Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Mar 1934

Vol. 18 No. 13

Land Bond Bill, 1934 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill makes provision for the creation and issue of further land bonds for the purpose of acquisition of untenanted land under the Land Acts 1923-1933, for the resumption of holdings and for the compulsory acquisition of land for playing fields, sports fields, playgrounds, etc., and for the acquisition of sporting rights in certain cases. The total issue of land bonds to be created and issued under the Act will be limited to £10,000,000. The land bonds will be created as and when required, from time to time, by order made by the Minister for Finance. Each order will prescribe the rate of interest to be borne on the bonds created under it, but the rate will not be less than 3 per cent., or more than 4 per cent. per annum. It is a fundamental principle of this Bill that the rate of interest on the bonds created by each order should be related to the rate of interest payable on the latest issue of the National Loan at the date of such order, having regard to the figure at which the Loan stands on the Dublin Stock Exchange. A small, fractional increase in the rate of interest payable on the land bonds above that earned on the National Loan might be regarded as permissible owing to the fact that there may be only a limited market in the land bonds of each series as compared with the market in the National Loan.

It is considered that an equitable price for land can be fixed on a proper basis if the rate of interest on land bonds, representing the purchase money, corresponds to the yield that might be secured from investments in the latest issue of National Loan current at the date of fixing the purchase price. Other things being equal, the rate of interest might be such as would enable the land bonds to be sold by the vendor for an amount equal to the cash that a purchaser, other than the Land Commission, would be willing to pay for the land. The interest on the land bonds should, therefore, be such that the prospective income to be derived from them if retained by the vendor would be about equivalent to the income that would be earned from trustee investments if the purchase money were to be paid in cash by a person other than the Land Commission and invested in such investments by the vendor. That is the principle upon which the Bill is based and the Bill contains provisions which, within limits, will give effect to that principle.

As to the text of the Bill, Section 2 provides that the purchase money payable to the vendor in future shall be payable in land bonds issued under the Act except in cases where the payment of the purchase money is governed by previous Acts—for instance, the Land Bond Act, 1933, which was intended to finance transactions in regard to which the price had been agreed to or fixed or in which negotiations for the purchase of estates had been opened prior to the passing of the Land Act of 1933. The land bonds are to be accepted by the vendor at their nominal value.

The section further provides that in cases where the purchase money is payable by means of an issue of land bonds created under the Act, the claims against the purchase money shall be discharged by payment in land bonds of the same series.

Section 3 provides that advances made to tenants and others for the purchase of holdings or allotments shall be made by an issue of land bonds created under this Act. Sub-section (2) applies the provisions of earlier Land Acts to the repayment of these advances. Under these provisions, as so applied, the advances will be repaid by means of purchase annuities or other annual sums until the whole of the advance is redeemed. But power is given to redeem advances in whole or in part during the currency of any annuity.

Sub-section (1) of Section 4 empowers the Minister for Finance, from time to time by order, to create a series of land bonds of such total amount and such denominations as he shall think proper. The rate of interest payable on each series of bonds will be specified in the Order, but it is not to be less than 3 or more than 4 per cent. per annum.

Why the minimum? Perhaps the Minister would explain that.

I have already said that the rate of interest these bonds are to bear is to be related to the rate of interest which might be obtained from investment in current issues of the National Loan.

Which National Loan?

The last National Loan. If one were to give full effect to the principle mentioned by Senator Johnson in a Bill of this sort, it would mean that the rate of interest should not be prescribed in the Bill. Therefore, the Dáil would be asked to make a complete innovation in this type of legislation in so far as the Oireachtas would be asked to give the Minister power to issue land bonds at an indeterminate rate of interest. It was felt that limited rates of interest should be fixed in the Bill and accordingly these limits have been introduced. I should point out that in the Dáil a point was raised as to the conditions which the Minister might prescribe when making an order for the issue of land bonds. It was thought that this power might be exercised in an unjust and inequitable way by some Minister. Accordingly, the power to affix conditions under this sub-section is confined to conditions relating to the inscription and registration of the bonds. In any event, such conditions as are referred to in this sub-section cannot override the conditions set out in Section 7 of the Bill. Sub-section (2) is intended to provide that the bonds of a certain series can be issued only for making advances and paying purchase moneys the amounts of which are agreed or fixed during a specified period. Sub-section (3) provides that in fixing the rate of interest, the Minister shall have regard to the principle to which I have referred—the yield given by the National Loan or previous issues of land bonds at current quotations.

