I beg to move the following amendment:—
Section 44, Sub-Section (5), line 14, to insert after the word "owner" the words "or his lessee."
DEFENCE FORCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1923. - LAND BILL—COMMITTEE STAGE RESUMED.
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
To insert after this Section a new Section 45 as follows:—
"45. Where any lands vested in the Land Commission under this Act are wholly or practically surrounded by lands under timber, or intermixed with woods, the property of the owner of the lands so vested, it shall be optional to the owner to require the Land Commission to purchase such timber, lands or woods."
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That Sections 47, 48 and 49, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 50.
The Land Commission (other than the Judicial Commissioner) shall consider all objections duly made, and there shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision shall be final. The Judicial Commissioner shall, if he is satisfied that prior to the date of the passing of this Act the Society or body of Trustees had a good title to the lands so purchased, free from incumbrances, save the charge securing the repayment of the advance due to the Bank, and any superior interests or Land Purchase Annuities, ascertain the superior interests issuing out of the lands, and shall fix the redemption price of all such superior interests and annuities, and shall also ascertain the amount due for principal (without giving credit for the deposit, if any, lodged with the Bank by the Society or body of Trustees) and interest on foot of the charge securing the repayment of the advance due to the Bank, and shall fix the price of the lands at such sum as shall be sufficient to redeem and pay off all such superior interests and annuities, and the charge securing the repayment of the advance due to the Bank, together with such costs as may be allowed by him. When the Bank shall have satisfied the Land Commission that they have repaid to the Society or body of Trustees such deposit as aforesaid, the price so ascertained, of which one-eleventh shall be contributed by the State, shall be paid in 4½ per cent. Land Bonds on the appointed day.
At this stage I want to get an amendment which perhaps some Senator will kindly move. I will explain it first. Senator Linehan has an amendment bearing on this. It reads in Section 50 after the word "they" in line 32 to insert the words "provided that the Land Commission is satisfied with the security." That really comes in Section 47. The position in 1920 was that a considerable amount of land was bought throughout the country by groups of men. The Land Bank was constituted by the first Dáil and it stepped in and advanced money for the purchase of these lands. They made the advances to the purchasers who are usually congests or landless men in the neighbourhood and who would not have the money in any event. The scheme was something like this. The Land Bank agreed with those men that they would form a co-operative farming society and an assignment of the land was made to the estate and the purchase money was advanced by the Land Bank and paid to the vendors. The Bank took a mortgage on the land for the full amount of the purchase money repayable for interest and sinking fund on the following terms—6 per cent. for the first 6 years, 7 per cent. for 7 years and 5 per cent. for 13 years. These were the terms and the mortgage was the full amount of the advance including costs.
Naturally that may have been all right in 1919 and 1920, but the rent made up to 6 or 7 per cent. is not at present a very attractive proposition and some of these estates are in very serious difficulty. The Bank was constituted by the first Dáil and the liability is to a certain extent the liability of the present Dáil as the heirs and successors of the first Dáil. In any case we acknowledge that the scheme was directly the result of the people who were in authority in the first Dáil and we acknowledge their liability and further we are interested in the prosperity of these estates some of which are doing splendidly. We think the time has come when some Government Department should take over the concerns and put them on a proper foundation and we have availed of this Act to do it. We propose to hand over the estates to the Land Commission and that the Land Commission shall pay off the outstanding advances together with costs and head rents and so forth to the land bank.
Who is to liquidate the Land Bank?
