Would I be in order in proposing that the Bill be re-committed? My anxiety is that I would have an opportunity of replying to the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments. My colleague Deputy Geoghegan, is not here. He participated in the drafting of these amendments, and in any case I think re-committing the Bill at this stage would not prolong the discussion; it might even mean shortening it in the long run.
Private Business. - Land Bill, 1930—Report Stage.
That the amendments should be discussed in Committee.
That would mean taking the Report Stage on Thursday.
What Deputy Derrig proposes is fairly usual practice in cases such as this. In effect, he desires to have an order of the House made which would enable amendments to be discussed under Committee procedure. If a number of these amendments are passed, the question, if no objection be offered, that the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration, could be taken this evening or to-morrow.
I presume we will be facilitated in the final stages this week.
Yes.
Ordered: That the Land Bill, 1930, be now re-committed to a Committee of the whole Dáil in respect of the amendments of which notice has been given.
Land Bill, 1930 — Re-committed.
The Dáil went into Committee.
I move amendment 1:
In page 4, line 6, Section 4 (1), to delete the words "in such manner and at such rate" and substitute the words "at the rate of three and one-quarter per cent."
I accepted the principle of this amendment on the Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:
In page 5, line 55, Section 9 (7), after the word "modification" to insert the words "that a Court letting shall be deemed a contract of tenancy and"
I think the Parliamentary Secretary promised to look into the matter of a Court letting in the special case mentioned by Deputy Ryan. That is, where such a letting existed for generations.
I have looked into the matter since the Committee Stage. I discussed it with Deputy Ryan, and I explained my difficulty in the matter. It is difficult to draft an amendment to cover a particular case, such as the one cited by the Deputy. However, I suggest that the tenant might secure redress by applying to the Court for a reduction in the present rent. I have no doubt if such an application was made the Court, in the circumstances, would grant such reduction.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:
In page 6, line 11, Section 10 (3), to delete all words after the word "Commissioner" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "shall be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court."
This amendment is, to some extent, met by the next amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, but his amendment only covers appeals on questions of law. Deputies are interested in appeals on questions of fact. If appeals cannot be secured on questions of fact, which are really the ones that are most vital to tenants, why should there be an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner at all, if a further appeal is not going to be allowed? On the other hand, we say that appeals to the Supreme Court may not, in the long run, leave the tenants any better off, after a good deal of expense and trouble, and I have suggested in a later amendment that the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner might be taken away where there is a well-established line of policy laid down by the Land Commission, and where they have experience and full knowledge of all the circumstances. I think there is a desire from all parts of the House to give the Land Commission the fullest possible powers, and not to bind them down, except where it would be clearly inequitable, except that all rights of appeal above the Land Commission should be taken away. I would like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say with regard to appeals to the Supreme Court on questions of fact. Is there any real argument against it except that it is rather a circumlocutory method, and is bound to be expensive on the tenants?
To begin with, in the whole history of the Land Acts there has not been an appeal from the Land Commission or the Judicial Commissioner on a question of fact. If appeals were allowed on questions of fact it would hold up the Land Commission work indefinitely. It would cause innumerable delays and would really inflict on the tenants very serious hardships. I am quite satisfied there is no occasion when there should be a right of appeal from the Land Commissioners, or the Judicial Commissioner on questions of fact. There has been a right of appeal from the Land Commission to the Judicial Commissioner on questions of law, and in the next amendment I propose to continue that right of appeal. It is only fair to the tenants and to the owners that in matters involving questions of law there should be such right of appeal. I could not accept an amendment providing an appeal from the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme-Court on questions of fact.
Were there not appeals on such questions as the price of land, the fixing of annuities, as well as amending the vesting orders? May they not involve mixed questions of law and fact?
The annuities are fixed automatically except in the case of non-judicial holdings.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary will admit that most questions of fact might be construed as implying questions of law. That is the trouble.
I am opposed to the amendment because in my opinion the right of appeal to the Supreme Court from the Judicial Commissioner on questions other than law would load the dice in favour of the vendors. In my opinion an appeal would never be taken in the Supreme Court by a purchaser. Vendors who are better advised and who have more money at their disposal might very easily take advantage of a purchaser's timidity, so that in my opinion such procedure would load the dice in favour of the landlords as against the purchaser.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I presume I can discuss the abolition of the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner which arises later.
For the sake of clarity it would be much better to discuss these questions separately.
I move:—
In page 6, line 12, section 10 (3), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court."
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6, which is as follows:—
In page 7, line 13, Section 12 (4), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court."
This amendment deals with the same point which arose on the other amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION 13 (2).
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 7, lines 22-25, to delete Section 13 (2).
The sub-section which I ask to have deleted reads as follows:—"There shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from every order made by the other Land Commissioners under the foregoing sub-section of this section and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on any such appeal shall be final."
That refers to an appeal in the case of dismissals of purchase proceedings in respect of certain vested holdings. The object of all parties here is, I think, to expedite the matter of land purchase as much as possible. This is a case where it seems to me that the Land Commission themselves would have a very good right to make their own decisions final, especially in cases where they have decided that certain holdings shall not be deemed to be holdings to which sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Land Act, 1923, as amended by the Land Act of 1927, shall apply. I think that the ruling of the Land Commissioners in such matters would be quite fair and reasonable and would take all the circumstances into consideration. I fail to see why there should be a right of appeal subsequently. It seems to me that if we give a right of appeal on every single matter we are apt to unduly burden and obstruct the work of the Land Commission. In this matter, at any rate, a beginning could be made by leaving the Land Commissioners to decide the question once and for all.
In my view there should be a right of appeal from the Land Commissioners to the Judicial Commissioner on questions of this kind. The question really involved is as to whether the tenant's holding comes under the Act of 1923, and that is a very important matter from the tenant's point of view. Deputies must remember that the Commissioners are the statutory heads of the Land Commission. They acquire land by virtue of the compulsory powers vested in them and, in the further exercise of these compulsory powers, they fix the price of the land. It seems to me that in equity, justice and rairness there should be an appeal from any statutory body, exercising compulsory powers for the fixing of the price of land, to another authority. Either the vendor or the tenant should have the right of appeal from that body to another tribunal, and it seems to me to be only elementary justice to give such right. In this particular case it is vitally important for the tenant to know whether his holding comes under the Act of 1923 or not. It would be unfair to deprive him of the right of appeal.
Are not the Land Commissioners, other than the Judicial Commissioner, exercising judicial functions every day in the year? If they are not, then I do not know what the position is. It seems to me that every statute gives them power to make judicial decisions on certain matters, the object being to enable them to expedite the work of land purchase. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfied that their decision should be final then where is the question of appeal going to stop? It might go so far as the Privy Council, if such were to be tolerated. It seems to me that the argument for allowing it to go to the Judicial Commissioner is not sufficient. We had a strong volume of opinion voiced here when this matter was referred to in the Committee Stage, and the general opinion was that it would be much cheaper and more expeditious in the long run to leave questions, on which the ordinary man in the street could give an opinion, to be decided by the Land Commission. The question whether a holding falls within the scope of the Land Act of 1923 ought to be one which could be determined by the Land Commissioners of whom there are now four. They have the experience and have exercised judicial powers. There is no doubt that by making their decision final we will be making matters much more expeditious and we would also be giving them power to go ahead with their work. There is no use in seeking compulsory power if, in the long run, you are going to hold up the body which is administering the Act by putting in a right of appeal, a right which, it is generally conceded, has to a certain extent militated against the work of the Land Commission and also against the interests of the tenant. The fact that in these particular cases the tenants are involved does not mean that in the majority of cases the interests of the tenants are likely to be prejudiced rather than otherwise by the maintenance of this right. If the opinions of tenants were taken, and if that were to be the sole guide on the matter, I think it would be found to be against this right of appeal. It is simply a question of making things shorter and more expeditious.
It is a question of whether or not we have faith in the Land Commission. They can only act in accordance with the various Acts and they are circumscribed in various ways. They have very little discretion given them in any matter affecting the rights of the tenants. For the life of me, I cannot see what new facts might be brought up or what new evidence might be disclosed upon an appeal that the Land Commissioners themselves would not have already considered. They are there to go into these questions. They are there to give a fair decision as between all parties. I certainly think we should not hamper them and that we should not perpetuate a grievance which the tenants complain they have at present, the grievance of allowing unnecessary appeals, appeals which, Deputy Gorey says, will in the long run further the interests of the other parties rather than those of the tenants concerned.
I am perfectly satisfied that if you deprive the tenants of the right which they enjoy of appealing to the Judicial Commissioner, in cases where questions of law are involved particularly, they would be labouring under a serious grievance. I stated on the Committee Stage that 75 per cent. of the cases of appeals to the Judicial Commissioner were from the tenants. I have had occasion to examine the figures very closely since then and I found from my examination that the figure which I then mentioned was altogether too conservative. I found as a result of that examination that out of every 100 cases of appeals which came before the Judicial Commissioner 87 are from tenants. I would ask Deputies to remember that when you are dealing with land you are dealing with the biggest and most fundamental asset in the State. If the tenant feels that the Commissioners have not interpreted his case rightly or that they may be wrong on a particular point of law, it is only fair and just that the tenant should have the right of appeal to a superior court. The ordinary individual has a right of appeal in the overwhelming majority of cases and, when you are dealing with the biggest and most fundamental asset in the State, why should not the owner of that asset have a right of appeal to a superior court? There has been always such a right of appeal and there has been no delay, as I explained very clearly on the Committee Stage, in the Judicial Commissioner's Court. He deals with these cases very quickly and there is never any delay in his court.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary not arguing against himself in stating that the appeal will be allowed to a supreme court even on a question of law? As regards the question of the number of tenants who sent in applications and the proportion of appeals that originates from the tenants, I do not think that is a very good argument because obviously you might have 100 tenants applying to the Judicial Commissioner on appeal and the total amount involved might be smaller than in a single case where the landlord, or the other parties whoever they might be, would be appealing. I think if the total amounts involved were taken into consideration the percentage represented by the tenants would not be so high as the Parliamentary Secretary tries to make out.
The figures are in the annual report if the Deputy cares to look them up.
We have discussed this question before amongst ourselves and we are satisfied that if the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner were entirely abolished, it would be less expensive for everybody in the end, more expeditious and would greatly hasten the work of the Land Commission. We think if that were done the Land Commission would not have any legitimate grounds for grievance. As I have already stated, they have at present grounds for grievance in so far as we have given them the fullest possible compulsory powers but we have hampered them by appeals on various questions. I think I shall have to press the amendment as we feel that it is a vital matter.
This amendment does not affect cases as between tenant and landlord. It is a case between one class of tenant and another class of incoming tenant.
In this particular case.
There might be more questions than the question of value involved. We need to maintain a certain policy and a certain standard of procedure. I could understand a new commissioner coming into a district and establishing a new standard totally different from that which had obtained in the district before. What is good in one part of the country should be good in another. In this class of case you must maintain a certain standard of procedure and you can only do that by having one man as a final court of appeal.
Why should there be only one judge?
One final court of appeal.
It is very unusual to have a court of appeal with only one judge. The Deputy will recognise that himself.
Question —"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"— put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 39.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.
Amendment 8 not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:
In page 7, line 25, Section 13 (2), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court."— (Mr. Roddy).
I move amendment 10:
In page 8, line 8, Section 14 (2), to delete all words after the word "Commissioner" to the end of the sub-section.
This is on the question of holdings alleged to be wrongly omitted from the list of vested holdings. This is a case where it is really a matter between the Land Commission and the landlords, and it seems to me that those who are interested in preserving the tenants' right might support this amendment when they would not support the amendment on which we have just taken a vote. However, I do not want to press the amendment at present, but I should like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is adamant on this question of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner here.
If I accepted the amendment I would be inflicting a hardship on the tenants.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 11 not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:
In page 8, line 11, Section 14 (2), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court"— (Mr. Roddy).
Amendments 13 and 14 not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:
In page 9, line 43, Section 15 (3), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court"— (Mr. Roddy).
I move amendment 16:
In page 9, before Section 16, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where at the passing of the Land Act, 1923, a holding to which that Act applies was sub-divided or in part sublet in breach of a statutory condition or of a covenant or condition contained in the lease or agreement under which such holding was held, the Land Commission, if it so thinks proper having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may, on the application of any person in separate occupation of a portion of such holding by virtue of such sub-division or subletting, declare the portion or each of the several portions of such holding so separately occupied to be a separate holding, and the person in such separate occupation thereof to be the tenant thereof and, in the case of a sub-letting, declare the portion of such holding which is not so sublet to be a separate holding and the person in separate occupation thereof to be the tenant thereof.
(2) Where the Land Commission makes a declaration under this section such declaration shall have effect according to the terms thereof and the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the sub-division or subletting (as the case may be) which is the subject of such declaration shall be and be deemed, as at and from the passing of the Land Act, 1923, to have been lawful and valid;
(b) in the case of a declaration made in respect of a sub-division Section 20 of the Land Act, 1923, shall apply to every portion of a holding declared by such declaration to be a separate holding with the modification that the date of such declaration shall be substituted in that section for the date of the passing of that Act;
(c) in the case of a declaration made in respect of a subletting, Section 23 of the Land Act, 1923, shall apply as if sub-section (3) of that section were omitted therefrom and with the modification that the date of such declaration shall be substituted in sub-section (1) of that section for the date of the passing of that Act.
(3) The Land Commission shall not make a declaration under this section save either with the consent of all parties concerned or after notice of the application for such declaration has been served in the prescribed manner on all parties concerned and all such parties have been afforded an opportunity of objecting to the making of such declaration.
(4) Every application for a declaration under this section and every objection duly made to the making of such declaration shall be considered and decided by the Land Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner, and there shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the decision of the other Land Commis sioners on any such application or objection and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on such appeal shall be final, save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from the decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.
This amendment is in substitution for amendment 25 on the Committee Stage. It enables the Land Commission to validate the sub-division or sub-letting of a holding made in breach of a contract of tenancy, where such a transaction took place before the passing of the Land Act of 1923. It is not required in the case of any sub-division or sub-letting since the passing of that Act, as the Land Commission have power to deal with such a sub-division or sub-letting. I think it meets the Deputy's point fully.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary has met our point.
It preserves the discretion of the Land Commission, as I made it clear to the Deputy that I must insist on maintaining that discretion.
Amendment agreed to.
New section to be inserted.
Amendments 17 and 18 not moved.
I move amendment 19:
In page 12, line 52, Section 24 (3), to delete all words after the word "Commissioner" to the end of the sub-section.
There are a few points which I should like to get information upon. The first is, what exactly are these holdings on untenanted land? What is the difference between holdings on untenanted land and the ordinary Congested Districts Board holdings? Secondly, what exactly would the amendment of these lists of holdings cover? I presume it would cover the exclusion or inclusion of holdings in the list.
Yes, or probably the resumption or retention of a holding.
As to the holdings on untenanted land, what is the distinction there?
The distinction is very slight. Probably it is not necessary to include untenanted land in that sub-section, but it is conceivable that cases may arise where it may be necessary for the Land Commission for the purpose of carrying out a scheme of re-arrangement to resume holdings on untenanted land.
As the resumption question arises here, is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that an appeal is necessary?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 20 not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
In page 12, line 56, Section 24 (3), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court."— (Mr. Roddy.)
Amendment 22 not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
In page 14, line 26, Section 27 (3), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court."—(Mr. Roddy.)
I move amendment 24:
In page 14, line 55, Section 29 (1), before the word "Where" to insert the words "Without prejudice to the powers in that behalf heretofore exercisable by the High Court and the Circuit Court the following provision shall apply, viz:—".
This is merely a matter of preserving the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts which I understand have exercised jurisdiction in this matter up to the present. The Parliamentary Secretary on the last stage, I understood, did not favour this amendment. I have simply put it down to elicit information as to how the matter stands.
I explained on the Committee Stage that this amendment is not really necessary. The jurisdiction of the existing courts is preserved in the Bill and the power of the existing courts to supply relief in such cases as this when an application is made is still preserved completely. I am satisfied about that and I have examined it very closely since the Committee Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 25:
In page 15, Section 29, before sub-section (7), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"There shall be a right of appeal to the Supreme Court from any order made by the Judicial Commissioner under this section."
There is such an appeal and the amendment is really unnecessary.
Where is the appeal on questions of law generally?
There is an appeal under the existing law which this section does not take away.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 26:
In page 16, line 43, Section 33 (1) (a), after the word "may" to insert the words "after publication by advertisement or otherwise of such notice as the Court shall consider sufficient."
This is the official draft of amendment 27 which I accepted on the Committee Stage, and I think it carries out the Deputy's intention effectively.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment 27:
In page 17, lines 41-42, Section 33 (4), to delete the words "out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas" and substitute the words "out of the special reserve fund provided under Section 20 (4) (d) hereof."
The section deals with the payment of compensation to claimants who subsequently appear to prove their title. Under sub-section (4) of this section the State is made responsible for providing the money. I think there are no very good grounds for doing that, when you have a guarantee deposit already as part of this Bill. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the amendment. I think the total amount involved is not very large, but whether it be large or small, I think there is no sound reason for making it a State charge. The State has sufficient to attend to, I think, in financing land purchase generally as it stands without having to finance new and additional charges such as this is.
I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment. I do not consider it necessary. It is most unlikely that any claim will ever arise under this particular section. As I explained on Committee Stage, the Land Commission for the last twenty or thirty years has always acted as if this section were operative, and no claim was ever made against the Land Commission in respect of moneys paid out under this section. It is almost inconceivable that any claims will be made against the Land Commission in future. This section was discussed very fully with the Department of Finance when it was being drafted, and they were satisfied, in view of past experience, that it was not necessary to safeguard the interests of the State in this particular way.
I take it there will be considerable expedition in the distribution of the purchase money when the Bill becomes law.
The Bill is designed for that purpose.
There would be great expedition in this matter, and would not the Parliamentary Secretary think it right that the State should be safeguarded? If legal matters are so complicated, when you deal with them in a very rapid and expeditious fashion as is now proposed, would there not be danger of doing the wrong thing and making yourself liable? Surely there is a good case for the Land Commission taking steps to insure itself against risks as it was very well put here when this matter was referred to before. I do not see any reason, even if the practice was as the Parliamentary Secretary says it was in the past, why it should not have been changed now when there will be a great increase in the distribution of the purchase money, and when I take it millions of pounds will be paid out.
It is quite true, as Deputy Derrig said, that this section will undoubtedly expedite the investigation of titles, but the Deputy must realise that in this matter the Land Commission will be dealing with exactly the same style of cases as there have been for many years past. This section will only apply to a very small type of owner and to tenants on resumed holdings, and, as I explained already, if the Land Commission had to make a very close and rigid investigation of title it would mean a very big claim on the cost funds. I think an estimate was made already, and I think I gave the figures on the Second Reading showing that if a very close and rigid investigation of title was to be made in all cases it would mean a loss of some thousands of pounds to the State. As I say, there is very little risk involved in this particular section. I am quite satisfied about that. After 30 years' experience not a single claim has ever been made against the Land Commission. In the future the Land Commission will be dealing with the same class of cases, and it is almost inconceivable that any claim of this kind will arise. At any rate, 2 per cent. is ridiculous; less than one-fourth per cent. would be quite sufficient.
The Parliamentary Secretary refuses to grant compensation in every case. He is now not going to grant compensation. Whether the amount is great or small, the possibility is there that things will not turn out quite so well as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested. When these huge sums of money are being paid out even a few mistakes may involve the State in the payment of a considerable sum for compensation. I do not at all agree to the principle that we should pay compensation in these particular matters if we are not prepared to pay it in every case.
Even though the distribution of the purchase money will be considerably expedited in these cases, it does not mean at all that the titles are to be read in a careless fashion. The same meticulous care will be exercised as in former cases. If in fact the Examiners feel that in any case claims are likely to be made against the purchase money being paid in the future, they can always apply to the Judicial Commissioners to withhold the sum in order to meet such claim. I do not want to have a waste of time. The whole object of this Bill is to expedite and hasten the work of the Land Commission. If the Land Commission is to administer a fund which is never likely to be called upon at any time to meet such claims as that provided by this particular amendment it would mean certainly a waste of time and it would mean that certain members of the staff would be engaged on this particular work unnecessarily.
The Parliamentary Secretary attacked the figure of 2 per cent. I am sure Deputy Derrig does not want to reserve a greater sum than is necessary. If the Parliamentary Secretary would say a ½ per cent. would cover the cases, then will he accept a ½ per cent. and keep that amount back from the landlords, and use it as an insurance fund to cover any payments that may be made when he is making other payments for the landlords? I think it would not be unfair to ask the landlords to put up an insurance fund of one-half per cent. or even the full figure of two per cent. They are getting out of this thing very well and much better than many of them expected.
They are getting nothing except what they are entitled to get.
