizens in any district who are keen about this matter they should be given facilities, and that it should be an obligation on local authorities to do their share in meeting this demand. That is the sole purpose of the amendment. I would like that the Minister would agree that there should be mandatory provision in the Bill in this respect.

Deputy Johnson certainly appears in a new role in advocating an amendment of this kind. His whole attitude from the outset on the recent Local Government Act was one of hostility towards what he considered the bureaucratic policy of my Department in forcing local authorities to do things that they did not want to do. I think in this case that Deputy Johnson should be consistent. If local authorities are responsible bodies, and if we are justified in leaving them a very wide discretion in other matters, I think they should certainly be entitled to be left to their own discretion in a matter of this kind. I think no responsible local authority, if it was shown conclusively that there was a demand and a necessity for allotments in its particular district, would refuse to give effect to that demand. Deputy Johnson has made no case that would justify me in dragooning local authorities into doing something against their will in this case. Accordingly I oppose the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I beg to move:

"In page 3, lines 4 to 7 inclusive, to delete Section 3 (2)."

This is directed towards deleting the following sub-section:—"A local authority shall not acquire by agreement under this Act land outside their own area without the consent of the council of the county, county borough or urban district, or the commissioners of the town in which the said land is situate." I do not understand the purpose of this clause. The effect of it seems to me to be that the local authority may not enter into private negotiations with any landowner for any period at all, without applying to the county council, county borough, or the urban council of the district where the land is situate. It means, in effect, that there shall not be merely an agreement on the part of the local authorities, but that they shall also convince another local authority of the necessity for putting into operation the provisions of this Act. I am entirely unaware of any reason whatever which would justify such a prohibition. Perhaps the Minister will have arguments to put up in favour of it, but I would like to hear them before agreeing to this provision.

This is a well-recognised procedure and the acceptance of it would be consistent with the general spirit of local administration. After all every local authority has a certain amount of jurisdiction over its own territory, and in many cases a local authority may have a particular district or a particular piece of property earmarked for a particular purpose. A neighbouring local authority may have some idea of having an afforestation scheme on that particular piece of property or they may have an allotment scheme of their own in contemplation or may have some building programme in view. It is only right that they should be satisfied that there is no immediate likelihood of their requiring that property for any particular purpose of their own in the future, before allowing the property to be taken over by another local authority. I do not think there is any possibility of a responsible local body refusing to grant this request by another local authority if there was no serious objection to their doing so. It would be a very unusual procedure not to have this proviso inserted.

I am not aware that such a proviso was inserted in previous enactments relating to allotments, but it would seem to me that, inasmuch as a proposition of this kind has to be submitted to the Minister, he might consider it his duty to inquire whether there is any opposition. I feel if you are going to give a veto to one local authority in regard to agreements in respect of land, even in circumstances such as these, it is making the difficulty of providing allotments doubly great. The Minister says that it is a common form in the matter of local government legislation. Well, I must accept that, but it seems to me that the effect of it would be to place an added obstacle in the way of the development of the allotment scheme. Would the Minister agree that only in cases where there are stated reasons to his satisfaction such a refusal should be allowed to prevail? If it was a case of obstinacy, for instance, or a disagreement in policy, would the Minister overrule that objection?

In view of the representations of Deputy Johnson, I will accept the amendment as it stands. There is not very much in it. This was the usual procedure but if he thinks that this provision might be abused, in any case, I will waive my objection and accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

"In page 3, lines 8 and 9 inclusive, to delete Section 3 (3)."

The motion is to delete the clause restricting the period to a term of five years. I do not think there should be any restriction at all, and in any case that term of five years may be quite too short. I do not know what the reasons are for putting in a period in regard to this because the conditions under which the lands will be acquired will inevitably have regard to the fact that it is a permanent taking, a long-lease taking or a short-lease taking. These conditions will have to be all taken into account in the taking of the land and to make a specific statutory restriction does not seem to me to be necessary or desirable.

This is a necessary safeguard. The value of property fluctuates very considerably. The value of a piece of property may be very different at the end of five years from what it was when it was taken over. It is only right that the local authority, if it acquires land for an exceptional purpose of this kind, should not be tied up indefinitely, whether it is a paying proposition from its point of view or not. There should be an opportunity of readjusting the position at reasonable intervals. Under the Bill there is ample power to re-acquire the property without any obstacles. If conditions have not altered in any way, the property can be reacquired on the same terms as before. If they have altered they can be reacquired with such alterations in the terms as are equitable from the point of view of both contracting parties. I consider that a limitation of this kind is absolutely necessary in the Bill.

