There is an amendment, a1, in the name of Deputy Hughes, on the Order Paper. It seems to have some relation to amendment No. 25, also. Amendment No. a1 on the Order Paper and amendment No. 1 on the list of amendments would go together. I do not know which comes first.
Committee on Finance. - Land Bill, 1945—Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. a1:—
In line 10, to delete all words in the line and to substitute the words "the first day of January, 1948".
I have a motion on the Order Paper to set up a commission to examine this whole question of how tenants are selected; what measure of prosperity the tenants who have been selected in the past have achieved; and what unit of land is considered from experience to be an economic unit. In connection with a lot of those people who are in trouble now and who are not carrying out a good system of husbandry, it may happen that it is not their own fault, that they were fixed on to a parcel of land by the Land Commission, and that it was not economically possible for them to achieve any degree of success. Because of their circumstances, they may have been forced to set the land by conacre or for grazing purposes. The purpose of the amendment is to hold up any action that the Minister may propose to take, if he gets this measure, until that examination is made; to give the commission that I propose should be set up an opportunity of examining the whole problem; and that until we have their report before us this measure should not be put into operation.
I support the amendment. I think it would permit of a proper investigation being made into the circumstances in which land has been allocated up to the present and that such a commission as Deputy Hughes recommends would provide for a better type of allottee than at present. I think, therefore, it would be wise to suspend the operation of the Bill until that commission has had an opportunity of reviewing the position. In a good many cases, question other than the suitability of an applicant had to be taken into consideration. For example, in areas such as the Midlands, where there was a lot of land to be divided and where it was found to be advisable to bring in allottees from the West, it was considered good policy, perhaps for social reasons, to give land to practically every local person who applied. That was probably in order to avoid discontent. The result was that a number of applicants were accepted who were not suitable. Then, again, in connection with the division of estates there is provision for an allotment of land for employees on the estates. In many cases, these employees, while deserving of compensation on account of the loss of their employment, might not be the most suitable applicants. The whole question requires to be investigated and, pending such an investigation, I think it is desirable to postpone the operation of the Bill.
When Deputy Morrissey was speaking on this Bill he pointed out quite clearly that we were not trying to get the people out of the house, that we were trying to get them in. Why should we give them two years' further grace to stay out? I think it is ridiculous. There is going to be no action taken against these people except to get them back on their land and into the houses built for them at public expenses.
I think the Minister misunderstands the purpose of the amendment. It does not apply to the section dealing with people not occupying the houses, but to the operative date for the whole measure.
Quite so.
It is the people who are letting their land more than the people who are not occupying the houses I am thinking of.
It is putting the operative date of the Bill back two years.
The Minister is stressing merely that we want to get the people back into their houses. We want to do a lot more.
Of course I am. We are not going to take any retrospective action under the Bill.
I think you are.
People are not living in the houses. People are letting the land and not working the land. I do not know what explanation the Deputy can want. The Deputy's amendment would suspend the operation of the Bill for two years and give these recalcitrant people two further years' grace to do what they like with the land and to sublet the houses to whom they liked. That is the whole basis of it. Therefore, I must object to it.
The Minister says that he has no retrospective intention. When it says, "Whether entered into before, or after the operative date", surely it is retrospective.
The Bill is not retrospective. It purposes to work from the date on which it becomes law. Every man will get a chance to make good then. If he does not make good then, if the Bill becomes law the law will be made operative against him.
So that if a man has been carrying a good system of husbandry up to the operative date you are going to put him on trial for a period?
There is no argument at all about the man who is carrying on a good system of husbandry. That never has been raised.
Indeed it is in Section 3.
Never mind Section 3.
The Minister is arguing that it is a question of putting people back into the houses. I say that the Bill deals with more than that.
The whole Bill is directed towards getting people who are not living in the houses built for them at public expense to live in those houses.
The whole Bill?
