I think there is an apology due by me to the Minister in regard to this section. I was not against the section in any way but it struck me, from a swift reading of the section, that an account should be taken of certain matters and compensation allowed. It does not read that way. I was afraid that, from the price offered to a farmer on whose land certain State work had been done, the cost of these State works would be taken into account in fixing the price.
Land Bill, 1949—Committee (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
The Deputy is correct.
If the Minister had said that earlier we would have saved a lot of time.
I did.
Deputy Sweetman said that this section was to provide that every £ of increased valuation due to the activities of the State under Emergency Powers (No. 310) Order, 1944, was to be taken into account by way of reduction of the market value of farms to be taken over by the Land Commission. There is one apology due by the Minister and one by Deputy Sweetman and by other Deputies who supported a Bill by the then Deputy Mulcahy—now the Minister for Education—a couple of years ago to ensure that the valuation of bog lands of this kind would not be increased. They objected very strenuously to bog lands, taken over by county councils for the duration of the emergency, being increased by the operation of the county councils requesting the Commissioner of Valuation to revalue the lands. Revaluation by the Commissioner of Valuation would only result in a very small percentage of the annual rent being taken from the farmer who let his lands under this Order to the county council. But the Coalition Government of to-day have so changed their minds that, instead of ignoring the increased valuation, as they then wanted, they insist, as Deputy Sweetman said, that every £ additional valuation created by the State should be taken back. I think that some apology is due from the members of the Coalition Government who supported Deputy Mulcahy on that occasion for the action that they then took and not only an apology to the House but an apology to the country for the manner in which they deceived the people.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I wonder if the Minister really knows how generous he proposes to be in this section in view of his amendment to Section 5, which reads as follows:—
"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."
He is going to get market value which, of course, is market price.
That is what you say.
He will be given compensation for disturbance and compensation for damage and now he is not going to be asked to pay any of the moneys advanced to him by the State. It is going to be a very costly proposition. I hope the Minister has fully considered its implications.
Fully. I wonder what would become of them if this section was not here.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I am afraid that this is something that will hardly work. I have seen some photographs in the hall in connection with the land reclamation scheme. I consider that, in some respects, it is a praiseworthy scheme. I notice—and I think it is County Monaghan—a photograph in the hall of a piece of waste land dated 1940. There is a photograph of the same land reclaimed dated 1950. What I am afraid of is that what we are missing is the one of 1960. I am very much afraid that it will be similar to the one dated 1940.
You lads will not be back in power then.
I commend, if I am in order, the idea of having this drainage machinery but, instead of applying it to the creation of a poor type of farm with a heavy financial commitment on it, I think it would be better if it could be utilised for the expansion of forestry land which we so badly need, as it is being used in Scotland. I am very much afraid that this imposition of a payment of land reclamation moneys will create endless trouble in future in relation to the acquisition of land.
I have no doubt at all about it.
It is a grand thing to have a clear mind without any doubts, such as the Minister has.
That comes from a close examination of the problem.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (2), page 4, line 31, to insert "(if any)" before "or".
It is merely a drafting amendment— to insert two words.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) When land has been acquired under the terms of this section, the contractual terms covering the repayment of the land annuity or any other advance made by the Land Commission shall not be less favourable to the incoming allottee than those already operating in the case of existing allottees.
I do not discover in the Bill any section that gives me a definition of the position of incoming tenants under the Bill. Where land has been purchased under the terms of this Bill, it is desirable I think that the charges which the incoming allottee has to undertake should be indicated in a specific way. You cannot have one system of payment by existing allottees and successfully operate another system for the allottees who will come in under this Bill. I think it is most desirable that the Minister should indicate what the conditions will be for allottees who will receive land under this Bill. With the payment of compensation for disturbance, compensation for damage, market value——
And redemption of the annuities.
—— and the cesser of the annuities there will be quite a heavy bill piled up in the acquisition of each farm. Will the State bear the added cost or will the added cost be put on the back of the incoming allottee?
No, it will not.
The Minister says "no." No matter what the land costs, the new allottee will practically be in the same position as the existing allottee.
