Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Jun 1939

Vol. 76 No. 10

Public Business. - Land Bill, 1938—Committee Stage (Debate resumed).

Mr. Corry

What Deputies fail to realise in the particular cases of the individuals who are fighting, and who have successfully fought the previous Land Act on this matter of the resumption of holdings is that these are generally the particular types to which I have alluded: people who owe a large amount of arrears to the Land Commission and who owe a large amount of rates as well, and who, if and when the holding is finally resumed, have nothing to get. Those are the people who fight against it and who are the bitterest against it. In addition, you have another trouble, and that is that those are the very people whose holdings are full of pests or vermin, of which we very often hear complaints here in the Dáil. We hear loud complaints here in the Dáil from Deputies opposite about the rabbit pest and the rabbit plague; but just imagine the case of the unfortunate man with 30 or 40 acres of land alongside one of these derelict demesnes and who cannot grow any crop whatsoever on his holding because of these pests. He can clear the 30 or 40 acres of land, that he has already, of these pests, but I am hanged if he can do so if there are 500 or 600 acres alongside him derelict and over-ridden with vermin, and then, in addition to having to pay his own rates and annuities and the rates on the derelict land alongside him he also has to suffer the loss of having his crops eaten by these pests.

When Deputies opposite say that they are not against the resumption of holdings, they should look at this section which they are now opposing, and look at the manner in which their opposition here to the previous Acts succeeded in leaving loopholes for those people who were able and willing to take advantage of these loopholes. After all, I do not think there is any Deputy over there who wishes to see the man with the thousand or five hundred acres, employing, say, a man and a dog, being allowed to continue in this country. I do not think anybody in this House wants to see that system continued, but if those Deputies succeeded in carrying such an amendment —and particularly to that clause as it stands—it is only going to bring us back to the old position in which we have been placed since 1935, when the taking over of land by the Land Commission proved to be a complete washout owing to the loopholes that were, unfortunately, found in a previous Land Act. That is the position, and that is why I ask Deputies to withdraw their opposition to this section and let it go through. They are endeavouring now by their action to force us back into the position in which we have been from 1935 up to the present moment, when the Land Commission, unless a holding was actually thrown to them, had to take their hands off and let such people keep their holdings, with the result that you have these unfortunate small holders down the country having to pay through the nose. It is bad enough for a man to be looking down from the hill at the little farm he had long ago and seeing it in the hands of one of those ranchers, but it is worse still when, in addition to paying the rates and annuities for his bit of land, he must pay the rates and annuities for that fellow as well, and the Land Commission says to him that he must pay the extra rates in order to enable them to carry on. Deputies opposite should let the section go through, in my opinion. It will go through in any case, and they are only wasting time opposing it.

Mr. McMenamin

This matter is really quite simple. We admit the principle, but we are endeavouring to improve the machinery of this section in order——

Mr. Corry

In order to make a job for the lawyers.

Mr. McMenamin

Is there any order in this House? We are endeavouring to improve the machinery of this section in order that, both rationally and logically, an important body of men to whom a certain certificate will be passed on under another part of the section will have power to do something with it. We are not preventing them from doing it, but we want to have it asserted or prescribed in the section that, when they get this certificate, they will use their judgment on it and not be mere rubber stamps— that there will be no confusing of the issue. That is what matters here. There is no attempt to destroy the section—none whatever.

Mr. Boland

Before the section is passed, Sir, I should like to say a few words in connection with it. If I were to reply to most of the points that have been made, it would mean a Second Reading reply, because all these points really were raised on the Second Reading. However, in regard to this section, I did undertake to consider two amendments, and that is amendments Nos. 17 and 19. I did not undertake to accept amendment No. 17 as it is, but said I would insert the provision under which we proposed to acquire land. In connection with amendment No. 19, also, I did not say that I would accept the amendment put down, which wants us to state specifically what we actually do with the land, but said that I was prepared to insert something which would state the purposes for which the land is acquired, but not the particular and specific purposes on which the Supreme Court insisted and which, as I pointed out, might mean the actual mentioning of the names of the proposed allottees. For instance, if you had a crotchety judge, he might insist that detailed information of that kind was necessary.

As I pointed out in connection with Section 17, there was never any intention—although I admit that the wording of that section would justify Deputies in saying that we did not intend to state the powers under which we were proceeding—but there was never any intention of not stating the powers under which we were proceeding. The whole thing was that there was a positive case laid down that a definite specific section should be mentioned. There may be other sections under which we are entitled to proceed, and these will be mentioned. I shall try to meet these two points. With regard to the other point that has been mentioned, we debated that time and time again, and I do not think there is anything to be gained by repeating what I said on these three amendments. The question of credit has been raised also, but I dealt with that on the Second Reading, too, and other Deputies over here dealt with that question very effectively. In my opinion, the question of farmers' credit is entirely apart from this. Of course, other Deputies may take a different view, but that is what I believe anyhow.

Deputy Fionán Lynch mentioned a certain case. I do not think he was quite sure yet as to the position or as to whether the holding was resumed, but in any case power was taken under the 1933 Act to take over land, even where the holding was well worked, if it was in a very congested area. Power was taken in such a case to take the land, but if the person concerned was a farmer, residing on the holding and working it, he is entitled to other land of a certain value. That is the position. I am not quite certain as to the case Deputy Lynch mentioned. I have not the particulars of the case and do not know its circumstances. It may be that this is a well-worked farm, but it may also be in a very congested area, or it may be that the holder is not a farmer but, perhaps, a business man residing on the farm. As I say, I do not know the circumstances, but if the farm is being worked by a farmer who is residing on it, I doubt if the Land Commission would take it, except in such circumstances as I have mentioned. They might take a farm that was owned by someone that was not a farmer, such as a business man residing on it, or if there was very acute congestion in that district and if that particular farm was needed. I do not want to be misunderstood and say they would not do a thing like that, because there is power to do it and they might do it and would do it in certain circumstances, but if he is a farmer he will be compensated by land up to a certain value; and if the land that is taken from him is worth more than that he will get the balance in bonds. I want that to be understood. On the other points that were raised in the long debate, I would be taking up the time of the House repeating what I have already said. I do not think there is any necessity to do that.

Mr. F. Lynch

Will the Minister tell Deputy Corry how many 1,000 acre annuitants there are in the country? He talked about taking land from people with 1,000 and 500 acres. This is a question of resumption. How many annuitants are there with 1,000 acres?

Mr. Corry

Nobody should know that better than the Deputy, because I was for years trying to get him to do something about it. I spent five years at that.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 21.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Fred Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hannigan, Joseph.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Francis.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• McEllistrain, Thomas.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttedge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Benson, Ernest E.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, John L.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Sullivan, John M.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 40.

Question proposed: "That Section 40 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Belton

What is the significance of Section 40? I take it that this relates to fee farm grants. Is not that so?

Mr. Boland

I think I had better explain that the object of this section is to enable the commissioners to use their diseretion in certain types of holdings—mainly holdings which may be in urban areas. The best way to illustrate that would be to take a particular type of case. As the law stands at present, if these particular lands are situated, say, in the City of Dublin, some of them may pass as agricultural land in character and must be admitted to the benefits of land purchase, and the State would make a considerable contribution. These lands may be used afterwards for building purposes.

The Land Commission has discretion in respect of tenancies created since 1923, but in the older cases they have not, and this is in order to bring the law into line and bring in the old cases and put them in the same position as the newer tenancies created since 1923. There was one case where the applicant held 4½ acres at a poor law valuation of £14 15s., situated in the municipal boundary of Dublin. The rent was £21, and there was a lease for 91 years, dating from a few years ago. The land consisted of one field with over 800 feet of extensive road front, on a very well-known road in the city. This land was used purely as a cattle park. There was a possibility of ruling that out on the ground that it was potential building ground, but that was repealed, and the case had to be admitted, with the result that a person became a fee-simple owner of this field and, instead of a rent of £21, paid only a revised annuity of £5 5s., based on the Land Commission's estimate of a fair rent. I gather that the person who owns the land immediately built on it. This is introduced in order to give the Land Commission discretion, when they meet this type of case, to reject the application, even though it may have been used by the owner as a cow park inside a municipal boundary. If, of course, it was a genuine case, it would be treated differently.

There was another case in Dublin City, actually on a road which the tram passed and well inside the municipal boundary, and that was admitted with the result that the taxpayer has to pay for these people who had no intention at all of continuing to use that land as agricultural land. If that tenancy had been created since 1923, the discretion was in the hands of the Land Commission but they have not in earlier cases.

Mr. Belton

I cannot identify the case, and I am glad I cannot. Do I understand from the Minister that, where application is made in such cases, the intention of this section is to enable the Land Commission to refuse, not to take the land from the person? That is not the intention?

Mr. Boland

No.

Mr. Belton

To refuse the benefits of the Act?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. McMenamin

The two cases to which the Minister refers have apparently been dealt with?

Mr. Boland

Yes, they have been dealt with, but there are other cases.

