Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Aug 1923

Vol. 1 No. 37

THE PREVENTION OF ELECTORAL ABUSES BILL, 1923. - SEANAD IN COMMITTEE—LAND BILL, 1923.

Question: "That Sections 26 and 27 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

SECTION 28.

SUB-SECTION 6.

(6) This section shall not apply to:—

(a) Any holding in respect of which the standard price exceeds three thousand pounds; or

(b) Any holding in the beneficial occupation of a tenant who is on the appointed day the proprietor of lands for the purchase of which advances have been made under any of the Land Purchase Acts, and whether redeemed or not, if the total amount resulting from the addition to the standard price of the amount obtained by capitalising at the rate of four and three-quarters per cent. the original annuities payable on such advances exceeds £3,000, or

(c) Any holding as respects which the Land Commission declare that it is not in the public interest that the holding shall be resold to the tenant as aforesaid, whether on the ground that the improvement of the holding is essential and practicable, or otherwise; or

(d) Any holding which in the opinion of the Land Commission ought to be retained for improvement or enlargement, or for utilisation in connection with the relief of congestion.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I beg to propose Amendment 29(a):—To delete the Sub-section (6). I do this to call attention to the new and important features introduced into this new sub-section which will press very hardly on an unpurchased tenant. As I read this sub-section under (b) the unpurchased tenant who already has other lands which have been purchased under any of the Land Purchase Acts and which other lands exceed £3,000 in value automatically is a holder of his unpurchased land whatever its value. That is a new provision. This whole provision is, I think, new in any Bill that has been before the Irish Parliament. The effect of that is to take away completely for the time being from that unpurchased tenant the whole of his unpurchased land and to hand it over. Subsequently that land may go through a further process of resumption under the next section, and he may never get back that land if the Government wishes.

I will have an opportunity of arguing what happens to that land under Section 32, but I would ask the Seanad to take a serious view of this matter that they are giving the Land Commission power to take, and keep if they wish for all time, a person's unpurchased land merely because he happens not to have bought or perhaps it is being bought under a purchase agreement, and the value of it exceeds £3,000. I think this is a drastic piece of legislation. It is not just that because a man owns land of £3,000 value you take away from him any land in excess of that amount, even land which he may have in his family for generations. I would ask Senators to examine independently what these provisions mean, and if possible to try and get a clear judgment on the matter of this kind. I would like to be allowed to withdraw this amendment and to move the next, which is to limit Sub-section (b) only.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You are not moving the first amendment.

Sir J. KEANE

I withdraw that amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I beg to move the second amendment which is:—Section 28, Sub-Section (6), to delete lines 7-15.

Mr. HOGAN

These are two very important Sections, 28 and 29, and it would be well that we should get the hang of them in the beginning. The machinery of the Bill is, shortly, this. There is an appointed day which varies for different sections, different counties, different areas, as the Land Commission wish. When they are ready to name the appointed day in any area which they think is suitable, they name it for a specified area. There is no such thing as an appointed day for the congested districts, for instance. There might be an appointed day, for instance, for three parishes in the County Galway. I doubt if they will deal in parishes; they will probably deal in estates. The appointed day comes when the Land Commission ascertain a few very simple particulars: the name of the tenant and of the landlord, the area of the holding, etc. Then they can name the appointed day. They name the appointed day for all holdings except retained holdings. I will just read the Section on that point:—

The tenant of every holding of tenanted land vested in the Land Commission by virtue of this Act, and to which this section applies, shall be deemed on the appointed day to have entered into a subsequent purchase agreement for the purchase of the holding from the Land Commission at the standard price.

The second Sub-Section is rather important:—

There shall be payable by the tenant to the Land Commission an annual sum, equivalent to the standard purchase annuity for the holding, and the additional annuity (if any) in respect of compounded arrears of rent added to the purchase money, from the appointed day until the gale day next after the holding is vested in the tenant. The Land Commission shall have for the recovery of such annual sum the same remedies as they have for the recovery of unpaid instalments of purchase annuity.

