Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 24 Oct 1952

Vol. 134 No. 3

Private Deputies' Business. - Land Bill, 1952—Second Stage.

Mr. Blowick

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. My reason for introducing this Bill last June was a section of the 1950 Act which was passed during the period of office of the inter-Party Government. For the benefit of Deputies who may not grasp the full meaning of it I should say that sub-section (2) of Section 5 of that Act was an amendment which I introduced while the Bill was going through the House in order to enable land which was being taken over by the Land Commission during the course of the passing of the Bill to have the benefit of sub-section (1) of Section 5. Land Commission work was proceeding as usual when the Bill was going through and it meant that a certain number of cases —approximately 93—of the acquisition of vested land were in the Land Commission machine during the debate. Section 5 was introduced in order to repeal sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the 1923 Act. That sub-section enabled the Land Commission to acquire unvested land, or untenanted land, as the technical term is, and to fix the price of such land in a way which was considered unjust and inequitable for a long time. The sub-section operated in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, against those whose land was acquired in a very harsh way in some cases.

Up to the passing of the 1950 Act, in the case of unvested land which was being resumed by the Land Commission the owners were paid full market price, even though they did not own it, while in a similar case in the same townland or area, and perhaps by the same owner, tenanted land was paid for at a much reduced price. Coupled with that, the 1923 Act, and later the 1936 Act, provided that the redemption money outstanding at the time of acquisition should be redeemed out of the purchase money by the owner. Section 5 of the 1950 Act repealed all that and compelled the Land Commission, or enabled the Land Commission, according to the view one takes, to pay full market value for vested land without the redemption of the outstanding annuity, as in the case of unvested land.

That brings me to sub-section (2) of Section 5. Many Deputies during my period as Minister pointed out that the price of land which was being acquired during the passing of the 1950 Act had to be arrived at under the terms of the 1923 Act, and a number of people whose land was being acquired at the time would not benefit by the 1950 Act. For that reason I introduced an amendment which later became sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the 1950 Act. It runs thus:

"Where—

(a) the price of untenanted land acquired or purchased by the Land Commission was determined before the passing of this Act whether by agreement or by the fixing thereof under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Land Act, 1923, and

(b) the Land Commission took possession of the land on or after the first day of December, 1949, and before the passing of this Act or take possession of the land after the passing of this Act,

the following provisions shall have effect:—

(i) application may be made to the Land Commission within six months after the passing of this Act for redetermination of the price of the land."

The reason I introduced the Bill was that some time after the change of government last summer twelve-months there were a few cases where owners of land should have benefited and ought to have taken advantage of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the 1950 Act and did not do so. I had in mind one case, but when five or six others were brought to my notice, it occurred to me then that quite a number of people did not take advantage of it for the simple reason that they did not know that subsection would be an advantage to them.

That led me on the 28th February last to ask the Minister for Lands the following question:—

"if he will state (a) the number of acquired estates possession of which was taken by the Land Commission between 1st December, 1949, and a date six months after the passing of the Land Act, 1950; (b) in how many cases application was made to have the price redetermined, and (c) if he will introduce proposals for amending legislation."

The answer the Minister gave was:

"The particulars are (a) 93 estates, (b) 23 cases."

That meant that out of 93 acquisition cases which were under way during the passing of the 1950 Act only 23 took advantage of this section.

The reason I introduced this Bill— all that is contained in it is an extension of the time—is that the sub-section which was designed expressly to benefit that type of case which was caught in the Land Commission machine during the passing of the Act stated definitely that application for redetermination of the price would have to be made within six months after the passing of the Act.

This Act became law on the 19th June, 1950, and a date six months after that brought us to the 19th December, 1950. The fact remains that approximately 70 cases failed to take advantage of it and the reason I introduce this Bill is that the Minister stated at the time that it was not proposed to introduce legislation on the lines suggested in part (c) of my question to him.