Yes. The Bill is directed towards making people who have not been working the land get down to work on the land, otherwise there was no purpose in giving them the land. Property has its duties as well as its rights. We are insisting on the duties being carried out. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. So far as we are concerned, the past is past. We want to make a start when the Bill becomes law. Why give them a further two years' grace?
I have given the reason for the purpose of having the whole matter properly examined. However, I am not pressing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 2 not moved?
I do not think it is being moved. I do not know if the Deputies who tabled the amendment appreciated it, but I appreciated the Minister's difficulty, that a man might be residing in the house occasionally. He might sleep there occasionally and then go to his father's house to live. The Minister wants to prevent that sort of thing and so inserts the phrase: "to their satisfaction".
Might I make a short statement on this matter?
Very good.
Most Deputies are aware that when we discussed this Bill on the previous stage, I was very much impressed by certain points made by certain Deputies, and I asked representatives from each Party to meet me to discuss the Bill and to see if we could get any agreement anywhere. They very kindly consented to meet me and we had a discussion. When the discussion was over, I had a further discussion with the officials of the Land Commission, and, out of their experience, out of their knowledge of all the difficulties which had been created by these people for them and out of their knowledge of the evil which has been done, they were at one in believing that nothing but the whole Bill would cure the disease.
I took the view that because of their experience, because of what I know of their character and their wide tolerance, I could not take any action other than to agree with them. Yet the thing troubled me. I am a believer in the preservation of liberty. I dislike too much compulsion, and in spite of the fact that the officials and commissioners of the Department of Lands, who should know the facts and have the experience, believed that the Bill was the only thing which would cure the disease, I decided to accept Deputy Hughes' proposal in regard to Section 4, to substitute "prima facie” for “conclusive evidence”. On that, there is a possibility that an error might be made. There is possibly a need for a little leeway in regard to a decision as to what constitutes proper husbandry, and I am prepared to accept “prima facie” for “conclusive evidence”, but there can be no question at all about the man who will not live in the house.
Residence in law, as Deputy Coogan knows, is not residence in fact. We have it very often in income-tax cases and sometimes unfortunately in divorce cases, and what the courts will hold as residence in law may not at all mean what the Land Commission must insist on as residence in fact—the common-sense fact that a man is in continual residence. If he is not residing in the house on the land, he certainly cannot be working the land. Because there is that tremendous difference between residence in fact and residence in law, I shall have to insist on keeping Section 2 as it stands, but I am prepared to accept "prima facie” in relation to Section 4.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendment No. 3 not moved?
Section 2 (b) (ii) means that if you give a direction and then find that the tenant is making an effort to comply with it, you can revoke the direction?
That is true.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 might be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Costello:—
To delete paragraph (b) (v), lines 1 to 7, page 3.
What I object to, notwithstanding what the Minister has said about the difficulty with regard to occupation in fact and occupation in law, is that if a man is charged in court with failing to comply with a contract, the other party to the contract can walk in and his certificate will be conclusive evidence. Surely that is not a fair trial. The individual is at least entitled under the common law to an opportunity to defend himself, but here he is given no such opportunity. The Minister wants to deny the individual any opportunity of defence because his Department will produce a certificate which is conclusive and final evidence and cannot be questioned.
I appreciate the Minister's difficulty, but why can he not accept prima facie and then put in a definition of satisfactory occupation from the Land Commission point of view? Why must he leave it to the court to decide what is occupation? I suggest that my proposal is his way out of the difficulty, and I appeal to his fairmindedness to give a man an opportunity of stating his case in court. There might be some question of difficulties—a death might have occurred which upset the whole family for a period of six or 12 months—which might be overlooked by the Department and an individual will certainly feel aggrieved if he is brought into court and given no opportunity to explain his case. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. He has agreed to give way in relation to Section 4, and with regard to this section, he ought to frame his legislation in such a way as to give the tenant an opportunity of making his defence. We could get over that difficulty by defining what occupation is.