Mr. McMenamin

On reading the section, it gives me the impression that when it is passed influence could be used either to have lands taken or have lands refused. I do not like that. I think we should lay down general principles. If somebody by an accident gets the benefit of the Land Acts, I do not think that that is going to break the State. I do not think we should enshrine in this Bill powers to take all kinds of land and to take away rights from anybody so far as the law is concerned. We have the power, and we may take it, of course, that it will be reasonably exercised with regard to these cases, but I do not like, in principle, legislation to which Yes or No can be said, and which leaves it open to the implication that influence can be used to prevent the operation of the section. On principle I am opposed to this section. I think the number of cases that it will affect is very limited. I may take it that the people referred to, and people of that class, are very few and apparently they were quick enough on the draw to get in and they are already in. For that reason I do not think, on a question of principle, that this House should pass this section.

There is no use in going into the history of this thing. Those Acts were made to cover not one, two, or three. The whole thing was made to cover the class as a whole and not some section of a class. In the case of a huge lot of land, involving all the land practically in this country, abnormal things of this kind will occur; but I think, in principle, this section should not be adopted. I do not like it as it is, in its present form, and I think it leaves itself open to the construction that influence can be used to bring in one case and keep out another and in that way that influence could be used to include or exclude a piece of land.

Mr. Kennedy

I hope this section will not be used to prevent the vesting of town parks.

General MacEoin

It will.

Mr. Kennedy

I speak with complete ignorance of the whole matter, but I know that town parks in small towns and villages have been excluded up to this. I further know that these towns and villages are losing their populations, year after year, that they are becoming practically extinct as business centres and that the population are becoming more and more dependent on the land which has been defined as a town park in previous Acts. I do not know how far this measure goes, if it goes any distance, towards relieving these people, but I certainly hope that this section will not be used to keep the people of little villages of 200 and 300 population, where business is practically gone and which are becoming purely rural, paying rent perpetually to a landlord who, in many cases, has gone out of the country altogether.

Mr. Corry

I am anxious that the Minister should review this section. You will find that, in the vicinity of Cork City, where you have some land of the description referred to by the Minister, and in rural towns also, this section is used extensively by landlords to prevent the vesting of holdings. I know the difficulty we had previously and I suggest that the Minister can get over whatever loss may be involved. When land changes its agricultural aspect, so to speak, and takes on the aspect of building ground, I know that in all cases in which subdivision has been applied for for building purposes, the full amount has to be redeemed, and I think that would practically cover any loss to the Land Commission. I think it wrong, however, that a man who has seven, eight, or nine acres in the vicinity of a town or city, and who has been working that land as agricultural land, should now be prevented from getting the benefits of the Land Acts in respect of his holding, with the result that, if, at any period, it becomes building land, he can be made to walk out quietly while the landlord gets the benefit of any moneys which accrue, although that poor devil has been holding the bag for him for a number of years.

I think some other means should be found by the Land Commission to get their money back off these holdings when they change from agricultural to building land, instead of preventing such an unfortunate man from getting the benefits of the Land Acts when he may have been working the land as an agricultural holding for 30 or 40 years. We had several cases of it, particularly outside Cork City, and, in all the cases, they got the benefits of the Land Acts. It would be very hard if they are now to be deprived of them, and I should like an assurance from the Minister in that regard.

General MacEoin

It is quite clear that there are two points at issue on this section. First, I want to make it quite clear that I agree with what Deputy Kennedy has said, that where a man has two, four, six, seven or eight acres within an area which can be classed as a potential building site, which he is using for purposes of husbandry or agriculture, he should get the benefit of the Land Acts. The Land Commission, for various reasons, have excluded holdings of that type from the benefits of the Act. If a man has a haberdashery shop, a public-house or a small vehicle, and also has this farm of land, the argument is that he is not dependent solely on agriculture, but surely, if he is working that farm as a farm, he is entitled to the benefits of the Land Acts. It has been resisted and upheld in some cases, and admitted in others. I think the section should be a little more clear and should give to these farmers—and I deliberately describe them as farmers— the benefits of these Acts.

Again, I agree with Deputy Corry in his remarks on housing schemes, because it is arising every day. It is very difficult to draw the line, and even in Dublin, as between what is the City of Dublin and what is outside it for building purposes. If Deputy Belton has a farm out in Donnycarney direction and is working it according to the best methods of husbandry, that is, growing potatoes, bananas, wheat, and peas and beans, which were mentioned in the Fianna Fáil plan, if he is doing all the things he should do, and doing them well, or fairly well, and if he holds either by 11 months, which we know is a sort of tenancy, or on 12 months, which is an English tenancy, or in any way in which you could say he is a fixture, and if he applies to the Land Commission for the application of the Land Act to his case, I think he should get the benefit of the doubt. I do not think there ought to be any question of it, because these men who are holding places like that—I have several pictures in my mind—are often subject to costs and expenses which are unusual. Right within the urban area of Athlone, there are farms which are subject to the town rate and cannot get relief of rates under the Relief of Rates Act. They have to pay the water rate, although they have no water, and the gas rate, although they have no gas, although they might think they had. Unless it can be shown that they are not potential building sites, they cannot get the benefits of the Land Act.

I think there should be some power given; and not power only, but that there should be some statutory direction given to the Land Commissioners both lay and legal, that when such a representation is made, where the facts are fully ascertained that it should be made compulsory on the Land Commissioners to admit them. That is my point, and I think we should not approve of this section because it does not exactly cover the point I am making. As a matter of fact, this particular section can be used against them. It is not for what is in it, but what can be made out of it that I am objecting to it. It is like half-pay in the Army Act. It was a privilege but it can be used as a penal measure.

Mr. Boland

What the Land Commission want is to get discretion and if they find the thing is bona fide I am sure they will not refuse to admit it. It is not a question of taking the land. It is a question of admitting these lands for the benefit of the Land Purchase Acts. There is the question of halving the annuities. Having got that then it becomes builders' land at the expense of the taxpayer. What we are seeking in this section is the same discretion in respect of the old tenancies as the Land Commission has in respect of the tenancies created under the Land Act of 1923. In the City of Dublin actually in one case, where the tram passed by a field it was found that this field was used for dairy purposes. This person came in and because he was able to show that the field was used for grazing the Land Commission had no option but to admit it. All I am asking is that the Land Commission should be put in the position of not being compelled to reduce these people's rents by three-fourths. Then immediately they subdivide this land for building purposes, and for one small plot in that land they will get paid more than they had been paying for the whole field.

General MacEoin

Except that we are satisfied that it will not be used against them. That is the case I am making.

Mr. Boland

That is the question you will have to leave to the Commissioners. We are seeking to get discretion. I was perfectly shocked at some of the cases that went through and I am satisfied that if the Deputies here knew the type of cases admitted, for which this was never intended, they would understand the position better. We must not put our hands in the taxpayers' pockets and enable these people to get away with this money. Then the land ceases to be agricultural land. In this case I cannot guarantee that each particular case will be met, but I am asking that the Commissioners should not be bound to admit them. I think, for this reason, the Deputy should withdraw his opposition.

General MacEoin

Perhaps the Minister was shocked at the cases refused, not at the ones admitted.

Mr. Boland

The Commissioners ought not to be compelled to admit them.

Mr. Belton

I must say that, personally, I have great sympathy with what the Minister is endeavouring to accomplish. But has there not been an enlargement of Acts subsequent to the 1933 Act? Has not the Minister been more generous in interpreting the type of land that should be admitted? Surely if in the City of Dublin a tram is passing a field, we have one picture. But I know the City of Dublin, and I cannot visualise a field by the side of which a tram is passing, that has not all the building services in very close proximity. My understanding of that particular matter is that where you have services in close proximity, the land cannot be admitted. It is not alone potential building land, but actual building land. If this field in Dublin is not actual building land, possibly it is a low-lying field in which there is something that precludes it from being actual building land. While I have full sympathy with what the Minister is endeavouring to accomplish, yet we must remember that this Bill is for the whole country, and the Minister may cause a hardship in other places that may unbalance the Bill. He may be doing a hardship that he himself may not like. It may be worth while considering the drafting of a stricter definition of actual building land. Surely if a tram is passing a field, one cannot visualise any field passed by a tram in Dublin that has not other services. A bus might be passing a field in Dublin and it might not have building services. I am sure when the Minister was speaking of a field by which a tram was passing, he was not thinking of the Blessington tram?

Mr. Boland

I was not. The 1933 Act prohibited building sites, but that is no obstacle now, it is withdrawn. Even if a tram is passing by, and these services are there, still if it could be shown to be agricultural land in the case of the old tenancy, there is nothing but to admit it. But we want to get discretion now.

Mr. Belton

I know land not in the city, but adjoining the city. At the time this land was before the Land Commission two or three years ago, it had light, gas and limited water, but not water for building, and it had no sewerage. There was no tram passing it, and it was thrown out. I was not interested in the case.

Mr. Boland

It may have been thrown out under another section.

Mr. Belton

I do not know, but he was a very stupid man if he applied through a section through which he should not have applied and was accordingly thrown out.

Mr. Boland

He was a stupid man when other men got in under other sections.