They are entitled to what the people of this country can afford to give them. That is all. There were quotations given here from the British official records in the course of which numbers of people over there, who are not any friends of the Irish people, said that the landlords are getting out of the Irish land situation here much better than they ever expected. Certainly everybody knows that investment in land is not a very good thing. These landlords are going to get their bonds which are already convertible. They are getting them at a time when bonds of that description are at a premium. They are, I think, getting very well out of it. If it were necessary to withhold one-half per cent. in order to ensure that they would get their money quickly I think they would jump at the opportunity they would have been given of getting their bonds at once. We do not want vesting held up for any very close scrutiny of the titles if the landlords would have to pay for the mistake. Naturally if the people here have to pay, or if there is any likelihood of the people having to pay the landlord twice, we would like a careful scrutiny. We want the work speeded up and I think Deputy Derrig's suggestion is the best one. It is bad enough having to pay these boys once without having to pay them twice. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should accept Deputy Derrig's amendment. If he thinks the whole figure of two per cent. not necessary, let him accept the lesser figure of one-half or whatever figure he might think necessary.
I am not quite clear at all as to the Parliamentary Secretary's argument that this amendment would in some way involve an increase of staff. Surely to goodness the same staff substantially would be necessary to deal with the matter of compensation from whatever source compensation may be provided. I am not clear as to his argument or that it affects the question of title at all. I presume in spite of the new facilities that are given for dealing with the question, that the examiners of title will go into the question of titles as fully as they can. Machinery is there for going into the question of title and the question of where the compensation is to come from is not directly affected by the question of the examination of the title. The examination of title is going on at present. It is specially provided for. We have a special staff to deal with it and I presume that will continue.
As to the amount that would be necessary to provide the assurance, if the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that the total amount involved is going to be so small, then if that is so it is one of the very best arguments in favour of this amendment when he says that a half or a quarter of the two per cent. would be sufficient. Since he has set up a guarantee deposit, I think that is a sufficient margin. I think when that was being passed the Parliamentary Secretary said that the amount provided was four or five times or more than what would be required. There was a very handsome margin, and there will be more than sufficient surplus funds to provide for any compensation that may be necessary. What is the objection to agreeing to that small percentage to cover it? The danger is that the Parliamentary Secretary's forecast may not work out, and there may be difficulties otherwise.
I think it is up to the representatives of the people here to see that nobody is going to get away with compensation at the expense of the State, and that any difficulties that may subsequently arise will be provided for, and will be provided for by the people who are going to get the money. If these people are going to get away with their purchase money far more quickly than would be otherwise the case, the Parliamentary Secretary has stressed that. I submit that these people ought to be willing, as the guarantee deposit is more than sufficient to do the work, to add a small percentage to cover this provision for compensation.
How does the Deputy propose to deal with this fund inasmuch as there is a percentage taken from every estate and that that is a separate fund?
A common fund.
What is the objection to that?
A common fund! The suggestion is that the estates should leave a certain percentage in a common fund. It is a joke to make such a suggestion. If there happens to be a flaw in Deputy Aiken's title, and if the rest of the cases of the Deputies here are right, why should they pay for the flaw in his title?
Why should the State do it?
Why should the individual do it? Why should people who have no responsibilities at all in the matter do it?
They are getting liquid assets.
I do not see how you can reconcile it.
It does not really matter whether it is a common pool or not, whether it is that Deputy Aiken's percentage for insurance is going to be added in with the others to form a common pool or whether it is going to be a single item. The question is entirely a frivolous one. It does not matter whether it is a common pool or not so long as a definite percentage is appropriated on each particular estate, according to the distribution of the purchase money. It does not matter whether it is a common pool or not. It is a matter of machinery as long as the principle is admitted. Is the State or Deputy Aiken, for example, going to pay — that is the question. Deputy Gorey is one of those people who talk a great deal about financial matters and compensation generally. I am rather astonished to find on this matter that though he voted down the principle of compensation in another part of the Bill, which I imagine appealed more to his heart and to the interests of his constituents, he is now anxious to save those people at the expense of the State.
No, I am not.
I would not rise at all only for Deputy Gorey's objection being frivolous. It is only an attempt to draw a red herring across the trail. Are these people going to provide this re-insurance for subsequent claimants? They are the people who will get away with the money, and surely they ought to be made responsible for any claims that may subsequently arise.
I cannot see the frivolity of it at all. The State comes along to these people and say "you must sell your property." They introduce a compulsory measure here forcing the landlords to sell, forcing people to dispose of their property. These people have no free will in the matter at all. The State is riding the horse in every instance and the State must bear the responsibility such as it is. If the State make any mistake through the machinery they set up to investigate title they must put up with the consequence. I have no brief for these other people at all. I do not think the attitude taken up by Deputy Derrig could be argued, and unless I am extremely dense I cannot see the point.
Deputy Gorey has become very solicitous of the landlords.
I am not a bit. I do not care two pence if you give them nothing.
Is Deputy Gorey not aware that if this section is passed it will set up a new horde of landlords all over the country? You will have claims for the next thirty years against the State, in order to compensate somebody who does not perhaps exist at the moment at all. Deputy Derrig's amendment will safeguard the interest of the State and that is what it is meant for. There is no reason why the owners should not create a pool.
A common pool?
Yes. Some of them may suffer. The Parliamentary Secretary said that a half per cent would make a sufficient pool to cover all the claims. If what the Parliamentary Secretary has stated is true, there is no reason at all for this section. He told us that there have been no such claims made in the past. Why does he think there will be claims made in the future? Is it because he is giving a right here to make claims or an inducement to do so, that the State has such a lot of surplus funds at its disposal that it will come along and give with a fifteen years' purchase some further years? There is no doubt about that. There is absolutely no reason in the world for this section.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
If Deputy Allen considers that the amendment proposed will have the effect of forming, as it were, an insurance fund against these claims, I am afraid he is somewhat mistaken, because the effect of Section 20 in the Bill is simply to provide a guarantee deposit in respect of each distinct and separate estate which is being sold and that guarantee deposit is to answer claims in respect of estates generally throughout the country and in respect of claims arising out of the sale of a particular estate. The three amendments that have been introduced by Deputy Derrig, namely, amendments 17, 27 and 28, have not the effect that it is thought they should have, the effect of making the guarantee deposit which was set up under Section 20 of the Act, as it were, a common insurance fund. If these amendments were carried they simply provide this. Out of each particular estate any claim arising by reason of defect in title would be met out of the guarantee deposit. The idea of Section 20, as it would appear to me, would be to provide for what might be called ordinary claims in respect of the estate. That is the idea of the guarantee deposit. Claims arising out of defective title will be very few and far between, and I think the provision which is already made in Section 33, sub-section (5), of the Bill, namely, that the State can recover these moneys from the person who has wrongfully obtained them, adequately meets the case.
Will the Deputy state in what way the State can recover these moneys? The person from whom it is proposed to get them may be outside the jurisdiction of the State.
They are recoverable here.
How will they be recoverable if they are outside the jurisdiction of the State?
A case can be made, if it is money obtained in mistake of fact.
Outside the jurisdiction?
Representation would have been made here.
As regards Deputy Finlay's statement, it seems to me that he has replied to Deputy Gorey rather than to me. Deputy Gorey wanted to know what was the position as regards the common pool. I suggested it was a matter that did not arise at all. As Deputy Finlay pointed out, if we wanted to have a common pool we would have to make the guarantee deposit applicable to all estates. We have to take the guarantee deposit as it affects each particular estate. Therefore, my amendment as it stands affects each particular estate, and if the Government Party, at the instigation of Deputy Gorey, wish to move in the matter, I am sure they can get the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce the matter of a common pool. At present the provision to which Deputy Gorey has agreed is a guarantee deposit of 10 per cent. from each particular estate. We say, under this amendment, that from that ten per cent. should come — and there is sufficient finance to enable it — further provision for compensation under Section 33. I do not see where Deputy Gorey's point arises. I think the House should be grateful to Deputy Finlay for having explained to Deputy Gorey, who does not take nicely to lectures from lawyers, this matter. I hope in future, before Deputy Gorey comes out with his legal statements, that he will consult somebody like Deputy Finlay. I do not pretend to be a legal luminary.
I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what are his objections to accepting such amendments as Deputy Derrig proposes. Deputy Derrig proposes that a fund should be set up out of the moneys payable to the landlord to meet contingencies which it is natural to expect will arise as a result of the increased facilities that are now being prepared for vesting the land. If this Land Bill means anything it means that the Land Commission will speed up the work of vesting. It means that the vesting will have to reach its final stage earlier than heretofore, and that the period of supervision which heretofore, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, safeguarded the State, is to be removed. The removal of that period of investigation naturally removes a certain safeguard that the State has had and that saved the taxpayer up to the present. In any new departure it is merely the interest of the State to safeguard itself.
What is the objection to taking the ordinary safeguards that any business man will ask for, if he is taking a new departure in his business? A new departure must mean additional risk. The reason in this case is due to the fact that the period of examination that heretofore has been the rule will in the future be very much curtailed. Deputy Gorey asked what is the object, and stated that there was a guarantee fund already in existence; that that guarantee fund is supposed to cover all the responsibility involved in the transfer of land, and that the State is the driving force all the time. The State is compelling him to sell the land, and it is the responsible party all through the transaction, but in this case the State is not the responsible party to this extent. The Land Bill of 1923 is merely a continuation of earlier Land Acts for which this State was not responsible. Deputy Gorey wishes to put it to the landlord interests in this country, that if they are prepared to have the Land Act of 1923 withdrawn, they could take up the position they were in prior to the 1923 Act. They would not. The Land Act is of greater importance, and for the last four or five years of greater value, to the landlord than it is to the tenant. Under these circumstances it is only rational that the State should safeguard itself. I have listened to no arguments put up from any side as to justification for asking the landlord to take responsibility for the new conditions now about to arise; that has always been demanded from the tenant. The tenants, in order to get a loan from the State or various Governments, have had to go as guarantors for each other. This is asking nothing more than the tenants had to submit to in the previous Land Acts. I fail to see how these people could reasonably complain of being asked to give reasonable guarantees to the State, and that once their interest is being bought out by the State the State should not be asked to meet the second claim. Those are the rudiments of any ordinary business transaction. The Parliamentary Secretary may have taken up a certain attitude on this matter, but I am sure that the President and the other responsible members of the Government Party will see the case put forward in the amendment is a reasonable one.
If there is no demand at the end of a specified number of years there is no reason why that fund cannot then be distributed back to the landlord. I do not know from Deputy Derrig's amendment that it is to be confiscated by the State. This is only asking that such a credit be left and made available in the event of something occurring so that that mistake will not become a burden on the taxpayers of this country to the extent that they will have to pay a second time for property for which in their judgment they have paid enough.
Do not the terms of the Act provide a ten per cent. guarantee fund? Does the Act say that it would be more than 20 or 30 years? The arguments in favour of this amendment were based on the assumption that there was going to be a common fund. That was Deputy Aiken's and Deputy Allen's contention and when Deputy Derrig spoke that was his contention. The terms of the Act provide that there was to be a common fund.
What is the necessity for this section?
There is no necessity for this amendment.
What is the necessity for this section?
In case they make some mistake in 100 or 200 years time.
Deputy Finlay appears to hold very strongly that under the law generally the State could follow the persons who would have obtained the money under a mistake and recover it on behalf of subsequent claimants. If that be so the whole section is of no value at all and the only regret we have is that Deputy Finlay did not make that speech when the section was voted on. Again he appears to disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary, because the Parliamentary Secretary said one quarter per cent. would be sufficient for the reserve, and the conclusion one could draw from that was that the Parliamentary Secretary was of the opinion that it would be a common fund. We have a difference of view upon the matter. In any case, I think Deputy Finlay has made a case for this particular amendment, because in the first instance you are going to save the State at least two per cent. on the estate against loss. Then again, it may be able to get a portion of what is due to the ordinary channels of law and it will have this reserve fund as some kind of security. Our amendment is somewhat similar; many of the the members of the House assumed that at first and for that reason it is one which should be passed and accepted because it establishes a principle and to some extent protects the ordinary taxpayer.
Deputy Gorey was successful the other day in getting the Parliamentary Secretary to accept an amendment of ours when we failed. Undoubtedly people like Deputy Gorey have a great influence on the Government, who after all are hanging on by a narrow majority. If Deputy Gorey and a few others put their heels on the ground and say, "We are not going to support the Government unless the Government do something for the people we represent, they would have to give in. I think Deputy Gorey and the other farmers here will have to admit that farmers throughout the country have to go guarantors for each other that the land annuities will be paid up.
You are arguing on the common fund basis. The Act does not provide for that at all.
If Deputy Gorey stands for the common fund and we stand for the common fund, then we can get on.
This does not provide for it.
Whether it does or not, we want agreement that there should be a common fund.
The Act provides that.
Where is it?
What is a guarantee fund at all?
If the Act provides for a common fund out of which second payments can be made to the same family for the same land, why should this section be in the Act which guarantees that the State is going to pay if there is a common fund there, withheld from the landlord?
Two per cent. goes nowhere to meet claims.
Two per cent. is to be withheld to form a special reserve to be placed to the credit of a separate account and meet compensation under Section 33. Anyway the idea of a common fund is not a new idea. Take the mutual insurances of co-operative societies. They pay a certain small percentage. If no fires occur either the premiums are reduced or the profits are distributed. I think the idea that the landlord should pay this half of two per cent. in an insurance fund which, if it is not used to meet the claims of people who come along, will be distributed amongst the landlords is a very good one, and we should stand for it. It is not unfair to ask the landlords to do this, because everyone knows that landlords getting out with 15 years' purchase immediately are getting very good terms.
Any landlord in this or any other country would jump at the offer of 15 years' purchase even though there were two per cent. deducted to meet some other claim. If the two per cent. is withheld the landlord will get interest on his money. It is simply a deferred payment. If it is not called up he will get the interest and the full capital sum later on. There is not any reason in the world why it should not be done. I hope farmers in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party will put their heads together and see that the Government puts it into the Bill before it goes through finally.
I would like to say that the principle of the sub-section is that compensation shall be paid out of money provided by the Oireachtas while our amendment proposes that it shall be provided by a special reserve fund which is provided for in a further amendment. It is quite true that a reserve of 2 per cent. is perhaps small, but, in this particular case, as Deputy Aiken rightly stressed, the question we are looking for agreement upon is whether the State should be responsible for this compensation or not. If the principle was that the guarantee deposit should be made responsible I do not see why Deputy Gorey, if he insists on the principle of the common pool, should not be able to get it. As I read Section 20 the guarantee deposit applies to each particular estate. I do not see how Deputy Gorey argues that there is a common pool except in so far as the moneys are payable to the Land Commission. The section refers in several places to the appropriate deposit, to every guarantee deposit and so on. I do not see any reference to a common pool. If the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to accept the suggestion of Deputy Gorey we will, of course, be delighted.
As the matter stands the House has already provided a guarantee deposit but as I read the section it is with reference to each particular estate. We had to bear that in mind when framing the amendment. The principle we are now asking the verdict of the House upon is whether the State or the persons who will receive the purchase money are to be made responsible. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that if the experience of the past was to be taken as a criterion, a half per cent., or even less, would be sufficient. It is for that reason I say that the 10 per cent. already withheld ought to be sufficient to cover the small amount which, he alleges, will fall upon the guarantee deposit and upon the State, as the case may be, through the operation of this section. If the sum is small, and if the amount necessary to provide the safeguard is only a small percentage, I cannot see any reason why the House would not agree on the matter.
We have a definite amendment asking that the State shall not be made responsible. The only alternative is to make the guarantee deposit fund in some way responsible, and I suggest that Deputy Gorey instead of helping to bring about that state of affairs is really obstructing. He could urge the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the principle of the amendment, the principle being that the State shall not be made to suffer, and that the persons who are getting away with the purchase money should be the persons to provide compensation or the necessary reserves to meet it. Exactly how that would be done would depend on the amount that would be necessary. If we take ordinary circumstances into consideration and ordinary cases of insurance it is quite possible that 2 per cent. would not be enough. On the other hand if we are to take what the Parliamentary Secretary said as correct, then 2 per cent. would be more than enough. We are quite prepared to meet Deputies on the opposite benches in the matter of a common pool. What we are going to insist upon is that further charges shall not be made at the expense of the State in order to facilitate the distribution of the purchase money and the adjustment of subsequent claims.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that a half per cent. would be sufficient as an insurance fund, supposing it was a common pool to cover risks involved in paying vendors before he was certain their title was unimpeachable?
I repeat what I said on the previous stages of the Bill, that it is not necessary to stop any money at all in these particular cases. I stated that the Land Commission has been acting as if this section had been law for a number of years, and that no single claim had been made against the Land Commission in respect of moneys paid out in this way. The stopping of this percentage will really be hard on small vendors. It is not designed to benefit the landlords. It is designed to benefit small vendors, men from whom we are resuming holdings or acquiring purchased holdings. As I explained on more than one occasion, if we were to insist on a rigid examination of title it would mean a considerable loss of money to the State. These investigations have to be prosecuted very often outside this country, probably in America or Australia, and the cost of such investigation has to be borne by the State. The Land Commission has always acted as if this was the law. Not a single claim was made. They will act in the same way in the future, but they will deal with such cases more expeditiously. The same meticulous care will be taken to investigate title. There will be no difference in the procedure, and I am satisfied that it would be almost inconceivable that any case could arise where a claim will be made against the Land Commission. It will cost a certain amount of time on the part of certain members of the staff if the amendment is passed. In my opinion all that is unnecessary. I have gone into the matter and I am satisfied that it is unnecessary to establish any fund of this character. In view of past experience I am satisfied that it is almost inconceivable that any case would arise where a case would be made against the State.
The difficulty is that we are not satisfied that cases may not arise in which the State will have to pay, and I think it is only right that we should safeguard the interests of the community in that respect. If the amount sufficient to cover it is as small as the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested I would be in favour of a small percentage being put into the common pool. I think it would not be unfair at all.
By that the landlords would be getting their money more quickly, I take it. The whole procedure will be hastened up. To put a small sum like one-half per cent. aside from each particular estate to be used as an insurance fund would, I think, be just and fair. I do not take Deputy Gorey's view on that. I think that if the sum were considerable we might hesitate about it, but relatively it will not be much, so far as the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated. I think it is our duty in a matter of this kind to put a sum aside to meet possible demands on the estate. The dividends will be paid all the time, and, if the Parliamentary Secretary is right, all that will be done is that a small percentage will be held up which will eventually go to the landlord. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not right, the interests of the community will be safeguarded, and those who are facilitated in the sale will get the advantage.
Even if such a thing could be done at all, it should have been introduced in the Committee Stage, as it involves a new principle. In any event, the amendment does not achieve the purpose it has in view. It merely deals with the guarantee fund as at present created.
I agree.
It is a principle which was not in the Bill before, so what is the use of arguing about it?
Deputy Gorey wants to have it both ways. He is not satisfied with the amendment, because it does not include a principle which he says is preposterous, and should have been introduced on the Committee Stage.
I did not say that.
What is the Deputy looking for?
I am trying to dispel the apparent stupidity of the Opposition Front Bench.
Question —"That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill"— put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 38.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Murphy, James E.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Brodrick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Allen and G. Boland.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 28 is consequential, and is therefore not moved.
I move amendment No. 29 as follows:—
In page 17, Section 33 (6), to delete lines 57 and 58 and substitute the words "and paid to such agent at such time or times as the Judicial Commissioner shall direct."
This is a slight re-drafting amendment. I undertook on the Committee Stage to produce an amendment on these lines to make the point clear.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Perhaps in regard to amendment No. 30 the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what exactly is the position in regard to appeals under Section 33?
There would be a right of appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law under that particular section.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
I move amendment No. 32 as follows:—
In page 20, before Section 39, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where the tenant of a holding to which the Land Act, 1923, applies openly enjoys any grazing or turbary on the lands of his landlord and has so enjoyed such grazing or turbary without lawful interruption since a date prior to the passing of the said Act, the Land Commission may, on the application of such tenant and if it thinks proper so to do having regard to all the circumstances of the case, declare the enjoyment of such grazing or turbary (as the case may be) to be a right appurtenant to such holding subject to such (if any) conditions and limitations as the Land Commission shall think fit to impose and shall specify in such declaration.
(2) Where the enjoyment of grazing or turbary is declared by a declaration under this section to be a right appurtenant to a holding, such enjoyment shall be a right appurtenant to such holding accordingly, but subject to the conditions and limitations (if any) imposed by such declaration, and such right shall, if and when such holding is vested in a purchaser by a vesting order, continue to be so appurtenant to such holding, but subject as aforesaid.
(3) The Land Commission shall not make a declaration under this section save either with the consent of all parties concerned or after notice of the application for such declaration has been served in the prescribed manner on all parties concerned and all such parties have been afforded an opportunity of objecting to the making of such declaration.
(4) Every application for a declaration under this section and every objection duly made to the making of such declaration shall be considered and decided by the Land Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner, and there shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the decision of the other Land Commissioners on any such application or objection and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on such appeal shall be final, save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from the decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court."
