Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 2 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 7

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 54—LAND COMMISSION.

The PRESIDENT

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar £35,000 chun íoctha an Bhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1928, chun Tuarastail agus Cestaisí Oifig Chei isiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46, agus c. 71, s. 4; 48 agus 49 Vict. c. 75, s. 17, 16 agus 20; 53 agus 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 agus 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; an tacht Blí Thalmhan (Coimisiún), 1923, an tacht Talmhan, 1923, agus Acht na mBannaí Talmhan, 1925).

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £35,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46, and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73; s.s. 17, 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 42, s. 2; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38, and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; the Land Law (Commission) Act, 1923, the Land Act, 1923, and the Land Bond Act, 1925).

Mr. RODDY (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Fisheries)

This is the first occasion on which a Supplementary Vote for this purpose has been asked for although there was a deficiency of income since 1st May, 1925, when the first half-yearly payment to the Land Bond Fund fell due for interest on the Land Bonds issued for the purchase of untenanted land. On 1st May, 1925, and the two subsequent half-years the Land Commission made good this deficiency by temporarily borrowing from other funds under their control. The total of such borrowing up to 1st May was £21,611 11s. 2d. The Minister for Finance when sanctioning the temporary borrowing required to meet the half-yearly payment to the Land Bond Fund directed that an estimate should be introduced to make provision for the repayment of the £21,611 11s. 2d. and to meet a possible deficency in the half-year to the 1st November, 1927. This deficiency should be divided under three heads—first of all arrears. As soon as practicable after the acquisition of land, the lands are divided amongst suitable allottees who are required to sign either an undertaking to purchase parcels or an agreement for temporary convenience.

In either case the allottees have to pay 4¾ per cent. interest on the purchase price of their parcels by half-yearly payments on the gale days, 1st November and 1st May. In all half-yearly payments to the Land Commission there is always a certain amount not paid punctually, and in the case of land purchase annuities the amount of arrears due to unpunctual payments is temporarily advanced from the Guarantee Fund. But in the case of these half-yearly interest payments by allottees of untenanted land the Guarantee Fund is not drawn on, and the Land Commission have to provide for the temporary arrears in some other way, and that is a big factor in the total amount of the deficiency. The second reason for the deficiency is two months' interest in advance. The payments to the Land Bond Fund from bonds issued for the purchase of estates must provide interest calculated up to the dividend days the 1st January and the 1st July, while the payments due by the tenants provide interest up to the gale days, the 1st November and 1st May. There is consequently a gap of two months to be bridged.

Under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1923, each tenant purchaser of a tenanted holding subject to a standard purchase annuity is obliged to pay this two months' interest in advance on his first annuity payment. The Land Commission has to provide this two months' interest on bonds issued for the purchase of untenanted land, which accounts for £15,000 of the total deficiency. This two months' interest is recouped to the Land Commission when the lands become vested in the allottees as tenant purchasers, subject to tenant purchasers' annuities. The third reason for the deficiency is rates, herds' wages, and other estate outgoings that the Commission has to bear. During the time between the purchase of the untenanted land by the Land Commission and its subsequent division amongst allottees, the Land Commission becomes liable for rates, herds' wages, and other estate outgoings of various kinds, in addition to the 4¾ per cent. interest on the purchase money, and it is not possible in many cases to secure an income from these lands by making temporary lettings for grazing or in conacre, or by taking in cattle for grazing, at prices sufficiently high to cover all these liabilities. It is difficult to regulate the proceedings for the purchase and re-sale of land so that re-sale schemes can be put into operation simultaneously with the taking possession of the lands by the Land Commission. It sometimes happens, for instance, that at the last moment approved allottees decline to sign agreements to purchase, or the temporary convenience agreements. Proposed migrants refuse to migrate, or exchange arrangements are not completed, and sometimes perhaps the selected tenants refuse to sign the agreements because they may be dissatisfied, for instance, with the striping arrangements, and so on. Various other circumstances arise which necessitate the retention of the land in the hands of the Commission, and naturally involve loss of income.

I have stated already that £15,000 of this money will be recouped to the Land Commission when the lands are finally vested in the allottees as tenant purchasers. The arrears due to the non-payment of letting and grazing rents amount to nearly £9,000, so that you can assume that the approximate total net loss will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £10,000.

Dr. RYAN

The Parliamentary Secretary has given us the headings under which this £35,000 is made up, and I am glad to know that it is not all because of interest due on land lying on the hands of the Land Commission, as we are having various complaints from all over the country of the great delay on the part of the Land Commission in the distribution of land. First of all there is the delay from the time they take over the estate until the people are put into possession, and, second, the delay in vesting. I am inclined to think that a good portion of this £15,000 is due to the fact that land is lying in the hands of the Land Commission without being allotted. There may be a difficulty at times, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, in getting allottees to sign, but I think the difficulty is very often on the other side, that the allottees are quite prepared to sign but that the Land Commission will not ask them to sign, and I think that the Land Commission have themselves to blame in most cases where this land is lying on their hands. If £15,000 out of this amount is due for interest, as I understand the Parliamentary Secretary said, for the land lying on their hands, that would mean, at 4¾ per cent., that there would be something like £400,000 worth of land on their hands waiting to be distributed. I know that on a Supplementary Vote of this sort it would be impossible—in any case, to-day—to go into all the faults of the Land Commission, but at any rate, as it does appear unsatisfactory that a Vote of this sort should be coming up and that it is quite evidently due to the delay of the Land Commission in dealing with cases that should be dealt with more expeditiously, I think that we cannot allow this Vote to go through without opposition.