Mr. Belton

Why not have a stricter definition of what is actual building land? Where you have actual building land according to your improved definition, cut it out and do not admit it. Do it in that way. I am so long away from country towns that I do not know the exact position now, but I am quite sure that the Minister will cause a lot of hardship in country towns if he lets this section go through as it is. He will create hardships that he does not see now. There may be a field right in the heart of a country town. That may have been a field in our fathers' time and it may be a field in our grand-children's time, but if the Minister puts through this section he may leave that land in the way it is and not give it the advantage of the Land Purchase Acts, as was the intention of the Dáil. I do not think the Minister is approaching this matter in the best way.

Mr. Corry

I would like to put up one particular case. There is a phrase here: "Not in the best interests of the country." Outside Carrigtwohill, ten miles from Cork, there is a holding. We got that in under the 1933 Act. The owner objected because it was a potential building ground. The owner lives in England. The unfortunate widow who holds 12 acres of that land found herself in the position that we had to step in and take this land for the townspeople for building, and now we find that that woman will not get a bob out of it because it did not come under the benefit of the Land Acts. The landlord will get most of the money because that portion was not agricultural land. If this section is included in the Bill the argument will be brought up that it is potential building ground and, therefore, should not be allowed in under the Act. That is the position you will have. To my mind, it would be far better if these holdings were left in the hands of the unfortunate people who have been working them for the last 20 or 30 years. When these holdings change their character as agricultural holdings, I am sure a way can be found of recouping the State.

Mr. Belton

If the land becomes building ground, the State will be recouped in stamp duty and income-tax.

Mr. Corry

When land has to be sub-divided for the purpose of building, the Land Commission always insist on the interest being redeemed. When they do, they get their money.

Mr. Boland

Half.

Mr. Corry

I wish I was as sure of that as the Minister seems to be.

Mr. Belton

Do not develop that.

Mr. Corry

I have a certain anxiety in cases of that description. Deputy Belton may not be as anxious as I am.

Mr. Belton

If you want to do anything, do it on your own behalf but do not use me.

Mr. Corry

I am anxious that, in cases of that description, the State should get its full money back, but I am equally anxious to see these holdings passing into the hands of the local occupiers until such time as they actually become building ground. I have certain fears as regards the operation of this section.

Mr. McMenamin

I moved to delete this section because, when I read it, I did not know to what class of holding it referred and, therefore, could not draft an amendment. I am prepared to accept on Report the redrafting of this section in such form as to bring in land which is actual or potential building ground. At the moment, the terms of the section are very wide. Had I known the class of holding to which the section referred I could have brought in an amendment which would knit the issue more closely. I suggest to the Minister that he should redraft this section before Report Stage so as to cover the type of land to which he intends it to be applicable. I do not think that anybody would defend the cases to which he referred but, under the section as drawn, injustice could be done.

Mr. Kennedy

I do not know whether Section 40 of the Land Act of 1923 or Section 14 of the Act of 1931 refer specifically to Dublin City or not. If they do, then what I have to say will be a waste of time. If they do not, I should like to make a case for a small place which I know. It consists of nine houses, four of which are business houses. A considerable portion of the land around that hamlet is defined under the 1923 Act as townparks and a big rent is still being paid to the landlord, who lives outside the country. If that section is going to prevent that land from being purchased for all time under the Land Act I think it is very unfair.

Mr. Boland

That question does not arise. So far as I understand Deputy McMenamin's contention, he wants us to specify the type of land we will not admit. That would be a dangerous thing to do because we should have to generalise. What we are seeking to do is to allow the commissioners to examine the different cases and to give them the right to admit cases which they think clearly ought to be admitted. If you state in black and white that a certain type of land should not be admitted, then a case which Deputy Corry or some other Deputy might have in mind as a suitable case for admission might be barred out. A glaring case, which no member of the House would agree should come in, might arise. If this provision be not made, you will be compelling the Land Commission to admit such a case. As regards building sites, land can be acquired even though it is potential building ground.

Mr. Belton

Can land with an actual building value be acquired?

Mr. Boland

Yes. That is no longer an impediment since the 1933 Act was passed.

Mr. Hughes

We agree with the Minister, but the section has a wider application than he mentions.

Mr. Boland

It simply gives the commissioners a discretion and does not compel them to admit cases which, they are satisfied, ought not to be admitted.

Mr. Hughes

That is the principle running right through the Bill.

Mr. Boland

You must give a discretion to somebody. Whether the question be that of the working of holdings or anything else, somebody will have to decide it, and you must have confidence in them.

Mr. Belton

Will the Minister look into this section and see if he can achieve his object without making it so general?

Mr. Boland

I shall do that if it is understood that I am not undertaking to amend it.

Mr. Lynch

I take it that there is an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal in these cases, if my reading of sub-section (1) is correct. Sub-section (1) says: "Where the Lay Commissioners.... or the Appeal Tribunal on appeal from such Lay Commissioners find that, having regard to the character or user of a holding to which this section applies.... it would not be in the interests of the country that the tenancy in such holding should be sold...." I take it that there is an appeal on the character and user of the holding from the Lay Commissioners to the Appeal Tribunal.

Mr. Boland

There is—in this case.

Mr. Lynch

In my opinion, the words: "having regard to the character or user of a holding," give an appeal on character and user to the Appeal Tribunal. I do not know myself what improvement could be made in the section. I must say that I do not agree at all with the opposition to the section. In some ways I was specially amused at the opposition from the other side of the House. In the case of the last section, Section 39, we had supreme confidence expressed in the Lay Commissioners. Here, where it is a question of giving discretion to the Lay Commissioners with an appeal from them, those Deputies are not satisfied at all. How many of them expressed supreme confidence in the Lay Commissioners in the case of the last section and wanted no appeal from the Lay Commissioners to the Appeal Tribunal? Now when it is a question of giving a discretion to the Lay Commissioners with an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, some of those Deputies are not satisfied. They have apparently lost the confidence in them which they expressed a few moments ago.

Mr. Corry

The position is entirely different in this case. On the one hand, you have those unfortunate people who have spent their time under a landlord, and whom we are anxious to get from under that landlord. We are trying to give these people the benefit of land purchase. On the other hand, Deputies over there are endeavouring to keep the lands in the hands of a bunch of land grabbers and landlords.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 41.

Question proposed: "That Section 41 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McMenamin

I am rather puzzled to know whether the easements referred to here are easements that were appurtenant to untenanted land or whether they were easements enjoyed by adjoining tenants over untenanted land prior to its acquisition. One can readily visualise the case of a farmer having a right of way over land that was untenanted land prior to its acquisition. That right was priceless to him and no compensation that would be offered to him would recompense him for the loss of it because there would be no possible way whereby he could get an alternative right of way, particularly if it were heard in the district that the Land Commission were paying him for the right of way of which he was being dispossessed. If he were to seek a right of way on some adjoining holding, the price asked would be so inflated that he could not give it. I should like to hear the Minister on this matter. There are certain easements which money cannot buy, rights to water and rights to get to an outlying field with manure. Nothing could compensate a man for the loss of such rights.

Mr. Boland

This section is required to enable the Land Commission to deal with bogs, for instance. They find that when they have acquired bogs from the owners, certain people who have rights of grazing object to the bog being divided amongst people who have been given turbary on them. That has happened in one particular case in County Kerry. The bog has actually been given to certain allottees but certain people who have grazing rights will not allow the bog to be used by these people. The grazing rights are much less valuable than the turbary rights for the people of the district and the people who are being deprived of these grazing rights will be compensated. This section is analogous to an earlier section in the Bill which dealt with lands on which there was a house which had been let and the Land Commission could not go ahead with the division of the land as they could not get possession of the house. Similarly, in this case they cannot go ahead with the division of bogs owing to the existence of these easements.

Mr. McMenamin

Are you only going to use this section in the case of bogs? You are not taking general powers?

Mr. Boland

It can be used generally. Some people who have rights of way might prevent the Land Commission from going ahead with a scheme of distribution. These people are entitled to compensation but the Land Commission cannot proceed with their work if it is going to be held up by people having rights and claims of that kind.

Mr. McMenamin

There are certain easements that may be very valuable.

Mr. Boland

These will be all considered but I think, in the general interests of the people who require turbary and amongst whom land must be properly divided so that they will have free access to it, the Land Commission should have these powers.

Mr. McMenamin

I was thinking only of arable land. Bog is not so important as all that.

Mr. Kissane

It is very important.

Mr. McMenamin

I was thinking of the use that might be made of this section in the case of arable land.

Mr. J. Flynn

I think this section is very necessary. In some cases schemes of reclamation and of drainage have been held up for years because of the fact that certain people will not consent to the work being carried out. Could the section be extended to cover these cases as well as the division of turbary? We have several cases in my county, where it was proposed by the Board of Works to carry out important works such as minor drainage works and reclamation works. These have been held up for two or three years simply because, perhaps, one man in a district would not sign the necessary consent. I wonder whether this section could be extended so as to bring in cases of that kind?

Mr. Boland

I do not think it could. In this case also there is an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal. If Deputies will look at sub-section (2) they will see that there is an appeal from the Lay Commissioners on questions of law or compensation. It is a very necessary power to have, as will be admitted by anybody who knows the difficulty that has arisen in such cases.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 42.

Question proposed: "That Section 42 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bennett

Does this section refer to arrears of annuities?