I quite appreciate the Minister's viewpoint on this matter of residence. It is an exceptionally difficult matter to define in law. Income-tax cases have been cited, where you can have a man living in England for the greater part of his lifetime and yet in law it may be a very difficult question to decide as to whether or not he resided in England or his domiciliary residence is here, whether he has given up his residence and gone abroad. That can conceivably arise on this point and I can appreciate the reasons why the Land Commission have seen fit to put in "continuous residence to their satisfaction". I think what Deputy Costello had in mind was not so much the matter of residence at the matter of direction. It is not clear from the section in what manner a direction would be given by the Land Commission. It says:—
"The Land Commission may... give a direction to the purchaser to reside continuously to their satisfaction in the dwellinghouse, as on and from such date..."
In what way is that effected? Is it by personal service, is it a verbal direction or is it by posting a notice on the empty dwellinghouse? I am assuming that was what was operating on Deputy Costello's mind, as the paragraph he seeks to delete says:—
"a certificate under the common seal of the Land Commission certifying that a direction under this section was given to the purchaser, that the direction has not been revoked and that the purchaser has failed to comply with the direction shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes of the facts so certified."
That is merely relating to the direction. Was the direction, in fact, given? A certificate from the Land Commission to say that a direction was given will be sufficient, though in actual fact the person on whom the direction is going to operate may not have any knowledge of the matter.
It may be served by registered post?
I am only saying that that is what Deputy Costello probably had in mind. It is essential to clear up the point as to how the direction should be given.
Deputy Hughes talks of contracts. If there is a contract at all, it is of a very special type, where one party contributes nothing and the other party does all the giving. Surely that is a special type of contract, where one person does all the giving and covers the gift by certain instructions. If those instructions are not carried out—instructions which are not only for the benefit of the country but for the benefit of the man himself— surely the contract is void, if it exists in the ordinary sense? The courts, of course, must be very careful of individual liberty—that is their duty— and, particularly in all cases I know of, the court will take the side of the individual against the State. It is a question of a common-sense view as to what constitutes actual residence, day to day residence of a man who is inclined to do the work he has contracted to do. He has contracted to do certain work and has accepted certain conditions when accepting the land as a gift. If we go into court and take in prima facie evidence, taking the words prima facie instead of “conclusive”, we are still in the position that the court will decide that a certain type of residence, a “hit-and-run” residence, as in the case of a man who goes back to his father, will constitute residence in law. We have no answer to that. We want residence in fact.
Deputy Hughes has mentioned hard cases. There is no organisation anywhere which has been as careful and as tolerant as the Land Commission has been with all these people. The whole land tenure trouble and the whole question of land occupation is bristling with difficulties. There is a public opinion here created through our history and one must be especially tender with it. I was amazed, in the beginning of my experience with the Land Commission, at the broad tolerance and easiness with which they handled the subject.
They are dealing with their own children.
Well, they are not stepfathers, anyhow. I think the House should give us this particular section, because evil exists, though it is a circumscribed evil and deals with a very small section of the farmers in Ireland. This is necessary for the benefit of all the farmers. It would be a bad thing that houses built at public expense should remain empty or that land provided at public expense should not be utilised. You can depend on the tolerance and fair play of the Land Commission, which has had such a good reputation for many years.
I do not want to condone a tenant being absent from a home which has been provided for him by the State and I would be as vigorous in my condemnation of that as the Minister. We cannot tolerate a situation where there are hundreds of houses not properly occupied. I am in agreement with practically everything the Minister said, but take exception to his trying to defeat the function of the court by bringing in "conclusive evidence" that cannot be questioned. If the Minister has such respect for liberty, justice and fair play, why not allow the court to function in the ordinary way, to weigh the evidence on both sides and make a decision in justice to both sides? Surely, the Land Commission is in a position to submit evidence that a man was not in satisfactory residence? The Minister has a powerful institution there, with all the machinery of the State behind it, but he wants to tie the hands of an individual and deny him the right in law to defend himself in a court of justice. That is what we cannot stand for, that is what we cannot meet the Minister on. I am trying to give the Minister a way out, by asking him to ignore previous definitions and give a definition of his own in this measure and accept a certificate of the Land Commission as prima facie evidence.
