Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 1954

Vol. 44 No. 3

State Property Bill, 1954—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman)

An explanatory memorandum was circulated with this Bill. The Bill contains many detailed provisions which members of the Seanad probably will agree are more suitable for discussion on the Committee Stage. The main purpose of the Bill is to make provision, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of Article 10 of the Constitution, for the management and alienation of State lands. The Constitution of 1922, Article 11, provided that lands which were State lands immediately preceding the 6th December, 1922, were to be controlled and administered by the Oireachtas in accordance with such regulations and provisions as should from time to time be approved by legislation. That article went on also to provide that they could be granted by way of lease or licence for terms not exceeding 99 years. The enacting legislation under that Constitution was brought in in the State Lands Act, 1924. Senators will see that it is proposed to repeal that Act now under this Bill. Article 10 of the present Constitution provides that legislation can be brought in to provide for the management of lands which were State lands. The article, however, does not restrict the method of dealing with State lands in the same way as the provisions of the Constitution of 1922. We are not now restricted to alienating State lands for periods not longer than 99 years. Accordingly, in this present Bill there is no similar restriction.

Under the procedure in the 1924 Act, before any lease or licence of State lands could be executed, it was necessary to get a formal tabling of the proposal in each House of the Oireachtas. In many instances that caused undue delay, particularly in respect of the smaller and more unimportant lettings, as, for example, cases of letting on the 11 months' system and often weekly and monthly tenancies. It was very often found not feasible during a recess, particularly, to bring a number of leases on land into operation because the Houses were not in session. Accordingly, what we propose in this Bill—a proposal which I may add was welcomed on all sides of the House when the Bill was in the Dáil— is that there should not be that necessity to put on the Table of either House details of proposed transactions in advance but that every six months there would be laid before the Houses specific lists showing all dealings that had taken place in State lands during that period. By that method each House will be kept informed of the transactions in respect of State lands, and it will not have the hampering effect to which I referred in cases where it was necessary to await the sitting of the Dáil or the Seanad.

The Bill also contains provisions by which it is possible for the State to accept gifts of lands to the country. There has not been any such general provision up to this, and whenever any question like that arose previously it was necessary to have special ad hoc legislation for the purpose. The provision now will be that whenever a gift or bequest to the State is made, it can be covered under this Bill when it is enacted.

There are a great many very detailed matters dealt with in the Bill, some of them of an extremely technical nature and I would propose, if the House agrees, to leave over any question of explanation of these detailed technical matters until the Committee Stage. I would further like to say at this stage, that I propose to ask the Seanad on the Committee Stage to delete Section 18 altogether from the Bill. Since the Bill was published, I have had some discussions in relation to that section which deals with the limitation of claims by way of reference to the 1874 Statute of Limitations. On reconsideration I feel that it would be better not to legislate by reference under Section 18 of this Bill but to introduce at as early a date as we can a comprehensive measure dealing with limitations in general. A modern statute to deal with such limitations would be far more satisfactory. Limitations, of course, are the things that the lay person, if I may so describe him, normally thinks of in terms of squatters' rights, and as I say we propose to take steps to provide a modern Statute of Limitations and in the light of these steps it is not necessary to have Section 18 in this Bill at all. I propose, therefore, to ask your leave to have this section deleted on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

We welcome this Bill, which we consider to have been many, many years overdue. It was surely regrettable that we found ourselves in the position in this country for a number of years past that we had State lands and property lying derelict throughout the country. Much of that position, of course, resulted from the fact that this country was held by another State and that many of these lands were taken for the purpose of holding the country in subjection, but by no stretch of the imagination could these lands or properties be considered necessary for the protection of our own country now.

From time to time different Ministers of all Governments have found themselves in the possession of lands for which they had no use, which were not being used for the good of the country and which they could not operate for any useful purpose. When local authorities or possibly some local enterprise required any of these State lands or buildings for any useful purpose, they found that it was impossible to get them except on a 99 year lease with complications and the result was that many useful purposes for which these State lands and properties could be used had to be abandoned for want of a Bill like this. This is a complicated and technical Bill about which we will have something to say when it comes to the Committee Stage and, though it has taken many years and many Governments to produce it, we have it now and we welcome it. I am sure the different Departments of State will be able to take advantage of it in various ways, to use State property in some profitable manner for the State.

There is another aspect of this matter and that is that while the British held this country they compulsorily acquired most of this property from the natives. We know what the anxiety for landed property has been among the natives of this country for many generations. We know the natives have never forgotten that they were deprived wrongfully of their land and you have at the moment in this country the successors of those people who have never lost sight of their claims to these lands. The Land Commission have from time to time recognised these claims but unfortunately were in the position that they were unable to do anything about it. I expect that under this Bill when it is enacted these claims will be satisfied.