So that from the appointed day, which can be fixed extremely quickly after ascertaining a few simple particulars, the tenant purchaser is paying a sum which is equivalent in amount to his standard purchase annuity. We do not call it purchase annuity. We call it an equivalent sum. The tenant purchaser has the example of the operations of the 1903 Act all round him, and we do not want to give the impression to him that he was the absolute owner in fee-simple of his holding on the appointed day, and that we were unable to re-arrange the estate, as estates have to be arranged under all purchase Acts. We want to give him all the advantages of being the owner in fee-simple for the time being. We are allowing him to pay a sum equivalent to his annuity, and not the old interest in lieu of rent which was always higher than the annuity, and no part of which went in redemption of the annuity, with the result that under the 1903 Act you have sales pending in the Land Commission for 7 or 8 years. You have tenant purchasers paying interest in lieu of rent which is higher than the annuity and not one penny of which goes in redemption of their advance. We want to abolish a long-standing grievance, namely, the interest in lieu of rent period. We have arrived at the appointed day and the date on which the tenant begins to pay the sum equivalent to his standard purchase annuity. Then:

There shall be payable by the tenant to the Land Commission on the gale day on which the first instalment of the said annual sum shall become payable by him an additional sum, equivalent to a proportion of the said annual sum in respect of the period between the said gale day and the day on which the next dividends are payable on Land Bonds issued under this Act. The Land Commission shall have for the recovery of such additional sum the same remedies as they have for the recovery of unpaid instalments of the purchase annuity.

Every holding to which this section applies shall be vested in the tenant by the Land Commission by vesting order or otherwise.

Now, we come to the second portion— namely, the date of vesting. In the 1903 Act there was the date of the agreement and the date of vesting. In this there is an appointed day, and the date of vesting. Under the 1903 Act, between the date of the agreement and the vesting, the tenant paid interest in lieu of rent. Under this Bill, between the appointed day and the date of vesting, he pays the equivalent to the standard purchase annuity.

This is an important section:—

All payments made by the tenant after the appointed day on foot of the annual sum payable by him to the Land Commission under this section shall, from and after the vesting of the holding in him, be treated for all purposes as if they had been payments in respect of purchase annuity.

That is to say that after the date of vesting we make an adjustment. It is only a matter of book-keeping. We give him credit for the sinking fund portion of his payment which he has been making between the appointed day and the date of vesting. That gets over the difficulty of the interest in lieu of rent period, without doing anyone any harm. It is perfectly obvious that if we had to make all the inquiries and all the arrangements, checking accurately, and have everything fixed before we could name the appointed day, that we would be back to the old procedure. We are not in a position to do that—to say the last word on every issue until the date of vesting. When we have all the details settled we vest, because we know that everything is fair and square. If we were to adjourn the appointed day until we had every detail settled, then the appointed day would not come for the long period that elapses between the date of the agreement and the date of vesting under the 1903 Act, which is sometimes two and four years and on odd occasions about 12 years. There are sales begun in 1907 still pending in the Land Commission for a good many reasons, chiefly the war. The average period is about five years. If we are to abolish this interest in lieu of rent period and give the tenant all the benefits of paying a sum equivalent to his annuity, and redeeming his holding from a very early date, we must retain any holding we have any suspicion about, that might have to be re-arranged afterwards. We must do it with a fairly wide sweep.

There will be 75 or 80 per cent. of holdings—ordinary economic holdings— where any inspector will know that the tenant is not going to be stirred. It is the minority that always make the trouble. We must, then, as I say, with a pretty wide sweep, exclude from that advantage, to start with, the holdings we have any doubt about, that we think may have to be re-arranged afterwards for any reason. Hence we exclude any holding in respect of which the standard price exceeds £3,000. Why? Our limit is £3,000, the same limit as the 1909 Act, and the same as the 1920 Bill. We may sell more, and we may not. We have not made up our minds. We cannot hold up the appointed day for the other 75 per cent. until we make up our minds.

The Sub-section reads:—

Any holding in the beneficial occupation of a tenant who is on the appointed day the proprietor of lands for the purchase of which advances have been made under any of the Land Purchase Acts, and whether redeemed or not, if the total amount resulting from the addition to the standard price of the amount obtained by capitalising at the rate of four and three-quarters per cent. the original annuities payable on such advances, exceeds £3,000.

That sounds pretty formidable, but it is simple with a little explanation. Any tenant who got an advance of over £3,000 under the 1903 Act, that advance was counted in for the purposes of the limitation under the 1909 Act, the principle being: how much is the State lending? It does not matter whether it is this Act or that. There was only one doubt as to the 1909 Act and it was this: Suppose a tenant got an advance under the 1903 Act and had redeemed it, was he entitled to the full £3,000 under the 1909 Act? There was a rather famous case, in re Mary Sweetman, which was taken to the Courts, and there it was decided that it did not matter whether the tenant had redeemed his advance or not It was to be taken into account.