Mr. Boland

This section refers to a case, say, where the Land Commission have a mansion with some lands attached to auction, and if a person has got up to £3,000 of an advance already, he cannot get a further advance, consequently the auctioneer is not in a position to state what the annuity will be. It is in order to put everyone on the same footing that this section is introduced. We are taking power to advance more than £3,000 in these cases, if necessary.

Mr. Belton

Supposing a man who had not reached the limit purchased the mansion, would he have the benefit of the halved annuity?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. Belton

Supposing it is sold to a man who is up to the limit, is the Land Commission in a position to increase the annuity?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 44.

Question proposed: "That Section 44 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McMenamin

I should like to know what has arisen with regard to these lands bought between the 21st of May, 1917, and the 31st of December, 1917.

Mr. Boland

These are cases where a committee had bought land and the Land Commission under the 1927 Act got authority to take over these lands. They were often bought at very high prices. The Land Commission resold the land to the tenants at what was considered a fair value for the land and the Department of Finance made up the difference. It was considered that all these cases had been dealt with before the Land Act of 1936 but some further cases have since cropped up— I do not know how many. On representations from Deputies on this side of the House this section was brought in to deal with these cases.

There was one particular case in which the people concerned thought that their transaction had been completed before the date laid down in the 1927 Act, which was sometime in May of that year, whereas, as a matter of fact, it was not so. I do not know whether it was a bad lawyer or who advised them but in any case they missed their chance. We are giving them and others in a similar position a short time in which to make their claim: that is any committee cases which would be entitled to come in under the 1927 Act, while at the same time preventing any case that has been rejected from taking advantage of this.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 45.

Question proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. F. Lynch

I am just wondering whether the Minister is right in closing the back door that he is closing by virtue of this section. This section repeals sub-sections (c) of Section 43 of the 1936 Act by which certain cases were able to take advantage of Section 44 of the 1931 Act. There may not be very many of them. There is, however, something to be said for continuing to allow in the type of case that could get in while the door was open. Section 39 of the 1923 Act was often of very little value to the type of person who had been in arrears to his landlord for a number of years, as undoubtedly very many of them were. In the particular case I have in mind you had arrears of rent over a period of six years. Decrees were obtained. There was a stay put upon them pending the decision of the Land Commission. If they came in under Section 39 they got the benefit of the section, but since under that section there is no provision for compounding arrears these unfortunate people could not get the benefit of it. The decrees were confirmed and were actually in the hands of the sheriff.

I wonder whether it would not be as well to allow the door to remain open for the types of cases that were able to avail of it. It was, I believe never intended that they should be able to do that, but certain cases did get through that door. It would be of great value to those people if the Minister were good enough to say that he would consider them from the point of view of a revision of their annuities from which they were debarred as the sub-section stood. It is a question whether he should not consider opening such a door, or otherwise reconsider Section 39 of the 1923 Act with a view to providing for the compounding of arrears. If he does that, of course, it will be just as good. It would have the effect of meeting the type of case that I have in mind.

Mr. Boland

I suggest to the Deputy that he should wait until we reach the Report Stage, when we can debate that —that is the point that he raised about Section 39. I am not undertaking that I will do what he asks.

Mr. Lynch

Very good.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 46.

Mr. Lynch

I move amendment No. 22:—

Before paragraph (a) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

an application under sub-section (1) of the said Section 44 (as amended by subsequent enactments) may be granted in respect of any parcel of land where the Land Commission is satisfied that such parcel is held by the owner under a grant or conveyance in fee simple under which is reserved or payable any perpetual yearly rent charge or other charge or rent being in the nature of a perpetual rent or rent charge.

The Minister knows the kind of case I had in mind when I put down this amendment. The amendment is directed really to amending Section 44 of the Land Act of 1931. Deputies will remember that that section made provision for admitting within the purview of the Land Acts three types of cases: (1) fee farm grants; (2) leases for lives renewable for ever, and (3) leases of which 60 years, or more, had to run at the passing of the Land Act of 1923. My amendment would add one further type of case: that is land held in fee simple which is subject to a perpetual rent charge. To all intents and purposes, that is really fee farm. As a matter of fact, most persons, if asked to define what fee farm is, would say: it is fee simple subject to a perpetual rent. The type of case that I want to get in is the case of fee simple holdings which are subject to perpetual rent charges. I am not tied to the wording of my amendment. As a matter of fact, I see very many objections to it myself. Perhaps that is the result of being a bit versed in the law, but I would like the Minister to consider making provision for the type of case that I have in mind.

The case is this: this was land which was sold in 1914. It was fee simple land, and at that sale there was created a perpetual rent charge of £80. The land was transferred in 1924 to the present owner. He paid a very substantial sum for it—£3,500. It is subject to this £80 of a perpetual yearly rent. He applied under Section 44 of the 1931 Act as amended. The Land Commission declared—I think rightly on a literal interpretation of the wording of the section—that he did not come within the purview of the Land Acts. Now to all intents and purposes that owner is a fee farm grantee. He holds this land subject to a perpetual rent change. Now, the objection to the thing may be stated in this way: that these rent charges mostly arise from family settlements. If some form of section could be drafted which would safeguard family settlements and at the same time allow in cases which can, by no stretch of the imagination, be called family settlements, it would meet my point.

I agree that, as the thing stands, there is that objection to it, because it is a common practice in the country, although I myself think it is a most undesirable practice, to have these charges created. I think it is undesirable, because I do not think land can bear them. You have men in the country, fathers of families, who are fairly big owners of land, which they hold in fee simple. A man has two sons. He gives his fee simple holding to the elder son, and creates a charge on behalf of the younger son and his heirs. That is where most of these rent charges normally arise. I do not think that a practice of that kind is a very commendable one—I mean that kind of family settlement. At the same time one cannot prevent it; but I do say this, that in these modern times I do not think land is able to bear that type of charge. At the same time, one feels that it would be rather heartless to say to the younger son that the brother who got the land would be able to go in the next week to the Land Commission and have his income reduced by one-fourth, as would happen if he were allowed within the benefits of Section 44 of the 1931 Act. I have made the case against, as well as for, my amendment. I want to put all my cards on the table. I know the objections to the amendment, and I know the objection there is to bringing this type of case within Section 44 of the Act of 1931, but I think the Minister might consider restricting my amendment in such a way as to safeguard family settlements if he thinks it well, and at the same time to allow in cases which have no relation whatever to family settlements. If the Minister could indicate that he would consider that between this and the Report Stage, I would be prepared to accept that assurance.

Mr. Kennedy

On this particular amendment, I want again to draw the Minister's attention to the cases I mentioned under Section 1, the cases under the 1881 Act which are subject to a perpetual charge. The Minister intervened at that time, and he said that the matter could be dealt with, I think, under Section 39 of the Land Act of 1933.

Mr. Boland

If the Deputy will allow me, I might say that I am having that matter examined for the Report Stage. I do not want to have the Deputy dealing with something which has already been arranged.

Mr. Bennett

With regard to Deputy Lynch's amendment, I also can see the possible difficulties if it were accepted in its present form, but there are probably not very many cases in the country that will come under it. There are a few that I know of. I think it might be possible for the Minister, on the Report Stage, to bring in something in the nature of a sub-section which will cover the cases Deputy Lynch had in mind, possibly by restricting its operations to a specified time, or restricting it in some other way. I know a couple of cases not covered by family arrangements; I know one case where the owner has been out of the country for the best part of a century, and the tenant could not come under the thing because of the perpetual rent-charge. It would be covered by something like Deputy Lynch's amendment. I should be glad if the Minister would look into the matter.

Mr. McMenamin

I should like to support the case made by Deputy Kennedy, and I was glad to hear that the Minister was considering that matter. I think it is a bona fide case, which should be dealt with. If those cases referred to by Deputy Lynch could be classified where the owners of the charge were in the capacity of landlords, provision might be made as in the case of receivers of rents under fee-farm grants, but where there are charges upon settlements in the nature of discharge of debts, the difficulty I see is that we cannot prevent it. If we make provision for that to-day, a new crop of family charges can be put on the books at once, and we will be confronted with them again. I think if they could be segregated into classes, where the rent-charge is paid to a person in his capacity as landlord, provision could be made for them. Apparently Deputy Lynch is not quite clear as to whether or not the receiver of the rent-charge in his case is in the capacity of landlord.

Mr. Belton

If there are rent-charges arising out of fee-farm grants, no matter what their origin they are of the same nature. I do not see how discrimination can be made.

Mr. Boland

The trouble about this amendment is that it is hard to draw the line. Deputy Lynch sees the difficulty. The most I can promise is that I will look into the matter to see whether there is any way of limiting the thing, but I do not think there is. If fee farm grants arise solely out of the letting of land or the use of land, those family settlements may be continued, and we do not know where we might be brought. Of course, I cannot accept the amendment, but, as Deputy Lynch has asked me to see whether there is any limited way in which the matter might be dealt with, I will have it examined. I do not think there is much hope.

Mr. Belton

There was in the 1903 Act a provision whereby a farm could not be mortgaged beyond eight times or ten times—I do not know which— the annuity. I do not know whether that is still the law. Deputy Lynch, in the case he put up, expressed fear of the danger of burdening land with too heavy charges—more than the land could bear. The only way to combat that would be for the Minister to put in a provision limiting the amount of charges that could be put on the farm.