Sub-section (4) empowers the Minister to consolidate different series of land bonds when the rate of interest on such series is the same. It is felt that such consolidation might, in certain circumstances, improve the marketability of the bonds. Sub-section (5) provides that each Order shall specify the sums to be set aside half-yearly in the Land Bond Fund. These sums will, of course, depend on the rate of interest and the sinking fund to be paid on advances. Sub-section (6) provides that every Order made by the Minister shall fix the rate of the purchase annuities, or other annual sums payable for the repayment of the purchase money advanced, by means of an issue of land bonds created under the Order. Sub-section (7) provides that every Order made under the section shall lie on the Table of each House, so that an opportunity will be given to challenge the action of the Minister in issuing any Order, if the House so desires.

Section 5 provides for the issue of land bonds as distinct from their creation. Section 6 limits the amount of the land bonds to be created and issued under the Act to £10,000,000.

Section 7 contains provisions similar to those contained in the Land Bond Acts of 1925 and 1933 with regard to the payment of interest on, and the redemption of, land bonds. The interest, as in the case of all previous issues, is to be paid half-yearly and the bonds are to be redeemed by means of periodical drawings. Bonds transferred by the judicial commissioner in redemption of purchase annuities are to be subject to immediate redemption after the expiration of 30 years from the date of the passing of the Act. Any bonds then outstanding may be redeemed at par by the Minister for Finance. In the event of the Land Bond Fund being unable to pay the interest on the bonds, or the money required for redemption, liability for the payments is made a charge upon the Central Fund. If it is necessary to make payments out of the Central Fund the existing machinery of the Guarantee Fund will come into operation, but only to the extent that the revised annuities are in arrear.

Section 8 applies the provisions of Section 5 of the Land Act of 1923 relating to the costs fund of the bonds issued under this Bill. Section 9 directs that in the accounts kept of the Land Bond Fund the Minister shall distinguish between transactions financed by the issue of land bonds under previous Acts and between transactions financed by the issue of each series of land bonds under the present Bill. Section 10 gives the usual power to the Minister for Finance to make regulations for carrying the provisions of the Bill into effect, and to adapt, for the purposes of the Bill, any provision relating to land purchase finance contained in any previous Act. Section 11 is the short title.

I should like to ask the Minister to explain a matter that has been in my mind for some time. I understand that the money which used to be sent over to Britain in respect of land purchase is disposed of in this way—half has been allotted to the reduction of the land annuities and the remaining half, amounting to about £1,500,000, is at the disposal of the Central Fund. How that has been. arranged, I do not know. I always thought that that money would be used for the reduction of the annuities payable in future—the annuities, for instance, under the 1923 Act, which have to be paid in full.

Not at all.

I should like to know if that matter arises under this Bill and how it arises.

I do not suppose that one can reasonably object to the principle of this Bill, which is hallowed by practice. It has been part of the scheme of finance of land purchase, but there is a difference, and it is a difference which will be of growing magnitude. The principle of paying in stock was justified on the basis that you were putting an end to the system of landlord and tenant and substituting a system of peasant proprietors. That is now being extended and there is no limit to the possible extension. This system of finance has already been used to buy out an ordinary holder. It has been further extended to buy out the new tenant. There is no end, if this sub-division goes on—as there is every prospect of its going on, because it is a very potent factor in our political life—to the extent to which finance on paper can be applied to land acquisition and land distribution, further acquisition and further distribution.