That is the law of the land at the moment. That is not the law of this Bolshevist Government that is out to destroy property and play the deuce with the big farmer. That is the law of the good old British Government. That was a provision in the 1920 Bill accepted by all parties. It occurred to me that it was unfair in one respect and I altered the law for the benefit of the tenant. This is the case that occurred to me. A farmer may have two farms. He may have purchased one under the 1903 Act when the price of tenanted land was much higher. His advance may be £2,000. He has another farm which is not purchased yet and which is to be purchased under this Bill. If he had not the bad fortune to purchase under the 1903 Act the £3,000 might conceivably purchase both farms now because the price is low. He has got his advance of £2,000 already and has only £1,000 to spare. How to put that man in the same position as the man who had not purchased either farm under the existing law was the dilemma.

After a considerable amount of consideration we arrived at this principle: "If the total amount resulting from the addition to the standard price of the amount obtained by capitalising at the rate of 4¾ per cent., the original annuities payable on such advances exceeds £3,000." We took his original annuity. Under the 1903 Act it was 3¼ per cent. on his advance. The annuity capitalised at 3¼ per cent. would be a lot less. That is clear. We are, therefore, putting him in the same position as if he had never purchased and as if he was to get an advance under this Bill as near as we can do it. There is only one alteration in this Section from the 1920 Bill, and that is an improvement on the side of the tenant, and on the side of the big tenant. That cannot be gainsaid. "Any holding as respects which the Land Commission declare that it is not in the public interest that the holding shall be re-sold to the tenant as aforesaid, whether on the ground that the improvement of the holding is essential and practicable or otherwise." We might take such a holding for draining purposes or otherwise. We give ourselves wide powers to retain any holding we are suspicious of in the interests of the other 75 per cent.: "Any holding which in the opinion of the Land Commission ought be retained for improvement or enlargement or for utilisation in connection with the relief of congestion, all of which holdings are in this Act referred to as retained holdings."

No harm is done to the retained holding up to this stage and the tenant is not put out. He goes on farming his land in the same old way. A mark is put opposite his holding in the Land Commission and that is all that occurs for the moment. The other 80 per cent. of the tenants who are not retained start paying in sums equivalent to the purchase annuities immediately and get all the advantages they would have got if they had actually been vested. What happens retained holdings? "In the case of every holding retained by the Land Commission (1) The Land Commission shall have and may exercise all or any of the powers exercisable by them as respects holdings on estates vested in them, including powers of resumption of the whole or part of the holding, whether the holding is or is not part of an estate or subject to a judicial rent."

Sir JOHN KEANE

The Minister is now speaking to a subsequent Section to which there are further amendments. I suggest that it would lead to the dispatch of the business if this amendment were disposed of first. I was very anxious to range over the long history of land, but I deliberately abstained from doing so I said that I would do so at another stage and at another part of the Bill. I know it is difficult to confine one's remarks to the amendment.

Mr. HOGAN

The reason I did so was that I was coming to the machinery part. I did so deliberately, as I thought it would clear up misunderstandings later.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the Minister's object was to take these two Sections together instead of taking them apart so that he would be able to throw light on the particular Section you wished to exclude.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I quite accept the position, but I think there will be further amendments on the Section he has wandered into.

Mr. HOGAN

I am at the service of the Seanad, and I had not intended commenting on what we were going to do. I wanted to come to the machinery portion of the Bill, and I think that is the whole point that Senator Sir John Keane raised.

Mr. IRWIN

The Seanad is very anxious to hear the Minister's explanation, because one section of the Bill fits in with another, and I do not think it would be desirable to stop him half way in his speech without, so to speak, completing the chapter as it were.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I am not stopping him.

Mr. IRWIN

I have not said so.

Mr. HOGAN

I will skip now from what happens to the retained holding, and come to the point where we decide to re-sell it, or portion of it. The appointed day is fixed, and this is what happens under Sub-section (4) of Section 29: "There shall be payable to the Land Commission by the tenant of every retained holding an annual sum equivalent to the standard purchase annuity for the holding, and the additional annuity (if any) in respect of compounded arrears of rent added to the purchase money from the appointed day."

