I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 10, line 50, to add "and of this section" after "such application".
It is a drafting amendment.
Land Bill, 1949—Recommittal. - Land Bill, 1949—Report Stage (Resumed).
Amendment No. 9 declared out of order.
Before we come to the amendment, on Section 14 the Minister promised to have an examination.
There is no amendment on Section 14.
In Volume 120, No. 2, column 187, the Minister promised to look into the matter——
——of the age of the commissioners. Is it in order to say a few words on that?
The Minister may give a brief answer if the Deputy desires it, but it is out of order.
I have examined the question of age and, as I said on the Committee Stage, I was not tied to a particular age. However, I found that I could not very well alter it to 70 as the Deputy proposed and I decided to leave it at 65. It is not inflicting an injustice or hardship on anybody. While I know that a case can be made that men at 65 have gained a certain amount of experience, nevertheless the other point can be made that 70 might be on the high side.
Amendment No. 10 is merely a drafting amendment to preclude ambiguity.
The same thing arises in relation to Section 19.
We are not discussing Section 19.
The Minister promised to look into those points and give an explanation on them.
What is the point?
Maybe, as we are out of order, the Minister would give us some explanation about Section 19.
He can do it on the Fifth Stage.
Does the Minister's promise on one stage not bind him to give an explanation afterwards? If it were in order to give a promise on one stage surely it is in order to give an answer on another?
We are on the Report Stage.
Still, are we not straining the question of order if we do not consider a Bill as a whole? If the Minister at one stage of the Bill gives a definite promise to give an explanation of a section which is not very clear and is allowed to get away with it on the Committee, surely it is not unfair to ask him for it now. However, if we are out of order I can ask him outside the House.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In pages 10 and 11 to delete from line 56 in page 10 to line 37 in page 11, paragraphs (a) to (e), and substitute the following:—
(a) on the making of the advance, there shall be added, to the redemption price of the amount or apportioned amount (as the case may be) reserved in respect of the superior interest or charge, a sum (in this sub-section referred to as compounded arrears) consisting of 75 per cent. of whichever of the following arrears of such amount is the greater (or, where they are equal, of the first-mentioned of them), that is to say:
(i) the arrears which at the date of the advance have accrued due in respect of any period or periods commencing on and after the gale day next before the lodgment of the application, and
(ii) the arrears, not exceeding three years thereof, which have accrued due at the date of the advance, together with 75 per cent. of the apportioned gale of such amount from the gale day next before the date of the advance up to that date where that date is not a gale day, and, save as aforesaid, no payment in respect of arrears of such amount shall be required to be made,
(b) where any payment after the lodgment of the application or in respect of any period or periods commencing on and after the gale day next before the lodgment of the application has been made on foot of the amount or apportioned amount (as the case may be) reserved in respect of the superior interest or charge, arrears shall be deemed to have accrued and the foregoing paragraph shall apply as if no such payment had been made, but every such payment (or such part thereof as may be appropriate having regard to any apportionment) shall be treated as having been made in respect of the compounded arrears and the amount of every such payment (or of the said part) in excess of the compounded arrears shall be recoverable as a claim against the redemption price.
(c) any amount of the compounded arrears added as aforesaid shall be paid, out of the amount advanced, to the person who would have been entitled to receive the compounded arrears for his own use, but the income-tax, if any, due in respect of the holding shall be deducted from such added amount on the distribution of the amount advanced.
In this sub-section, the expression "the date of the advance" means the date on which the relevant land bonds are put to the credit of the relevant matter.
This amendment is the deleting of the formal wording of the section as introduced because the draftsman found since that in order to tidy up and make the section more watertight with regard to these particular cases it would be necessary to delete the various paragraphs and substitute this instead.
The Minister used the expression "tidying up" just now and he mentioned before that a lot of the Bill was tidying up legislation. It certainly wants tidying up.
Or tying loose ends.
Could we try and induce the Minister to do a little further charring on the matter?
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 11, between lines 42 and 43, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Section 37 of the Land Act, 1939, is hereby amended by the substitution of the following paragraphs for paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1):—
(a) on the making of the advance, there shall be added, to the purchase money of such holding, part of a holding, or parcel, a sum (in this sub-section referred to as compounded arrears) consisting of 75 per cent. of whichever of the following arrears of the rent payable in respect of such holding, part of a holding, or parcel is the greater (or, where they are equal, of the first-mentioned of them), that is to say:
(i) the arrears which at the appointed day have accrued due in respect of any period or periods commencing on and after the gale day next before the said particulars were furnished or the said application was lodged (as the case may be), and
(ii) the arrears, not exceeding three years thereof, which have accrued due on the appointed day,
together with 75 per cent. of the apportioned gale of such rent from the gale day next before the appointed day up to that day where that day is not a gale day, and, save as aforesaid, no payment in respect of arrears of such rent shall be required to be made,
(b) where any payment after the said particulars were furnished or the said application was lodged (as the case may be) or in respect of any period or periods commencing on and after the gale day next before the said particulars were furnished or the said application was lodged (as the case may be) has been made on foot of the said rent, arrears shall be deemed to have accrued and the foregoing paragraph shall apply as if no such payment had been made, but every such payment shall be treated as having been made in respect of the compounded arrears and the amount of every such payment in excess of the compounded arrears shall be recoverable as a claim against the purchase money.
