Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Feb 1929

Vol. 28 No. 5

Local Elections (Dublin) Bill, 1929. - Adjournment—Vesting of Judicial Holdings.

Mr. Corry

I gave notice yesterday that I would raise a question as regards vesting of judicial holdings on the adjournment to-day because I did not consider that the reply received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the question I put by any means satisfactory. I intended during the past five or six months to raise this question definitely, but I thought that those who came here to represent directly the agricultural community—the Farmers' Party— would raise the matter themselves. I do not think I need impress on any member of the House the deplorable position of the farmers in Ireland. But the position of the tenants who are not vested is far more deplorable. I know cases in my own constituency where those tenants were getting voluntary reductions from the landlord of 35 per cent. The compulsory Bill which was passed in 1923 increased the rents of those tenants by 10 per cent. Since then, those tenants have been paying that increase. That is one of the blessings of the Land Act of 1923. Last week, in reply to a question put by Deputy Allen, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Land Commission had published in provisional lists of lands to be vested 18,978 holdings of tenanted lands, situate on 1,890 estates, comprising an area of 703,841 acres. Of these, 6,114 holdings on 1,067 estates, comprising 243,516 acres, have already been vested. There are, therefore, 12,864 tenant farmers who are paying this 10 per cent. increase in their rents. Those tenants are suffering a far greater injustice than that, because they cannot enjoy the benefit—if there is any benefit—of the Agricultural Credit Act. Although loans have been granted them, they have been informed that no advance can be made them until such time as the holdings are vested.

That has been the reply given by the Agricultural Credit Corporation. In his reply to me yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary said: "Before any holdings can be vested in the tenants, the correct particulars thereof must be ascertained and the boundary surveyed, and matters arising on surveyors' and inspectors' reports must be dealt with and commissioners' rulings discharged." I do not know how those questions can arise in respect of judicial holdings. We have it stated in Clause 3 of Section 22 of the Land Act of 1923 ..."in the case of a holding subject to a judicial rent, the record filed in the Land Commission shall be final and conclusive in all matters appearing thereon, except that where the judicial rent was fixed before the 1st day of April, 1899, the adjustment provided for by Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1898 shall be taken into account in determining the amount of rent." If the record filed in the Land Commission is to be final and conclusive, I do not understand how the reports of those commissioners and inspectors are required in respect of an estate which is subject to a judicial rent. I do not understand how there should be any delay whatsoever in the vesting of judicial holdings. I was wondering, when I first came to consider this matter, what malignant spirit in the Land Commission offices compelled those unfortunate tenants to pay 10 per cent. more than they need pay if their holdings were vested. As far as I can judge, the Land Commission are quietly seizing this difference of 10 per cent. in the rents and clapping it into their own Department in order to pay already overpaid officials or to serve some purpose of that description. Clause 4 of Section 21 of the Land Act of 1923, states: "There shall be payable by the Land Commission to the person or persons entitled to receive the same a sum equal to the amount to be collected as payment in lieu of rent from the gale day next preceding the date of the passing of this Act up to the appointed day, less income tax, and such deduction towards cost of such collection as the Land Commission shall consider reasonable and proper." That is the way the 10 per cent. is going— in income tax and cost of collection. That is where the 10 per cent. which these tenants attempt to drag out of their lands is going each year. It is going into the pockets of the Land Commission.

