Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1926

Vol. 17 No. 10

LAND BILL (NO. 2), 1926—REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.

The next item on the Orders of the Day is consideration of the report of the Select Committee on the Land Bill (No. 2), 1926. I received to-day, from Deputy Heffernan, a motion which has been circulated and which reads:—

That the Dáil is of opinion that all the recommendations of the Select Committee appointed to consider the Land Bill (No. 2), 1926, should be included in any future proposal for legislation to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land.

The motion is one of which notice has not been given and, therefore, under Standing Orders it can only be allowed by special leave of the Chair. The report of the Select Committee was before the House on the 7th December —eight days ago. During that interval, I think sufficient time was afforded to frame a motion of this kind. Therefore, I would not be disposed to accept the motion without notice, unless the House were unarimously to agree with such a course.

The House is unanimous.

I could not agree to any such course. Deputy Heffernan asked, on the last occasion, whether there was any way in which a decision could be got on this report, and it was pointed out by you, a Chinn Comhairle, that there was such a way. That is nine days ago, and on the morning of the day that the debate is to take place this motion is handed in. In the circumstances I cannot agree to this course.

Might I ask in what way this motion places the Minister in an unfair position?

The discussion of that point would bring us to the merits of the motion. The position is that this motion was tabled this morning. It certainly fails for want of notice. On the 7th December I said, on three occasions, that if there was any matter on which Deputies wanted a decision they could be furnished with a method of obtaining that decision. No steps were taken in that direction until to-day. Therefore, I think the motion should not be taken without notice when objection is taken to that course.

Can we discuss this report, then?

And postpone consideration of that motion until the reassembly of the Dáil?

The Deputy can give notice of any other motion he pleases, but I do not say that this motion would be in order if a discussion takes place on the report meantime. Let us be clear upon that point.

The best way to discuss this report now is to take a formal motion that the report be now considered. Since the Minister would require to state how far he agrees with the report he would, perhaps, be the best person to move the motion.

Could not the Minister add the words "and approved"— that is to say, "That the motion be now considered and approved"?

Mr. HOGAN

I beg to move that the report be considered. I regret that I could not, even if the report were in order, move that it be considered and approved, because I do not approve of the whole report. I will state very shortly how far I agree with the report. Deputies will notice that no less than 42 amendments were accepted.

How many of these amendments were your own?

Mr. HOGAN

A very large number. I do not pretend that they are all very serious amendments or that they raise very serious issues. But there was a large number of serious amendments accepted—some of them my own. These amendments considerably extended the scope of the Bill, and I submit they go a long distance to meet the demands of nearly all parties.

I do not intend to deal with the amendments which are verbal. I only intend to deal with amendments which are important and which are in connection with contentious issues. I have accepted, I should say, about five important amendments in connection with issues that have been debated here in the Dáil often—amendments that different parties hold different views about. These amendments represent, to some extent, a compromise between the views of parties on these particular issues. That is, I think, if I may say so, the right function of a select committee—to find such right compromise, and in that respect, at all events, if not in other respects, this select committee was useful.

The first amendment is in connection with building ground. Deputies will remember that building ground was excepted simpliciter from the Land Act of 1923. That was not the first time that building ground came up for discussion in connection with Land Acts here and elsewhere. It was excepted from practically every Act passed since 1880, dealing with agricultural holdings. We continued that tradition, rightly or wrongly, in the Land Act of 1923. There was more reason, as a matter of fact, to continue it in the Land Act of 1923 than in the others, because in the Land Act of 1923 there was power taken to purchase what were called "future tenancies"—that is to say, agricultural tenancies, which were subject to termination at a year's notice, and the tenant of which could not get a fair rent fixed. That extended the Land Act of 1923 a long way. As we had extended the Act to all tenancies, no matter when created— even though created in the immediate past—and in view of the fact that these tenancies were created between people in exactly the same circumstances in life, and for temporary reasons, and created deliberately as terminable tenancies, we were extending the Land Act of 1923 in a very big way. For that reason there was all the more cause to be careful about problems like building ground in connection with the Land Act of 1923. The case was made that this particular exemption from the Land Act of 1923 was operating harshly in a great many cases. First of all, there was an undoubted grievance in a typical case where a man owned 200 acres of land, and where the Judge held that though only five acres of it adjoined the road, and was, therefore, building ground, the whole farm, notwithstanding that it was held as a judicial tenancy, was exempt from the Act. That was obviously unfair, and it was only necessary to see that state of affairs in existence to get the admission at once that that had to be dealt with. That was dealt with, first of all, in this way:—It was decided that where the Judge found that a portion of the holding was building ground, that portion should be sub-divided from the rest, and the remainder of the holding purchased, after the rent had been apportioned, on the terms set out in the Land Act of 1923, and that the building ground portion should remain as it was—that is, as a present tenancy or a future tenancy for a definite period. That definite period was fixed at five years. It was provided that during that five years the tenant would have security of tenure on that building ground except as against the landlord, and except as against the landlord, who had rights over it for one purpose and one purpose only. He had a right to take it up for immediate building. If the landlord failed to exercise that right to build or begin building on this land within five years, then it automatically vested in the tenant under the Land Purchase Acts on his application. I think it is generally agreed by all parties that that meets that case fairly.

There was then the question of subtenancies. There were a number of sub-tenancies in the country—not a very large number, but a considerable number. I could not even give the approximate figures, but Deputies can take it they were a number sufficiently large to make it a genuine grievance for a considerable number of people. There were a number of such tenancies existing on holdings that had been purchased under the previous Land Acts, that is, under the Ashbourne Act, the Land Acts of 1903 and 1909. These tenancies, as a rule, came into existence after purchase, and they are in existence now for a great many years. Under the Act of 1923 these sub-tenancies could not be purchased. I should not use the word "sub-tenancies" in such cases, because a man who has purchased his tenancy is no longer a tenant. He is owner in fee, subject to a mortgage. The common name for them is "sub-tenants." They were sub-tenants, if you like, of purchased holdings. These holdings are now purchasable on terms practically agreed to by the Committee—that is to say, they are purchasable in the same way as tenancies which existed and which were purchased under the Act of 1923, whether judicial or non-judicial. They are getting exactly the same terms. They are referred to as "agricultural tenancies." I am not quite clear whether there could be a judicial tenancy of such a holding. They are generally non-judicial. They might be what are called "present tenancies"—tenancies which could not be terminated except for failure to pay rent. Or they might be future tenancies, terminable on a year's notice. They generally were future tenancies, although there were some exceptions. All these tenancies are purchasable in exactly the same way as if they were tenancies under the ordinary Land Acts and subject to a land annuity.