(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to any case as respects which the appointed day has been fixed before the passing of this Act.
This amendment is coupled with the previous amendment and where the previous amendment dealt with repairing and tidying up various paragraphs in the section of the present Bill this amendment tidies up the parent section in the 1939 Act.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 15 to delete lines 41 to 50 and substitute the following:—
(12) Any farm purchased under Section 25, for a migrant, shall be purchased as a going concern and shall not be subdivided or rearranged.
The Minister in Volume 118, No. 7, column 902 said:—
"the ordinary process of acquisition and resumption ... will still continue in full operation, but under these procedures it is almost impossible to get holdings of convenient size which are equipped with dwellings, outoffices, fences, pumps and so on, and which are ready for immediate allotment as new holdings."
The Minister came into the Dáil with the Bill with one particular intention in relation to these holdings and his intention was so interpreted by the Dáil that Deputy T.F. O'Higgins in Volume 118, No. 7, column 920, said:
"I hope that their first concern will be to purchase farms of a certain limited size and conforming to certain specified standards.... I think we should welcome the power now given to the Land Commission as a going concern where no delay shall be entailed apart from the usual conveyancing delays."
The Minister, as generally understood by the Dáil, intended under the section to purchase farms as going concerns, principally or altogether for occupation by migrants from congested districts. At a later stage, he introduced a custom already adopted under the legislation of taking power to divide these holdings and to distribute them amongst migrants. We will have side by side two systems of land acquisition: one, the system which heretofore obtained and the other, the system of buying land for cash in the open market. If it is the intention of the Minister to buy farms, as he at first suggested, of 30, 40 or 50 acres or of £12, £16 or £20 valuation, I am anxious that even though a migrant from a congested district does not give in exchange what would be regarded as something equally as valuable as the holding which the Minister bought, in the search for abstract justice as between the Minister and the migrant, the small farm purchased for that reason should not be divided. I suggest that if the migrant gets ten or 15 acres more than he deserves in exchange, that should be regarded as just his luck and that the holding should not be divided. I should like an assurance from the Minister that when he buys a small farm as a going concern, a farm with a house, pump and fences as he mentioned, that farm will be left as an integral whole for the occupation of the migrant, even though it may be slightly greater compensation than he is actually entitled to get. I feel that it would be wrong to cut a field off a small farm, merely in the interest of abstract justice.
I can see the Minister's difficulty. The Minister, I am sure, did believe that there was quite a tremendous pool of land which could be secured for his purposes in the ordinary way of Land Commission transactions. On coming into office, he has discovered that that is not a fact, so he seeks to supplement the land available to him by this new system. I have no objection to that, but I want to ensure that the land acquired will be utilised as fully as it is possible for human means to do it for the relief of congestion. If you buy a small farm with the declared purpose and intention of putting a migrant into it, you eliminate a good deal of difficulty, but if you propose to go into the open market to buy land for division, which is really for the relief of congestion, you are apt to create a demand by local landless men for that particular farm and that defeats your purpose.
It seems to me that there may be a danger of unfairness to the owner of the land in that case, because, if the Minister proposes to buy a relatively large farm by this means and to divide it, there will be such a clamour by local applicants and such an agitation that anybody else in the locality who may intend to buy that farm, as he is entitled to, when it is put up in the open market, may be deterred from doing so. That might suit the Minister, but when he has decided against the payment of market price for such a holding, there is a chance that the owner of the land will suffer severely. I want from the Minister some sort of agreement with my viewpoint that small farms purchased under this section for the purposes he has set out will not be subdivided, will not be attenuated in any way, but will be given to the migrant, even though it may not be abstract justice. I hope the Minister will agree with me in that. In regard to substituting the purchase for cash in the open market of large farms for the usual method of transaction of the Land Commission, I feel that there is a danger of injustice to the owner. There is also the danger that local clamour will keep many people from buying these farms, or trying to buy them, and thus give land at a cut price to the Land Commission, which is not at all desirable. I should like the Minister to look into these points.
While I would not like to tie myself down to the promise which Deputy Moylan has asked in the way he has asked it, I am in full agreement with all he has said. I cannot imagine any holding or farm of 40 or 50 acres being attenuated or reduced in size by reason of a field being taken off it. We all know that such a farm is a farm of very desirable size and that to make it any smaller would be cramping it and doing damage. The next amendment is designed especially to meet the Deputy's wishes as he outlined them on Committee Stage, to make sure that the Land Commission will not find its hand being forced in an undesirable way after they have bought such land in the open market and to safeguard the vendor. I made one promise, and I hope that promise will be as binding on whomever will come after me as it is on me, that the moment any undesirable influence arises, as a result of the Land Commission's entry into the market, the Land Commission, so far as I am concerned, will be withdrawn from that method of acquiring land straightaway. I hope the same will apply in the case of whoever follows in my footsteps, whenever that may be.