I think it is high time the Government definitely fixed an appointed day for the vesting of all judicial holdings purchased. The Land Commission officials must be well aware, from the state of unpaid annuities, that there is considerable agricultural depression at present. The tenants are practically unable to pay the annuities. It is grossly unfair that tenants who are compelled to continue paying interest in lieu of rent should have ten or twelve or fourteen years' purchase added to what they have to pay. The more we look into this matter the more we realise the injustice of this 1923 Land Act. The unfortunate tenants who succeeded in dragging from the landlord a reduction of 35 per cent. have clapped on to their rents an increase of 10 per cent. They have had to pay that from 1923 to 1929, and I think it is high time those tenants got the reduction they are entitled to and that the injustice that this 1923 Act imposed upon them was removed. As I pointed out, those tenants cannot get a loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. That is a very grave matter. From inquiries amongst my colleagues, I find that that complaint is practically general. Although a loan be granted, no advance can be made until such time as the holdings are vested. If the present Government policy continues the holdings will be vested 68½ years hence. I think the attitude of the Land Commission in this matter is deserving of very grave censure. If something is not definitely done, we will find that those tenants who cannot get a loan and who have been compelled by a so-called national Government to pay an increase of 10 per cent. in their rents will definitely refuse to pay any more until such time as their holdings are vested. They continued to pay in the hope that under a national Government they would get some redress, but apparently there is no use in looking for redress here or elsewhere. I know the facts myself. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any doubt that these tenants were getting a voluntary reduction of 35 per cent., I will prove it to him by the landlord's receipts.

Mr. B. Maguire

There is a very considerable issue involved in this question of interest in lieu of rent. To the person unacquainted with the working of the Land Act and the purchase of lands, it would seem strange that the farmer, who is generally assumed to be astute where bargain-making is concerned, should permit himself to be bled by overpayment in respect of land annuities. Yet I have not any hesitation at all in saying that, on this question of interest in lieu of rent pending the non-vesting of estates, the farmers in the Twenty-Six Counties have paid many millions over and beyond the amount that they bargained for as a fair price for their land. That the farmer should have paid that sum, or have allowed himself to be bled of that amount of money, requires some explanation. But the operation was so manipulated and carried out in such an expert and ruthless fashion that, in many cases, the farmers paid that money without actually knowing that they were paying a sum that was over and above their contract price. I desire now to refer to the negotiations that took place for the purchase of estates under the 1903 and 1909 Acts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must confine himself to holdings purchased under the Land Act of 1923.

Mr. Maguire

Is the position this, then, that I cannot refer to estates purchased before that date and which are still not vested?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter raised in the question put on the Order Paper by Deputy Corry relates to judicial holdings purchased under the Land Act of 1923, and the Deputy must confine himself to that.

Mr. Maguire

I merely want to illustrate the case, and it is immaterial under what Act I do that. In the general form of bargaining that takes place in the purchase of an estate the tenant is entirely concerned with the primary factor, which is the price he is going to pay. He calculates that by averaging so many years' purchase of the rent that he is liable for to the landlord. There may be smaller factors that enter into the transaction, such as rights of way, turbary rights, and other things, but the primary one with the tenant is the amount of the purchase price that he pays for his land. Let us say that the average price would be 20 years' purchase. He calculates that on the rent that he had been paying previously. Once he has fixed that, he gets at once a reduction upon his previous rent and becomes liable to the Land Commission for the amount of the annuity, payable half yearly. In many cases the farmer assumes that immediately he has got a reduction in his rent he has become the owner of his land, subject to the payment of the land purchase annuity over, say, a period of 68½ years. That is not the case. The problem that we are discussing now is the grave injustice of compelling farmers to pay, with their land purchase annuity, interest in lieu of rent, and of continuing to extract that from them for an indefinite period. I know cases of tenants who have been paying interest in lieu of rent for the last eighteen years. The farmer does not realise that in many cases. He did not bargain to do that. What the farmer understood when the bargaining took place was that he was purchasing his estate at a definite price. He believed that that price was to be fixed by way of mortgage on his land, to be redeemable by the payment of annuities over a period of 68½ years. In many cases the farmer holds to the belief that each year's annuity paid by him is a reduction on the mortgage covering the period of 68½ years.