It is not "practically"; he will be.
Roughly speaking. The Minister has said that he proposes to solve the problem of congestion within 12 years. That will be good news for Deputy Commons. It will be very interesting for those who are interested in taxation generally to know if we are again going to have a repetition of the piling up of compensation for damages, compensation for disturbance, market price and market value and the cession of annuities. Is this the last lap? Are we going to have this acquisition of land as the final transaction or when we have acquired this land and given it away to an allottee, is it proposed again within a dozen years to take that land from him and give it to somebody else? There must be finality somewhere. The Land Commission cannot go on forever.
It may not go on for ever but what the Deputy has stated is quite possible.
Nevertheless, is it the general intention in the Minister's mind, in proposing to solve finally the question of congestion, that this heavy commitment we are now entering into will be the final transaction in dealing with lands?
Mr. de Valera
He has made it clear that he is not going to solve congestion or anything like it.
When did you become interested? You had the problem of land congestion before you for 16 years and you never did anything about it.
Mr. de Valera
What is the use of talking nonsense?
Deputy McQuillan should address the Chair.
I was merely answering Deputy de Valera.
The Deputy should wait until he gets up to speak.
I want to be quite generous, like the Minister, with the people who are afflicted by congestion. I also realise, as a practical man, that this heavy commitment of taxation which we must undergo in our endeavour to solve that problem must have some finality. We cannot be for ever taking land from one allottee in one generation, giving it to another, and repeating the process in another generation. If we are going to solve this problem of congestion inside 12 years, will this land which is now to be taken over be subject to another acquisition within another dozen years?
Might I reply shortly to the points raised by the Deputy? The Deputy asks if there is ever to be finality in the acquisition of land. If we are ever to be serious about solving the problem of congestion—and I think all sides of the House are serious, while Deputies might have different views as to when finality is to be reached—it is clear that it must be reached some time. The problem of congestion arose as a result of a system under which this country was misgoverned for a couple of hundred years. That has resulted in overcrowding in some parts, the parts which we call congested districts, and any Government that engages in the work of easing that pressure is doing excellent work. Let me say that it is work of social benefit. That is fact No. 1.
The question then is asked: Can land be bought, rebought, and rebought again? It is not anticipated that that will happen but it is quite possible that it may. Let me say that it is possible but very improbable. I wonder what Deputy Moylan had in mind in putting down this amendment, because I take it the amendment is intended as a safeguard against something that may happen under this Bill or against something that has happened under previous Land Acts. Let me assure Deputy Moylan that there is nothing in the Bill proposing to do what would be a very silly thing—that is, to impose on incoming allottees of land acquired under this Bill an annuity which would be unfavourable to them.
I think I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that the cardinal principle to be followed in determining an annuity is what the land will bear in a bad or a good year. The bad year is taken as the level because it is quite obvious that to fix an annuity which the tenant could pay easily in a good year but could not pay in a bad year, would be nothing short of madness. You have no business putting on any man's back a load greater than he can carry. He will fall under it.
If there was any attempt to interfere with the annuity—and it is not the desire or the intention under this Bill—it would result in one or other of two things happening. You would have a pile of arrears mounting up in the Land Commission which the tenants, in all honesty and fair play, could not meet, and the Minister would be forced, having to face such a problem, to revise the annuities if the Dáil was foolish enough to allow an increase; or you would have the allottees who got land and who were able to pay the annuities in the good years finding themselves faced with depressing years and they would fling the land back to the Land Commission and say: "Keep your land." In that event you would also have to revise the annuities.
It is not my intention, and it is not the advice of the Land Commission officials to make any attempt along the lines which Deputy Moylan's amendment is worded to prevent. I can tell the Deputy plainly that this is a superflous amendment. Any Minister who would stray from the path observed all through the years by the Land Commission and who would seek to impose a greater annuity than what allottees who have been getting land are subject to, would be quickly brought to his senses if a depression came along.