It makes the Government very free, generally, to finance all this land division which keeps that seething pot in our political life boiling all the time. If the Minister could give us some assurance that it was going to be limited to some period of years and not to be used indefinitely to keep this agrarian problem boiling, I think it would be well.

With regard to the issue under this Bill there is to be a maximum of 4 per cent. beyond which the interest cannot rise. As things appear at present that looks reasonable enough. I do not propose to move an amendment but would the Minister give a guarantee that, if it becomes necessary to increase the rate of interest in order to give the equivalent cash value, he will introduce amending legislation? With regard to the general question of finance of this kind, of course, it is sound finance as long as the annuities were paid and there was an integral service behind the bonds. But I need hardly remind the House that that principle has broken down already because one-half of the annuities under the 1903 Act, and subsequent Acts, is remitted and the finances of the country are only saved by the diverting of the half no longer paid to Britain to the services of these bonds. Senator Colonel Moore asked where this money has gone. I think portion of it went to maintaining the services of these particular bonds, otherwise there would have been a demand from the taxpayer to meet these bonds. That money is in the nature of free money in the hands of the Exchequer for that purpose. Would the Minister consider allowing these bonds to be surrendered free of duty? That would mean an amendment. It would maintain the value of the bonds and would give them an added attraction. If the Minister is prepared to grant that concession, I am sure he could easily get an amendment drafted that would effect that purpose.

I would like to know what would be the amount of such issue, and, in the event of that issue being spread over a number of years and the value of the money rises, would the Minister have power to arrange the interest on the bonds without a new Bill?

As I understood the Minister in his opening statement—I did not catch his first words—he told us that the raison d'etre for raising this money was the purchase of land for recreation purposes.

I suppose it did include the purchase of holdings, but, if so, I missed the word. He did lay emphasis on the fact that the Government was going to borrow for the purposes of the amenities of the public-generally. I take it that, also, includes the purchase of land for holdings and for other sub-division. The total issue is £10,000,000. The money is to be issued from time to time. That is to say, the Government are going to make an issue of £10,000,000 spread over a period. I would ask when the first instalment has been issued, is it the intention of the Minister to fix the rate of interest, and will that rate of interest hold good during the whole of the £10,000,000 issue? You can always regulate an issue of this description by the prices at which you issue it. If you put out an issue of £10,000,000 1934 Land Bonds, and you are going to have that divided up into ten instalments of £1,000,000 each, and if all that issue is to be at a different rate of interest, I can only anticipate confusion. On the other hand, if you fix 3½ or 3¾ per cent. as interest it would always be open to the Minister when issuing his next £1,000,000, to fix the price. That would simplify matters on the market. It would make matters simpler if on each occasion of the issue the Minister stated what the rate of interest was to be. Otherwise I take it that the issue will be, practically, on all fours with issues made on previous occasions. I agree largely with what Senator Sir John Keane said about going on ad infinitum with the distribution of land. It may be quite right, but I cannot conceive that the constant sub-division of land is a good thing for the country as a whole. Some limit should be specified and some stop put where sub-division under these conditions arises.

I just wish to remark that the conditions underlying the issue of these land bonds are very different from the conditions which underlay those paid to the landlords under the 1923 Act. These 1923 Land Act Bonds were issued at 4½ per cent. and guaranteed by the British Government with the result that to-day they stand at 110, that is 10 per cent. premium. Most of the money that will go to the landlords in this instance or to the men who will now be landlords is going to them on quite a different basis. They are to be financed at a rate of interest which is possibly fair, but can never give the sellers anything in the nature of that premium on the capital which was obtained by those who sold their land under the 1923 Act. Those who are sellers now are being treated by their own people worse than the sellers under the 1923 Act who were supposed to be of alien extraction. However, the question has been raised here with regard to the disposal of the withheld moneys from Great Britain. The Minister for Finance will receive, if he gets his money, £2,000,000, £1,500,000 of that used to go to Britain, and £500,000 of it was used for paying the interest on the land bonds created under the 1923 Act. The Ministry now will be liable for £1,000,000 per annum for interest under the 1923 land bonds, so that they will make a profit of £1,000,000 from the withholding of the land annuities that hitherto went to Britain. That will be the position. They say they have given recompense to the farmers for that £1,000,000 because they have given bounties on beet and, in certain areas, on wheat growing, and in the money that they have placed to the credit of the farmers in the payment of old age pensions and so on, which I do not think should be debited against the farmers at all. The Minister for Finance enumerated services amounting to close on £8,000,000 which he said was going to the farmers to help them. Of course, we take that with a grain of salt.