Mr. Boland

If it happened to be fee simple land, how could we do that? If it is fee simple land we cannot interfere with it.

Mr. Belton

You cannot touch land that does not come under your administration, unless there is a section under which the owner could apply to have the rent redeemed. Then, I presume it would come under your jurisdiction. If it does come within your purview, I see no way of meeting the objection except by limiting the amount of charges that can be put on the land.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 46 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McMenamin

On the section, I should like to know what is the reason for the repealing of the provisions of paragraph (b) of Section 44 of the Land Act of 1931. The same explanation would cover sub-section (f) (i) and (ii). I am very doubtful about the wisdom of that, where a receiver has been put in by a creditor or somebody else to liquidate a debt. Where the Land Commission resumes land and deducts the redemption money, and then there is no money left or not sufficient money to discharge the debt which the receiver was there to liquidate on behalf of the creditor, does it not occur to the Minister that a very serious injustice might be done in that case? Has that been fully considered? What would justify such an injustice, I should like to know? Certainly it would take a lot to convince me that it is right to put into statutory form something which would deprive a person of rights that existed prior to the passing of this Bill. I think it would be a very drastic thing. Take sub-section (b)——

Mr. Boland

If I explain the purpose of the section, we will be on clearer ground.

This section was brought in very largely as a result of a case mentioned here several times in which, when the purchase money was allocated, the holder of the fee farm grant was left with practically nothing. The effect of this is going to be a more equitable distribution of the purchase money between the landlord and the holder of the fee farm grant. As the law stands, clause (b) of Section 44 of the 1931 Act provides that a person, in order to be admitted, must be in occupation and working the land in accordance with proper methods of husbandary. If that is not the case, the Land Commission has no power to admit him, with the result that to proceed with acquisition would mean that the landlord would get away with everything. We are amending that and providing that the Land Commission may admit the person to the benefits of the Land Purchase Acts and subsequently resume. The result is going to be a far more equitable distribution of the purchase money between the two.

Mr. Lynch

Would the Minister do anything with regard to the particular case mentioned?

Mr. Boland

I have looked into that and it is very difficult to do anything.

Mr. Lynch

Unless there was some ex gratia payment.

Mr. Boland

Nobody was pleased that that happened, but, as the law stood, there was no alternative but to do what was done.

Mr. Lynch

The Minister now has a precedent in the Ballyshannon fishery case. There is a precedent there where a verdict of the court operated very harshly on a particular individual. Undoubtedly, the action of the Land Commission in this Connolly case operated extremely harshly, and I think it would be a case where an ex gratia grant would have the approval of everybody.

Mr. Boland

In the other case I daresay the limit was known. The trouble about these things is that you do not know what sort of claims may be forthcoming. I am not in a position to promise anything.

Mr. Lynch

Perhaps the Minister would look into it.

Mr. Boland

It was suggested that some proposal might be made. I have asked the Land Commission to consider doing what was suggested by those Deputies. If that will meet the case, I am asking them openly to do it now, but I cannot compel them. I understood from the two Deputies who raised the matter that that would satisfy the people concerned.

Mr. Fagan

There are other cases in which the people were afraid to apply under the 1931 Act because of the Connolly case. Would it be advisable for them to apply now?

Mr. Lynch

There were cases where undoubtedly persons who were in a similar position to that of Mrs. Connolly knew very well that the moment they applied under Section 39 they would be drawing the Land Commission's attention to themselves. This section would probably open the door for them now to come in. I take it that nothing would be done pending the Land Commission's proceedings. This gives them now the benefit of Section 44 of the 1931 Act. I think it would be monstrous, if they put up the proposition now, that the Land Commission should walk in and resume. Most of these persons would have no objection to the resumption of the holding if they got a fair price. They could not possibly get a fair price as the law stood.

Mr. Boland

I am not a legal adviser. We are going to pass this section, and everyone will have to judge for himself what his position will be. This section does what I have said. It provides for a State contribution of 10 per cent as well. That is a big improvement on the present position. Do not ask me to advise any individuals what they should do.

Mr. McMenamin

A grave injustice was done to this woman. Unless the Minister, on the Report Stage, amends this section, there will be no authority for an ex gratia grant.

Mr. Boland

We cannot legislate for an individual case.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 47.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 23:—

Before Section 47, page 27, to insert a new section as follows:—

Where the Land Commission, on or in consequence of an application under sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Land Act, 1931, has (whether before or after the passing of this Act) apportioned, under sub-section (2) of that section, the rent reserved by the fee farm grant or lease under which the parcel of land to which such application relates is held, then and in such case, if the other land comprised in such fee farm grant or lease and on which a portion of such rent has been so apportioned is entitled to be indemnified by such parcel of land against the whole or a part of such rent, the following provisions shall (in addition to such (if any) of the provisions contained in the next preceding section as are applicable) apply and have effect, that is to say:—

(a) the Judicial Commissioner, on the application of the owner or owners of such other land and on notice to all parties interested, may make such provision, by way of a charge on such parcel of land or otherwise, as appears to him to be equitable for the preservation of the said right of indemnity;

(b) the Judicial Commissioner may at any time, on the application of any party interested, vary in any manner which appears to him to be equitable the charge created or other provision made by him under the next preceding paragraph of this section;

(c) the said charge (if any) created under this section on such parcel of land shall rank next in priority to the annual sum or annuity set up on such parcel of land in consequence of the said application under sub-section (1) of the said Section 44.

Perhaps I had better explain the section. Take a case where a person had a fee farm grant and sold portion of his land to another person and indemnified the part of the land which he gave to the other person by the land he was retaining; that is, he left the land sold free of rent and indemnified that by his own land. Then he subsequently applied to come under the provisions of Section 44. As the law stands at present, the Land Commission, if they grant that application, will apportion the rent on all the land, including the indemnified portion, and the result will be that the person who held his land free of rent, indemnified by the land of the other person who had applied for the benefit of the Land Act, would be in the position of having to pay rent where he had been paying no rent. This section will enable the Judicial Commissioner in such a case to see that the indemnity is continued and to put a charge on the indemnifying land, that is, the land of the person who made the application.

In clause (b) it may happen subsequently that a person whose land is indemnified also applies to come under the Land Purchase Act, and if that application is granted that person's rent may be reduced. This enables the Judicial Commissioner, on the application of the owner of the indemnified land on which the charge was put, to vary the charge if the circumstances have changed. The other clause deals with priority.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 47, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Belton

I should like to hear the Minister's views on this section. A great injustice might be done to local authorities under it. References were made to certain Acts that I have not looked up, and that I do not know the significance of, but if the Land Commission acquired land that belonged, say, to some of the parties Deputy Corry mentioned on the Second Reading, on which seven or eight years' rates were owing, the position is that the county council could only recover two years' rates. I do not think the Minister is taking any power to alter that position. If he is, it would save time and some effort on my part if he said so.

Mr. Boland

If land is acquired compulsorily, and if rates are due, the percentage collectable is not a matter for the Land Commission. That is a matter for the Department of Local Government. Whatever rates are due are charged against the purchase money. All we seek is to enable that to be done. In the case of a voluntary sale, where a person would be giving land voluntarily, whatever amount of rates was due, he would agree to have charged against the purchase money. We want authority to have that done.

Mr. Belton

Where there is a voluntary sale the rates will have to be paid up to the date of acquisition.

Mr. Boland

Whatever is due, and whatever we are entitled to collect.

Mr. Belton

Why not devise machinery whereby rates due on land compulsorily acquired must also be paid in full?

Mr. Boland

I am providing for whatever was collectable. I am not able to say that what is actually due is collectable. There is something in the Local Government Act about that. I cannot deal with it here. Whatever is legally collectable on land can be charged against the purchase money in the case of compulsory sales, and we seek the same right in voluntary cases.

Mr. Belton

If the Minister gave six or 12 months' notice to a county council that he intended to acquire certain land that council would be up and doing and would get a decree and register it against the purchase money for all the rates that would be payable.

Mr. Corry

Or a judgment mortgage.

Mr. Belton

Would the Minister consider that suggestion?

Mr. Boland

I do not want to consider anything that does not appertain to the Land Commission.

Mr. Belton

I am going to defend the payment of rates on land, but I am not going to stand for one man having to pay what is due by another. Why should the tenant of farm A have to pay the arrears of rates due by the tenant of farm B? That is what it amounts to. Why should a Government Department connive at swindling the county council? I believe the matter is worth considering.

Mr. Corry

Any county council that is minding its business can always recover the amount by judgment mortgage. It always does. The cases I mentioned some time ago, concerning some favourite pals of the Deputy in my part of the country, were where some had cleared out or where there was nothing for anybody. Some of them owed so much that it would take the whole amount of the purchase to clear off the debt.

Mr. Belton

Would the Minister consider giving notice to a local rating authority of his intention to acquire a certain farm?

Mr. Corry

I think that is done.

Mr. Boland

If a county secretary is doing his job he will know that.

Mr. Belton

A county secretary would not know it. I asked a question about it here and I would not be told when land was about being acquired.

Mr. Boland

Not publicly.

