Committee on Finance. - Land Bill, 1936—Committee
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
In the concluding sentence of his introduction on the last day, before dealing with the section, the Minister said: "I may say here that it is not anticipated that the working of this Bill is going to involve any abnormal expense or, indeed, any appreciable fresh expense, but the usual provision must be inserted in the Bill." I agree that the usual provision must be inserted, but I should like to know, at this stage, if the Minister has attempted to form any estimate— even an approximate estimate—of what the administration of the Bill will cost. It seems to me that the statement which I have quoted is rather contradictory. The Minister says that the Bill will not involve any abnormal expense, but then he goes on to say that it will not involve any appreciable fresh expense. The Bill will involve the expenditure of an enormous amount of additional money, and it seems to me that the Minister should give the Dáil some estimate of the fresh expenditure which will be necessary.
The Minister proposes to do some revolutionary things. He proposes to feed and warm the colonies of migrants he is bringing from the Irish-speaking parts of the country to the eastern districts. He proposes to take them round on grand tours to select farms in Meath and adjoining counties. Following upon that, he proposes to give lands encumbered with debt away for nothing to tenants selected by the lay commissioners. In addition, he is resuming land for purposes for which land has not hitherto been resumed. Likewise, he proposes to take over, under a section of the Bill, a number of farms which are now excluded because they have been used up to recently for the breeding of live stock. He is also taking unlimited power to take up land compulsorily which has already been vested under the 1923 Act. Last of all he proposes to take over untenanted land which is held either under fee farm grant or long lease or which was excluded under the previous Land Acts because of its potential value for housing purposes. Surely to goodness all these operations —and I only mention a few of them— will involve an enormous expenditure of money. Before he proceeds further, I suggest that the Minister should give the Dáil some estimate of what the administration of this Bill will actually cost.
If we are going to go into that matter in detail I wish to point out that it is one of the matters that must be so gone into on the Estimates. The operations of the Land Commission under this Bill as against the operations of the Land Commission under previous Acts will not tend to any greater expenditure of money. This Bill will enable us, of course, to speed up and hasten the work of the Land Commission. That policy can be debated when the Estimates come along. It is not proper to this Bill. If the Land Commission did not have a policy in regard to the division of land which is normally discussed on the Estimates, the putting of this Bill into operation would not cost a fraction. I think we can postpone the detailed examination of the Land Commission expenditure until the Land Commission Estimate comes along.
Section 3 put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of this Bill."
It seems to me that the power which the Minister is seeking in this section, that is to say, the power of postponing the drawing operations in connection with the Sinking Fund, may have an appreciable effect on the capital value of the stock and may tend to lower the security of the capital issue of land stock. Probably 80 per cent. of the 4½ per cent. land bonds created by the Land Act of 1923 are not registered yet in the National City Bank. I do not think more than 20 per cent. are still in the Land Commission pending allocation. I do not know the actual amount as I did not see any issues of land stock for a very long time. If, therefore, the acouisition of land is to be dealt with as under the Land Act of 1923, these outstanding drawings being postponed might mean the postponement of payment for many years and would naturally have a disastrous effect on the security of these land bonds.
If the Deputy will allow me, I will set him right. He is on the wrong track.
I should be glad to hear the Minister's explanation. I do not understand the section as it is.
The reason for the introduction of this section is to secure that the value of the bonds will not be depressed. The bonds to which this section refers may stand at a premium and when bonds stand at a premium the holders of the bonds do not want them to be redeemed at par. That is the full effect of this section. It is a hardship on bond holders if less than 80 per cent. of a certain block of land stock is to be drawn for redemption. The reason is this: If you are to redeem 100 out of 1,000, the holder of the stock has a much better chance of getting away with it than he has if the stock in question is 500. The chances in 500 are one in five and in the other case the chances are one in ten. This section is simply postponing the lotteries or the drawings until there is 80 per cent. of the stock out. This is meant to secure that the man who holds stock standing at a premium will not be subject to these drawings until 80 per cent. of the stock in that series is issued.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) Whenever the Land Commission resumes a holding on which a revised annuity which includes a funding annuity is charged, the portion of such revised annuity which represents such funding annuity shall be redeemed out of the resumption price of such holding by the sale of sufficient of the land bonds representing such resumption price to pay the redemption price of the said portion of such revised annuity.
(2) Whenever the Land Commission resumes a holding on which a funding annuity which is not included in a revised annuity is charged, such funding annuity shall be redeemed out of the resumption price of such holding by the sale of sufficient of the land bonds representing such resumption price to pay the redemption price of such funding annuity.
(3) Whenever a portion of a revised annuity or a funding annuity is redeemed in pursuance of this section, the redemption price thereof shall be ascertained in accordance with Section 22 of the Land Act, 1933.
I move amendment No. 1:—
To delete sub-section (1), and in sub-section (2) to delete in line 31 the words "which is not included in a revised annuity", and in sub-section (3) to delete in line 36 the words "a portion of a revised annuity or".
This is a drafting amendment.
I thought the Minister would explain the meaning of this amendment to the House. What is its effect?
The effect of it is to delete sub-section (1) and to delete the indicated words in sub-sections 2 and 3.
Why is the Minister deleting sub-section (1)? The amendment is to delete sub-section (1) altogether. I do not want to rush the Minister, but I am a little puzzled by the amendment to delete sub-section (1).
The Parliamentary draftsman deleted sub-section (1) because he says it is all in sub-section (2) and it is not wanted.
It does not seem to me that it is there. However, it is a Land Commission matter.
Are we to get from the Minister some explanation of the terminology which hides an arrear? There is an arrear here which is the subject of consideration. What exactly is the figure which is being wiped out? A man was entitled to have whatever arrears he had standardised by three half gales being added to the principal. That was added presumably at 5 per cent., which will include principal and interest. Does this mean that in respect of the wiping out of that particular sum a greater sum than he owed may possibly be included in the deduction to be made from the sum of money that is going to be paid to him? What calculation is made in respect of that? Is the interest added to it at 5 per cent. when the Government is only paying 4 per cent.? When the Government offered to have these particular arrears added to the man's annuity they had in mind the fact that at the time he was not in a position to pay the annuity. But look at the position the man will find himself in when after 30 or 40 years' time he finds he is in debt to the Land Commission and he suddenly is deprived of his holding, when it is resumed by the Land Commission, and he is asked then to pay a debt to the Government which the Government themselves were satisfied two or three years ago he was unable to pay. While it may seem to be excellent business from the point of view of the Land Commission, from the business man's point of view it does not seem to be fair. The man may possibly take land somewhere else or go into business somewhere else. But, if he does, he goes in having paid a debt which he was unable to pay two or three years ago and which he certainly has not been in a much better position to pay since.
If the holding is resumed the man has to pay off the full revised annuity, and it is only right that he should redeem the funded annuity as well. The funded annuity in all cases is a very small fraction of the total annuity. If he has to pay it off, he is getting the money to pay it off—we are not asking him to find the cash.
Perhaps the Minister will go a step further and give an example in respect of a particular case. The Land Commission must have dealt with some one case or other in connection with this matter. Could the Minister give us a figure of the price per acre which has been paid for land, and what the deduction has been in respect of funded arrears?
The Dáil is entitled to certain information. We are laying down the law and giving directions to the Land Commission as to what they are to do. It is our responsibility to make the law, and we are entitled to know that we are dealing with justness, fairness and equity with every Land Commission annuitant. Only once, I think, is the word "equitable" mentioned in this Bill. In previous Land Acts the words "fair, just and equitable" were regularly used. If we are going to insist upon a man paying a debt which the Government told him a short time ago he could extend over 40 or 50 years, we are reversing engines and changing our minds on the subject. We ought to know what is the average price per acre in the case of resumed land where deductions such as these have been made, and what proportion the deductions represent. If the Minister is not in a position to answer that question will he answer this one? These arrears were funded in the annuities. Will he tell us, in respect of the sum of money which is now going to be deducted from these people, whether the money is going to be paid into the Guarantee Fund or the Land Bond Fund? That is a simple question which the Minister ought to be in a position to answer.
It will be paid into the Exchequer.
With great respect, I say it is not due to the Exchequer. This is a sum of money which has been deducted already out of the Guarantee Fund and, being deducted out of that Fund, the rates were made responsible for making it good. It is not a debt to the Government—not in all cases, at any rate. Is there going to be any allocation of whatever portion of that was originally deducted from the Guarantee Fund, so that it will be put into the Guarantee Fund? I do not want to trap the Minister, but this is a matter upon which I feel rather keenly, for this reason. Arrears to the extent of approximately £600,000 were due in respect of the Land Acts from 1903 to 1931, a period of over 28 years. The rates made good that deficiency. In 1933 an alteration took place in respect of the collection of these arrears. Some of them were wiped out and others were added to the annuities. A sum of something like £250,000 was wiped out, and the remainder has been collected by the Land Commission since. Two sums of money were voted to the Guarantee Fund. My recollection is that they were £250,000 and £300,000. We are now proceeding to cash in those funded arrears in certain cases. If they go into the Exchequer while they are properly due to the Guarantee Fund, we are doing an injustice to the ratepayers.
