Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 19 Jul 1929

Vol. 12 No. 25

Land Bill, 1929—Committee and Final Stages.

The Seanad went into Committee.
SECTION 2 (1).
2.—(1) In the case of every holding to which Part II. of the First Schedule to the Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923), applies and in respect of which the standard purchase annuity has not been agreed upon or fixed under the said Schedule before the passing of this Act, the standard purchase annuity shall (save as is hereinafter otherwise provided) be an annuity of an amount equivalent to sixty-five per cent. of the rent payable in respect of the holding.

I move:—

Section 2, sub-section (1). To delete in line 40 the word "sixty-five" and to substitute therefor the words "sixty-two and one half."

I explained last night that I am not very familiar with the land purchase laws, but I have followed the discussions in the Dáil on this subject and it appears to me to be clear that the case made by the Minister could not be sustained and that the demand for an alteration in the figure was justified. The amendment in the Dáil was to alter the figure from sixty-five to sixty. I have put down an amendment to make the figure sixty-two and a half. I do that simply on the figures presented by the Minister. If there is to be any figure in the Bill at all, the Minister seemed to me to justify the figure sixty-two and a half, and not sixty-five. The position appears to be that the fixing of the non-judicial tenants' annuities has been delayed and, if the process indicated in the Bill is not followed, certain grievances will accumulate in the course of delay in regard to this particular class of tenant. The Bill is intended to make a short cut and to fix a sum provisionally instead of having to wait for the judicial ruling. The figure sixty-five, a reduction of 35 per cent. upon the rental, has been based, according to the Minister's statement, upon the average of the agreements and the judicial fixings since the 1923 Act was passed.

It appears from the statement of the Minister that there are 35,000 non-judicial tenants and that standard purchase annuities have been fixed in respect of 12,000. In 9,000 cases out of the 12,000, standard purchase annuities were agreed on between the owners and the tenants, and in the remaining 3,000 out of the 12,000 cases such annuities were fixed by the Land Commission. I gather from the Report of the Land Commission covering the period 1923-28, that there were 9,030 cases in which agreement was arrived at and the average reduction in respect of those 9,030 was 33.3 per cent. There were 1,690 cases fixed by the Judicial Commissioner and the average in those cases was 36.3 per cent. The Minister argued that the whole— both those which were arrived at by agreement and those which were fixed by the Judicial Commissioner —must be taken as the basis of any figure to be placed in the Bill. I dissent from that and I draw attention to the fact that of those cases in which there were agreements, 1,901 occurred in two counties of Ulster, of which almost the whole—1,800, I think, were in Donegal, and the average rental of the holdings was only £2 3s. 6d.; so for practical purposes they may be ruled out of the calculation. In the cases of rentals fixed by the Judicial Commissioner in the poorer provinces, Connacht and Munster, the average reduction in the case of Connacht was 39.5, and in Munster, 38.9. In Leinster it was 34.7. In the poorer counties the averages were 39.5 and 38.9, which were considerably above the average for the country as a whole.

The Minister stated in the Dáil that during the last two or three years—which covers the period 1927-28 and does not take the earlier years into account, when most of the agreements were arrived at, I suppose — the judicial fixations averaged 37.9 of a reduction, but the Minister points out that it has been noticeable in recent months that cases in which annuities have been fixed by agreements between owners and tenants are getting smaller and smaller, and that possibly in a few months these cases of fixation would cease altogether. I conclude from that statement and the general facts in regard to the cases, that the most needy people entered into agreements easily— those cases where the tenants were either in a favourable position as tenants or where they were in specially unfavourable positions, where their rents had been unduly high. I also conclude that the cases that had been agreed upon were the easiest, and the cases that have not been agreed upon, which constitute practically the remainder of the cases, have not been agreed upon because the landlord was not willing to concede what the tenants considered desirable.

We have to compare, therefore, the remaining cases awaiting fixation not with the agreed cases, but with the fixed cases, and if we take the figures presented by the Minister himself and by the Commissioner's Report, we will see that the reductions due to fixation by the Commissioner have been considerably greater than the average of those which were agreed upon, so that if we are going to put a figure in the Bill at all it should be on the basis of the judicial fixation and not on the basis of the agreed arrangements. I think that it is not justifiable to lump together the agreements and the fixations and take the average of the whole. If that reasoning is fair, one has to consider the 36.3 per cent., which covers the whole country, taking specially into account the Connacht and Munster figures of 39.5 and 38.9, and the later percentage, which shows that during the last two or three years, which is a shorter period than the five-year period from 1923 to 1928, the figure of the fixed rentals has been 37.9. On the basis of these figures it seems to me that the only justifiable course is to put a similar figure, which is, roughly, 62½ per cent., into the Bill.