With regard to fishing rights, fishing rights were reserved to the State under the Land Act of 1923. I thought that that was right and I still think it is right, as a rule. But this gave rise to a rather peculiar state of affairs. Land had been purchased under the Act of 1903 on the banks of a river in respect of which the fishing rights had been transferred to the tenants, while the fishing rights in respect of lands on the opposite side of the river, purchased under the 1923 Act, were reserved to the State. That gave rise to a most extraordinary anomaly, that tenants up and down the river, who had previously purchased, owned these fishing rights, while tenants who purchased under the Act of 1923 on an estate between them did not own them. That was obviously an impossible situation. If one body had the rights it might be possible to make something out of them, but it would be quite impossible to make anything out of them where you had two distinct bodies, and we take power, in order to meet that sort of case, where the Land Commission thinks fit, to transfer the fishing rights to the tenant. That is not compulsory.

We made a slight change, if it is a change, in regard to mill holdings. It was not the intention of the Land Act of 1923 that what used to be called mill holdings should be exempt from the Act, and, in fact, disused mill holdings were not exempt. When there is a question as to whether a holding agricultural or not, and that is a question on which such an issue would turn, it comes before the Judicial Commissioner, and the effect of the Land Act of 1923 is that holdings which were originally let as mill holdings and which are now disused, should not be exempt. But it was found that for one reason or another, in some cases, if you like, borderland cases, mill holdings were exempt, even while the mill was not in use. We make it clear that a holding originally let as a mill holding, and on which the mill is now disused, shall be purchased as an agricultural tenancy when the other requisites of an agricultural tenancy are present. Of course, on this question we will meet with some difficulties, as we did before, though not perhaps as many. A mill holding on which there is a disused mill will come up before the Judicial Commissioner. He will reject it as an agricultural holding, for perhaps an entirely different reason, and people will come to the conclusion that it is because a mill is on it. In any event it is quite clear from the Act now that a disused mill is not a ground against the holding being regarded as agricultural. On the other hand, there are cases that will come in now that did not come in before.

Now we come to fee farm grants, and this is an important point. Deputies will remember that in the Act of 1923 fee farm grants were dealt with. In the congested districts land held under fee farm grants vested automatically as untenanted land in the Land Commission: they had the powers which they had in regard to any other land which vested in them and which they did not need for congests or for distribution. They had power to sell to anybody, including the owner, and they sold it to the owner. But the fee farm grantee, the man who occupied the land in the congested districts, was in the happy position that where he owed arrears of rent the Land Commission could allocate a certain amount of the purchase money, which should go for the tenant's interest and which corresponded to the amount of rent that was in arrear to the owner, which was, in fact, adding the arrears to the purchase money. So that in the congested districts fee farm grantees, in fact, purchased their lands under a system which enabled them to add the arrears of rent to the purchase money. Outside the congested districts the system was somewhat different.

Did the Land Commission in those cases in the congested districts add the ten per cent. to the price?

Mr. HOGAN

No, of course not. That is an afterthought.

No, it is not.

Mr. HOGAN

I know it is not, of course. That is rather an important and rather an astute question, in view of the fact that the real dispute is as to whether fee farm grants are ten ancies or not, and Deputies have forgotten, perhaps, that in the 1923 Act there was a clause which provided that all tenanted land was subject to the ten per cent. I hope that Deputy Wilson will now receive it as final that I happen to be right in my view of fee farm grants and that he is wrong. Outside the congested districts they were in a slightly different position. It was left to the owner to make application to the Land Judge to redeem the rent, an advance was made to the grantee for the redemption money, and he paid it off by annuity in the same way as a tenant purchaser would. But he could not make such an application while there were arrears of rent. There is one other slight difference. As the Land Commission have to buy all fee simple untenanted land in the congested districts, these lands in the congested districts, vested as untenanted lands, are vested at a sum which was what I might call a Land Commission price, that is, rather a small price compared with the market value. Out of that price the Land Commission had to allocate the landlord's interest and the tenant's interest, and that had the effect of making the annuity somewhat smaller to the fee farm grantee in the congested districts than it would be outside the congested districts. Outside the congested districts the application is made by the grantee; there is no question whatever of the price of the land, and there is no limitation imposed on the Land Judge by reason of the fact that he has to fix a maximum price for the tenant's interest, the grantee's interest and the grantor's interest. He has only to consider the fee farm grantee and the redemption of the rent, and in practice that will result in a slight difference as against the grantee in the annuity. Outside the congested districts we have divided fee farm grantees into two classes—that is to say, land which bears an agricultural rent —though that is by no means an accurate or a scientific definition. All agricultural rent is, like the price of barley, depending on the quality of the barley, and it may vary from 10/- to 35/-. To get anything like an accurate test of the distinction will require some drafting. It has not yet been done, but we can get it. But they are divided between fee farm grants held under agricultural rents and fee farm grants which are not held under agricultural rents. The latter are purchased in the old way. They are generally small rents or very high rents. They apply, and the rent is redeemed. Men holding fee farm grants outside the congested districts apply to the Land Commission, and the Land Commission vests the land in the same way as it vests automatically in the congested districts. The only difference is that in the congested districts it vests automatically, and it is resold then compulsorily to the tenant. In the non-congested districts it does not vest automatically; it is left to the grantee to apply. If he applies it vests and is resold. We are all at one up to a point—that is, the point at which the land vests. The Land Commission have to decide whether they require the land for the relief of congestion, which is a proviso I insisted on; they must have that discretion after the land vests, because they require a tremendous amount of it. A big proportion of the land which we acquire inside and outside the congested districts is land held under fee farm grants. Therefore we must preserve that right to the Land Commission. But after they have come to a decision on that point it is suggested that if they decide to resell they shall resell as if the rent was an agricultural rent. That was, to reduce it by 25 per cent., then reduce it further and make a fair rent of it, and then resell it on that basis. I do not want to be, as the Ceann Comhairle knows, in any way contentious, but that is an absolutely irresponsible suggestion to make. People forget that fee farm rents were always in an entirely different position from agricultural rents. Fee farm rents were always a negotiable security. They were always regarded as sacred. No Land Act applied to them. They were regarded as good security up to 80 or 90 per cent. There was never any question about paying these rents. Agricultural rents, on the other hand, were never regarded as such a security.