The Ministry has drawn a distinction between good husbandry and the occupation of a house and says he cannot give way so far as occupation is concerned. He has explained the difficulties regarding actual residence and the interpretation of residence in law. I am sure Deputy Coogan appreciates that difficulty more than I do. I understand there is a difficulty there, but I feel it should be overcome. I feel it is so much more important that we convey to every individual in this country, when he is brought into court, that he is satisfied that he has got a just and impartial decision. If you propose to operate courts by taking away from the individual brought in the right to defend himself, there will be no respect for justice or the administration of justice. That is a very important matter for the Minister to take into consideration. Every individual should be made feel satisfied that the administration of justice by the courts is fair and impartial. No man can feel that if we try to say that the State is so powerful that a certificate by a Department must be accepted by a judge, who is dispensing justice, as conclusive and final and incapable of being questioned by anyone. I think that is a big issue and the Minister ought not to be directed solely by civil servants. Perhaps they are not the best judges to advise the Minister. Naturally the civil servant, once he decides that certain things must be done, tries to get machinery that will put aside all difficulties so that his object can be attained. There is a very big principle involved in this and I would not be prepared to give way on it.
I would not be prepared to accept the Minister's view that this is a very special type of contract—the contract entered into between the Land Commission and the tenant. If you take that view, you might take the view that every contract is a very special contract, because all contracts differ. There is a definite contract between the Land Commission and the tenant, and it is not true, as the Minister asserts, that all the giving is on one side and all the taking on the other. The tenant who enters into occupation of a holding allotted by the Land Commission has to give also. He has to undertake to pay a given annuity, to repay as far as lies in his power the purchase price of his holding, and the annuity is fixed on the ability of the holding to pay it. The tenant enters into a contract to pay for the holding over a period of years and he enters into agreements also. There is, therefore, a definite contract between the tenant and the Land Commission and it is not a contract which, in my opinion, can be set aside by one party to it.
It is unreasonable to assume that the courts are unfair to the State, where an issue arises between the citizen and the State. I think that is an unfair assumption. I think we must in all legislative proposals base our case on the assumption that the courts are strictly fair, just, impartial and disinterested and that they will decide every issue on its merits alone, and if the State, through the Land Commission, puts up a reasonably good case, as they can where there is a glaring instance of a person failing to reside on a holding, then the court will give its decision in favour of the Land Commission. I think we ought not definitely to assume that the courts are biased in favour of the tenant and against the Land Commission. I think all past experience has shown that, on the average, the courts are fair and just and can be relied on to do justice, even to the Land Commission.
I think there is some merit in the suggestion that Deputy Hughes has put forward as a way out of this difficulty, though I appreciate that the draftsman will have considerable difficulty in getting a definition of continuous residence. Continous residence is a very different thing from permanent residence. I do not want to go into the whole question of residence. It is really a question of the intention, of the mens rea, the mind of the man, whether he intends to make the particular house his home or not. All these questions would arise if we go into that subject. There is some merit in the suggestion put forward that a formula might be found that would meet the point raised by Deputy Hughes, to define occupation or residence and then let the Minister have the powers he wants in Section 2 (b), paragraph 5. Perhaps he will look into it.
Do Deputies suggest the certificate is not conclusive?
Yes, if you get a definition of residence.
And it should be prima facie evidence. The Minister should define what residence or occupation is; he could have his own definition.
I should like to know how the Land Commission will be able to prove their case unless they have some type of machinery like this. Will it entail a Land Commission official going out and living in one of those places? Surely they must have some way to put the onus on the tenant before the court to prove that he was in fact in continuous residence.
Surely the Deputy has read the Bill and it is obvious the Land Commission will have difficulty in establishing whether a man is in residence or not. The machinery of the Land Commission is there to satisfy them whether or not a man is in residence.