They will get back what money they advanced in bonds and we will make advances ourselves to the estates at 4½ per cent. for interest and 5 per cent. for sinking fund. That will give them a chance to go ahead. Instead of paying an annuity of 6 per cent. they will only be paying 4½ per cent. and we also propose to pay a contribution of one-tenth. That will give them a chance to go ahead. Instead of paying an annuity consisting of 6 or 7 per cent. they will be paying only 4½ per cent. We propose to pay a contribution of one-tenth. By cutting down the interest from 7 per cent. to 4½ per cent. and by only charging that interest on the advance minus one-tenth they will be getting a reduction of between 30 and 40 per cent. and will thus have a chance of getting on their legs. 70 or 80 per cent. of the estates are doing well and we believe that the others will do well also when they get the reduction but in any case we regard it as our duty to relieve them and if they do not get on we will have to reconsider the position. I was proposing to ask Senator Linehan in these circumstances to withdraw his amendment and to meet his point I want to get in his new condition. I told you that we were advancing the whole of the mortgage but the Land Bank compelled the Estates to deposit one-fourth of the purchase money with them on deposit receipt and they had in a great many cases to go to some other bank for the money. In order to make sure that we will have a fair security we want to ensure that the Land Commission if necessary will be able to take over that one-fourth and redeem a certain amount of the mortgage with it. That will not affect the Societies very much because they have not the money already. The one-fourth is on deposit receipt with the Land Bank and if we take it and pay off portion of the advance the mortgage will be for a smaller amount and they will be paying only 4½ per cent. I want to suggest the following amendment to Section 50:—
"To delete in line 15 the words ‘when the bank shall have satisfied the Land Commission that they have repaid to the Society or body of trustees such deposit as aforesaid' and substitute therefor the words ‘when the bank shall have lodged with the Land Commission such deposit as aforesaid.'"
Section 50. To add after this Section a new Section 51 as follows:—
"The deposit when lodged with the land Commission shall be invested by them, and the income from such investments, so far as are not required to recoup the Land Commission for unpaid instalments of purchase annuities (if any) in respect of the advance made to the Society or body of trustees under this part of the Act, by whom the deposit was originally made with the bank, shall be paid to such Society or body of trustees until the deposit is utilised otherwise by the Land Commission or repaid in whole or in part to the Society or body of trustees under the following provisions, namely:—
(a) It shall be lawful for the Land Commission at any time before the advance is certified to be repaid, if they are not satisfied with the security for the same, or if the purchase annuities have been allowed to fall into arrear, to utilise the whole or part of the deposit in redemption pro tanto of the advance.
(b) It shall be lawful for the Land Commission at any time, if they are satisfied that the deposit is not required as security for the advance to repay the whole or any part thereof to the Society or body of trustees who originally lodged the same with the bank or to their lawful successors.
(c) Such part of the deposit as shall not have been utilised under the foregoing paragraphs shall, when so much of the advance as is equivalent to the value of the deposit remaining with the Land Commission shall be certified to have been repaid, and provided that the Land Commission are satisfied with the security for the undeemed portion of the advance, be repaid to the Society or body of trustees who originally lodged the same with the bank or to their lawful successors.”
That I think meets the case so far as we can meet it, and if we find afterwards that these estates have not got on their feet we will have to review the position but I am satisfied that the few remaining estates will be put on their feet.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I doubt very much if the Seanad's digestion has been capable of forming an opinion on this new amendment, but we have swallowed so much already that I suppose a little more would not do us any harm. I suggest that typed copies be distributed to Senators and probably then the proper thing to do would be for Senator Linehan, if he is satisfied, to move it and it could be considered.
I was going to suggest that it should be circulated now and afterwards moved on the Report Stage.
I suggest that to that statement certain particulars should be appended showing the size of the problem. I quite agree that the obligations of this Dáil to its predecessors are ones that they cannot refuse to meet, but at the same time we ought to know what the size of this financial problem is and what is the extent of the loss incurred if there has been a loss.
I shall have copies circulated.
There are a few questions I would like to ask. In the first place I would like to congratulate the Minister on an ingenious scheme. I take it that the Land Bank will be liquidated and will be simply a holding company for bonds. I would like to ask whether the Government would be prepared to extend to other banks the same privileges as they have now brought in.
Is it not a fact that money paid by the Land Bank to these estates was money given by the previous Government which now belongs to the present Government and the bank is simply acting as their agents in what was the Republican Bond scheme?
I know that substantially the money came from the Government.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You will have to consider whether this is covered by the preamble of the Bill.
We have considered that and we are satisfied that it is covered by the Money Resolution.
I asked you whether the result of this will not be that the Land Bank as such will become a holding company holding land bonds only. I think the operations of the bank have been confined to advances of this sort.