Since when?

Mr. HOGAN

Do not start interrupting me. Since 1840, agricultural rents have been subject to constant changes. They have been dropping all the time under pressure of one kind or another. Between 1840 and 1880 they fluctuated, went up and down, according to the whim of the landlord and according to the pressure of the tenant. About 1880 they were reduced, and they have been reducing ever since. It would be impossible for anyone who knew what an agricultural rent was forty or fifty years ago to recognise it now. They had been dropping, and while they have been fluctuating in that way there has been constant agitation to depress them further, with the result that the ordinary agricultural rents were never a valuable security except for about quarter the value. No owner of ordinary agricultural rents could get an advance on them up to the full value or anything like it. That should be perfectly obvious to anybody who considers it. No banker from 1880 to 1923 would give an advance on an agricultural rent which was constantly fluctuating—the whole tendency being to depress it—to anything like its market value. It was never done. Fee farm rents were always in a different position. They were good securities for banks; they were good securities for business-men and the owners. It would be nothing short of confiscation; if people are in favour of confiscation they should say so. There could be a very good academic case made for that, provided you know what you are going to do with what you confiscate. I am afraid even if we did agree to confiscation the difficulties would only begin after we had succeeded in confiscating —and when we had to make up our minds what policy we ought to adopt in regard to the property confiscated. I say quite deliberately that it would be something in the nature of confiscation at this stage, suddenly after sixty years of agitation, to treat fee farm rents as agricultural rents, and I am not going to do that. What is more, there is no necessity for it. We are doing these men extremely well now. I think we are doing them too well. We are giving them power at the public expense to redeem their rents. We are reducing their rents; in the nature of the case they must be reduced considerably because the land must be bought as untenanted land. We are doing the one thing necessary to meet the man who has perhaps met with misfortune. That is to say, we are adopting a procedure which compels the land judge to add the arrears to the purchase money. We are not in a position, I think, to discuss residential holdings, because it is not one of the recommendations. Hence I do not propose to say anything on that. The fact is, I have met every point that was put up. At least I have gone some distance to meet them.

There is a paragraph in the report in which they are referred to.

Mr. HOGAN

I know that, but I will leave it out at the moment. I do not know why it is mentioned. I have met every point put up, at least gone some distance to meet it, and I think from that point of view the report of this committee has been useful. I want to say this further. The report of this committee has really held up the Land Bill in a way which should not have occurred; it has to be put off now until the 25th January. I do not know what is the idea of that. All this debate could take place on the Second Reading.

Do you think it could have been passed between now and the 25th January?

Mr. HOGAN

I do not think so. There were only two contentious amendments agreed to by the Committee which I do not propose to insert in the Bill. One of them is the amendment I have just referred to, the amendment in connection with fee farm rents, that fee farm rents be treated as agricultural rents. The other is an amendment which nobody on the Committee, and certainly not myself, understood but which most people fought over; which Deputies now say they did not understand or agree to, and which I do not propose to insert in the Bill. That is the amendment compelling the Land Commission to reinstate—that is what it means if it means anything—in their original holdings and to eject, presumably, the present occupiers, every evicted tenant who was evicted during the days of the Plan of Campaign. This amendment was proposed with great enthusiasm, but the enthusiasm subsided shortly afterwards when people began to realise what it meant. Nobody wants that amendment now except the original mover, so the only amendment between us is the amendment in connection with fee farm grants. That can be moved; it is quite clear to me, though it is not for me to decide these matters, that it can be moved. When the Bill which I propose to introduce is put through it can be debated on Second Reading or on the Committee Stage, but that procedure is not to be adopted. This procedure has held up the Bill. All this debate could take place, as I pointed out, when the Bill is introduced. The contentious amendments could be debated on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage. I am to be asked will I give a form of undertaking. I will not. It is not my business to find out whether such an amendment is in order. It would be the obvious duty of Deputies who are so interested in land purchase to find that out; they have not done it. Here we are with this debate which accomplishes nothing which could not be done on Second Reading, and we will have the same thing over again when the Committee Stage is reached.