The Minister may not be aware of the fact that I raised the question with the Minister for Finance on the Final Stage of the Appropriation Bill. I pointed out that he was taking credit for having collected considerable sums of money since 31st January in respect of land annuities, and that so far as the rates were concerned they had got no benefit from that collection up to the 1st April. There were moneys collected which in the meantime the rates were called upon to provide. In other words, assuming £150,000 was collected from 31st January to 1st April, that money was available, but although it was available the rates are saddled to the extent of £150,000 this year, and the assessments are made out, making it mandatory on county councils to collect that money, although it was in the hands of the Exchequer or the Land Commission. £150,000 is a considerable sum. It is quite possible that it will mean about 6d. in the £ on the rates all over the country. But the local authorities will not get that money. I presume there will be accountancy difficulties, or something of that sort. Will the Minister undertake, if possible, to make it available for them?
Under this particular section there may be another £150,000 involved. I want to know if the Minister can give the House any information as to how it is proposed to recoup the Guarantee Fund in respect of such deductions as will be made from these people. Let me put it this way. In the first place, I object to the people, who were not in a position to pay this debt two years ago, now being called upon suddenly, when a rock-bottom price is being paid to them by the Land Commission for their land, to pay this money. In the second place, if it is collected from the persons concerned in such very hard circumstances, I say that the people who have most claim to it, or at any rate a good claim to it, having regard to what they have paid already, are the ratepayers. I should like to know what provision is being made to refund the portion of these funded arrears which are their due.
Will you allow me, Sir, to take amendment No. 15 in conjunction with this?
Amendment No. 15 is out of order.
I know, but we might discuss it on this. I support the request made by Deputy Cosgrave in this matter. The Minister, I think, is misinformed or has come to a wrong conclusion in respect to this going to the Exchequer. It may go to the Exchequer now, but it is not due to the Exchequer. As Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, this money, or portion of it, is due to the local authorities who have made this good to the Guarantee Fund. If the Minister cannot give us a definite answer to that question he should consider it and give a definite answer later, because, in equity, portion of this money is due to the local authorities. That is the reason I put down the amendment which has been ruled out of order.
We threshed all this out, so far as I remember, in 1933. At that time Deputies opposite wanted to have all the arrears that were not collected immediately by the Land Commission repaid by the Minister for Finance into the Guarantee Fund. The Government could not accept it at the time, but there was a promise that from time to time certain moneys would be paid out of the Exchequer into the Guarantee Fund, and that the farmers' rates would be relieved. That has since been done.
Would the Minister say to what extent?
I am not able to say to what extent, but it has been done.
My recollection is that it is only to the extent of £555,000, and at least another £150,000 are still due.
As well as I remember the Minister for Finance at the time promised that it would all be paid back in due course; that he was not going to pay it all right off, but that he would do it from time to time. In a period of three years, he has paid off—I will take the Deputy's figure—over £550,000. The Minister for Finance may pay off more of it next year. I cannot tell exactly what the price is that is paid for resumed holdings, but it is the market value at any rate.
That is to say the Land Commission's interpretation of what is the market value.
Well, it is subject to an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal. If people are not satisfied with the Land Commission's price, they can go to the Appeal Tribunal. If a man is paying off his revised annuity, I think it is not too much to expect that he will also pay off the funding annuity. It cannot be very much. It is a very small percentage of the total amount of the revised annuity.
I maintain that this is a totally different matter to the question that was raised when the 1933 Act was going through. My recollection is that at that time the amount of the funding annuities was an unascertained figure. Now, we have the ascertained amounts that are going to be paid in in cash where the funding annuity is redeemed. It ought to be a very easy matter for the Minister to set aside this money in the Guarantee Fund. It is provided in sub-section (2) that the funding annuity is to be redeemed out of the resumption price. In view of the fact that that is going to be done, the moneys so obtained should, as has been pointed out by Deputy Cosgrave, be paid to the local authorities as they belong to them. The ratepayers of the country have already paid these moneys, and as this is now an ascertained amount it ought to be set aside for that particular purpose and be paid back to the people who have already been mulcted in these payments.
With regard to the redemption of funding annuities, it was not intended in 1933 that at some specific date the funding annuity would have been paid off by the tenant because the case then made by the Government was that they were funding the annuities for the reason that the tenants could not pay them. What I am anxious to find out from the Minister is, will there be an apportionment of this money. Will the amount that is due to the local authorities be set aside and sent on to them?
I think that the local authorities did very well out of the arrangement that was made in 1933. They never had any hope of getting any of the arrears. On Deputy Cosgrave's figure, the sum of over £550,000 has already been paid back since 1933 so that they have done pretty well.
We are dealing here with money, portion of which is due to certain people. It is our duty to be just. The apportionment of the amount that is due to the local authorities is a very simple matter, and this House should see that it is given to them. This House has no right, in equity, to retain that money, and neither has the Exchequer nor the Guarantee Fund.
I submit that the Minister's last answer was distinctly weak, to say the least of it. The Minister's answer, in effect, was: "We owe you a considerable amount of money; you have got back some of it and you ought to be very thankful." Surely that would be a justification for paying no debt in full, if a creditor is to be thankful when he gets back portion of what is due to him. It is a new principle of dishonesty that is coming into force. That may not be the Minister's considered intention, but it certainly was a strange principle which he announced when he said "You have got back portion of it and you ought to be very glad." That, I submit, is a very dangerous principle.
I do not think it is a very dangerous principle at all. There are a lot of creditors in this country who would be very glad to get back something that they never expected to get.
But surely a Government should pay in full.
The Minister says that the local authorities should be very thankful for getting something that is due to them, and drew a comparison between them and other creditors. There are assets here to be divided. The local authority is a creditor, and has a right to get what it is entitled to out of the assets which, in this instance, is represented by the redemption price of the funding annuities. The Government are going to make a charge on the purchase money. Portion of that belongs to the local authorities, and, on the comparison that the Minister has made about other creditors, the local authorities are surely entitled to get what belongs to them. They have already paid these moneys. The Government are getting them back now, and they should repay to the local authorities what belongs to them.
The local authorities have got back from the Minister for Finance very much more than what was collected under the funding annuities clause of the 1933 Act. They have got back more than they expected.
The Government are getting now moneys which the local authorities have paid, and I hold that the Government should give these moneys back to them.
I think the Minister does not appreciate the evil that is involved in a doctrine of this kind— that a Government will not discharge its debts. I think that the Minister is not fair to himself or to the Government in laying down a principle such as that. The sum involved here is not very big. Every debtor is bound to discharge his obligations in full, if he is not insolvent. This State is not insolvent, and for that reason it should discharge its obligations to the local authorities. There should be an apportionment of these moneys, and the local authorities should be paid the amounts due to them. I would appeal to the Minister to be fair in the matter.
I would ask the Minister to look at Section 9. It has a more important bearing on this than the actual sum that the local authorities are going to get out of this. Under Section 9 it is provided that where the Land Commission have obtained possession of a holding on account of default in the payment of the purchase annuity charged on the holding, or have taken up a parcel of land from an allottee on account of default in the payment of interest, etc... I want to direct the Minister's special attention to the term "allottee" in that section. When land purchase was first introduced in this country it was a considerable concession to the people. It was of great benefit to them generally. In order to facilitate the financial provisions in the Land Purchase Acts, and to give extra security for the sums of money advanced by the State, the rates were made liable for any default that occurred. That bargain was accepted and understood by practically everybody in the country. In this measure the Minister contemplates the possibility of default on the part of allottees. Steps are being taken to wipe out the possibility of chance on the part of a local authority getting back the money for which it has to accept responsibility in respect of land distribution. In the first instance the liability in respect of local taxation moneys, plus the rates, was in respect of persons in occupation of land. Now the State steps in and extends the list of persons in respect of whom the guarantee is given. The guarantor was not asked or invited to give a guarantee. It was imposed on him. Surely it is not to be thought unreasonable if we utter a word on behalf of the guarantor, because Section 9 points out to us that it is in contemplation that the guarantor is going to be called upon to give security in respect of people in whom the Minister has not absolute confidence.
If that section was not in, one could assume that the Land Commission was taking special precautions to ensure that the persons who would get land would not alone have something which would enable them to pay their rates but the annuities as well. The ratepayers generally are called upon to guarantee these individuals. They are not the selection of the ratepayers; they are the selection of the Land Commission and, being a human institution, in the exercise of its judgment and wisdom it may select people who will add on arrears, some year or other, and ultimately the Land Commission itself must take up that holding. There we have a case in which there is an expansion of the liability upon rates. The Minister will admit that there was an interruption of the normal circumstances in which people undertook to pay these annuities and in which the rates guaranteed them. While a considerable sum has been paid, remember that the deductions that have been made by the Government since the 1903 Act are at least once and a half the sums that have been collected within the last three years, so that if the Government have given something they have taken more and, notwithstanding their generosity, they have insisted on the ratepayers being as generous and a half to them in the short space of three years as the British Government asked them to be in the course of something like 20 years.
Question put: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 26.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Beegan; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister explain this section, because my interpretation of it is that it is a section which is not just to the person who would have to meet the liability which is incurred by reason of the premium on land bonds. If the land bonds were at par I would not raise any particular objection to it, but as land bonds are now at a premium, I consider that those persons will suffer a loss, and I do not think it is fair that they should.
This is only applying to lands compulsorily acquired the same operations as would apply to lands that were voluntarily acquired. This is exactly the same thing as happened in 1927.