No; that is not the case.
I do not know to what extent it has other operations but it has other operations. The position is that we are paying them in bonds and I do not know what happens after that.
The Land Bank which I had nothing to do with at the time it was originated was really connected with the Republican Dáil's Land Scheme to enable them to deal with certain landless men in the way which has been pretty clearly explained by the Minister.
The Dáil then advanced money and any action taken by the National Land Bank was done under their guidance. In a speech made early in the present Dáil by the Minister for Finance he undertook all the liability of the previous Dáil, including the liabilities with regard to the National Land Bank. If this is passed the position of the Land Bank will be, if I understand this correctly, that they would continue just as they are, except that the land purchase portion of their business—which I need hardly tell the Seanad is not a paying one and is of no value to them—would cease and that they would hold bonds instead. The Government control would be exactly the same, because there are no shares except shares which are the property of the Government. There are no private shares in the Bank and, therefore, it is entirely Government property. If this were not passed you would have persons who went in under the Republican Dáil Land scheme in a worse position than persons who come in now and the political effect of that would be extremely bad. Both purchases were made with Government money and you would have people who went in then saying, "We are in a worse position and you are not standing by us."
The second question is, whether we would do the same for other banks who have lent money to societies. I am surprised to hear that other banks would like to have that done, that they would prefer to get their money in bonds. I would have thought that the Bank of Ireland, the Munster and Leinster, and others, would not relish such a position if they did advance money to societies, and that they would take the advances made on mortgages in bonds.
Would the Government take over from any bank the loans advanced to these societies on the same terms as it is proposed to take over the loans advanced by the Land Bank?
Paying the banks in bonds?
Yes; taking over the obligation. These transactions have not been particularly profitable. The fall in the value of land has diminished the security very considerably in some cases.
That is so far as societies are concerned. I did not know in fact that there were any societies financed by any bank except by the Land Bank.
You may not call them societies, but syndicates of farmers or men in want of land.
I have not considered that. Frankly that is a question that did not occur to me.
The State is going to advance that money and it will have to be borne on some account and we will have to get it out of taxation. As you say in 80 per cent. of cases they are getting good value. You are asking the Seanad to agree to this 10 per cent. being advanced by the State. What is going to happen in the 20 per cent. of cases that, apparently, you have not very much hope of being very successful? Will that be a further loss to the State and what will it amount to?
I did not think it necessary to refer to the 10 per cent. contribution because the Sections were there setting out that we were giving this 10 per cent. contribution to the owners of these lands, the same as we were giving in regard to the price of tenanted land. There was no amendment to these sections; otherwise I would have explained the matter.
Otherwise they are outside the scope of the Bill.
You are extending to the persons who purchased land under the Dáil scheme the same provision as if they had purchased under this Bill.
The reason I did not say anything about the 10 per cent. in reference to this amendment is because the scheme was already in the Bill. It was set out there that we were doing what Senator Douglas has explained— doing the same thing for these freeholders, who owned this land subject to a mortgage to the Land Bank, as we were doing for the tenants now purchasing, namely, giving money at 4½ per cent. and paying 10 per cent. of the purchase money. No one had any amendment down saying that we should not give the 10 per cent. and I did not think it was contentious.
I did not mean that it was contentious. I am trying to see where the State comes in. It looks as if we are extending to a set of individuals, who would not otherwise come under the Bill, the benefits of the Bill, and they are getting, as you say, the same as anybody else. There is this other point. Probably as far as 80 per cent. go they will succeed and there will be no further trouble, but what about the 20 per cent.? If they fail what further loss will there be to the State?