The official amendment recognises turbary and grazing rights which have been openly exercised prior to the Act of 1923, and which have been continuously exercised ever since. I think that that was the point made by the Deputy on the last occasion. This amendment has been drafted to meet that particular type of grievance.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 21, line 27, to add the following provison at the end of Section 41:—
"Provided that in the resale of such holding the sums paid in compensation for disturbance or for the damage sustained by the tenant by reason of such resumption shall not be included in the price to be paid by the person or persons to whom same shall be sold."
A new section providing for compensation for disturbance or resumption of holdings was inserted on the Committee Stage of the Bill and this is an amendment to it. I think the trend of the discussion on the last occasion was that there was a case for payment of compensation. Our view was that the section as it now stands was too wide and that it should be limited. There are two other amendments which seek to limit it as well as this one. The one which I am now moving deals with the question of the price which the incoming tenant will have to pay. I think the greatest burden of objection to the new section, providing this compensation for disturbance on resumption, was that it would fix an increased charge upon the incoming tenant. I would like to know what is the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary in the matter. Is it intended simply that the compensation shall be paid by the State and not recovered from the tenant, or will it be fixed on the incoming tenant in the ordinary way?
Of course it was intended when the section was introduced on the Committee Stage that the Land Commission should have a discretion in a matter of this kind. It is quite conceivable that cases may arise where the Land Commission may consider it advisable to ask the tenants to pay back some portion of the compensation in the form of annuities. The point is that it must be left to the Land Commission to determine whether an annuity is economic or not. If the placing of any of this compensation on the tenant in the form of an annuity would render it uneconomic then the Land Commission would not place the compensation on the annuity but in all these cases, as I say, it is undoubtedly intended by the section that the Land Commission should be given discretion in the matter.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would elaborate a little further the explanation which he has been good enough to give the House. The object of the amendment now before the House is to prevent an incoming purchaser from being burdened, perhaps unduly burdened, by the addition to the ordinary price of the land of this compensation which the section will give the previous owner. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Secretary now states that the Land Commission propose to exercise a discretion and, if I understand him rightly, that where the parcel of land in the hands of the new purchaser can bear the special compensation in addition to the ordinary price, the new purchaser will have to bear it and it will be part of his standard annuity, but in other cases it will not. What is not quite clear, to some Deputies at all events, is the source from which the Parliamentary Secretary will obtain the money in the case where he does not put the burden on the new purchaser. Subject to correction by the Parliamentary Secretary, I think there is nothing in the Bill or in any resolution ancillary to the Bill, which provides a fund for the payment of this money. The Parliamentary Secretary, who of course is conversant with the whole land code, may be able to tell the House where the money will come from and under what authority the Land Commission will pay the difference in cases where they consider it may be uneconomic or inequitable to burden the new purchaser with the extra sum paid for compensation.
The Land Commission, of course, has already power to lose money on the re-sale of land resumed for the purpose of relieving congestion. They have been given power under Section 27 of the Land Act of 1927 to lose money if in their opinion it is necessary to re-sell land at a loss. As a matter of fact, that frequently happens when the Land Commission resume land and it is very necessary that they should have power to re-sell at a loss. Otherwise they would be forced to put uneconomic annuities on the holdings into which the farms are being divided. As I said in reply to Deputy Derrig, the Land Commission must be given a certain discretion in the administration of this particular section. It would be unfair to ask the State to bear a burden which the tenants themselves in all equity and justice should be asked to bear. It must be left to the discretion of the Land Commission to say whether the annuity which they propose placing on the holding is an economic one or not. Certainly, if the Land Commission felt that in order to recover the re-sale price of the land they would have to put an uneconomic annuity on the particular holdings into which the estate would be divided, they would use their discretion and see that the annuities were not uneconomic. But it is necessary that the Land Commission should be given a certain discretion in the administration of this section. I think the Deputy will agree that it would be unfair that the State should be asked to bear the burden which the annuitant in such a case should undoubtedly bear. As I say, we are re-selling land of that kind frequently and losing money on the re-sale of it, because if we endeavour to recover the full amount which we pay for an estate, it would mean creating a number of uneconomic holdings, which we are not prepared to do.
The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that where the annuity to be placed on the purchaser would be uneconomic, the Land Commission are prepared to lose money. It might be desirable to have some elucidation of what the phrase "uneconomic annuity" means. The annuity to be paid on the land if you put it on a competitive basis, might be quite economic. You might get plenty of persons who possess capital in money or in stock or farm implements prepared to pay the annuity on a parcel of land, and the annuity in a sense would be quite economic, because we must assume that the person going in has available the requisite capital to work the land. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that these parcels of land are usually allocated to people, sometimes called congests, sometimes landless men, sometimes evicted tenants, a class who do not possess a very great abundance of capital either in cash or kind.
A standard annuity equivalent to a full economic rent on them might be quite inequitable. I would ask the House at least to elicit from the Parliamentary Secretary a statement of policy to the effect that not merely will a congest or an evicted tenant be relieved of an uneconomic annuity, but that he will not be put there at an annuity which, having regard to his circumstances, would be inequitable or harsh. There is another matter which perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to state. He has stated that already the Land Commission have utilised money under Section 27 of the Act of 1927 for financing the purchase and re-sale of some of these parcels of land. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give in round figures an idea of the amount that has been expended each year since 1927? Would he give even roughly the difference between the cost of this land and the amount which has been placed on the tenant, so that the House might know to what extent, even on the existing basis of acquiring land, the State is being burdened? At least we draw the inference from what the Parliamentary Secretary states that even under existing legislation of acquiring the land without paying the special compensation, that burden has fallen on the State and we would like to know what that burden is. It might help Deputies in making up their minds as to the attitude they would adopt in regard to this amendment.
Might I ask a further question—whether in the ordinary course there is a close relationship between the price paid for the land and the annuities fixed when that land is divided?
I cannot agree with the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary in this section. This land already carries an annuity payable to the Land Commission. In addition, the tenant's value of the holding is going to be added to that, and now it is proposed to add a third rent—the amount of compensation for disturbance. If I was not well aware of the effects of these manoeuvres on the part of the Land Commission I might not perhaps be so strict on this. I know however of a farm lately taken over by the Land Commission on these lines. In that case the tenant owed the bank £600, and he also owed a sum of money to the Land Commission. The Land Commission sold out the farm, which was bought in by the bank for £500. The annuity on the farm was £74 and the Land Commission are now demanding from the incoming tenant £120. How long do they think the incoming tenant will be able to pay that? There is a more serious position in regard to these farms than people think. There is the possibility of having them thrown back on the unfortunate ratepayers.
That is not dealt with in the amendment.
Yes, we are dealing with the question of who is to pay compensation for disturbance.
On resumption of holdings?
Yes. These are tenanted holdings taken over by the Land Commission. I am pointing out that if these tenanted holdings are taken over by the Land Commission and an uneconomic rent is placed upon them, they are going to prove a future burden on the ratepayers. There is no doubt about that, if the Government insist on paying these people not alone for the late tenant's interest in the holding, but in addition compensation for disturbance. I think the majority Party in this House who lay down that principle should also lay down the principle that this money should be provided by the State and not out of the pockets of the unfortunate tenants concerned, because there is very grave danger that these holdings will again become derelict and that the ratepayers will have to lose the rates on them, and in addition will have to bear the burden of the uneconomic annuities, because they will be stopped out of the agricultural grant. This is going to create a position which, to my mind, cannot be tolerated. If the Government insist on paying compensation for disturbance they should see that the burden is not going to make the holding an uneconomic holding for anyone who comes into it. I think the burden of the old annuity, plus the principal and interest paid for the tenants, is already too high a burden without adding a third burden by way of compensation for disturbance. The three of these coming together will make a burden that cannot be borne. I have given an instance where on one farm in my constituency the amount was raised from £74 to £120 per year. I think that is burden enough without paying compensation for disturbance. I should like something definite from the Parliamentary Secretary in reference to this. I hope the House is not going to create a new land trouble in the country, because that is what it would mean by throwing this burden of these derelict farms upon the ratepayers because of the attitude of the Land Commission in taking over these holdings at three times their value and throwing all that on top of the tenants. We do not want this third burden of compensation for disturbance thrown upon the tenants.
In reply to Deputy Geoghegan I could not, of course, at the moment give the figures showing the actual loss the Land Commission have sustained in the resale of believe I did circulate a statement recently to his colleague, Deputy Derrig, giving those figures. I am not, however, quite sure about that, and as Deputy Geoghegan is interested in this matter, I can easily get the figures and circulate them in due course. I am quite satisfied the Land Commission have sustained loss in many cases in reselling these lands. They must, of necessity have sustained loss in the resale of such lands to the tenants.
Deputy Moore asks does the annuity bear any reference to the purchase money. Of course it does. If we pay a certain price for the farm or estate we naturally try to get our money back in fixing a proportionate annuity on the holdings into which we divided the estate. Our primary consideration is the amount of money the estate is security for — that is the primary consideration of the Land Commission. Naturally the annuity is based on the degree of the security of the land.
The words "economic annuity" are strictly adhered to in the policy of the Land Commission.
The Land Commission of course take into consideration very many things, but their primary consideration is security of the land, the circumstances of the district where it is situated, whether it is possible for the tenant to make a living out of the land with the annuity fixed upon it. The Land Commission take into consideration many factors and, although probably the term economic or uneconomic annuity is not used in the language of the Land Commission, nevertheless the fixing of the annuity has a certain reference to the economic conditions prevailing in the district. Of course the interpretation of what is the annuity that will enable the tenant to make a livelihood out of the land is entirely for the Land Commission, and it is a matter that the Land Commission determines in accordance with the circumstances of each particular estate or the circumstances of the particular townland into which the estate acquired is divided.
I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary could accept this amendment. All the amendment seeks to establish is that it shall not be the principle of the Land Commission to get from the incoming tenant the sum paid for compensation for disturbance, or for damage sustained by the tenant by reason of such resumption, but that the ordinary criteria that the Parliamentary Secretary has just described shall still prevail and that the land shall not be unnecessarily increased in price because of this new provision.
The amendment would do away with the discretion of the Land Commission altogether. There are cases where compensation may be paid where it might be deemed reasonable and fair to ask the tenant to pay back portion of it. It would be unfair to ask the State to bear such a burden when the tenant, in all fairness and justice, should pay. If this amendment were accepted it would deprive the Land Commission of this discretion.
I do not accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says. If the Land Commission have not necessarily been bound to the purchase price in fixing the annuities to be paid there is no reason why they would necessarily be bound to adhere to the price in the future. I suggest, since it is not a very tight arrangement at present and that the Land Commission have a certain amount of discretion, they should accept this principle. The amendment is only a principle.
As I pointed out, this amendment would deprive the Land Commission of this discretion altogether.
No, I do not think so.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the statement he has made. The amendment now proposed would undoubtedly prevent the Land Commission placing the special compensation given by the new section on the incoming purchaser in any circumstances. That, of course, is perfectly clear, but it does not interfere with the existing discretion of the Land Commission as to the amount that they will place on the incoming purchasing tenant in respect of the purchase money for special compensation. This amendment is relevant only to the sums to be fixed in respect of compensation for disturbance or damage sustained by the tenant. It does not seek to detract from the existing discretion of the Land Commission as to whether or not they will put the ordinary price on the tenant.
I am afraid the Deputy is not quite serious.
Perhaps not, but I would change from a state of levity to a state of gravity if the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate the word or words in this amendment which interfere with the discretion of the Land Commission as regards the ordinary purchase money. The amendment does not refer at all to the ordinary purchase money.
It says "shall not be included in the price."
"Shall not be included in the price to be paid by the person or persons to whom same shall be sold." That is, that the compensation for disturbance shall not be included. It does not say that the price paid for the land shall not be included.
Let us be clear at all events about what the amendment means — whatever the House may do with it. The only provision this makes is that the new, additional and extra compensation which the new section gives will not be placed upon the tenant; if in the exercise of their discretion the Land Commission care to place the entire purchase money of the land, apart from this sub-section, upon it, they are at liberty to do so, though that may be a very heavy burden indeed. I think it was to-day that my colleague, Deputy Derrig, received from the Parliamentary Secretary's Department a return of the holdings resumed by the Land Commission, and it would appear from that return that in the year 1930, in the non-congested counties, the Land Commission resumed twelve holdings at rents aggregating £1,198, and that the total purchase money paid to landlord and tenant was £30,858. As I calculate it, that is something like 26 years' purchase. There is nothing in this amendment now before the House to prevent the Parliamentary Secretary putting that 26 years' purchase on the tenant if he likes, but it will prevent adding on to this 26 years' purchase this new and special compensation for disturbance which the new section gives.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to Deputy Geoghegan, stated that the Land Commission had regard to what was an economic price and to various interests involved. If they have regard to what is an economic price we will assume that the price that the tenant has paid originally to the landlord is, first of all, about the most economic price you have in existence. The Parliamentary Secretary is very well aware that quite a number of tenants who purchased under the original Land Acts have fallen into arrears of annuities and that these people have now become a burden upon the rates of their counties. If that is so on account of the present economic conditions will not the position of the incoming tenants in the land to be acquired in the future be much worse in that respect when you have, in addition to the original rents between landlord and tenant, added the other extras referred to in this section of the Bill because of the cost and inconvenience of removal and compensation to the outgoing tenant?
I would like to know again what the Parliamentary Secretary really means when he says an economic price. An economic price is not a price that can be borne by a farm bearing the existing rent between landlord and tenant plus other extras referred to. In fixing what he regards as the economic price, has he taken into consideration that he has more security behind him than is really contained in the actual value of the land? He has the security that was referred to earlier this evening, the security of the tenants within the county for the payment of the annuity he places on the farmer. His proposal is nothing more than shelving the question of tackling this land problem. He has the experience of years behind him to show that the lowest price originally fixed on the land has become an uneconomic price, as is proved by the fact that a number of tenants are unable to meet their liabilities each year. Consequently these tenants become a burden on the rates of the county. With that experience behind him he attempts to solve this problem of settling the land question, vesting these people, finding land for the landless men and for uneconomic holders and other people by passing through this House a Bill which he knows is not workable. That will undoubtedly result in placing upon the ratepayers in each county an unbearable burden. The action of the Parliamentary Secretary will result in creating a new sort of landlord and a new problem.
Is the Deputy discussing the amendment?
I was wondering what the Deputy was discussing. He is a long way from the amendment.
I understand the amendment is an amendment by Deputy Derrig, which reads:—
In page 21, line 27, to add the following proviso at the end of Section 41:—
Provided that in the resale of such holding the sums paid in compensation for disturbance or for the damage sustained by the tenant by reason of such resumption shall not be included in the price to be paid by the person or persons to whom same shall be sold.
I was endeavouring to set out that some provision should be made according to the terms of that amendment to ensure that such would not be the case and I was endeavouring to prove that the past experience in the purchase of land had proved to us that it was necessary that the terms of such an amendment should be complied with. If the Parliamentary Secretary continues in this attitude and insists upon passing through the House this Bill regardless of consequences, which must be clearly obvious to him, or to any other person who has taken any interest whatever in the working of the Land Act through the country — if he puts through this Bill he is simply endeavouring to camouflage it to the country. The Parliamentary Secretary may tell the people that he is redressing the position in the country, providing evicted tenants with farms, and so on. In doing that he is only pandering to their immediate wants and pandering to the patronage of these people. He is building up what will ultimately become a state of things that will be unbearable. This amendment is quite honest. It realises the situation. Let us face the situation in its reality and provide such things as are necessary to make this an economic proposition and not try to camouflage it before the country by saying that we are passing this legislation and we are prepared to do so and so. If we build under such a set of conditions, if this land is divided in this way amongst the tenants these tenants will become a burden on the State and the State will be in an awkward way. I submit that is not meeting the situation honestly. I have given the Parliamentary Secretary instances of what is happening in the County Leitrim, where he gave land to tenants. On behalf of these people I have gone to the Parliamentary Secretary and asked him to take back this land from them. In view of that, to go on passing new legislation on the same lines is not honest towards the House and towards the country. I am sure there are Deputies in other benches with experience similar to mine. Let these Deputies be honest now and say "We are not now prepared to meet this problem in this Bill." If we are to meet it in an honest way we must make provision for it in this Bill, even though it may be unpalatable to those concerned.
I want to bring before the House a special case. This is a case where compensation for disturbance did not come in. We do not know how much compensation for disturbance the bank would have been allowed in this case. This is a case of which the Parliamentary Secretary probably has a knowledge. It came before him a few times already. The farm was known as the National Bank Farm, at Killeagh, and the tenant was Mr. Timothy Cronin.
Is it a holding resumed by the Land Commission?
Yes. This is a farm that was sold up and bought in by the National Bank for £500 and resumed by the Land Commission from the National Bank recently. The ratepayers of County Cork were very glad that they had a fairly good stake in the National Bank for their rates. The rent of this farm was £74 a year. The Parliamentary Secretary or the Land Commission have increased it to £120, an increase of £46 a year. I wonder, under the new clause for the assistance of banks and others similarly situated, how much compensation the Parliamentary Secretary and those associated with him would be inclined to give to the bank by way of compensation for disturbance. You can easily imagine the position of a farm where the former tenant was unable to pay £74 a year rent and the new tenant will be expected to pay £120 and, under the new clause in this famous Land Bill, probably £140. You can imagine the position that the ratepayers of the County Cork will be placed in in a very few years in connection with that farm. The farm will become derelict again in a few years— and the burden of the rates will come on the local ratepayers, while the unpaid annuities will be stopped out of the Agricultural Grant.
I do not know whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary or those who are his advisers consider that they are doing good work in carrying on that. I think that the double burden that the new tenant will have to carry will be sufficient without giving the Land Commission discretionary powers to add another 40 or 50 per cent. in the shape of compensation for disturbance. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary will go around the country and say that they had reinstated so many tenants, that they had taken up so much land and put so many tenants on it. He will do it with the full knowledge, of course, that when he will no longer have responsibility for the Land Commission and when these farms become derelict again the new Executive Council will have to provide the difference between the actual value of these holdings and the amount which has been collected in loot by somebody or another with the connivance and assistance of the Land Commission. That is what it amounts to. I consider that a farm such as this, where the rent has been increased 60 per cent., is under a burden enough without adding compensation for disturbance. I consider that since the Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers insist on paying compensation for disturbance the State should bear the burden and not the unfortunate tenants.
It would be very interesting if we got the details of this particular case. Deputy Corry says the National Bank bought the interest of the tenant for £500 and that the farm was subject to an annuity of £74. Then it was not a resumed holding at all and has nothing to do with this Bill. The tenant got money out of the Bank or elsewhere to buy the farm. It is no uncommon thing that a holding with an annuity of £74 should bear a purchasing tenant's interest costing £500. That is added to the annuity. That is justice. There was no disturbance at all in this case. The National Bank does not claim compensation for disturbance. I do not know what Deputy Corry is talking about.
It would be rather difficult to explain it to a thick head like Deputy Gorey's.
If Deputy Corry cannot explain it without indulging in personalities he must sit down. Is this a resumed holding or is it not?
It has been resumed by the Land Commission. At present it is in possession of the Land Commission.
It is a holding subject to a Land Commission annuity.
The Land Commission are now endeavouring to pawn it off on somebody. The bank was lucky enough to be relieved of their burden by the Land Commission. It is a farm on which there was a debt due to the bank. The bank bought out the tenant's interest for £500. They held the farm for four years and paid the rates on the farm and, I presume, also the annuities. Now the Land Commission have stepped in and have purchased the tenant's interest in the farm from the bank. They have increased the rent from £74 to £120. If the former tenant was unable to pay £74, how is the new tenant going to pay £120? And if the farm was purchased from the bank under the new terms in all probability the Land Commission, which has been so generous, would also have paid the bank compensation for disturbance. There is no clause in this Bill to prevent them from paying compensation which would probably bring the rent up to £140 a year. Surely that is a nonsensical condition of affairs. Deputy Gorey perhaps will let us know if he understands the matter now.
As I understood the Parliamentary Secretary's statement a while ago, under the present practice £5,000 may be given for a farm purchased by the Land Commission. When re-settling that land the Parliamentary Secretary stated the Land Commission should be at liberty to arrange to get annuities payable for less or more than £5,000. £5,000 is the standard for them, but they are allowed a fairly wide margin, and in practice the margin may be fairly wide. That discretion will still remain if the present Bill goes through. The effect, therefore, of the present amendment would only be to establish a principle that the special compensation should not necessarily be included in the annuities that are to be fixed for the new tenants. From the circumstances it is obvious that the amendment will not be capable of strict detailed application, and I cannot see, therefore, why it is that the Parliamentary Secretary is so stubborn in regard to his resistance to the principle.