The certificate of the Land Commission will be based on an occasional inspection of the house. It might in this case be a frequent inspection but in the ordinary case the inspector might visit the house once or twice a year. A lot will depend on what he finds on the date of the inspection. On the basis of the inspector's report the Land Commission certificate will be issued and it is produced in court as conclusive evidence of the failure of the occupant to reside in the particular house. It is a different proposition from what Deputy Moran has in mind:
I can see considerable difficulties. There may be cases in which anything could happen. On the day of the Land Commission inspection the new Public Health Bill might be operative and the furniture may have been taken away to undergo a disinfecting process. The house might be empty and on that the inspector's certificate might be furnished. In such circumstances the man might have a very good case but the certificate would be there.
There is no question as to the justice of the courts. Deputy Coogan has adumbrated that there is a difference between ordinary residence and continuous residence. Now we want continous residence. I recently read a book on America. An Irishman making a speech spoke of a very well-known lady who was a millionairess—she had 20,000,000 dollars. "Everyone," he said, "knows Hetty Greene. She lived, worked and had her being in New York, but now we find when she is dead she died in New Hampshire, where there are no death duties." That is what is going to happen. In a particular case, are we going to have pure questions of law? The Deputy is not giving me a way out; he is giving the recalcitrant a way out.
The inspectors cannot live in the house. They make constant inspections. They find a rag of a curtain in the window and, possibly, a bed or a chair installed in the house. There is not a hen to cluck or a dog to bark at anyone; no appearance of life at all. And it is not one inspector who goes; there may be two or three inspectors going out at different hours of the day on different days of the week and yet there is not even a mouse stirring in this house. Then your friend will go into court and say he was visiting his poor, paralysed father on that particular day when the Land Commission inspector visited the place.
What is to prevent the Minister providing his own definition of residence? Why not put in your own definition? Why does not the Minister consider my proposition to get over the difficulty? I appreciate the difficulty, but why not put in a very severe definition here, no matter how long it is, covering what you require in the way of residence?
If he does not come in he goes out. That is the whole point.
Why not put in a definition of residence?
Is there any need? Continuous residence is what the Land Commission wants. There is no use in defining it for the tenant.
Where is the necessity for bringing a man to the court then? Why not take power to force him out and not make a sham of the court? You are tying the hand of the judge and of the tenant. I want to get a way out, as I agree that a tenant should be made to occupy a house. But I suggest that he is entitled to make his defence. The Minister should put in a definition of residence or occupation.
I invited the various Parties to come along to discuss it and to decide on some formula. There is no formula in the amendments giving the power we need. Everybody recognises the need. This applies only to a limited number of people.
If it applied only to one he has a right to defend himself.
He has a very easy way to defend himself. The section says that any day from the date that this Bill becomes law—if it becomes law— he must go and live in the house. Is not that the fairest of fair play?
I agree. I am not differing from the Minister on that.
Then why not let me have the section?
It is a question of justice and of allowing the courts to function. We suggest to the Minister that under the legislation the court should function by dispensing justice, and not merely an Order made here.
I suggest that we have been dispensing not merely justice but a great measure of mercy.
Is it not right that the court should decide what is just and what is right? If a tenant is taken to court and if the evidence put before the court is conclusive there is no appeal here. If a person is taken to court and accused of murder his counsel might make a very fine defence, but if it was going to be held that the evidence on one side was conclusive he would be found guilty. In the same way the tenant in this case would be guilty as there was no way out.
Residence in law and in fact are not the same thing.
Would the Minister accept the suggestion of Deputy Hughes and, on the Report Stage, introduce some definition of continuous residence? If he accepts that he might also delete the words of the section about the evidence being conclusive.
In the section I can define what residence is to my satisfaction. Personally I would be satisfied, but I have to look into the legal complications.
I do not want to divide the House on this.
Neither do I.
Would the Minister agree to look into it?
There may be certain legal commitments that I cannot foresee that I will have to look into. If I have to go on now I have to stand by the section. I will consider the question.