Is the Minister bound to a term of five years? Will he not extend it to ten years?

Ten years would be too long.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment 4:

In page 5, before Section 9, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Whenever the estate or interest of a local authority in any land acquired by such local authority for the purposes of this Act is terminated by any means (other than resumption of such land by the immediate landlord thereof under the power in that behalf conferred by this Act) and on such termination such land is in the opinion of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture in a condition substantially less suitable for agriculture or pasture (as the case may require) than when it was acquired by such local authority, such local authority shall pay compensation for such deterioration in the condition of the land.

(2) The amount of compensation to be paid by a local authority under this section and the person or persons to whom, and, if necessary, the shares in which it is to be paid shall be determined by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture whose decision shall be final.

This amendment is introduced in pursuance of a desire expressed on Committee Stage that compensation should be given, in certain circumstances, to owners of lands whose property had substantially depreciated during the period of tenure by the local authority. It would seem to cover what is in Deputy Conlan's mind in regard to amendment 5. If this amendment be accepted it should not be necessary for Deputy Conlan to move his amendment.

Deputy Conlan is satisfied except in regard to the provision that compensation shall be paid at the discretion of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. Deputy Conlan provided, in his amendment, that the landowner should have the right to have his claim heard in court. He is not, however, pressing that point and I am authorised on his behalf to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 put and agreed to.
New section ordered to be inserted in the Bill.
Amendment 5 not moved.

I move amendment 6:—

In page 7, before Section 14, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Whenever a local authority is of opinion, as a result of representations made to them, or on their own motion, that there is a demand for common pasture for milch cows and goats in their area, and are further of opinion that the costs and expenses to be incurred by them in providing and maintaining the land for such common pasture and otherwise in relation thereto may reasonably be expected to be recouped by the payments to be made to them for the use of the common pasture, such local authority may resolve to provide land for such common pasture under this Act, and may thereupon carry such resolution into execution under and in accordance with this Act.

(2) Whenever a local authority has resolved in accordance with the preceding sub-section to provide land for common pasture, the provisions of this Act (other than the limitation of the size of an allotment) shall apply in like manner as if "allotments" included "common pasture" and "rent" included a charge for turning out an animal upon common pasture, and the power of the local authority to make regulations under this Act shall extend to the making of regulations in regard to any or all of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) the classes of persons eligible to be permitted to turn out animals upon pasture;

(b) the number of animals to be turned out upon the common pasture;

(c) the charge to be made in respect of each animal turned out.

This amendment is for a definite purpose which I think of the gravest importance in this regard. It was proposed in the Bill which I had the pleasure, honour and privilege of introducing, that provision should be made for what are known as cow-parks or grazing lands for milch cattle and goats. I have had representations from different parts of the country as to the importance of this provision in the earlier Bill and regret that no provision was made for it in the present Bill. There is no doubt that in many of the provincial towns there has been a shortage of milk and that the poorer people have had difficulty in obtaining supplies. It has been one of the charges against the creamery system that farmers who are anxious to get all they can in the way of monetary return for their produce send all their milk to the creamery and that their families are deprived of the necessary quantity. The development of the grass holding to permit of the cottager keeping goats or milch cows for the use of himself and his neighbours should be encouraged rather than discouraged. This Bill does not make any provision for the acquisition of grass lands for this purpose and my amendment is proposed with a view to remedying that omission. The present law on the matter does not fulfil the requirements. One of the objections made to the provisions of the original Bill was that farmers, tradesmen, merchants and others would take advantage of the powers and use the land for grazing bullocks and for purposes other than the provision of milk. Under this provision which I suggest, the use of these lands would be restricted definitely to the purpose in view. I hope the Minister has reconsidered his attitude in this matter and that he will agree to make provision for cow-parks or common pasturage for milch cows or goats for the purpose I have indicated.

I support Deputy Johnson's amendment. A large number of workers who are fortunate enough to be able to obtain security for a loan for the purchase of a cow, have to pay at present from £10 to £12 per year for the grazing of that cow. That takes away the entire profit of the investment. I am sure the Minister will realise the necessity for these grazing tracts and that he will try to improve the economic position of the worker. If he accepts this amendment, he will be taking a step in the right direction and he will be giving the workers an opportunity of having milk and butter for their families at cost price.