Deputy Geoghegan has called the attention of the House to the fact that the purchase price paid in non-congested district counties in the year 1930 for resumed holdings amounted to something like 25 or 26 years' purchase. I find that in 1930 the price paid for congested holdings amounted to about 50 years' purchase or more. If these holdings are to be made an economic proposition for the incoming tenants, obviously the annuity that has to be fixed, it the word "economic annuity" has any meaning at all, must be fixed at a lower level than these prices would indicate. In other words, if the Land Commission was re-selling land to-day, as members of this House know, all these re-sales would have to be carried out at a loss. They are not being carried out at a loss; otherwise the finance of land purchase would collapse. Therefore, some of the tenants, at any rate, who are coming in are paying an annuity representing this enormous purchase, twenty years in the case of non-congested counties, and fifty years in the case of Congested Districts Board estates, as Deputy Moore has stressed. If estates have already been sold at a loss, and if the Land Commission recognise it as a policy, they can only fix upon the incoming tenant a price which will be in accord with the security the land offers. Where is the contradiction between our amendment and the discretion which the Parliamentary Secretary claims? The Land Commission have full discretion to fix their price according to the ordinary compensation they are now paying. If they think that the tenant is not paying an annuity that will recoup them for full compensation on resumption they can re-sell it to him at a lower price. If, on the other hand, they think they should make him pay not alone for that, but for whatever improvements are carried out, they can increase it.
As Deputy Geoghegan has pointed out, there is nothing whatever in this amendment to prevent them from carrying out the same policy whether they fix an economic or uneconomic annuity on the incoming tenant, and they will do the same thing in the future. What the amendment seeks to do is to provide that this extra compensation for disturbance or damage will not be definitely placed on the incoming tenant. The proposition is that the State should step in and provide the difference. What is the objection? Is it contended that these people, coming in on the land, are getting it at such an economic price and that conditions in the farming industry are so good that they can cheerfully accept a further burden? As Deputy Geoghegan has pointed out, most of these people coming in have not alone to pay this uneconomic annuity, but they have to stock their land and provide capital.
Is the House going to turn down this amendment and enforce a principle which means an extra burden in the shape of compensation which is going to be added? If so, I think they will be doing something that is very inequitable and that might be argued down the country as being a step in fact designed to interfere with the division of land, or the resumption of holdings, for the purpose of relieving congestion. What on earth is the use of talking about relieving congestion if in the long run the proposition is not going to be an economic one for the men who come in? The whole foundation of the resumption of land for the relief of congestion ought to have this end in view. Otherwise you could argue this as a step definitely taken to prevent, or to slow down the division of land, and the resumption of holdings. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can show that it is not going to be fixed on the incoming tenants it seems to be clear from the figures supplied by his Department that it will be absolutely uneconomic at present.
We are not seeking to interfere with their discretion at all. We want a declaration that this new compensation will not be added. In doing that we are stopping the Parliamentary Secretary from putting what might be alleged to be — and, I think, with some show of reason — a barrier in the way of relieving congestion. We are putting it up to the Parliamentary Secretary that if the Government is interested in relieving congestion they should come forward and say: "We are already losing a certain amount on the relief of congestion and we are prepared to bear the cost of compensation." If that is not the policy, to facilitate the relief of congestion, and to split up the land, the sooner they declare to the contrary the better for the country generally. At present, we take it the Parliamentary Secretary and his Party have it just as much at heart as we have, that this should be made an economic proposition for the incoming people. We are not doing an injustice to anyone by suggesting that the responsibility should not be placed on these people. As an alternative, the Parliamentary Secretary can come forward to bridge the gap. That is all that is necessary. If that is not done, I fear that a definitely uneconomic burden — uneconomic as it stands and far more so in present circumstances — will be placed on the incoming tenants. We framed the amendment to make it as reasonable as possible, and having regard to these circumstances I think the Parliamentary Secretary should accept it.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- White, John.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies Duggan and Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 34 as follows:—
In page 21, line 27, to add the following proviso and new sub-section at the end of Section 41:—
"Provided that this section shall not apply:—
(a) if the annual value of the holding exceeds £150, and
(b) unless the Land Commission declare that it is not desirable or practicable that the tenant of such holding should be provided with a new holding which in the opinion of the Land Commission other than the Judicial Commissioner (subject to the right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner whose decision shall be final) shall be equally suitable for the said tenant and of not less value than his said holding.
(2) If the annual value of a holding to be resumed exceeds £150 the tenant thereof may apply to the Land Commission to have part thereof of an apportioned annual value not exceeding £150 declared a holding for the purpose of sub-section (1) of this section but sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply to the remainder of the said holding."
This is an amendment to limit the operations of the section which gives compensation for disturbance and damage in respect of resumed holdings. The suggestion in the amendment is that this compensation for damage and disturbance shall not apply where the valuation of the holding exceeds £150, and also that unless the Land Commission declare that it is not desirable or practicable to provide the tenant whose holding is resumed with an equally suitable holding, and if the annual value of the holding is more than £150, the tenant should be given the benefit of compensation so far as the first £150 of valuation is concerned but not for the remainder. We think that this meets the case, and that it covers the cases of hardship of the smaller resumed holdings referred to by Deputy O'Connell and upon which great stress was laid by the Parliamentary Secretary on the Committee Stage. We think that the amendment covers those hard cases, where undoubtedly the tenant of the resumed holding cannot afford to meet the cost of disturbance and damage, where he is a fairly small farmer being under £150 valuation. Under the 1881 Land Act there was a limiting provision of £150 annual valuation laid down. We recognise that it is exceptionally difficult to make a limit as, obviously, you will have individual cases of hardship, but if there is to be any limit, we think that a limit of £150 valuation is fair, and that those below that should be entitled to this new compensation, while those above it, except for the first £150, should be excluded.
As has been frequently stated from these benches, the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party is, so far as possible, to create reasonably small economic holdings in areas where there are at present only ranches. The new section which has been introduced here by the Parliamentary Secretary is, I think it is conceded by him, calculated to increase the price paid for land. It is hardly necessary to stress that point, because the words of the new section make it abundantly clear that the standards hitherto adopted in assessing the price of retained and resumed holdings will in future be exceeded. Without going back on the ground covered in the debate on the last amendment, and without going again into this matter of bridging the gulf between the price paid and the price received from the new purchaser by the State, one might fairly say that there is some sort of limit to the amount of money which the general taxpayer in this country will put up for the purpose of settling the land question.
The Parliamentary Secretary states that even in the past it has been quite impossible to feed the dog with a bit of its own tail, that it has been impossible to finance the purchase of resumed holdings with the landlords' interest out of the price paid by the new purchaser. In future the drain on the public exchequer will be still greater when compensation for disturbance has to be added. For that reason we think that unless an amendment like this is adopted the acquisition of land will gradually stop, that the Land Commission will get tired of ladling out money for the purchase of those resumed holdings when they know that they cannot possibly get the money back from the incoming tenant. The Parliamentary Secretary quite fairly stated that on the very short notice that was given to him — indeed it was an impromptu application of mine to state what was the loss—he could not off-hand give in round figures the extent of the loss. He stated, however, that there has been a loss every year, and that the funds under the control of the Minister for Finance had to be resorted to to pay for the land.
I do not wonder that that is so, because, if I may again refer to the statement which Deputy Derrig received to-day from the Parliamentary Secretary under the heading "Returns of holdings resumed by the Land Commission during each of the three years 1928-29-30," I find that in the year 1930 in congested district counties the aggregate rent of the resumed holdings amounted to £538, and that the purchase money paid in respect of resumed holdings to the tenant and landlord amounted to £14,065. That would seem to me to be, in round figures, about 28 years' purchase — 28 years' purchase of a rent of £538, which is not necessarily a judicial rent — it may be a non-judicial rent — but even if you take it as a judicial rent you cannot possibly put 28 years' purchase on a new purchaser, an evicted tenant or a landless man. The ordinary tenant purchaser pays about 15 years' purchase under the Act of 1923, and thinks that he pays enough.
There must, therefore, be quite a large sum to be found by the Land Commission out of public funds, even under existing conditions, unless, as has been suggested from these benches, too great a burden is placed on the purchaser. I offer no personal opinion on that, because I have no knowledge of these purchasers, congests and so forth. I have not sufficient personal knowledge to assert that any of them have been unduly burdened, though it has been stated by those who know that some of them have. If you pay 28 years' purchase for land, and if you want to recoup yourself, either in whole or to a great extent, you must put a big burden on the purchaser, or else you must resort to public funds. We suggest to the House that the amount of public money that already has had to be spent on resumed holdings is quite sufficient deterrent to the Land Commission against acquiring a great deal of land.
The tendency of the Land Commission is to give the go-by to this matter of settling the congests and evicted tenants, because the more of these holdings they resume the more difficulty they find themselves in with the Minister for Finance, who, I am sure, is not too ready to give the consent necessary under the Act of 1927, and, consequently, there is bound to be a slowing down in regard to the resumption of holdings. If that is so under the prices paid, what will happen if this new section gets full play? Twenty-eight years' purchase, or, indeed, 50 years' purchase, as Deputy Derrig pointed out, has been paid according to these returns, and, if that is to be still further increased by adding this new compensation for disturbance and damage sustained by severance of the holding, surely the Land Commission, instead of retaining and resuming these large holdings, will vest them, will follow the line of least resistance and simply vest them in the large owners.
The amendment which we have framed tends to make it easier for the Land Commission to pursue what seems to be the policy of the Free State Government, to settle these congests and evicted tenants. It makes it easier for them to do it. It may be wondered why it is not more far-reaching, why it is that this amendment puts up a limit of £150. Well, I have said that the Government, and probably the Land Commission, would probably follow the line of least resistance. There is nothing unreasonable in that, and it is not unreasonable if we, from these benches, on an amendment of this sort, follow the line of least resistance. Deputy Gorey and other Deputies on previous occasions have pointed out that the 150 acre farm is a very valuable asset in this country, perhaps, I should say, not as valuable as the small economic holder, but certainly Deputy Gorey and some of his colleagues on the benches opposite have painted the portrait of the 150 acre farmer in a very attractive and artistic colouring. A valuation of £150 will in a rough and ready way go near the 150 acre farmer, that is, a farmer of 150 acres of good land. Probably Deputy Gorey will concede that, in the case of second-class land, it will enable the 200 acre farmer to receive this new and additional compensation. I feel, therefore, that we have made a strong case for the principle of the amendment. We are optimistic enough to hope that we have completely disarmed the opposition of the class of farmers represented by Deputy Gorey — the 150 acre farmers or the 200 acre farmers — that we have got rid of their chief spokesmen as opponents, that we will probably have the gratification of being accompanied by Deputy Gorey into the Division Lobby, and that the opposition to the amendment will be limited to Deputies such as Deputy Mathews, Deputies who represent the four hundred, five hundred and six hundred acre farmers.
A great deal, of course, can be said for the equity of giving even large farmers this additional compensation. But it is a sufficient answer to any equitable claim that is put forward by them to say that it is too late in the day now to go back on the policy that seems to have been more or less an agreed policy, that these large ranches of three and four hundred acres should be broken up and divided, and if the 150 acre farmer, who is part of the backbone of the country, gets this new and additional compensation, there should not be any active opposition to this amendment outside the ranks of three or four Deputies opposite who quite boldly and valiantly espouse the cause of the four hundred, five hundred and six hundred acre farmer. Outside them it is difficult to see how an effective word can be uttered against an amendment which I commend to the House as a very reasonable amendment.
Deputy Geoghegan's address was quite interesting. According to Deputy Geoghegan, the man who owns property in land over a valuation of £150 is to be put on a different plane to Deputy Geoghegan. His income out of his 150 acre farm may be £150 or may be £50, but he is asked to bear a burden which his fellow-citizen is not asked to bear. Deputy Geoghegan's income may be £2,000 or £3,000 out of his profession and yet he can go scot free. He has not to bear any of the brunt of the cost of settlement of the land.
I will sell my income for five years' purchase.
Perhaps he has something behind it and that he is not taking us into his confidence. What else is this amendment going to do? The argument is that over £150 valuation there is something immoral in property in land, that the citizen who holds land over £150 valuation is not to be treated on the same level as his fellow-citizens. That is what the amendment means. It has never been held that there was anything wrong or immoral in property in land, and we have to accept these things on that basis. The amendment says in effect that the citizen who holds property in land over a valuation of £150 is not entitled to the same rights under the Constitution as any other citizen. There can be no question that that is what it means. Why should property in land not have the same recognition by the State as property in a profession, property in investments, or property in business, such as Guinness's or Jacob's? That class are to be singled out to bear the cost of the land settlement instituted by the State, a cost that the fellow-citizens of such farmers have not to bear. Will Deputy Geoghegan tell me if I am wrong in that contention? Will anybody on the Opposition Benches tell me I am wrong in the contention that the man who owns property in land over a certain valuation is asked to bear a burden that citizens who own other property are not asked to bear?
We deny that.
What is the individual who may have an income of £40,000 or £50,000 to pay towards the settlement of this question? I know one individual citizen who has an income of £87,000 and he has not to bear any of the cost of the land settlement by the State. Why should the citizen who holds land over £150 valuation be asked to bear a cost that his fellow citizens are not asked to bear? Deputy Geoghegan would not think of swopping his position for that of a farmer with £150 valuation. This is an act of the State and the State ought to be generous in connection with it. The State should not ask individuals to bear the cost and then think that they are doing a fine generous thing. If the State wants to be generous to the under-dogs in this country who have no land or only a small amount of land, it should bear the cost and not be trying to take money out of somebody else's pocket. It was stated the other day that we spoke on behalf of those who owned grabbed land. There are a good many people owning land over £150 valuation which is not grabbed land. In my part of the country the grabber is unknown, he is not there now. The State is very wealthy compared with the individual. The State should be honest and decent about this and should bear the cost, and not ask the individual to bear part of the cost. The individual holding land should have no special rights more than anybody else, but he should have the rights that are guaranteed to him under the Constitution; he should not be asked to bear a burden that other citizens are not asked to bear. The people a little under that valuation and over it are the only people in the country districts who employ labour. They are to be found in my county and in other counties such as Wexford, Carlow and Cork. There are as many people living out of these farms, when you take into account the labour employed and the farmer and his family, as there are out of the farms which have been broken up and divided. There are as many individuals supported out of these farms as out of the broken up farms, and even more. There were several estates in my county broken up in the last seven or eight years and there is not a workman or woman but regrets the day that they were broken up. These people have nothing to do now. They are neither farmers nor labourers. Other people were put on these farms. These people were left with a cottage or perhaps with three or four acres of land and they are very sorry that the farms were broken up.
Deputy Gorey, to my mind, is a contradiction in terms. A short time ago a division was taken practically on this very question, that the State should bear the burden, and Deputy Gorey voted in favour of putting the burden on the individual when we endeavoured to prevent this third load being put on the unfortunate incoming tenant. There are two loads on him already, the old annuity, plus the tenant's interest, and when we endeavoured to take the third burden of the compensation for disturbance off his back, Deputy Gorey voted against it. Now he is complain ing because we are not prepared to see compensation for disturbance paid for farms to which this section gives a very wide scope. This section, which was introduced as an amendment by the Parliamentary Secretary, is entirely too wide. The principal portion of it that we are endeavouring to deal with is from line 24 on: "but also to the damage, if any, which will be sustained by the tenant by reason of the resumption of the lands as affecting his user of other lands, or otherwise causing injury to such other lands." The whole section, to my mind, seems to be framed for the large grazier with nine or ten farms whom the Land Commission would be endeavouring to deprive of some of his loot. We are more particular in regard to this amendment in view of the opposition we encountered from the Parliamentary Secretary to our last amendment, where we tried to put the burden of this extra compensation on the State, on gentlemen like Deputy Geoghegan. Deputy Gorey would not agree to that. He wants special treatment for the large grazier whose holding would be over £150 valuation. He does not care what happens to the unfortunate tenants between whom this land will be divided afterwards. These tenants can, to use Deputy Gorey's phrase, "stew in it." They will have to bear all this burden. If we were sure that it was to be borne by the State we would say it was good enough for the State that brought in this section without those safeguards to bear it. But the Parliamentary Secretary has made it very clear that the incoming tenants are to bear this extra compensation for disturbance, this third rent that is to be paid for these holdings. We are therefore most particular in seeing that this compensation is given in as few cases as possible.
We had an argument put up the last day both by Deputy Maguire and Deputy O'Connell about the smallholders in the congested areas whose farms had been taken for the purpose of dividing them up amongst congests. Those cases were made the basis of Deputy O'Connell's argument when he voted in favour of this section on the last day. He made it very clear, however that he was only concerned with those people. He was not concerned with the large farmers with over £150 valuation. These farmers would be very large farmers indeed in the congested areas. You would hardly find such a farmer there at all. I think we are providing fairly liberally for the people whose lands will be taken over — for the large landholders, at any rate, who have five or six farms. If we take one farm from them we are providing fairly liberally for them by giving them the tenant's interest in the holding, particularly as the Land Commission has magnified that in some cases to 50 years' purchase or, at the lowest, 28 years' purchase, as has been proved by the return which Deputy Derrig got from the Parliamentary Secretary. We are providing very liberally for them without being asked to provide for every person who managed to grab five or six farms and turned them all into one. I consider that this amendment, confining the compensation for disturbance to a valuation of £150 is a very fair one. I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to accept it unless the new section that he introduced into the Bill on Committee Stage is intended to provide a loophole for the Land Commission, or the Judicial Commissioner, in order to pay off every large landgrabber with more than he is entitled to. I see nothing else in it, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to accept this amendment. I think it is dealing very fairly with it. I am sure that you could not point out a dozen farms in the congested areas where the valuation is over £150.
Where is the provision that it is confined to the congested areas?
We are not trying to confine it to the congested areas. But we think that a man with a valuation of £150 is going to be well off if he gets the tenant's interest in the holding when it has been magnified by the Land Commission to twenty-eight and up to fifty years' purchase, which is far more than the land would sell for in the open market even in the boom time.
I have no great desire to intervene except to say that I think the arguments put forward in support of the amendment are very unfair. In my opinion this amendment is a wrong approach to the section. I would point out that at the very start of this section it is provided that you have to convince the court that the compensation should be payable. In my opinion in no way could this matter be better tried than in an open court. This section does not say that the compensation is payable to everybody or that it is to be thrust upon people. They have to convince the court that compensation ought to be paid. There is no danger whatever of people being over-generous to the man who is going to be shifted. A couple of cases have been mentioned where it is said that 28 years purchase has been paid. To whom was that paid? A lot of the resumed holdings belonged to two people, to the farmer who has his interest in it and to the landlord. If you take the aggregate of 28 years' purchase, it does not say that that goes into either of these persons' pockets. I had something to do with a case where there were 150 acres of land, and they did not get £7 an acre for it, and that was pretty far off from 28 years' purchase of the rent.
At this time of the day it is rather late to be talking of land grabbers and that sort of thing. I am convinced of one thing, and that is that it was only because of want of opportunity that there were not many more land grabbers. I speak with an open mind, and I say that I think this amendment would place a very unwise restriction upon the court in discharging its duties. Mention was made of a case of £150 valuation, but that does not mean that a person whose land is of £150 valuation is to be treated so liberally that he is not worthy of compensation. It may so happen that people may be so generously treated by the Land Commission that they will not need compensation. I believe the court, as set out in this section, is the proper place to decide whether compensation should be paid and the price that should be payable. Therefore, I could not, in justice to any person who would be disturbed and whose land would be resumed, place such a restriction upon that person.
I wonder if Deputy Haslett thinks an acreage basis should be taken in fixing this special compensation, and if he is satisfied that that may not be the basis adopted by the Land Commission? Would he be satisfied if it were adopted? Under Section 41 compensation of an indefinite amount can be allowed. No basis for the fixing of the compensation is provided, and it is quite possible the Land Commission might take that basis.
We all know how the compensation is arrived at.
There is nothing in the section to direct the Land Commission to take any particular basis in fixing the amount of compensation. I think it will be admitted compensation for disturbance should be much the same to a man with a 100 acres as to a man with 300 acres. The word "disturbance" taken in a comprehensive sense is much the same in both cases.
The circumstance would determine both.
This amendment would, at least, guard against the danger of giving very extensive compensation to persons for disturbance simply because they had a very big acreage of land. In that sense I think it would be a very useful safeguard. I think Deputy Haslett should reconsider his opinion with regard to this amendment. Deputy Gorey, so far as I can judge, did not take account at all of the 3rd clause of the amendment which is that "if the annual value of the holding to be resumed exceeds £150 the tenant thereof may apply to the Land Commission to have part thereof of an apportioned annual value not exceeding £150 declared the holding for the purpose of sub-section (1) of this section." He can get special compensation for such part of his holding as is embraced in the valuation of £150. With a view to that he can apply to the Land Commission to have part of a holding of an apportioned annual value not exceeding £150 declared a holding for the purpose of sub-section (1). The full effect of the amendment would be that there would be a limit to the compensation for disturbance, and that you would not have such an unfair basis as the total acreage of any farm taken over adopted as the basis of compensation. I suggest that both Deputy Gorey and Deputy Haslett should bear that in mind, that the amendment is a reasonable one, and that they have advanced no argument against it.
I cannot accept the amendment for the very good reason that it would hamper the work of the Land Commission entirely. I said when the section was being discussed on Committee Stage that the Land Commission, in order to carry out their operations, have to deal in resuming land with all classes of tenants. They have to deal with the small tenant farmer in the West for whom it is necessary to resume land to carry out a scheme of rearrangement, they have to deal with a man of fifty or sixty or seventy acres in the West or in the Midland counties, from whom it is necessary to resume land for the purpose of carrying out schemes of rearrangement.