I could give figures, running over a period of 18 years, in connection with estates where the original price fixed was £360. During those eighteen years, the amount of interest in lieu of rent paid by the tenant amounted to £264, and still the land is not vested. If that figure is added to the original price that the farmer bargained for, it will be found that the farmer, instead of purchasing his holding at eighteen years' purchase, and after making a hard fight to get those terms, is now paying a price which represents 26 years' purchase. That is a situation that requires particular care in looking into, apart from the fact that the farmer has been misled by an ingenious form of bargaining that has been responsible in extracting from him not the eighteen years' purchase that he bargained for, but a price representing 26 years' purchase. There are other factors that enter into this under the Land Purchase Acts, because, in addition to the mortgage taken on the farmer's holding for the repayment of the annuity, additional security is taken in this way: that each tenant is made responsible for the payments of all the other tenants on the property. They are all co-equal in that respect, and there is co-security for the full payment of the annuities levied against them. I doubt very much if there is in any of the Acts passed here any section giving power to the Government to deduct out of the Agricultural Grant the amount of arrears arising in the way of interest in lieu of rent. The Agricultural Grant was originally formed by way of contribution from the landlords towards the rates of the country.

When the landlords were cleared out, the Government of the time undertook to continue that contribution direct to the various county authorities. They had an easy means then of securing any defaulters in the way of land annuities payable. But, in the case of many estates where interest in lieu of rent continues to be paid, they still continued to deduct out of the Agricultural Grant the interest in lieu of rent when it became in default. That is another factor to be considered, that not alone has the farmer been made liable for a price that represents 26 years' purchase of his holding, instead of the 18 years' purchase that he bargained for, but that the whole country at large is made liable for defaulters who run into arrears in the matter of the payment of interest in lieu of rent. If you add to that the costs borne by the farmers where they became defaulters during that period—the costs incurred in collecting the interest in lieu of rent by the State Solicitor and by the sheriffs all over the country—you will realise that the figure I stated at the outset is a very moderate one. Taking all these facts together, in the 26 Counties the farmers have paid many million pounds over and beyond the contract prices that they originally entered into.

Yesterday, by means of a question, I sought information from the Department of Lands and Fisheries and asked for a return of the number of estates purchased in the County Leitrim, and the number of years that had elapsed until they were vested. I was told by the Parliamentary Secretary, not in his usual way, because as a rule he is fairly wide and generous in his replies, that he refused absolutely to give the information. He said that he would not have the time of his staff taken up in preparing such figures. The information that I sought for applies to many estates, and I should say that the sum of over one million pounds is involved. I would like to know what would be thought of a small huckster in the country if he were asked by a customer to furnish the items of his account and replied that he would not spend his time in preparing it. What would be thought of a member of a co-operative society if he asked from the manager a statement of his account——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot discuss on the question that is being raised now the reply that he received to his own question yesterday.

Mr. Maguire

Then, if I cannot discuss it, I will finish now.

Mr. P. Boland

I would like to ask if the Government have considered at any time the advisability of bringing in legislation to enable tenants who have purchased under the 1923 Act to get a marketable title in their holdings so as to enable them to get loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. A number of such tenants who have otherwise got good securities cannot get effective title until their holdings are vested. That is my information. I think it is fairly general all over the country. Have the Government any proposals to make with regard to the matter, and do they intend bringing in legislation to deal with it? There is another question: from the date on which the landlord has lodged the scheduled particulars of title under Section 22 of the Act of 1923, will the tenants get credit for the amount of interest paid in lieu of rent between that date and the appointed date, which may be a considerable time?

Mr. T. Sheehy (Tipperary)

Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I would like to ask what action the Government proposes to take regarding farms that have been sold some years ago? The proprietors of such lands bought out feesimple from the Land Commission before selling the farms, and then put on rent in some cases twice the former rent. I would like to know on what footing such unfortunate tenant is placed, seeing he is not getting the benefit of land purchase, and that the farm is not vested in him.