The Minister professes to view with horror the act of Deputies in postponing the hurried passage of this Bill. He is evidently in a wonderful hurry. Any day lost in its passage, any obstruction put up by anybody to make this Bill acceptable is a national calamity in the Minister's eyes. What was the Minister doing during the last twelve months and since 1923? How many times has he been asked and pressed to introduce a Bill? It was not a question of days or hours with him, it was a question of years. He has come along with it now, and he seeks to make the case that we are delaying it by a few hours or days. A certain class of tenants whom it is proposed to relieve in this Bill has waited in vain since 1881, since the first Land Bill was introduced. When they waited so long they could wait for another week or two. So much for the Minister's horror of the attitude of Deputies on these Benches. He has refused to enter into the clause dealing with residential holdings. He fought shy of that. He does not agree with the recommendations. He does not agree with two of them. He does not approve of the Report of the Committee because it contains two particular clauses. We do not agree with the Report of the Committee, because it does not contain more, because it rejected two distinct amendments, one dealing with residential holdings, and the other dealing with fee farm grants. We do not approve of it either, and I venture to say some of the arguments, especially in regard to fee farm grants that were advanced in the Select Committee would not be advanced in a public debate, they were so ridiculous and so unsound. We have had cases with regard to residential holdings in which the Land Judge had, of necessity, to give a judgment in a certain direction. Even where it can be proved beyond yea or nay that these holdings were in the possession of the people who occupied them for seventy or eighty years, and that the residences were built by these people, the Judge, by the terms of the 1923 Act, is forced to regard them as residential holdings. That may be equity and justice in the eyes of the Minister, but it is not justice in our eyes. The amendment dealing with that particular class of tenancy was defeated by four votes to three. Owing to some confusion about the time of the meeting, I was unable to be present, otherwise, perhaps, a different aspect might have been put on the matter. My presence, at any rate, would mean an additional vote for the amendment, and the voting would be equal. Perhaps even some of my arguments might have weighed with the Minister. This exclusion of residential holdings is as much abused a provision as the potential building value clause. I do not know that there is very much use in dealing with the merits or demerits of it at this stage, inasmuch as it is not recommended. I suppose we had better reserve it for the Second Stage of the new Bill.

When we come to deal with fee farm grants and with the Minister's objection to the recommendation sent forward, we deal with something that we are entitled to deal with. The recommendation passed by the Committee reads:—

Provided that the redemption price fixed by the Judicial Commissioner shall in no case exceed the standard price fixed for tenanted land of similar character as agricultural land in same neighbourhood as based on subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Land Act, 1923.

The Minister does not want that. He will not incorporate that in his new Bill. That amendment passed by the Committee preserves the last shred of equity and justice for a class of tenants that the Minister has left out in the cold.

Let us go back on the history of the whole matter. The Minister talked about agricultural rentals being no security for money, or a very indifferent security, in 1840. That is not true. I have more experience than the Minister. I am an older man than the Minister, and I came more in contact with these things in those early years than he did. I think it was in 1881 that the State first interfered with regard to agricultural rentals. Up to that time every tenancy was the same, no matter what the title—as far as the tenant was concerned. Whatever title was put on a letting, it was all the same to the tenant. In the extraordinarily bad years between 1860 and 1880, especially 1878, 1879 and 1880, a state of affairs existed during which we had wholesale evictions. They began in the famine years and continued up to 1880. There was no security for any class of tenant, except those who were able to secure one of those long-term leases or fee farm grants. There were some people in the country who could help themselves. Some people happened to have money and were able to offer considerations to the landlord whereby they got these particular leases. They were able to advance a certain bulk sum of money to the landlord—£200, £300, £400, £500 or more— and got long-term leases at £2 or £3 per acre. They got, perhaps, a fee farm grant at £2 or £3 per acre. As I say, they were able to help themselves. They were able to give this security, but the vast bulk of the tenants were unable to help themselves. The result was that in 1881 the British Parliament came to their assistance. They were unable to help themselves, and the State had to help them and came to their assistance with the first Land Act in the early eighties, giving them security of tenure. That was the first time that the State ever interfered with land values in this country. As I say, all tenancies were of the same class at that time. Everybody in the country was clamouring for security. Those who were able to help themselves did so, and the position became so bad for those who were not, that the British Parliament had to step in and do it.

We have always stated that where a genuine fee farm grant or long-term lease was in existence, we stood for respecting it. Where this class of tenancy exists that the Minister refers to —where banks or money-lenders have advanced money with a reasonable degree of security—we stand for respecting that class of tenancy. But am I to be told that a tenancy at £2 or £3 per acre, bearing a fictitious title, on which money may, or may not, have been advanced, should be protected by the laws of the country? I say it is not equity or justice—I say it is a fraud. The man who got money advanced to the extent of £2 or £3 per acre has done something very little short of obtaining money by false pretences. He does not come within the law, but he should come within it. The bank or the money lender who is fool enough to advance money to that man deserves to lose not alone portion of it, but all the money.

We did not want, and do not want, the operations of the Land Act held up. We did not want to have it held up with regard to the relief of congestion. With regard to this particular class, I proposed an amendment which was rejected for reasons that were absolutely unsound and would not stand the test of public opinion. The Minister said it would interfere with the operations of the Land Commission in securing land in the congested districts. In order to meet the Minister this was drafted:—

That where, in the opinion of the Land Commission, the rental charged on a fee farm grant or long lease amounts to or exceeds a judicial rental, and where in the opinion of the Land Commission such holding is not required for the relief of congestion, all the terms of the 1923 Act shall apply.

The Minister still insisted that that would interfere with the acquisition of that class of land in the congested districts, and he got a majority on the Committee, but I say that the reasons he advanced were absolutely unsound and that the members of the Committee were misled by his reasoning. The Committee at a later stage thought to redeem itself and by a majority carried a portion of a previous amendment to the effect that the Land Commission should not run amuck and pay exorbitant prices for the redemption of this land. But the Minister is not prepared to accept that.

The rejection of the previous amendment guaranteed one thing only, and that was no matter what the rental was, two or three pounds an acre, and we have any amount of instances of that class of tenancy, the whole rental would be recoverable by law. The arrears would be recoverable by law. No reduction on the arrears was possible and no reduction of payment in lieu of rent would be possible, and it should be redeemed one hundred per cent. The only thing that rejection did was to secure to that class of landlord or whatever you would like to call it, the holder of a fictitious title, security in getting away with it, and he got away with it all, and he is getting away with it if the Minister has his way and if this House is going to reject this amendment whereby the rent fixed by the Land Commission shall not exceed a standard price. I think it is time to put an end to this fictitious title, to this contradiction in terms, to a claim that has no foundation in fact. I hope the House will not be of one mind with the Minister in this, and that when we discuss the new Bill which will be introduced we will be in order in proposing an amendment to amend this or a similar amendment.

I do not know what the position will be in regard to residential holdings. With regard to the other recommendation the Minister takes exception to, that is the one dealing with the evicted tenants in the days of the plan of campaign, there was, as the Minister said, considerable confusion of thought with regard to that. There was a motion here on the Order Paper for the Committee—I do not know if I have it with me now—but these words, "the plan of campaign," were not in it.