They have also to deal with the large tenant of two, three or four hundred pounds valuation — there are very few of these, but we have to deal with them on occasions in order to make provision for the big farmers that we migrate from the West. I beg Deputies to bear in mind that in discussing this whole question there are different classes of people that you have to deal with from the very small man in the West, a man living in an area where there is a very large farm not subject to a Land Commission annuity. It may be untenanted land.
We will assume that it is subject to a Land Commission annuity if you like. In the neighbourhool you have very small holdings with valuations varying from 30/- to £4 or £5 and sometimes perhaps as much as £8 or £9. There is a big farmer in the midst of these congests. He may have 200 or 300 or 400 acres of land. In order to deal with that problem of congestion it is necessary to migrate him out of that area. You have to secure a farm for him in one of the eastern counties, say in Meath, Westmeath, Kildare or perhaps in the County Dublin. You may, as a matter of fact, have to deal with two or three farmers of that type because it may happen that the Land Commission has to migrate two or three of these from the West. Consequently, it may be necessary for the Land Commission to take over each of these holdings in order to make provision for congests. In such cases, it is very good policy and very sound economy for the Land Commission to acquire a farm of land with a valuation of £200 or £300 if such a farm is obtainable. If the Land Commission succeeds in purchasing such a farm, then we first of all make provision for the congests living in the neighbourhood of it, and, secondly, we provide holdings for the two or three big migrants we have taken out of the western counties.
That is the policy of the Land Commission, and I explained when the section was being discussed how that worked out. I said then that the Land Commission must be given the widest possible discretion in matters of that kind if it is to carry out its policy satisfactorily and completely. Hence it was necessary that the section should be framed in the widest possible way. The amendment proposed by Deputy Derrig is not to apply to a holding with a valuation exceeding £150, and the Land Commission is not prepared to give the tenant an equivalent holding. That would be the effect of the amendment. That would, of course, rule out large holdings. It would cut right across the policy of the Land Commission, interfering with their activities. It would be very bad policy for the Land Commission to adopt.
Deputies must also remember that the man with £150 valuation or the man with a valuation of £100 may be working his farm in a most up-to-date way, and it might be very bad policy, from the point of view of the State, to acquire that farm though it might be one of the farms that would be admirably suited for the purpose of the Land Commission in order to make provision for migrants. For various reasons it might not be possible for the Land Commission to touch a farm of that type at all. The amendment itself, to me, at all events, is rather vague. I understand perfectly well that it is proposed in clause (a) to limit the application of Section 41 to holdings of £150 valuation. In clause (b) it says:—
unless the Land Commission declare that it is not desirable or practicable that the tenant of such holding should be provided with a new holding which in the opinion of the Land Commission other than the Judicial Commissioner (subject to the right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner whose decision shall be final) shall be equally suitable for the said tenant and of not less value than his said holding.
The question, of course, of giving the tenant an equivalent holding does not arise unless the tenant is being migrated. Where the tenant is being migrated the question of the resumption price does not arise at all. Consequently, to my mind, that clause is meaningless. Deputy Moore wanted to know from Deputy Haslett if compensation was to be based on acreage, or how it was to be based. There are no fixed or definite standards. This will be a matter entirely for the Judicial Commissioner. The Judicial Commissioner will, of course, lay down his own standard and fix compensation according to his own standards. It will be quite useless for the Dáil to fix the price by an Act of the Oireachtas. I do not see how they could set a standard by means of which the Judicial Commissioner would determine what compensation would be paid in a particular case.
That is an extraordinary statement for the Parliamentary Secretary to make — that the Dáil should not attempt to lay down the standards upon which compensation should be paid out of State moneys. Well, I rather think the Parliamentary Secretary would not adhere to that.
The circumstances would vary in the case of every estate. They would vary very considerably, and it would be a matter for the Judicial Commissioner to decide, after taking into consideration all the facts and hearing the evidence, what compensation should be paid in a particular case, and what the value should be for disturbance.
The Parliamentary Secretary will admit that it would be reasonable that the Dáil would suggest that it is not acreage that would be the standard — that an acreage standard would not be taken in fixing the compensation. It would not be unreasonable for the Dáil to declare as a principle that an acreage standard should not be taken.
How would you work it out on that basis?
It is in the amendment we have proposed. In fact, our amendment means this: that compensation for disturbance should be the same in a farm of 300 acres as in the case of a farm of 100 acres. That is to say, that the disturbance compensation is not a thing which varies with the acreage of the farms taken over. That is really, in effect, the purpose of the amendment. I suggest that it is not unreasonable that the suggestion should be made to the Judicial Commissioner that he should, at least, not be guided by the acreage of the farm in question.
Might the Parliamentary Secretary not be induced to reconsider his point of view? It might occur to the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Gorey that they are approaching this amendment from a wrong angle. Deputy Gorey expressly stated that this amendment was calculated to take away the rights of people. The Parliamentary Secretary did not adopt that phraseology, but he has approached the consideration of this amendment as if it were depriving some persons of rights they had. Let me remind the House that it is quite the other way, as I think Deputy Gorey, on a moment's reflection, will realise. At the present moment all these holdings are subject to the statutory right of the Land Commission to resume them without paying this fancy compensation at all. That is the state of the law at the present time. Over every retained holding and holdings intended to be resumed there is at present, and there has been for years, a cloud hanging — that the Land Commission have the statutory right to put certain machinery in motion and to acquire these lands without paying their full value, without paying compensation for disturbance or paying anything for damage for severance. Therefore, what this House is now asked to do is to confer a new right on the owner of the land to get, in addition to the valuation of his land, compensation under two other heads. It is not unreasonable for any Deputy to urge that if such a new right is to be introduced here it should be limited to a certain class.
What class?
If public moneys are to be expended the Dáil here, as representing the taxpayer, should select the class of persons to whom this new and special compensation will be paid. If we are to draw any reasonable inference from the Parliamentary Secretary's speeches this compensation will be paid out of public moneys. A discrimination in favour of certain classes is nothing new. Certain classes of people are entitled to get outdoor relief by statute; others are not. Certain persons under the Increase of Rent Restrictions Act are entitled to have their rents reduced or kept at a certain figure if they are of a certain valuation. There is no need to occupy the time of the House in going into actual figures of valuation; it is within the knowledge of every Deputy. If you take the tenants of houses or the mortgagors, once you get the valuation down to £20 or £25 in certain places, they have special rights which the rest of the community have not got. We, of course, from these benches have stated that this is in some respects an undesirable section, but a case has been made which apparently has convinced this House that there is a certain hardship owing to taking land nearly at its value and that something more than its value should be given. We say "Very well; give that to farmers whose farms are not an abnormal size, and when you get an abnormal farmer do him no injustice; give it to him in respect of so much of his holding as he may care to select, not exceeding a poor law valuation of £150 a year." There is no taking away of rights; it is a question of conceding or conferring rights. The view of the Parliamentary Secretary, stated by him a few moments ago, could not possibly have been an advised view. As Deputy Moore has pointed out, I do not think any section of this House would stand for the proposition that the Parliamentary Secretary unwittingly sponsored, that this House is not to place limits on the expenditure of public moneys through this Department.
Deputy Gorey may honestly misrepresent this section as he likes. I say honestly, because I am not suggesting that the misrepresentation of the amendment which I think Deputy Gorey indulged in was intentional. It is a misrepresentation of the plain words of the amendment, and again I remind the House that unless this amendment is carried you will have a slowing down, almost a cessation, of the policy of acquiring lands. Where, then, except in memory, will be the very eloquent speech delivered by Deputy Sheehy from the benches opposite some time ago. Some time ago Deputy Sheehy delivered, if I might say so with respect, a most eloquent and moving speech in reference to the hardships endured by men of an older generation in fighting for the earlier Land Acts, for the evicted tenants and so on. Unless this amendment is carried to enable the Land Commission to acquire lands that class of people referred to in such apt and moving terms by Deputy Sheehy will remain hungry in the wilderness.
I think the amendment is based on a misconception of the actual position with regard to tenant holdings. It does not make any real difference to land purchase whether this amendment is passed or not, because the facts are something like this. There are about 4,000 holdings in this country at the present moment of over 400 acres each. There are some hundreds of thousands of holdings in the country. It is almost certain that three-quarters of the 4,000 holdings are held in fee-simple, and this amendment, even if it is passed, would only apply to a very small proportion of the total quantity of land which the Land Commission would take for the purpose of resale. It is absolutely certain, if these figures as published are correct, that there are only about 4,000 holdings with 400 acres, and if it is admitted, as everybody who has any knowledge of the country must admit, that most of the big holdings are held in fee and are not tenanted holdings. Only a very small proportion of the land that yet remains to be touched is tenanted land. Assume that is so — and I want to see it disproved; I am satisfied about it — what are we to do with regard to this tenanted land that is to be taken up? I agree with Deputy Geoghegan that it is conferring something new, if you wish. I may say it was not the intention of the 1923 Act to take tenanted land for less than its market value, and there was considered at the time the inserting in the 1923 Act of a clause to the effect that if tenanted land were taken a resumption price was to be paid for it which would fully safeguard the tenant. It was considered by all Parties then, so far as they were represented in the Dáil, that it was right that tenanted land should be safeguarded.
Of course everybody knows it is long ago since the principle that fee-simple property could be acquired at less than its market value was admitted. There are historical reasons behind that. It was equally felt, so far as tenants are concerned as a class, that they did fight for certain rights and they got them first in 1881. They got the right to a certain price in the event of the landlord resuming. That right was enshrined and protected up to 1923. I must say I thought we had it fully protected in the 1923 Act. I am willing to admit that it was found, on consideration later, that we were wrong and that there is some slight concession here. While, as Deputy Geoghegan has said, there are distinctions made, this is not the first time a special class got special treatment, some specially good and some specially bad. Only since 1923 has it ever been suggested that tenanted land could be taken at anything less than its full market value. Deputy Roddy's suggestion does not give the tenant full market value and this amendment does not make any real difference except that in some few cases it is going to do a grave injustice. What is the position? You have a very small number of tenants owning a very small acreage of the land that can be acquired for the purpose of land purchase. You have most of the land that is going to be acquired for the purpose of land purchase fee-simple land. In that state of affairs you come along and you try to apply an absolutely artificial limitation, a limitation that really could not be defended on its merits, to the rights of the class of people who own tenanted land. You put £150 here and you say anybody who holds land up to £150 valuation should get certain rights. They should get the right, if you wish, to get more for their land. Remember nobody is giving them the market value. Deputy Gorey's point was perfectly sound when he said that we have got rather peculiar angle when it comes to property, and especially property in lands.
It would be too late in the day to fight now — it would be entirely wrong and no one believes in it — on the lines that there should be no land purchase. Land purchase was sound and had historical causes which we need not go into now. At the same time Deputy Gorey was perfectly sound. I will not take his figure. Take a tenant of £160 valuation. In good times he is able to make £700 or £800 a year if he and his family are working hard. In bad times he makes less. I refuse to think that farmers of that size or bigger are a class that need any apology in the Dáil. I would be proud to represent them and keep their end up in the Dáil. I believe they are fulfilling a useful function in this country which no other farmer of a different kind can fulfil. Take even bigger farmers, farmers of 300 or 350 acres. They are the farmers who breed our pedigree stock. Most of our pedigree breeders are tenants who hold tenanted land. They are only a very small class and hold only a very small proportion of the land of the country. If we took all their land it would go no distance towards dealing with this land purchase problem. I suppose we have 30,000 to 50,000 tenants who cannot be dealt with even if we took every variety of land, and we have hundreds of landless men who could never be dealt with. If there were vast quantities of land held by tenants in this country who were not farming it properly which, if taken over, would deal with the terrible problem of congestion, then there would be something to say for the State taking it, but that is not the case. Here you have a very small number of tenant farmers who have land of that size and it is unsound and unscientific to make an arbitrary line between 200 and 300 acre farms. I urge on the Parliamentary Secretary to stand by his guns and refuse to make any such line.
I could understand opposition to the whole clause on the lines that there are a certain number of landless men and congests for whom land must be got. If we did that a lot of men would be hard hit who do not realise it now and we might not find the same enthusiasm for land purchase even on the opposite benches if we faced it in that way. Even Deputy Corry's holding might be found to be a bit too big. If we dealt with this thing seriously from the point of view of everyone who wanted land we might find opposition from the benches opposite. Remember we are dealing with a class who are functioning usefully and properly. It is suggested that we should make an arbitrary distinction in that class. You might have 110 acres of land in one county valued at £150; in another county you have 250 acres at £150 valuation. You have one farmer not worth his salt and another farmer of 400 acres, employing 10 or 11 men, who is breeding pedigree stock and doing good work, not only for himself but for the country. I apply a limitation there; you are going to do something unfair and unjust and you are getting no results out of it, because in the aggregate the amount of tenanted land available for relief of congestion is of no importance in relation to the amount of untenanted land.
Would the Minister for Agriculture tell the House what obligation there is upon the Land Commission to resume at all the holding of the large farmer who is employing a number of men and breeding pedigree stock? I thought that up to the present moment the Land Commission merely had enabling powers, and if they found a farm of 600 acres where there was much employment, which was carried on on good sound farming lines, such as the Minister for Agriculture indicated, I did not dream that there was anything to compel the Land Commission to touch that at all.
Another matter the Minister might assist the House on is this. He referred to the number of holdings greater than 400 acres. The amendment now before the House has to do with farms of £150 valuation, and unless the land were very inferior £150 valuation would more nearly account for a farm of 150 acres.
Mr. Hogan
No, about 300 acres statute; it varies with the county.
I accept the Minister's correction. On the Leitrim mountains you might have 3,000 acres.
Mr. Hogan
No, the average would be 300 acres.
The Minister says 300 statute acres. That is a great deal shorter than 400 and perhaps the Minister would enlighten the House on the number of holdings over 300. Another matter the Minister might make a little clearer is that the basis apparently fixed by the Land Act of 1923 for a resumed holding was something resembling what we all knew as true value. It put the Land Commission in the same position as the landlord. Every tenant who has ever sold a farm of land and had to serve notice on his landlord to have the true value fixed — Deputy Mathews or some of those people accustomed to land know something about this — knows that what was known as the statutory true value, referred to in Section 29 of the Land Act of 1923, was more than one-third of the competitive price to be obtained by a competent auctioneer in Ireland. The Minister will not suggest that the true value if fixed under a section of the Land Act of 1881, was more than a fraction. It may have been half, but it was considerably lower than the market price, and it was one of the great grievances of the judicial tenants that the landlords had the overriding power of taking their tenancies at the true value. I feel the Minister for Agriculture has not been as helpful to the House as he could be on these three matters.
Mr. Hogan
The first question is easily answered. As Deputy Geoghegan pointed out the Land Commission has discretion, and may or may not take land. On that line you could give the Land Commission full powers to do as they wish. Everyone knows that you can settle difficulties on the line that a State Department can be entrusted with arbitrary powers over property, but if we took the line that they are bound to exercise discretion fairly I doubt if it would satisfy many people. It would not satisfy me. It is true that the Land Commission has the right to take land or to refuse to take it. I think the duty of Parliament is to make sure that such a Department as the Land Commission shall exercise these rights properly. When a State Department is given powers to do anything, the drive is there to exercise these powers. It is the business of the Land Commission to keep up their own point of view. The officials appear before Mr. Justice Wylie, who is the Judicial Commissioner, to give evidence as to acquiring land at a price to enable it to be resold easily. The inspector who gives evidence is the inspector who may have to make the scheme to transfer the land to the tenants, and he knows that the more cheaply he gets the land the lower the rent will be, and the easier it will be to make the scheme. You have always two opposite points of view before the Judicial Commissioner. You have the point of view of the Land Commission inspector who says that the land is worth so much, and also the point of view of the owner who says it is worth much more. You always find that the Land Commission figures are lowest. It is because of that that we are safeguarding the rights of the tenant.
As to the question of true value, I was advised in 1923 that while it was extremely difficult to say what exactly was true value, as it was termed, as defined by decided cases true value approximately amounted to market value. That was the advice I got, and I think it was not far wrong. All the Deputy could say was that it was one-third or one-half of the true value. If there is a distinction what does it amount to?
A non-competitive price.
Mr. Hogan
It may be one-third or one-fourth, but surely there must be some principle behind it. I was advised by competent lawyers that it was extremely difficult to say what exactly was true value, that in order to find it you would require to write out an opinion at very great length and quote a great many decided cases, but that I could take it, as a lay man, that in practice true value amounted to market value. It was from that point of view the section was inserted.
With regard to the third point. Of course there is a distinction between 300 and 400 acres. I am merely concerned to see that when Deputies speak about tenants who hold big tracts, a look at statistics shows only 4,000 holdings over 300 acres. The number of big holdings is very small.
There seems to be in the mind of the Minister an idea that there is not sufficient land available to go around. From what I have heard here that seems to be the opinion of the Land Commission also. The Minister, I am sure, will bear in mind, as I know Deputy Geoghegan will, that in Westmeath there are holdings of 800 acres, 900 acres, and 1,000 acres on which there is only a herd and bullocks. That land could be divided.
Mr. Hogan
How do you know that is tenanted land?
I would like to see it divided up. I can assure the Minister I am not protecting myself. My valuation is over £150.
Mr. Hogan
You are in danger.
I am anxious to see that the unfortunate men who are put into those resumed holdings that are to be taken over will be able to hold them, and will be able to get married and rear their families. I do not agree with the Minister's figures that men with 300 or 400 acres are making £600 or £700 a year. I do not believe that the man with 300 acres is as well off to-day as the poorest of the Minister's officials, and I say that from my knowledge of farming. I am anxious that those who get this land when it is divided will be able to live on it. The Minister must remember that to the annuity payable has to be added the redemption price of the tenant's interest, and if there is to be added compensation for disturbance it will be only a matter of a few years until that holding will be thrown back into the hands of the Land Commission to be come a burden on the rates and on the agricultural grant from which the annuity will be deducted.
We do not want to create another land problem. I would prefer to see land undivided rather than see it handed over to tenants at an uneconomic rent. There are too many estates a burden on the ratepayers without adding any more to them. On the first amendment we endeavoured to take the new burden off the tenants. The Parliamentary Secretary made it clear when he introduced the section that at that stage he did not intend to put these burdens on the tenants. No doubt Deputy Mathews and other Deputies have succeeded in bringing pressure to bear on the Minister during the last week to induce him to put the burden on the tenants. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Land Commission must be given discretion in the appraising of the value. I have very little faith in the Judicial Commissioners or in leaving such power in their hands.
Another statement made by the Minister for Agriculture was enlightening, that dealing with the work of the Land Commission inspectors. Perhaps it would be enlightening to know where the difference of £66,000 between the value put on estates by the Land Commission and the value put on them by the Judicial Commissioners came from. We were wondering where it came from at one period. Now we have the Minister telling us where it came from. Is any Deputy prepared to support the Minister for Agriculture after his statement that we are to pay Land Commission inspectors salaries from £1,200 to £1,500 a year—and it must be admitted that you get a fairly good valuer at that figure—who go down the country and value estates at less than their value because they will have to appear before the Judicial Commissioners where there will be another valuer who will put on a much higher value? That is the statement the Minister wants us to believe. Is he in earnest?
Mr. Hogan
No.
I do not believe you are. It would certainly account for the £66,000 difference between the value placed on the estates by the Land Commission inspectors and that placed on them by the Judicial Commissioner afterwards. I was framing out reasons how the £66,000 came about, and I was wondering whether the Judicial Commissioner was paid a commission——
What has that to do with the amendment?
I am dealing with a statement made by the Minister for Agriculture.
The Deputy should endeavour to make one relevant speech.
I am.
The Deputy is not.
I regret that the Minister was not pulled up if he was irrelevant. I am only dealing with a matter with which he dealt.
I had better make it clear to the Deputy that the main part of his speech is a repetition of speeches made on previous amendments and the other part has nothing to do with the amendment. I will give the Deputy an opportunity of continuing his speech provided he keeps to the amendment, otherwise he will have to resume his seat.
I maintain that I am dealing with the amendment.
There is no use in the Deputy maintaining that when it has been pointed out very clearly that he is not. The Deputy will have to accept that.
Are we to understand that the Government spokesmen consider that the compensation for disturbance and damage should vary with the acreage and the valuation of the holdings resumed?
Deputy Corry was not finished.
I was dealing with the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture when speaking on this amendment, the statement that the Land Commission inspectors were not fixing the true value of the land in view of the fact that they had afterwards to meet the valuers appointed by the Judicial Commissioner. That is what I was dealing with, and if that was irrelevant the Minister was also irrelevant. The reason why we put down the amendment and why we have to be extra careful in regard to it, is that the Parliamentary Secretary refused to accept the dictum that the State should bear the loss on compensation for disturbance. Compensation has to fall on the tenant, and, since that is so, we want to confine that compensation to as narrow a limit as possible. We maintain that a fair limit for that compensation should be fixed, and we have specially brought in this amendment to cover the arguments advanced by Deputy O'Connell and others in regard to this section, the arguments about small holdings in congested areas. That was the sole reason why Deputy O'Connell accepted this section at all.