There is no need for the amendment. It is not my intention to do anything like that. Allottees under the new legislation will get the land at the same favourable annuity as in the past. Reference was made to the taxpayers. I admitted on the Second Reading that we will pay an increased price for acquiring land, and not redeeming the annuities will mean a greater loss on resale than occurred in the past. But I said when I was replying that congestion is an evil for which this House, since its formation, has established a Department of State to set right, and I am sure that Deputy Moylan is aware that during the period of office of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and later of his own Government, the loss on resale has gradually grown up to the sizeable figure which it is now. I am not concealing that this Bill will aggravate that loss, but whether it will be a serious loss or not I cannot say.
Despite the assurance given by the Minister that a reasonable annuity will be fixed, I fail to see how that can be done unless a considerable amount of the purchase price and the cost of improvements is passed on to the taxpayers.
The cost of improvements?
Yes, and I will explain that. In the case of any land bought now, you will have to take the market value into consideration, define it any way you like, and it will be bought at an inflated price. In addition to that, in the creation of new holdings this point has to be considered. On the new holding a dwelling-house and out-offices have to be erected. I take it the Land Commission estimate the cost of the erection of the house and out-offices and, according to the present-day cost of the erection of even a medium house, the erection of a Land Commission house and out-offices will be in the region of £1,000.
It will be more.
Well, if it is more, how much of that money will be passed on to the allottees by way of advance that they will have to repay with the annuity?
None of it in the future and none of it in the past. The money expended on houses, out-offices, gates, spring wells and other things came out of the improvement money voted here each year and it is not recovered.
Does the Minister seriously say that in a case where an advance was made and the house erected by way of grant and advance, the allottee had not to repay that advance?
You are not talking of new holdings now?
I am.
In the case of a repayable loan, it is repaid.
Anyone with experience of the Land Commission will understand quite well that the house and out-offices were erected in many instances and the Land Commission figured out that a certain amount of the advance would be placed into that amount to the extent which they considered the holding was capable of carrying. If the new buildings are to cost over £1,000 and if £300 of that is by way of advance, that will carry with it an annuity at the rate of 4¾ per cent. Will that not bring it to something over £13? That is not subject to revision. That will not be halved and it has to be taken into consideration with the annuity. The annuity on the land will be subject to revision, but not the advance that is made and in that way anybody who gets a holding under the present and even under past legislation will not be at all in the favourable position that allottees were in in 1939; they cannot be, and that is why I consider the amendment by Deputy Moylan, the sub-section he wishes to have inserted, is a very sensible and reasonable one.
I must confess that I do not quite understand what Deputy Moylan had in mind when he put down this amendment. I do not understand what he means by existing allottees. Does he mean people who purchased under recent Land Purchase Acts? I would like the Deputy to explain exactly what he means by existing allottees. We know there are some people whose redemption value is very small.
A man already paying an annuity under one of the former Land Acts.
In that case then the new sub-section would be meaningless, because what the Deputy wants in the terms of the section is:
"When the land has been acquired under the terms of the section the contractual terms covering the redemption of the land annuity or any other advance by the Land Commission shall not be less favourable to the incoming allottee as those already operating in the case of existing allottees."
There is an almost infinite variety of conditions operating in relation to existing allottees. Some of them are free of annuity altogether; some are nearing the time when the annuity will be paid off, and others have a long way to go. Therefore, if he is going to take the whole body of them the sub-section, it seems to me, has no meaning at all. I think if we were to adopt that sub-section there would certainly need to be much greater precision in the wording of it.
This amendment is quite clear and the principle behind it is quite clear. What I am sure Deputy Moylan and many members of the House have in mind is this, that whatever price may be paid for land the State presumably will subsidise it and give the holdings to the incoming tenants at a rent they can pay.
That the land can bear.
That is a distinction without a difference. The point is that when a tenant comes into a holding and he is going to work it, he will be able economically to pay the rent. If the Minister or the Land Commission propose to give the market value of any land that may be acquired under this Bill, it might very well mean that the incoming tenant would not be able to pay the amount when capitalised that he would be required to pay for this acquired land. Apparently, the practice has been to fix the rent of tenants on the capitalised value of land that has been acquired. The principle behind this amendment is that, irrespective of what the land may cost, whether an estate costs £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000, the incoming tenant will not have to face his proportionate share of that amount, but rather that a rent will be fixed which will be fair to him and which he will be able to pay. We all know that if inflated values for land prevail, it might be uneconomic for an incoming tenant if the whole amount of the capitalised value were put on him. We want to ensure that the incoming tenant will get as fair treatment as he got before this Bill was passed. I do not know whether the Minister admits this principle or not, but surely there is as much reason in the State subsidising the clearing up of the land slum problem as there is in subsidising the clearing up of the housing problem.