Mr. HOGAN

What number is it?

I do not know if any number is given. It is on page 37.

It is on page 8 of the report.

I do not know what was in our mind.

Mr. COSGRAVE

Would I be in order in explaining what transpired in connection with this motion?

Deputy Cosgrave can explain later, when Deputy Gorey has concluded, and he will then be in order.

I had an idea in mind and the Chairman had another idea. Other members of the Committee had other ideas. A vote was taken and this is the result.

Mr. HOGAN

The right thing was to vote for the amendment any way.

I think the House would be committing a great crime if it were misled by the Minister. The English Parliament thought fit to interfere with different classes of tenancies from 1881 downwards. Other Acts were passed. They went one step in 1880. They went another step later. They went another step in 1903. They went another step in 1909, and we went another step in 1923. We are going another step now, and we ought to be near the end. Justice and equity have been coming along slowly but surely, and the Minister is the only obstacle now to justice and equity in this case.

The recommendations I proposed for the consideration of the Committee read as follows:—

"That the Land Act of 1923 shall be amended to make provision for the reinstatement to their holdings of bona fide evicted tenants whose holdings are now in possession of the respective original landlords, their successors or other persons."

The Minister for Lands and Agriculture objected to the motion and stated that it was ridiculous to think of reinstating all evicted tenants in their original holdings. I pointed out that there was no such word mentioned in the motion as "all," that it was bona fide evicted tenants I was concerned about.

All bona fide evicted tenants.

Mr. COSGRAVE

I did not interrupt the Minister, and I will not be interrupted. The Minister then asked me to define what a bona fide evicted tenant was. I explained in plain language that a bona fide evicted tenant was a tenant who was evicted on principle, for refusing to pay rent in the days of the Plan of Campaign, and for the purpose of breaking down landlordism. I then added to the motion after the words "bona fide evicted tenants" the following: "who were evicted in the days of the Plan of Campaign." The motion was then put as amended, when it was carried by five votes to four. The Minister then for the first time pointed out that the words added could not be embodied in an Act of Parliament. I then suggested to strike out the words complained of, and to insert instead the words: "who were evicted twenty-five years previous to the passing of the 1903 Land Act," when the Chairman ruled my suggestion out of order. That, sir, is my explanation of what transpired at the committee meeting with reference to this motion, and I would ask you for your ruling as to whether I can amend the motion as suggested. There are very few evicted tenants to be reinstated, thanks to the Wyndham Act, 1903, and surely to goodness the Minister for Lands and Agriculture will not prevent the reinstatement of the few remaining soldiers of the Land War to their old homes, which are now in the hands of grabbers and evicting landlords.

The Minister spoke of his dealing with potential building sites as if the last thing had been fixed, and justice had been done in this particular case. Now, when the Bill of 1923 was passed through this House I put it to the Minister and to the Government and to the members of the Labour Party that they never intended, through the means of that legislation, that injury should be done to any tenant who held land with fixity of tenure. This particular section in the 1923 Act, in the case of men who held land with fixity of tenure, took possession of that land from them, and handed it over to the landlord. That was the effect of the potential building clause in the Act of 1923, and these amendments here which are supposed to remedy that state of affairs, do not meet the case. A man who held land as an agricultural holding when the Act of 1923 came into operation, and which the judicial commissioner said was potential building land, immediately lost fixity of tenure, and in many cases got notice to quit. That is the position, and I put it to the Minister and the Government that they never intended it, and in my opinion ought to remedy it. How do they propose to meet the case? In this way: They propose to retain the possession of the occupier in that land provided that after five years the landlord does not build on it. The tenant then gets back his possession. What will happen in practice is that the landlord may not want to build on the land, but he will go to a speculator and say: "I will resume possession of these particular acres. I will give you the land for £5, £6, or £10." The man will say: "All right." He takes the land from the owner, who perhaps held it for 60 or 70 years. The incremental value that should have come to that particular man passes on to the landlord, and the landlord gets from the speculator this potential building value vested in him, while the other man loses his land and all. I contend that that was never intended under the Land Act. If there was an incremental value it should have gone to the man who held the land, and not to the landlord. The change that is proposed to be made here does not meet that case. Some very peculiar anomalies have arisen on this point. We are coming now, I agree, to the winding up of this question of land tenure in Ireland. The easy cases have been disposed of, and now we are coming to the jagged end and to the tangled parts. The Minister cannot handle it as if he were unravelling a ball of twine where, meeting a knot, he could snap it off at any moment. This is a question he will have to disentangle. The Minister, speaking in the Seanad on the 25th February, 1926, gave a definition of agricultural land as land held by tenants which came under the Land Acts passed between the years 1881 and 1909. That was the Minister's definition of agricultural land.

Mr. HOGAN

I explained before that it was not.

In any case this man held land subject to the judicial fixtures adjudicated on by the Commissioner. He decided it was potential building land, and therefore the man lost his holding as well as the chance of getting something out of it. He is left now in the position that this particular value goes to the landlord, while he is left high and dry with his losses. That has occurred in very many cases. I know a case where a man paid £400 or £500 for a small holding. By reason of this potential building clause in the Act of 1923 that sum of £400 or £500 has been wasted as far as that man is concerned. That is a state of affairs that was never intended, and that, I am sure, the Minister never intended. Turning to residential holdings, there are, as Deputy Gorey mentioned, many cases in this country where the residence was built by the tenant. Places have been adjudicated on by the judicial commissioner as being residential holdings, but in many of these cases the residences were built by the predecessors in title of the present tenants. That cases such as these are to be decided as being outside the purview of the Land Acts is not, I submit, equity. I know a case in Wexford where a man held what has now been adjudicated on as a residential holding. The man's house was erected by his predecessor in title and contains two tenants paying rent. The judicial commissioner adjudicated on the holding and said it was a residential holding. What happened in that case was that the landlord gave the man six months' notice, while he also wrote to the tenants telling them that on no account should they pay this man any more rent. How is the Minister going to meet a case like that? Is that, I ask, equity? This building was erected by the tenant of that land. That is a specific case of injustice and is not by any means a unique case. There are several cases of the kind to be met with all over the country. That is the reason why we are so anxious to get the question of residential holdings settled. This matter of residential holdings was only intended to apply to large cities. I do not think it is the object of the Minister or the Government to treat anybody unjustly. There are many cases, however, where on investigation they will find that they are doing a wrong. I contend that they should do something to meet the particular case I have mentioned—the case where you robbed the man of his potential building right and the value of the cost of his residential holding. If the Minister and the Government intend to be just they should, we contend, include cases of this kind within the purview of their Bill.

