Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Apr 1941

Vol. 82 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Lands.

Tairgim:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £852,147 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íioctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1942, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a. 4; 48 agus 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 54 agus 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7. Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923; Uimh. 25 de 1925; Uimh. 11 de 1926; Uimh. 19 de 1927; Uimh. 31 de 1929; Uimh. 11 de 1931; Uimh. 33 agus Uimh. 38 de 1933; Uimh. 11 de 1934; Uimh. 41 de 1936; agus Uimh. 26 de 1939).

That a sum not exceeding £852,147 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1942, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission (44 & 45 Vict., c. 49, sec. 46, and c. 71, sec. 4; 48 & 49 Vict. c. 73, secs. 17, 18 and 20; 54 & 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38, and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42, Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923; No. 25 of 1925; No. 11 of 1926; No. 19 of 1927; No. 31 of 1929; No. 11 of 1931; Nos. 33 and 38 of 1933; No. 11 of 1934; No. 41 of 1926; and No. 26 of 1939).

Tá laigheadú de £115,135 ar mhéid an Mheastacháin do Thailte i gcóir na bliana 1941-42. Nuair a bhí an Meastachán á chur le chéile do rinneadh scrúdú cúramach faoi gach Altán de d'fhonn go ndéanfaí, ag cuimhneamh ar an mór-phráinn atá ann faoi láthair, fearachas ar gach slí ab'fhéidir. Is faoi Altán I (Estáit d'fheabhsú, etc.) atá an laigheadú is mó. Isé méid atá á lorg faoi'n Altán san i gcóir na bliana so ná £457,950; £560,255 do hiarradh anuraidh. Fagann san go bhfuil laigheadú de £102,305 á dhéanamh. Isé fá ndeár a lán den laigheadú so ná nach féidir do Choimisiún na Talmhan faoi láthair oiread tailimh agus is gnáth a thógaint agus a roinn toisc an chuma ina bhfuil cúrsaí. Tá cuid mhaith d'fhuirinn Choimisiún na Talmhan tugtha ar iasacht do Ranna eile go ceann na tréimhse práinne, agus tiocfaidh den disciú fóirne seo, agus fós de sna deacrachtaí de dheascaibh ganntan abhar tógála, go laghdófar caiteachas faoi'n Altán so. Chífear ón ráiteas ar an meastachán a cuireadh chun na dTeachtaí go bhfuil deighilt níos mionchruinne déanta an turas so ar na hítimí atá san Altán. Tá iomlán an mheastacháin, £457,950, do réir an chaiteachais faoi'n Altán so i rith na bliana so caithte.

Is beag de sna hAltáin eile den Vóta so atá de chineál gur féidir mórán laigheadú dhéanamh ortha, agus tá gearr-chuid aca is gá a mhéadú beagán in aghaidh na bliana. Dob fhéidir £7,455 do shábháil sa gcaiteachas ar Thuarastail, Pagh agus Liúntaisí faoi Altán A. Is toisc folúntaisí d'fhágaint gan líonadh do thárla an chuid is mó den tsábháil seo. Tá laigheadú de £1,000 ar chostaisí. Taistil faoi Altán B. Táthar ag braith air go sábhálfar £2,000 faoi Altán E.2—Fo-Chostaisí Brainse an Atúrnae—toisc gan an oiread imeachta do bheith ar siúl chun tailte do thógaint fé sna hAchtanna Talmhan 1923-39; agus meastar go sabhálfar fairis sin £2,500 faoi Altán J—Roimh-íoc chun slánuithe easnaimh in ioncum o thailte nea-thionóntaithe ar n-a gceannach faoi na hAchtanna seo. Níl aon atharú ar fhurmhór na nAltán eile agus is ar éigin is gá éinní rá ina dtaobh.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Tá na Leithreasaí-i-gCabhair ar có-mhéid nach mór le Leithreasaí na bliana anuraidh, mar is beag ná go bhfuil suim na méaduithe in ítimí áirithe cothrom le suim na luigheaduithe sna hítimí eile.

Maidir le hobair Choimisiún na Talmhan i gcoitinne i rith na bliana so caithte, dob éigin í laigheadú toisc a leath-lámhachaighe bhíothas i gcúrsaí fuirinne. Níl na figiúirí deiridh maidir le talamh do roinnt i rith na bliana ar fáil go fóill, ach ní miste a mheas go ndearnadh tuairim agus 32,000 acra de thalamh nea-thionóntaithe do thógaint chun é roinnt agus 28,000 acra do roinnt ina 2,550 gabháltas. Caitheadh tuairim agus £457,000 ar estát d'fheabhsú. Má cuimhnítear ar na deacrachtaí a bhí ag cur as do Choimisiún na Talmhan tuigfear gur eirigh go maith leo i rith na bliana.