Hear, hear!
Tell that to Deputy Moylan, who is beside you.
We have put down this amendment to ensure that incoming tenants on land acquired under this Bill will not be mulcted in a very heavy rent. I take it the House is agreed to the principle that congestion is going to be relieved, and that State money is going to be provided for that purpose. We are anxious to ensure that tenants getting a portion of land acquired under this Bill will not have the whole of the costs pushed on them and that they will be placed in a position in which they will be able to meet their rents. We do not want to have the cost of the acquisition of an estate capitalised and worked out, as it formerly was by the Land Commission, and then made repayable by the tenants by means of an annuity in accordance with the price that was paid for an estate. I hope the Minister will accept the principle in the amendment.
That was never the principle for determining the annuity. The determination of the annuity was an excepted matter for the commissioners.
What I have gathered from the Minister through all stages of this Bill is that the intention is that land will be allotted at a rent that the land can bear, and so will be a fair rent to the particular allottee. After all, we must take that as being the intention of the Government and of the Minister, and that it will be the basis on which the Land Commission will work since the Minister has stated that. Deputy Moylan's amendment seems to prescribe exactly what the Minister says, in fact, will be the case. That being so, I think the amendment is hardly necessary.
Deputy Moylan put a very serious question to the Minister when he asked him if he intended that this Bill should represent finality. I do not think the Minister answered that question. I am sure the Minister intends it to be a final solution of the land problem.
I hope so.
I accept it that that is the Minister's hope.
He said that he would solve it in 12 months.
There was a little bit of trouble to be cleared up.
However, that is the Minister's idea, that this will be final as far as he is concerned and that it will solve this whole land problem. I think myself that the Minister, however good his intentions are, would be well-advised to consider that this is only a palliative because, even if the Minister is successful in reaching his objective, there may be, as Deputy Moylan has said, a further demand that land allotted under this Bill may be acquired for further subdivision and allocation in the near future. That is one of the difficulties that confronts us in dealing with this section of the Bill. At the moment, there may be a temporary demand for the division and subdivision of land. That is a demand that cannot continue, because the more we divide up land the smaller we are making the farms and the less economic they become—the less able they are to bear the strain of competition or of making a contribution to the nation's economy.
The Minister for Agriculture is providing all kinds of machinery and is educating the people to employ machinery on the land. A couple of years ago he said that he would like to see the end of the horse.
That, surely, is not relevant to what is before the House?
I am endeavouring to relate it to our discussion. The more the combined efforts of the two Ministers succeed in the establishment of what I may call a machine system of agriculture, the less useful these small farms are going to be in the national economy. That is why I say to the Minister that, however well-intentioned he may be in thinking that this Bill is going finally to solve the land problem, it may have a temporary value for a short period, and that both himself and the Land Commission should consider all the implications there are in the modernisation of agriculture.
This section has reference to advances for the purchase of land and the amendment deals with the same matter. I do not see the relevancy of what the Deputy is saying.
I admit that it is difficult to see the relevancy.
If the Chair does not see it, it is not there.
My mind was directed towards this matter by the very sensible question which Deputy Moylan asked in proposing the amendment, and I am sure that Deputy Moylan considered it relevant at the time. I can see that the Minister is endeavouring to give what I may call a break to the new allottees, to give them a chance. I think that he must face up to this situation however much of a break he may give them and in the long run I am very doubtful whether it will be helpful or not. However, I think the section includes everything that Deputy Moylan suggests in his amendment and for that reason there is no necessity for the amendment.