We consider that we are making very fair provision when we fix the limit at a valuation of £150 and that in case of a holding of a higher valuation the tenant would get compensation on the first £150. We are doing our utmost to get rid of the very bad portion of the section which provides for extra compensation by reason of the resumption of the land. That section will undoubtedly have a bad effect if passed into law. It was not introduced for the purpose of dealing with holdings in congested areas, but to enable the Land Commission and the Judicial Commissioner to give compensation to ranchers who should never get compensation for disturbance or damage. The section is definitely providing for new rights and we want to confine them to those who, in our opinion, are entitled to them. We do not think that the individuals who would be covered by the latter portion of this section should have any rights whatever to compensation for either disturbance or damage, people with nine or ten farms, or with four or five farms in different parts of the country, who would be compensated for the resumption of those lands. From what we know about the Land Commission Courts we are not prepared to place that power in their hands if we can avoid it.
The Minister for Agriculture wanted to know why we did not base our argument in support of this amendment on the general question of the relief of congestion and on the principle that somebody must suffer. Judging by his remarks about the 400 acre farmers, one would imagine that there are not at the other end of the scale thousands and thousands of uneconomic holders. It is for the purpose of relieving congestion and of putting these people on the lands, I take it, that the Land Commission chiefly exists. If for every step we take forward towards relieving congestion and placing these people on the land, we take a corresponding step, not alone in the way of tying up the Land Commission, as, of course, it has been tied up under previous Acts, but of actually increasing the price of land to those people who are going to be placed on it, it seems to me to be clear, as I stated on the previous amendment, that it can be argued that the whole principle of the section, unless this amendment is passed, will hold up instead of expedite the acquisition of land.
In regard to the particular class of persons to whom the Minister referred, persons who worked their land or who have stud farms, the Land Commission will not, as Deputy Geoghegan stated, interfere with them. On the other hand, when we give compulsory powers and full discretion to the Land Commission, we should allow them to go ahead rather than at every stage of the journey put obstacles in their way, particularly where they will be to the detriment of the incoming tenants. If we do so, how can we solve the problem? It is admitted that we have not sufficient land to go round, but, if we take this step, which the new section proposes, without in any way limiting it, I think it can be argued that we are doing something to hold up the relief of congestion. The Dáil has agreed to the principle that the money is to be provided by the State. If any Deputy on the opposite benches had come forward when that proposal was under discussion, and said that the State should bear part of the burden, that there should be some such provision as this, that new compensation would not ordinarily be placed on the incoming tenant, that you would still give the Land Commission some discretion, but that it should be laid down as an ordinary rule that the burden of compensation should not be placed on the incoming tenant, then this amendment might not have been necessary. Now, however, that we have committed ourselves to the principle that the incoming tenant has to some extent to be responsible for compensation, surely it is up to us to limit the section as much as possible, and not to be blinded by arguments about the 400-acre people. These people were not in the struggle for independence, or in any other struggle in which the people were interested, and if the Land Commission were to propose to take over their land to-morrow for the purpose of relieving congestion, or on the ground that it was not being used for the good of the country, they have their safeguards already. On the other hand, we must look at the congests and landless people, and if we are serious about the relief of congestion, we must ask ourselves, each one of us, whether we are satisfied that the price which the incoming tenant has to pay is not already sufficiently high.
People who believe they have a claim to some of this land, if they cannot claim that they have been dispossessed themselves, nevertheless can say that their fathers and grandfathers were dispossessed before them. We know that in process of time a certain amount of land will go back to the 400-acre people. They have their capital and can always buy it up, whereas the "poor devils," as Deputy Gorey would like to call them, the poor people who are placed in possession of the land and have no capital to work it, after a few years may have to sell it. Is that not happening, to a certain extent, all over the country? The ordinary commercial speculation in land is in favour of these people. I maintain that these people can withdraw out of possession of the land to-morrow, and they are in a better position than the other people who are down and out. They can transfer their energies to other forms of enterprise. They have some capital. Undoubtedly it is a hardship that they have to give up farming, but surely the depression hits them far less than it hits small people? In the case even of the 400-acre man, who is doing good work for the country, I cannot see that the Land Commission will interfere with him. If they do interfere with him because it is necessary for the relief of congestion, the Minister for Agriculture admits himself that the proposal in the section is to go back on what was intended under the 1923 Act.
Deputy Geoghegan pointed out that the resumption price assimilated into that Act from the Act of 1881 was a resumption price fixed by the landlord to suit himself. The Minister for Agriculture said that he took it over in the 1923 Act. He believed that in fact the true value was the market value. He believes the true value is the market value or he does not believe—which? If the true value of land is the market value, what is the necessity for this provision at all? Ought not these people be satisfied to get the market value? After all, the State is not undertaking this work for the relief of congestion to please Deputies. It is simply continuing the policy that the British Government initiated and forced through even against their own ascendancy in this country. Is it contended now that we should not carry on that policy on the same basis and with reference to the same safeguards for the tenants as were then recognised? The Minister is not in earnest when he says that the market value is in fact being paid. If that were so this section would not be necessary.
Mr. Hogan
I did not say the market value was being paid.
At least the Minister did not definitely admit that he was misled by his lawyer friends in 1923.
Mr. Hogan
I do not understand the Deputy. What I said was that I was advised in 1923 that the true value was in fact the market value. It was asked what I thought now. I think nobody knows what the true value is now, and it gives an absolute discretion to the judge to give any value he likes. I do say that in fact the market value was never given, but I say that even if this amendment is passed the market value or anything like the market value need not be given—that this will not coerce anybody to give the market value.
The defect from the point of view of people whose grievance is sought to be remedied is that the basis of the resumption price under . the Act of 1881 was not sufficient, but now we are not alone going to give them the market value, we are giving them more. It may be argued that in some parts of the country there is no market value for land. We are not alone going to give them the market value; we are going to give them compensation for disturbance and damage as well. The upshot of the whole thing is that there is no basis for any of these things— market value, compensation for damages, or compensation for disturbance. In the long run the whole thing will be left in the hands of the Judicial Commissioner. What is the Judicial Commissioner to do? As far as I can see, according to the Minister's own Act of 1923, the Judicial Commissioner has to lay down the price of land according to the value of the land to the owner and to the incoming tenant——
Mr. Hogan
That applies only to fee-simple land—untenanted land.
I take it that the basis in this case is the resumption price. In any case I think you can take it, generally speaking, that the attitude of the Judicial Commissioner or of any other judge would be: "Here is an individual who is being deprived of certain amenities, who is being deprived of his land. Furthermore, the legislature have given me a definite instruction to upset the previous basis and to grant a fresh value, that is to say, to include compensation for damage and disturbance." Is it not most likely that the Judicial Commissioner, interpreting this new section in that way, will take it that this individual, whose property is being taken by the State, is, after all, entitled to a much higher value for his property than he would heretofore get? I do not know whether I am making myself clear, but I think the attitude of the Judicial Commissioner will be that here is a definite instruction from the legislature, that we are to have two new principles in granting compensation. Remember if the case were that the Judicial Commissioner had on the one hand a tenant whose land is being resumed, and on the other the State, no one could find fault with the Judicial Commissioner—nobody finds fault with him in any case—but even those who may be opposed to the whole principle of the section would agree that the State can afford to pay a price if the State thinks it worth while to take over the land. The trouble is that the House has decided by a previous amendment that it is not the State who is going to pay, that it is the people who are coming in who must pay.
Mr. Hogan
Surely it does not say that? Surely the Land Commission have power to re-sell, at a loss?
Are they going to sell at a loss? Either they are going to re-sell all the holdings at a loss or they must charge some of the tenants even more than they are charging them now. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to defend the proposition that the tenants are now paying what is only an economic price. That is a big question all over the country. Does the Minister mean to tell us that no part of the compensation is going to be paid by the tenant?
Mr. Hogan
I mean to say that if the Land Commission consider the purchase money cannot be carried on an economic rent the Land Commission may re-sell at a loss. I can imagine that in some cases where they pay compensation the Land Commission would get land extremely cheaply. In that case they would advance the whole of the money. In other cases if extra compensation brings the price to a very high figure the Land Commission are entitled to re-sell at a loss. Surely that covers the whole case.
That really means that some people will have to pay it and others will not. The Land Commission, as in all other matters, has complete discretion. It seems to me that if the Land Commission are to carry out their job, which we understand is to make the business of the transference of land a paying proposition and not be out of pocket, they are going, in fact, to charge this to the incoming tenant. If, however, the State is definitely going to take over the liability, and no part of this new compensation is to be put on to the incoming people, nobody will be better pleased than we are. As regards the £150 limit, there must be a limit somewhere if congestion is to be relieved, and we are in earnest about this matter. There must be a limit to the size of the holding where the compensation on this new basis will be paid. We are assuming that an alternative holding will be granted. The Parliamentary Secretary says that that is only in the case of migrants. However, the big fact is that we are either in earnest about relieving congestion or we are not. If it is quite definite that the incoming people are not to be responsible for this new compensation and that the State is going to foot the bill, let us be clear about it. But we are not clear about it. An amendment was fought and beaten which laid that down as a definite principle. If this amendment were carried, although certain people— which must always be the case when drawing a line — people with £160 or £170 valuation may suffer a little, they are not really suffering as compared with their present state. It simply means, as Deputy Geoghegan pointed out, that we are not prepared to give to certain of these people a new State gift which we are granting. We are not prepared to give it to them for this very good reason, that if the Land Commission are to relieve congestion, and if that is really their policy, they will have to attack some ranches in this country, and I think that all land above £150 valuation, if not properly worked, should be fair game for the Land Commission.
This question has been brought down to the point of who is to pay. The Opposition say that the individual with over £150 valuation is to pay. We say that the State ought to pay. The provision in this section which has been introduced is that the State ought to pay.
Why did you vote against it?
A previous amendment moved by Deputy Derrig says:
Provided that in the resale of such holding the sums paid in compensation for disturbance or for the damage sustained by the tenant by reason of such resumption shall not be included in the price to be paid by the person or persons to whom same shall be sold.
By implication, he says that the whole price should be charged to the incoming tenant, and that the discretion exercised by the Land Commission previously was wrong. Its implication is that the compensation for disturbance and damage is the only thing that should not be charged to the tenant and that the whole price should be charged to the tenant.
There is no such implication.
That is what this implies.
That is your opinion.
It is quite plain. We voted against that. We left the discretion to the Land Commission, and we know that they are losing money on the resale. We left them that discretion to be exercised to the full limit that they thought desirable. Deputy Derrig wanted it laid down in the Act. In this matter, we also want it left to the discretion of the Land Commission. We want the terms of the Act carried out without doing it in this partial and partisan manner. The only question is, who is to pay the cost? As I said, the amendment of Deputy Derrig is that the farmer who holds property of over £150 valuation has to pay it. We say that the State should do it. Of course, from the electioneering point of view Deputy Derrig is quite right. He hopes to have with him all the occupiers of land under the £150 valuation, and, in addition, all the business people and dwellers in the towns; also those like Guinness and McCalmont and people with annual incomes of £100,000. He would then have a strong party. The others would only be a few. They would not have the ghost of a chance.
They would not have the same finances as your supporters.
Yes, they would have. I know one man with £100,000 a year who would not be asked to pay a cent.
He is on your side.
I do not know what side he is on, but you are trying to protect him and get him on your side. The individuals with over £150 valuation are so few that they think they can afford to disregard them and make them pay. That is the policy of the Opposition. Our policy is fair play for everybody and to let the State bear the cost of what it considers is a good policy.
What about the poor devils?
Even the poor devil has to pay his share.
Deputy Gorey says that we should give fair play to everybody. Surely giving fair play to a person means giving him a price for his business on the basis of the profits. If the landlord at present gets a price for his land only on the basis of the profits out of the land and if that were the attitude of the Government they would not be giving him various kinds of compensation as well on top of what he can get already from the Land Commission. The attitude of the Government is in extraordinary contrast with their attitude on several other matters where they interfere in the matter of price. For instance, when they took land under the Shannon scheme they had not very much feeling for the unfortunate people from whom they took the land. The contrast between their attitude there and their sensitiveness about seeing that the landlords should get a fancy price——
These are not landlords. This refers to tenanted land.
The person in occupation.
Tenanted land.
The person with 400 or 500 acres. We are dealing specifically with the persons who have an acreage over 300.
£150 valuation.
Persons with over 300 acres.
One hundred Irish acres.
Three hundred acres was the figure mentioned by the Minister for Agriculture. Then again contrast the attitude of the Minister for Agriculture in backing up fancy prices to these persons for their lands with his attitude on a question like tariffs where he would rather see industries destroyed than see the price going up. When it comes to a question of the owner of land——
Mr. Hogan
The tenant.
The tenant of land of over 300 acres—he stands pat for giving as fancy a price as possible.
I can speak with authority on this question. In my county we go by the Irish plantation measure, and the average valuation for ordinary tillage land is 30/-, 32/- and 33/- per Irish acre.
It is over £2 per acre in County Dublin—£2 5s. I have experience of that myself.
I should like to tell the President that he is contradicting the Minister for Agriculture.
Mr. Hogan
He is not.
If I had 70 acres in my place the valuation would be over £150.
I know that.
There is a big difference between 70 acres and 300 acres.
I took the figure mentioned by the Minister for Agriculture that £150 valuation would mean about 300 acres.
Mr. Hogan
Three hundred statute acres would be the average. That would be a little less than 200 Irish.
Perhaps the President would meet that.
I said that the valuation of 70 acres where I live would be over £150.
That is not the average value.
When the section, to which this amendment refers, was before the House the Parliamentary Secretary asked us to accept it because, according to him, it would facilitate the Land Commission in dealing with congestion. Now that the section has been accepted, when we come along with an amendment that would tie the Parliamentary Secretary down to a statement he made with reference to holdings of a certain type when speaking in favour of the section originally, the Minister for Agriculture comes along with all sorts of arguments; the farmers with 400 acres and the services they give to the State and how he was prepared to keep their end up in this House. At a later stage he admitted that the compensation for disturbance to which this section refers may not be charged to the incoming tenant. He says it will be at the discretion of the Land Commission to either charge the incoming tenant or to charge it to the Exchequer. I think he has made it clear to us on this side of the House that he is interested in keeping up the end of the man with 300 or 400 acres of land in this House, and in seeing that he gets the extra compensation which he has never been entitled to up to now. It is only fair that we should see that the people who are called upon to pay this extra amount of compensation will have their end kept up. A case has been made for the man whose land has been resumed and the man to whom the land will be given. Surely there are other farmers in the country. We say there is a possibility under this section of giving to certain people certain compensation that never since the Land Act of 1881 were they entitled to. We advocate a limit by this amendment, and we say that the man with 400 or 500 acres of land and the man with a valuation of £150 means the same thing. That seems to me to be the meaning of our amendment. I say again if the Minister is interested in protecting that particular class of people it is only right that we should be interested in protecting those people who would be called upon to pay if the tenant is unable to pay the extra charges put upon him.
[Professor Thrift took the Chair.]
The Parliamentary Secretary said we would be doing a bad day's work in insisting on this amendment and he outlined his reasons. He said that in the congested areas where this section is mainly intended to apply it would have the effect of limiting the purchase of farms required for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings. I would like to know how many farms in the congested areas, with a valuation exceeding £150, are available for the relief of congestion. I quite realise that there are farms that it would be quite wrong, and uneconomic, to touch for the purposes of sub-division. I realise what the Minister for Agriculture said when he outlined a case where it might be a matter of very grave injustice, or, perhaps grave national loss to interfere with farms in excess of the valuation referred to, and which are at present doing more useful work in the way of production, and giving an amount of employment which they could not possibly do if they were utilised in the way of sub-division. But except these cases in the congested areas I would like to know where the Parliamentary Secretary finds his justification for his statement that this amendment of ours would have the effect of seriously handicapping him in the object he has in view in this particular section.
There is seemingly no hope of getting the Government Party in this House to review the situation from what I may call the real view-point, and that is as to how far this whole question is to be of benefit to the section of the community for which we are legislating, that is, those uneconomic holders, the landless men, the evicted tenants and that type of people for whom we hear so much lip sympathy. When we come to the actual translation of that sympathy into an act of some kind all we hear from the Opposition Benches is that the rights of those graziers have to be respected. The rights of the grazier in this country have been fairly well defined for the last twenty-five years. I never heard from any member of any national Party any case made for their existence as a national asset. These people know well that they hold these lands unjustly and not on the sufferance of the people, or with the consent of the people. This is the first time that we find a Government vindicating the rights of those people, and legislating specially in order to deal with those rights. This section will undoubtedly create a new phase in this whole question of the land settlement, because it aims at introducing rights for graziers which hitherto never existed even in the imagination of the ordinary man who understood the land question. Here are new rights cropping up that make the whole problem quite impracticable to deal with. If these additional costs are added then the resold land will become quite uneconomic, and the farms of the incoming tenants will inevitably become a burden to the State. This is a short-sighted policy, and a policy that we at least do not stand for, and which we believe the majority of the people do not stand for. Nobody denies that the grazier has rights, but the graziers' rights are questioned even by the Government to the extent that they say he should be deprived of the land in certain contingencies.
The question of valuation arises. It is much better if we cannot get this land at an economic price to leave it as it is. My impression is that if the Government feel they have no better means of dealing with the problem than at a price that will ultimately leave the land valueless to the incoming tenant and make it a burden on the State then it would be better to leave these men as they are, and in the course of a few years you will find you will get the land from them at a normal price. I understood that under the 1923 Act the Land Commission had power to acquire land at a price arbitrarily fixed by the Commission. But that price did not carry with it the additional price or charge that is now intended to be imposed. Has that power of the 1923 Act failed, and to what extent? I know farmers down in Leitrim who have what are comparatively small holdings but which in their districts are large holdings, and they actually offered these holdings to the Land Commission at prices that the Land Commission were paying for smaller farms in the locality. The Land Commission refused to take them over. There is a case which shows the power which the Land Commission had under the 1923 Act to acquire land for the relief of congestion much below the figure at which they can acquire it when this section is passed. Yet they actually refused to take this land. I presume now, when this becomes law, the Land Commission will have no hesitation in taking over that land at an increased price. There is only one view-point in this case, and that is that the Government are going to pay an excessive price for land that graziers and those who hold extensive areas of land are willing to sell. The Government are willing, then, to pay enormous prices for land which the owners are now willing to sell to the Land Commission and which the Land Commission are refusing to accept. The Land Commission will wait for an opportunity of paying these people excessive prices.
The point has been made by Deputy Gorey that the owners of property should have the same right in property and land as the holders of any other property. Well, I suppose they have. Nobody has disputed it. But the holders of property in various firms such as Guinness's or Jacob's, when the wage-earners in these institutions insist upon an increased wage so as to make their position tolerable, and when the net returns of the industry show that there is a decrease in the value of their capital, very often reduce the value of their shares and cut out a number of their shares. There are cases in which the rights of property are limited to what the industry can pay. But in the case of the land there are certain holders of land in this country who by every right that I have heard explained for the last 25 years were not amenable to what were regarded as common rights held by the goodwill or consent of the people. These owners understood that they held property that was dangerous, and that ultimately they would lose. We find to-day, when that question comes to be dealt with, that we have the strongest defenders of these people in the Government, who think only of these rights and ignore what their action will mean — the making of this question of finding land for those in the congested areas an impracticable proposition that if pursued will result in a very substantial loss to the State ultimately.
I understand from the last speaker that it had been contended here that property in land was the same as property in everything else.
Mr. Hogan
Nobody contends that.
Well, so long as that has not been contended I am satisfied.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move amendment 35:—
In page 21, to add at the end of Section 41 the following new sub-section:—
"This section shall not apply to a holding (other than a holding used wholly or mainly for a dairy farm) which is let to be used or has ordinarily been used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture (a) if it is of the rateable value of upwards of £50, and (b) if the tenant does not actually reside on the said holding."
This is an amendment to limit the operations of this section to holdings which are under pasture. We want to exclude holdings which have been used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture and which are of the rateable value of upwards of £50, and only such of those holdings which are out-farms on which the owner is not resident. That naturally means that we think compensation for disturbance and damage should be limited to holdings which, if they are pasture and if they are of the value of more than £50, should be holdings on which the owner lives. If they are used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture, if they are of the rateable value of upwards of £50, and if the tenant does not actually reside on the holding, we think they ought to be excluded. If they fulfilled one or two of these requirements we would not, of course, exclude them. In order to exclude them they would have to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture; they would have to be over £50 valuation, and the owner would not be resident on them. I think that is fair enough. Obviously, if the owner is not resident he has another farm, and we should not interfere with his rights to compensation in regard to that other farm. It is only where he is non-resident that we think the provisions of the section should not apply. I think, as far as the section is concerned, it covers what we would call grazing, non-residential holdings which are, in fact, of no earthly benefit to the country and they should not come within the scope of the section.