I want to admit that, strictly speaking, people should take advantage of the law when the law is passed through the House expressly for their benefit; but we must also admit that people down the country who are not members of the legal profession do not follow up and appreciate fully the niceties of the law or the benefits they may obtain, for some time afterwards. I now realise that the time limit which was embodied in this Bill—six months after the passing of the Act—was not sufficiently long.

A Land Act is a very complicated thing and the average man cannot reasonably be expected to follow it in full. Secondly, this particular section or advantage, I may say, now that I think of it, did not get a lot of publicity at the time and it is quite understandable that those who would benefit did not take advantage of it. One strange case was brought to my notice where the solicitors of the owner of the land were actually informed by a Deputy of the advantage of this Act and they were instructed to take advantage of it but did not do so. That was the only one of that kind. The others brought to my notice told me personally that they were not aware of the advantage that would accrue to them from this sub-section (2).

I hope I have made the position clear. The reason I introduce this is to extend the time from the 1st June, 1950, to 1st June, 1953, in order to give these people, these 70 cases, if they desire to take it, the chance to have the price of their land redetermined, where the land was acquired between 1st December, 1949, and 19th June, 1950. That will have an added benefit, as I have no doubt that where they do that the judicial commissioner to whom such appeals may come will have due regard to the redemption price of these estates at that time and will judge the cases accordingly. I ask the Minister to accept this Bill. It is a simple one, and I think it covers the cases fully without any amendment or anything else being necessary.

Mr. Finan

I do not need to add anything to what Deputy Blowick has said. This is merely a belated attempt to do justice to a very limited number of people who were obviously not in a position to make themselves fully acquainted with the law as it stood. I think the Minister must admit, and perhaps the ex-Minister, too, that six months is a very short period to allow to people to consider what action they will take on a certain line of legislation. It may easily happen, unless the Press interest themselves in the legislation passed through this House, that many people would be totally unaware for a long period of Acts of the Legislature here. They may, of course, become acquainted with the salient or more important part of legislation which has got an appeal to the public but where a private individual's interests are affected it is too much to expect that the Press would give much publicity to it.

I am not acquainted with any cases affected by this legislation, but I do say in all reason that if there are about 70 people who failed, probably through no fault of their own, to take advantage of the permission given under this Act, it is not asking much to extend the period now, so that, now that they have become aware of it or will become aware of the advanced date, they may be recompensed for the losses which they undoubtedly must have sustained.

Mr. Fanning

I would like time to support this Bill and the principle in it. I have known cases in my own area in North Tipperary where small people had not known of this advantage and so became deprived of their rights. This Bill may be of help to them and I am glad that other Deputies seem to take the same view. I will not delay the House and will conclude by saying I would like to support the Bill.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig)

The case to which Deputy Fanning has referred is fairly well known. There were two cases in which applications were received late and therefore were not accepted—but with regard to the other cases, the possible 70, I have no information. I dislike retrospective legislation because there is always the question of how far back you will go. Will you go back six months or 12 months or how far? Once you open the door, there are always some people who will have a grievance that even under amending legislation they just missed the tide and their cases were not covered.

In general, I think that retrospective legislation is not to be commended. There will always be cases of persons whose rights may have been affected or who, for some reason or another, find that they did not get the benefits that would seem to accrue to them. I do not know whether failure to make applications is due to remissness or to some other causes. As Deputy Finan has pointed out, it is certainly extraordinary if it can be alleged that the members of the legal profession who are supposed to look after their clients have not made themselves aware of legislation actually going through. The fact that legislation is going through would seem to mean that attention would be directed to it. Even though a particular clause might not have received a great deal of publicity, it was known that the general object of the Land Act, 1950, was to give the market value of land. It must have been known to those people whose land was taken over since a date in 1949 that they became eligible for this market value which was newly fixed under the Act. However, I recognise that there are cases of hardship as, for example, the case to which Deputy Fanning has referred. I am not familiar with some of the other cases.