There is an old book which most Deputies know which gives a very fair picture of rural Ireland and that is Knocknagow. A couple of sentences from that book remain in my mind in relation to this particular amendment. A Fenian named Phil Morris used the words: “I would rather have a good lease under a bad landlord than no lease under the best landlord in the world.” I think that is very sound sense. The Minister's intentions may be the best in the world, but what objection is there to embodying in the Bill a promise to incoming allottees that they will get a square deal? I see nothing wrong with it.
The Minister, I think, accepts in principle the view embodied in the amendment; I think Deputy Cowan does anyhow. If we do accept it, and I think we should, we are now proposing to resume acquired land from men who have already secured an advance from State funds towards the purchase of that land and we are not asking them to repay such advances. We are going to make a much greater advance, if the Minister's intention runs in line with my proposals. It is a merry-go-round which cannot go on for ever. We cannot continue every decade taking land from men who have already got a State advance, forgive the repayment of the advances and make further advances to put other men on the land. I want to do as much as we can to solve the congestion problem. Some people, however, have too high hopes about the solution of congestion. I do not think it can ever be really solved. We must do as much as we can for it, but, remember, a continued disturbance of farm economy is bad for the country and I think that we ought to have an end to it at some particular time. We shall give the Minister every help and consideration we can and any money the country can afford if he can solve the problem in 12 months. Even though he said that, it was merely the polemics of the hustings.
It was Deputy Moran said that.
Twelve years was what the Minister said when talking reasonably and with common sense.
I am not responsible for what Deputy Moran said.
If he can do it in 12 years, we shall give him every kind of help. I want, however, to insist again that we cannot continue for ever acquiring land, making an advance on it, acquiring it again, forgiving the advance and making a further advance. It is bad farm economy and there should be an end to it some time.
This pious hope of solving congestion in 12 years makes a Deputy like myself open his eyes and wonder and advise the Minister to step out on it a bit. Two of the 12 years have already gone and, if the progress is not speeded up, there is very little hope of solving the problem in 12 years. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Moylan that it will be difficult to solve the congestion problem completely because of the fact that there may not be sufficient land in the country——
Mr. de Valera
Of course, there is not.
——to give every uneconomic holder an economic holding. An economic holding is supposed to be a holding with a valuation of more than £10.
More than that.
No. Any land owner who has a holding on which the valuation is £10 or over gets very little consideration from the Land Commission and, to my knowledge, has on very few occasions got any help from the Land Commission in the way of extra land.
The Deputy would not agree with the Land Commission's idea of an economic holding?
No, but the job of any Government is to try to do as much as possible in the shortest time to help out people living under these rural slum conditions. I admit that this Bill sets out to try and speed up the work of the Land Commission by bringing more land into the hands of the Land Commission because of the fact that market value of market price will be paid for it and people who have large tracts of land will surrender it more quickly than if forced to give it up at a lower price. I can assure the Opposition that during the progress of this Bill I had as much worries about incoming allottees as any Deputy over there had and was also afraid that this extra money which will be paid at the market price or market value of the land, for the redemption of the annuity and for disturbance will all be thrown on the back of the incoming tenant. If that were the case, migrants from the West coming into a holding of 35 or 40 statute acres with this burden on their backs, having very little money in many cases, then it would be better for them to remain where they are and to go on migrating to England to earn a living, as they have done in the past.
From conversations with the Minister and during the course of the Second Reading I understood that it was never the intention of either the Minister or the Land Commission to throw this immense burden on the backs of the incoming tenants. I still understand that the idea is to fix a fair annuity, such an annuity as the land can bear and one that a good industrious hardworking tenant will be able to meet. We have an assurance from the Minister on that matter and, having that assurance, I think there is no longer any need for Deputy Moylan's amendment. If that assurance had not been given I, too, would have put down an amendment similar to Deputy Moylan's. The assurance has been given and there is no need for Deputy Moylan to worry unduly as to how the incoming tenant will be treated.