Is there not more in it? The 1927 circumstances and the circumstances of to-day are not comparable, and I hope that we are not going to have Ministers addressing themselves to that subject as if they were comparable. The fact is that if we take the 4½ per cent. land bonds that are guaranteed by the British they are now standing at something like £10 premium per cent. Does that mean, if lands are going to be compulsorily acquired from a man who was a land purchase tenant under the 1923 Act, that when it falls to wipe out the purchase annuity on his land he will be called upon to do it at £110 for every £100? If that is so it is a manifest injustice to him. It is too much of Pontius Pilate for the Government to come along and say it is no part of their business that when the purchase annuity in one of those cases comes to be wiped out the unfortunate man who has been in occupation for a great number of years is called upon to wipe it out at £110 for every £100 due. If that is what it means I am amazed at the Minister standing over it. In the first place, land was never cheaper in this country than it is at present. I say that, whether the Minister thinks it is political criticism or not. The security or stability of land owners was never at a lower ebb than it is to-day, and it is not fair to ask a man who undertook to pay interest on £100 a year to shoulder £110 for every £100 he undertook to repay. I should like to hear whether the Minister stands over the section as it is drawn, or as I understand it?
No; the Deputy is mistaken. As a matter of fact it will be advantageous to the vendor. It allows the market value instead of the nominal value of the bonds, and will be advantageous to the vendor. It will cut the other way.
I should like to ask the Minister whether, in redeeming those annuities, it is half the annuity that will have to be redeemed by the vendor or the whole of the annuity?
Is the Minister satisfied that that is clear enough in this section?
It is. It was made clear under the Act of 1933, and there are some other clauses here in relation to that. The point will come up again.
Does the Minister consider the value of land when those bonds were issued against this land, compared with the value of land to-day and the value that the Land Commission is putting on land which it is acquiring at the present time? Can he give any idea to the House as to the standards which guide the Land Commission inspectors in valuing land for acquisition purposes?
Surely that does not arise on this section?
I know, but you are taking land from a man who got an advance on it, who was paying a rent for it first of all around 1923—a second or third-term rent. Those rents were fixed having relation to price. The purchase was based upon those rents, which in turn, of course, had relation to price. Now you are taking that land from those people to-day, and you are asking them to pay out of the purchase money you give them a sum of money to liquidate the debt due to the Land Commission, but you are not giving them a price based on the same conditions on which the Land Commission lent that money. Surely the transaction is not equitable?
I should like to ask the Minister what would be the effect supposing the land bonds that were issued dropped below par? I suppose there might possibly be a very heavy drop in land bonds. Let me take the possibility of a European war. If there were another European war and another slump in what are called gilt-edged securities, what would be the result of this section then upon a person who is selling land?
It would be to his advantage, just as this is to his advantage. We cannot have it both ways. If the Deputy, instead of protecting the farmers in the next European war, is fighting for the farmers who exist at the moment and whose land is liable to resumption, this is in their favour.
It is a very trifling benefit and a big risk.
If land bonds are under par, does it not mean a loss to the landholder and a gain to the Land Commission?
That is right. You cannot have it both ways. We are doing something for his benefit at the moment.
Would the Minister not consider it necessary to put in here the redemption price of half the purchase annuity? Is not that the intention?
Perhaps the Deputy will allow me to explain. The whole of that business of the redemption of purchase annuities was dealt with under the 1933 Act and there are some clauses later on in this Bill now which deal with those clauses in the 1933 Act.
Possibly, I have not made myself clear. What I am getting at is this: Could not the Minister put in some such words as "provided that the bonds are not standing below par"? I think that if a man is being paid in land bonds, if those bonds are sold when they are above par with only enough cash to be taken to pay off the annuity, it is all right, but if they fall below par there will be a very heavy loss to him. In other words, he will be paid in depreciated land bonds, and my suggestion is that the Minister should put in some such words as "provided land bonds are not standing below par." I am not saying that the land bonds are below par. I am only saying that there should be some such provision to safeguard him in case the land bonds in which he would be paid were standing below par.
They are not below par. They are standing at a premium at the moment.
I know, but I should like to safeguard the people against such a contingency as the land bonds falling below par. Legislation cannot possibly keep up with the variations of stock exchange prices, of course, and I should like to have this safeguard for the individual farmer whose land is being acquired. In that case, if the land bonds are above par, then the man gets the benefit; but if they are below par, then he will suffer a loss, and I want to safeguard him from having to suffer such a loss. Of course he is not having it both ways because, if the bonds are being sold in the open market, it is quite sufficient for the Government to get the money and they should not want to make any profit, whereas if the bonds fell below par, the Government would be making a profit by paying in depreciated stock. Therefore I would ask the Minister to put in some such words as I have suggested.
We were all congratulating ourselves upon having persuaded the Minister for Finance to agree to this proposal, seeing that it is conferring an immediate benefit on the people concerned, and I think that if the Deputy would postpone bidding the devil good-morrow till he meets him it would be better. I do not believe, however, that the Minister for Finance would have agreed to this section being brought in if we had put in that other clause—for the moment, at any rate—and as far as we can see, in the immediate future this clause is going to benefit the people affected, and I think that is good enough. If the time should come when they would be adversely affected, then we might consider what we would do.
If my fears are purely imaginary, there is no loss to the Department of Finance, if you guard against them. If, however, my fears turn out not to be totally imaginary, you are safeguarding an individual from loss that he ought not to suffer.
Perhaps the Minister will take note of this. As Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has said, there is no loss to the Ministry of Finance in this case. Let us take a case in which a purchase annuity falls to be redeemed when below par. Now the bond that will be issued in respect of the resale of that will also be below par. It would be scarcely fair to put the man who is going out in a position of suffering loss and to confer a benefit on the person coming in. The Land Commission lose nothing because they will issue bonds in respect of it. If they had to transfer other bonds it would be different, but they are issuing bonds. I say that it would be hard on the man to expect him to accept depreciated currency, and I do not think the Minister for Finance could enter an objection to the proposal.
Well, we shall have a chat with him all right in order to see what he will do.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) The powers of the Land Commission to expend money for the benefit or improvement of land purchased or agreed to be purchased under the Land Purchase Acts shall extend to and include the grant to a migrant (whether before or after he is put into possession of his new holding but not later than 18 months after he is so put into possession) of such sums as the Land Commission shall think necessary or expedient for either or both of the following purposes, that is to say:—
(a) the purchase by such migrant of provisions and fuel for himself and the members of his family residing with him;
(b) assisting such migrant in the cultivation and development of his new holding.
(3) The expenses of transferring migrants to their new holdings in respect of which the Land Commission is empowered by Section 48 of the Land Act, 1931, to make grants shall include and be deemed always to have included the expenses of bringing a migrant to inspect a holding proposed to be allotted to him.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), page 4, line 61, after the word "to" to insert the words "or expenditure for the benefit of", and in page 5, line 3, after the word "by" to insert the words "or for the benefit of".
This is purely a drafting amendment. It is to put in the words "or expenditure for the benefit of"—that is, of a migrant.
I think it is more than a drafting amendment. First of all, it is proposed to give a grant to the migrant but, in addition to the grant, according to this latest amendment, there will be further expenditure. Would the Minister explain for what purpose, in the first instance, the grant is given, and for what purpose is the additional expenditure?
The object of the whole of this clause is to enable the Land Commission to do certain things for a migrant. As well as being able to give a grant to a migrant, we want this section to cover the expenditure which the Land Commission incurs on behalf of a migrant. I explained the thing fully in my Second Reading speech. I explained that we might want to till land for the incoming migrant if he were coming at a time of the year when it would be to his disadvantage if the land were not prepared for him, and also that we wanted legal authority to spend certain sums on his behalf by way of cutting turf and providing a meal for him on the day on which he arrived, and doing a few things like that generally.
Have you not that in paragraphs (a) and (b)?
That is in the section already. The Minister is still delightfully vague. I only want to be clear on this matter of grants and expenditure. By grants, does the Minister mean grants for the purpose of buying stock, farm implements and so on, and is the expenditure to be confined to the cultivation and ploughing, let us say, of the land prior to the transfer of the migrant? The Minister has not made it clear why he is introducing this amendment.
Well, I have tried my best to do so on the Second Reading Stage and on this stage.
As the section stood already, the provision of fuel, food, and so on was provided for, and also the cultivation and development of the holding.
But the only amendment we are putting into this clause——
What is the object of the amendment, and what further expenditure is contemplated?
There is no further expenditure contemplated, but the draftsmen say that in order to secure that our intention should be carried into legal effect, the words "or expenditure for the benefit of" should go in there.
That is the point I wanted to have explained.
It is purely a legal and drafting amendment.
On the mere point of drafting, I understand that this is expenditure to be undertaken on behalf of the tenant—not by the tenant, but on his behalf—and the Minister has pointed out the purpose. Is the Minister quite sure that, as it now stands, it does not exclude the possibility of a grant, or does he wish to exclude the possibility of a grant? It is a mere question of drafting to which I am drawing his attention.
We have powers under other Bills.
But not under this section.
It includes the grant to or expenditure for the benefit of.
Are these two mutually exclusive?
I am not sure. At present you have power to give a grant. A portion of that grant may be spent for the tenant— that is, in his behalf—but not given to him. Does that exclude you, if you have only spent a certain portion, from giving the rest as a grant?
I should like to know from the Minister, does he intend to build up a bold peasantry by this spoon feeding—giving migrants, in effect, the price of drinks to go and see their new holdings? Is not that what it boils down to? Are those migrants expected to know nothing about farming? Are they expected to have any capital? Is it not worth their while going to see a farm they are getting for nothing without being paid to inspect it from public moneys?