It is pointed out, of course, that the figure 65, or such figure as may be put in the Bill, is subject to revision. Either side may raise an objection and have a judicial finding. That is perfectly true, but it is equally true, whether it is an appeal by the landlord or by the tenant. The obvious and proper figure to put in the Bill is a figure which approximates to the figure fixed by the Judicial Commissioner. If we are assuming as we have a right to assume on the Minister's statement, that in the future the figure will be fixed after a judicial inquiry, then the figure placed in the Bill should obviously be, in my view, a figure approximating to that which has already been fixed by judicial inquiry. Whatever figure is put in the Bill will undoubtedly affect more or less the findings that will ultimately be decided on in cases of appeal. When the Legislature indicates a figure in respect of any matter which is subject to possible revision, it undoubtedly must influence the mind of the person who is deciding. He will take that as the datum line and work on that as to whether there should be a figure of a little over or a little under. In that case we should, I think, fix a figure which will approximate to the average of previous judicial findings. That I indicate as 62½ per cent., and it is on these grounds I move the amendment. The argument seems to me to be incontrovertible and based on the figure which the Minister himself has submitted to the Oireachtas.

I wish to support this amendment. Having heard Senator Johnson's explanation, you could very readily understand the figure as fixed in the Bill, 65 per cent., is not the figure that should be fixed for the kind of work that will be done in the future. The Parliamentary Secretary admits in the case of agreed settlements that that class of work is finished, that there will not be any more agreed settlements, or very few. He gets his figure of 65 per cent. by using 9,000 of those agreed settlements at a low figure, and mixing with 9,000 that couple of thousand of those that were fixed by the Land Commission. That is how his average of sixty-five is imposed in the measure. There will not be many more agreed settlements, as he himself said, and therefore, the class of work in the future, as Senator Johnson has pointed out, will be those cases where no agreement would be arrived at between the parties who would of necessity have gone to court because the court findings produce a figure approximating to 37.9 or 38. Therefore we should base our Bill on the findings of the court, particularly when the settlements which are to be made will be those the great majority of which will never be settled by agreement. The Minister's figures are based on the low agreed settlement of 9,000 out of 11,000, and it is not fair that the figures should be allowed to be a headline for the courts in the future.

In order to arrive at the average of the prices already fixed, I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary within what limits have the reductions of rent varied. I take it that although 35 per cent. or 37 per cent. is the average reduction, there have been cases where probably 50 per cent. reduction was given by the Land Commission. I refer only to the 3,000 cases that have been judicially decided, and I should like to know between what limits is the reduction in those cases fixed. I am aware in a few cases that nearly 50 per cent. reduction was given by the Land Commission on the report of their valuers. I know cases that even still are dear enough. I think Senator Johnson has made a case for the 62½ per cent. that he proposes in his amendment, because I do not think it fair to bring in, in order to make up the average, cases that have been decided by agreement. It is quite possible that a good many farmers, in order to get the present reduction of 10 or 12 per cent., agreed to those figures, although they may consider that it would make their annuity too much in the future. There is, of course, the option of any party aggrieved, either the landlord or the tenant who objects, to wait until the Commissioner comes along and fixes what the actual rent would be. I put it that it will be a great deal less hardship on the landlord to wait than it would be for the tenant. I therefore support the amendment, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept it.

I cannot accept Senator Johnson's amendment. This question was discussed very fully in the Dáil, and I explained my reasons for putting the figure 65 per cent. in the Bill. After all, you must put in a figure that will be fair to both parties. There are two parties to be considered in connection with these figures. You have the owners' rights and the tenants' rights, and the figure of 65 per cent. which we are inserting in this Bill is, in my opinion, a fair figure and represents a fair average. The average was arrived at by taking the cases fixed by agreement between the owners and the tenants and the cases fixed by the Land Commission. It is true, as Senator Johnson said, that in 9,000 cases the standard purchase annuity was fixed by agreement between the owners and the tenants, and 3,000 odd cases were fixed by the Land Commission. The average of sixty-five is based on those figures. If you take the group of 3,000 cases you will get the same average of 65 per cent. where the standard purchase annuity was was fixed by agreement between the owners and the tenants. As a matter of fact, the figure of 37.9 which Senator Johnson quoted a moment ago as representing the average figure where the standard purchase annuity is fixed by the Land Commission is really in excess of the general average figure. The average to be taken was only 36 per cent., and that average was increased in the first months, because the Land Commission fixed the standard purchase annuity in a few estates in the South of Ireland. These average figures fluctuate a good deal. Probably at the end of this year the average figure in the case of standard purchase annuities will be 60. The average in the cases fixed by agreement between the owners and tenants is 33.3. So I think it is perfectly clear if you want to arrive at a figure that is fair both to owners and tenants you must strike a balance and insert a figure in the Bill like this that will meet with the approval of both parties. In Northern Ireland the standard purchase annuities are based on non-judicial rents. Objections have been lodged, but where tenants and owners do not agree on the standard purchase annuity, it is fixed by the Land Commission. I understand from the Northern Ireland Land Commission that in only ten per cent. of the cases have objections been lodged. It does not prejudice the owner's right or the tenant's right in any way to have this automatic figure mentioned.