And the services with gratitude.

The Minister knows perfectly well the items he enumerated are not entirely in favour of the farmers. He said they granted £100,000 for milk. They did, but the farmer supplies the milk and at the same time he has lost his market in England. The Ministry gave £150,000 for turf. In my area nobody gets anything from turf. Then they are giving bounties for wheat. Anyone who grows wheat gets the bounty; but it is the individual gets the benefit and the taxes and the rates are still going on. I do not want to raise the question of local taxation, but I would like to counter the impression created abroad that the Ministry are helping the farmers in every way they can. They are helping individual farmers, but not the whole body of farmers. The man in Connemara gets nothing from the schemes of the Ministry. He gets nothing for the growing of beet and he cannot get anything for the growing of wheat, and he certainly gets nothing from the sale of milk. He might get something from the new calf skin industry. In Dublin the farmer gets nothing except what he might get in the bounty on wheat. Meantime our resources are diminished and the chance of selling our land under this scheme will never enable us to receive an amount which would be in any way a premium on the low prices that will be fixed having regard to the conditions existing to-day.

Referring to different parts of the country as Senator Wilson has done, I should like to say that my area is a tillage and fattening district and is very little interested in dairying. It is one of the principal beet growing areas. Take that item of beet alone. Hitherto that paid the farmers, but it is no longer going to pay them. It is like this proposal of the Government with regard to wheat. It is only taken up by the farmers much in the same way as a hungry man takes up a crust.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must relate that to the Bill now before the House.

I am trying to do so. Of course, the Minister does not deceive anybody by his statement in the Dáil, referred to by Senator Wilson. The farmer has got no compensation for the loss of his markets. With regard to the sale of the land questions are constantly being put to us whether portion of the land that a man is working is now to be taken from him and redistributed. That is a question which it is not very easy to explain to the ordinary man. What is his position? He is a tenant himself to the Land Commission. What position will he be in now when so much land is taken from him? I would like the Minister to explain that to me as he would explain it to a countryman who asked him the question. It is difficult for the ordinary man to understand it. He believed that he would become the owner of his land at the end of a certain term. The farmers who bought their land under previous Land Acts were willing to pay their annuities in the hope that they would become the owners of it or that their successors would. Now all that is upset. This prospect, which was one of the most enticing that was held out to the men who entered into arrangements to buy their land, is also scattered to the winds. These men do not know what position they stand in. They do not know if they are going to be tenants indefinitely. I would like to have a definite statement from the Minister so that I can give his assurances to the people as to what the Government's intentions are with regard to this question: the security and tenure of farmers who bought out their lands under previous Land Acts. What prospect have they of ever becoming owners of their land? What position are they put in when a certain amount of their land is now being taken from them for distribution to other people? I want the Minister to put the position in plain words. I would be obliged if he would try and clear up the mess so that the position will be made intelligible to the ordinary man.

I am afraid that the greater number of Senator Miss Browne's remarks would have been more pertinent to the Land Act of 1933, which the Oireachtas has already passed, than they were to this Bill. I want to say, in reply to some of the remarks made by Senator Wilson, that this Bill is required to give effect to the principles which the Oireachtas has already accepted: that is, it is to provide for the completion of the purchase of untenanted land, for the resumption of holdings in certain cases, and for the compulsory acquisition of lands for playgrounds and pleasure grounds. All these purposes are covered by the Act of 1933, and all will be financed by the issue of bonds under this Act.