That would be more relevant on the section.
Would the Minister say with regard to these words "or expenditure for the benefit of" what are the limits of expenditure to which the Land Commission, if they so desire, may go? The phrases are as wide as they can be made. Any expenditure for any purpose can be undertaken so long as it is for the benefit of these people. Is that not so? Are there any limits?
The only limitation we have is that the Minister for Finance and the Dáil must approve of the total Vote for this purpose, but in the individual case the Land Commission is keeping the authority to spend what it considers desirable in each particular case.
So the position is that the House will vote a certain amount of money and the Land Commission cannot go outside that, but can spend all the money on one or two cases if they so desire?
Yes, but they are not going to do it.
It does seem to me that the Land Commission are limited by the two sub-clauses (a) and (b) so far as I can read the section, and it seems to me that the putting in of these new words rather makes the section nonsensical. The section sets out that the purposes for which a grant may be made are (a) the purchase by the migrant of provisions and fuel, etc., and (b) to assist him in the cultivation and development of his new holding, but there is to be a distinction drawn between a grant to a migrant and a grant for the benefit of a migrant, which means that the money is to be expended by the Land Commission. How is the Land Commission to expend money in view of clauses (a) and (b)? It seems to me that these words reduce the section to nonsense.
That is the reason we are putting in "for the benefit of." There is an amendment going in now to clause (a) of sub-section (1) which will make the clause read: "the purchase by or for the benefit of such migrant," etc.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), page 5, line 1, after the word "Commission" to add the words "with the approval of the Minister for Finance".
I must confess I am not altogether satisfied with this amendment——
——because I should like to have drafted it in such a way as to prevent the Minister from spending any money at all for the purposes of this section. This section, according to the Minister's statement in introducing the Bill, is designed primarily for the purpose of facilitating him in migrating colonies of Irish speakers from Irish-speaking districts to Meath and other Eastern counties. The Minister knows perfectly well what my views are on the question of the migration of these types of people. It appears to me to be a bad policy and bound to end in disaster. It will be stopped by the Minister when he has succeeded in incurring such a huge expenditure that the Minister for Finance, or the Dáil, or the members of the Executive Council will not tolerate any further expenditure for such a purpose. Although the experiment was only begun, I think, in April, 1935, and these migrants have been subsidised at the rate of 30/- per week each since that date, they are already in arrear with the payment of their rates and Land Commission annuities. Fifteen of them were before the District Justice at the Athboy District Court recently, and decrees were given against them, with a stay of, I think, a month. It appears that others of them are in almost a similar position.
Surely it is time the Minister examined this whole question of the migration of these types of people to the very best land in the country. It was admitted in the evidence before the District Justice at Athboy that these people were planted on some of the very best land in County Meath, and the solicitor for the county council said it was admitted to be some of the very best land in Ireland. Does the Minister reasonably expect people taken off the very poorest land in Connemara and transplanted to such land in County Meath to make a success of it, even with the assistance of the Government and their subsidies?
This measure provides all sorts of grants for giving of facilities to these types of people. If the Minister takes the trouble to look up the files of the Land Commission, he will find that experiments of this kind were tried by the Congested Districts Board very many years ago and that these experiments failed. He will find the records of these experiments in the Land Commission, and, if he will take the time to read them, he will get an amount of valuable information which he will be able to apply to a very good purpose. My object in proposing this amendment is to limit as far as possible the expenditure of money for this particular purpose. I do feel that this money is money that is wasted. This type of experiment can never hope to succeed because the ordinary human factors are against its success. You cannot transplant people from the very poorest parts of the seaboard counties to a county like Meath, and expect them to make a success of the land there, and for that reason I move this amendment.
I support the amendment. I think the Minister is endeavouring to provide homes for imbeciles on land rather than homes for farmers. It is a shocking waste of public money, and I hope that the writers of all the anonymous correspondence that came to me recently when I referred to this colony in Meath will now take notice of the facts given by Deputy Roddy. If they doubt Deputy Roddy's word, I hope they will read the Drogheda Independent for the last two or three weeks, and I hope that Deputy O'Reilly, who supported this policy in Meath, will contradict the facts stated by Deputy Roddy now, if he can. These people have not paid their rates or their annuities. They are being carted up to the best lands in Ireland and they are not working them. I have heard that their youths are coming into Dublin looking for jobs and I do not blame them. It cannot be otherwise while we have a certain policy being “put-over” on the country. The people who have to put up the money to pay for all these subsidies cannot carry on on the land. If a man is worthy and fit to get land he will make good, but if he wants a subsidy to work a farm that he got for nothing, he should not get it. There is no so-called ranch in Ireland that the Land Commission are dividing around which there are not good young men who are making a living by taking con-acre. If that type of men get land they will not want a penny of subsidy. What is at the bottom of this? It is not farmers the Minister wants to produce or “a bold peasantry, a country's pride.” He wants to compensate political hacks for services rendered. I asked for the name of places where land had been acquired by the Land Commission in County Dublin and I guaranteed that I would get good young men to work it as farmers, but I would not be given the information. What happened? A few days afterwards a man was given 70 acres of land for £200. He put it on the market later and made a couple of hundred pounds profit. He was a political hack of the Minister for Finance. There is no trouble in getting prospective farmers with a little capital to take any parcel of land that the Land Commission has to give away. I have every sympathy with the intention—the foolish intention, I always thought—of bringing up people from the Gaeltacht to establish a Gaelic colony in Meath or elsewhere but the Minister should remember that he is dealing with land as a business proposition and should not mix up sentimentality or misplaced patriotism with it. If you are dealing with land deal with it and not with the propagation of ideals. This country has not the resources to subsidise every parcel of land that it is proposed to deal with under the section, or to bring people up to have a look at land that they are going to get for nothing. When I bought land no one paid me to look at it, although I was in as poor circumstances as any of the migrants from the west. I had not a shilling in my pocket at the time. I had just come out of jail, and there was no one to subsidise me. Perhaps if there was I would have failed as these fellows will fail, when they are not able to pay their rates or annuities. The section should be wiped out without having any tinkering with amendments.
The purpose of the amendment is to have a check on the money when there is consultation between the Land Commission and the Department of Finance. It is essential that money spent by the Land Commission should be checked by some authority, and the only body to do that is the Department of Finance. I am not aware of the amount of money that is going to be spent on each of the migrants. If the policy of migrating these people is to be pursued that is all very well. This is not the first hare which was put up in this country, so let us chase it and know the expense incurred in doing so. As far as the Land Commission is concerned there is no check on the amount of money to be spent on individual migrants. Surely the proper thing for the House to do is to see that there is control over what the Land Commission expends, and that in any particular allocation the Department of Finance will be consulted and asked for approval of the amount to be spent. That is the issue involved in the amendment which, I think, is one the House should adopt. A paragraph in the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was before the House last week, pointed out that there was a conflict between the Department of Finance and the Land Commission about money that was spent, and it was suggested that in certain matters the Land Commission should consult the Department of Finance with regard to expenditure. It would be a wise provision to have here, so that there would be legislation whereby this House would have authority after voting money to see how it was spent.
In connection with the statement made by Deputy Belton, I do not want it to be accepted that I am 100 per cent. in favour of the present system of migration. At the same time I do not want migrants to be stigmatised as being utterly dishonest, from the way the matter was reported and dealt with by Deputy Belton.
I resent Deputy O'Reilly's interpretation of my remarks. I did not impute dishonesty to anyone, but I supported the statement made by Deputy Roddy, from what I saw in the Drogheda Independent that these people had not paid rates or annuities. I challenged Deputy O'Reilly to contradict that statement.
It is getting a bit warm for you in Meath over this, so do not try to blame me.
We will call it poverty. All I sought to do was to explain the position of these people. As far as I understand, under the Local Government Act they are not entitled to the benefit of the agricultural grant, and they were told by the Land Commission that the rates would not be more than £5 per year. Then action was taken in the courts.
The difficulty was that they could not get the benefit of the agricultural grant.
What authority had the Land Commission to say that the rates would not be more than £5 a year?
I am not talking of what authority there was for that statement. I am making an effort to clear up the position, because there was a certain amount of justification for what these people did which did not appear in the newspapers. The case against them was not gone on with, and the solicitor admitted in court that he did not think it advisable to pursue that line of argument. Some people believe they were not entitled to the benefit of the agricultural grant, but the migrants believed they were. That is the reason they would not pay. Since then I am informed by the rate collector that they have all paid up. We must be honest about these things. I see their lands reasonably well tilled. They failed as far as sheep are concerned, but that was not their fault. They say there was negligence in other quarters, with which they had nothing to do. As far as working of the land is concerned, it is reasonably well done. I think it is highly unfair to stigmatise in this way people who are working under difficulties. I do not approve 100 per cent. of this particular scheme, but I am not going to have statements made about people who cannot defend themselves, when the real situation is as I stated, that they had made reasonably good in the situation in which they found themselves, and that they did not get the benefit of the agricultural grant this year or next year. That benefit is worthy of consideration in Meath where valuations are extremely high. As far as I know, they work reasonably well and make a good effort to live.
What percentage of approbation does the Deputy give to the migration scheme?
Would not landless Meath men have done a lot better on these lands without any subsidy from the Government?
Will Deputy O'Reilly clear up one point which intrigues me? He stated that these people cannot get the benefit of the Agricultural Grant. I understand that the Agricultural Grant applied to all land except urban land.