We are, of course, extending to these people the same privileges as we are giving the tenant purchasers under the Bill. We say they are entitled to it for the good reason that Senator Douglas set out. These are people who purchased land under the old Republican Government scheme. We acknowledge fully liability to them and we are prepared, in circumstances when we have a little more money— though I do not know how much more— to give them all the benefits that the tenant purchasers get under this Bill. In regard to Senator Jameson's question about the other 20 per cent. what I stated was that 80 per cent. of the societies, notwithstanding that they are paying such a high rate of interest, are doing well—perhaps not 80 per cent. but a very large percentage. The balance, of course, are finding it hard to make ends meet and pay 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. on the money. We are doing a great thing for them by giving them money at 4½ per cent. and we have every hope that they will succeed with that. I suppose some of them would fail. If they do fail we have provisions in the Bill. Section 52 (2) says:—
"Where the Land Commission are not satisfied that the foregoing conditions have been fulfilled, and so declare in the prescribed manner, then the interest of the Society or body of Trustees in the lands shall absolutely cease and determine, and the lands shall be retained by the Land Commission, as if they had been untenanted lands vested in the Land Commission under the provisions of Part II. of this Act.
I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
I will circulate the other amendments immediately.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 67.
For the purpose of this Act the appointed day shall be such day or days as may be fixed by the Land Commission and different days may be fixed for different provisions and different purposes of this Act and for different holdings or groups of holdings and different parcels or groups of parcels of untenanted land.
I move: "To delete the Section." This is a Section dealing with the appointed day. What I really want to do is to delete the Section and to substitute it with Amendment No. 52 after Sub-Section 3 of Section 69, as follows:—
"(4) For the purposes of this Act the appointed day shall be such day or days as may be fixed by the Land Commission, but not later than five years from the passing of this Act, and different days may be fixed for different provisions and different purposes of this Act, and for different holdings or groups of holdings and different parcels or groups of parcels of untenanted land."
Unless some provision is made by the Minister to the contrary I wish to move the amendment.
I explained already the reasons that made it extremely difficult to name the appointed day. I will accept an amendment, so far as it is of any use, setting out that the appointed day shall be within five years. The one I am prepared to accept reads:—
Section 67; line 45:—After the word "land" to add the following "so however that the day or days fixed shall not be more than five years after the passing of this Act. Provided that it shall be lawful for the Executive Council on the representation of the Land Commission that as respects particular provisions or purposes of this Act or particular holdings, groups of holdings, parcels, or groups of parcels of untenanted land, it is necessary to fix some later date or dates to fix such later date or dates as may be necessary."
This question was discussed at great length on the 1920 Bill. The machinery of this Bill is new and it was realised that it would be quite impossible to name the appointed day without giving power to extend the time, similar to that given to the Lord Lieutenant in the 1920 Act.
I will accept the Minister's substituted amendment and withdraw my own.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move: "To insert after the word ‘days' in line 42 the words ‘not later than the first day of August, 1929.'"
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I understood the amendment accepted from the Minister covered the point you wished to deal with in your amendment.
My point is that the Government amendment makes it innocuous. I am quite prepared to withdraw it, but I suggest that the Section would be just as valuable as it is with the change the Minister suggests.
May I suggest that the Section should be left as it is in order to see what will be the position in five years' time.
I agree that the amendment is not much good. That was tried before and no way could be found out of the difficulty. Supposing I had accepted all the amendments that were sent in by Senators, and suppose there was no difference between them except as regards the appointed day does any Senator here think that the operations of this Bill will be completed within five years?
The commencement of the operations may be completed in five years. If the commencement takes place on the appointed day I think the appointed day may be named before the expiration of five years. I do not want to press my amendment if the Government do not accept it.
We could not accept it. I suggest that Senator Sir John Keane's advice be taken. The amendment is not much good. I put it up to do the best I could to meet the case.
I am quite satisfied with what the Minister has stated as to the difficulty of fixing the date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The next amendment stands in the name of Senator O'Rourke.
I desire to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 69.
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "subsequent purchase agreements" means agreements entered into or deemed to have been entered into by or with the Land Commission on or after the date of the passing of this Act.
Provided that purchase agreements entered into at any time on the resale by the Land Commission of land purchased or agreed to be purchased, by the Irish Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, before the date of the passing of this Act, shall be treated as purchase agreements entered into before the date of the passing of this Act and not as subsequent purchase agreements.
