Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Feb 1926

Vol. 14 No. 12

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - ADJOURNMENT—ACQUISITION OF UNTENANTED LAND.

Major COOPER

I gave notice that on the adjournment I would call attention to the procedure of the Land Commission in fixing the "Appointed Day" in connection with estates that they proposed to acquire compulsorily. I did so with reluctance, because I do not want to weary the Dáil, but I did so because of the urgency of the matter. In one particular case, brought to my notice, a constituent of my own is the owner of certain lands in the County of Meath at Rathregan. He is both a stockbreeder and a salesmaster, and he uses this land, which is within walking distance of Dublin cattle markets, for the purposes of his business. The Land Commission, some nine or ten months ago, served notice on him that they intended to acquire that land compulsorily. He took steps, and I believe he took them with legal advice, to object to that procedure. His objection was taken before the Land Commission, and met with a simple negative. No reason was given—simply a negative. He then appealed to Mr. Justice Wylie on the question of value, and succeeded in getting the amount somewhat increased. He then put up two propositions to the Commissioners. He offered them other land rather more remote from Dublin, but I believe equal in regard to tillage, and more conveniently situated as regards access by road, and approximately of equal area. After that offer was refused, he asked that he might be allowed to surrender two-thirds of the 500 acres in this particular place and to retain one-third for the purposes of his business.

I am not speaking of my own knowledge in regard to this land, but, I believe, Deputy Leonard, a much greater authority on the value of land and cattle, will bear me out when I say that these were reasonable offers. They were simply dismissed. No argument was advanced. My constituent was simply told: "We are going to take the land: we accept none of your alternative offers." He tried, the, to reason with the Minister. The real trouble in this particular case is that my constituent came to me too late; he went to Deputy Leonard first. If he had come to me I would have told him the Minister was not amenable to argument, and that the last thing to do was to write the Minister a four-page letter arguing with him on a question of justice. He did write to the Minister, and he has not had any reply, at least not up to 12 o'clock to-day. All he got, after these offers and these attempts to meet the Minister and to meet the policy of the Land Act in trying to provide land for the relief of congestion, was that on Monday, of this week, his solicitor received a notice that the "Appointed Day" was Friday, that is to-morrow.

I do suggest to the Minister and to the Dáil that a longer notice than that ought to have been given. From the farming point of view and from every point of view there should be more than a week's notice. It should be possible to give at least a month's notice. In this case my constituent has stock upon the land. He has pedigree brood-mares that have been to expensive sires and that are about to foal. He has ewes that are about to lamb. Even if you could find other accommodation for these beasts it is not a very easy or safe matter to move them without four or five days' notice. The Minister may say his Department has been reproached with administering the Land Act too slowly. That may be so. He may say that the policy of his Department, on the whole, is too conservative, and it is criticised for that. That may be so, but it really amounts to saying that, as it was too conservative in the past it is now going in another direction—in other words, that the dog may be allowed his first bite. That may be agreeable for the dog.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the fixing of the Appointed Day involve the clearing of the land on that day? Does the fixing of the Appointed Day mean any change in the position of the land?

Mr. HOGAN

In the clearing of the land?

Major COOPER

If the Minister will tell us that it is not the intention of the Land Commission to enter in on the Appointed Day that would remove many of my objections. One reason I brought this forward was to try to get an assurance from the Minister that he would postpone the Appointed Day and would give a guarantee that my constituent would not be dispossessed. When addressing the Minister I always feel as if I was addressing the opposing counsel, and I hope he will not dispossess my constituent without reasonable notice. If he gives that undertaking he will go far to meet my case.

Mr. LEONARD

I would like to support Deputy Cooper. This is one of the few things I know something about. If the Minister says it is not his intention to have the lands cleared for some time I, on behalf of the tenant, Mr. Wallis, would be quite satisfied with his assurance. I have been over these lands. In Rathregan, Co. Meath, there are 516 acres, and the price is £18,900, that is £36 10s. 6d. per acre. The poor law valuation is £1 3s. per acre. Mr. Wallis has offered to give to the Land Commission or the Estates Commissioners, the land at Drumlargan, which is almost as good as the land at Rathregan and contains 201 acres; and the land at Newtown which contains 264 acres. The price of these two farms would be £15,000, which works out at less than £32 10s. per acre. The Minister, or the Estates Commissioners, might say "This is inferior land you are offering." If you take the poor law valuation as more or less reliable the difference between the valuation of these three properties is less than 2/6 per acre. I think Mr. Wallis is entitled to get from the Minister, or the Estates Commissioners, the reason why they have turned down his offer. It looks badly that a man who is doing a big business in Dublin and who is a Protestant, and a member of the old English school, should be apparently penalised by us. Unless the reasons are very grave I do not see why the Minister should not ask the Estates Commissioners to accept Mr. Wallis's offer of these two farms, which have nearly the same area as the one they selected. If they say they cannot do without Rathregan they should at least allow him to retain the 120 acres he has asked for, or to re-purchase so that he could continue to rear his valuable brood stock there. I have a list of the horses he has bred.