Tá bailiú na mBlianacht Talamh-Cheannaigh sásúil go leor freisin. Isé riaráiste iomlán a bhí ann an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1941, i leith na nGálaí uile go dtí an ladh lá de Mhí na Nodlag, 1940, ná tuairim agus £897,000—sin laigheadú de bhreis agus £54,000 i gcompráid leis an riaráiste, a bhí ann an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940.

Tá feabhas chó maith céanna ar Bhailiúchán an ghála dheiridh (gála Mí na Samhna-Mí na Nodlag, 1940) i gcompráid le Bailiúchán ghála Mí na Samhna-Mí na Nodlag, 1939.

Do rinneadh lucht ocht dteaghlach is fiche d'Imirceoirí Comharsanacha eile do shuidheamh i ngabháltaisí nua i rith na bliana so caithte, agus bheadh dhá cheann déag eile aistrithe um an dtaca so mara mbeadh an Galar Coise agus Béil.

Isé an uimhir iomlán de lucht teaghlach Imirceoirí Comharsanacha atá suidhte i ngabháltaisí nua anois ná 128. Fairis sin, tá 122 i gCóilíneachta. Tá toradh fónta ar an obair seo, na daoine d'aistriú ina scataí beaga ón Iarthar go dtí an tOirthear agus is féidir dá dhruim an talamh as a dtógtar daoine do roinnt ar dhaoine sa cheanntar ar a bhfuil géar-easba talmhan agus gan aon tslí eile ann chun teacht i gcabhair ortha.

Ceist an-tábhachtach i láthair na huaire seadh ceist na móna, agus tá Coimisiún na Talmhan ag féachaint chuige go speisialta go mbainfear an oiread móna agus is féidir é sna portaigh atá ina seilbh. Táthar ag deighleáil chó tapaidh agus is féidir é le scéimeanna chun portaigh do roinnt. I gcásanna nach féidir portaigh atá i seilbh Choimisiún na Talmhan do roinnt, táthar tar éis an méid banncán portaigh is féidir do chur ar cíos, agus déanfaidh an Coimisiún gach a bhfuil ar a gcumas chun cabhrú le hUdaráis Aitiúla san iarracht atá á dhéanamh aca chun breis tein-abhair a chur ar fáil.

First of all I should like to thank the Minister in regard to one particular aspect of his Department. It is connection with a matter which I raised on the Estimate last year and on the Estimate in 1939. I am quite sure that the Minister will recollect it, and will not be aggravated because I raise the point again. It is the question of his interpretation of the provisions of the Land Act of 1933 as regards the repayment of annuities, and my interpretation of it. On the occasion of this Estimate last year I went as fully as I possibly could into my interpretation of the Land Act of 1933. I contended that the Minister's Department were not carrying out the interpretation which the Government had put upon the Land Act of 1933 as regards the repayment of annuities and as regards the halving of the capital charge on the farmers. The reason I say I wish to thank the Minister is that I gave the Minister very short notice on the occasion of the Estimate last year, and he went to the greatest possible trouble in looking up the point. He was kind enough to write to me very voluminously on his interpretation of the Department's interpretation of the Act. I must say he went to the greatest trouble and detail in explaining the point. The only thing I regret is that, the Minister having gone to all that trouble to explain his interpretation or his Department's interpretation of the 1933 Act in that respect, we are as far away from agreeing as ever. I am very much afraid that the real difficulty arises from the fact that, as far as even a legal interpretation of the 1933 Act is concerned, you will not get any two people to agree on an interpretation of it.

My whole point is this, and I think I made the Minister aware of it last year, that the Government interpretation of the Act showed that on the halving of the annuities the capital charge was halved. That is one interpretation of the spirit, at any rate, if not the letter, of the 1933 Act. It is the spirit and the letter of the 1933 Act as regards certain types of annuities. But the defence for the present interpretation is based entirely on the provisions of, I think, Section 22 of the Land Act, 1933. When the Minister gave me his interpretation last year, I could quite see how he based his argument on the Act, but my difficulty is that his interpretation and his Department's interpretation are in direct contradiction of the entire policy both of the Government and of the Department over a period of years prior to the passage of the Land Act of 1933 and subsequent to it. The difficulty is this, that even though they may be right in their technical interpretation of the reduction of the capital charge on the farmers they are definitely not right in their legal interpretation. I contended last year that, if the repayment value of an annuity was £50 five minutes before the Land Act of 1933 was passed, the repayment value of the annuity should have been £25 five minutes after the Land Act of 1933 was passed.

