I ask leave to introduce a Bill "entitled an Act to make provision for the fixing of the standard purchase annuity and the payment in lieu of rent under the Land Purchase Acts and the Land Acts, 1923 to 1931, in cases where the landlord and tenant have agreed to a voluntary or temporary abatement of the rent payable in respect of a holding and for that and other purposes to amend those Acts."
Private Deputies' Business. - Land Acts (Amendment) Bill, 1931—First Stage.
The motion is opposed.
The motion is opposed. Does the Deputy desire to made a statement?
A new precedent is, apparently, being set up in preventing a Bill going to its Second Reading when the principle of it can be discussed. If that means that the Government are going to contest the right that the Opposition have to get Bills discussed, two can play at that game. What is the object of allowing even the limited amount of Private Members' time that is allowed when a Bill of this kind, which is of first-class importance to the farming community, is to be thrown out without discussion? Private interests of all kinds can have Bills brought in here to protect their interests and the Government provide time for them, but when a Bill in the interests of the farming community is brought in it is immediately opposed and not allowed to be discussed even. I consider that the objection of the Parliamentary Secretary to the introduction of the Bill is a deliberate attack on the rights of private members. The Bill has the support of the members of the Opposition Party in this House, and I think that it should have the support of every farmer in the House. It has been brought in at the instance, as I hope to prove, of farmers' organisations all over the country, Farmer Deputies were looking for this amendment of the Land Acts in 1923, when Deputy Gorey introduced an amendment on these lines.
Will the Deputy give an explanatory statement of the Bill?
I am pointing out the position of affairs in regard to the Bill. The Bill introduced in 1923 was definitely meant to cover the whole question. Farmers at that time were satisfied, or apparently were bluffed into being satisfied, with an amendment put in by Deputy Hennessy to Section 22 (3) "save that any question as to whether an agreement for an abated rent was, in fact, an agreement for a new rent or any question as to the amount from which the deduction of 25 per cent. is to be made in ascertaining compounded arrears of rent and payment in lieu of rent shall be determined by the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision shall be final." That was the amendment introduced by Deputy Hennessy to cover this. It was taken as against an amendment moved by Deputy Gorey. Unfortunately what is happening is a very extraordinary state of affairs altogether. The enormous legal costs involved precludes the unfortunate tenants from bringing these cases before any court or having them tried by any court, and that is an injustice which should be remedied. I hope to show the House that the benefits supposed to be granted by this clause in the 1923 Act were not granted. Instead of getting any advantage that the abatement of rent entitled them to, they are not going to get any reduction once they are vested. They have to pay more when they are vested than they are paying at present under decisions of the Judicial Commissioner.
I have before me a decision given by Mr. Justice Wylie on 16th July, 1924. This definite clause in the Bill states that any question as to whether an agreement for an abated rent was, in fact, an agreement for a new rent, or any question as to the amount from which the deduction of 25 per cent is to be made, is to be determined by the Judicial Commissioner. The Judicial Commissioner is to determine whether the abatement was an abatement for a new rent or not, or merely a temporary abatement. That was the question to be decided by the Judicial Commissioner. This was the decision given: "That for the purposes of compounded arrears of rent and interest in lieu of rent the abated rent shall be the basis, but for the purpose of fixing the standard purchase annuity the old unabated rent shall stand." That is the decision given by Mr. Justice Wylie on 16th July, 1924. Under that decision we will take one definite case where the old rent the tenant was paying was £20. He got an abatement of 40 per cent., reducing it to £12. Mr. Justice Wylie's decision stated that for the purpose of compounded arrears of rent and interest in lieu of rent, that is, from 1923 until such time as the land would be vested, the rent would be further reduced to £9, but on vesting the tenant would have to go back and pay £13. That is one of the decisions given by the Judicial Commissioner. That means that the tenant would be paying £1 more per year rent for his land than he was paying in 1920 or 1921 when he would be vested, and he would be paying £4 per year more for his land than he is paying at present.
We had statements made here some time ago when the 1931 Land Act was brought in. On 11th March the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Roddy) made the following statement in this House: "It is quite possible that an agile lawyer might make it appear that the wording of the present section of the Act of 1929 would not mean what it was undoubtedly intended to mean." I hold that that is what has happened in respect of the amendment inserted in the 1923 Act for the benefit of the tenants—that an agile gentleman has given decisions which completely override the intentions of this Dáil. I should like to quote in respect to that a statement made here by the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a question of mine, as reported in Volume 28 of the Official Debates. Col. 760. This was my statement on that occasion:—
"My case is that a large number of tenants in my district, in which are included about five estates, had a voluntary reduction from the landlord on their judicial rents of 35 per cent. Under the 1923 Land Act these tenants were compelled to purchase, and had to accept 25 per cent. reduction instead of the 35 per cent. I can give receipts proving this."
The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
"That is sheer nonsense. The 25 per cent. is based on the abated rent the tenant was paying at the passing of the 1923 Act."