We have had enough of this discussion without going into one about the Agricultural Grant. We have plenty to do on this Bill. The policy of migration was undertaken by the Minister for Lands and, as far as I am concerned, it is going to get a fair chance. I do not care whether Deputy Belton calls it a scheme to create homes for imbeciles on farms.
When you propose to subsidise it it is nothing else.
I believe that the people from the West who got these lands are working them better than landless men in Meath who got land—a hang sight better. Anybody who goes down there and has a look at the farms will bear me out.
I should like to ask the Minister do the landless men from Meath who get land in that county get 30/- a week for a year?
The people from Connemara who came there are going to get a fair chance to succeed.
They should get no better chance than anybody else.
At one period the cry in regard to these people was "to Hell or to Connaught". Then it came about that, when they could not drive them any further, they had to go to America. America is now shut down and we have got to do something for the people of the West, the people of Kerry, Donegal, Mayo and elsewhere.
What about the landless men of Meath and Dublin?
The landless men of Meath and Dublin are better off than the congests in Connemara, who have, perhaps, 13 or 14 in family. I am sorry that it is impossible to relieve the whole situation in the West by this policy of migration but an effort is being made to do something towards relieving it. I do not believe it is "a mad policy," as Deputy Roddy calls it. I believe that in setting up these homes in Meath for people from Connemara we are not creating homes for imbeciles. From what I saw of the way in which they are working, I think we are creating model farms in Meath that will set a headline for some of the people in Meath. I do not believe it is money wasted. I think it is money well spent. I thought that when Deputy Roddy introduced this amendment, which would compel us to go to the Minister for Finance for approval for every fiddle-faddle on which the Land Commission may spend money, he was only trying to pull Deputy McMenamin's leg, to see if there was any amendment in the world he would not sign. Deputy Roddy knows perfectly well that the Land Commission could not work on that basis. We have got to have a certain amount of freedom and a certain amount of discretion. Of course, if he wants to tie up the work of the Land Commission, to bring it to a standstill, this is one way to help to do that, but if he or any member of his Party has any hope of ever again getting control of the Land Commission, I do not think he would like to see that amendment carried in regard to the work of the Land Commission.
In discussing this amendment, we have discussed practically the whole policy embodied in the section and I hope that when we come to consider the section itself we shall not have a further discussion on it. I think that there is no reason for this amendment. The Land Commission are operating a certain policy laid down by the Ministry and approved by the Dáil by the adoption of the Estimates last year. That is a policy of migration. If they are to carry out migration from the West properly, they must have certain powers of expenditure. They must be given certain grants to enable them to incur expenditure on behalf of these migrants. I think that it would be unwise to limit the powers of the Land Commission in any way in regard to that. Deputy Roddy must know perfectly well that the Land Commission are not over-generous in giving grants and that every penny they spend is subject to scrutiny at headquarters. Their expenditure is also subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and if there is any undue expenditure it will not go on for very long. Their hands must be kept free. If an inspector down in Athboy, who found that he had no butter or meat to supply an incoming migrant, had to send up to the Land Commission and ask them to obtain the consent of the Department for Finance for the necessary expenditure, the incoming migrant would be left very hungry for quite a time. We want certain powers here so that when a migration scheme is being started, the people who are to be given land will be taken over the ground and shown the lands they are going to get, so that they will have no reason to "grouse" afterwards that they did not know where they were coming. We want also power to enable the inspectors to make the houses comfortable for them on their arrival after their long journey from the West.
I should like to get some information from the Minister on this section as to how this policy has been working. Certain colonists have been brought up to Meath. As to whether they have been a complete success, as the Minister says, and are now operating a series of model farms, or whether they have been a complete failure, as Deputy Belton says, we do not know. Deputy O'Reilly, who possibly is on the spot, seems to me at any rate to be very much on the side of Deputy Belton. He said that although he is on the side of the Minister, he is not 100 per cent. with him. I must translate Deputy O'Reilly's "not 100 per cent." into a positive 1 per cent. on the side of the Minister. I should like to know from the Minister what is the policy of the Land Commission for the future, because we are really dealing with the future. We want to know how much money this is likely to cost. Is it the intention of the Land Commission to acquire large areas in Meath or similar counties and bring up a very considerable number of migrants, or is it the policy to watch how the present scheme is working before they develop it any further.
The amount of money that will be spent on this scheme will have to be approved of in the Estimates each year. If we want any further moneys than have already been voted in the Estimates for this purpose, we shall have to introduce a supplementary Estimate and then we can discuss whether we are going too rapidly or not.
Surely the Minister can give us an idea of how many acres he intends to colonise, or rather that the Land Commission intend to colonise, because the Minister has no say in the matter at all. It is a reserved service. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary is always reminding us of.
At the moment, including those at Athboy, the Land Commission have schemes in hand covering 100 families. I should like to speed up these schemes.
That would mean about 1,500 acres or thereabouts?
It would be more than that. It would be 2,000 acres at least. The farms would average about 20 acres each. You have 20 or 25 families in Athboy already and there will be another batch up to 100 coming in the coming winter. I cannot give the Deputy exactly the amount of money which will be expended under this clause, but we can deal with the matter when the Estimates come along. I hope it will be bigger than in the past.
The Minister states that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will afford protection as regards the spending of this money. He has no authority over the spending of money if there is a general clause inserted in regard to the expenditure. I do not suggest that when an inspector goes down there and sees that a ton of turf is necessary, it should be necessary to obtain authority from the Department of Finance for that purchase. But I think that, when a migrant is planted on a farm, the Land Commission should ascertain how much it will take to fence the land, build out-offices, provide fuel, and do all the other things that are necessary, include the total in one bill and ask authority for the spending of that money. Nobody makes the ridiculous suggestion that it should be necessary to obtain the authority of the Department of Finance for the purchase of a ton of turf.
Mr. Lynch
While I have every sympathy with the fears expressed by Deputy Roddy and Deputy McMenamin as to the results of this migratory scheme, in which you are transferring small men from the very worst lands to the very best lands in the country, still I have a deep-rooted objection to this method of checking the expenditure. Nobody with the experience that we had during nine or ten years, while in charge of Departments, and knowing how in season and out of season the Department of Finance butts in, could have any sympathy with a proposal to extend their powers and to permit them to put their noses into every action of a Government Department. While I have every sympathy with Deputy Roddy's aim, I have no sympathy with his amendment. When you have a responsible body like the Land Commission, civil servants should not have to go to the Department of Finance with their hats in their hands every time they want to put through a transaction in the ordinary course of their duties. That would make life intolerable and it would make business impossible.
Could the Minister give the House any idea of what each of these farms of 20 acres has cost the State by way of free grants?
The Deputy got that in the Estimate.
The Estimate will not show what each little farm has cost up to date.
The former Minister for Lands did discuss that question on the Estimate so far as I recollect. We are now dealing with land legislation and not with administration, and I have not this information at hand.
I merely asked the question in case you had the information.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1) (b), page 5, line 6, to substitute the word "seeding" for the word "development."
This amendment proposes to substitute the word "seeding" for the word "development." It would probably be easy to get a better word than "seeding." My object was primarily to limit the Minister's power in the expenditure of money under this paragraph. In the first paragraph the Minister proposes to provide food and light for the migrants. Then he proceeds to cultivate and develop their land. It seems to me that the process of development may go on for an indefinite period. I want to fix a limit to that period. It is true that, in paragraph (a), it is provided that the money may be spent either before the migrant is put into occupation or during 18 months subsequently. It is, however, possible that the Minister will introduce another Bill in 12 months' time to amend and interpret this Bill. That amending Bill may include a clause to extend the period for development to four or five years. In that way the period of development may continue for a very long time. My only object in substituting "seeding" for "development" is to put a definite limit to the Minister's power of expenditure for this purpose.
We have the limitation of 18 months after the migrant has been installed in his holding. After that period has elapsed, we cannot spend a penny on development.
Unless the Minister introduces another Bill, which he will probably require to interpret this one.
We have enough to discuss without discussing fancy ideas. We are asking the Dáil for power to make these grants in order to enable migrants to get on their feet. As I said on Second Reading, we do not intend to go beyond that. Once they are established, it is up to them to make a success of their holdings. They are getting a valuable property, and, when they are firmly established, they should be able to make a success of it. I would not believe in spoon-feeding them when they are established. Until they are about 18 months installed, it may be necessary for the Land Commission to do certain things for them to put them in a position to work their lands properly. We are not asking for power to spend one penny after that period of 18 months.
The Minister does not come down to the net question. What Deputy Roddy wants to know is how far the Land Commission are to go. "Development" may mean draining and sub-soiling. In so far as they require the specified assistance immediately, the migrants will be entitled to it, but what we want to secure is that "development" will not take the form of draining and sub-soiling. That is their job as farmers. This word "development" is too wide. Development of a farm is a matter for the farmer. I think the term should be restricted.
If Deputy Roddy were in favour of the policy he would be in favour of the word "development," because he knows perfectly well that you want a broad word to cover all that you require.
If the Minister can suggest a broader word for my amendment I shall accept it.
And not as broad as "development."
We could put in a list of things—to plough and sow and reap and mow. What we want really to do is to give a man a chance to get on his feet during that period of 18 months. Any money spent on this work will have to be approved by the Dáil.
If the Minister knocked out the words "and development," would not that cover it?