I wish to bear out what Deputy Gorey has stated as to the exorbitant terms on which very many of these fee farm grantees hold. Many cases were put before me recently in which the rents varied from £1 per acre to £3. This, I submit, is an impossible impost on land. Anyone who knows anything about agricultural conditions in the present day will allow that. The recommendations contained in the report of the Committee will not go any way to meet cases of that sort. The Government will have to find a much more drastic method of dealing with that problem than that contained in the recommendation of the Committee. There was one particular district in which I met a number of these fee farm grantees. They were not large holders of land, but small farmers working portions of land. They are in the position of paying rents far in excess of the rents that their neighbours have to pay, because their neighbours were able to go into the land courts or benefited from the provisions of the 1923 Act. As regards residential holdings, there are many cases of hardship involved following the decision of the Land Judge. I know one particular case in which a man had been excluded from the benefits of the Land Act on the ground that his holding was a residential one. He holds about 60 acres of land. His house is something bigger than what an ordinary farmer would build on a holding of that nature. All the same he is a bona-fide working farmer. The house was built by someone who had been in occupation previously, but it is the only house he has to live in. I think it is a gross injustice that that man should be debarred from the benefits of the Land Act because of the fact that his house contained perhaps two or three rooms more than that of the ordinary farmer.

I notice that Deputy Gorey agrees with part of what the Minister said in regard to fee farm grants, but that he differentiated a certain portion of them as being more or less equal to Consols. With that I agree. As far as I know, fee farm grants are divided by a line. Some fee farm grants would be perhaps 150 years old and are still going. Some of them are extremely small. I should think that the largest of them is perhaps 10/- an acre, and mostly for good land. In the old days these were always looked upon as a first-class security and are still. Someone remarked that the value of land fell continuously from 1840 to 1880. I think that is incorrect. From my own knowledge, I can say that from the year of the Franco-Prussian War up to the year 1878 the value of land produce was extremely high, and farmers in this country did uncommonly well. At the end of 1878 there was a tremendous slump, followed by a frightfully bad year in 1879, when the land trouble started. When the Land Act of 1881 was passed there were a large number of future tenants, and I am afraid, unfortunately, advantage was taken of that by the hold a great number of landlords had on them at that time. They gave them, I believe, fee farm grants at exorbitant rates which, I think, was what Deputy Gorey said.

These two classes of tenants with fee farm grants stand on an entirely different basis. One is a trustee security and has always been looked upon as such, even to this day. The other stands on a different footing. I think there should be differentiation between the two.

Tell the Minister that.

I am sorry that Deputy Heffernan did not amend the motion circulated this evening, so that it would be in order. I would be glad to support it. I think it would be quite right that all the recommendations of the Committee should be given effect to by the Minister in the new Bill. Having regard to some statements that were made in the course of the debate, I would like to make my position and the position of my colleague clear.

Mr. MURPHY

With regard to potential building ground, we have had a very severe indictment of the decision of the Committee by Deputy Wilson. However, Deputy Wilson forgot one thing. The injustice that he complains is being done to the tenants whose land is resumed for building purposes is not as great as he would have us imagine. It is a fact, and perhaps this has something to do with the decision of the Committee, that a tenant whose land is taken in that fashion is entitled to receive the market value. Deputy Wilson conveniently forgot that when he laid such severe stress on the question.

Will the Deputy point out where the tenant gets that right?

Mr. MURPHY

I have not a copy of the Bill before me now.

Look through the Bill. If you like I will read it for you.

Mr. MURPHY

The position was made quite clear. I will be prepared to argue that question some other time. We need not discuss it now. With regard to fee farm grants, we have some responsibility for the amendment that Deputy Gorey referred to. I am sorry he thought it right to say two or three times that some members of the Committee were misled. Deputy Gorey is in the fortunate position, I suggest, that he has never been misled about anything. We have no regrets on this matter. The more we have examined the position since we took a particular line on this amendment the more we are convinced that we were right. It appeared to us that it would be very unwise to do any thing that would tie the hands of the Land Commission with regard to the acquisition of land.

Where does it tie them?

Mr. MURPHY

I am coming to that. Deputy Gorey contradicts the statement and says that the hands of the Land Commission will not be tied if the amendment is accepted. During consideration of the amendment Deputy Gorey was asked to frame his amendment in such a way that people whose holdings would not exceed 100 acres would be included. He did not agree to that, and I suggest that was test of the worth of Deputy Gorey's amendment.

This is important. I suggest that the Deputy is misled. Not alone did we not insist that 100 acres should be the portion of a particular tenant but we insisted that the Land Commission should get a free hand and be allowed to acquire ten acres and, if necessary, one acre.

Mr. HOGAN

That is not the point.

We gave them an absolutely free hand to deal with the last acre, if they thought it necessary to do so, in order to relieve congestion. It was put to me by Deputies Hogan and Murphy to fix the limit at 100 acres and I refused to do it because it might tie the hands of the Land Commission in their efforts to get land for the relief of congestion. I refused to fix even one acre, but gave a free hand without any limit so as to relieve congestion.

Mr. MURPHY

I am afraid I am not convinced.

It is hard to convince you.

Mr. MURPHY

Sometimes. I suggest that the test of the value of Deputy Gorey's amendment was the test we put up. He refused to accept it.

I am prepared to accept it now if the Minister accepts it.

