Before we begin consideration of the amendments in Committee, I would like to suggest some points to Deputy Conlan regarding his amendments. Amendment No. 3, by Deputy Conlan, does not seem to me to be relevant to the subject matter of Section 6, to which he is proposing it as an amendment. I suggest to Deputy Conlan that he should move his amendment as a new section for insertion before Section 5. By this means, he would be able to test the Committee's views on the principle of the amendment. If he succeeds in having the principle affirmed and this new section inserted in the Bill, before next Stage he could arrange a consultation and formulate a further amendment giving full effect to the principle. If the Deputy agrees to that suggestion, I will take amendment 3 after amendment 1.
STATEMENTS MADE OUTSIDE DÁIL. - ACQUISITION OF LAND (ALLOTMENTS) BILL, 1925.—THIRD STAGE.
I shall be pleased to adopt that suggestion.
As regards amendment No. 4, the Deputy suggests that in certain cases compensation should be awarded, but he makes no provision for the fund from which the compensation is to come or for the machinery for making the award. If he desires to move the amendment, I will permit him to move it as a new section, but I would suggest that he should rather bring forward a complete set of amendments and complete the whole matter on another Stage.
If that provision were made in the Bill, would it be open to the landlord to whom the land had been surrendered to make a claim in the County Court?
I am afraid that is a legal question. All that suggests itself to me is that the phrase, "that the landlord may claim to be awarded compensation," omits to say from whom.
From the local authority.
I feel that some such words, to make it quite clear, should be inserted, and that some machinery should be suggested for the awarding of compensation in these cases.
Would it be open to me to insert these words?
Yes, but perhaps if the Deputy withdrew the particular amendment and introduced it at a later stage, after giving it further consideration, it would be better still.
Section 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 2.
(1) Whenever a local authority is of opinion, as a result of representations made to them or on their own motion, that there is a demand for allotments in their area and are further of opinion that the costs and expenses to be incurred by them in providing and maintaining the land for such allotments and otherwise in relation thereto may reasonably be expected to be recouped by the rents and other moneys to be received by them for the allotments, such local authority may resolve to provide land for such allotments under this Act, and may thereupon carry such resolution into execution under and in accordance with this Act.
(2) The costs and expenses to be incurred and the rents and other moneys to be received by a local authority in relation to allotments shall be calculated for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section in such manner as the Minister shall direct, but shall not in any case include any expenses incurred in any previous unsuccessful attempt to provide land for allotments under this Act nor any expenses to be incurred in making roads for the use of the public.
I beg to move:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) Whenever the commissioners of a town, being a local authority within the meaning of this Act, resolve to provide land for allotments under this Act, such commissioners (if not already a body corporate) shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession for the purpose of acquiring and holding such land and suing and being sued in respect thereof."
The effect of the addition of this new sub-section is that it will confer corporate powers on commissioners of towns to acquire land for the purposes of the allotments.
I am taking Amendment No. 3 before Amendment No. 2. I am taking the amendment in this form: "To insert a new section before Section 5."
I beg to move:—
"To insert a new section before Section 5 as follows:
"The fencing of land taken under this Act shall be carried out at the expense of the local authority acquiring same and shall be maintained in good and proper repair by such local authority."
I think it is only equitable that where land is taken for the purposes of allotments the expenses of fencing that land and of maintaining the fences should be borne by the local authority. In all cases, or certainly in most cases, the fencing would not have been rendered necessary but for the taking over of the land for this particular purpose, and in these circumstances it is only fair and right that the landlord should be made responsible either for the erection of the fence or for its maintenance. It is on these grounds that I move the amendment.