Everything the Minister has said so far, in reply to these two amendments that I proposed, confirms what I did say when moving the first amendment. The Minister now says that he wants to give these migrants a chance and put them on their feet. What has the Minister done? What is he proposing to do? He consolidated their lands. He ploughed and sowed their tillage portions before the migrants were brought over. In addition he gave them a subsidy of 30/- a week; he provided them with farm implements and stocked their lands. And already, after being only 12 months in occupation of these lands, these migrants are in arrears with their rates and with their annuities. Then we have the Minister talking about giving these people an opportunity of getting on their feet. What will be the position of these people in another 12 months? Personally I am as interested as the Minister in this enterprise. I have watched the enterprise very closely. I am sorry that these unfortunate people have been placed in such a position by the mistaken policy on which the Minister for Lands has embarked. What are the facts? Everything was against the success of these people. The present Minister is not to be blamed for it. His predecessor it was who is responsible for this. He acted on the advice of certain officials of the Land Commission, idealists if you like, or faddists if you like. The present Minister is not in favour of the enterprise. Judging by what he said on the Second Reading of this Bill, it is clear that he was not in favour of it. He is now placed in the position of defending a policy of which he is not in favour. How is it possible to put these people on their feet in view of what has been already done? When people find themselves at the end of the first year owing rates and land annuities and unable to pay them they become disheartened. They lose initiative, and become indifferent about the cultivation of their holdings. What does the Minister propose to do now to help them out of their difficulties? That is the situation with which he is faced. On this particular section, I suggest to the Minister that he should face up to the position and tell us plainly if he finds that at the end of 12 months the circumstances remain as they are, he will abandon this scheme. I suggest that if it is not a success he should abandon it and adopt some other means of dealing with the problem of congestion. Deputy Belton suggests that it would be better, from the standpoint of the State and of the Government, to give these holdings to good farmers' sons. Either that or he should take up another policy and pursue it. He should take up the larger holdings in the West of Ireland and migrate the occupiers of those farms to Meath. That would leave the larger farms in the congested areas in the West of Ireland for division amongst congests. It would be the means of enlarging the holdings of the congests in those areas. If the policy of migration is to succeed at all, it is clear now that it can only be made a success by bringing out the larger holders in the congested areas and giving them holdings in Meath.
I should like to correct what Deputy Roddy alleged I said. I did not suggest that the farmers' sons should get subsidies. I do not suggest a subsidy for anybody. I would guarantee that no matter how much land the Minister has to offer in Dublin or in the neighbourhood I would get plenty landless men who will want no subsidy, men who will be glad to take this land, men who will want no grant to build a house or out-offices or anything like that. All they will want is to be given the land and they will go and work it and give a good account of themselves.
I should like to ask the Minister for Lands what test is applied in the selection of these migrants? How do they judge the capabilities of these men? I quite understand that there must be an enormous number of congests on the western seaboard. Possibly somebody in authority has to interview the applicants and arrange for their transference from the West to the lands available for them in the East. In what way is this test made? Is it on the basis of good husbandry or good health or on the anxiety of the applicants to get on? In what way are their capabilities ascertained? Has the Department got any psychological test to apply so as to discover whether the individual would be likely to be a worthy migrant? How do they arrive at the decision and by what test do they reach it? I am sure the House would like to have answers to these questions.
Deputy Roddy has raised certain objections to this policy of migration. The former Minister for Lands started the policy. He explained to the Dáil that he was starting an experiment in Athboy and that he would watch the results very carefully. I feel satisfied that that experiment was a success. I know there was a certain amount of publicity given to the Athboy colony simply because they refused to pay their rates when they stated that they did not know that the rates were going to be as high as they turned out to be. We took powers to spend certain money in putting these people on their feet for a period of 18 months. When that period of 18 months is over these farmers must stand on their feet or they must fall in the same way as any other small holder in the country. When land is divided it often happens that in the immediate locality there are allottees who are to get a portion of that land. These people get 25/- a week, or whatever is the wage given by the Land Commission for improvements on the estate divided up. Instead of doing the improvements before these migrants from the West came into possession of the land, the Land Commission did a lot of the improvements afterwards. These are improvements similar to the improvements that would have taken place where in a locality there has been provision for relief works, and the improvements which in other places take place before the sub-division of the land take place in this colony after the sub-division of the land, and when the migrant has been installed in his house. I do not know whether there is very much more being spent in improvements on these holdings in Athboy, for instance, than there would be in new holdings created in other localities. The people who have come over to the County Meath have been pretty well vetted by the Land Commission inspectors and by the local agricultural inspectors working under the Galway County Committee. When all is said and done, the people migrated are, in the opinion of the Land Commission inspectors, deemed to be the sort of people who would make a success of their new holdings.
What machinery have they for making these tests?
These people have come from Connemara and the local inspectors in Galway and the Land Commission inspectors have selected them as people who would be likely to work their land well.
The Minister has not yet told the House how far he is going as regards this development or what precisely he is going to do. Is it only to plant the land, put up the farmhouses and sow their crops? Is he to go on and to do drainage work and subsoil the land for them? If he is it is to that I object. It would be the job of the man who got the farm from the Land Commission to do that work himself. Anybody who is used to working land knows how to make a drain or to subsoil land and public money should not be spent on that. This land that is being divided is good arable land. All that has to be done is to plough it and turn it up and that is a thing that any man can do himself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 7, after the word "holding" to add the words "providing that in all cases where possible the cultivation and seeding were done by the migrant."
This section provides that the Minister shall give a grant to these migrants for certain purposes and the amendment would prevent them from expecting that the Minister would cultivate and develop their holdings himself. But it appears to me that according to the wording of the section, the migrant might engage labourers for the purpose of carrying out the cultivation and development of the holding and that he himself might procure other employment whilst the labourers are engaged, at the expense of the State, in cultivating and developing the holding. There is nothing in the section to prevent a migrant employing one labourer, two labourers or even three labourers for that matter, to carry out the cultivation of his holding and at the same time he himself can engage in other more lucrative and profitable employment. My only object in introducing the amendment is to prevent such a thing happening and ensure that the cultivation and development of the holding will be done by the migrant himself.
That is a long shot, is it not? Ordinarily, the thing is done by the migrant and his family. I do not know that the words "providing that in all cases where possible the cultivation and seeding were done by the migrant" include the son of the migrant or his wife.
Done by the migrant and his family.
The words "and his family" are not in.
That could easily be amended.
The Deputy must know perfectly well that in a number of cases you have to trust to the discretion of the Land Commission. I do not disagree with the amendment in spirit—that wherever the Land Commission make a grant to a migrant to do certain work he should do it himself and not employ somebody else, but I think that can be left to the discretion of the Land Commission.
As a matter of fact, I want to leave nothing in this section to the discretion of the Land Commission.
The Deputy has put down certain amendments which do not belong to the land laws or land administration at all, and it would be far better for him to vote against the section.
Surely the Minister will admit that this amendment does belong to the land code. It is intended to make it water-tight.
I do not propose to accept it.
The Minister is treating the matter in a rather flippant fashion. I mean the amendment seriously. As the section stands there is no obligation on the migrant to carry out the work himself. The migrant can engage in other employment and employ labourers at the expense of the Land Commission to do the work which he himself, I have no doubt, is supposed to do. I am sure that when the section was drafted it was contemplated that the cultivation and development should be carried out by the migrant but, as the section is drafted, it is certainly possible for the migrant to engage other labour for the purpose of doing the work that the Land Commission undoubtedly intended he should do himself. Is the Minister going to look into the amendment between this and the Report Stage?
I really think the section is all right as it stands, and that we can leave it to the discretion of the Land Commission.
Will the Minister not reinforce his own opinion with that of his legal experts?
I am prepared to trust the Land Commission in this regard, and as the section stands I think it is all right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (3), line 12, after the word "expenses" to add the figures "£5" and after the word "expenses", line 15, to add the figures "£5".
The amendment should read "not exceeding the sum of £5." I propose the amendment for the purpose of preventing the Land Commission giving joy rides to colonies of migrants all over the available estates in the eastern counties. As the sub-section is worded, a prospective migrant may be taken up several times to inspect different holdings, and there is no obligation on him to make a decision as to which holding he will take. This may go on indefinitely at great expense to the Land Commission. My sole object is to limit the power of the Land Commission in expending money for such a purpose to one or two visits.
I support the amendment. Perhaps the sum of £5 would be rather restrictive, but a migrant at least should not be shown a holding on more than two estates. If there were an estate to be divided he should be taken up and shown a holding on that and, if he did not like it, he could be taken to another holding. But if he would not accept either of these, he should go without a holding. As the section is drafted a migrant could inspect a dozen estates. It might be taken that the Land Commission would not tolerate such a thing but, as the section is drafted, it permits of that.
The section as drafted permits of a terrible lot of things if the Land Commission were not sensible people. You have got to take the view, in giving certain powers to the Land Commission, that the inspectors are men of common sense. That is in reply to some of the arguments put forward by Deputy McMenamin. The sum of £5 proposed is altogether too small.
What sum would you say would be reasonable?
It cost £10 to migrate some people recently, and even then they did not bring stock.
This refers to the inspection of a holding, not migration.