I think Senator Sir John Keane was under a misapprehension when he thought that we contemplated that this process of land division and land purchase should go on ad infinitum, as he said. The fact is that we think that the £10,000,000, which we are asking the Oireachtas to empower us to issue under this Bill, will complete land purchase upon a rational basis and will complete all the transactions that would fall to be undertaken under the Act of 1933. The Land Commission have computed that of the issue, £4,500,000 will be required to complete the purchase of untenanted land in Ireland, and that another £4,500,000 will be required for resumed holdings and for the lands compulsorily acquired for the relief of congestion and the other purposes set out in the Act of 1933. I think the provision that is being made is generous to this extent, that the figures do not make allowance for the fact that each resumption of a holding is accompanied by the redemption of a prior purchase annuity, and that, accordingly, the actual amount required to complete land purchase will be something less than £10,000,000 because it will be offset by the redemption of the bonds of preceding issues.

But, in any event, a margin is desirable, and if our anticipations should be found not to be fulfilled, I presume that another policy will be put before the Oireachtas, possibly by another Government, for the purpose of carrying the sub-division of land another stage, or it might possibly be for the consolidation of other holdings. I can see that one or two of these eventualities may have to be faced, but personally I do not anticipate that position will ever arise. As I have said, this will represent, possibly, the last moiety that will be required to complete land purchase in this country.

Senator Sir John Keane also stated that it was his opinion that this was perfectly sound finance on one hypothesis; that the tenant purchasers would continue to discharge their liabilities in respect to the land annuities. Well, I am happy to say that, so far as the existing collection has gone, there is no reason to believe that that condition will not be fulfilled. Though we are aware that in certain parts of the country there has been actually a campaign to prevent people from paying their annuities, notwithstanding, the amount of the annuities that remain unpaid at the present date is, I think, less than 20 per cent., and is due by a comparatively small section, for almost 400,000 existing annuitants have paid fully and promptly. Naturally, so far as those who are not discharging their obligations are concerned, the Government are going to take a very stern attitude and a very stern line because they are convinced that, in the great majority of cases, these annuities could be paid by the people from whom they are due.

You know a lot about it.

I could not propose to consider sympathetically the question of death duties raised by Senator Sir John Keane. I was inclined to ask the Senator to let it stand over until the Finance Bill was introduced when, possibly, I might have been able to give it further consideration, but I am entirely opposed to the idea of attaching concessions of that sort to any Government issues, and I may as well say so now. Such a concession, while it would tend to make the issue very much more attractive would, I feel, be merely passing on to our successors the liability and the responsibility of making good something given by us now. I know that a similar concession was given in regard to previous issues of the Government, and that it proved so embarrassing that it had to be withdrawn.

Senator Counihan made the point that if it was found that the present rates of interest fixed in the Bill are inequitable as compared with the returns which might be secured from current securities in the open market, whether it would be necessary for the Minister for Finance to come to the Oireachtas with an amending Bill. Well, it would, and, as I have already indicated in the Dáil, I feel that if the yield which might be secured from current issues of bonds, either national loan or land bonds, were very much higher than the limits fixed in the Bill that practical considerations would compel the Minister for Finance to come to the Dáil and ask for power to increase the rate of interest. If that position were to arise it is quite obvious that land purchase could not be carried on: that an agreed price could not be fixed and that every transaction would have to go before the Appeal Tribunal which would lead, of course, to intolerable delay. Therefore, if there was any demand for land purchase, the Minister would be compelled to come to the Oireachtas and ask them to empower him to fix an increased rate of interest. On the other hand, if the return which was procurable from ordinary Government issues were to fall very much below 3 per cent., then I think the Minister would need no urging to go to the Dáil.