Mr. COLOHAN

I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the amount of arrears of rates due by the Land Commission to the Kildare County Council for lands that are set by them on the eleven-months' system and I think that he should get his Department to pay up these arrears as soon as possible and not put the burden on the county councils.

Mr. MacENTEE

Arising out of the remarks of Deputy Ryan, I would like to bring before the House a case which I think it has heard of before. It has been admitted—at least, we can assume so from the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary—that a considerable proportion of this Vote is necessitated by the fact that the Land Commission in certain cases has been slow to come to terms with allottees in cases where the latter disputed the fairness of the division or the fairness of the annuity it was proposed to set on the land. I have in mind a case in relation to the Ging estate in County Dublin. If my information is correct that estate was purchased in September, 1924. It is now March, 1928. The estate has not yet been divided, and if my information as to the price paid for the estate is correct, the amount of the accumulated interest due on that estate, interest which would normally have been paid by the tenants, is now something in the nature of £1,400, amounting, I think, to almost 12 per cent. of the total arrears of interest which have accumulated in this way, and due to this cause. At any rate, it was April, 1926, before the Land Commission had completed its scheme for the division of the land.

When the applicants to whom the lands were to be allotted had an opportunity of inspecting the lands and of hearing the terms upon which they were to get them, they considered that these terms were inequitable, and appointed a committee to deal with the Land Commission in the matter. The Commission was high and mighty, on occasions was too proud even to answer letters, and it refused to meet this committee. Several T.D's for the constituency, including members of the Government Party, and even a member of the Government, were brought in, and ultimately the Land Commission, which had refused to meet the allottees' committee in June, 1927, intimated to the Minister for External Affairs, as he then was—the present Minister for Defence—that they were considering the whole of their proposals.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. MacENTEE

That was in June, 1927. Nothing further has been heard of the matter by the tenants, and so far as we know, and I suppose so far as the past records of the Commission would indicate, nothing further will be heard until this time twelve months.

At any rate, one of the points which I think the House ought to consider is this, that here was a case where ultimately, after a considerable amount of pressure, the Land Commission admitted that there were grounds for reconsideration. But on the 10th January of last year, an official of the Land Commission addressed a letter of this description to the tenants:—

"You are requested to attend at Calliagnstown on the 18th instant, at 12 o'clock, for the purpose of taking over possession of the parcel of land on above estate, which was pointed out to you some time ago. (It was pointed out to him about nine months before that).

"You have already been informed of the price, and you are to understand there will be no reduction in same.

"Failing your acceptance on the date mentioned of their offer, the Land Commission will make other arrangements to dispose of the parcel, and any application from you for land at any future time will not be entertained."

Surely that was a letter designed to intimidate the applicants in this case, in which I repeat the Land Commission has already admitted there are grounds for reconsideration. If it is the case that there are grounds for such reconsideration, then a letter of that sort could not properly be written by the Land Commission. The point I want to make is this: We have to pass a Supplementary Vote to-day, a large portion of which is represented by arrears accumulated owing to the fact that the Land Commission has been unable in a number of cases to come to terms with the proposed allottees to the land. Here is a case which has been dragging on now for almost four years, a case where, after over twelve months' negotiations, the Commission itself admitted there were grounds for reconsideration, and yet, after having made that admission, nothing has been done to indicate to the allottees' committee that that reconsideration had in fact taken place, and that the situation, after reconsideration, was any different from what it was before, because before that the allottees were convinced that they could not accept the land on the terms suggested by the Land Commission, and that if they did accept it they would be unable to meet the annuities. I am not a farmer and I am not familiar with agricultural conditions, but I have placed the facts in this case before members of our Party who are practical farmers, and they agree with me that the annuities proposed in this particular case are certainly well above the average, and are such as would make it a very doubtful proposition for any man to accept.

I do not want to go into the matter any further, but I certainly think the facts I have submitted call for speedy investigation into this matter, and if possible for speedy settlement. The people are not unreasonable. They want the land, but they want it at a price which will enable them to make a livelihood out of it and enable them to meet the liabilities which its acceptance will impose on them. I think that is a fair way to meet them. They appointed a committee to deal with the Land Commission in a businesslike way. The Commission refused to deal with them, but afterwards, I think through the intervention of a member of the Government, the Land Commission reconsidered that attitude, and did ultimately deal with one particular member of the committee. I think this is a case where, instead of the Land Commission continuing to ride the high horse, it ought to come down to the ordinary level of the man-in-the-street, meet these representatives, and have a settlement of the case, instead of permitting these arrears to accumulate as a charge on the taxpayers.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I move to report progress.

Progress ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported. The Committee to sit again on Wednesday.