Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Jul 1929

Vol. 12 No. 24

Public Business. - Land Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Permission granted to Mr. Roddy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, to attend and take charge of the Bill.

Question proposed: "That the Land Bill, 1929, be read a Second Time."

Mr. Comyn

Before the Bill is read a Second Time, I wish to draw attention to one or two matters which I hope the Minister will see his way to have rectified. Judging from various sections, it appears to be a measure intended to facilitate the vesting of land. A good many of its provisions are useful. I notice that each section is apparently framed in view of cases which have actually occurred. For instance, Section 3 provides for fishing rights appurtenant to holdings, and fisheries on rivers passing through or by land are deemed to be appurtenant to the holding if the fishing right is vested in the tenant or his superior landlord. That is intended to meet a case which occurred on the River Louth, where the fishery in part of that river was held not to be appurtenant to the holding adjoining the river. I mention that matter for the purpose of suggesting that every section of this Bill is framed with a view to meeting difficulties in cases that have arisen. Therefore, I am most anxious to know why Section 5, sub-section (1) is framed in the terms in which it is.

Let me read it:—

(1) Where a fishery or fishing right is vested (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in the Land Commission under Section 45 of the Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923), as amended by this Act and another fishery or fishing right (hereinafter referred to as the ancillary fishery or fishing right) which is not so vested is, in the opinion of the Land Commission, necessary for the proper user and enjoyment of the first-mentioned fishery or fishing right, the Land Commission may purchase such ancillary fishery or fishing right for such price, payable in four and one-half per cent. land bonds of equal nominal value, as shall be agreed upon between the Land Commission and the owner of such ancillary fishery or fishing right.

Suppose that a considerable stretch of fishery is vested in the Land Commission and there is part of that fishery adjoining a stream vested in a private owner, it is called in this section an ancillary fishery. I wish to know why is not that ancillary fishery placed in the same position as a tenant or landlord. The Land Commission are asking for public money to buy out ancillary fishermen at their own price. If a case has arisen calling for that section I would like to know what the case is. I would also like to know why the ancillary fisherman is getting his own price, because these are the words of the section:

The Land Commission may purchase such ancillary fishery or fishing right for such price, payable in four and one-half per cent. land bonds of equal nominal value, as shall be agreed upon between the Land Commission and the owner of such ancillary fishery or fishing right.

Mr. Brown

That is not his own price.

Mr. Comyn

He need not sell, and he will not sell, unless he gets his price. I would like to know whether any cases have arisen to which that section is directed, and what are these cases, or whether public money is to be voted for the purpose of giving fancy prices to ancillary fishermen? I do not wish to be critical. I only wish to understand what the meaning of that section is and why it is in case of disagreement as to price the power is not vested in the Land Commission to fix a price just as a price is fixed in the case of landlords and tenants. There is another matter which I think should receive the attention of those concerned with this Bill. It relates to Section 4. The Land Commission take power to acquire fisheries, and they also in Section 4 take power to refuse to acquire fisheries. That is a matter of administration and a matter in which they are the best judges, but this question arises: In case they elect to take a fishery, of course they get under sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Principal Act, the statutory right to go along the banks of a river and fish. In case they do not elect to take up the fishery, do they propose to make any provision in regard to the right of entry for the purpose of fishing? That is a matter that I wish to put before those in charge of the Bill for consideration. The fishing industry is very important, and whatever legislation can do should be done towards making the law in regard to the fisheries as perfect as possible. It is by no means perfect. This Bill is an attempt to make it perfect, just as it is an attempt to make any other little matters in the land code workable. There was a case some time ago where a man had a right to fish on a river and had the common law right to go on the bank to fish, but the owner of the land put a mad bull into the field with the result that when the fisherman was luring the wily trout the bull sent the trout back to the stream and the fisherman after it. These are matters which should be considered if the Land Commission take over the fisheries. Of course, under sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Principal Act they take the right to go on the bank, but if they do not take the fishery, what are they going to do in reference to the right of approach? These are two questions to which I should like to call attention before this Bill gets a Second Reading. Perhaps when they are considered by the Parliamentary Secretary he will be able to explain the difficulties which are in my mind.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Roddy)

In reply to Senator Comyn, it is not anticipated that compulsory powers will be necessary for the purpose of Section 5 of this Bill. It is not considered necessary to give the Land Commission compulsory powers for the purpose, especially in a matter which is really not one of its principal functions. I only know one such case as Senator Comyn has referred to, and in that case the owner was quite willing to sell the ancillary rights to the Land Commission. It is a very unlikely thing that such a case will arise again, and if it does, it will not arise for a very considerable time. If the Land Commission find as a result of experience in dealing with the acquisition of fishing rights that it is necessary to obtain compulsory powers, they will have no hesitation in approaching the Oireachtas again for the requisite powers.