The Deputy knows of course that the Dáil has no judicial functions.

I understand that. I say that the Department officials and, we will say, the people who are dealing with the figures are not in agreement about the calculation. That was my interpretation of the Minister's policy. If that interpretation is correct, the Department is wrong. Of course, I quite understand that where the little clause is in about an annuity containing a funding annuity a different question arises, but if the capital liability was halved on the passing of the 1933 Act the repayment value of the annuity after the passing of the Act should have been exactly half what it was immediately before the passing of the Act. But that is the technical interpretation of it. The normal way of looking at it is this, that if you or I or the Minister or anybody else is buying a farm we will naturally assess the price we will pay for it on the value of the farm free from incumbrances. The position at the moment is that if the farm was purchased in 1903, the advance on that farm being £1,000 and the annuity roughly £20 a year, the annuity by the operation of the 1933 Act has been reduced to roughly half of £20, something in the neighbourhood of £10 a year, but as far as the Minister's examination or my examination of the incumbrances on the farm is concerned the land certificate on that farm still includes a charge for the full amount of the advance originally made under the particular Land Act, whether it was 1888 or down to 1933. If the Minister is correct in the statement he gave to me, I think a very simple way of solving the difficulty—where it appears on the land certificate that a farm is subject to an annuity of so much until an advance of so much has been paid, and where the original advance still appears on the face of the documents of title—would be that a note should be entered on the land certificate and in the register that that liability does not exist, and that the correct liability which exists at the moment under the 1933 Act should be ascertained, so that it would be made quite clear to any purchaser of land or any person who may be asked to advance money on the security of a land certificate exactly what is the capital charge due to the State by the person who owns the land.

I myself contend that the departmental interpretation of the halving of the annuities is entirely wrong. I take one specific instance—a small figure and an easy figure to deal with— an annuity of roughly £5 per annum prior to the passing of the 1933 Act. This was a holding purchased under the 1903 Act. The original advance was £131. The repayment value of the annuity immediately prior to the passing of the Act of 1933 was £113. If the declared policy of the Government as regards land annuities is correct, and if the interpretation stated time and again by various Ministers for Lands in this House is correct, if the annuity was £113 one second before the Land Act of 1933 was passed it should have been £56 10s. one second after the Land Act of 1933 was passed.

But that is not the position. The position as regards that particular annuity is that the figure which it would take to redeem that annuity at this present date, eight years after the passing of the Land Act, 1933, is far in excess of the sum of £56 10s. which I contend is the correct figure. I would go further and say this, that when the figure was certified by the Minister's Department under the Land Act of 1933, the question of crediting the annual payments since the Land Act of 1933, should be dealt with on an entirely different basis from that on which it was dealt with prior to the Land Act of 1933. The Minister will understand what I mean by that.

Prior to the Land Act of 1933, the land annuity was meeting a certain specific object. A proportion, varying according to the number of years the annuity was being paid, was going in interest and the balance was going to the sinking fund. The redemption value depended on the amount of the annuity going into the sinking fund in each year. When we passed the Land Act of 1933, so far as the tenant purchaser was concerned, we wiped out any question of sinking fund and interest. Under the 1933 Land Act the position is that any moneys collected by way of revised annuities are passed by the Minister for Lands to the Minister for Finance and put directly into the Exchequer. The Minister cannot contend that the State is meeting the obligation to pay the interest, because the Government bought them out for £10,000,000. If that is the position, there is no claim for interest outstanding, except one might be argued in so far as the sum of £10,000,000 is concerned. If I am paying an annuity of £20, every penny of that, I suggest, should be credited to me by way of capital reduction of the amount outstanding on my farm.

I suggest there is no liability for interest. The Minister has not taken over the liability to pay interest under the Acts prior to 1922. Every annuity paid by a tenant purchaser where moneys were advanced under any Act prior to 1922 has been bought out for £10,000,000, and there is no liability on the Government to pay interest on the money advanced and neither should there be any liability on the tenant purchaser to pay any interest. Even though we may decide that some liability should be on the tenant purchaser to pay off the £10,000,000, apart from that every penny that the tenant purchaser pays should be credited to him by way of reduction of his capital, and it should not be reduced on the old system of 4¾ for interest and ¼ for principal. If this Act were to be interpreted properly, the Land Commission should alter their views; they should adopt the Government's interpretation of the Act. I move to report progress.

Progress reported.
The Committee to sit again to-day.
Top
Share