This is a Bill to provide allotments for town dwellers and, for that reason, I think that the acquisition of property for common pasturage or for cow-parks is outside its purview. There are already powers to rural bodies to acquire lands for this purpose, but they are in an altogether different position, because there is plenty of land available in their areas for the purpose and they can acquire it without any difficulty. Under this provision, there would be a considerable amount of capital and labour involved, and there would have to be a good deal of technical skill available if the scheme were to be a success. I am of opinion that it would be impossible to obtain these requirements in the neighbourhood of the towns. A considerable amount of land is required for this purpose, not merely a quarter or one-eighth of an acre, as in the case of allotments.

In the neighbourhood of towns it is very difficult to acquire any quantity of land that would justify the introduction of a Bill for the purpose. There could, no doubt, be acquired a few acres of land around a town, but that would only satisfy the demands of a very limited number. Then, as has been remarked, it is very likely, if we introduced a provision of this kind, that it would be abused. Probably it would be much more likely be used as accommodation land for fairs and markets than for feeding and providing pasture for milch cows. In general, I am opposed to the idea of having the milk supply produced so near the towns and cities; from a hygienic point of view there is a good deal to be said against it. I am not prepared to accept Deputy Johnson's amendment.

The Minister will realise that the proposed section gives power to local authorities to make regulations in regard to any or all of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) the classes of persons eligible to be permitted to turn out animals upon pasture; (b) the number of animals to be turned out upon the common pasture; (c) the charge to be made in respect of each animal turned out.

The Minister's fear that this is going to cause difficulty to City Corporations or Commissioners of towns is quite unfounded. It is certain that in the working of it it could only be effective in respect to the small towns. Such small towns contain many people anxious to provide milk for themselves and their families. This is the only reasonable method whereby that provision can be secured without imposing upon the individual applicant a very excessive charge for the rent of the grazing that he requires. Complaints are very general that people who desire to keep a cow are obliged to pay excessively the local shopkeeper for the use of the land in the neighbourhood, or the farmer living in the neighbourhood of the town.

I think the Minister is doing a disservice to the people of the towns who desire to have grazing facilities for milch cows and he is incidentally doing a disservice to the cause of health and physical development. The objection the Minister raises, that it is not desirable to encourage the production of milk so near to a town as this would entail, is rather hard to understand. We know there is a good deal of milk produced right within this City and within urban areas; milk is even produced in byres, where there is no grazing at all.

Is Deputy Johnson in favour of that practice?

I am not, and this practice that I am here proposing is distinctly against it. Instead of keeping goats in a back-yard tied up it is proposed to have grazing facilities for them.

Before the question is put I would like——

The Deputy has already made a speech.

I rose merely to ask the Minister a question. In his statement against the amendment he said that no land was available. I would like to know whether he is aware that practically all the big shopkeepers in the different towns possess large farms in the vicinity of those towns? Could the Minister not give public authorities power to have this land acquired for the purposes specified in the amendment?

It is all a question of cost. Deputy Johnson and Deputy Lyons say that the land is available; they mention that the shopkeepers have the land. To acquire that land would involve the payment of high prices. Presumably the price the local authorities would have to charge would be approximately the same as what the shopkeeper would charge. The local authorities would have to acquire the land at its proper market value and they would not be able to get the land at any less figure than the local shopkeepers would charge.

I would like to observe on this amendment that it is really arguable whether it is outside the scope of the Bill. At any rate, waiving that point for the moment, I think it is certainly clear that an amendment of this kind, involving an alteration in the most important definition of the Bill, should be introduced in Committee rather than on Report. As the amendment aims at making a very definite alteration in the Bill, it needs, as it were, a consequential amendment in the definition section which has been discussed on Report. I would prefer not to put the question on it, if Deputies are satisfied.

I am satisfied. I realise the value of the ruling. It will, I have no doubt, be used in future even though the amendments might come from other benches. I must say that the amendments were not brought in on the Committee Stage simply because of lack of time. My complaint is not that there was no time between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, but the fact is I had not time to prepare the amendments.

I might have decided to accept this amendment in Committee, but I think it is clear it is rather late now. In all the circumstances, I think the discussion satisfies the point. I am now putting the question.

Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage ordered for Wednesday, 16th December.
Top
Share