One will, of course, have the type of allottee who may not be industrious and on whom the annuity fixed, no matter how small it may be, may cast a very heavy burden. That is a matter which neither the Land Commission nor the Minister can be expected to take into consideration. That is not their fault. It is the job of the Minister and the Land Commission to provide as many economic holdings as possible at as fair a rent as possible. We know perfectly well that the State must bear some burden because land which will be acquired after the passing of this Act will be much more costly to the State and the taxpayer than land which has already been acquired and divided.
Every year in the Estimates a certain amount of money is voted to the Land Commission. Unless more money is voted in the future for the purchase of land for resale and resettlement the Land Commission will not be able to proceed very far. That is my grave worry. I would like the Minister to give us some clarification on that matter before we pass from this section. I am in complete sympathy with the Bill and with the Minister's honest efforts to solve the problem of our rural slums. He knows how terrible the conditions are in his own constituency and in my constituency. But I sound this note of warning: more money will have to be provided in order to make available the same amount of land as was made available in the years gone by.
I do not share the view of the Deputies on the Government Benches that it will take all this time to solve congestion. At the present rate of emigration—last year 5,000 left Mayo—this problem will solve itself inside a couple of years under this particular Government.
That is the way you tried to solve it during the war.
Even though I might be inclined to accept what the Minister has in mind, what he has in mind does not count as far as legislation is concerned. We want this embodied in the Bill. The Minister's intention and Deputy Commons' intention may be excellent but the fact remains that there is nothing here in black and white in the Bill. It is what is in the Bill that counts. I would like to remind Deputy Commons that in the Estimates for the Land Commission different amounts of money are set out under different heads and the Land Commission is confined to spending that money under the specific heads on the specific purpose for which it is voted. Unless we get an assurance from the Minister by way of an amendment to the section, no matter how good his intentions are, how are we to know that the incoming tenant will not have a burden cast upon him, which he would otherwise not have to shoulder, under the law as it will be when this land is acquired? I think it is only reasonable that the Minister should reassure the House by accepting this amendment or by undertaking to introduce a similar amendment on the Report Stage, in order to safeguard the position. I accept the Minister's word when he says he does not intend this; but many things happen outside Ministers' intentions when a Bill passes into law. I think it would be very inequitable if, with the increased prices of land and the present market value, things worked out so that the incoming tenant would have to shoulder a disproportionate share. We all know that allottees, and migrants in particular, are very poor people. Every small addition imposes a heavy burden on them. Generally they are very hard pressed for money. Unless the annuity is economic and within their capacity to pay it will be impossible for them to carry on. I am sure that even Deputy Commons is not prepared to let this Bill go through without having a definite assurance from the Minister that what we are trying to prevent will not happen.
First of all, the Minister does not determine annuities. The determination of the annuities is a judicial matter for the commissioners. I have just as much to do with the fixing and altering of annuities as I have in the buying and disposing of land. To be quite candid, it does not matter two hoots whether or not this amendment is in the Bill. So long as it carries the implication against my word that there is a danger that new allottees will be mulcted, to use Deputy Moylan's word, it completely changes the picture as far as I am concerned. This amendment will not make any difference to the fixing of annuities and I am sure Deputy Moylan knows that.
Why not accept it then?
I am sure Deputy Moylan has seen paragraph (e) of Section 10 which is exactly word for word with Section 6 of the Act of 1933. I gave an assurance here on the Second Reading. I give it again now. It is not the intention that the annuities will be altered in any way. The system is not being changed. Before the system could be changed it would be necessary to introduce legislation. Until that time comes, if it does come, no one need worry. Deputy Moylan, Deputy Derrig and Deputy Aiken should know that. An alteration in the annuities would require an Act of Parliament. This amendment, therefore, is so much waste paper.
Can the Minister say how the annuity is determined?
That does not arise.
Up to now the Minister has been responsible for policy. If this Bill goes through in its present form the Minister will be responsible in the future for something more than policy.
I hope so.
If the fixing of the annuities is a judicial matter, as it is——
As it is and will be.
——the judicial authority is governed in its actions by the policy laid down by the House. It must be. I have no doubt that the Minister's intentions are very worthy intentions. However, changes occur and we might have a change of policy. A few days ago the Minister for Social Welfare again insisted that he proposed to bring in the Social Welfare Bill 100 per cent. according to the White Paper. The Minister is chairman of the Clann na Talmhan Party. Two members of the Clann na Talmhan Party have indicated very definitely that if that Bill is brought in they intend to vote against the Government.