I consider that this amendment is unnecessary, as it is already implied in Section 2. It says: "Whenever a local authority is of opinion, as a result of representations made to them or on their own motions, that there is a demand for allotments in their area, and are further of opinion that the costs and expenses incurred by them in providing and maintaining the land for such allotments and otherwise in relation thereto, may reasonably be expected to be recouped by the rents and other moneys to be received by them for the allotments, such local authority may resolve to provide land for such allotments under this Act and may thereupon carry such resolution into execution under and in accordance with this Act." In other words, the whole intention of the Bill is that the local authority shall not undertake to provide allotments unless it is able to pay for the expense of providing them, and naturally the building and the maintenance of fences are works included in the scope of maintaining the allotments. I think the amendment is unnecessary.
I do not see why there should be any objection to having that obligation stated clearly in the Bill. Take a case of trespass. In a case of trespass on these allotments the question would naturally arise: "Who is responsible, if the trespass took place through neglect of the local authority, to maintain the fences in a proper state?" The very first question on which a decision would turn would be whether it was through that neglect that the trespass occurred, and it would be very desirable, I urge, to have that clearly stated in the Bill.
It is not necessary to have that stated. Once it passes out of the occupation of the landlord, he is no longer responsible for the maintaining of the fences no more than he is for any other work on the property.
I beg to move:
In sub-section (1) (c) after the word "interest," line 22, to insert the word "or" and to add at end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) is used for the holding of agricultural shows, race meetings, athletic sports, or the playing of games."
I think it is generally admitted that it is most desirable that land should be available, especially in the vicinity of towns for the purposes of holding agricultural shows, for athletic meetings and the playing of games of various kinds, and also that land used for this purpose should not be open to invasion, if I may so call it, by people seeking to mark out allotments. It is most desirable that young people especially should have the means of recreation and amusement, and there are some particular games that might not be viewed with very much favour by a dominant party in a local authority. Grounds such as I have specified, in the amendment should be exempt from allotment.
The Deputy's point is generally covered in the expression in sub-section (a) : "is or forms part of a demesne, garden, or pleasure ground." If we were to permit of a number of exceptions of this kind, athletic sports or the playing of games, etc., it would be very hard to get any land in the vicinity of a town or city for this purpose, because, as we all know, vacant places around cities and towns are very largely utilised by children for the playing of games, and it would be very unwise to restrict the local authority within too fine limits in a matter of this kind. The Deputy must also remember that in the case of any hardship the aggrieved person has an opportunity of appealing either to the Minister or to a Judge, so that there is no danger of a place like Ballsbridge, or any show-ground of that kind, being handed over for allotments. It is a matter for allowing some opportunity for the display of reasonable judgment on the part of local authorities and of allowing some discretion to the Minister or to the Judge who will have a final say in the matter. If we were to accept this amendment it would practically mean that this Allotment Bill would be a complete failure.
I think that the words "pleasure ground" in the Bill would refer more to grounds surrounding a house, and not at all to lands as described in the amendment. It must be taken into account that very large sums have been spent in fitting these grounds for special purposes. I know of a case where a sum of £18,000 has been spent within the last couple of years.
Who will pay for the cost of those for allotments?
I suppose some authority that might be amenable to good advice from certain quarters.
They could not do it under the Bill.
It would be manifestly unfair that grounds of that nature should be invaded, and I would say that sufficient protection for such grounds is not given by the Bill.
I think the Deputy will see that ample protection is given by the fact that the local authority would be compelled to pay the full value of the land in a case where there have been improvements of that kind, and it would be impossible for them to let the land at a proper rent if they acquired it under such conditions. That in itself is a safeguard. As well as that, the individual would have an opportunity of appealing, either to the Minister or to a Judge, so that there are at least two safeguards.
I think that the Minister ought to be a little more amenable in this matter. He states that there is an appeal. I do not think that the people who hold these lands should be put to the trouble and expense of appealing; I think that such lands should be definitely excluded from the Bill. I cannot see why there should be an objection to that. Does the Minister maintain that it should be open to people to go in upon these lands and to break them up into allotments? If he is not of that opinion he should have no objection to the amendment.
I think there is ample protection in the Bill.
Is that a legal opinion?
It is.
Amendment 4 is not moved at this stage.
I am willing to defer it to a later stage.
Remaining sections and title put and agreed to.