Before moving that the Bill be read a Second Time I should like to call attention to three mistakes made in the explanatory memorandum for which I have to apologise as we were in a hurry to get it out. The first is in page 5. The third last paragraph which reads:
"The clause is made retrospective as from the passing of the Land Act, 1936,"
refers to clause 20 and should come after the next paragraph referring to that clause. The next is on page 8 and is a printer's error. In clause 29, line 9, the words:
"had already been varied once, the result would give a variation"
should be deleted and the following substituted:
"section, however, did not provide for the case where one variation".
The third one is in the last two lines of page 9. The words
"has received improvement advances from the Land Commission"
should be deleted and the following substituted:
"pays a funding annuity on his old holding".
Then the last word on the page "his" should be "this" and the first word on page 10, instead of "liabilities," should be "liability".
I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The need for further land legislation arises mainly from the retarding effect on the Land Commission of two judicial decisions bearing on the construction of the Land Acts, 1923-36. In the course of their operations the Land Commission have been faced with unforeseen objections to the legality of some of their proceedings. These objections have been upheld by the courts, and if the acquisition and division of untenanted land are to proceed the powers of the Land Commission must be clarified and assured. It is only in practice that defects in legislation come to light. Every care is taken in the framing of the statutes to make their provisions represent clearly the intentions of the Oireachtas, but it is difficult to guard against every possible contingency in such highly complicated legislation as is set out in the Irish Land Code.
Before discussing the sections of this new Land Bill in detail, I propose to explain how the legal difficulties in the cases to which I have referred have held up the work of the Land Commission. The first case concerned the objection of Thomas E. Potterton, a tenant on the estate of Lord Darnley, to the resumption of his holding by the Land Commission. In the hearing of the case a question of law was raised as to what body had the power to make an order for resumption, and it transpired that two sections of the Land Act, 1933, which dealt with resumption, appeared to be contradictory. Section 11 of that Act purported to transfer to the Appeal Tribunal the powers of the court for resumption originally given under Section 5 of the Land Act, 1881, whereas Section 31 purported to make it obligatory on the Appeal Tribunal to order resumption upon the certificate of the Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission. The Judicial Commissioner held that Section 11 must prevail, as the powers of the court in connection with resumption are judicial powers and the vesting of such powers in the Lay Commissioners would be ultra vires to Article 64 of the Constitution then in force. That was the decision of the Judicial Commissioner.
It was held by the Supreme Court in confirmation that the notice of resumption to be given by the Land Commission to the tenant must specify the particular power of resumption, and the particular purpose for which resumption is required, and that the certificate of the Lay Commissioners which, under Section 31 of the 1933 Act takes the place of evidence, must be as specific as such evidence should be.
The second case concerned the objection of Mrs. K.M. Maher and Another to the acquisition of their estate of untenanted land by the Land Commission. In the hearing of the case by the Appeal Tribunal a question of law was raised as to whether the Certificate of the Lay Commissioners declaring the lands to be required for their purposes involved the signature by only two of the six Lay Commissioners as had been the practice, or by all of them. The Judicial Commissioner held that, as the wording of Section 25 of the Land Act, 1936, prescribing the procedure requisite for the compulsory acquisition of land by the Land Commission, mentioned "a certificate by the Lay Commissioners" without specifying the minimum or maximum number of such commissioners who should sign the Certificate, signature by all of the Lay Commissioners was legally necessary. The effect of these decisions has been to bring almost to a standstill the compulsory acquisition of land by the Land Commission and this situation calls for remedy.
These are the main points which have made necessary the introduction of a new Land Bill. The Bill also contains suitable amending sections to clarify expressions and remove doubts in various sections of previous Land Acts, and, in addition, the opportunity is taken to remedy a number of minor defects which delay or obstruct the progress of the work of the Land Commission. Taking the sections of the Bill in their sequence: the first four sections do not call for comment being merely the usual formal provisions relating to Title, Definition, Rules and Expenses. Section 5 provides that the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts shall not apply to dwellinghouses of which the Land Commission are landlords. It is inserted to ensure that the Land Commission may be able to get possession of dwellinghouses let on land acquired by them, in all circumstances.
Section 6 gives to the Land Commission priority for debts due to them, in line with the general rights of the State in this respect. Such priority has hitherto been assumed for Land Commission claims but having regard to a recent decision restricting these rights to cases covered by Section 38, sub-section (2) of the Finance Act, 1924, it is advisable to have specific statutory authority for the rights and privileges of the Land Commission in respect of moneys due to them. Section 7 gives specific authority exempting the Land Commission from payment of fees on first registration of title to holdings or parcels in certain cases. Such fees have never been paid or demanded, but hitherto there has not been explicit statutory authority for this exemption. Exemption does not apply where the lands concerned have been bought from the Land Commission by public auction or private treaty.
Section 8 extends the provisions of Section 27 of the Land Act, 1927, which enable the Land Commission to incur a loss on resale of land, to cover losses on resales of sporting and other rights. There is no case, so far, of loss on resale of sporting rights, etc., but it is well to provide for such a contingency. Section 9 authorises the grouping of 4½ per cent. land bonds of smaller denomination than £100 into units not exceeding £100 for the purposes of any drawings for redemption. This is just a matter affecting the convenience of the arrangements for the redemption of the bonds. Section 10 proposes to repeal sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Land Act, 1931, which provides that dividends on land bonds for the time being retained as a guarantee deposit shall be paid out as they accrue to the persons entitled thereto, and provides instead, that such dividends shall be retained with the land bonds forming the guarantee deposit and utilised for the purposes of such guarantee deposit, except in cases where the Judicial Commissioner sees fit, on application, to release the dividends for payment to any parties entitled thereto. That is a charge. The section also simplifies the procedure for dealing with excess land bonds in the guarantee deposit.
Section 11 adapts Section 36 of the Land Act, 1931, which directs payment of interest at the rate of 4½ per cent. to claimants against the purchase money of an estate, to the cases where the purchase money is payable in land bonds other than 4½ per cent. bonds, by providing that the interest shall be payable at the same rate as that which the relevant land bonds bear. That is to say that where bonds bear 4 per cent. interest, as at present, interest bearing claims upon the purchase money such as mortgages shall be paid at the 4 per cent. rate also.