And you will be very sorry.
Deputy Dillon a few days ago pointed out in this House that he had no Party and perhaps the only reason why he is a Minister is because of his nuisance value.
This is all going to help to solve congestion, I presume.
It is a question of policy.
The next biggest nuisance in the House would, I presume, be Deputy Cogan. If we had a shuffle we might have Deputy Cogan in the Minister's seat—and his views on economics are much more conservative than those of the Minister.
That is indeed a constructive speech.
Sure, it is.
It is no wonder you are sitting over there.
We should make assurance doubly sure and, instead of ministerial intentions which may be changed with any shuffle of the Front Bench, we should press that this amendment be accepted by the Minister. He agrees with the intention expressed in it. Therefore, why not accept it?
Do the excepted matters, so, count for nothing?
The Minister agrees that he has nothing to do with the operation of this matter when it goes through—that it is a question for the Land Commission. Is that not all the more reason why we should have this assurance embodied in the Minister's legislation? He has said that he has nothing to do with the fixing of these annuities—that it is an excepted matter for the Land Commission. If he is sincere in his assurance, he should embody the principle in the legislation. What are his objections to telling us how the annunity is fixed in these cases? I have asked him how it is applied in relation to estates taken over by the Land Commission but he has not replied to my question. Should that not make every member of the House suspicious as to the manner in which this section is to operate when it becomes law?
How did it operate in the past?
I have asked the Minister to tell us how this annuity is arrived at. Mind you, there are very queer rules in the Land Commission and many Deputies of this House— even thinking over legislation that has been passed through this House—find different rules and regulations in the Land Commission, to their surprise on many occasions. Why should the Minister not embody certain rules for the Land Commission in this legislation that will ensure that the incoming tenant will not be mulcted?
It is very simple and, therefore, why not accept it? If Deputies who are sitting behind the Minister are worried about what may happen surely, now that they have heard the Minister point out that he will have no say in the matter, they will agree that the House should be assured in the appropriate way and that is by the acceptance of this amendment.
I think it would be desirable if the Minister could briefly inform the House how the particular duty of determining land annuities is performed by the Land Commission. What are the rules that govern it and what are the considerations which bind them in regard to determining what the annuity is to be on the incoming tenant? Notwithstanding everything that has been said by Deputy Moylan about the conservativeness of my outlook, I am in general agreement with the terms of this particular amendment. It may not be acceptable to the Minister in its present wording but it seems to me that if the Minister's intentions are exactly the same as those embodied in the amendment he might consider the desirability on the Report Stage of inserting some safeguard to ensure that an excessive annuity would not be imposed upon the incoming tenant. I think that that is what the House desires generally and that that is what we all have in mind in regard to this whole question.
We were anxious to ensure that no injustice would be done to the former owner of the land and we are equally anxious all the time that the rent fixed on the incoming tenant will be such as he can reasonably pay. Therefore, there ought to be no objection on the part of the Minister to agreeing to reconsider this matter and, should he find it necessary to do so, to embody in the Bill some additional safeguard for the incoming tenant.
Mr. de Valera
I thought the Minister was going to give us some indication as to the method by which the annuity is determined at present or the statutory rules governing the decisions of the Minister.
I gave that information but the Deputy was not in the House.
I specifically asked the Minister for it and he has refused to give it.
Possibly neither Deputy de Valera nor Deputy Moran was in the House at the time.
We have all been in the House. We have asked the Minister how these annuities have been arrived at.
One of the reasons why I object to the Minister's attitude is the stupid reasons he gives for his decision. He said here that he could not accept this amendment which would give a direction as to how the price was going to be fixed on incoming allottees because it was an excepted matter. We all heard him say that. He could not touch it because it was an excepted matter. But he introduced earlier Section 5, which fixed the price to be given to the people from whom land is to be taken—and that is an excepted matter. Surely the Minister should try to be a little bit logical and give reasons to the House for his attitude which have some hope of carrying conviction. We know that the Minister knows very little about the Bill. That is already apparent. At least he should make some effort to make it up and not give stupid reasons to the House.