Do you promise to look into it? If so we will not divide.
Very well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
On behalf of Deputy Costello I move amendment No. 7:—
In paragraph (a), line 10, to delete the word "whether" and in line 11 to delete the words "before, on or".
In other words, all agreements entered into before the operative date of this Act would not apply. In discussing this matter there was one piece of information on which the Minister did not give particulars, and that was as to the type of agreement entered into by a tenant. What agreement does he sign? What are the terms of the agreement? What conditions are imposed and what undertaking does he give?
Under the 1923 Act he has to enter into a definite agreement in regard to residence and good husbandry. I can give the Deputy a copy of the agreement.
Does the agreement specifically prevent him entering into conacre letting, or letting for agistment or other purposes?
He agrees not to sublet any part of the land before it has been vested in him. In addition:—
"The purchaser hereby agrees to keep the premises with all buildings now thereon, or which may be hereafter built thereon, in good and substantial repair and condition, and not without the consent in writing of the Land Commission, to build or permit to be built a second dwellinghouse on the said parcel of land, and not to open, or suffer to be open a public-house on the said premises.
The purchaser hereby agrees to work the said parcel of land in accordance with proper methods of husbandry to the satisfaction of the Land Commission."
Is subletting defined?
The Minister appreciates that the whole line of judicial decisions since 1860 has been that sublettings for purposes of conacre, agistment, or disturbance are not breaches of the condition against subletting. Now, the Minister is proposing, under Section 3 (a), to bring in any agreement or undertaking to purchase a holding or parcel of land from the Land Commission, whether entered into before, on or after the operative date—that is the date of the passing of this Act—and containing a condition whereby the purchaser agrees not to sublet or part with possession of the holding or parcel or any part thereof until the holding or parcel is vested in him. He is cutting right across a whole line of decisions since 1860 in this, and he is going back. He is making the condition retrospective because he says, "whether entered into before, on or after the operative date". I think when Deputy Costello put down this amendment, what he had in mind was this line of judicial decisions that has operated since 1860 and that you may conceivably create havoc in certain directions, if you let in the word "before", that you may interfere with lettings which were, when they were made not, according to the case law in this country, a breach of the condition against subletting. That is the position you are creating now.
I do not know sufficient about these matters to know exactly what he has in mind but I can see that he feels that if you let this in you may be opening up a whole host of difficulties for people who have acted in accordance with the law in the past and in accordance with the decided law of the country. The Minister knows quite well that a condition against subletting was never held by our courts to include lettings in conacre, to pasturage or agistment. You are bringing these in now. There may be very good reason for bringing these in but my point is that I certainly would not make the provision retrospective. I think the Minister should at least hold with us in that, that the provision in this matter should not be retrospective.
It is not retrospective.
"Before, on or after the operative date".
Is not this the position, that you are actually imposing a new condition that is not in the present measure and, if you are not imposing a new condition, why is it necessary to have this piece of legislation at all?
I have a similar amendment on the Order Paper— amendment No. 8. The reason I put it down was that, assuming this is taking place, before the passing of this Act, the citizen had not broken the law; as a matter of fact, he had obeyed the law. There is a long continuous line of judgments up to the moment on that matter. This House is now going to say that that man had done an illegal act when in fact what he had done was good law and he had not broken the law up to that. I object to this whole section for that reason. Of course, if it is confined to all these lettings made to allottees, it is not so bad. I take it it will not affect the general landlord at all; that it will only affect lettings to allottees. I certainly very strongly object to making it retrospective. It was good law up to the passing of this Act for the man to let his land in conacre, agistment or pasturage. That was held not be a breach of a condition, and if you now let in the word "before" in this section, you then make illegal what was perfectly legal when the man did it. I think, while the man should not have done it, provision should have been taken in the Act when it was being passed. Very often when these Land Acts were being passed since 1933, we attempted as best we could, and with the utmost reason, to put forward reasonable amendments. Every one of them was fired out, one on top of the other, in globo. Not one of them was accepted. To the Land Act of 1933 I put down 48 amendments, and each one of them was fired out. Now, after 14 or 15 years, the Minister comes in with a drastic thing like this to determine that a thing was bad law which was in fact good law. That would be a very improper thing, and a very unjust thing, in view of the manner in which Land Acts in the last 14 or 15 years have been rushed through the House. It is not just, it is not right and it should not be done. There is no use in holding inquests as to why it was done, as to why these Bills were rushed through the House. They were carried by a majority without any consideration at all. No appeal, no reason, would be listened to. Now, when a defect is found in 1946, we are going to make it retrospective, we are going to make an act illegal which was in fact good law according to the whole line of decisions from the passing of those Land Acts to the present moment.