Perhaps I should explain that these sections in this Bill relating to fishing rights were introduced for the purpose really of explaining a word—the word "appurtenant"— which was used in Section 45 of the Act of 1923. That explanation was necessary because of a recent judicial decision. According to that judicial decision the meaning of the word "appurtenant" was given quite a different meaning from that which the Minister intended when introducing the Act of 1923. The decision was to the effect that a right appurtenant to a holding must mean in law some right in connection with the enjoyment of the holding and could not be extended to include a right of property which was separated therefrom and was not enjoyed by the tenant or necessary for the enjoyment of his holding. That decision, in fact, means that the word "appurtenant" should not have been used in the Act of 1923 or, if used, that it should have been interpreted in exactly the same way as Section 41 of the Act of 1927, which states quite definitely and explicitly that the Land Commission have power to acquire or purchase the fishing rights on any river or water adjoining the tenant's holding. Hence these sections in this Bill are necessary in order to explain the meaning and to give the Land Commission the power which the Minister when introducing the Act of 1923 obviously intended the Land Commission should have.

Mr. Comyn

Is he going to sell the ancillary rights at a fair price?

Mr. Roddy

The question of price has not arisen at all yet.

Mr. Johnson

I was hoping that someone more conversant with the law and practice of land purchase would have raised a question that was discussed in the Dáil as to the amount fixed in the Bill under Section 2 (1), which says that the standard purchase annuity in respect of Part II. of the First Schedule to the Land Act, 1923, shall be an annuity of an amount equivalent to 65 per cent. of the rent payable in respect of the holding, provided there is no appeal. The matter was discussed in the Dáil. I have since read the debates and I am not satisfied that the Minister's defence for putting in these figures is satisfactory. The evidence that has been presented shows that where cases have been laid before the Land Commission in recent years—the last two or three years— the average reduction fixed has been considerably more than the 35 per cent. which is indicated in the section. My information is that in the five years 1923-28 the average reduction fixed by the Land Commission has been 37 per cent., so that the equivalent in the Bill ought to be 63 per cent. instead of 65 per cent. Last year the average has been almost 38 per cent. So that the figure of 65 per cent. in the Bill seems to be too high in respect to the particular class of tenancy in question. As it appears, from information placed in my possession that, in the main, these are the poorer tenants a lower figure than 65 per cent. should be fixed, and if there is a dispute, if there is a question involved, the initiative should be taken by the landlord in appealing to the Commissioners and not by the tenant. I am stating the case, as I say, without very much knowledge or experience of the processes, but I have read the debates and I am not at all satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary's case is a strong one, or that he has a right in the Bill to fix 65 as against the proposal of 60, which was the amendment of Deputy Derrig, or of 62½ per cent., which was suggested in the public Press. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary is able to produce very much more definite evidence I think the House should have an opportunity of deciding whether 65 should remain, or whether it should be replaced by 60.

Mr. Roddy

It is not quite accurate to say, as Senator Johnson has said, that the average is lower than 35 per cent. The average figure is actually 35.1 per cent.

Mr. Johnson

Over what period?

Mr. Roddy

That is the average figure for the cases already fixed.

Mr. Johnson

That included voluntary agreements.

Mr. Roddy

Yes, that would include voluntary agreements. You must get an average figure, and if you are to get an average figure you must take cases where the figure was fixed by agreement between owners and tenants as well as cases where the figure was fixed by the Land Commission. That is the only way I know of getting an average.

Mr. Wilson

What has been the average in the case in which disputes have arisen and in which the figure was fixed by the Land Commission apart from agreement between the parties?

Mr. Roddy

Annuities were fixed in 12,500 cases.

Mr. Wilson

By the Land Commission?

Mr. Roddy

No. In 9,000 cases the annuities were fixed by agreement and in 3,500 by the Land Commission.

Mr. Wilson

What was the average in the 3,500 case?

Mr. Roddy

Up to the 31st March this year the average standard purchase annuities where the figure was agreed upon between the owners and the tenants was 33.4 and the average fixed by the Land Commission was 37.9. That was up to the 31st March this year. I want to point out to Senators that the average figure fluctuates a good deal. The possibility is that at the end of this year the figure may be considerably lower. Since we began to fix the standard figure the average has varied as between 33 and 35 per cent.

Mr. Johnson

What was the average per year for each of the five years?

Mr. Roddy

The average per year was something like 34 per cent.