Senator Guinness raised a very pertinent point and made a suggestion which merits serious and, I think, sympathetic consideration: that is, that possibly what we are trying to do in this Bill might be secured more conveniently by taking power to fix a price at which the bonds might be issued. The position is that this Bill is, to some extent, experimental. We are covering the period up to, and fixing a rate of interest in advance of, the 31st December. It may be that experience will indicate to us that the mode of procedure which Senator Guinness has suggested to-day might be a better one than that which we are adopting in this Bill. I promise to have it, as I have said, sympathetically considered, and, if necessary, it will be a simple thing to come to the Oireachtas and ask them to give me powers to give effect to the Senator's suggestion.

Senator Colonel Moore asked what would happen to the balance of the land annuities which were not being despatched to England. I may say that the total amount of the annuities sent to England every year was a sum which was slowly diminishing. The last figure I have in mind is one of about £2,949,000, so that after making provision for the reduction of the annuities of £1,500,000 we had £1,450,000, roughly, available. One million of that has been devoted to the reduction of annuities payable under the 1923 Act, and the remaining £450,000 will be used to enable us to give to people who purchase under the 1933 Act the same concessions.

The Minister has stated that the sum of £1,000,000 will go to reduce the annuities of those who purchased under the 1923 Act, but the Government will receive from the farmers half of the interest payable under the 1923 Act, which is about £500,000. Therefore, the Government are only losing £500,000 while there is £1,000,000 collectable under the 1923 Act.

Roughly, that is what I am saying. It will also enable us to complete land purchase. I think it is quite justifiable to utilise, for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the Land Commission, any balance that may be over.

The Land Commission has been in existence for the last 40 years.

It is all part of the cost of breaking up the land of this country and of settling the people on farms. I think when you look at it, that it is the least return the community as a whole might expect for everything they are doing to make the tenant farmers owners of their own land.

Half of the total is handed over for the reduction of the farmers' annuities. How is the remaining half spent? I do not agree with handing it over to the Land Commission.

The sum would be half of £2,900,000. I would not like to adopt Senator Moore's phraseology and apply it to that transaction. Really, the community as a whole are entitled, because they are making a fight and are suffering also, to some of the benefits and advantages which will accrue if we succeed in retaining the land annuities. Senator Wilson also referred to the fact that these bonds were being issued in different circumstances to those issued in 1923. They are, but he seemed to think that the major difference lay in the fact that the earlier issues carried with them a guarantee by the British Government. I think very little weight is attached by the money market to that British guarantee. The yield of British guaranteed bonds is but £4 3s. 3d. per cent. per annum and the rate on the £10,000,000 worth issued without the guarantee is £4 5s. per cent. so that it will be seen that the guarantee is valued at 1/9d. per cent. per annum. I must say I think that it is a reasonable valuation to put on it. There is no reason to believe that in regard to its internal commitments this Government will default—not that it has defaulted in regard to its external commitments—it has honourably discharged all its commitments and this Government had to face an extraordinary campaign of misrepresentation last year in order to redeem a commitment that should have been provided for by our predecessors. I am sure that everything we do will be fully honoured by our successors so that there is no reason why an Irish investor should rate an Irish security lower than the security of any other Government.

Where a person is a tenant what prospect has he for the future of security of tenure and what arrangements are to be made with regard to the readjustment of his annuities?

That is really a question which is pertaining to the Land Act but I can answer it. I understand that under the 1933 Act, land can only be resumed without the consent of the tenant in certain cases where it exceeds a certain value, or where it is not being applied to the proper purposes of husbandry. But if it is resumed in that way, I think a person can require the Land Commission to provide him or her with a suitable holding elsewhere and is not bound to accept more than £2,000 of the price which is either agreed on between him and the Land Commission or fixed by the Appeal Tribunal having regard to all the facts and circumstances, and taking into consideration the fact that the holding has been compulsorily acquired. I think that in all the circumstances, having regard to the general policy of the Government and the demand for the sub-division of land he is being treated equitably.

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