The matter which I raised by question with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries had reference to the vesting of land in the Kembal Barton Estate in County Clare and the effect that that vesting had in the amount of money that the tenants have to pay as compared with the amount of money they had to pay in 1920 and up to 1923. This particular estate was dealt with under the 1923 Act.
Adjournment Debate. - Annuities on a Clare Estate.
Before the Deputy proceeds further, I would like to point out that I explained to the Deputy yesterday that there has been a High Court decision bearing on these cases. The Judicial Commissioner has already decided the point which Deputy Hogan wishes to raise now. That being so, I do not see how we can discuss it here.
That is to say that the tenants about whom the Deputy speaks, whose annuities are now about 20 per cent. higher than their payments were before this, are paying those annuities under a judicial decision? Does the Deputy agree with that statement? I know nothing about the facts.
Mr. Hogan
I have not referred once to a decision as far as I have gone. I do not propose to refer to any decision at all. I am referring to the effects of a decision and the hardships involved. I am not going to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to escape in this fashion by drawing a red herring across the track.
He does not want to escape.
Mr. Hogan
If he escapes now he will not escape always. We will put a barrier somewhere which he cannot get over.
It is only a question of correct procedure.
Mr. Hogan
The effect of the decision on the tenants is the point with which I am concerned. I might say the whole social order depends on a series of laws. Yet we get Acts to improve housing and other social services.
Would not that be a wide topic of discussion on the motion for the adjournment?
Mr. Hogan
It may be, but I think it is relevant.
I do not think so. In any event the question I want to be clear about is whether, on the adjournment, we should have a question of this kind raised. Questions which may be raised are questions for which Ministers or the Parliamentary Secretaries have responsibility and about which they can take administrative action. If the Deputy is raising the position of tenants who have had their annuities fixed judicially, then I think the Parliamentary Secretary has no power by administrative action to alter that. If that is so we are wasting our time in asking him to do it and the Deputy is forcing me into a decision upon a comment he made yesterday, that although you cannot discuss a judicial decision you can discuss the effects of it. That is a very subtle difference, but I would not agree with that proposition.
rose.
I will not hear Deputy Corry. I do not propose to accept that particular principle. If the Deputy wants to discuss the position of judicial tenants who have had their rents fixed judicially. I do not think he can do that. I think the Deputy knows that as well as I do. I assumed yesterday, reading the question, that there were some cases in which certain persons were in occupation of land and that some action which the Parliamentary Secretary could take, would reduce the rents they were paying, rents more than they ought to pay owing to some action of the Land Commission which the Parliamentary Secretary could remedy. It was for that reason I said yesterday that it was an important question.
Mr. Hogan
Is it not one of the functions of the Parliamentary Secretary if he thinks there is an impediment in legislation to introduce further legislation to remove that impediment? Is that not part of the administration of his Department?
If the Deputy means that he wants to advocate legislation, we have never on the Adjournment allowed the advocacy of legislation. What we take on the Adjournment are questions of administration, not questions of legislation. If the Deputy thinks that the law is wrong and ought to be altered that is a matter for a substantive motion.
The decision is outside the law.
Mr. Hogan
I am not quite sure, and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is quite sure, that all these annuities were judicially determined. I would like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say "yes" or "no" to that. If he cannot say "yes" or "no" to that I think I am in order in raising the question.
I cannot dispose of that question by saying "yes" or "no." I disposed of it in reply to the Deputy yesterday.
Mr. Hogan
I have the reply.
There are 14 non-judicial tenants on this estate. With regard to these the Deputy has no grievance. The annuities have not been fixed in respect of these holdings yet, at least the annuities in respect of some of them. Annuities have been set up in respect of seven of these non-judicial tenants and the tenants have expressed their satisfaction with them. The Land Commission have to set up annuities in respect of the other seven and I assume that when they do these tenants will also be satisfied. All the others are judicial tenants and the annuities in their case were established by a decision of the High Court. I can take no further action in regard to their cases.
Mr. Hogan
I want to talk about the non-judicial tenants whose position has not been fixed judicially and I want to put it to the Parliamentary Secretary, will the 40 per cent. which was granted to all the tenants, judicial and non-judicial, in 1920, be considered when it comes to fixing the standard purchase annuity?
That is a matter for judicial determination. When the time arrives that will be determined.