I want to make our position clear. We are not defending those people at all.
No.
I believe they should be made to carry out a system of good husbandry. I believe we should prevent conacre and subletting. What we object to is, the interpretation of the law as it stands at present, permits people to make that subletting. The definition of the word "subletting" does not cover letting for the purpose of conacre or agistment. If that is so, the Minister under this Bill is imposing a new condition on those people that is not in their agreement. For that reason, I think it is unfair to include agreements that were entered into before the operative date. I think that is what Deputy Costello had in mind when he proposed to delete the words "whether" and "before", because, definitely, you are imposing a new obligation and a new condition that was not there and in so far as you are doing that, you are doing an injustice to them. As I say, we do not want to condone subletting but, if a mistake has been made, I think it would be very harsh and very unjust to try to make that provision retrospective. The only thing you can do is to try to induce them by advice and otherwise to use their land themselves and to avoid conacre lettings and agistment.
This section derives directly from the signed agreement of the allottees which derives again directly from the 1923 Act. Steam-rolling Bills through the House is not a very nice thing, but I looked up to see what the general opinion of the debates was of that particular section of the 1923 Act, and I find there was no debate at all on it. This section derives from the agreement which the allottees signed. That comes directly from the 1923 Act. Deputy McMenamin, of course, knows a good deal about Ulster tenant right and knows that as a result of Ulster tenant right conacre is a different thing in Ulster. It carries certain commitments. It means keeping the soil in good heart and treating it properly. Here are people who signed this agreement. We know there are many of them who have let that land for any kind of usage, never trying to do a stroke of work on it. We give them the land. I think, even though it is an evil, it is a limited evil. The argument has been made that Land Commission inspectors have been unwise in their selections. There are bound to be mistakes and there are bound to be mistakes when men will try to deceive you to get a benefit. While I am in general a great lover of my fellowmen, I am not at all deceived by men who look for something for nothing. I know the things they will say and do. I was wise enough as a T.D. ten years ago to know when a man got a new deposit receipt for me, to point out he had so much money, to know there was very little use writing to the Land Commission about him because that belonged to somebody else. This section is not retrospective. The Bill is directed towards curing a limited evil, which is an evil, and will not affect people such as Deputy McMenamin has in mind, people who let conacre in the ordinary Ulster fashion that Deputy McMenamin knows. It is to get the best that can be got out of the people who have received a gift from the State at huge State expense. I think the Deputies ought to give me the section.
What does the Minister mean by saying it is not retrospective?
I would like the Minister more clearly to define what is conacre and lettings for conacre, and what is not. That is the difficulty about the whole thing. If land is let temporarily for a period of 11 months, is that a conacre letting? I should like a clear definition. I understand that according to law you cannot let for more than 11 months without running the danger of losing it. I agree with the Minister that this section is necessary, but it is possible that slight hardships or probably great hardships may arise under the section if it were operated to the full and according to the wording of the section. Probably the Minister can recall a person who has been given a portion of land in the last 20 years and is living on it and using it to the best advantage. That man may be unable to do the tillage required under the tillage Order himself. He may ask one of his neighbours to do his tillage and he may let two or three or four acres for the purpose of having his tillage done. Perhaps he may let a meadow. He may be a perfect tenant in every other way. I can see hardships arising for tenants if this section were operated to the last letter of the law.