I would like to point out, as an additional reason why we ought to be careful in amending legislation of this kind and why we should make it as narrow as possible if we have to amend it, that, even in that particular case, land was allotted and the necessary financial losses which accrued to the State as a result were registered. Of course, the effect of the Bill is to impose further losses which might be regarded as substantial. If we have regard for the Land Commission finances as a whole they may be said not to be very great, but, nevertheless, they are substantial.

Moved by the fact that there will be other cases of hardship in which persons, through no fault of their own, who would have been entitled to the benefit of the clause in the 1950 Land Act, did not receive these benefits, I am prepared to accept the principle of the Bill which Deputy Blowick has placed before the House, and to ask the Government to give effect to it.

I feel, as has been said during the last discussion, that it would be more appropriate to deal with this Bill as a Government measure. It would have to be taken over by the Government, in any event. It may be that the draftsman will draft it, as often happens, in a rather different manner from the one which the private Deputy adopted in bringing his Bill before the House. I am generally in favour of the principle just enunciated by the Minister for Justice that, if possible, while the general feeling of the House must be considered by the Government and the Government must carry out the verdict of the House, it is better, in general, that such amending legislation should be brought in as a Government measure. Therefore, if the Deputy is agreeable to it, I would be prepared, as soon as possible, to introduce an amending measure covering the cases he has outlined and covering the grants that he mentioned.

Mr. Blowick

I am asking the Minister what is wrong with this Bill. He mentioned that retrospective legislation is not good, and I quite agree, because it raises a lot of false hopes that never materialise. Then, again, if we adopt the principle of going back on one case numbers of people will argue that their cases should be reexamined. Therefore, I am in agreement with the Minister in his point, but I do not think it is correct to call this Bill a retrospective measure; it is merely extending the time for a very limited number—70 people—who were not aware of the existence of this sub-section. The fault really lies more with myself and, perhaps, with the draftsman and others than with the people concerned. We did not realise that the time limit given under this sub-section—six months from the passing of the Act—was really too short. The sub-section, because of its nature, did not get as much publicity as did other parts of the Act. Would the Minister say if it is his intention to bring in a short Bill dealing with this matter, or is it his intention to incorporate this principle in a larger Bill?

Mr. Derrig

My present intention would be to introduce a Bill to deal specifically with this matter. As the Deputy knows, there is no trouble in bringing in a Land Bill, because there are always legal adjustments and amendments that we would like. I would not agree with the introduction of a Bill solely for the purpose of bringing in technical or legal amendments which might be in the offing. I do not think this opportune. My present feeling would be to go ahead and simply introduce a measure on the lines advocated by the Deputy—not dealing with other points. If I departed from that idea in any way I would let the Deputy know. I do not intend to depart from it.

Mr. Blowick

Very good. The Minister stated that in one place in North Tipperary the land is already allotted. I can easily see that there the greatest difficulty would lie with the vendor of the land in having an appropriate valuation of the land now assessed. As I see it, the difficulty would lie more with the vendor of the land than with the Department. When does the Minister think he will introduce the Bill?

Mr. Derrig

As soon as possible.

Mr. Blowick

Could you not give a definite date? Do you think it will be introduced before the end of this session?

Mr. Derrig

I will do my best to introduce it.

Mr. Blowick

It is only a simple measure.

Mr. Derrig

I am only one of the Ministers forming a Government trying to get legislation passed, but I will do my best to get this measure through.

Mr. Blowick

I do not think there is a single colleague of yours who will put forward an argument similar to the one we heard a short time ago during the discussion on the other Bill: "Is the Minister going to take his direction from Deputy Blowick?" There are only 70 people involved. While I admit that their legal advisers may have been a bit careless I feel it would be unjust not to bring in a measure such as this so as to give them a further chance. Then, if they do not avail of the opportunity, it will be their own kettle of fish.

Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m., until 3 p.m., on Wednesday, 29th October, 1952.