Mr. MURPHY

The Deputy suggested this amendment: "That where in the opinion of the Land Commission. such holding is not required for the relief of congestion, the terms of the 1923 Act shall apply." I suggest that that would mean that the Land Commission would have to decide this question immediately. I also suggest that the whole question will have to be reviewed from time to time. Those who have listened to the debates on the acquisition of land have realised that the problem will become more pressing every day, and that the amendment, in effect, will have the effect of compelling the Land Commission to come to a decision now. The case for the acquisition of land will be much stronger in a short time because of an amount of land available. Deputy Gorey's amendment would not meet the position of the people he had in mind. In the main they are people with two or three thousand acres of land, and have no claim whatever. I suggest that Deputy Gorey's amendment was intended to cover ranchers and people who have no claim for consideration under this or any other Land Act.

It was intended to cover every acre of land that the Land Commission thought they needed for the relief of congestion.

Deputy Gorey has already made the position sufficiently clear.

I hope so.

Everyone cannot see that.

Mr. MURPHY

At any rate that was the attitude we took up, and I resent the attitude of Deputy Gorey in endeavouring to suggest to the Dáil that we were misled. With regard to evicted tenants the Minister has suggested that the amendment of Deputy Cosgrave, which was carried, is unworkable. The majority of the Committee were influenced in voting for the amendment by a desire to do something towards improving an Act of Parliament that will have something to do with their position. I have a reply to a Question that was asked the Minister yesterday, and it is very convincing proof that the evicted tenants have been out in the cold so far as the Land Act of 1923 is concerned.

We were anxious to insert some provision in the Bill that would make it compulsory on the Land Commission to do something for the tenants. I realised when that question was being discussed that there would be a very grave difficulty in dealing with this question on account of the shortage of land for such purposes, and an amendment was suggested under which the Minister would agree to set up a tribunal that would deal with the evicted tenants' question from another angle altogether, granted that the amount of land available would meet the needs of all the people. It was suggested, in the case of genuine evicted tenants, that the Land Commission would be empowered to dispose of their claims in another fashion, that compensation would be payable by the people who would obtain their lands at a nominal sum—a mere sacrifice—and that that compensation would be assessed by a tribunal to be set up by the Land Commission. Although that amendment received considerable support in Committee, it was not carried.

I am glad to know this whole question, as I understood the Minister to say, can be dealt with when his Bill comes before the House. I think it is unfortunate that the Minister has not agreed to accept all the recommendations of the Committee. I do not think the members of the Committee would complain if their recommendations were altered in some respects, but I think the broad principles laid down in the recommendations made ought to have been adopted. I am willing to say that in some cases, perhaps, the recommendations do not go far enough.

I disagree very much with the Minister in regard to the amendment carried by a majority of the Committee relating to the prices to be paid in respect of the redemption of fee-farm grants. The proposal was that the price should not exceed that paid for untenanted land in the district. The Minister suggested that was a revolutionary amendment; that it embodied the principle of confiscation. I do not accept that, and I do not think the people concerned, the landlords, should get preferential treatment or should get very different treatment such as the Minister suggested. If this is confiscation, well, I stand for confiscation of this kind, and I have no hesitation in saying so.

That represents the matters I wish to make clear, and I have no regret whatever over the action Deputy Hogan and myself took in connection with this amendment. I am satisfied we have a clearer conception of our position on this Committee than some of the people who criticised the Committee severely. I think we all did our best, so far as we could do it, having regard to the particular points of view and the particular opinions we held on various questions.

It is very easy to stress the hardships on the person whose land is being taken as potential building ground, but it would be a very serious position indeed if we did adopt an attitude that would restrict building operations. We have heard from every platform in this country the statement that housing and building work generally have been neglected and have been backward, and we were not going to be put in the position of talking with one voice in the Dáil and with a different voice in Committee.

I think the matter has been fairly well met. With regard to the question of evicted tenants and the amendments covering their cases that the Minister has not seen fit to adopt. I am glad he has indicated that the matter can be re-opened, if support is obtained for the proposals, when the Bill comes before the Dáil for consideration.

I am sorry the Minister objected to the motion that I submitted for consideration to-day:

That the Dáil is of opinion that all the recommendations of the Select Committee appointed to consider the Land Bill (No. 2), 1926, should be included in any future proposal for legislation to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land.

I want to point out that this Bill is going through an unusual and rather complicated procedure, a new procedure as far as this House is concerned. We are not yet thoroughly conversant with the best methods with which to achieve our ends under this Bill. The impression I got from the Ceann Comhairle when the Minister spoke on the Report which was made by the Chairman of the Committee, was that the only method whereby we could get the voice of the House on amendments which the Minister decided not to incorporate in his new Bill was by introducing a new Bill on our own account. I conceived the idea of giving the House a chance of expressing its opinion, by vote if necessary, whether certain amendments ought to be incorporated in the Bill.

I agree with Deputy Murphy when he regrets the Minister did not accept the recommendations of the Select Committee and so draft those recommendations that they would fit into his new Bill. Although I am partly satisfied with the statements which the Minister made in regard to how far he has gone, I am strongly of the opinion that the Minister has not gone far enough. We had a hope that at least this Bill would deal with what can be considered the remnants of the Land Acts passed in previous Parliaments. I am afraid the Bill as promised by the Minister will not completely settle the tag-end of the difficulties connected with the land question.

In connection with residential holdings, I regret very much that the amendment which we put down dealing with that question was defeated in Committee. I still believe—in fact, I know—that though the amendment was defeated, it is yet within the power of the Minister to introduce an amendment dealing with its subject-matter. I would ask him to introduce an amendment dealing with the question of residential holdings so as to give the House a chance of expressing its opinion, by vote if necessary. I am not sure that the Minister will satisfy the House that he has a right to exclude all residential holdings from the provisions of the Land Act.