Mr. Belton

If a long time elapses after the Land Commission sets eyes on a farm, and before they actually make up their minds to inspect it, why should they not co-operate with the county councils and inform them that they are inspecting it with a view to acquisition? A county council would then be in fault if it did not take notice.

Mr. Boland

I can imagine what Deputy Dillon would say if we adopted the policy of inspecting land and notifying the county council. There is a difficulty there. Other people would not agree to that.

Mr. Corry

There is no necessity for that.

Mr. Belton

I do not see any difficulty about it. What about the arrears of annuities that may have been recouped from the Agricultural Grant?

An Ceann Comhairle

This section deals with the arrears of rates.

Mr. Belton

I know.

An Ceann Comhairle

In Committee you are confined to what is in the section.

Mr. Belton

Would the Minister not put arrears of annuities in the same position as rates?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is quite a different matter.

Mr. Belton

There may be annuities in the first instance, and they may have been recouped out of money intended for the relief of the rates.

Mr. Boland

If that was the case, it would be taken out of the purchase money, go into the Guarantee Fund, and be made good.

General MacEoin

When this section was put I thought it would have been agreed to. At the time I did not see any reason why it should not be agreed to, but I recall a case that occurred which suggested that the Minister should obtain certain power to get the full rates owing where the county council makes a case to the Land Commission. The Minister should then be in a position to stop the amount. I remember a case in connection with a holding belonging to a British Field Marshal that was burned and the rates were due. He succeeded in selling the place to the Land Commission, and because the county council had no statutory authority the rates could not be collected.

Mr. Boland

I take it that the Deputy is asking me to do what the Department of Local Government should do.

General MacEoin

That is what Deputy Lynch asks.

Mr. Boland

I can only deal with the Land Bill.

General MacEoin

If the Minister says this is a matter for the Minister for Local Government, I will deal with it at another opportunity.

Mr. Boland

It is a matter for him.

General MacEoin

This is a section of a Bill dealing with the acquisition of land. The Land Commission acquired the estate I referred to, and I am sure there are other estates in the same position. Because the Land Commission had not the power, they could not do it. If you say that it is properly for the Minister for Local Government, I will remember that.

Mr. Belton

Will the Minister notify the secretaries of county councils?

Mr. Boland

They would be afraid of what Deputy Dillon might say if I did that, and we are bad enough as it is.

Mr. Belton

I am asking the Minister, with a full knowledge of the significance of what I am asking.

Mr. Boland

I will not give any rash undertaking.

Mr. Allen

What reason is there for paying only two years' arrears of rates?

Mr. Boland

The Local Government Act.

General MacEoin

That is what you are after hearing now.

Mr. Allen

Most local authorities think that is a great injustice.

Mr. Boland

Tell it all to the Minister for Local Government—I have been told enough.

Mr. Allen

I would like the Minister and the Land Commission to bear this in mind, that the county councils blame the Land Commission, because, in most cases where rates are owing, land annuities also are owing. If there are large arrears of rates, there will also be large arrears of annuities. I have been harping at the Land Commission for years to deal with these holdings, but there is no sign of them doing it. There are many instances in County Wexford where there are arrears of rates and annuities going back 10, 12, and 15 years.

Mr. Gorey

And they have possession of the land yet?

Mr. Allen

Those holdings are derelict or semi-derelict.

General MacEoin

You may raise that on the Vote for the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Gorey

Are the Land Commission not taking them up and dividing them?

Mr. Allen

They have not done so. The Land Commission are to blame for leaving them there and the other ratepayers are paying the rates and annuities for these derelict holdings. The Land Commission have failed in their duty in that respect and I would remind the Minister again of his duty to the ratepayers in particular local areas.

Mr. Lynch

Will Deputy Allen give an undertaking to us now that he will support a motion put down by us, directing the Minister for Local Government to amend the law so as to enable county councils and other local authorities to collect all the rates due in a case of that kind? If he does, we will put down the motion. I trust he will get as much support as he can from that side, so that the motion will be carried.

Mr. Corry

With regard to the cases mentioned by Deputy Allen, I have ennumerated many other cases—I am sick ennumerating them. The trouble with them is that the amendments brought in to the last Land Act and the previous Land Act by Deputies opposite put us in the cart here. Now when we are trying to give the Land Commission power to take over these holdings you are still trying to prevent it.

Mr. Lynch

The Minister knows quite well, just as everybody else knows, that Deputy Corry is talking absolute nonsense. There was no amendment put down that had any effect in the matter of rates. The Deputy spoke at great length on various stages, and he said that the amendments put down here were directed to making work for the lawyers. The very opposite is the case. The Bill that the Minister has brought in is directed towards opening up applications that have been closed down because of a legal decision. Because of this Bill there will be ten times more work for the lawyers. I am glad to be able to assure Deputy Corry that there will be ten times more work in the Land Commission Courts for us than there has been for the last couple of years since there were a couple of those decisions.

Mr. Belton

I do not think Deputy Allen realises what can be done under this section with regard to that matter of the rates. Where there is a voluntary sale, all arrears must be paid up to date of closing. Where there is a compulsory acquisition, as the law stands only two years' arrears of rates are recoverable. If the county council was awake and took legal proceedings and got judgment for all arrears due, and registered that as a judgement mortgage against the lands, then out of the purchase money of those lands those rates would have to be paid.

Mr. Allen

I am aware of that.

Mr. Belton

What I am asking the Minister to do is to notify the county council of his intention to inspect a farm or farms. That is the signal for the county council to look up the rate books and see how the rate position stands. If they are very much in arrears, and if the county council looks after its business, it will take proceedings at once, get judgment, and register that judgment, and the county council will lose nothing. All the arrears of rates will have to be paid, and the same result with accrue as if the law with regard to the limitation of two years' arrears was amended. Of course, the two years' arrears apply only when the title of land changes.

Mr. Allen

I know that, and all the county councils know it, but their trouble is that the Land Commission never touch one of those farms.

Mr. Belton

Why is the Deputy supporting the taking of land from people who work it, while you have these derelict farms? When lands are taken voluntarily all arrears are paid out of the purchase money, and when lands are taken compulsorily only two years' arrears are recoverable. Why cannot the Minister inform the county council that he proposes inspecting the land and then the local authority will not lose anything on the score of rates?

Mr. Corry

What a fine speech Deputy Belton would make at the county council meeting if there was a letter from the Minister saying that the Land Commission intended inspecting such and such a holding with a view to its acquisition. It is bad enough to have Deputy Dillon complaining that we dare inspect them at all, or let any hint out that would spoil a free sale. We had a long talk about fixity of tenure and free sale.

Mr. Belton

What has that to do with it?

Mr. Corry

If the Minister proceeds on Deputy Belton's plan and gives them the idea that they will inspect the place, it will be a notice to the county council and it will be read out there.

Mr. Belton

It can be sent in confidence to the secretary of the county council, to be considered at the finance committee, which is held in private.

Mr. Corry

And Deputy Belton would be the first man to insist that the Press be allowed in to hear it.

Mr. Belton

I could not invite the Press, because at the committee meeting the Press are not admitted.

Section 47 agreed to.

SECTION 48.

Question proposed: "That Section 48 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bennett

I think the persons from whom land might be resumed would have a particular grievance in the case of the redemption of drainage charges. Drainage charges in a district are meant to be a general benefit, not a benefit for any particular farmer. To mulct one farmer because a district needed drainage seems to be perfectly unjust. Take the case of the owner of land on which there was a drainage scheme completed last year and the maintenance charges were arranged last year. They might amount to a considerable sum. The Land Commission might resume the year after the drainage was completed and the maintenance charge arranged. Out of the purchase money you are going to stop the redemption value of the drainage charge, which might run in some cases to hundreds of pounds, certainly to a good percentage of what is going to be got for the place. I think it is completely unjust, and I do not think the Minister really can justify the section. I know of several instances where drainage schemes have been completed within the last three or four years and there are very heavy maintenance rates as a result. If, to-day or to-morrow, these farms were resumed and the redemption price of these drainage maintenance charges paid, it would run, in some cases, into hundreds of pounds.

Mr. Gorey

Is the Deputy speaking of maintenance charges?

Mr. Bennett

Yes, maintenance charges for drainage schemes that are for the benefit of a district. The farmer is compelled to fall in with the scheme, whether he likes it or not, and in many cases, in my district at any rate, farmers have resented it. A man, for instance, might have been against the drainage system altogether from the first, because he would not be affected by it and would not get any benefit, but because he was in a minority he would have to agree and would have a drainage charge put upon him—a charge that he never asked for —and some of these are very heavy charges and, if they were to be redeemed after a year or so, it would amount to hundreds of pounds in some cases. I think that this is altogether unjust.

Mr. McMenamin

I wanted to put a point to the Minister in connection with sub-section (1) (a) of this section. I do not know of any particular case, and I am only dealing with the clause in itself. Surely, it is inequitable, where work has been done, which is going to be a continuing benefit, to charge that against one man when you are taking over his land. I am not concerned at all as to whether a man agrees that drainage should be done or not. What I consider wrong is that this should be treated as a capital sum of whatever drainage charges will be voted, whereas this is going to be a continuing benefit to whatever person will get the land. As I say, I have no particular case in mind, as, apparently, Deputy Bennett has. I am dealing with the principle of the thing, and on the face of it this clause seems to be grossly inequitable. I think that the Minister should remodel it or recast it between this and the Report Stage. Of course, it is following the practice with regard to the redemption of the purchase money, but the two things are not on a par at all. You are putting a man out who is getting no benefit at all and you charge him on the purchase money as if he were getting the benefit, whereas the benefit is a continuing one, and is given for continuing purposes.