The appointed day as an appointed day is named for all the holdings whether they be retained or not. There is a slight mistake there, but I can put that right simply by saying whether holdings be retained or not, that an appointed day is named for all the holdings. The whole point I wish to make is that an appointed day must be fixed, immediately after a few particulars have been obtained, so as to avoid the long interest in lieu of rent period. Then, as I explained in regard to non-retained holdings, the tenant pays this equivalent sum until the date of the vesting, and after the date of the vesting his payments are adjusted, and he gets credit, as from the appointed day, for anything that he has paid into the sinking fund. The sub-section says the tenant shall pay to the Land Commission an annual sum "equivalent to the standard purchase money for the holding, and the additional annuity (if any) in respect of compounded arrears of rent added to the purchase money from the appointed day (a) if the entire holding is resold to the tenant until the gale day next after the vesting of the holding.”

That is to meet cases where we retain pretty liberally. A great number of these retained holdings will be resold without the slightest change, and if we re-sell they will have suffered no loss, except that on someone's books in the Land Commission a letter "R" will appear opposite their names. Therefore, in the case of retained holdings which we re-sell, the owner will suffer no loss whatever, because he is getting all the advantages that apply in the case of other holdings. If we sell to a man a holding value for £5,000, and that this man has another holding which is valued for £10,000 he shall pay a sum equivalent to the annuity until the date of the vesting, and from that date he shall pay a proportionate sum for the proportionate amount of land that we leave to him.

Sub-section 6 of Section 29 says: "If the entire holding is re-sold to the tenant all payments made by the tenant after the appointed day on foot of the annual sum payable by him to the Land Commission under this section shall from and after the vesting of the holding in him be treated for all purposes as if they had been payments in respect of purchase annuity. In every other case such proportion of the payments aforesaid as the Land Commission shall direct, shall from and after the vesting of any part of the holding in a purchaser be treated for all purposes as if they had been payments in respect of purchase annuity charged on that part of the holding."

Therefore in regard to retained holdings, they pay a sum equivalent to the annuity up to the date of the vesting, and after the date of the vesting if the entire holding is re-sold they pay an annuity for the portion of the holding that is resold, that is to say they pay a proportionate part of the annuity, and if none of the holding is resold they pay an equivalent sum up to the date of resumption. So far as Section 29 dealing with retained holdings is concerned the tenant purchasers suffer no hardship, good, bad or indifferent, except that the letter "R" is put opposite their names in the books of the Land Commission.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I desire to ask what will become of a tenant who had an outside farm purchased under the previous Land Acts, a farm, say, that is value for £3,000 or more, that is a home farm, a residential holding, or an unpurchased holding. What will become of a tenant in that case, or what will become of his residential farm?

Mr. HOGAN

The Land Commission will take into account the value of his residential farm when deciding the question as to whether they will re-sell to him. They have a discretion, and they can sell to him at £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000. If the residential farm is something like a demesne they might take a bit off it for the relief of congestion. The trouble in dealing with questions put by Senator Counihan is that he is a combination between a landlord and a big tenant, and it is difficult to deal with his case.

Mr. COUNIHAN

If the Land Commission has the option of taking his home farm, which is a residential holding where he resides, and leaves him the outside or purchased farm on which there is no residence, what is going to happen in a case like that?

Mr. HOGAN

The Land Commission can acquire untenanted land for the relief of congestion, and they could acquire that man's land if they wanted it for the relief of congestion.

Mr. COUNIHAN

Even the man's home farm on which he resides in a non-congested area?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes, but they would have to re-sell to him.

Mr. COUNIHAN

That is a nice state of affairs.

Mr. HOGAN

These are the provisions that went through the Bill on the Second Reading in the House of Lords in England.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I propose to ask the Committee to divide upon this amendment. It is one of very great consequence to many unpurchased tenants, and whatever the Seanad may think of it. and of the aspect of the question it raises, the country is exceedingly interested and concerned about many of the provisions of this Act. I am sorry for the inconvenience and the delay I may have caused the Seanad, but I am acting from a sense of my responsibilities. The Minister has succeeded in making this question of retained holdings a very complicated one. The point I want to make seems to me extremely simple. This sub-section proposes to retain and keep, if they wish, for any time—that is the point —any unpurchased land coming within the operations of this Act, whether the holding is that of land purchased previously or not.

Mr. HOGAN

We are not dealing now with the ultimate disposal of the land. We can discuss that in Section 29, and it is hardly in order to discuss that matter at this stage.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I had to make that reference to make my point clear.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think the Minister need complain of Senator Keane touching on Section 29 because I allowed the Minister himself to wander into Section 29, and I did that because I thought it would assist the Seanad.