Mr. COSGRAVE

Have you a list of the uneconomic holders who are waiting for this land?

Mr. LEONARD

There are no uneconomic holders waiting for this land. The Minister and the Estates Commissioners have a certain amount of sense, and they know that land like this is not suitable for division into small holdings. The proof is that on the outside of the ditch there are 400 acres that were bought some years ago, and they have been only lately divided, but the people who got the land are not working it because it is too good. On the other side of the ditch, to the north west, there are another 400 acres, bought for the last three years, and not a single dividing fence has been put up. A client of mine has 200 or 300 acres taken over for grazing.

Mr. DAVIN

Perhaps Mr. Leonard would say what Mr. Wallis or his predecessors paid for the land he is now offered £18,900 for?

Mr. LEONARD

I will not give figures I cannot substantiate, but I am sure the farm did not originally cost Mr. Wallis £18,900. You would have to take into account any improvements he has made.

Mr. NOLAN

Is there a head rent, and what would be the setting value of the land this year on the eleven months' system?

Mr. LEONARD

Do you mean this particular farm?

Mr. NOLAN

Yes.

Mr. LEONARD

The letting value would be between £5 or £6 per acre for grazing.

Mr. HOGAN

I am sorry we have not the time to discuss this interesting case, for if we had we could probably discuss the general land purchase problem specifically. Deputy Cooper says he always speaks as far as I am concerned as the opposing counsel. I will try to be judicial on this occasion. It would be a very serious thing to interfere with property worth £18,000 or £20,000 in a lighthearted way. Issues have been raised that mean more financially than any five or six cases that might come before the Supreme Court. That shows the position the Estates Commissioners are in. They have to hear cases every day in connection with property, the value of which I would say would be at least ten times as great as the value of the property at issue before any tribunal in the land, not excepting the Supreme Court. In this case we have got some of the facts, but there are other facts which should be stated in order to give a true picture of the position, and it is necessary also to make some corrections.

These lands of Rathregan, as Deputy Leonard said, are amongst the best in Meath. The Land Commission expressed to the owner their intention of acquiring these lands, and negotiations and proceedings are now going on for 17 months. They commenced by notice to the owner that the lands were to be inspected. He objected to the inspection. That objection was considered and overruled. The lands were inspected finally in June, 1925. That was nearly nine months after the negotiations commenced. The intervening period between September and June, 1925, was taken up with negotiations as to whether the lands should be inspected, and also in connection with the price. In June, 1925, an offer was made. Before that, in May, when the Land Commission heard of the objection against acquisition or inspection, they published the usual provisional list, which is in common form, the effect of which is simply to give notice to everyone concerned that the Land Commission proposed to acquire certain lands and that any person who had any objection, including the owner, should lodge notice of the objection within the specified period, usually two months. That notice was published in June, 1925, almost nine months after the negotiations started. Immediately afterwards an offer of £18,000 was made. The owner objected, as he was entitled to do. He objected first to acquisition and secondly to the price. As has always been the case, it was agreed that in this case the objection to the price should be deferred until the objection to acquisition was heard. The question of acquisition was tried before the Commissioners of the Court. Counsel appeared on each side and argued at great length. Having heard the whole case and the alternative, which Deputy Cooper and Deputy Leonard mentioned, the Commissioners decided that they would continue to acquire the land.

Major COOPER

Did they follow the usual practice and give reasons for their decision?

Mr. HOGAN

I will come to that. The usual practice is to give a decision. I think one of the greatest judges has stated that he was bound to be right in his decision, but bound to be wrong in reasons he gave for that decision. That does not arise now. The reasons for acquisition are obvious. That was overruled on the 20th October. Remember that publication of the intention to acquire took place in June, and that the case did not come on for trial until October. I may say there was no objection until after the time was fixed. It was extended at Mr. Wallis's request, and in order to enable him to make objection. In this case every device was used—legitimately used, as the owner was perfectly entitled to take advantage of the law—to delay the proceedings as much as possible. Not only that, but the Land Commission to a certain extent met the owner's convenience by extending the time for objection. Notwithstanding the fact that the provisional list was published in June, the objection was not heard until October, counsel appearing on both sides, and the objection was overruled. Mr. Wallis could have appealed to the Judicial Commissioner from the Commissioners but he did not do so.

Major COOPER

Has not the Judicial Commissioner refused to hear an appeal from the Commissioners?

Mr. HOGAN

No.

Major COOPER

Mr. Wallis is under that impression.

Mr. LEONARD

The Judicial Commissioner informed me that he would hear no appeals from the Commissioners.

Mr. HOGAN

I am stating the law. He could have appealed if he wished. He did not do so. In any event, accepting acquisition, that meant, simply, that on the 20th October he had definite notice and had accepted the position that these lands were to be acquired, and that there was only one point outstanding and that was with regard to the price. That objection was listed for hearing on the 8th December. Immediately after the decision, which was given on his objection to acquisition, the objection to price was listed. Mr. Wallis came in and asked that there should be an adjournment. He gave rather casual reasons for the adjournment, but the Commissioners met him again. They were extremely anxious to get this land by the spring. The objection was not heard, in fact, until the 20th of January, and on the 16th February they ruled. That finished the negotiations which began the previous September twelve months. He had ample notice since the 20th October, when the objection to acquisition had been ruled on, after long delays, that the lands were to be immediately acquired and the only objection outstanding—as to price—was ruled out. That procedure was common form.