(2) The expression "tenanted land "means land held under any contract of tenancy other than a fee farm grant, or lease for lives or years renewable for ever or lease for a term of years of which sixty or more are unexpired at the date of the passing of this Act, or a letting for the purpose of temporary depasturage, agistment or conacre, or for temporary convenience, or to meet a temporary necessity, and the expression "untenanted land" shall be construed accordingly.
Provided that where the land has become tenanted land as above defined by reason of a contract of tenancy not not being a renewal of a previous tenancy entered into on or after the first day of September nineteen hundred and twenty-two, then
(a) if the holding is in a congested districts county, the tenancy shall, if the Land Commission before the appointed day so declare, be deemed void as against the Land Commission and the holding shall vest in the Land Commission as untenanted land, and there shall be payable to the tenant such compensation as the Judicial Commissioner may declare him entitled to in respect of any sums he may have expended on improvements. Such compensation shall be payable in 4½ per cent. Land Bonds, and
(b) if the holding is situate elsewhere the land shall be treated as tenanted land for the purpose of the provisions of this Act vesting tenanted land in the Land Commission, save as to the price thereof, but shall not be sold under this Act to the tenant unless the Land Commission certify that the creatinn of the tenancy was in the interests of the country. If the Land Commission so certify the price shall be ascertained as if the land was tenanted land, but if the Land Commission do not so certify the price shall be ascertained as if the land was untenanted land.
(3) The expression "the Land Purchase Acts" shall have the same meaning as in the Irish Land Act, 1909, save that it shall, where the context so admits, include any subsequent Act now in force which is by its terms to be construed as one with the Land Purchase Acts and this Act, and the expression "the Land Acts" and "the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts" shall have the same meaning as in the Irish Land Act, 1909.
I move: Section 69, Sub-Section (3): To add at the end of the Sub-Section a further new Sub-Section (5) as follows:—
"(5) The expression ‘relieving congestion' in this Act means providing additional land for persons already occupying not less than three statute acres of land in a congested district, and the rateable valuation of which does not exceed £10."
I am not committed to any of the details of above definition, which can be amended, but I want some definition of the expression "relieving congestion." I am quite satisfied to reduce the minimum of three acres, say to one acre or less, and to increase the maximum of the Poor Law Valuation. I desire emphatically to have some expression of the meaning of "relieving congestion."
If I might argue the next amendment I do not want to say anything further on this and you could take the two together.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It would be inconvenient to take the two together.
When I put up this alternative amendment I tried to get the Minister to accept any amendment. The reason I say that is that my final remarks on the later stage would be modified a good deal if he would do so, or if he would go some way towards giving us the definition. I am sorry to say as things are now I take a very uneasy view of the position, and that is one of the reasons that to-morrow I shall have to vote against the Bill and ask the Seanad to divide on the matter.
Of course I could not possibly accept that definition.
I withdraw it.
I read it now and as to "congestion" and whether it covers every possible case is a thing that I could not decide off hand.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Is it understood now that the question of a definition of the "relief of congestion" is to be discussed to-morrow on the Report Stage?
Will the Minister tell us whether he is prepared in clause 69, which deals with definitions, to define in some way what he means by "congestion"?
I will consider that question, and whether I can put any definition that would satisfy myself.
I would not be satisfied with purely a definition of "congestion" and I should press for a definition of the "relief of congestion."
I will consider that and see what we can say on it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is an amendment to part 2 of the first Schedule by Senator Counihan and he is not here. It is:—
First Schedule Part II. To delete the third paragraph (b) and to substitute therefor the following: (b) Where the landlord and tenant do not agree shall be such amount as shall be fixed by the Land Commission with a right of Appeal from their decision to a Judge of the High Court and in fixing the amount regard shall be had to the fair market value of the holding if sold by public auction, the price to be paid in cash.
Amendment not moved.
SECTION 70.
I beg to move:—
Section 70. To add at the end of the Section the following: "Provided always that any regulations made to carry out the provisions of this Act, in so far as they concern the relief of congestion, shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and if either House shall, within 21 days of such regulations being tabled, pass a Resolution annulling such regulations, such regulations shall be annulled; but such annulments shall not prejudice or invalidate any matter or thing previously done under such regulations."