Sir JOHN KEANE

The mere retention itself may be quite innocuous, but when it gives such power I suggest it is dangerous. The Minister made a great point out of the fact that, owing to some legal decision, until the purchaser has redeemed his annuity he still is regarded as having had an advance on whatever the amount may be. I should have hoped the Minister would have had regard to the equity of the case and not merely to the technicality of the case. But here the Minister makes the case as if we were an administrative body, administering law instead of being, as we are, a body making law. It appears to us as an inequitable case that when a man paid back money he is to be considered as still having got it; it surely is within our power to make a fresh law to put that matter right.

Mr. HOGAN

If that is the point that is troubling the Senator I have no very strong views upon it; that is to say, if he redeemed a particular annuity it should not be taken into account. I leave that to the Senate and I think it is only a minor point.

Sir JOHN KEANE

If the Minister accepts that view then this section is no longer necessary and my amendment is justified, because the whole case is covered by Sub-section (a). Furthermore, I am not at all clear on this matter. Supposing this purchaser who is coming within the operation of this Sub-section has acquired this other land by purchase if he or his predecessor in title has not been the subject of a direct advance but acquired it by purchase, he is still, as far as I can see, the proprietor of this land covered by that section. No advance is made to him. The advance has been made to him on account of the holding of some other person. I cannot see the equity of this Sub-section. I cannot see that it is justified, and I do not think it covers or deals with any case that cannot be adequately dealt with under Sub-section (a). It will operate most inequitably, because it will enable the Land Commission to get possession and retain, of course, subject to payment always, any unpurchased land if the purchaser has other purchased land of a value of £3,000, and for that reason I propose to divide the Senate unless the Minister accepts my amendment.

Mr. HOGAN

The legal position is this. Consider retained holdings for a moment. The landlord's interest in retained holdings as well as the landlord's interest in a non-retained holding is vested in the Land Commission on the appointed day as I pointed out previously. The tenant's interest in the retained holding and the tenant's interest in the non-retained holding is still with the tenant. As far as this Section is concerned there is absolutely no difference in law between the two, except in the books of the Land Commission, where the letter "R" is placed opposite the name of the holding. The tenant is still the owner of his interest on the retained holding. The tenant of the non-retained holding is equally the owner and the landlord's interest in the holding is vested in the Land Commission, so what are we fighting about? It is not until we come to the next Section that we dispose of the holdings. Now Senator Sir John Keane is troubled by one point, that is to say, that in Sub-section (b) we take into account the previous advances even though redeemed. That is not a big point and it is a matter in which the Seanad is as good a judge as I am and I am quite willing to take their advice on that point. I have not the advantage of having Sir John Keane's amendment before me.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It is to leave out the whole of (b).

Mr. HOGAN

Then it does not arise now. The whole point will arise again, but so far as this is concerned it really makes no difference except to afford a certain amount of food for discussion. The difference is made in the next Section. By this ingenious arrangement, of which I am very proud, we put the tenant in a position of paying a sum equivalent to his annuity almost immediately on getting a few short particulars, and we do nobody any harm.

Amendment put.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I must have a division, but I am quite satisfied to accept a show of hands.

A show of hands having been taken.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The majority is overwhelmingly against the amendment.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I must appeal to have the Standing Orders enforced. There is an attempt here by Sir John Keane and the Minister for Agriculture to talk each other down and in the end the whole thing is as clear as mud.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I must appeal for the protection of the Chair and I ask has this been obstruction? I am still uneasy about this matter, but I do not think I spoke at great length. I did my best to make my point. I believe serious interests are involved and I suggest that Senator O'Farrell's observations are unnecessary and unjust.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the best vindication for you, Senator Sir John Keane, is the observation of Senator O'Farrell himself, because he says in spite of your statement and the long and interesting statement of the Minister the position is still as clear as mud.

Mr. HOGAN

I give you a promise that I will not err in that direction again.

SECTION 33.