The expenses will have to come before the Dáil. There will be a sub-head in the Vote dealing with all these expenses and, if Deputies are not satisfied with the explanation of his administration that the Minister gives at the time, they can vote to delete the sub-head. The Land Commission are not out to spend any more than is necessary in this regard. There is no use in attempting to limit them to a certain figure. If there is a limit of £5, and it comes to £5 1s., they simply cannot carry out the transaction. The Land Commission are not going to incur any undue expense in bringing a man up to County Meath two or three times. If they make him a reasonable offer and he does not clinch it when he comes the first time, he has a very poor chance of being shown a second holding. Anyway, if he did not accept the second holding, I think it would be foolish for the Land Commission to bring him up a third time.
Will these expenses be vouched?
Every expense in a Government Department is vouched to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
When this House feels compelled to insert a section like this in a Land Bill I am afraid it does not offer any great prospect for the future prosperity of farming in this country. I think the Minister and the House ought to set themselves out to see that people shall not be put on the land in the belief that they are going to be spoon-fed and kept on the land whether they work it or not. I do not think anybody in the House has expressed himself more forcibly than the Minister has upon the necessity of working the land. During the passage of the 1933 Act he laid special stress upon the fact that people must be made to work their land, and, if they do not, that the Government must be in a position to take it off them. Now, if that is so, I fail to reconcile it with a section of this sort. We are now going to put people on the land, and we are making provision not only to till the land for them, but to cut their turf for them and to pay them 30/- a week as well. I am not against this experiment which has been tried by the Government, but we have had some very conflicting views about it. Those views were expressed in the House to-day We had the view expressed by the Minister himself that these people were working the land so well that they were now conducting model farms. Deputy O'Reilly said that certain reliefs, in the way of agricultural grants, did not apply to them last year. I asked for some explanation of that, but did not get it, and I am hoping that somebody will give it to me. We had on the other side a statement made by Deputy Roddy, borne out by a newspaper report of court proceedings, which went to show that these people were not paying their rates. If these people, who, according to the Minister, are running model farms and are being supported by the State to the extent of 30/- a week, are not able to pay their rates—well, it does not look well for the whole experiment. I am entirely in sympathy with the movement to try to get these people on the land if we can possibly do it. But they ought to be made understand that when they are given land they will have to work it. We all know the position in which the farming community finds itself at the present time, and how hard people find it to make ends meet. In view of the fact that the Minister is putting a provision of this kind in the Bill, it looks as if he feels that this scheme is not going to be a great success. Under Section 9 the Minister is given power to take up land from allottees who are not able to pay their way. Is that what he has in view? Apparently it is. I would advise the Minister to walk warily in this respect. As I have said, these people, when they are given land, ought to be made understand that they will have to work it and make a living out of it. They cannot expect the general body of the people to support them all their lives.
Ba dhóigh le duine ón geainnt go léir a chualamar ó bhinnsí Fine Gaedheal faoi'n dream as an nGaedhealtacht a thug Coimisiún na Talmhan go dtí Conndae na Midhe, go mbéadh áthas ortha dá dteipeadh ar an iarracht san, dá dteipeadh ar mhuinntir na coilínteachta san teacht i dtír. Tá súil agam ná cuirfidh an chainnt atá cloiste sa diospóireacht so aige, aon lag-mhisneacht ar an Aire, maidir le na bhfuil dá bheartú aige féin agus ag Coimisiún na Talmhan chun roinnt eile de muinntir na Gaedhealtachta a phlanndáil ar na tailte máithe i lár na tíre. Tá an iomarca cáinte agus an iomarca magaidh ar siubhal faoi'n scéim seo agus ní fuirist aigne na ndaoine go bhfuil an cáineadh san ar siubhál aca a thuiscint. Tá scéim mar seo a mholadh ag Connradh na Gaedhilge le blianta, ní h-amháin mar leigheas ar dhroch-chás mhuinntir na Gaedhealtachta, ach mar gléas chun na Gaedhilge a leitheadú ar fud na tíre ath-uair.
Tá's ag an saoghal, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, go bhfuil deacrachtaí go leor ag cur isteach ar an obair seo agus gan chur leo fé mar atá dá dhéanamh annso indiú. Indiadh a chéile a tógtar na caisleáin, adeir an seanfhocal, agus ní h-in aon lá amháin a bheidh sé i gcumas dreama mar an dream a tugadh go dtí Conndae na Midhe breis is blian ó shoin seasamh ar a mbonnaibh féin ach eireocaidh leo i ndiaidh a chéile. Ní fheacha mé féin na feirmeacha nua i Ráth Cairn go fóill, ach do réir na dtuairisgí atá fachta agam mar gheall ar an gcoilínteacht a tháinig ann ó Chonnamara, táim sásta go bhfuil ag eirighe go maith leo, agus go mbeidh ina gcumas maireachtáil go compórdach ar na feirmeacha san. Teigheadh an tAire chun cinn go tréan leis an gcuid seo d'obair Coimisiúin na Talmhan. Déanfaidh sé maitheas do mhuinntir na Gaedhealtachta atá i bhfad ag feitheamh le faoiseamh, agus déanfaidh sé maitheas don náisiún, thárla caoi a bheith ann chun na Gaedhilge a leitheadú san Galldacht.
Gearóid Mac Partholáin
Cuidighimse leis an méad a dubhairt an Dálaire, Donnchadh O Briain, agus ar faithchios nách dtuigeann chuile Dhálaire céard a dubhairt sé labhrochaidh mé i mBéarla. This campaign against the migrants and the policy of the Government has been going on now for some time, and I think it is quite unfair, in view of the fact that America is closed to them. This debate will make very interesting reading for the teeming thousands in places like Connemara to find that the chief Opposition Party in the State opposes a laudable scheme of this kind for their betterment. It is surely unfair to expect that people, such as the migrants, would be able to make good in one year. It is strange, too, that objection should be taken to the subsidy which the Government have been able to give them in the first year. As I have said, all this will make very interesting reading for the people of Connemara, and there are many thousands of them interested in this question.
I agree with Deputy O Briain that there is far too much complaint and too much mocking of this particular scheme. I think it is only reasonable that the Government should try to work out something for these people in response to the appeals put forward by those interested not alone in the economic salvation of the west but in the Irish language, and that this scheme should be given a decent trial. All that we are asking here is that the Land Commission should have power legally to give the scheme a decent chance. I do not know whether it has been deliberate or not, but there has been a lot of misrepresentation with regard to the position of migrants in the County Meath because of the fact that they did not pay their rates. They did not pay their rates because they thought that they were not legally bound to pay as much as was demanded from them. But since the court decision was given, I am informed that they have paid their rates. They are like a lot of other people. If they thought that their rates were not a legal debt on them and had a try-out to avoid paying an extra few pounds and if they thought they could get away with it, it would be all right. Since they have found that their rates are a legal debt on them, they have paid them, and as far as I can see, they are as well fit to pay as anybody else. Deputy Brennan said that I had described these farms as model farms. I did not do that. I would not say that they are model farms to be visited by all the farmers in the country, but as far as the County Meath is concerned they are model farms, and if a lot of people around them would only work their farms as well as these people are working their holdings it would be a lot better for the country. They are in a district that may be said to be devoted almost entirely to grazing. I just had a glance at it. I saw that they had their crops in and that they seemed to be doing their work well. I think they will be a success, and there is no reason why the scheme should not be a success.
I hope that the migrants in County Meath are not going to pay too much attention to all that goes on here across the floor of the House. Deputy Roddy made a case against the migrants and had to make it in such a way that one would think we should be sorry for the migrants who have gone into these holdings. There is no reason to be sorry for them. They have come from very poor holdings in the West, and they have got from the Land Commission economic holdings on some of the best land in the country. If, after 18 months or so, when they are put on their feet, they cannot make a success of it, then they should clear out. After 18 months they will be in the same position as any other farmer or smallholder; they will have to pay all the ordinary outgoings out of the profits they derive from the farm.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) Where a new holding is provided for a migrant in exchange for an old holding on which a funding annuity is charged, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) such funding annuity shall, unless the Land Commission otherwise orders, be transferred to and charged on the new holding in exoneration of the old holding as on and from the date on which the old holding is transferred to the Land Commission, and
(b) the charge of such funding annuity on the new holding shall rank next in priority after the purchase annuity, rent, interest, or other annual payment (as the case may be) which is charged on or issues out of such holding, and
(c) if the new holding is or becomes subject to a purchase annuity, the said funding annuity shall be consolidated with such purchase annuity in accordance with regulations made or to be made by the Minister for Finance.
(2) Where a new holding is provided for a migrant in exchange for an old holding which is subject to a purchase annuity for the repayment of the purchase money to which arrears of rent or interest on purchase money were added under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Act, 1933, on the vesting of such holding in the purchaser, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the said purchase annuity shall unless the Land Commission otherwise orders, be apportioned and so much thereof as represents the said arrears so added as aforesaid shall be transferred to and charged on the new holding in exoneration of the old holding as on and from the date on which the old holding is transferred to the Land Commission, and
(b) if the new holding is or becomes subject to a purchase annuity, the said portion of the purchase annuity on the old holding so transferred to the new holding shall be consolidated with the said purchase annuity on the new holding in accordance with regulations made or to be made by the Minister for Finance.
(3) Where a new holding is provided for a migrant in exchange for an old holding before such holding is vested in him, all arrears of rent or interest on purchase money which would, under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Act, 1933, have been added to the purchase money of the old holding on the vesting thereof in a purchaser shall, in lieu of being so added, be added (unless the Land Commission otherwise orders) to the purchase money of the new holding when it is vested in such migrant.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 practically run together, and, in the circumstances, I will move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (1) (a), lines 21 and 22, to delete the words "unless the Land Commission otherwise orders" and insert instead the words "if the Judicial Commissioner considers it to be fair, just and equitable".