I was going to put forward the very view that Deputy Allen has put forward. A man who got a division of land a few years ago may develop pains and his wife may die. What will be done with that man? That condition of affairs has obtained in connection with the oldest families in the country. I suggest that you must give the man a chance of letting the land during a lean time. Deputy Allen has put my view in a nutshell.
Deputy Coogan has quoted the Deasy Act of 1860. I have come across the heads of a suggested legislative enactment by Isaac Butt in 1867 in which he says:—
"I propose to bind the tenant to proper cultivation of the farm, and to the maintenance of all improvements; and, in the event of his failing in either of these conditions he incurs, in like manner, the forfeiture of the interest which the statute confers upon him."
Isaac Butt many years ago put in very succinct language what I should like to say. Again, when the Bill becomes law, it is not mandatory on the Land Commission to take action against a tenant. It is not retrospective. It deals with a certain limited number of people. It does not compel the Land Commission to take action. Knowing the officials of the Land Commission and their desire to nurse these people into good citizens, I can recommend the section with the fullest confidence to the Dáil.
The necessity for this section is obvious. It is obvious what everybody will do. Anybody who wants to let land, instead of calling it an 11-months letting, which the Minister could possibly get them on before, they will call it a conacre letting. I must confess, however, that I find difficulty in understanding the wording of the section, because it would appear on the face of it to be retrospective. Perhaps there is some reason for it, but I find difficulty in understanding it.
I am quarrelling with the word "before". Will the Minister agree to take out the word "before" and then we will be perfectly satisfied with this section? I have a feeling that if you leave in the word "before" you are importing into past lettings a condition which did not exist when these lettings were made. These lettings were perfectly lawful lettings according to the law of the land when made. If you put in the word "before", the section has a retrospective effect, and it may render unlawful a number of acts which were lawful when they were carried out. I think the principle is bad apart from any other consideration. We sympathise with the Minister in what he is endeavouring to do, namely, to prevent those people who got land from the State from misusing the land or carrying on bad husbandry. But we want to prevent any possible injustice happening because of the past. We do not want to go back to the past. We will give the Minister a free hand for the future without tying him in any way. I think that, if he takes out the word "before", he will not be tied.
All the agreements have been entered into before. The people we are dealing with have entered into agreements.
Undoubtedly that is so, but under the section we will be reading into these agreements a new condition that sublettings in conacre or for the purposes of agistment or for the temporary depasturage or meadowing of the holding were unlawful. The effect would be that, if you wish to go back on the past, you can go back as far as you like and kick these people out. You do not want to do that.
We are dealing with people who are a section of the unvested landholders of the country, not with anybody else.
Does the Minister contend that he is imposing no new condition?
According to the agreement entered into by the tenants, I am not imposing any new conditions.
If that is so, I want this question answered. Why is it necessary to mention conacre, agistment and depasturage or meadowing? If there are no new conditions imposed, why is it necessary to have paragraph (b) of Section 3?
I do not quite understand that.
That is a very important point.
"Whereby the purchaser agrees not to sublet or part with possession of the holding or parcel or any part thereof." Subletting covers——
If that is so, what is the necessity for this sub-section?
It is a clarifying clause.
It is more than that. The Minister knows well that it is more than a clarifying clause. He knows well that conacre, agistment and depasturage are excluded under the interpretation of the law as it stands. The Minister is trying to impose that as a new condition and that is why we object. What the Minister is trying to do is desirable, but it is unjust.
I do not think so. I want to repeat that it is not retrospective. We are imposing a new condition, but it will not be operative until after the Bill is passed.
I am glad that the Minister has admitted that he is imposing a new condition. You will give them 12 months?
We may give them five years.
Amendment put and declared negatived.
Amendments Nos. 8,9,10 and 11 not moved.
Section put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.