asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries if (a) representations have been made to his Department in respect of the position of Patrick Gleeson, R.O. No. H205/3, Carhoo, Corofin, Co. Clare, and others in respect of their position on the vesting of their holdings on the Kemball Barton Estate, Dysert O'Dea, Co. Clare; (b) if he is aware that a reduction of 40 per cent. given by the landlord before purchase has not been taken into account when the annuities were being fixed on vesting, and that their annuities are now about 25 per cent. higher than their payments before vesting, and (c) if he will introduce proposals for legislation to remedy this hardship.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Vesting of Clare Holdings.
(a) Communications have been received from the Deputy and other parties regarding the fixation of the standard purchase annuities on the estate of Kemball and Barton. (b) The abated rents were determined by the Judicial Commissioner as the basis for calculation of payment in lieu of rent and compounded arrears of rent only. The standard purchase annuities were fixed on the basis of the rents as returned by the owner of the estate. Some of the tenants have lodged objections in the Land Commission to the fixation of the standard purchase annuities under the provisions of Section 2 of the Land Act, 1929, and in certain of these cases the annuities have been fixed by the Land Commission under Part II of the first schedule to the Land Act, 1923, and in the remaining cases the annuities will be fixed in like manner. (c) It is not proposed to introduce legislation in the matter.
Mr. Hogan
Am I to understand from the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary that he is not aware that in purchases under the 1923 Act there are numbers of cases such as these where in one case a man was paying in 1923 £11 5s. and he is now paying £16 15s. 10d? That is an increase of £5. In another case that I have here where the man was paying £9 16s. 10d. in 1923 he is now paing £11 3s. 10d. I have another case of a man who in 1923 was paying £4 12s. 8d. who is now paying £6 16s. 2d. and here is a further case of a man who in 1923 was paying £8 4s. and who is now paying £12 9s. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that is the benefit these people are receiving under the Act and that there is no redress for them?
The Deputy does not distinguish between judicial and non-judicial tenancies. Non-judicial tenants have made objections to the new annuities, and these objections will be heard in due course. These cases are on quite a different basis from the others.
Mr. Hogan
The cases I have read out are not entirely cases of non-judicial tenants. As far as I can gather there was no redress for these people. Does not the Parliamentary Secretary know that there is a very big grievance there, and unless the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to give the House some indication of the policy of the Department in this matter I will at the first opportunity raise it on the Adjournment?
I think the case was fully explained to the Deputy.
Mr. Hogan
That is the trouble.
The case was heard by the Judicial Commissioner after the passing of the Act of 1923 and it was then decided that the reduction of 40 per cent. which was given by the landlord prior to the passing of that Act would be continued for the purpose of compounded arrears of rent and payment in lieu of rent. As the landlord had only a life interest in the land that reduction could not apply in respect of the purchase money. As the Deputy will understand other people have claims against the purchase money as well as the present owner, who has only a life interest.
Mr. Hogan
In 1919 a reduction of 40 per cent. was given to these people. They were then brought under the operation of the Land Act of 1923. Does it not seem unfair that some of them should be now asked to pay 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. more for the land when it is vested than they had to pay prior to 1923?
The present annuities may be reduced substantially when the objections of the non-judicial tenants are determined.
Mr. Hogan
I am not going to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to draw a line across my track. I am considering the effect of a decision.
It is a High Court decision. There is no use discussing it here. We cannot go back on it.
Mr. Hogan
I am not going to discuss the decision but I am going to discuss the effect of it. If a man got six months' imprisonment I would not be entitled to discuss the sentence but I would be entitled to discuss the effect on his health of the incarceration. I am going to discuss the effect of this decision. I must ask the Chair to give me a chance to raise this matter on the Adjournment.