In this amendment we are endeavouring to cover a portion of the section, which in our opinion is the most dangerous portion, which provides that this special compensation shall go to owners of grazing ranches who would have even three or four such ranches, situated in different parts of a county or in different counties. That is the reason why we want to confine it to tillage farms and farms used for dairying, and why we also endeavour to bring out of it non-residential holdings. We do not think that the owner of a non-residential holding should be entitled to compensation, even though there is a specific provision in the section by which he can get compensation, namely the portion in this section which provides: "compensation for damage, if any, which will be sustained by the tenant by reason of the resumption of the land as affecting his user of other lands or otherwise causing injury to such other lands." We are endeavouring to deal specifically with that portion of the section. I do not think that people of this description should get compensation for disturbance. I do not think that having an outside farm, a man should get compensation for disturbance in it. Of course in all those amendments we have to be governed by the fact that it has been left to the discretion, if you like, of the Land Commission whether the tenant would have to pay this one-third. That is why we have to insist on those amendments. I think the House should vote with us in preventing this abuse, or attempt at abuse of the section which would definitely occur if the section were carried without a safeguarding amendment. I believe the section would be liable to abuse, and I have not that faith in land courts or Judicial Commissioner's courts to believe that they would act fairly with tenants on these matters.
Why are we putting up for an amendment reasons other than those given in the amendment? The amendment is quite clear. Will Deputies say that when a farmer owns five or six farms, and one is taken from him, the section should not apply? Does this mention five or six farms? Does it mention a farm at all? "This section shall not apply to a holding which is let to be used or has ordinarily been used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasturage." A tenant may have a rateable value upwards of £50, and the tenant may not actually reside in the holding. That means that if an individual has a farm on one side of the road, and half a mile away has another holding which he has to let for some reason or other — perhaps he is down in the world and he is not as rich as he would like to be, or there are minors — where it exceeds £50 this tenant comes under the heading of this particular amendment.
There is no need to talk about graziers or five or six farms. Let us deal with the amendment and not try to humbug people outside the House. I never met an amendment I could give less support to than this. If you have an acre of ground where there are out-buildings a quarter of a mile away, and a holding on the other side of 15 acres on the eleven months system on which the tenant does not reside, does it not come under the heading of this? That is what it means.
I cannot quite follow the reasoning of Deputy Gorey.
Why?
I will explain. In the first case he says that all the reasons for an amendment should be put down in the amendment.
I did not say that. I objected to giving reasons not contained in the amendment at all.
Is it usual to give reasons for an amendment in an amendment?
If you could put all that was meant in an amendment, amendments would be very long, and you would need a very long Order Paper indeed. Would one imagine from Deputy Gorey that injustice is being done? I presume that ordinary compensation would be market value. What injustice is being done to land under the eleven months system by giving the ordinary market value? Does the Deputy maintain that these holdings are of great economic value to the country? If you give extra compensation you pile the annuity on to the man who gets into that land, the congest.
There is not a word about that.
Where is the money then to come from?
From the State.
This amendment will remove many of the objections to this particular clause of the Bill, and will make it less objectionable. Certain it would not be a very popular or wise thing in the West of Ireland, where there are many such farms, to speak of compensation for ranchers. Deputy Gorey takes the extreme case of a man who has his own farm and house on one side of the road and a ranch on the other. If a man has three or four farms and cannot stock them I think he is well away to get the market value of his outlying farms. The congest or tenants should not be burdened by extra compensation when they are going on that land.
In this amendment an attempt has been made to limit the fancy prices and fancy compensation to be given for land in certain cases for which some pretence of reason can be advanced. We say from these benches that neither the congest who is planted on the land nor the general public should pay these people ridiculous prices for land. We have advanced various reasons for that. We have suggested that the full market price for land is too much, not to speak of this addition of compensation for disturbance.
In making these remarks probably some of us were inspired by our recollection of the true principle of the value of land as laid down by Deputy Gorey, but a paraphrase of Deputy Gorey's views, which are very sensible views, of the real value of these tenancies does not carry anything like the conviction that the very words of the Deputy will, I think, carry in this House. We are dealing here with values to be placed on tenants' interests in resumed holdings. The question is: Are we to give even something more than the market value to add certain figures? We say that it is absurd to give even market value to the large graziers. Let us see what the market value in a tenancy in Ireland is. I may be permitted to use the words used by Deputy Gorey on the 5th July, 1923, when the Deputy told the House how the price of tenancies was regulated. He said:
There are reasons why sentiment makes Irish land more valuable than land in any other country. It is the only means of existence for the agricultural population: they have no other outlet: they have either to settle on the land or go away and the race is to die out. Men want to marry; they want a home and they want to settle down. The natural law urges them to find a home, and you cannot get behind that. Therefore the price of land in this country, what is known as the tenant's interest, brings more than its real value, and the price is not in proportion at all to the actual commercial value of the land.
In other words, the Deputy has put into terse and telling language what is the ordinary experience of everyone who has to do either directly as a purchaser or in a professional capacity with the sale of tenants' interest in land in Ireland, that even the market price far exceeds the real price.
The Minister for Agriculture desired a short time ago to get some information as to the difference between the statutory true value within the meaning of the Land Act of 1881 and the price of land as fixed by public auction or otherwise. The Minister must have forgotten the statement made by Deputy Gorey, but now not merely is this man to get the market price, a price fixed on the basis of land hunger, on the basis of the man who wants to marry and buy a farm, but a price fixed by sentiment over and above that is to be paid because, perhaps, his land was settled and he had to leave a little patch behind. By all means do that, but in the way limited here. I have only read a preface to this monumental work on the true basis of the market value of tenancies in Ireland. The author proceeds — and I agree, if I may say so, with every word he says —
Therefore the price of land in this country, what is known as the tenant's interest, brings more than its real value, and the price is not in proportion at all to the actual commercial value of the land. Let us take the nearest country to ourselves for a comparison. Take the sale of English farms, and in doing so, remember that we are measuring things on a standard different altgether from that which can be applied to this country. There is such a thing here as tenant interest and landlord interest. In England you have only the landlord's interest, and when they sell land they sell it absolutely in fee-simple. English land in the open market is bringing about eleven years' purchase of the present rental.
Eleven years' rental for all the interest in the land. Deputy Derrig obtained an official return from the Parliamentary Secretary to-day which, if Deputy Gorey desires, I shall be very happy to lend him. In it he will see that, contrasted with eleven years' purchase of land free of interest in England, over 53 years' purchase was paid for land in this country last year, and that apparently the lowest average price paid was something like 22 years' purchase. Deputy Gorey will scarcely assert that the value of land has increased since 1923. If land in 1923 in a rich country like England — and the contrast was the Deputy's — was only worth 11 years' purchase of the rental, the probability is very strong that it is practically unsaleable at the present time. Land is in a great many instances a drug on the market at the present time, and yet, although the willing seller is unable to find a purchaser, either out of the pocket of the congests, or out of the public purse not merely is the value of the land to be given here, but also compensation for disturbance and compensation for severance. That is not even to be limited to £50 valuation of grass land. It is not to be given to all farms. It is to be given to dairying farms. The only limitation sought to be put on it is that if land is let or used mainly for pasture, and is not a dairy farm over £50 valuation, the unfortunate man from whom it is taken has to be content with 50 years' purchase.
The eleven years' purchase for which Deputy Gorey pleaded in 1923 as the high-water mark, at a time when land had not fallen to the present low level, is to be ignored. Contrast the parallels that are being drawn between the principles which should regulate the value of tenancies in resumed holdings, and the principles that should apply to the valuation of other farms or property such as investments. I was really surprised they should have been advanced now, because on the 5th July, 1923, when the present Minister for Agriculture made vulgar and offensive references to Deputy Gorey's investments, Deputy Gorey quite properly contended that it was absurd for the Minister for Agriculture to introduce the value of Deputy Gorey's investments and debentures when considering the value of land. Of course it is absurd. Deputy Gorey said "Oh well, we are to have regard to this in some way by personal consideration." The Minister then said: "Oh, well, why tie it down to a particular valuation, because, after all, Deputy Gorey's farm may be got at?" Deputy Gorey pointed out to the President at page 282 of the Debates that it was really drawing a red herring across the track to suggest that he was having regard to his own interests, and that that line of argument was no use. What argument is left against this amendment? All tilled and mixed farms are not merely to be paid for, but the frills and trimmings are to be paid for as well, all dairy and stud farms are to be paid for, and the only person to be kept to the market value of the land, and that the inflated value described by Deputy Gorey in 1923, is the grazier in respect of his farm of 150 acres. The poor grazier who has not a dairy farm but has grazing land!
My colleague, Deputy Derrig, reminds me that even the grazier, if he resides on his farm, is to get this inflated value, this hunger price, this sentimental price described by Deputy Gorey. He may get anything up to that and in addition get compensation. We ask the House to exclude from this raid on the pockets of the unfortunate congests or on public funds the non-residental grazier whose poor law valuation exceeds £50. We hope that we are not making that appeal in vain. Deputy Gorey made that speech in 1923. One would imagine that his ideas have sufficiently advanced since then — they have sufficiently advanced to enable him to leave the Party to which he then belonged—and that his views now ought to be more in consonance with those of people who want to settle the unfortunate congests on the land. Deputy Gorey and I have made great advances since 1923. Deputy Gorey has taken one step, and he will perhaps take another step forward from what he said in 1923, in his unregenerate days as a member of the Farmers' Party, when he said that eleven years' purchase for the full interest, including both landlord's and tenant's, was sufficient. Surely he will not contend to-day, in view of the extraordinarily high prices revealed in this return, that the poor grazier of over £50 valuation should get this extra compensation?
It is quite true that I said that in 1923. I would have said a little more if I could have reduced the price which the landlord was getting at that time. I was making the best possible case I could for the purchasers. I said what was actually a fact, namely, that in the case of English estates, which were split up and sold at that time owing to the extraordinary charges such as income tax and other taxes, the prices amounted to between ten and eleven years' purchase. I was, however, cute enough to refrain from telling the Dáil that a year's rent of a statute acre in a county like Lancashire, a county which I know very well, was anything from £4 to £9. I did not state that because it would have damned my case had I mentioned it. That can be proved, and Deputy Flinn knows it better than I.
The point is what are you keeping back now?
At that time in Ireland land was being bought at full market price. The price to-day is not, perhaps, more than one-third or one-fourth of the price paid then. In my county, where there is no restriction on the sale of land, the price is only about one-third or one-fourth what it was in 1923. I know a farm in Tipperary, not many miles from my place, which cost £9,000 in 1923, and is now being offered for £2,000. The price paid in 1923 was, of course, ridiculous. I make no apology for making the best case I could for the unpurchased tenants in 1923, and I make no apology for not quoting the fact that in England the rent of a statute acre at that time was from £4 to £9.
You were speaking about the tenants' interests.
I was, and I am still speaking about them.
Would the Deputy say what an acre of Irish grazing land was let at at that time?
£5, £6, or £7 an acre.
There was not much difference between that and the English price per acre.
That was a letting on the eleven months' system. The landlord was not getting it. The tenant was getting it.
Deputy Gorey has made an admission to-night which I was very glad to hear him make, namely, that land has gone down in value, and that it is not now making one-third or one-fourth what it was making in 1923. If that is so, it is rather extraordinary that the Land Commission are still paying from 22 to 53 years' purchase. Are the Land Commission still living in the 1923 period? Is the 1923 standard still being used by the Land Commission valuers when they value this land that they are taking over? I do not for a moment agree with Deputy Gorey that there is any danger of the holdings to which he has made allusion being taken over. There is plenty of land to go round. As a matter of fact, the Land Commission do not know what to do with half the land they have. They gave 361 acres to a District Justice, and therefore they must have plenty of it.
No.
That statement was made in the Dáil by Deputy Hassett, who stated that 361 acres of land in Tipperary had been given to a District Justice. I hope we will hear that definitely denied to-night, or that the land will be taken from him. At present there is plenty of land to go round and there is no occasion for coming on the man with two acres here and fifty acres across the road and taking that from him. Portion of this section definitely deals with large ranches. It has, I take it, been introduced owing to the pressure brought on the Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee Stage. Portion of it refers to compensation which is to be given in the case of holdings, outside residential holdings, for damage caused by taking those outside holdings from tenants. That is the portion of the section which we are trying to get at. We make no apology here for endeavouring to take those holdings from the rancher. According to Deputy Gorey, the present value of land is not more than one-third or one-fourth what it was in 1923, yet the Land Commission are paying these ranchers from 22 to 53 years' purchase.
That is what the unfortunate incoming tenant will have to pay. He is clapped into this land and these people do not care under what circumstances he has to try to live in it afterwards. The whole basis of the arguments here to-night will have to be taken on the basis laid down by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Land Commission is to have discretion as to whether they will place this third rent on the incoming tenant or not. The whole basis of the arguments here to-night will have to be taken on the basis of whether, in addition to the ordinary annuity on the land, you are to place an annuity which would embrace the tenants' interest in the land, and also the compensation for disturbance which we must pay the grazier. You are to run the three into one and clap them down on the unfortunate incoming tenant. The result of all that will be that the county councils will have to bear the whole burden, both in rates and unpaid annuities. I would not like to waken the Minister for Justice.
The Deputy's voice is very soporific.
I apologise to the Minister. I did not really mean to waken him. When we look at the problem in that light we have to try and, as I stated, all our amendments are based on trying, to confine this compensation for disturbance within as narrow limits as possible, so that when we come into office we will have a smaller number of estates to deal with, and so that we will not have this big problem before us. I do not wish to see Deputy Gorey advancing along by the Labour Benches into ours. I do not think that we would take a present of him. Clapping these three rents in succession on top of the unfortunate tenant is like putting a pitch cap on him. We are putting the tenant in the position that he will have to clear out so that these estates will come back to the grazier by the process which I mentioned when we were dealing with the section on the Committee Stage. That is really what is going to happen on this section. We do not want a repetition of that. We want to see that if we are to give compensation it will be confined within as narrow limits as possible.
The provisions of the section appear to be rather mixed up. I was surprised to hear Deputy Geoghegan state that all farms will be liable to come under the section. If I understand the matter aright, it is only where the court considers it inequitable to do otherwise that they can allow such compensation. I think Deputy Geoghegan is a man who would have respect for the courts, and who would honour the decision of the courts. I think I am quite right in saying that the section does not give discretion to the Land Commission to do any such thing as to fix compensation unless the Judicial Commissioner, who in this instance is called the Court, decides that it would otherwise be inequitable.
If a case is inequitable it is consequently unjust. I do not think that Deputy Geoghegan or any Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party would stand for the perpetration of an injustice on anybody. Consequently, I think that the provisions of the Bill have been badly mixed up. The one outstanding feature of that section is that the case must be inequitable before compensation can be given. It does not say whether it is to be a large farm or a small one. If it is inequitable and unjust, this provision will operate and compensation will be paid.
It is quite true, as Deputy Brennan has reminded the House, that Deputy Geoghegan overlooked the wording of the section, because he endeavoured to make it appear, at least if one were to judge by his speech, that the word "inequitable" does not appear in the section at all. Compensation for disturbance is only to be given when, in the opinion of the Court, the market price is inequitable. This matter was very fully discussed on the Committee Stage of the Bill, and I think everybody on the Fianna Fáil Benches was impressed by the fact that there are certain tenants whose land we are resuming, who are not getting fair compensation for their interest in that land. We are resuming land in counties like Meath, Kildare and certain parts of the West, and the tenant is only getting what approximates to seven or eight years and in some cases six years' purchase of the land. The landlord, the owner or the vendor, as I explained on that occasion, has a price fixed arbitrarily under the Act of 1923. The tenant's compensation is still fixed by the Act of 1881. In any part of the country where we are resuming land to-day, and where there is a market for land, the tenant's compensation exceeds, and very often considerably exceeds, the standard price which the owner gets. In parts of the country, probably in the cases to which Deputy Geoghegan referred, where we are resuming holdings in Congested Board districts, the tenant's price exceeds the owner's price very often. That is only in those areas where you have a very good market for land. You have a keen competition for the land and the smaller the holding the keener the competition. These are small holdings which we are probably resuming for the purpose of carrying out certain schemes of rearrangement and improvement of holdings.
In other areas and in other counties, counties like Kildare, parts of Galway, Westmeath, Dublin, and parts of Leix and Offaly, where we have resumed large holdings, very often there is no market at all for the land and the Land Commission offer, whatever it may be, is really the market price. In the majority of such cases all the tenant receives is six or seven years' purchase. That is obviously unfair, because I think it will be generally conceded, in theory at all events, that the tenant should be entitled at least to the same compensation as the owner or the landlord, as the case may be. The tenant is certainly entitled to the same compensation as the landlord. His interest should be as great as the landlord's. I think it was never contemplated when the Act of 1923 was passed by the Dáil that the tenant's interest or the tenant's compensation should in any case be less than the price which the owner was entitled to receive by the Act of 1923.
Some Deputy, I do not know whether it was Deputy Corry or Deputy Geoghegan, referred to people with five or six farms, a tenant with five or six holdings, and said that if the Land Commission proceeded to resume one of the holdings he would receive compensation — at least this was the point that I understood Deputy Corry to make—on the same basis as if he had only one holding. That is absurd. In such cases the Land Commission must take into consideration the fact that the man had four or five other holdings, and the amount of compensation which he would receive from the Land Commission would be naturally correspondingly decreased. The more land he has the less he will be disturbed by the Land Commission taking one of his holdings. With regard to this amendment I must confess that to me at all events the draft of it seems difficult to understand. In fact, the whole phrasing of the amendment is difficult to understand. I assume at all events that the amendment as it is drafted incorporates Section 5, sub-section (1) (c) of the Land Act of 1896, which precludes the holdings referred to in the amendment from the fair rent provisions and benefits of the Land Acts.
It would be grossly unfair to restrict the benefits of Section 41 to holdings on which fair rents have been fixed, inasmuch as these other holdings come under the purchase provisions of the Act, and, consequently, the tenants on these holdings are entitled to any benefits which Section 41 would confer upon judicial tenants. After all, the point we have to consider is the interest of the tenant in the land. The tenant is undoubtedly entitled to fair compensation for his interest, and the section only provides that where that compensation is inequitable the Judicial Commissioner can give extra compensation for disturbance or injury, as the case may be. I cannot accept the amendment. I can use exactly the same arguments against it as I did against the other two.
The Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Brennan seem to estimate the Irish Judiciary at the same value that they estimate some of their own supporters. I rate the Irish Judiciary a little higher. When a section says that where in the opinion of the court it would be inequitable that the Land Commission should resume a holding or part of a holding on payment to the tenant of compensation and so on, I have enough confidence in the Judiciary to believe that they will give force to that section. Is it the veiled suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary that when a case comes before the Judicial Commissioner, and it is proved to that judge that the retained tenant does not wish to sell, that his land is being compulsorily acquired, and that such tenant has upon his holding the plant, equipment, gear, and so on, requisite to the working of the holding, or where it is proved that part of the holding only is being acquired and that a bit more is left upon his hands, is the judge to close his eyes to the manifest fact that that would be inequitable? Is that the suggestion? Surely if a tenant's holding is being resumed, and that tenant proves that he has incurred certain commitments entitling him to something more than the value of the land — what working tenant has not? — or if part of it only is being taken, that there is what is called severance and a bit left, is the judge to close his eyes to that and not to give him compensation? I glory in the independence of the judges, but I would cease to glory in it if, after this Legislature had enacted a provision which entitles certain people to get certain compensation, the judges did not give that compensation. Any discretion which the judge has is a judicial discretion, to be exercised judicially. The moment that the tenant whose holding is being resumed brings himself by evidence within this section, as he will in all ordinary cases, the judge will, of course, grant him the compensation, and if he did not do so he would recall to our minds the well-known picture of the unjust judge. It is only in this House that that can be prevented. I was astonished to listen to the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary, borrowed from Deputy Brennan. It was apparently Deputy Brennan who found this beautiful argument, that if this Legislature says that a man is to get compensation on fulfilling certain conditions the judge is unjustly to decide against him. Of course, Deputy Brennan cannot be kept under control. He is a quasi Farmers' Party man — a quasi Independent man. He cannot be locked in a committee room like the ordinary Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy. I have looked in vain on the benches during the discussion of these amendments for any Deputy farming less than 200 acres.
Might I ask if the Deputy is suggesting that the judge will give this compensation for disturbance and injury even in cases where he is satisfied that the market value is fair and just?
Let us be clear about this. The section will only come into play where you have an unwilling seller, a person whose lands you are compulsorily acquiring. If that person has upon his farm equipment, plant and gear, if he has other commitments connected with his farm so that there will be disturbance distinct from the value of his farm, I say that the judge will give it.
That is a different point. The Deputy has shifted his ground entirely.