Where in the case of a holding retained by the Land Commission, the Land Commission do not exercise their powers of resumption or if they exercise their powers of resumption in respect of only part of the holding, then if the tenant has used and cultivated the holding as an ordinary farmer in accordance with proper methods of husbandry, the Land Commission may re-sell to the tenant the holding at the standard price, or any part thereof not resumed at the proportionate part of such price applicable thereto as determined by the Land Commission, and may make an advance for the purpose of the purchase not exceeding such sum as with the amount obtained by capitalising at the rate of four and three-quarters per cent. the original annuities payable on the advances, if any, whether redeemed or not, which may already have been made under any of the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of lands of which the tenant is the proprietor at the date of such re-sale, does not exceed £3,000, unless in the opinion of the Land Commission it is expedient that this amount should be exceeded, the difference (if any) between the amount to be advanced and the price being paid in cash by the tenant to the Land Commission.

Mr. LINEHAN

I move: "To delete, in line 4, the words: ‘whether redeemed or not' and to substitute therefor the words: ‘unless redeemed.'" This is the amendment which I think I gathered from the Minister he is prepared to accept.

Mr. HOGAN

Personally I would rather have the other, but it is immaterial one way or the other.

Mr. LINEHAN

This is the amendment which the Minister suggested that he was willing to leave to the judgment of the Seanad. I think it would be very unfair for a tenant who had originally got an advance and who paid it off——

Mr. HOGAN

I will accept it.

Mr. LINEHAN

Very well, I will not say any more.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You have completely frightened the Minister.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

SECTION 38.

Where a holding has at any time been vested in a purchaser under the Land Purchase Acts subject to a superior interest or charge the Judicial Commissioner shall, on the application of the proprietor, after hearing all persons concerned order the redemption of the said interest or charge and all interests superior to them and fix the redemption price thereof. The redemption price so fixed together with such costs as may be allowed by the Judicial Commissioner shall notwithstanding the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, be advanced and paid by means of 4½ per cent. Land Bonds and distributed by the Judicial Commissioner as if the redemption price were the purchase money of land vested in the Land Commission under this Act. The advance shall be repayable by the proprietor of the holding by means of an annuity calculated at the rate of 4¾ per cent. on the amount of the advance, and the said annuity shall be recoverable in like manner as a purchase annuity.

Mr. LINEHAN

Amendment 41: To insert after the word "them," in line 13, the words "including any Tithe Rent Charge," is practically the same, and perhaps you would dispose of it now.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Very well, the same rule. I am sure the Minister will agree to that if it is precisely the same.

Mr. HOGAN

I will accept that.

Amendment agreed to.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It is understood that as a consequential amendment the same change will be made in Section 33.

Agreed.

SECTION 29.

SUB-SECTION 1.

In the case of every holding retained by the Land Commission:

(1) The Land Commission shall have and may exercise all or any of the powers exerciseable by them as respects holdings on estates vested in them, including powers of resumption of the whole or part of the holding, whether the holding is or is not part of an estate or subject to a judicial rent; and in exercising the powers aforesaid shall have regard to the necessity of relieving congestion, the desirability of increasing the food supply of the country, and the manner in which the holdings have been used.

Amendment byMr. BENNETT: Section 29, Sub-section (1), to delete all words after the word “rent,” in line 34, to the end of the Sub-section.

Mr. BENNETT

For the purpose of discussion I have put down the amendment in my name. I think we have come to the parting of the ways in the Bill. Hitherto, as far as I know, we have been dealing with lands for the relief of congestion, and now it seems to me that we are dealing with lands for other purposes. I would ask the Minister if he would explain to us whether I am right in my view or not. I would like an explanation from him as to whether we are at the parting of the ways, and whether, having parted our ways, this is not the only Clause for the treatment of a tenant owing or paying an annual rent to a landlord.

Mr. HOGAN

Yes; we are at the parting of the ways. The holding of a judicial tenant, or a present tenant, may be resumed by the landlord for a public purpose at present. There is no doubt about that. The owner of a judicial tenancy or a present tenancy is in an entirely different position from the owner of a purchased holding, and it was in view of that fact that this distinction was made, as recommended by the Conference of 1918, after careful investigation.

It was to meet the genuine cases that there are through the country, and Senators must realise that the Land Commission must have some powers to deal with the large ranching system. They got it through following the illustrious precedent which I have mentioned. In exercising the powers of resumption which they have they shall have regard to the necessity for relieving congestion, the desirability of increasing the food supply of the country and the manner in which the holdings have been used. That was to make some attempt to meet the case of the large farmer of four or five hundred acres, perhaps let on the 11 months system, who himself is a tenant, and to meet the thing that has been the cause of land trouble in Ireland for a very long time, and to give the Land Commission some discretion in regard to it. I ask the Seanad not to be more reactionary in this matter in regard to this particular, important, and burning question than the English House of Lords were. They were prepared to give the Land Commission that discretion, and why should not we? We know that this is a burning question. You ought not to assume that the Land Commission will exercise it wrongfully, and it will take a good deal of explaining in this hour of the day, in the year 1923, if we are not prepared to tackle that problem at least as logically as the people in 1920 and much earlier. That is all I have to say on that.