The Deputy is right in saying that the compulsory method of acquiring land has been slow, has proved to be disappointing in many cases and that good chances of settling a piece of congestion or rundale has slipped through the hands of the Land Commission, because the law, as it stood, did not give them authority to negotiate straightaway with the seller of the particular holding or farm, the acquisition of which would bring immediate relief to many. That is the reason I am embarking on this new principle in the Bill, but I want to repeat the warning I have given: the moment that any undesirable practice arises as a result of the Land Commission entering the open market, I will prohibit them from acquiring land by that means. That will not be interference with their powers, but a matter of Government policy which they are bound to implement. They will have to revert then to compulsory acquisition.
The House need not be afraid that small or medium-size holdings will be brought down to the point where they would be almost uneconomic. That would be most undesirable and I could not imagine it being done. It may happen that an 80-acre farm may be purchased and that 60 acres would be enough for a migrant. In that case, I do not see what is wrong with the Land Commission having a means of disposing of the rest. The Deputy mentioned giving 20 acres over and above to a migrant and then regarding it as being the migrant's luck. I am afraid that the Department of Finance and the Comptroller and Auditor-General would have something to say to that.
No matter what the Department says, it is wrong to divide up a small farm.
I cannot imagine a small farm being divided, other than in the case of small residential holdings stuck into rundale or mixed villages. In the case of holdings of £2 or £4 valuation already scattered through rundale villages, we mean to purchase them and use them in the rearrangement and reallotment schemes in the village or townland; but in the case of a holding suitable for a migrant, with house, out-offices and amenities left there by the previous owner, I cannot imagine it being touched. It would be nothing short of madness to do that.
In view of the assurance the Minister has given to the House, would he not consider putting it in some form in the Bill, binding his successor to the size of farm below which there cannot be division? If he makes it 40 or 50 acres, I am sure it would satisfy Deputy Moylan. Where a farm is bought as a going concern for the purpose of putting a migrant into it, I suggest there should be a statutory assurance in the Bill that no farm of 40 acres or less would be subject to division.
That would cut across the purchase of holdings.
No, you can limit it in this section to farms bought as a going concern to give to a migrant and limit the size below which they cannot be divided. It will not interfere in any way with the taking of plots scattered in rundale areas. I think Deputy Moylan wants it limited to farms bought for migrants, say for a farmer whose farm is being taken over and to whom this one is to be given by way of resettlement or exchange. I can envisage the possibility of a nice tidy holding, well developed as an economic unit of 30 or 50 acres, in certain circumstances being pared down a bit. I do not think that should happen. As the Minister has given the assurance, I am saying it should be put into the statute. If he consults his officials here, they will agree that in that limited class you can state a statutory minimum number of acres below which there can be no division.
I am still rather confused as to the Minister's intention, he has expressed so many different intentions in connection with the land to be acquired and with which Deputy Moylan is dealing under this amendment. Is the Minister definite now that it is the intention of the Land Commission under this Bill, in purchasing in the open market holdings for migrants, to go after the comparatively small type of holding, say 40, 60 or 80 acres?
Yes. As a matter of fact, it could be any holding from, say, £1 valuation up. It is the use to which they will be put that is specified in the Bill.
I know all about the uses. It would appear from what the Minister has said that the intention under this section is to confine it to the acquisition of small holdings suitable for taking up migrants from small farms. I do not seem to be able to get from the Minister, and the Minister has not made it clear to the House, whether it is the intention under Section 25 to go into the open market for 400-, 500- or 600-acre tracts of land.
That is possible under this Bill. It is not precluded at all.
There has not been a word about that in all the discussion so far as I know. We seem to be centring around the intention of getting after small holdings.
Read paragraph (c) of sub-section (1). It says "where the Land Commission require the land for the provision of new holdings for migrants". That definitely includes a big farm which could be split up into smaller farms for migrants. I do not want the House or anyone else to be misled on that point.
I want to get the intention clear. The whole discussion seems to be centring around the small holdings. No matter how many small holdings are acquired, great headway will not be made unless the large tracts are attacked and taken over. I suppose there is power there to deal with them, if the power is used, but I want to get it clear that, under Section 25 of this Bill, these large tracts will be concentrated on also. In the acquisition of holdings for migrants we are dealing with under this section, the Land Commission would be better advised to endeavour to concentrate— when migrating tenants from a congested area where you have fairly substantial holdings—on getting the large farmer from the congested area to the larger holding procured up the country——
We are doing that.
——rather than try to shift the small man. In that way, more headway would be made. If the Land Commission concentrate on that policy, I think that what Deputy Moylan has suggested in moving this amendment has a lot to it. If there is a holding coming on the market in the Midlands or the South, suitable for exchange for a substantial farm in a congested area, it should be taken over as a going concern and, even though it may extend to 100 acres or more, if the migrant is leaving a substantial farm in a congested area it should be offered to him. More effective work could be done by the Minister if he concentrates on that line of country.
I understood—and I am glad the Minister has cleared the matter up now—that when the Land Commission decided to go into the market to purchase land, they could acquire holdings the valuation of which was £3 or £300, if suitable for the relief of congestion.
Provided they are suitable for the purpose. That is the watchword.