This amendment has almost the opposite effect to what we have been debating for the last hour or so. We have been debating the poverty of the migrants and the necessity for subsidising them by weekly payments and in other ways. In the course of other debates attention has been called to their desperate circumstances and the difficulty they have in carrying on in their new holdings. In this section the Minister, who is so anxious to lighten the burden of these unfortunate migrants, proposes to make them responsible for a liability that accrues in the case of the land they have left. If they are in the position that they cannot meet the liability on the land they actually hold, and if there is any truth in the statements that the migrants are in an impoverished condition, that they are facing great difficulties in their new undertakings, surely no case can be made for asking them to undertake a liability which their neighbours are not asked to undertake around the new colony?
I propose to amend paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) to read:—"...such funding annuity shall, if the Judicial Commissioner considers it to be fair, just and equitable..." I am there giving a loop-hole; I am giving the Land Commission some discretion in certain cases, but I am also giving the migrant some hope that his case will be considered by the Judicial Commissioner or some person who will weigh up the equity of the case. It does not need a lengthy argument. I think my case is proved by the debate on the previous amendment. The Minister cannot advance any claim that these men are in a position to bear this added liability. Everything points to the fact that they cannot bear their existing liability, not to talk of adding the liability that has accrued on land in the Gaeltacht.
I desire to support this amendment. While I would endeavour to do everything, when placing these men on the land, to see that they were made work, yet when I put them there I want them to get every opportunity that can possibly be given to them so as to allow them to succeed. I put down certain amendments with the intention that no loop-hole would be left whereby those people would have an inducement not to work hard. I am anxious that they will get every chance and every inducement to work. This amendment is put down for the purpose of seeing that no burden that would embarrass them is placed around their necks. It may be said that this is admitting the principle of not discharging your obligations. The Land Commission in another section propose to wipe off arrears where a holding is overcharged to an extent above its value —to wipe them off as irrecoverable.
Let us remember that we take people from places where they are bred, born and reared, from their relations and from all those things so dear to them. It is where people are happy and not where they are prosperous that really matters. The important thing is where a person is happy, and it does not matter so much how poor the holding may be. I do not want any handicap to be placed on these people that might tend to prevent them succeeding. I do not see any reason why they should not succeed. There is a certain debt on this land, but the fact is that, not being able to make any profit out of the land, those people could not pay. The Land Commission are taking certain powers in regard to holdings overcharged with debt. I will ask the Minister not to burden these people by charging the new holdings with the arrears of the old ones. I take it that when the annuity is fixed on these holdings, consideration is given to what the farm can produce and what the cost of the holding entails in the way of rent, rates and the maintenance of the family. If you add on this burden I do not think you are doing a wise or a fair thing. You are really obstructing these people in their efforts to make good in the new holdings. We should put no brake on them. Perhaps it was calculated, when fixing the rent of these holdings, that the arrears on the old holdings would be charged. If that is not so, if the annuity is fixed on the basis of the productivity of the allotment, then I think it is not right to charge them with the arrears of rent from the old holdings. The principle 60 or 70 years ago was that the rent was fixed on the capacity of a farm to pay rent, rates, and maintain a family.
I do not see why the arrears from the old holdings in Connemara, Donegal or Kerry should be charged on this land. I think these people will get it into their heads that the Government are imposing an unjust burden on them. They will complain that the Government have taken them up on the pretence of doing something for them, and now they have to pay not only the outgoings on the new holdings but also the arrears on old holdings in Connemara that other men now occupy. That is a bad feeling to give them. It is psychologically bad. The sum may not be very big, but it is bad to put that burden on them. I understand that already some of those people complained that they were promised a whole lot by the Government and that the Government are not discharging what they promised. Of course, perhaps those people think they were promised things that they were not promised at all. Now when they find they are up against the hard facts of the situation they say: "We have been let down". That is bad enough, but to impose this new burden of arrears on them is a thing which I think should not be done.
The arrears must be paid by somebody. I think that if we were leaving them, as they were heretofore, on the old holding, Deputy McMenamin could make a much stronger case for having that policy changed. It is not usually the policy of the Land Commission to migrate people who have arrears on their holdings, but it is sometimes necessary for the relief of congestion to move a man on whose holding there are arrears. If you move such a man I think it is only right that his arrears should follow him, and that the people who are coming in should not pay them. It does not really amount to a whole lot either way, but the people who get new holdings out of the old holding of a migrant who has gone off to the east of the country have a sense of grievance if they have to pay off his arrears as well as the rent apportioned to them, or if in their annuity there is included any portion of his funding annuity. I think the thing is perfectly all right.
Are not the people who are getting the holding from which this man was removed getting an asset? This man is not getting an asset. The asset is taken from him.
He is getting another asset.
He is getting another asset charged with the full liability.
With his own liabilities.
With his own liabilities which he undertakes to discharge to the full. The man who is getting his land, charged with those arrears, gets it for nothing. Why not charge them to the man who is getting it?
Deputy McMenamin may think that this applies only to Gaeltacht migrants. It applies to all migrants.
How is the distinction to be drawn? What point of discretion will the Land Commission have in determining this question?
The mere fact of transferring a man from one county to another, or even from one portion of a county to another portion of it, imposes a hardship on him. He is transferred from land which he has been accustomed to manage and cultivate for a number of years. He thoroughly understands the conditions relating to the cultivation and management of that particular holding. He understands thoroughly the general conditions relating to the carrying on of his business there. He is transferred, let us say, from County Galway to County Dublin or County Meath—to a completely different class of land, where the marketing conditions and the general conditions relating to the management of land are totally different. That in itself is an initial hardship. As the Minister knows from experience, it takes even the very best farmer, when he is transferred from one county to another, some years before he is able to cope with the changed conditions which he encounters. The Minister knows perfectly well that even migrants taken from County Galway, let us say, in the years 1927 and 1928, are only gradually beginning to find their feet to-day. They understood perfectly the land which they left. There was not a field in the farms they vacated which they did not know. They knew how best to utilise those fields in order to get the utmost value out of them. When transferred to a new farm it takes years to understand the value of the land, and to learn how to manage it in such a way as to derive the best livelihood out of it. As I say, that is an initial hardship.
Now the Land Commission shall exercise certain discretion as to whether the funding annuity is to be transferred to the new holding or not. The Minister made no reference a moment ago to the discretion which the Land Commission shall exercise in those cases. How is that discretion to be used? In what cases is it to be used? Why discriminate against the tenant in one case and not in another case? The sub-section says that unless the Land Commission otherwise orders such funding annuity shall be transferred to the new holding. In the ordinary way the funding annuity shall be transferred to the new holding unless the Land Commission otherwise orders; in other words, the Land Commission exercises a certain discretion as to whether, in a particular case, the funding annuity will be transferred or otherwise. It seems to me that this sub-section, if the Minister insists on leaving it in the Bill, should be amended so as to include the words "fair, just and equitable". I think it was Deputy Cosgrave who referred earlier this afternoon to the use of those words in the earlier land legislation, and it seems to me that in this sub-section the words should certainly be introduced for the purpose of giving the Land Commission even a wider discretion than they have taken in the sub-section. I think this sub-section should be deleted altogether, and that the funding annuity should either be wiped out altogether at the discretion of the Land Commission or should be apportioned amongst the tenants who get the holding of land which the migrant relinquishes. That would be a much fairer way than transferring this burden to the new holding.
As I said a moment ago, the migrant is handicapped by the fact that he is managing a new farm of land, under completely new conditions with which he is totally unacquainted. At the very best, it will take him four or five years to become thoroughly acquainted with the nature of the new holding of land which he has got, and with the new conditions under which he has to carry on the management and cultivation of that land. That is a very large initial handicap. In addition to that, the funding annuity is to be transferred to the new holding. If he was not able to meet those funded arrears when he was managing his farm under better and more suitable conditions, is it likely that he will be able to pay that funding annuity under conditions wholly new to him, and on land with which he is altogether unacquainted?
I should like to hear from the Minister how the Land Commission is to exercise the discretion referred to in this sub-section. In what type of case is the discretion to be exercised? Under what circumstances is that discretion to be exercised? Why discriminate as between one case and another? I should like to hear the Minister make a case for that. At all events I should like him to give me an example of the type of case where that discretion will be exercised. If it is to be exercised in one case why not in another case? This section as I understand it, is to apply not only to migrants taken from the Irish-speaking areas, but to every class of migrant. It would certainly impose a much greater hardship on the larger type of migrant than it would in the case of the colonies of migrants taken from the poorer areas, let us say, to the eastern counties.
Would the Minister say if this particular section is necessary at all? I never understood that there was a hard and fast formula for the Land Commission in fixing annuities. I always understood that, as far as migrants were concerned, the annuity on their new holding was fixed on the basis of what they left after them. If a migrant is changed from a holding which carries a funding annuity, it depreciates to that extent the holding which he has left after him. The Land Commission, as far as I understand it at any rate, have always taken into consideration all the factors in connection with the old holding which was vacated. Consequently the thing appears to me to be totally unnecessary; the Land Commission would fix what they thought was a reasonable annuity and they would fix it on the basis of whatever was the value of the holding vacated.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-day.