Again I wish to emphasise the extraordinary impression that is being created by the attitude adopted by Deputies Moylan and Aiken in this matter. I understand, because, being a new Deputy in this House I can only go by the records, that both of these Deputies have been, in their turn, Minister for Lands. At any rate, they were responsible for these Departments. I shall not say that they knew nothing about them but I am afraid it is more than evident that their knowledge of what excepted matters are in the Land Commission is nil. Otherwise how could we have the extraordinary position here to-night of two of these ex-Ministers asking the present Minister, under a previous section, to explain what market value was—something they introduced themselves?
That has been dealt with.
The second question arises in connection with the amendment proposed by Deputy Moylan. As he was Minister for Lands himself, I am sure he understands what excepted matters are. If he does not, it is too bad that the present Minister for Lands has to deliver a lecture at this hour of his life to two ex-Ministers of Fianna Fáil on what they should have learned 16 years ago.
Mr. de Valera
Can we get an answer to the question?
You have got an answer.
Mr. de Valera
We have not. I certainly did not hear it.
We do not mind that.
Mr. de Valera
The Deputy who is sitting beside me did not hear it either. The question that has to be answered is whether it is necessary to give this extra direction to those who are going to settle the annuity, namely the commissioners. Under the rule, as it at present stands, there is nothing additional in it. If it is of such a character that it can be influenced by the extra price that will have to be paid for land under this Bill, it is quite obvious that this amendment is necessary. The whole question depends on what answer is going to be given by the Minister.
The answer was given long ago.
Mr. de Valera
Is there any difficulty in repeating it?
Do you want it repeated?
Mr. de Valera
Yes.
I gave the answer a dozen times.
Mr. de Valera
Is it the position that when a question is asked in good faith, in order to decide a certain matter, the Minister refuses to answer it? I want to decide definitely myself whether this amendment is or is not necessary. The fundamental part of the information is required to indicate to the statutory authority that rules the action of the lay commissioners in determining the annuity but how is it to be fixed? If it is of such a character that it is not going to be influenced by the increased price, let that be quite clear that that is the Minister's justification but if it is of such a character that the commissioners would feel bound to take into account the increased price that has to be paid for the land and to pass that over, however little or much, to the new allottees, it is clear that it is necessary to put in the amendment. I am asking the question.
If I repeat the answer once again will that be sufficient for the Opposition?
Mr. de Valera
It will have been the first time I heard it.
It is not that I object to giving the answer but I get weary of repetition. The Leader of the Opposition said he had not heard it. I am sure he said that in all good faith but Deputy Moran's remarks were not in all good faith.
Anything I say would not be in good faith so far as the Minister is concerned.
That is perfectly true.
I believe that Deputy Moylan put down the amendment in good faith but when Deputy Moran seeks to imply that there is something underhand or sinister in the Bill which seeks to plaster on the backs of the new allottees a load that they cannot bear I definitely resent that because I explained in Deputy de Valera's hearing that there must be something in the Bill before the annuities are increased——
A Deputy
Let us hear it.
I said that the cardinal principle in determining the annuity for the Land Commission is that the land shall be able to carry that annuity the bad year and the good. There is nothing in this Bill changing that. That principle cannot be changed without the Minister giving notice to this House.
Mr. de Valera
I am quite satisfied on that but I should like to have the section in the particular Act referred to. That is all I want. If it is going to be fixed in relation to money that is going to be paid or in relation to a policy laid down by the Minister, that is quite a different position. If it is something laid down in a statute, well and good, but if it is not in the statute it is necessary to define the position by a definite amendment.
Is the Minister not aware that the annuity is fixed in relation to the amount of money expended by the Land Commission in acquiring the land and that that has always been the case?
You said a moment ago that he knew nothing about it.
The Deputy knows nothing about land; the Minister does.
You said a moment ago he does not.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided:— Tá: 54; Níl: 71.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Labiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne.
Amendment declared negatived.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.