In the congested areas, there are many little patches of land which have been derelict for a number of years because the holders could not make a living on them. Those holders would only be too delighted to sell them. Larger farms for splitting up for the creation of standard holdings for migrants must be got if we are to make any real and fast headway with the problem of congestion. I have a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Moylan and to an extent I am in agreement with him. If, for instance, a congest is removed from a congested area and finds that he is put into a holding which contains, maybe, one and a half or thereabouts the amount of land which he left, it will be just his luck that he will get this good concession. The best judges of that in all cases are the inspectors of the Land Commission.
Hear, hear!
On the other hand, we are faced with the problem that the purchase of a suitable holding for a migrant may be in one of the congested counties. Let us say, for example, that a farm of 60 acres of reasonably good land in County Mayo comes into the hands of the Land Commission. A migrant may be moved into that and allotted a standard holding of 33, 35 or 40 acres, as the case may be. There may be congests, within a mile of that holding that has been purchased, who may require additional acres. In that case that man will have to lose land. It will be part and parcel of Land Commission policy to bring up the holdings of the few local congests that may be there as well to a standard level. Therefore, in that case, it would be impossible to accept the amendment. I think the matter should be left to the discretion of the Land Commission officials. They are pretty good judges in respect of the types of holdings——
A change of heart.
No. I have always agreed that the officials of the Land Commission down the country are very good men who do a very good job——
Hear, hear!
——but I never will agree that the commissioners of the Land Commission are capable of doing anything.
Why not get rid of them, then?
I would, but my amendment would be out of order. If this House had regarded some of my amendments for the Committee Stage and even for the Report Stage as being in order and had permitted them to go through, I would get rid of them. I hope that some day I shall see them got rid of.
What would you put in their place?
Senior officials of the Land Commission who were there in the time of the Congested Districts Board.
Let us get back to the amendment.
They divided more land in 15 years than the Land Commission has divided since.
That is rubbish and the Deputy knows it.
Very well, read the Land Commission Report.
Not now. We are on the amendment now.
If Deputy Moylan looks it up he will find that I am right. To come back to the amendment, I consider that to accept it would be practically to cut across the progress the Land Commission intends to make. I think that Deputy Moylan and the Minister may rest assured that the Land Commission officials will use their discretion and, if it is the luck of a migrant to benefit by more land than he is, perhaps, entitled to, well, let us wish him the best of luck and leave it to him.
Two abuses have been mentioned as being likely to affect the sale of land under Section 25—(1) that a clamour might prevent people from buying and that it would thus reduce the market value and (2)—and this is one that would be very difficult to deal with, and it has been mentioned by some speakers here—prior knowledge by the owner of the land that the Land Commission would be interested and, therefore, getting people to puff it. If there is any virtue in the Minister's claim in regard to the section which deals with market value, why does he not acquire these lands straightaway and give the market value for them? He would thus obviate all these possible abuses. He cannot make a claim that any injustice would be inflicted on the owner of the land if there is any virtue at all in this claim that market value is being established. The Minister, in his remarks in relation to Section 25, has created the greatest suspicion about the virtue of the section which establishes market value.
The Minister would be very wise to accept Deputy Moylan's amendment. After all, it is an effort to minimise the grave social damage that may be done by the operation of Section 25, particularly when it is associated with the section which Deputy Moylan proposes to delete. No matter what the Minister may say on this section as to how these powers will be operated, the power to acquire land under Section 25 and to use it under sub-section (11) of Section 26 will remain. There will be grave pressure on any Minister for Lands to purchase every type of holding that is going up for sale in every part of the country on the plea that it is for the relief of these migrants and then to declare it not so required and to distribute it to people in the district.
That cannot be done. The statute prohibits it.
It can be done.
When this measure becomes law it will prohibit it.
I wish the Minister would explain it to me, then. Let us try to examine it for a couple of minutes.
Take the section to pieces if you like and if you are allowed to do so.
It gives the Land Commission power to purchase the land. Sub-section (12) of Section 26 states:—
"Where any land (being land comprising the whole or part of land in which the Land Commission have acquired an estate in fee simple by means of a purchase under Section 25 of this Act or by means of a transfer order) becomes not required by the Land Commission for (as the case may be) the provision of new holdings for migrants or to facilitate rearrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots, such land may be disposed of by the Land Commission to any of the persons or bodies mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, as extended by sub-section (6) of Section 28 of this Act.
Would you take that, then, in conjunction with the next amendment which I am going to move?
It does not improve it very much.
Indeed it does. I have given a great deal of thought to this subject since the Committee Stage.
Would the Minister intervene for a couple of minutes to associate this with amendment No. 14 and to explain the position? It would shorten the debate if he could satisfy us in regard to this matter.
As a matter of fact I am introducing amendment No. 14 with the same intention——
I would remind the House that Deputies cannot speak twice now.
If I allow the Minister to intervene?
The Deputy has asked the Minister to intervene.