Mr. BENNETT

That being the case my reply is that the English House of Lords cared nothing for the tenant farmer of £3,000 worth of land. Whether his interest was sacrificed or not, I think, was immaterial to them, and I take it that if any particular class is singled out for special treatment it should not be the man who has been victimised by paying possibly a harsher rent even though it were a judicial rent, over a large number of years. That seems to me to be the particular class which is now singled out for this exceptional treatment. I would rather that it would have been faced courageously and that you should take all lands for every purpose, practically every purpose, as the power is given in this Section, than that tenanted land which is dealt with here should be the only class of land dealt with for a specific purpose.

That view will not commend itself to the Minister. I went with him the whole way for the relief of congestion, and if he had asked me I would possibly go the whole way with him for other purposes of the Bill, but I think it is a pity that he should reserve these particular powers as against the ordinary tenant, and that an ordinary tenant must occupy no land of which the purchase price is more than £3,000. No man considers a man whose land £3,000 would purchase as in any sense a large farmer. I take it that in many cases £3,000 only purchases 60 or 70 acres of land and now, under this Bill, any man who owns land in excess of this 60 or 70 acres is liable to have that land taken from him and used for all the purposes for which powers are given in this Section. That seems to me to be very unjust. I do not think I need labour the point, but I can leave it to the good sense of the Seanad as to whether it is a fair and just provision between man and man, between purchased tenant and unpurchased tenant, and between all sections that we are trying to deal with.

Mr. MacLYSAGHT

I am surprised that Senator Bennett, who is a hardworking farmer, and really does something with his land, should be worrying about a provision that is put in for the main purpose of getting at the greatest enemy of every decent agriculturist, the eleven months system man.

Sir JOHN KEANE

This debate is developing in a very interesting manner, and I think the Seanad deserves great commendation for having been the first of the two Houses to discover what lurks within this Section. I studied the debates in the other House carefully, and I do not think the thing ever came to their notice, and I am not surprised. The thing is skilfully drafted, and I doubt if I have discovered all the subtleties that lie within this Bill. I even discovered some at 5 o'clock this morning, and perhaps at 6 o'clock to-morrow morning I am going to look for more. This really throws a flood of light on the methods of the Government. It is courageous to tackle the problem in this way—to take the unpurchased tenant as the corpus vile on which to let loose the various denominations referred to in Section 21.

I was puzzled all along where the land for these non-congests was to come from, because, in spite of the Minister's statement in the Dáil, under Section 24 the thing seemed fairly satisfactory, but I am not satisfied yet. On the face of it, if the term "congest" is administered in the plain sense of the thing, it would have been fairly satisfactory, but here now we find that the land for these various denominations including any other person to whom, in the opinion of the Land Commission, advances ought to be made, is to be taken mainly and primarily out of these retained holdings, out of unpurchased lands in excess of a certain amount, and, as I have shown in a previous amendment, in calculating that amount consideration should be taken of other lands purchased under a previous Act, although the annuity may have been redeemed. I really think that is an astonishing proposition. I am past hoping we will carry any amendments. I feel clearly that it is none the less necessary for the country in these days of wide publicity, when we are speaking to more than to a favoured few, to know what is going on, and this is the first opportunity the country will get of knowing it.

There is nothing whatever in the Bill so far as I know, to bring out this point, so that it comes to this now. I did not know, I may say, that such a large quantity of unpurchased land was in the form of ranches. It is news to me, but no doubt the Minister and his advisers knew it, and they acted accordingly. But, at any rate, it is the unpurchased tenant who is going to provide most of the land for the settlement of the evicted tenants, landless men, and other persons whom the Land Commission think are entitled to land. I leave it to the House to say whether the unpurchased tenant is a fair subject for such treatment. I never knew the unpurchased tenant was fattening in luxury. I understood that of all people he was the person who was getting all the popular sympathy. He certainly has had a fairly substantial reduction of his rent under the terms of this Bill, but I think he is going to lose that advantage many times over under the provisions of this section. Now, let it be clearly understood that is what we are doing. We are singling out the unpurchased tenant, not necessarily the large unpurchased tenant, who is going to have his land taken not only for the relief of congestion, but for all the other purposes enumerated in this Bill.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I must say that the Minister's explanation was as clear as crystal, though Senator Sir John Keane managed to stir up the mud. Somehow or other, I think our ideas are getting a bit fogged. As far as I can calculate, £3,000 will buy 200 acres of land worth £1 an acre. That means good land.