One matter which I do not understand is why it is suggested that there will be six-monthly publications of the transactions after the transactions have been carried out. Could these six-monthly publications not be issued before the transactions have actually taken place? I do not see what point there is in having these six-monthly publications when the thing is all over and done with. Nothing can then be done about them. They would, of course, be useful as a matter of information but apart from that I do not see what useful purpose can be served. At any rate I welcome the Bill and trust that it will have a speedy passage through the House.

Mr. Hickey

I must congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill. If the records of the Dáil are looked up, it will be found that I asked many questions about those lands, and how they were acquired over a period of years. One thing which has always struck me, in going from Cork to Dublin, is the amount of land in the Curragh that is not being put to proper use, and I would like the Minister, when he will be giving us full details, to give us some knowledge of what will be done with the many acres of land in the Curragh. I have also in mind land at Fermoy for which we pay £224 a year for use as a training ground for our soldiers, and on which they are not even entitled to play football or hurling. The State has been taken through the courts—not in recent times but as far back as 1938 and 1939—when the Minister for Defence was sued for damages because soldiers played hurling and football on those lands.

I would also appeal to the Minister, now that we have an opportunity of dealing with State lands, to divide the land amongst people who need land, who will look after it, and make good use of it.

Mr. Hawkins

While I welcome this Bill, there are at the same time certain safeguards, in regard to which I would like to have an assurance from the Minister, as to whether they were going to be put into operation, either for letting or disposing of any lands by the State. The Minister, in his statement, referred to the difficulties that already exist because of the formality of having to give so many months' notice, by laying on the Table of the House particulars of either letting or selling. While that might be so, we cannot afford to go to the other extreme; we cannot afford to have the letting of State lands undertaken without sufficient advertisement, without sufficient notice being given to the local people that these lands are there for their tender. I think that would be the proper procedure for the State to adopt, so that it would be done publicly and above board, and that there would be sufficient notice given to those people, who might be interested, to tender.

In regard to sale, I understand that the purpose of this Bill is to enable State Departments to dispose of lands that are no longer required where it is necessary that it should be done. Here again, I think that the very widest publicity should be given, because of the fact that it is a State sale, so that afterwards there would be no accusation or suggestion made against the State, or a particular Department, that it was done in a particular way. We in this House have a certain responsibility in passing this Bill, because of the power it gives to the State to dispose of their lettings or dispose of lands as a whole, and I think the least we should procure from the Minister is a very clear and definite statement as to the procedure that will be adopted, in either the lettings or the total sale of any property, of which the State proposes to dispose.

Mr. Sweetman

Senator O'Sullivan made reference to the return of lands in which there have been dealings, and that is referred to in Section 10, subsection 6. That return, as the Senator I think appreciates, is a return that is made after the transactions have been concluded, for the purpose of letting in the light of day on them, and so that the members of each House can always—in the words of Senator Hawkins—satisfy themselves that everything has been completely above board in relation to those transactions. First of all may I make this clear? The difficulty has arisen, at the present time, that it has not been possible to arrange lettings during the recess of either House of the Oireachtas, because under the 1924 Act, the proposal must lie on the Table of each House, and this has often meant a very substantial delay, that has resulted sometimes in considerable loss of revenue to the State. The provisions of the Bill will obviate that delay and at the same time obviate that loss.

Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Hawkins may rest absolutely assured that, except in the most special circumstances, sales or lettings of State lands will be carried out after public advertisement, and that the availability of those lands will be made known quite clearly to the public, so that all concerned will have an opportunity of making their bid and making their application accordingly. In special circumstances—there are a couple of circumstances which occur to me, for example, if State lands were required by a local authority for housing purposes—I think members of the Seanad would agree that it would be desirable that the local authority should get those lands, rather than that there should be an opportunity given otherwise. Similarly, there are often cases where it would be unfair not to give an occupying tenant an option to purchase at a proper and reasonable price. You might perhaps also have a case where there was a small piece of State land that was land-locked, and completely surrounded by land belonging to somebody else, where you would be in the situation of creating bad feeling, perhaps, if you did not offer it, at first, at a fair price to the person whose land surrounded it.

The general principle must clearly be that there must be the widest information given to the public about land, or about buildings, or any property of the State, which the State does not require, and which, therefore, can be disposed of.

Senator Hickey mentioned the Curragh and also some property in Fermoy. There have been some legislative difficulties in respect of the Fermoy property, which among other things, will be relieved by this Bill, and it will, in fact, permit the State, under this Bill, to surrender the property for other desirable purposes, or if the State in fact has to get out of an onerous prohibition, or a covenant in respect of that property. The position in regard to the Curragh is a slightly different one because there are certain substantial rights of private individuals provided by the Curragh Act of 1870. The Senator can rest assured that, for obvious reasons, it being situated in my constituency, I am just as anxious as he would be to try to see if an adequate solution of such problem as there may be there could be found. I appreciate that in this House there are no politics and no constituencies, and, if it were not for that, I should be rather worried in case Senator Hickey was thinking of coming up to stand for the constituency of Kildare.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1st December.