Mr. Hogan
Can the Parliamentary Secretary state whether the 40 per cent. will be the calculation and the basis on which their cases will be decided? I am entitled to assume in the case of the seven whose annuities are not decided——
I could not tell you at the moment.
Mr. Hogan
I could argue from the unknown to the known. It is quite possible to assume that the 40 per cent. was taken into consideration and I can alter my figures to deal with the other seven.
The Deputy is not going to argue from the unknown to the known?
Mr. Hogan
I am going to argue in regard to the cases of the seven non-judicial tenants. No judge has determined their annuities. A 40 per cent. reduction was given to these people in 1920. The landlord in his rental, which he is compelled or required to provide under the 1923 Act, did not return that 40 per cent. reduction. Now the cases of those seven tenants come up for consideration to have their standard purchase annuities fixed. Will that 40 per cent. be calculated or is it the basis on which the standard purchase annuity will be calculated? If not why? If it has been calculated in the case of the seven non-judicial tenants whose annuities have been determined, why is it not to be calculated in the case of the others? Will it be calculated for the present seven? Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some ruling?
Is that the only point?
Mr. Hogan
I am dealing with that at the moment. There are several other matters that I can drag in or that I can break into under the rules of order.
rose.
The Deputy must be allowed to proceed.
Mr. Hogan
In the year 1920 certain negotiations were entered into with seven of the non-judicial tenants.
No.
Mr. Hogan
With all the tenants including the seven non-judicial tenants about whom I speak?
No.
Mr. Hogan
Does the Parliamentary Secretary deny that any negotiations were entered into in 1919 or 1920? In 1919 certain negotiations took place between the tenants who were seeking a reduction in rent and the landlord. The landlord's representative met the tenants and these tenants included the non-judicial tenants. A reduction of 40 per cent. or 8s. in the £ was given all round. The reduction was not given on the basis of a bad year. It was not given on the basis of loss of crops or anything of that kind. It was given on the basis of land value. If these people had gone into the Land Court they would probably have got the same reduction. At any rate it was a suitable time for the re-examination of what these people had to pay. The land value has not gone up since. The value of land has been gradually deteriorating down to the present. In returning his rental the landlord did not give any account of that 40 per cent. and I have here a demand from the landlord to some of those tenants who happened to be in the non-judicial portion of the estate, and it clearly sets out 40 per cent as the reduction. It does not call it a temporary abatement if there was a temporary abatement——
What are the tenants' names by the way?
Mr. Hogan
It has been the practice in this Dáil not to give the names of people who are not here to make a statement on the case. The Parliamentary Secretary has the names of all the tenants. If he will pick out the case of any person which he doubts, whether non-judicial or judicial, we will discuss it on that basis. In the case of an agreement, where one side disputes the authenticity of the agreement, surely the status quo ante prevails. These people are entitled to go back to the old position and demand the reduction that the landlord had given them.
That does not arise in so far as the non-judicial tenants are concerned. The accuracy, or otherwise, of the particulars supplied by the owner has to be decided by the Judicial Commissioner, before considering the question of fixing the annuity at all, and that point having been decided, first of all, I hold that the judicial decision has been already given.
Mr. Hogan
I do not want to keep the Parliamentary Secretary here endeavouring to evade his responsibility in the matter. All I can do in conclusion is to ask him whether the 40 per cent. reduction, which it cannot be denied was given by the landlord to these people in the case of the non-judicial tenants, will be taken into account when their standard purchase annuities will be calculated. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether in the case of the other non-judicial tenants whose annuities have been fixed the 40 per cent. reduction has been taken into account?
I could not say whether the 40 per cent. was taken into consideration. In any event from the Land Commission point of view that point is really immaterial. The rental of the non-judicial tenants was fixed in accordance with the Act of 1929, which provides an arbitrary reduction of 25 per cent. The tenants objected to that reduction on the basis that it was not adequate. The Land Commission then revalued all their holdings. I think the holdings of the fourteen tenants have now been revalued and an annuity has been placed on them in proportion to their valuation. In the course of a few months annuities will be placed on the other holdings. The question of the 40 per cent. does not arise at all as far as the non-judicial holdings are concerned. The point is that the seven judicial tenants in respect of whose holdings annuities have been already fixed are thoroughly satisfied and these annuities are less as it so happens, than the payment in lieu of rent.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. Wednesday, 16th December, 1931.