The date of vesting is never published in the provisional list for the simple reason that it is not known. It depends on how long the objection takes. The common form in the Land Commission, so far as the provisional list is concerned, is to fix a time for the objection, and if they see a good reason they can extend it. They then publish the "Appointed Day" immediately after the last objection has been disposed of. The first objection always disposed of is the objection to acquisition. Once that is decided the case is closed so far as acquisition is concerned. It is an accepted fact that the Commissioners can obtain the land. That was decided in this case on the 20th October and they are taking the land on the 20th of February as per usual procedure. It is wrong to give the impression that this action was suddenly taken. This was land that was to be taken. The acquisition had been decided upon, rightly or wrongly, on the 20th October. There was no question outstanding but one, and no other objection could be made. In fact, the time had been extended to enable him to make objections. The only one question to be decided is the question of price. He knew, and everyone knew, and it was their business to know, that the lands would vest immediately the objection was decided.

That is so much for the procedure. Now with regard to the merits. Deputy Cooper describes Mr. Wallis as a stock-breeder and a salesmaster who uses his land for the purposes of his business and Deputy Leonard mentioned that this was a high-class farm on which high-class stock animals had been bred and so forth and generally gave us the impression that this was a high-class farm used as a high-class farm should be used and here is the Land Commission butting in and destroying the man's business. The facts are that Mr. Wallis has 1,222 acres of land. We are leaving him 707 acres. Of his total land he has set 717 acres and he is farming 505. Of that 717 he has set 309 belonging to Rathregan, and he is farming 206.

I have no doubt that racehorses, including some classic winners, were bred on that farm, but the present position is that Mr. Wallis owns the land. Two-thirds of it is set at the moment and was set last year. We propose to leave him 717 acres, which is 200 acres more than he is actually farming at present. Why did the Land Commission take this and what were their reasons? First, the remainder of his land is either purchased or tenanted land and it is much more difficult to buy purchased or tenanted land than to buy fee simple. It costs more. That is the reason. I explained often the difficulties about buying tenanted land and also the difficulties about buying purchased land. He is getting £18,900 for it, which is a moderate price enough for one of the best farms in Meath. It is moderate even from the Land Commission's point of view. What is it going to work out per acre? It is going to work out at about thirty-two shillings a statute acre. It is well worth it, but when tenant purchasers get into it it will be let from £5 to £7 per acre and they will think that rent is extraordinarily high. Yet could you in fairness and in all the circumstances, give that man less?

I am now arguing the other side of the case, but the complexities of land purchase are many. It is all very well to generalise, but when you come down to particulars it is very difficult. You have these legitimate claims on the one side and the legitimate claims of the people going into it on the other. We took this land because other land was not suitable. This land is, of course, far more suitable, because it is fee-simple land. I may say there is another reason for urgency, and that is, that this land will not be divided, as Deputy Leonard said, into small holdings. People will be taken up from congested counties who had big farms of purchased land. That is the way this farm will be used. In fact, the position of the Land Commission, at the moment, is that they have acquired, compulsorily, land in Mayo and the congested districts for the purpose of dividing it among the congests, and they cannot get the congests in. They have made agreements with people, a year ago, having taken all their land down there, that they will be able to find them other farms. That promise is maturing now. It is necessary there should be some finality. I am asked for an undertaking that we will not disturb Mr. Wallis's stock. If this man has ewes and lambs on that farm, he knew on the 20th September that the farm would be taken.

Major COOPER

Did he know that?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes; he did not know the exact day, but he knew it would be taken after the price objection had been ruled out. It would have been taken months ago except that on his own request the matter was adjourned over Christmas. After all, he knew that the ewes and lambs were there. I am surprised to know that there were valuable brood mares there. So far as the Land Commission are concerned, they treated Mr. Wallis well as far as time was concerned. They have given him all the leniency he wanted. Even at the last moment, if he wants a certain amount of opportunity to dispose of his stock, provided there is a definite time-limit, there certainly will be allowed the ordinary short time that a man would be allowed to make the minor adjustments he would make. However, they must have the land this spring to dispose of it to people in order to get other people from the west into it. I do not want to give any undertaking as to how long we will give Mr. Wallis. He lengthened the thing out as long as he could, but that will not prejudice our view and he will be treated fairly by the Land Commission. If there are minor arrangements they will be made, but the Land Commission will not be put off by being told there are valuable ewes and lambs there, especially owing to the fact that three-quarters of the farm is set and that he has 1,222 acres. He will have 717 acres left. He has not been extra reasonable with us, but that has not prejudiced the position. This case has been examined carefully. He has not been treated unreasonably and he is not going to be treated unreasonably, but that does not mean that he is going to get away by saying that he has brood mares on the land.

The Dáil adjourned, at nine o'clock, until Friday, the 26th February.