asked the Minister for Lands if he will consider introducing proposals for legislation to enable him to arbitrate between land owners and the Land Commission in fixing an equitable price for land acquired, and thus obviate the litigation costs involved in bringing such cases before the Land Court.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of Land.
It is not intended to introduce proposals for amending legislation which would substitute a process of arbitration for the present statutory hearing before the Appeal Tribunal of an appeal against the price for land fixed by the Land Commission.
Prior to the passing of the Land Act, 1950, there was some occasion, as the Deputy will remember, to call in question the law relating to the price to be paid by the Land Commission for untenanted land acquired by them, and it was not surprising that owners in general were dissatisfied with the offers of price then made and felt compelled to resort to appeal. Section 5 of that Act, however, has changed the position radically, by ensuring that the price fixed by the Land Commission must now be an amount equal to the market value of the land.
I can understand that market value in any particular case is open to a variety of opinions, even between expert valuers, but where reason prevails the range of estimates need not be so wide as to exclude the possibility of eventual agreement. I am satisfied that every opportunity is afforded the owner whose land is being acquired to reach agreement with the Land Commission on the price question. It is only when it is obvious that wide differences exist, between what the owner expects and what the Land Commission deems to be the amount equal to the market value, that resort must be had to fixation of the price by the Appeal Tribunal. In such cases it is customary for the Appeal Tribunal to make an award of costs to the owner.
It would be contrary to the principles enshrined in the Land Act, 1950, for the Minister for Lands to interfere in the fixing of prices for particular lands and I consider it would be undesirable to adopt such innovation.
Is the Minister not aware of the growing dissatisfaction, for which there is justification, that the price paid for land acquired since the passing of the Act in 1950 is not comparable to the market value?
No. I must say that I am not aware of a serious number of complaints, that is, complaints of such number as would convince me that either the Land Commission or the Appeal Tribunal are evading the provisions of the appropriate section of the Land Act, 1950. In individual cases, no doubt, there may be disagreement on prices, but this House has by law stated that the Land Commission and the Appeal Tribunal must give the market value for land and no evidence has reached me to convince me that they are evading that statutory provision.
In view of the Minister's repeated replies indicating to the House his lack of power to direct the commissioners to do any particular work under the Land Acts, would he not agree that it is about time we got rid of the Minister for Lands altogether?
That is a separate question.
It is not true that the Minister for Lands has no direction over the commissioners.
It is a separate question. Question No. 18.
asked the Minister for Lands whether the Land Commission are now prepared to reconsider the question of acquiring the lands of Mr. Myles Feerick, Kinnitty, Four-Mile-House, County Roscommon.
The owner's objection to acquisition of this estate was allowed a few years ago and there are no proceedings pending at present in this matter.
Is the Minister aware that when this owner was successful in his objection to the acquisition of the land by the Land Commission it was on the basis that he would divide this land between his two sons and that he would erect two houses on the land? At present this owner is living 35 to 40 miles away from the area and no attempt has been made by him either to fence the land or to erect the houses.
If the facts are as the Deputy states, I will bring the matter to the notice of the commissioners.
Will the Minister bring the matter to the notice of the commissioners so that they can satisfy themselves that what I am saying is perfectly correct?
The Deputy's information is correct as regards the objection lodged in 1947.
The Minister can take it from me that the owner has made no attempt whatever to carry out the guarantee given to the tribunal at that time. In those circumstances, will the Minister have the matter brought to the notice of the commissioners?
Yes.
asked the Minister for Lands whether the Land Commission are prepared to reconsider the question of acquiring the non-residential farm at Tonlagee, on the Reynolds estate, County Roscommon, belonging to Mr. Peter Kelly.
The Land Commission propose to review this case when circumstances permit.
Would the Minister explain what he means by "when circumstances permit"?
There again, that is a matter for the commissioners.
Would the Minister explain what he means by saying it is a matter for the Land Commission?
That it is a matter for the Land Commission. I am not making a joke of it, but I can tell the Deputy that examination of all the circumstances in such cases is left entirely to the commission and not to me.
What does the Minister mean by saying "when circumstances permit"? Does that mean the Land Commission will take action within a reasonable period of time?
No, I presume what is meant is that if the circumstances of the owner or the user of the land permit, the commission will institute proceedings.