There are numbers of hard cases. I know many hard cases such as those pointed out by Deputy Wilson. I believe a section could be drafted covering these hard cases. I believe, as regards the amendment, that we had before the Committee in which we said that if the valuation of the land exceeded the valuation of the residential holding—and to all intents and purposes that is the case—the few hard cases that would result from the acceptance of this motion would be fewer than the hard cases existing caused by the non-acceptance of that motion.

Now, with regard to the fee farm grantees, I will not traverse the ground already traversed beyond saying I believe a solution of that matter has not been found. I am in agreement almost altogether with Deputy Gorey and Deputy Wolfe when they said that the fee farm grantees are divided into two classes. One class, to all intents and purposes, may be regarded as ordinary tenants, and that because of the peculiar form of holding and the peculiar immunity which their landlords enjoy they have not been so regarded, and they are still out for the advantages other tenants gained who purchased. The real difficulty about the fee farm grantee is this, and the Minister knows it well. No matter what form of procedure they take— whether under Section 38, or the form of procedure which is now proposed by the Minister, they will still have to pay a high rent. There is no indication whatever that a man paying £2 an acre now will get any reasonable reduction when he becomes the owner of his land, either through the operation of Section 38 of the Land Act of 1923 or under the new section, which the Minister now proposes to introduce. The real grievance of these men is that they have no indication that they are going to get a reduction that will place them on a level with their neighbours who have got the benefits of the Land Acts. That is the reason that the fee-farm grantees are not availing of Section 38, because they have no indication of what reduction they will get, and they are afraid that if they come in under Section 38 they will make themselves owners in fee-simple subject to an annuity which they will not be able to pay in view of the economic conditions. The distinction the Minister draws between a fee-farm grantee and an ordinary tenant is purely artificial and legal and not real or actual. If the Minister has not accepted the amendment moved by Deputy Gorey, or the amendment moved by me, which was ruled out of order by the Chairman of the Committees, there is still an amendment in the report passed by the majority of the Committee, and I ask the Minister to accept that. The effect of accepting it will not be to increase the price of land for the purposes of division. I refer to amendment No. 35, which is:

"To insert before Section 25 a new section as follows—

"Section 38 of the Land Act, 1923, shall have effect as though at the end thereof the following words were added:—Provided that the redemption price fixed by the Judicial Commissioner shall in no case exceed the standard price fixed for tenanted land of similar character as agricultural land in same neighbourhood as based on sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Land Act, 1923."

If the Minister accepts that amendment it will have no effect upon the price of land which the Land Commission will have to acquire for the purposes of relieving congestion. The only effect will be that when the fee-farm grantee applies for redemption under Section 38 the Judicial Commissioner will not have power to fix a redemption annuity any higher than the standard rent in the neighbourhood. That is a reasonable amendment. I see no reason why fee farm tenure should be regarded as a different form of tenure when the farm as an agricultural holding is held as such for a reasonable time.

There is one other point in regard to the amendment introduced by the Minister dealing with the re-instatement of evicted tenants. That amendment, as it stands, only provides for the reinstatement of evicted tenants from the gale day previous to 1st June, 1926. I pointed out to the Select Committee that that does not meet the requirements of the case, and, as a matter of fact, it will only meet very few cases. I suggest to the Minister that he should make this section retrospective as far as the 1923 Act goes, and the reason I suggest that is this. The Minister well knows that an agitation went on during the troubled times here, in which tenants were advised, some of them to pay no rent, others to pay only 50 per cent. of their rent, and in no case to pay the full rent. Tenants took advantage of this advice, and when the Land Act was passed many of the tenants, in ignorance of their position, continued in the fond hope that they would be able to purchase their land. The next thing they found was that when hard times came they were unable to make up the arrears of rent which the ordinary tenant had the advantage of compounding, and the result was that they were evicted. I know one case in my own county, where a man was evicted in March, 1926, and because the Act only goes back as far as June, that man would not be reinstated. I suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider his view.

The only other point I refer to is the amendment introduced by Deputy Cosgrave, and which has been made the subject of joke and laughter by the Minister. I do not regard that amendment as a joke at all. I recognise the object Deputy Cosgrave had in mind. The object was to meet cases I mentioned more than once in this House. There are certain people who have not yet got justice under the Land Acts. There are certain genuine evicted tenants who have not been reinstated or given an alternative holding. These people are standing aside looking at the grabbers and emergency men occupying holdings into which they were put by the landlords. These men were made tenants of the holdings of the evicted tenants, and later on they purchased them under the Land Act. They are now ordinary tenants. In many cases they are quite unsuitable citizens. They will never become reconciled, and they never wanted to be, and it will take generations before they become reconciled. In fact they never will be while the evicted tenant or his descendants remain in the neighbourhood. There is no provision made to meet cases of that kind. Deputy Murphy introduced an amendment to provide for compensation. I think that is a very reasonable suggestion. Unfortunately, Deputy Murphy's amendment was defeated, but Deputy Cosgrave's was not. That is still a recommendation of the Committee, and is before the House, and I suggest that something ought to be done, and might be done, in that regard. It is not a foolish amendment. The intention of the amendment ought to be taken into account, as it is a justifiable one. There are cases in that connection regarding which something ought to be done. It should not be beyond the Land Commission to devise a means of meeting an amendment of that kind.

With your permission, sir, it is my intention to move that the debate on the motion be adjourned, and resumed on the 25th January, 1927. I do that because we are more or less getting into a blind alley. As I understand, the Minister's motion on this report is that it can be discussed and that we can take no decision. I move the adjournment accordingly. It is my intention to get in an amendment to the Minister's motion and take a vote of the House.

I second.

I will accept the motion.

The reason it is handed in is that there was more or less an understanding the business after nine o'clock would be devoted to another important matter. The matter that has been under discussion cannot be disposed of to-night, and it is more or less to facilitate the House that Deputy Connor Hogan has made his motion.

May I say that I agree with the motion, as I understand the motion, it can go on on the 25th and the 26th of January next, or into February if necessary. I intend to propose immediately the Dáil reassembles to get first reading for a new Land Bill.

Question put and declared carried.

I move the adjournment until the 25th January.

Barr
Roinn