Well, then, I shall make my speech. As the Bill stands at the moment, the Land Commission can purchase land in the open market, ostensibly on the plea of using it for the relief of congestion and then using it to distribute it to all the people set out who may benefit under the various Land Acts or who may be allotted land under the Land Acts. That means that the tendency will be for an agitation to be made here in the Dáil and locally, every time a portion of land is offered for sale, that the Land Commission should go down and outbid the local people who want to relieve their own family congestion, as Deputy Moylan put it, and that the Land Commission should buy that land and take it over and then distribute it in the normal way that the Land Commission distribute land. That is a social revolution and we do not know where it is going to end. If it creates a situation that there is no one in the country who will provide land for himself out of his own resources but, when land is offered for sale, will simply agitate to get the State to buy it and declare loss on resale, and give it to him at half the annuity, we will have a very grave state of affairs.
The Minister himself said that there were 250,000 acres of land changing hands in the open market every year. A vast proportion of that land is bought by small farmers who want to buy land for one of their sons.
Will the Deputy relate that to amendment No. 13?
And about one-tenth of which would be quite sufficient annually for the Land Commission.
Amendment No. 13 would prevent the Land Commission from distributing it to local landless men or otherwise. It would impose a duty on the Land Commission to give it in one lot for the purposes for which it was acquired, for migrants. That, at least, would minimise the danger that we see in Section 25.
Amendment No. 14 does the same thing.
We have not been allowed to discuss amendment No. 14 and I am taking the Bill as it stands and associating it with this amendment. It is a most dangerous procedure. We cannot persuade the Minister to mend his hand now but I wish that, between now and the introduction of this Bill in the Seanad, he would give this matter thought. Do not step out into a social revolution of this kind without having fully considered the matter and given the people some more security than simply a Minister's promise on a Bill going through the Dáil. That promise will not bind the Minister in law. It will not bind any of his successors in law. It will not stop political pressure being brought on the Minister here, by questions and debates in the Dáil, to acquire all land offered for sale and to use it for the purpose of distributing it to allottees to whom the Land Commission are not empowered to give land under any of the Land Acts.
I want to support Deputy Aiken in this amendment. I would like to point out to the Minister that in the last 25 years, particularly since the last war, his own county men have come to the Midlands and have bought this type of farm. They are exemplary farmers and good citizens. They are a credit. The Minister is going to stop all that now. He is going to stop private initiative and endeavour in farming.
Not at all. I am not going to stop it. I would be the first to oppose any step to stop it.
Private initiative buys every farm that comes up for sale every year. He is going to end that and he is going to put a lot of spoonfed citizens into land who, in 50 per cent. of the cases, will fail.
Do you call congests spoonfed citizens?
I do not know what Deputy McQuillan is interrupting about.
I asked a simple question.
I have been a friend of the congests that came from the West to Rathcarne and elsewhere. Some of them went home again—not many, but a percentage. I saw the farms they left in Connemara where I have been for five summers. Other people went into them and built houses on the uneconomic holdings. The problem there was not solved at all. It is a grave problem that requires minute examination. The whole economy of the country is affected by this.
Let me say——
The Minister will be brief, then. The Minister has the right to speak only once.
Deputy Kennedy has completely misinterpreted the whole thing. Deputy Aiken mentioned a figure that I mentioned previously— 250,000 acres—which is an approximate guess. Nobody knows what is the exact acreage that comes into the open market for sale in any one year. While Deputy Aiken was speaking, I interjected, when he mentioned 250,000 acres, that one-tenth of it would be more than would satisfy the Land Commission's needs.
But will not satisfy the people who want to agitate.
I want to take this opportunity of saying—and I hope it will be brought to the notice of every householder in the country who is interested in the question—that the moment there is the slightest agitation or the slightest pressure being used to either inflate or deflate the price of a holding of land in which the Land Commission may be interested, my reply will be to prohibit the Land Commission there and then from having anything further to do with the purchasing of land in the open market. Is that clear now to the House?
The Minister told us before that it was a question for the Land Commission, not for him.
Let me explain. This section does not oblige the Land Commission to purchase land in the open market. It permits them to do so. It is under the control of any Minister for Lands to give an order to the secretary of the Land Commission at any time to say that the Land Commission shall from this day forward cease to purchase land in the open market for cash.
If it becomes routine in the Dáil to have a dozen or a few dozen questions on the Order Paper every day asking the Minister will the Land Commission bid for such and such an estate or such and such a farm, or if it becomes the practice to ask the Minister why did not the Land Commission offer more money for the land in a district, will the Minister then bring it to an end?
The answer to such a question will be that that is a matter entirely for the Land Commission. The Minister will have no responsibility for it, just the same as he has no responsibility at present to compel them to acquire or resume a holding.
I want to point out to the Minister that the Minister has very rightly pointed out that it is a matter of policy as to whether the Land Commission will engage in this practice or not and that the Minister has the power, and rightly has the power to prescribe policy for the Land Commission, but not in any particular individual case.
General policy.
What I want to know is will the Minister say that the policy of purchasing land in this way will cease if it becomes the practice that pressure is brought to bear on the Minister by a deluge of parliamentary questions?