Mr. Johnson

How did the Parliamentary Secretary arrive at 37.9 for five years?

Cathaoirleach

The Senator must allow the Parliamentary Secretary to proceed with his statement.

Mr. Roddy

The average, as a matter of fact, in cases fixed by the Land Commission increased somewhat during the first three months of this year, but, as I say, that average figure fluctuates, and probably at the end of the next six months it may be lower than 35. But at all events the average has never exceeded 35. If you are to arrive at an average you must be guided by experience gained in fixing the standard annuity in respect of cases already dealt with. If you look at the figures under the Land Act of 1903 and 1909 you will find that the average figure is higher under the 1903 Act and the 1909 Act than those I have given. I find that under the 1903 Act the average for non-judicial tenants was 33.7 and under the 1909 Act 35.9, or the average in respect of both was 33.7. Even taking into consideration those figures under the 1903 Act and the 1909 Act, those which we mentioned here in this Bill must be regarded as a fair average.

Mr. Cummins

Is it not a fact that but for the inclusion of voluntary agreements when arriving at the average that average would be lower? These were poor men rushed into agreements which they say were inequitable. Voluntary agreements were entered into in order to save the time and trouble of vesting and all the costs of these arrangements. Those who entered into the voluntary agreements now find that they were not equitable. They were the poorer farmers, farming only about 24 acres of land. They formed the great bulk of the agreements, which means that the average reduction is considerably lower than it ought to be. The first and second term judicial tenants have much better bargains, and these non-judicial tenants should not be put on the same footing as first and second term tenants, and it is very strongly urged that these people should not be asked to pay 65 per cent. of their rent just the same as their very much better-placed neighbours. They complain that that is not just. and that these voluntary agreements should not be reckoned in the average.

Mr. Wilson

I should like to say ——

Cathaoirleach

The Senator has spoken already.

Mr. Wilson

No.

Cathaoirleach

Yes, the Senator has already intervened.

Mr. Wilson

I only made an interjection.

Cathaoirleach

I shall allow the Senator to speak on this occasion, but he must not speak twice on Second Reading motion. An interjection is a speech.

Mr. Wilson

The question of the amount of the annuities should be fixed in the Bill, and I contend that 65 per cent. is too high a figure and that the figure should be 60 or 62½. The Parliamentary Secretary takes the figures under the Land Acts of 1903 and 1909, but these Acts were passed in the British Parliament and there was no force in the British Parliament to secure conditions of fair play that there are in this Parliament where the farmers of the country and the people generally are directly represented. They should get better conditions here than could possibly be obtained in an assembly of over 600 persons in the British Parliament where the farmers' interests were practically nil. That is a point of view that has been neglected. If they were able to get reductions of 25 or 32 per cent. from the British Parliament why should they not get 40 per cent. here? I settled several cases of non-judicial tenancies and I never accepted less than 40 per cent. or 8/- in the £1. The Minister should have agreed to the figure 60 or 62½ per cent. in the Bill.

Mr. Roddy

I should like to remind Senator Wilson that even if the Acts of 1903 and 1909 were passed by the British Parliament, the British Parliament had nothing to do with the fixing of the price. In the majority of cases here the prices are fixed by agreement between the landlords and the owners. If any tenant is not satisfied with the annuity of 65 per cent. he has a right to object and the Land Commission will fix the annuity. We have made provision in such cases. Even assuming that the tenants are charged exorbitant rent, and assuming that everything that Senator Cummins said is true, they, at any rate, have the right to come into court and have their annuities fixed by the Land Commission. As a matter of fact, we had these cases in view when we said they should have the right to object to the automatic arrangement. Under this section either the tenant or the landlord shall have the right to object. Senators can rest assured that all such cases are covered and they will also realise from the cases fixed by the Land Commission the tenants have been exceptionally well treated so far.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Mr. Milroy

I move: "That the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of taking the remaining stages of the Land Bill, 1929, to-day."

Mr. Brown

I second the motion.

Mr. Johnson

I oppose this motion because I think it is quite unnecessary. There must be some discussion upon the question raised on the Second Reading and there must be an amendment put forward in respect of the figures in the Bill. As the House is to meet to-morrow there is no necessity for taking the remaining stages of this Bill to-day. I should be quite willing as soon as the Committee Stage is passed to allow the remaining stages to be taken, but I think they should not be taken to-night.

Mr. Milroy

If Senator Johnson, as I gather, proposes to table an amendment, then undoubtedly we must give him time to do so. I do not think it would be fair in the circumstances to press this motion if that is his intention.

Motion, by leave, postponed.