I am not going to argue this at great length. The purpose is to protect a citizen against arbitrary action on the part of the Executive or its Department. If my amendment is accepted I admit it will have to be amended. It would cover all the regulations and orders made under this Bill. The principle is there in my amendment and it has been accepted in the case of the Compensation Bill, anyhow with regard to the terms on which securities are issued, and it has been accepted with regard to the Civil Service Commission Bill. These regulations, some of which are very little different to law although made in the ordinary Executive shall be under the control of the Parliament itself. Before these things can come into operation the Oireachtas can see what they are and have an opportunity of voiding or annulling them if they think fit. I sometimes think by the attitude of some Senators here that they consider that in trying to protect the public, I am seeking for protection for a particular class. That is not so. Surely the Oireachtas cannot take any exclusive view of the matter. It is most important in a properly governed country and under a Constitutional Government to scrutinise with great care the action of the Executive. I know recently in Britain which, whatever we may think of it, has a very long experience in Parliamentary Government, this provision which delegates power to the Cabinet to legislate by order in Council is most carefully safeguarded by Parliament and only allowed to be used in cases of great emergency. I do not think that anybody can say that the provisions of the Land Bill are cases of great emergency. I would ask the Minister whether he could not go some distance to meet the principles asked for in this amendment.
I am told by people who know, that these regulations are regulations adapting forms and that sort of thing, striking out the word "Estates Commissioner," and things like that that are now obsolete and making such other regulations for the working of the Section, and so on and so forth. These are the sort of regulations that the Land Commission make and there are hundreds of them. To be candid, I have not a very clear conception of what these are. I will consider that. It arises along with the question of congests, on which I will have to make a statement to-morrow.
Thank you. Would you also consider Section 70. We have to take a broad view of the Bill, so that all these regulations and orders or whatever technical term may be used, should be laid before both the Dáil and Seanad.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is in most public Acts a general provision of this kind. I do not mean to say it covers domestic regulations but broad rules or orders for the purpose of carrying out the provisions. Generally speaking there is a provision that they should be laid on the Table of the Oireachtas.
I will consider that question.
If the Minister and the Seanad will turn to the Second Schedule, and under the head of Short Title he will find the words "Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906." This Bill before us proposes to repeal part of Section 19 of that Act from the words "provided that" to the end of the Section. I have the Labourers Act of 1906 before me, and the clause which I am alluding to is 19. I wish to read that Clause because I must make it quite clear what has happened in repealing this. "An advance under Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, may be made for the purchase of a parcel of land comprising any estate for an agricultural labourer who has for a period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of the advance resided in the estate or in the neighbourhood thereof, provided that any pre-existing tenancy under the Labourers Acts of the applicant for an advance shall be determined before the advance is made and that the applicant has paid all rent due by him in respect of this tenancy." That is to be wiped out by this Act. A man may not have paid his rent. Let us see what is the effect of this? This is an encroachment upon the occupier and the landowner of an unknown quantity. The real truth of it is to make what is called an economic holding. The Labourers Act gives him a half-an-acre.
An acre.
Very well an acre, and this is the power that exists in this Bill to really take as much land as is wanted to make that labourer a farmer with much more land than what is commonly called an economic holding. I only wish to interpret the schedule as I find it and nothing more whatsoever. I do not think I need develop the argument any longer because that has practically the effect of repealing this Section of the Labourers Act of 1906.
This is a matter that I would like to have the opinion of the Seanad on and I would like to hear some utterance from the Labour Benches on it. Really there is a lot to be said for both sides. Previously when the Land Commission bought an estate they occasionally had land they would not want for the relief of congestion, and they would make an advance to labourers. I am now speaking of purchases under previous Acts, the 1909 Act for example.
That did not repeal the Labourers Acts.