Oh, no. I did not say any such thing. This is developing into a Committee Stage. I am sorry. Let me say this in conclusion: Deputies have great freedom and privileges in this House. It is up to them and to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to see whether they abuse them or not. I do not call that pressure but what I would call very damaging influence would be where local people would try to club themselves together to compel the Land Commission to take this course or that. That is a thing I hope will never be tolerated. Does that clear the Deputy's mind? If every Deputy wants to put down a parliamentary question about a holding of land every day the Dáil sits, that is his privilege. If a Deputy wants to abuse the privilege, that is a matter for himself.
The Minister is trying to persuade the Dáil on certain promises.
The Deputy has got up for the fourth time.
I only asked the Minister a question.
The Deputy is again up on the same question.
I was asking a question.
Chair!
It is an important matter.
It is an important matter. I have no objection.
I have objection to upsetting all the rules of order.
The questions are hardly out of order. Would the Minister give an undertaking to the Dáil, further, that if it become a practice in the country that when land is offered for sale there is agitation to prevent anybody except the Land Commission from buying it so that we have practically an end to the tradition of exchanging holdings for cash between people, an end will be put to it?
I settled it earlier by saying that if any malpractice arises as a result of the Land Commission coming into the open market then and there they will withdraw from the open market, and I hope that that binds my successor in office.
That is the third time the Minister has given that undertaking.
Is the Deputy pressing that amendment?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 15, lines 48, 49 and 50, to delete "sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, as extended by sub-section (6) of Section 28 of this Act" and substitute "paragraphs (a), (c) and (e), as extended by sub-section (6)) of Section 28 of this Act) of sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, or to the Minister for the purposes of afforestation".
This amendment seeks to do in a better way what the previous amendment aimed at, that is, to limit the use to which the Land Commission may put that land over and above giving it to migrants.
I know that I can only speak once, but perhaps the Minister will explain to the House—I think we are entitled to ask—in what way it is an improvement or in what way it limits the Land Commission with regard to land acquired under Section 25.
It is quite possible under the section as it emerged from the Committee Stage that, as Deputy Moylan expressed it, landless men could be allotted land. This definitely excludes that. I cannot make it clearer than that. It prevents the possibility of such people raising the clamour of which Deputy Aiken and Deputy Kennedy are so afraid when land is offered for sale.
I take it that under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, as extended by Section 6 of Section 28 of this Act all these people would be entitled to land. The Minister has brought in something that was not in the section before, that was not in the section in its Committee Stage and that was not in the section on this stage until he has added it here, that is the question of land for afforestation. This is land which will be acquired, I presume, in the open market under Section 25 and if it is and the open market price is paid for such land, I certainly have a strong objection to allowing the Land Commission to set trees on it. The Land Commission have sufficient powers to get land for the purpose of afforestation already. They have their own method of getting it and their own prices which are to be paid for such lands. The type of land which is suitable for afforestation is regarded, in the part of the country I come from at least, as land which is not suitable for anything else. We have—the Land Commission in particular—sufficient problems on hands to try to solve congestion without dragging the question of afforestation into the Land Bill. I do not want land which is bought on the public market at the expense of the taxpayers used for the purpose of afforestation.
Are we not doing it every day?
They are not doing it every day.
On my honour we are, and all I am sorry about is that it is not going fast enough.
What I am trying to point out is that the Land Commission have not yet power under Section 25 to buy lands on the open market and pay the prices paid in the open market for purposes of afforestation as far as I am aware, and I would be delighted if somebody would point out where that power is.
One of the limitations which will obviously be on the Minister and the Land Commission under this Bill is the question of finance. I am quite satisfied, and I am sure that every Deputy in the House is quite satisfied, that the amount of land to be purchased on the open market under Section 25 for the purpose of relieving congestion will be governed by the amount of money allowed by the Minister for Finance for that purpose.
Largely.
The amount that will be allowed in any one year by the Minister for Finance to the Land Commission for the purpose of buying land on the open market under Section 25 will be limited to the price of land to be used solely for the purpose of allotment to migrants. I therefore do not want to give the Minister power under Section 25 to use portion of that land for afforestation. The Land Commission will have plenty on their hands in acquiring as much land as possible for the relief of congestion. The forestry section of the Department of Lands has sufficient power to get as much land as they need, land that is suitable for the purpose of afforestation.
The Forestry Department can buy any land.
If the Minister wants to make a difference between one section of the Department and another I make him a present of it.
They can buy the best land in the country as well as the worst.
If they can buy the best land in the country as well as the worst then why state that fact in this amendment of the Minister's? If the Minister tells the House that the Land Commission can go into the open market and buy land at any price they wish then why include that power in this amendment of the Minister's?
I will tell the Deputy if he sits down.
There is no reason why it should come in here. On the other hand, as Deputy Moylan pointed out, on his amendment a moment ago, the Land Commission might purchase a 70 acre farm in order to bring a congest or a migrant into it and they might feel that they were doing enough by giving such a man 60 acres and they might give 10 acres to the Forestry Department to set trees. If that is so I say it is a "cod" of a way. I would sooner make a present of that 10 acres to the farmer and let him set trees rather than hand it over to the Forestry Department after the Land Commission has bought it in the open market at public expense.
I am allowing a person who has an amendment down to take it as a motion and the Minister can conclude whether it is the Minister's or a Deputy's.