I say that he will get it. Deputies have heard what I said and they will know whether I changed my ground or not. I said, and I say again, that once a resumed tenant proves that he has these commitments and is being disturbed, or that his land is being severed and that a bit is being left on his hands which is of less value to him, that over and above the value of the parcel of land that is being acquired he must in the exercise of the judicial discretion get compensation. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not intend that, I suggest to him that he should consult his draftsman and redraft the section. Certainly that comes within the scope of the section. The Minister for Agriculture treated the House to a long statement as to how he was misled by his legal advisers in 1923 when he got specific advice about the section dealing with the fixing of this value, and that the succeeding years proved that that advice was erroneous. It will be as little consolation to the people five or six years hence if they are told that this was not intended, that it occurred owing to the draftsmanship of the section, just like the amazing statement we heard from the Minister for Agriculture to-day. This section can only result in giving very large prices. We are told here now in the hearing of such Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies as can be unloosed — they never seem to have unlocked the Committee Room door and let out the smaller farmers — of course the Farmers' Party is not here — but in the hearing of all that are present here we received a plain statement that land was being acquired on six or seven years' purchase.
Oh, no. The Deputy was not listening, quite obviously.
We were told that some land was acquired at six or seven years' purchase of the tenant's interest.
Of the tenant's interest?
I understood that that was all we were dealing with under this section. We are dealing only with the value of the tenant's interest here.
Not necessarily.
We are dealing with the resumption of holdings. Does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to repudiate this document which he gave to Deputy Derrig?
I was only trying to help the Deputy to understand it.
If the Parliamentary Secretary does not repudiate it, I suggest he would give it a little thought. The last column of this return shows the total cost of resumption — that is, costs of both the tenant's interest and the landlord's interest. Column No. 6 shows the rent of the land. The rent of the land divided into the total costs of resumption, including both prices, in the very last instance given here in this return for 1930 of congested districts counties gives 53 years' purchase. Deduct from that anything you like in regard to the landlord's interest. The landlord's interest could not, so far as I can see, exceed fifteen years' purchase. Deduct even 17 if you find any justification for it; deduct even 20 years, five years more than the Statute gives, and you still have 33 years' purchase left. Who got that average of 33 years' purchase? Did it go, as was suggested on a previous occasion £269,000 went, into some queer void, or are the figures wrong?
The Minister for Agriculture explained away a lot to-day by saying that he got wrong legal advice in 1923. I suppose this will be explained away by saying that this is wrong accountancy. Taking the 53 years and deducting the 20 years, you have 33 years left as the average price of the tenant's interest. I do not wonder that Deputy Gorey could not stomach figures like these and went off to the locked Committee Room. If considerable areas of tenanted lands have been acquired at a price which represents six or seven years' purchase for the tenants' interests, where do you get the average of 33 years' purchase all round? I leave that to the mathematical members who are here to determine.
Where did the Deputy get that average?
Let me tell the Parliamentary Secretary——
I want to know where the Deputy got those figures.
There is no use asking me a question unless you let me answer; there is no use trying to walk on me. The last part of this interesting return is column 1, year 1930. The Parliamentary Secretary did not number the columns. When there are a lot of columns in a return most commercial people number them, and I wish the Parliamentary Secretary's Department would make them out in the ordinary businesslike way. I shall read them as if numbered. Column 1, year 1930; column 2, congested districts counties; column 3, number of holdings resumed, 5; column 4, area, 397; column 5, poor law valuation, £119; column 6, rent, £115; column 7, compensation to tenants, £3,955; column 8, total cost of resumption, including price of landlords' interests, £6,111. I am assured by arithmeticians who are capable of doing simple division that if you divide the rent, £115, into £6,111, you get something over 53——
The Deputy said 33 years' purchase represents the average for resumption proceedings.
I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would listen. How I struck an average was by taking your entire rent and dividing it into your entire cost of resumption, and in that way you get the figure 53. Am I not fair in calling that the average number of years purchase for the total cost of resumption? I said the ordinary price of the landlords' interests was fifteen years' purchase, but to guard against any accident I would add five years' purchase to that and assume the landlord got five years too much and that that would give him twenty years' purchase, and deducting that from fifty-three you have thirty-three years left.
I am not going to allow the Deputy to get away with this.
I am looking for information. I am not keeping the ace of hearts up my sleeve like Deputy Gorey.
The Deputy is only dealing with certain resumption cases in the congested areas in the year 1930, but the Deputy has overlooked that there are other figures for 1930 in respect of other areas outside the congested districts areas, and if he wants an average he has to take the two together.
I shall take the most attractive ones that the Parliamentary Secretary has chosen, and that is the non-congested counties for the year 1930. There I find:—Number of holdings resumed, twelve; aggregate rent, £1,198; compensation to tenants, £13,864; total cost of resumption, including price of landlord's interest, £30,854. There again if you divide the rent into the total cost of the resumption you get 25.8 years' purchase. If the rent of £1,198 is divided into £30,854 the result would be 25.8. Does the Parliamentary Secretary still doubt that?
If the Deputy has cleared up that point I would like to hear him on the amendment itself which has not been touched on by any speaker for the last twenty-five minutes.
The amendment is concerned somewhat with the price of land. One would certainly think, from some of the speeches on the benches opposite, that it was concerned with some delightfully abstract principles of justice. We are debating it from the point of view of prices, and we suggest, subject to your ruling, to which we bow, that if you find a return made by the Parliamentary Secretary which shows that in the year 1930, under the then existing land laws the total number of years purchase paid for the resumption of holdings was 53 years without the aid of this enhanced section, that the law is good enough, and that there is no need to bring in a sub-section which will send the price up higher. That would seem a legitimate consideration when one is dealing with prices.
I want to hear Deputy Geoghegan and the speaker who preceded him on the new sub-section. I realise that we must have a certain amount of overlapping under the section itself, but I have not heard anything at all about amendment 35 for the last 25 minutes.
I hope, sir, you will hold me responsible for my own sins, which according to Deputy Gorey are quite enough to damn me. Everybody who spoke in the last 25 minutes will have to answer for himself, but this particular amendment which we are discussing at the moment is that
This section shall not apply to a holding (other than a holding used wholly or mainly for a dairy farm) which is let to be used or has ordinarily been used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture (a) if it is of the rateable value of upwards of £50, and (b) if the tenant does not actually reside on the said holding.
The point of my observations is that the tenant of a grazing holding over £50 a year valuation on which he is non-resident has really very little to complain of. He is one of a class who last year shared between them 53 years' purchase which was shared out to them. He has very little to complain of. If you leave him with that or even in the most favoured class, when dealing with other counties where rents of £1,198 were resumed at a total cost of £30,858, or at a price for the tenants' interests of £13,864, even then if you leave such a person as that to the tender mercy of the law as it stands you will be doing him no great wrong.
We cannot discuss this amendment very well in the air. We must, when making up our minds as to whether this is an unfair sub-section or not, ask ourselves what are the criteria. Surely we should ask ourselves what is this gentleman getting if you leave the law as it is? We propose that where it exceeds £50 valuation, or where he is non-resident, to ascertain that, and to reduce it into some relation to the realities of life. We take up the return from the Parliamentary Secretary, and we find that this gentleman, if he happens to be in a congested districts county, is sharing in the 53 years' purchase, and if he is in one of the other counties he takes from 25 to 27 years' share of the distribution. Who will suggest that he is of such enormous value to the country that he must be pampered by giving him more? Who will suggest that it is not fair to draw a distinction between this grazier in Westmeath or Meath, who does not live on his farm, who merely has fat bullocks on his farm of over £50 valuation, who lives away from it and keeps only a dog or a herd there, to give that man the same compensation as one would give to Deputy Gorey, growing beet and growing barley, feeding pigs and feeding calves? That would be an injustice to the type of farmer personified by Deputy Gorey. I would ask the House to put this large non-resident grazier in a different position to Deputy Gorey. Deputy Sheehy would put him in a different position. I wish that Deputy Sheehy were at liberty to deal with this amendment, because then it would not be necessary to appeal even to the heads of the Deputies here. His eloquence would so reach the hearts of the people that they would not pamper up those large non-resident graziers at the expense of the friends of Deputy Sheehy, men like Deputy Sheehy himself, who bore the burden of the day and the heats in the land war. We would not put him in the same category as the category in which these other people are, and for that reason we say that the House ought not to give this fancy price to the non-resident graziers with a valuation over £50.
I would ask Deputy James Geoghegan if it is his opinion of the Judiciary that they would treat non-resident graziers in the same manner as they would treat a small tenant or as they would treat Deputy Gorey. Is that Deputy James Geoghegan's opinion of the Judiciary?
Then exclude him.
If Deputy James Geoghegan's opinion of the Judiciary is that they are so absolutely honest and above board that they would do the right thing, is his opinion then in this case that they would not do the right thing? To my mind that seems absurd.
With regard to Deputy Brennan's point that Section 41 is not to be universally applicable—I think the Parliamentary Secretary supported that idea—surely it would be the business of the Committee to find out cases where it should not be applicable at all, and if there is any case where it should not be applicable, surely it is the case that is mentioned in the amendment. I would call Deputy Brennan's attention to this matter which I think is very important in that connection, that in Section 41 these very persons seem by implication to be referred to, these persons without farms. That is with regard to the second reason for extra compensation. The second reason for extra compensation, as Deputy Brennan will observe if he reads the section, is "damage, if any, which will be sustained by the tenant by reason of the resumption of the land as affecting his user of other lands or otherwise causing injury to such other lands." Consequently, these are the very cases in which the Dáil contemplates a claim for special compensation. Deputy Brennan then, should not shift the responsibility for the decision of such cases to the Judicial Commissioner or to any court that is mentioned in this Bill. I suggest it is his job and the job of this Committee, to say whether or not it is right to give such persons extra compensation. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the market value of a number of these farms that may be resumed under this Bill is only about 6 or 7 years' purchase. But, according to the figures Deputy Geoghegan has quoted, if such farms be included in the return furnished to Deputy Derrig, obviously the price they are getting at present is in excess of the market value. Perhaps this is the most objectionable case that could be thought of, the case of these out-farms used for grazing purposes and over £50 valuation. There could be no excuse for extra compensation in such cases. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted that there would be cases where this extra compensation would not be given. Surely there is no more extreme case than the case mentioned in this amendment. Would he not admit, if it be inequitable to allow extra compensation in any case, the case of a man, say, who has a hundred acres of grass, apart from the farm he is living on, and which is used entirely for grazing purposes, is one? If it were not for the suggestion in Section 41 no one could make out any case for either disturbance or damage, using the word "damage" in the technical sense used in this section. If the Parliamentary Secretary can think of a more extreme case I think he should give it. In his defence of his opposition to this amendment, he did not attempt to visualise the working of this section at all, and, I think, before the House agrees that the clause should go to the courts without any qualifications, they should at least in justice to the court and in justice to the community that will be finding this extra compensation, give some indication as to the circumstances in which they consider compensation ought to be allowed, and as to the circumstances in which they consider compensation ought not to be allowed.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 44; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment 36:
In page 22, line 27, Section 42 (4), to delete all words after the word "Commissioner" to the end of the sub-section.
This is an amendment to delete the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner under Sections 41 and 42, which deal with applications from fee-farm grantees and long lease holders. The same arguments hold in this case as in previous amendments where we have sought to abolish this appeal. The general grounds for the abolition of the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner are expedition and economy in the carrying out of land purchase proceedings. Under this section a large number of people, tenants by agreement of all parties in the House who have hitherto been excluded from the operation of the Land Purchase Acts, are now included even when they are holders of untenanted land in congested counties, and in order to enable them to take advantage of the land purchase code we are giving them 10 per cent, bonuses and treating them, in fact, as holders of tenanted land. I think the Land Commission should be able to decide all applications without carrying them further. The Land Commission have laid down a general policy in this matter. There is a limit of £3,000, generally speaking, beyond which applications may not be considered, but even there the Land Commission are not absolutely precluded from allowing tenants to take advantage of the Act, even above the £3,000 limit.
It will be seen, therefore, as far as the Land Commission is concerned, that their policy is to treat all tenants who may come under this section on their merits, and I do not think that anyone can argue that any application is likely to receive anything but the fullest consideration from the Land Commissioners. I see no reason why when they have decided the case it should not be finally disposed of. If the position is that there will be still a body of tenants who think they will have a claim and who will be arbitrarily excluded by some rule of the Land Commissioners they can afterwards move to have their particular cases dealt with as this section now proposes to deal with it. They can come along and have their cases dealt with in some amending Act. I do not see any reason for allowing the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner in this case in view of the demands on all sides for the relief of congestion. The House having gone so far as to allow every case to be discussed on its merits should now decide that the decision of the Land Commissioners themselves should be final.
Under this section it is proposed to treat owners of land held under fee-farm grants as ordinary tenants. The Deputy referred to a number of similar cases dealing with ordinary tenants. If the tenants ordinarily coming under the Act of 1923 have the right of appeal from the Land Commission to the Judicial Commissioner you cannot differentiate between tenants under this section and tenants coming under the Act of 1903.
Why not? Is it not a fact that in the 1923 Act these cases were very much confined? It is only in this Bill that we now propose to open the door on all these people. We are giving them 10 per cent. bonus. Formerly they had to pay all expenses themselves.
There was always a right of appeal in the Act of 1923 and the Act of 1927 to the Judicial Commissioner.
I would like to bear out Deputy Derrig's point in this. If this Act is going to do one-third of what is promised for it there will be hundreds of cases of every class to come up before the Judicial Commissioner. We must remember that there were a large number of cases held over from time to time which will now be carried on at a rush. The Judicial Commissioner's Court is, as far as I can gather, about two years in arrears.
It is not in arrears at all.
I question that. I gave a case in the Committee Stage of this Bill which has been listed for two years and has not yet been tried, which proves that this court is in arrears. If it was to carry out one-sixth of the work laid down in this Bill it would have to sit night and day, and would never finish. I do not see any great necessity unless there is some special secret agreement tying us to this individual as the last word. We are paying very high salaries to Land Commissioners which should get us the highest possible services. I consider that a highly paid official drawing from £1,200 to £1,500 a year should be competent to judge any one of those cases without appeal. I see no necessity for an appeal from the decision of an official who is paid from £1,200 to £1,500 a year. There should be no occasion for appeal from four of these Commissioners at present. I have no faith in the Judicial Commissioner. I do not want to go into his case, but I want to emphasise this point here in this Act: If all the clauses and agreements that have already been carried were referred to the Judicial Commissioner, he would not get the work done if he sat night and day for the next five years. I do not see why tenants should be held up for five or six years, waiting for an appeal to one man. Surely there is more than one man left in the country able to give decisions in the matter?
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment 37 not moved.
I move amendment 38.
In page 22, line 32, Section 42 (4), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.
It is only a drafting amendment and really covers amendment 37.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 39 not moved.
I move amendment 39:
Before Section 45 to insert a new section as follows:—
45.—(1) Where the landlord of any tenanted land vested or to be vested under this Act was, prior to the declaration of the appointed day for such land, liable, either alone or in conjunction with another person or other persons and either under the terms of a contract of tenancy or under a statute or otherwise, to cleanse or maintain or to contribute to the cleansing or maintenance of any watercourse, drain, embankment or other work and such landlord neglected so to cleanse or maintain or contribute to the cleansing or maintenance of such work and by reason of such neglect a holding on such tenanted land has become permanently deteriorated or substantially reduced in area and in consequence of such deterioration or reduction the Land Commission is not satisfied that such holding is security for the standard purchase annuity to which, but for this section, it would become liable on vesting, the Land Commission, on the application of any person interested or without any such application and either before or after the appointed day,
(a) may, where the purchase money of such holding has not been advanced, make an order refusing to advance such purchase money and may thereupon fix the standard purchase annuity of such holding in the manner provided by the Land Act, 1923, in respect of holdings subject to rents other than judicial rents where the landlord and the tenant do not agree, or
(b) may, where the purchase money of such holding has been advanced, reduce the standard purchase annuity of such holding to the amount of a standard purchase annuity to be thereupon fixed by the Land Commission for such holding in the manner provided by the Land Act, 1923, in respect of holdings subject to rents other than judicial rents where the landlord and the tenant do not agree.
(2) Section 2 of the Land Act, 1929, shall not apply to standard purchase annuities fixed by the Land Commission under this section.
(3) The Land Commission shall not make an order under this section save either with the consent of all parties concerned or after notice has been served in the prescribed manner on all parties concerned and all such parties have been afforded an opportunity of objecting to the making of such order.
(4) Every application for an order under this section and every objection duly made to the making of any such order shall be considered and decided by the Land Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner, and there shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the decision of the other Land Commissioners on any such application or objection and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on such appeal shall be final, save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from the decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.
As the parliamentary Secretary seems to have met our point, naturally, in the transition from this side to the Government Benches the proposals have been watered down. However, we have to put up with these things. May I call the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the expression "permanently deteriorated." That seems a rather difficult phrase. We are dealing with cases of flooding, coast erosion and such like, where the holding is no longer security for the annuity placed upon it. The new section which the Parliamentary Secretary proposes fixes an annuity as under Section 2 of the 1920 Act. The expression "permanently deteriorated" seems to be rather a wide one. It might possibly happen that land would have deteriorated for a number of years, and be of no use whatever to the tenant, but nevertheless it might be argued that it had not been permanently deteriorated since all these floods and so on are afflictions of nature and may in time be expected to pass away. I suggest that "substantially deteriorated" would be better.
There must be deterioration of a substantial kind.
We want to meet the recurring cases that are not permanent in the sense of being continuous. They occur from time to time, but do not permanently deteriorate the land.
This is the Parliamentary draftsman's wording, in order to make the meaning of what Deputy Derrig proposes perfectly clear.
On a point of explanation, if the Parliamentary Secretary says that the word "permanently" was in the amendment I do not see it there.
No. this is the wording of the Parliamentary draftsman.
The Parliamentary draftsman is a Parliamentary draftsman, and is probably not conversant with matters relating to farming. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot contend that the objection is unreasonable. As a matter of fact, we have dealt very tenderly with this amendment. We suggest in the interests even of Cumann na nGaedheal, as well as in our own interests, that the word "permanent" should be got rid of and some more apt word used. As indicated, there may be recurring damage and loss for several months. Is not the word "permanent" so continuous that it may mean a great source of injury? If the Parliamentary Secretary would give some promise that he would have the word reconsidered by the Parliamentary draftsman that would satisfy most Deputies. The Parliamentary Secretary knows the point we are making and appreciates our difficulty.
The Deputy must remember that the purchase annuity is, according to the proposal, reduced for ever. You cannot do that for deterioration that might only last for a year or two. In such a case it would be unfair to reduce the purchase annuity for ever. I think the word "permanently" is a good word, and that it does not detract from Deputy Derrig's intention. There must be something to safeguard the Land Commission. The section must be drafted to make sure that it does not include every class of deterioration.
No one suggests that. We are merely suggesting that the Parliamentary Secretary should find some far-reaching words such as "materially deteriorated" or "substantially deteriorated" in place of "permanently deteriorated." We want some words that will guard against frivolous claims by the tenants. No one advocates a word that would leave the door open to nebulous claims. If "permanently deteriorated" is left in you will scarcely meet the case of seasonal deterioration which recurs perhaps at irregular intervals. That is what we seek to meet. Of course, "permanently deteriorated" is practically equivalent to destruction of some of the land.
It would appear to me that the wording of Deputy Derrig's amendment was not intended to cover deterioration lasting for two or three years only, but that the intention was to cover cases of permanent deterioration. It would be unfair to cover cases where it lasts only two or three years.
Three months every year.
That is why the word "permanent" was introduced to make the meaning clear.
Would not "seasonal" do?
It should be perfectly obvious to Deputy Geoghegan that the wording is not intended to deal with temporary deterioration, but with cases where the land has suffered as a result of flooding or from the negligence of the landlord to keep the drains clear.
I do not want this discussion to be side-tracked by debating it as if we are seeking to deal with some frivolous claim. I want to emphasise that we are dealing with a serious matter.
Is this amendment meant to deal with a particular case in my constituency?
Would you take charge of it?
Amongst other cases.
the words "where by reason of the landlord's failure" appear in the section. If it could not be proved that the injury was caused by the landlord's failure to put matters right a new position would arise, and people in my constituency would have no redress.
I do not think the Deputy is dealing with the amendment we are now discussing. It is a type-written document.
I have not got it.
I have a case in mind in my constituency which should make the matter clear. The Parliamentary Secretary said the proposal would be unfair where the deterioration occurred for a year or two. What about cases where the deterioration has occurred for ten years? The embankment has been repaired in the meantime, but practically for ten years it has been out of use as the result of the landlord's failure to keep it in repair. It has not been permanently rendered useless but the people have been deprived of the use of it for ten years and they had to pay the full annuities during that period. Is that fair?
Amendment put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Final Stage ordered for Friday, March 27th.
Are we to understand that there is now no Report Stage and that the re-committal of the Bill was in substitution for Report?
In effect that is so. I understand that the Bill as amended and reported will be circulated to Deputies to-night and they will have copies in the morning.
Does that mean that we can send in amendments?
Verbal amendments only.
Then there is very little use in circulating the Bill.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m. until 3 p.m., Thursday, 26th March.