A SENATOR

Not at all.

Mr. BENNETT

I paid nearly £3,600 for 100 acres.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I paid £20 an acre for unpurchased land.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

As I understand the Minister's explanation, the rest of the land, be it 400 acres or whatever it may be, is not thereby confiscated, but remains in the hands of the purchased tenant.

A SENATOR

No, no.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

Until it is required, and it can only be required for one purpose, which is the relief of congestion.

Mr. BENNETT

That is not so.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think that is clearly wrong, because, as the purposes there are set out in the first section, it is not merely for the purpose of relieving congestion.

Mr. HOGAN

I want to explain about the price:

"The Land Commission shall have, and may exercise all or any of the powers exercisable by them as respects holdings on estates vested in them, including powers of resumption of the whole or part of the holding, whether the holding is or is not part of an estate or subject to a judicial rent; and in exercising the powers aforesaid shall have regard to the necessity of relieving congestion."

That is to say, they have the landlord's power of resumption for public purposes. They can resume for the relief of congestion, but they cannot go further in regard to this in the taking of a holding. They can resume a holding or part of a holding if they think it is necessary to do so from the point of view of the desirability of increasing the food supply of the country, and they can take into account the manner in which the holdings had been used, "And in exercising their powers aforesaid and the manner in which the holdings had been used"—that was what the House of Lords thought on the Second Reading.

The resumption price is rather important, and we had better be clear on this question of price in regard to resumption. "The price of the resumed holding; the compensation which is to be paid to the tenant under this section"—that is, Section 56, quoted here in the Bill—"does not include compensation for disturbance. Full compensation means what would be got for a tenancy if sold in the open market at a fair rent"—(Judge O'Hagan). That is the resumption price you would get. Probably Senators know more about it than I do. You would get the resumption price for a holding resumed according to Judge O'Hagan. Full compensation means what would be got for the tenancy if sold in the open market at a fair rent.

Mr. JAMESON

May I ask the Minister can we get the market value of the land in that case? Suppose the tenant has, say, £6,000 worth of land. The Land Commission take £3,000 worth of that from him. There is £3,000 worth left, according to their valuation. Will that be paid for at what, before this Bill was passed, the land was worth? A great deal of land has been sold at a very high price. The price has now gone down considerably. How much beneath that price is the holder of the surplus to be paid when this is taken from him?

Mr. HOGAN

I am not in a position to state very accurately what "resumption price" means. That judgment—though it may seem to mean—does not mean the top market price. I know that there are certain modifications which I am not clear about at the moment. The price is a little less, as a rule, than the market price. I will quote from Cherry a decision on "resumption price," though probably the Chairman knows more about it than I do. According to the decision in Cherry, "resumption price" means what can be got for the tenancy if sold in the open market. I believe that is the authoritative judgment on the question.

Mr. JAMESON

Is that what he will be paid?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes; the resumption price.

The EARL of MAYO

I notice at the end of the clause a reference to the desirability of increasing the food supply of the country and the manner in which holdings have been used. I foresee that that may mean compulsory tillage again. My experience of compulsory tillage on good land is that the corn lies down flat. That is my experience after three times growing oats on very fine land in Co. Kildare.

Mr. HOGAN

It has been my experience also.

The EARL of MAYO

Then we are in agreement. I may say, in passing, that I have been trying to sell a reaper and binder for some time, and I now intend to keep it.

Mr. BENNETT

May I ask the Minister if the resumption price is set out in the Bill?

Mr. HOGAN

Section 5 of the Act is the section that deals with resumption, and I went further and quoted the leading case which interprets the price in that section.

Mr. BENNETT

I have no Acts before me, and all I can do is to apply my common-sense. I am simply dealing with it in a detached manner.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Before adjourning I will put this amendment to the Seanad.

Mr. BENNETT

Now that I am satisfied that the resumption price is a reasonable price, I would be prepared to withdraw my amendment, with the permission of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BENNETT

I will also withdraw Amendment 32, in reference to the same sub-section.

Amendment 32, by leave, withdrawn.