Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1950

Vol. 119 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Land Bill, 1949—Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Blowick

I move amendment No. 1:—

To delete paragraphs (b) and (c), page 3, and substitute the following paragraph:—

(b) where in the opinion of the lay commissioners or the appeal tribunal (as the case may be) it would be inequitable that the Land Commission should acquire the land for a price fixed on the basis of market value, the lay commissioners or the appeal tribunal (as the case may be) in fixing the price may include therein compensation to the owner for disturbance, and may also include therein, if satisfied that damage will be sustained by the owner by reason of the acquisition of the land as affecting his user of other land or otherwise causing injury to such other land, compensation for that damage.

This is merely a drafting amendment, designed to bring the provision in relation to disturbance and damage to other lands into line with a similar provision in Section 45 of the Land Act, 1931, which deals with resumption cases. It will ensure that the vendor of acquired land is treated in precisely the same way as the tenant of resumed land, one of the matters to which Deputy Moylan referred on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Derrig

This paragraph takes the place of sub-sections (b) and (c) of the section with reference to disturbance and consequential damage. I think it would be appropriate that the Minister should indicate to the House how the compensation for disturbance is to be assessed, what are the precedents which are to determine the extent of the compensation and what information he has to give the Dáil to illustrate cases where this compensation may include consequential damages sustained by the owner by reason of the acquisition of the land as affecting his use of other land. It seems to me that in laying down principles upon which compensation for disturbance or ancillary damage is to be given, it would be appropriate for the Legislature to lay down these matters in some detail and not merely leave the question of the determination of the assessment to the complete discretion of whatever arbitration machinery there may be. Even in the case of the expression "inequitable", at the beginning of the paragraph, we ought surely in legislation to be able to state what are the circumstances in which the Land Commission would determine that the acquisition of certain land was inequitable. One can see that it is necessary to have a certain discretion, but in this matter we are simply giving power to the commissioners, in the first instance, and to arbitrators, in the second, to determine matters on whatever criterion or basis of assessment they may fix themselves.

Mr. Blowick

In moving the amendment I explained—whether Deputy Derrig paid sufficient attention or not —that the purpose of this amendment is merely to bring the case of acquired land, vested land, into line with provisions which are already there since the 1931 Act for resumed land. There is no change. There was a difference in the way of treatment of the two types of land occupiers, owners and tenants. While a tenant living on unvested land stood to enjoy certain benefits up to this by way of compensation for disturbance, the actual owner of a farm, living perhaps across the road, who was unfortunate enough to be the vested owner, did not benefit in the same way. This is to bring the two types of land users, owners and tenants, into line with each other. Deputy Derrig was trying to suggest that there was some sinister move in this. If there is, it was wrong to leave it on the Statute Book since 1931 in the case of the unvested owner.

Mr. de Valera

What are the provisions determining the amount of compensation they should be given?

Mr. Blowick

The lay commissioners, or the appeal tribunal in the case of an objection being raised, determine that and have been so determining it in the case of resumed land since 1931. It is the very same principle in the case of acquired land.

Mr. de Valera

Have we any knowledge of the principles applied?

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Moylan should have knowledge of the principles applied and Deputy Derrig should have knowledge of the principles applied.

Mr. de Valera

I think the Minister should too, and should be able to tell the House.

Mr. Sweetman

The principles are obvious.

Mr. de Valera

I think we should know about this. We have general terms like "inequitable", but surely precedents have been established by which the commissioners determine the matter in any specific case.

Mr. Blowick

Let us take a specific instance. That is the best way. Suppose the commissioners acquire portion of a man's land and take a stream or pond and suppose that by reason of the very shape or lay-out of the portion that is left to the man a certain amount of damage is done and there is a lessening of its value. I do not believe it would be possible to pin this matter down in cold words. In the case of resumed land this practice has been in operation and the matter has been dealt with in a satisfactory way by the lay commissioners and the appeal tribunal since 1931, and I do not see why a difference should be made between tenants who do not own their land at all—because the Land Commission own it—and who get benefits and the man who actually owns his land. I am proposing to bring them into line. Deputies may disagree——

Mr. de Valera

Is it not proposed that it be left to the lay commissioners' discretion to assess the value?

Mr. Blowick

It is.

Mr. de Valera

Then that is that.

Mr. Blowick

It is completely left to their discretion as it is completely left to their discretion to fix valuations or to propose the price offered to a person from whom land is acquired. Every Deputy, every Minister, might disagree with some of the decisions the commissioners come to, they might take land that they should have refused or refuse land which they should have acquired, but they try to be fair between man and man.

Mr. Derrig

I think we need not pursue the Minister's argument about the difference between resumed tenants and others. The fact is that for a long period it was State policy to treat resumed holdings in a special manner. Is it not going to be the position now when the question of market value is raised that the number of cases where holders will apply for compensation for disturbance is likely to be greatly increased? Is it not the position that whereas in the past the number of these cases was somewhat limited, since the type of case from which they flowed was limited, now, since in all the cases the question of market value will arise, the lay commissioners will have this extra discretion?

Mr. Blowick

They will not have extra discretion.

Mr. Derrig

They have discretion in cases where there was no discretion before. The arrangement before was to acquire land on the basis of a price suitable to the Land Commission and suitable to the tenant.

Mr. Blowick

This is an extension of the discretion they had before.

Mr. Derrig

The point is that all these cases will go to the tribunal.

Mr. Blowick

Why not?

Mr. Derrig

The people whose lands are being acquired will understand that the law of the land, if this legislation goes through, will entitle them to market value and furthermore, if they can make a case for disturbance or show that they have suffered in the particular way indicated, that not alone will they get market value but something over and above. The House is in the position that it has no idea of what imposition this is likely to cause. I have already expressed my doubts as to whether the whole orientation upon which the Minister has now embarked will have the opposite effect to that which he had contemplated. However, he has not given us any information even from past experience which may not be the best guide to what is going to happen under new circumstances. We do not know what the market value of land is likely to be. He has not given us the limits even of what he thinks might be the appropriate figures. That would not mean that the Minister's words would bind us in any way or bind himself, but it would at least give an indication of the type of price he has in mind. He has failed, in spite of requests from this side of the House, to give any indication of what the disturbance value is likely to be.

During the period when Deputy Moylan and I had experience of the work of the Land Commission the operations of that body were of course very severely restricted by the emergency situation. If the Minister contemplates going out into the market and taking up land on a large scale, then obviously with present-day values this whole question of market value in relation to disturbance must mean that very considerably more will be paid than was paid in the past. I think if those like myself who have doubts as to the wisdom of this policy and its effect on land acquisition generally got the information we seek from the Minister we would be able to substantiate our belief that far from relieving congestion by making large amounts of land available it will in fact have a different effect while high prices will probably render it difficult to carry on at all.

Mr. Moylan

It is now 7 o'clock, and before I move to report progress on this Bill I want to make a protest on behalf of the Dáil and even of the Minister. I think it is grossly unfair to ask us to discuss a Bill intelligently piecemeal. Half an hour is no use to give to the Dáil to discuss a Bill of this nature.

Mr. Blowick

What do you propose? That we should go to the restaurant and sit down.

Mr. Moylan

I think it is very unfair to Deputies. I think that we ought to get at least a day or two days on the Bill.

Mr. Blowick

I can assure the Deputy that he will get that and more if he wants it.

Mr. Moylan

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.