Mr. Belton

I have no particular case in mind either, but I support the point made by Deputy McMenamin, that drainage is a continuing service and that, when the Land Commission buys the land, or whoever buys it, and gives it to anybody, they are giving that service over to these people and they should pay for it. Take the case that Deputy Bennett mentioned—that a drainage scheme may have been carried out last year. The full benefit of that scheme will not accrue for a number of years, and every year the benefit will be increasing. Yet, you are asking the man who is going out to pay the capital cost of the benefit that is going to accrue to his successor for years to come. That is not fair, and the market value of the land that is selling is not enhanced by that capital amount just now. I think that in that case the purchase money should be left intact.

Mr. Gorey

There is a worse aspect of this matter than has been mentioned. If land is in a very bad condition, it must be bearing a small rate and a small annuity, and, therefore, the purchaser would get the benefit of that small rate and small annuity. If the land is going to appreciate, the increased value should be put on the man who is buying it and going to occupy it for the future and get the benefit of it. It would be utterly unjust— although it might be easy from the book-keeping point of view—to saddle the man who is going out with what he has derived no benefit from, while the man who is buying the land must be buying it while it is bearing a small annuity and a small rate and is also getting all the benefit.

Mr. Kennedy

I can put a case where the rent includes the drainage charge and the drainage is carried out by the landlord, and I do not agree with the other Deputies who have spoken.

Mr. Bennett

This is not a question of the landlord, but of drainage done by the Board of Public Works or by the Land Commission or anybody else. Let us say that there is a drainage maintenance charge for drainage that is done to-day. I could give several instances of such schemes. There have been wholesale drainage schemes down in my county. I do not know if Deputies from other counties are as careful as we in Limerick are with regard to the carrying out of drainage schemes, but we have had many of them, and some have been completed within the last three or four years. Deputies may not know what occurs in these cases. A vote of the whole district is taken. Some people have been against these schemes because they said that they had got no benefit whatever from the drainage, and in many cases it is problematical if they did get any benefit, because their holdings may be a good bit away from the river, but they are brought into the scheme whether they like it or not.

It is possible that they might make a good case showing that they had not benefited by the drainage. As a matter of fact, they are making complaints of that nature every day to the county councils in order to try to get out of it. Now, these drainage charges may be very heavy, amounting to £30 or £40 perhaps where land has been drained within the last two or three years, and yet you ask a man to redeem that charge of £19 or £20 or £30 annually out of the purchase price. I think it is unjust, and it would eat up the resumption price.

Mr. Kennedy

My point is that I know of a particular case of land, which is vested now, where the rent charge included a drainage charge, and the drainage was carried out by the landlord.

General MacEoin

That is not in this.

Mr. Gorey

There is no such thing in Ireland as a landlord.

Mr. Corry

I should like to make one point. I know of drainage schemes that have been carried out where the land was useless previously. Take the Awbeg scheme, near Buttevant. Anybody who travels down there can see the improvement that has been made in that land. Naturally, when the Land Commission come along to value that land they value the improved land, and I think that I certainly would not agree that the man going out should have to pay for the future maintenance of that scheme. I think that would be unfair. It speaks here of the drainage maintenance charge, and I do not think that the man going out should have to pay for the future maintenance of a scheme which would be conferring a benefit, not on him, but on the man coming in. I see that point, but I certainly think that the man going out should pay something for the improvement caused in that land by the drainage scheme which increased its value.

Mr. Belton

But he had paid it in the previous maintenance charges.

Mr. Corry

That is my point. Take the Awbeg scheme, to which I have referred, where the county council and the ratepayers subscribed £12,000 towards the improvement. The ratepayers of the county paid two-thirds of the money, and only one-third of the money fell on the land holders. Anybody travelling from Cork to Dublin, along there outside Mallow, and comparing the land with what it was some years ago, can see the improvement in that land, which at one period was a complete swamp.

Twelve or fourteen years ago it was valueless but if the Land Commission go in there to-day and value it, it is worth at least £1 an acre. Surely that valuation is going to be put on improved land, for which this man has already paid very little or nothing. As a matter of fact, I think the drainage scheme has now been carried out seven years and last year was the first year they had to pay anything.

General MacEoin

Why should he have to redeem it?

Mr. Corry

If the value of that land has been increased by that drainage scheme, surely the man is going to get an increased sum and should pay at least some of the drainage costs. I agree that he should not be asked to pay for the future maintenance of it.

Mr. Bennett

That is the point. It is the maintenance charge we are talking about.

Mr. Corry

He should be asked to pay something for the improvement of it.

Mr. Boland

Maybe if I were to intervene I could clear the matter up. This is a case where land has been taken from the owner and out of the purchase price the drainage charge will be redeemed and the incoming tenants will be relieved. But the annual drainage rate, where there is a new scheme, will not be affected. It is a question of where there was a drainage charge on land and the lands have been acquired for distribution amongst tenants, that charge is required to be redeemed out of the purchase money, so that the tenants will not be saddled with the charge. Instead of putting a burden on the tenants in this case, it is relieving them.

Mr. Hughes

That is not a maintenance charge; that is an improvement charge.

Mr. Gorey

That is not maintenance.

Mr. Hughes

Maintenance charge is to pay for work that is done annually.

Mr. Lynch

Why should a person from whom the land is being taken be made to foot the bill for the whole lot for all future years? After all, the new tenants coming in are going to get the benefit of what he is being made to pay for. It does not seem to be fair. I think a case has been made against this section, and the Minister ought to reconsider it. It does not matter whether it is being given to one or distributed amongst a number or being given over to a new purchaser, it seems to me unfair that the outgoing man— the vendor he will be called in this case—should be made to foot the bill for all the future maintenance of this drainage until it is fully discharged. Why should not those who will be gaining the benefit in years to come bear a portion of the charge? It seems to me that there is a case for reconsidering that whole section.

Mr. Gorey

The use of the word "maintenance" is altogether misleading.

Mr. Boland

On this section I have got to make a confession. I have not gone into it fully myself. I am not undertaking to do anything more than to reconsider it, but I admit that in this particular case I am not sufficiently familiar with the section to meet the points that have been raised. It is a very difficult Bill, and I would like to have an opportunity of reconsidering it.

Mr. Gorey

I want the Minister to remember that where drainage has not been in operation before one could easily call that construction. Where it was and where it fell into a bad state, it could be called restoration, but "maintenance" means to maintain something in the condition it had already reached.

Mr. Boland

I am not quite familiar with every phase of the Bill, and for my own convenience I would like to have an opportunity of reconsidering it.

Question agreed to.

Section 49 agreed to.

SECTION 50.

Question proposed: "That Section 50 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lynch

I want to know why this section has been deemed necessary? I understood that every one of these persons came in under Section 14 of the 1931 Act as amended afterwards by the 1933 Act. I would like to know what has arisen that has made it appear to the Minister that this is necessary. Of course it was "tenants" that were mentioned in Section 14.

Mr. Boland

It is provided that the landlord or the person who creates a sub-tenancy should furnish particulars to the Land Commission and, if he does not do it, the section makes provision for the sub-tenant himself to do it, which provision was not there already.

Mr. Lynch

Of course what the sub-tenant will have to do is to apply, just as was already provided for under Section 14 of the Act of 1931, to the Land Commission that they should make an order to the owner of the land to return the particulars. I take it that difficulty has arisen as between tenant and sub-tenant?

Mr. Boland

Exactly.

Mr. Lynch

Very well. That is all right. With that I am in agreement. I think the section should be there. I would like it to be made clear if the word "landlord" there applies to the immediate landlord in this case. Sub-tenants are mostly sub-tenants of ordinary farmers, and in that case the word "landlord", about line 48, in the phrase—"may apply in the prescribed manner to the Land Commission for an order requiring the landlord of the said holding to furnish to the Land Commission in accordance with the said sub-section the particulars of such holding and of the sub-tenancies thereon"— would mean the person who was the immediate landlord of the particular sub-tenant?

Mr. Boland

That is the case.

Mr. Lynch

If that is clear, I agree with that.

General MacEoin

Deputy Lynch is a very powerful advocate of certain aspects of tenant rights and so on. I feel that under this particular section that again the question of fact must be taken into consideration by the Land Commission, and when the subtenant has applied to have his holding declared an agricultural holding within the meaning of the section and Section 44 of the 1931 Act, when the Land Commission or the Land Commission tribunal have heard the case and have heard the facts, that that applicant by his own sweat and blood and tears has redeemed that little parcel of land, that little six or seven acres that he is living on, notwithstanding the fact that it may incommode a big holding or a big tenant of the Land Commission, they should admit that above all considerations. This is an application by sub-tenants of holdings to have particulars furnished, and, conversely, to have them declared agricultural holdings: is not that right?

Mr. Boland

So that they would be admitted to the benefits of land purchase?