I want to answer the Deputy's question in the Irish way by putting another. What is wrong with the Land Commission turning over, say, 100, 200 or 300 acres of land on a farm they buy which is good for nothing else but forestry and which is not needed by the incoming migrant?
It is wrong, because the land has been purchased in the open market at the taxpayers' expense.
The Forestry Department this year purchased 12,000 or 15,000 acres and next year, please God, they will purchase 30,000.
He wants to stop the Minister from doing that.
Apparently.
That power can be abused. I had a question down this very day about 700 acres which were purchased for forestry purposes by the Minister. That 700 acres would have made two holdings, according to the views of the people whose congestion would have been relieved.
It is the Land Commission's view that counts.
When it suits the Minister. When it does not it is the Minister's view that counts.
The fact is that that land was up for sale. I do not know whether the Land Commission anticipated the powers under Section 25 or not. In any event, it has been acquired.
It was put up for sale and Forestry bought it.
Yes, the Minister's Department bought it. The suspicion I have about the introduction of the Forestry Department into this matter is that the Department will express the view that the land is not good enough for the purposes of the congests and will turn it over to the Forestry section. That is a high-handed thing to do when the people themselves, who are the best judges of the type of farming they carry on, say that the land is good enough for them. This is a concrete case in which the problem in the village of Raigha could have been solved, but the Forestry Department purloined the 700 acres and the problem is not now capable of being solved.
The Deputy should withdraw that. The Forestry Department did not purloin the farm. They entered into negotiations with the owner and bought it. They did not purloin it.
I am glad the Minister has introduced this amendment, but it does not go far enough, and I ask him to consider the matter further between now and the time when the Bill goes to the Seanad. The Land Commission will still have power, when this amendment is accepted, to acquire land for the purpose of giving it to migrants under Section 25 and then giving it to people in the locality in which the land is purchased. The Land Commission will be in the position of going in and outbidding people for land who normally acquire land with their own money and it will tend to put an end to the traditional way in which small farmers have provided land for their sons. It is a very dangerous course to embark on and may very well lead to a situation in which everybody will be holding back from the purchase of land, even though they are in a position to purchase land for their families, and relying upon the State to go into the market and buy the land, declaring a loss on resale and hoping to get it at a reduced figure and on the basis of half the annuity.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 16, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following sub-section:—
(14) Rules made pursuant to the next preceding sub-section may provide that, where an allocation of compensation is made as between any mortgagor and mortgagee, an allocation may be made in respect of both principal and interest and that interest shall be treated as ranking equally with principal.
This amendment is in connection with the purchase of land in the open market and is designed to provide a safeguard, which was overlooked, for the mortgagee in the few odd cases in which there may be mortgages on land. It is very involved.
I have no objection to the principle of the amendment, but I do object to the fact—and this is a feature of the whole Bill—that no provision is made by the Minister for the laying of these rules on the Table of the House. I pointed out the other night—briefly, because it was suggested I was not quite in order—that statutory rules can have statutory effect. I do not say that that will be so in the case of the rules made under this amendment. I agree that rules may be necessary, but it is, and has been, the practice that provision is made that these rules will come before some House of the Oireachtas, so that the Dáil and the country will know what rules are made.
In an earlier part of this Bill, the Minister for Finance is given power to make rules governing the whole principles of the Bill and it may well happen that the Minister for Finance may make statutory rules, if he so desires, which would even have the effect of repealing some of the sections of this very Bill. Statutory rules seemed to come as a surprise to the Minister when I mentioned them previously. They can actually repeal statutes and there are certain statutory rules which come to my mind, wherein it is set out that wherever these rules conflict with a statute, the rules will prevail.
I merely mention these matters in order to point out to the House that here provision is being made for the making of rules, without any provision for these rules coming before the House and that there is in the beginning of the Bill a much more dangerous section, giving the Minister for Finance power to make rules. Goodness knows what rules he might make or what effect they might have. They might perhaps, in effect, be against the whole intention of some of the sections with which we have been dealing, and what I suggest to the Minister is that in connection with these rules, and more particularly the rules to be made by the Minister for Finance under this Bill, the matter should be re-examined before it goes to the Seanad, and, if necessary, a sub-section inserted at the end of this section, providing that these rules when made shall be laid on the Table of this House.
I repeat what I said last night. I think it is very strange if rules made by outsiders—I refer now to everybody outside the House— under Section 3 of this Bill can repeal any section or principle in the Bill.
If so expressed the Minister might consult Deputy Collins behind him.
I am no legal man, but if that be the case, the whole system of putting a Bill through this House is nothing short of a farce. I do not believe that can be the case. I think that as regards legislation the two Houses of the Oireachtas are yet supreme.
Does the Minister not know that rules may have statutory effect?
They have, because this legislation gives rules so made statutory effect. The second point raised was in regard to the Minister for Finance making rules concerning the financing of anything arising out of this measure. Why would he not? Surely it is not proposed that every Minister, in the management of his own Department, is to be his own Minister for Finance?
He is the incorporeal hereditament mentioned in the Bill.
I do not know whether it is obligatory that the rules should be laid on the Table or placed in the Library, but all these rules are purchasable in the Stationery Office for a few pence and that should satisfy the Deputy.