Accept the amendment then.

It means that where the owner or the tenant objects the objection does not cost anything. We have to go through exactly the same procedure as at the moment. We have to send an inspector down, and he has to make a report on all the circumstances connected with the estate. On his report the standard purchase annuity is fixed. There is a very full investigation of the facts and circumstances connected with the particular estate. It is with the object of speeding up the vesting of these non-judicial holdings that this section has been introduced. I hope when the section has been given legislative sanction that it will reduce considerably the work of the Land Commission in vesting the balance of the 24,000 non-judicial holdings. I do not think there is anything else to be said. The figure is an absolutely fair one. It has been arrived at after very long and deliberate consideration, and represents a fair average which. I am sure, will be acceptable both to the owners and tenants.

In reply to Senator Linehan, the average reduction in the cases fixed by the Land Commission varies considerably—from twenty per cent. probably to forty per cent. I have not heard of any case where the tenant got a reduction of fifty per cent. I have heard of only one case where it was fifteen per cent. The reduction varies from twenty per cent. to forty per cent.

I will only repeat that the determining factor in the matter is whether we have to take into account private agreements. It seems to me that one is assuming that for the future all agreements will be judicially determined, and one wants to fix a figure having that in view. It is clearly just and equitable to take the figure that has already been fixed by a judicial tribunal. That is the case I make.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá. 11: Níl, 12.

  • Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
  • William Cummins.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Thomas Linehan.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
  • Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
  • Richard Wilson.

Níl

  • Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • The Countess of Desart.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • P.J. Hooper.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • James Moran.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • James J. Parkinson.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 2 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

I want to draw attention to sub-section (3), which states:—

"If, on the determination of any such question as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section, it appears to the Land Commissioners or, on appeal to him, to the Judicial Commissioner, that the fishery or fishing right to which such question relates has vested in the Land Commission, but that it is not equitable or is not advisable that such fishery or fishing right should have so vested, it shall be lawful for the Land Commissioners or, on appeal to him, the Judicial Commissioner to declare that such fishery or fishing right has not vested in the Land Commission, and upon such declaration being so made such fishery or fishing right shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 45 of the Act of 1923 or in this section, be deemed not to have vested in the Land Commission."

I cannot follow the meaning of that section, and I would like an explanation.

This is a customary sub-section to insert in a Bill of this character. The section, of course, to a certain extent, is a retrospective one, and it is the usual thing to insert a sub-section of this kind to give the Commissioners retrospective powers to deal with certain classes of fisheries which were probably acquired under the Acts of 1903 and 1909. On account of the vagueness of the section in the Act of 1923 dealing with the acquisition of fishing rights, it is necessary to introduce this particular section to clarify it, to give proper meaning to the law, and to carry out what was obviously the Minister's intention when he inserted Section 45 in the Act of 1923. At the present time the vesting of fishing rights is an automatic thing, but as an actual fact the owners do not know whether the fishing rights vest in them or not, and according to this sub-section the Commissioners are given power to make a declaration in every case, so that the tenant will actually know what rights are vested in him, and the nature of the rights vested in him. If the rights are not vested in him, then he is given a declaration, after a careful examination by the Commissioners, stating that the rights do not vest in him. This sub-section is inserted to cover past cases primarily. These will have to be investigated on their merits, and after careful consideration the Commissioners will decide whether or not an order shall be issued stating that these rights do not vest in the tenants.

Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and the Title put and agreed to.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported.

I move:—

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

Question put and agreed to.
Bill put through remaining stages and passed.

On the motion for the adjournment, might I point out that we met at 12 o'clock to-day to the inconvenience of the town members to convenience the country members, and I would like to call attention to the large number of them that are present.

Cathaoirleach

Very good. Senator; I hope they will take note of it.

The Seanad adjourned at 12.45 until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 25th July.

Top
Share