I did not say it did. Under the 1909 Act the Land Commission might have bought an estate, and having some land over they would make an advance to a labourer who occupied a labourer's cottage on the estate, with its plot attached. If they made an advance to a labourer under such circumstances the following proviso applied: "provided any pre-existing tenancy under the Labourers Act of the applicant for the advance shall be determined before the advance is made and that the applicant has paid all rents due by him in respect of such tenancy." That means that if they proposed to make the advance he had to give up the labourer's cottage. The idea that we are proposing is that if we had land we should make the labourer an advance and there should be no statutory reason why he should leave his cottage. That proposal may be sound or unsound. In the past what happened was that the labourer assigned the cottage to his wife and she became the tenant. Then he got his advance. He could assign the cottage to either his wife or someone else in the family. There was never a case I believe where an advance of land was made to a labourer by law in which he had to leave the cottage. What he always did, I am told, was that he assigned the cottage to his wife, sister or brother, and remained there and kept any land advanced to him as well. That is not a good proceeding. It will always happen while this provision is there and it is with a view to preventing anything of the sort that we propose to repeal it.
There is a big question as to whether the labourer should not go out and whether this Section should not stand and whether a genuine labourer should not come in. There is a lot to be said on both sides, even from the labour point of view. The Land Commission thought that the result of the operations of the previous Acts under this Section was fraud. We might as well do the thing decently, and when we make an advance of land to a labourer we should not put him to the usual plan of making the cottage over to his wife or to anyone else in the house. The Seanad is the best judge of the circumstances.
At last I have got the real gist of this question. Supposing a man has not paid his rent, who has to suffer for that? Why, the ratepayers.
I do not think, with all respect, that you are reading the Section properly.
I am looking at the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, part of Section 19 of which you have repealed.
If Section 19 is allowed to remain as it is and if the labourer gets the advance, then we cannot make that advance until he leaves the labourer's cottage and pays his rent to date, in case he happens to be in arrear. If we take out this proviso we can make him an advance and he can still remain in the cottage, and if he does happen to owe rent he has better security for it.
I am going to argue it out to the the end with the Minister. This is a rather big question. Notwithstanding what the Minister says, I say as a practical person that if the labourer has not paid his rent he has the power not only to stay in the cottage and get an advance but he has power also to get a great deal more land and become, not only what is called an economic tenant, but as far as I can see, he can get practically as much land as he wants. I want that contradicted flatly.
I would like to oblige the Earl of Mayo, and I will contradict that flatly at his request.
May I ask the Minister, if he contradicts that flatly, where is it that he bases that contradiction on the provisions in his Bill?
The Senator has come to the conclusion that we wish to repeal this proviso, and that the effect of repealing this proviso was to give a chance to the labourer who has not paid his rent to trick the District Council. Now that is not so. Even if we repeal this proviso the Rural Council has all its legal power to enforce payment of the rent. We do not take this away. What we do is if we happen under the Section to give him more land he will have more cattle on it, and if the Rural Council come to execute their decree they will, perhaps, find a good yearling on it. We are doing that because we did not think it right to be parties to the fraud that was going on where the labourer would give the cottage to his wife.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Will he not do the same with the cattle?
Possibly there is a chance of that, but that does not make him any worse.
I know that under the present Government the question of paying rents has been rather drastically enforced in the matter of cattle. If the District Councils do their duty and cannot get help in the district they must apply to the Government. I beg to withdraw.
I think the Minister himself has drawn the attention of the Labour Party to a matter in which I was interested. Dwelling-houses are being built for labourers with public money. The Minister has told us that this amendment means that those are going to be turned over to be the houses of men who cease to be labourers. I do not take it on myself to speak on behalf of the labourers, but this surely seems wrong.
I can speak on behalf of the labourers. We are satisfied that the amendment be withdrawn.
The Minister has put his two propositions. I would like to know which Senator O'Duffy supports.
That the Bill remain as it is.
We can make an advance to a man who happens to be an occupier, but he need not leave the cottage.
If you turn the inhabitants of labourers' cottages into farmers I suppose the necessity for labourers' cottages will still be as great and we will have to build them.
If he has a large family there must be a lot of other cottages built.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think this concludes the Committee Stage and I suggest that we meet again to-morrow at 11. The motion is that leave be given to withdraw the amendment.
On a show of hands An Cathaoirleach declared the motion carried.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.