Mr. Roddy

In reply to Deputy Boland, I may say at once that whatever difficulty there may have been hitherto with regard to the granting of loans by the Agricultural Credit Corporation, that the tenants who hold lands either for temporary convenience or agreement to purchase have now been removed, so that under no matter what form of agreement a tenant holds his land to-day he is entitled to get a loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

Mr. Corry

How long has that been the case?

Mr. Roddy

That difficulty was removed some time ago.

Mr. Allen

That is in the case of untenanted lands.

Mr. Roddy

It applies to all tenancies, no matter what the form of agreement. Deputy Corry has presented me with somewhat of a mathematical conundrum. I cannot understand how a tenant who got a reduction of 25 per cent. immediately after the passing of the 1923 Act should to-day be paying an increase of 10 per cent.

Mr. Corry

My case is that a large number of tenants in my district, in which are included about five estates, had a voluntary reduction from the landlord on their judicial rents of 35 per cent. Under the 1923 Land Act these tenants were compelled to purchase, and had to accept 25 per cent. reduction instead of the 35 per cent. I can give receipts proving this.

Mr. Roddy

That is sheer nonsense. The 25 per cent. is based on the abated rent the tenant was paying at the passing of the 1923 Act. These rents were supplied to the Land Commission on a schedule of returns supplied by the owner. The tenant was informed of the rents returned by the landlord in that schedule of particulars, and he was asked if he had any objection to the return supplied by the landlord. If he had, and if the wrong rental was supplied, he had the right to object and to appeal to the Land Commission. If any irregularities existed in the schedule of returns he had the opportunity of having them fully redressed by the Land Commission. Under the Act of 1903, on the rules made by the Land Commission relating to the different sections of the Act, the owner is bound to return a schedule of rentals to the Land Commission. The tenant is subsequently notified by the Land Commission of the amount of rental so returned. It is open to any tenant to dispute the accuracy of the amount supplied to the Land Commission. Figures prove that in the overwhelming majority of cases the returns of rentals made by the landlords were accurate. 2,700 applications have been made to the Land Commission out of 85,000 or 86,000 tenants.

Mr. Corry

I can promise a couple of thousand more.

Mr. Roddy

These figures prove conclusively that in the main the returns supplied by the owners were accurate. This question of delaying vesting was discussed very fully on the Estimates last year. The procedure is clearly laid down in the Land Acts. The Land Commission was established for the purpose of carrying out the legislation embodied in these Acts. It is impossible to rush unduly the vesting of land. There is a great deal of legal procedure to be gone through. The Land Commission in dealing with this question of vesting must be sure there is a clear and secure title to the tenant when vesting. If the proceedings were unduly rushed that would only result in litigation costs to the tenants. It is to the credit of the Land Commission that it has never been known in its history, once it has vested a title in a holding to a tenant, to have that title upset. I have never heard of such a case. The procedure is very elaborate. This question has been examined over and over again with a view to seeing would it be possible to simplify it in any way. I have in the past three or four months gone into this to see if simplification were possible, and I have found it cannot be simplified, if you want to make certain that, once a tenant's holding is vested in him, there is a clear and secure title. The Deputy must remember that under the 1903 and 1909 Acts there is still a balance of holdings acquired to be vested in the tenants. It has taken more than twenty years to vest all the holdings acquired under the 1903 Act. There is still a balance of holdings acquired under the 1923 Act to be vested in the owners. Considering the short time the 1923 Act has been in operation, a considerable acreage of land has been already vested in the tenants, comprising 6,162 holdings, representing a purchase money of £2,344,653 and an area of 245,547 acres. That rate of progress compares favourably with the progress under the earlier Acts. Steps have been taken recently to still further expedite the rate of vesting. It is quite impossible under existing circumstances to proceed very much faster with the vesting of tenanted land than the rate at which we are proceeding at the moment. I did not quite catch the question raised by Deputy Sheehy, but if the Deputy puts the question on the Order Paper I would answer him on the point.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. till Friday, 10.30 a.m.