General MacEoin

It is a natural consequence. Therefore I am perfectly in order in making a case on this sub-section.

Mr. Boland

I thought the Deputy was asking me for some information.

General MacEoin

No. I am making the case for application under this section. Deputy Lynch has tried to tell me that I am not in order, but I do not take it from him, or the Minister either. I will take it from you, Sir, whenever you rule accordingly.

I hold that, where a tenant has held for, say, 20, 30 or 40 years—again I will go back to "Knocknagow"—and has redeemed or reclaimed his little holding of 6, 7 or 10 acres, or whatever it is, out of the bog, and has paid his annuity fully—not to the Land Commission, but to the tenant owner who already holds under the Land Commission, the Land Commission should be compelled to admit that case. I do not want to stress it any further than that. The argument may be answered by saying that there are several other ways of getting over the difficulty, but I want it to go down on record here that I stand for that principle, that where a man has redeemed or reclaimed 6 or 7 acres of bog and has reared a family of fine children on it and has made a good living on it for himself and his wife and family, he should get the benefit of the Land Acts, that that holding should be declared an agricultural holding, and that the Land Commission should be compelled to grant the application.

Mr. Boland

This section is to provide for that. Where a person who made a letting has not furnished the particulars and is trying to obstruct, such a person as a Deputy has been speaking about can furnish the particulars himself. As far as compelling the Land Commission, we cannot say we will compel them: they will have to go into the merits of every case.

General MacEoin

But say that the tenant has applied, and that the Land Commission does not say he comes within the section.

Mr. Boland

There would not be the slightest question about that, but we must not compel them in a particular case. They have to decide that themselves. This is to deal with a case of that kind, by providing that where the person who makes the letting has not furnished the particulars, the tenant himself can do it. That was not provided for before.

General MacEoin

What good is it if he does not get in?

Mr. Boland

He will get in. It is in order to enable him to get in that we are doing this.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 51, 52 and 53 agreed to.

SECTION 54.

The following amendment appeared on the Order Paper:

Before Section 54 to insert a new section as follows:—

Where any land or portion of any land is put out of commission through flooding or is submerged and such land or portion of such land is relieved of liability for rates to the local authority during any year of assessment on the certificate of the revisor, then and only during such period of relief from liability for rates the Land Commission on the certificate of the revisor shall not collect annuities in respect of such flooded or submerged land.—(Deputy Wm. Broderick).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle has ruled this amendment out of order on the grounds that it proposes to impose a charge on public funds.

Mr. Corry

I wonder would the Minister consider that point. Practically all along the sea coast there are large portions of holdings for which the tenants are paying annuities for the full acreage, whereas 50 per cent. of it is gone away with the tide.

Mr. Boland

There is power to deal with that already.

Mr. F. Lynch

It is under the Land Act of 1933, Section 38.

Mr. Boland

I understood we were not going to debate this. What I understand Deputy Broderick wants us to do is to take some one else's opinion as to whether the land is submerged or not. There is already power to deal with submerged land.

Mr. F. Lynch

We accepted the ruling of the Chair on that point. I understand it was dealt with under the Act of 1933, that at any time the Land Commission can come down, and on the question as to whether or not the place is security for the annuity that is being paid, surely the Land Commission can always revise an annuity. I think the Land Commission —unless I am entirely wrong — is free, under Section 38 of the Land Act of 1933, to deal with cases before they are vested in the tenants and to revise the annuity if the lands are not security.

Mr. Boland

That is the point.

Mr. Corry

My point is that apparently it is inoperative.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter is out of order. We are either discussing something that is in order or not.

Question proposed: "That Section 54 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Belton

I would like to know the extent of the powers the Minister is taking and vesting in the Land Commission under this Section. In the case of a seaside town that suffers from drifting sand, is there power under this Section for the Land Commission to go into occupation or possession of the foreshore and take what steps are considered advisable to prevent this nuisance?

Mr. Boland

It is only for land; we are not going into towns. We can only take measures to prevent lands being covered by sand.

Mr. Belton

Then, are towns to be left alone?

Mr. Boland

It is not our concern. The Land Commission has enough to do to deal with land. I am not saying that these things should be left alone, but it is a matter for someone else to deal with.

Mr. Belton

Why would the Land Commission not be that someone else?

Mr. Boland

Because they have quite sufficient to do already.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Belton seems to be getting very great confidence in the Land Commission.

Mr. Belton

I have in mind a town in my own constituency that is suffering from this, and if it is considered advisable to prevent drifting sand on a bleak sea shore, surely it is more advisable and more urgent to prevent drifting sand from drifting over a town.

Mr. Boland

Some one else ought to tackle that job.

Mr. Belton

I think that there is so little of it that it would be hardly worth dividing and that the Land Commission could very reasonably be expected to do this when taking on the job at all. It would take very little to do it. Perhaps a judicious sowing of bent would give a little relief, and I am sure that the local authority would gladly co-operate, and I think the town landlords would co-operate also. The town I have in mind is Skerries, in my constituency, and I would suggest to the Minister that where a town suffers from drifting sand that accumulates owing to peculiar currents of wind, he should take it within his purview. If nobody else does it he could take it and deal with it and, if he had too much to do, he could then ask to be relieved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce or by the Board of Works—whichever would be the proper authority. By a happy coincidence we have the Minister for Finance here at the moment.

Mr. Boland

You might say that one small town has, I believe, been practically saved, but the object of the Land Commission was to save land from being submerged. The town I mean is that of Dunfanaghy, in Donegal, which had been nearly destroyed altogether. Owing to the sand fixation and the operations of the Land Commission, the village was saved. That was incidental, but I am quite sure that if Skerries, or other towns, want that done, and if the county council, or whatever authority has control, ask for advice and help, the Land Commission will be glad to give it. It would, however, be too much to ask them to extend their activities to all towns.

Mr. Belton

If the county council ask for help——

Mr. Boland

If they want advice.

Mr. Belton

——the Land Commission will consider it. How can they give help, if they have not got the authority to do so?

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister is limiting his help to advice?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. Belton

I can get an old fisherman in Skerries Harbour who will give me advice better than that which the Land Commission can give me.

Mr. Boland

The best thing is to do nothing, then, and let Skerries look after itself.

Mr. Belton

We want somebody to execute the work.

Mr. Boland

All right. Get someone else.

Mr. Belton

The Minister refuses to look after towns which may be submerged?

Mr. Boland

Absolutely. I have no authority to do it.

Mr. Belton

Then it is only eye-wash to be talking about saving land from drifting sand.

Mr. Boland

I should like to give Deputies an opportunity of seeing what the Land Commission has done in this matter, and I will try to arrange to have photographs, taken before and after, placed where they can see them. I am sure they will all be impressed with the good work done in the matter.

Mr. Gorey

Where?

Mr. Boland

In different parts of the country. I will try to make these photographs available.

Mr. Gorey

What about an excursion?

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 55, 56 and 57 agreed to.

SECTION 58.

Question proposed: "That Section 58 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cosgrave

Would the Minister say how far he is prepared to go in this direction?

Mr. Boland

This is a case where the Land Commission have houses on their hands which they have been unable to get rid of and which they are compelled to sell for cash. This will give them power to make advances to enable the occupier to purchase them. They are houses which are actually in the hands of the Land Commission and which they cannot dispose of.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is this a case in which there is a second purchase transaction, or is it a first purchase transaction only?

Mr. Boland

These houses were bought by the Congested Districts Board.

Mr. Cosgrave

Then it is a second purchase transaction?

Mr. Boland

No, it is a case of re-sale to a tenant and enables the Land Commission to give an advance, where the tenant has not got the cash.

Mr. Cosgrave

There were cases formerly subject to an advance and a purchase scheme was on foot.

Mr. Boland

This applies to houses which formed part of an estate, the whole of which was bought by the Congested Districts Board, all the houses being in villages and towns. No land is attached to them. The Land Commission had power only to make advances for the purchase of land. The houses are on the hands of the Land Commission and they want to get rid of them. They were empowered to sell them only for cash, and simply as houses. The occupiers were not in a position to get the cash, and this enables the purchase money to be advanced, repayable by an annuity.

Mr. Cosgrave

I know, but what I asked the Minister was whether these houses were formerly the subject of a sale and of an advance.

Mr. Boland

No, they were not.

Mr. Cosgrave

What is the meaning of "re-sale" if that is so?

Mr. Boland

When the Land Commission takes over, it re-sells to the allottees. The point is that it was sold by the landlord to the Congested Districts Board, and then re-sold by the Congested Districts Board to these people. That is where the re-sale comes in. The same thing applies to land. The land is bought from the landlord and re-sold to the allottees.

Mr. Cosgrave

There was no previous sale to the tenants, even though they were not able to put up the money?

Mr. Boland

No, there was not.

Question put and agreed to.

TITLE.

Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."

Mr. Cosgrave

The point arises as to whether the Title is in conformity with the section to which I took exception, Section 5. This is a Bill to amend and extend the Land Purchase Acts in divers respects. It seeks also to amend, alter or repeal the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Acts. Obviously that is not included in the Title and the question for the Minister is whether he should amend the Title.

Mr. Boland

I will look into it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, July 4th.