Statutory rules are often made and nobody knows anything about them until they find something done under them. Unless there is a provision in the statute providing that the rules shall be laid on the Table of the House, we will never know when they are made.
Because they have never been purchased and read.
It is bad parliamentary procedure.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 17, line 5, to delete "is" and substitute "has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been."
This amendment is to cover cases in the hands of the Land Commission at the moment concerning the payment of gratuities to displaced employees. Under the previous wording it could be held that where an employee was employed on land in the hands of the Land Commission for some years he was not displaced by the purchase of the farm but by the allotment of the land. He might have been employed by the Land Commission as a herd or stock manager. This amendment is to cover such cases as that. There are a few of these estates in the hands of the Land Commission at the moment.
I do not quite understand how somebody can lose his employment through the allotment of the land. I understood that possibly the Minister made this section retrospective in order to deal specifically with the case raised here on the Committee Stage. I thought that when I mentioned the Dignan estate in Shrule the Minister had changed his mind since we had that discussion and that this was brought in to deal with it.
It is not.
The Minister is taking power now to deal with cases of that kind.
No, unfortunately, that man is out.
If I understand this amendment, I take it that there is nothing to prevent the Land Commission going back and dealing with any case where the Land Commission are satisfied that a man has lost his employment through the acquisition of an estate. As I understand it, there is no time-limit put on this matter by the Minister. I understood the Minister had changed his mind about this specific case referred to on the Committee Stage. I do not suppose there would be many cases on which the Land Commission would have to go back. Possibly there may be a few estates in the hands of the Land Commission in connection with which this question might arise. As the Minister is taking this power, I would again ask him to deal with the specific case referred to in Committee.
I have great sympathy with that man but he left his employment on that particular farm seven years before the change. While I admit that it is a compassionate case, nevertheless we cannot go back seven years. He left his employment seven years before the Land Commission took the land. Suppose any other person purchased that estate from McDonagh and not the Land Commission, the man would not have got compensation for the loss of his employment.
The Minister can go back 50 years under this amendment.
Provided it was the taking over of the land by the Land Commission which displaced the man. The taking over of the McDonagh estate did not displace Kelly. He left his previous employment of his own free will, I understand.
Let us discuss the general principles of the matter. You might go back a long way and deal with cases which happened ten or 15 years ago. Is that the intention?
It is giving power to deal with some cases, anyhow.
I think the Minister would want to do a little more than that. As reported in Volume 118, column 9, of the Official Reports, the Minister said:—
"Many allottees of this class who were given allotments on farms have proved themselves quite unsatisfactory. The allotment, in fact, has been wasted on them."
The Minister said that more than once in the good old days when I was Minister and he was knocking me hard every day. I agree that it is something we want to obviate. The giving of land to men because they happen to be employed on an estate which is being divided and, after a few years, giving them permission to compensate themselves in the best fashion they can by the sale of the land is altogether wrong. I would like the Minister to include in this provision for the fixation of a gratuity to be paid to any such employee. If any such employee afterwards got portion of the land, the gratuity should not be paid to him and if, after getting the land, he proved unsatisfactory and wanted to sell the land, he should be given the gratuity fixed at first and allowed to get out. That is the only way to deal with such unsatisfactory allottees. It is wrong to permit men who, by some pretext of employment or other, get a farm of land often valued for £1,000, dissipate it for a few years by letting it in conacre or grazing back to the very man who owned the estate, to sell it in the open market and make a substantial profit. It is a premium on ineptitude and dishonesty. I suggest to the Minister that the gratuity should be fixed for such an employee and, if he afterwards got an allotment on the estate, he should not be paid the gratuity. If, for any reason, such as unsatisfactory working or because he was a failure, he has to get out, he should not get permission to sell the land but should be given the gratuity. I think the section should be so amended.
I will think that over.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 17, line 6, to delete "or purchase" and substitute "purchase or allotment".
This amendment is to cover cases that might be ruled out or that could be described as not qualifying because it was the allotment of the estate which displaced men from employment and not the acquisition of the estate. There might be, for instance, a herd who is continued in employment for two or three years by the Land Commission, and in such a case it would not be the acquisition of the estate but the final allotment of it which displaced him.
I do not see how that arises, because if the land was taken over by the Land Commission how would the herd of the previous owner be there?
The legal men advise me that that is necessary and I think it is.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In page 17, line 18, to delete "Act", and substitute "Act or contained in any agreement made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) with the Land Commission".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question —"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
When will the Final Stage be taken?
I should like to get the Final Stage now.
In view of the importance of this Bill, I think it is only right that we on this side of the House should be given an opportunity of making a considered statement on it. For that reason I think the Minister should give us a few days before he takes the Final Stage.
The reason I am asking for the Final Stage is that there is a certain amount of hold-up in the Land Commission machinery due to some changes made by this Bill.
Surely the Minister will give us at least a week.
I want to have the Bill taken in the Seanad next week.
We will give it to you about 5 o'clock on Tuesday.
That would not allow the Bill to be taken by the Seanad next week.
We will be more than reasonable with the Minister.
Ordered: That the Final Stage be taken on Tuesday, 25th April.