Mark these words. My Bill is only seeking to carry out what the Parliamentary Secretary evidently thought was incorporated in the Act of 1923. The Parliamentary Secretary has definitely stated that the abated rent the tenant was paying at the passing of the 1923 Act was to be the basis of purchase. Now, as you will see by this decision of Mr. Justice Wylie, given on 16th July, 1924, he has absolutely over-ridden what were the intentions of the Dáil in that matter. The Parliamentary Secretary neither knew the 1923 Act nor the decisions given by the Judicial Commissioner in this case. If he did he would not have made that statement. What was the interpretation put by the Judicial Commissioner on Section 22 of the Act of 1923 when he gave that decision? We are now in the position that whatever chance a tenant had of getting an allowance on his abated rent before vesting, he is going to get no chance after vesting—he will have to pay more. The decision is that for 68½ years the tenant will have to pay £4 a year more than he is paying at present, or 65 per cent. increase in his rent for the next 68½ years.
I consider this a scandalous procedure. If the landlord is not getting an advantage before vesting, why should he get it after vesting? Still that is the result of one of the decisions. Does anyone contend that the present depressed condition of the farmers should not be taken into account? What is our position? The tenant has, in the first place, his right to object. The landlord's list is taken. The tenant has to go to the whole expense. He has to object to the returns given by the landlord. Then the case is brought before the Land Commission Court. The tenant has to go to the expense of attending, of bringing up his witnesses, of briefing counsel and all the rest. Then the case is tried by the Land Commission Court. The Land Commission Court gives a unanimous decision by its three Commissioners in favour of the tenant. The landlord then appeals to the last Court of Appeal in this country, as between landlord and tenant, namely, the Judicial Commissioner, and the Judicial Commissioner gives his decision in favour of the landlord, and the tenant finds himself put to very considerable expense, and, notwithstanding the intentions of this Dáil, which they had put into the 1923 Act, the tenant finds himself with a load of expense heaped upon his shoulders and no satisfaction whatever to get.
This Bill, which the Parliamentary Secretary refuses to allow discussion upon, would remedy that. I consider that a scandalous procedure, and I consider that the rights of private members are absolutely over-ridden. In order to keep this functionary, the Judicial Commissioner here, this last appeal and last word between landlord and tenant, and in order to secure that the intentions of this Dáil should be completely over-ridden by that court, discussion here is stifled. I consider that is procedure that should not be allowed in this Dáil. We might be told——
Has not the Deputy made his explanatory statement now?
I have not finished my explanatory statement yet.
The Deputy has gone a good deal outside an explanatory statement. He has gone much further, and I think he has really concluded all he can reasonably expect to say under the Standing Order.
I would be very anxious with your permission, A Chinn Comhairle, to put before the Dáil statements made by the farmers' organisations and letters sent to farmers' representatives in this Dáil, asking them to support this measure on behalf of the farmers.
The intention of the Standing Order is that the Deputy should explain why the Bill should be introduced, not that he should go into the volume of support for the Bill. The Deputy has made clear—he has made it clear to me, at all events—what is in the Bill, and the purpose of the Bill. I think he is not entitled to do any more. No one will have an opportunity of debating any points he makes outside that.
It is their own selection.
No, unfortunately it is the Ceann Comhairle's selection.
I am anxious to confine myself as much as possible within the rules of order.
To the explanatory statement?
I would like to put this point before Deputies, and I put it with all the earnestness I can. They are here to-night going to decide the fate of hundreds of tenants throughout the country. I have receipts here marked "temporary" going back 34 long years. I have receipts here showing temporary abatements from 1887, and the same temporary abatements are continued up to 20th May, 1921. I have temporary abatements marked on receipts for 34 years.
Temporary special abatements?
Temporary special abatements, if you like. But in spite of all these temporary abatements, we have the decision of this House, and the Acts passed through this House set aside not by agile lawyers, but by wily judges. That is a position of affairs that I think should not be allowed. I appeal to this House to end here to-night in the only way it can be ended this state of affairs by passing the First Reading of this Bill, and of at least giving the House an opportunity of discussing the Bill afterwards.
That is the only appeal I make. If there are any sections in the Bill afterwards which the Parliamentary Secretary may wish to amend, he can amend them. I make that appeal to the House not to put the fate of these unfortunate tenants in the hands of this Court of Appeal which, in the words of an unfortunate tenant who happened to be in that place last week was like going to law with the devil in the court of hell. I think he gave a very straight and honest opinion, which is the opinion of the farmers throughout the country of this Judicial Commissioner's Court which has been set up. As the last word for the tenants, I appeal to Deputies here to consider that nine-tenths, nay more, ninety-nine out of every hundred landlords that come before that court are members of the Masonic Order and the Judge is another. I ask you to consider that and do what you like afterwards.
The Deputy, in the course of his statement, perhaps unconsciously, revealed the real reason for the introduction of this Bill. A certain number of tenants, acting on the advice of Deputy Corry, brought a case before the Land Commission Court. A certain decision was given. The case was appealed before the Judicial Commissioner, and additional evidence was brought forward by the agent on behalf of the landlord. The decision was adverse to the tenants in whom Deputy Corry is interested, and hence this Bill.
On a point of explanation——
The Deputy made his speech and was not interrupted.
If Deputies are to introduce Bills on every occasion on which an adverse decision is given in cases in which they are interested it is going to make a mockery of legislation, and reduce this Dáil to a farce. The Deputy did not attempt to explain his Bill. He has referred to a certain decision given, and rightly given, by the Judicial Commissioner under the Act of 1923 and the succeeding Land Acts.
I will just explain briefly what this Bill means. It seeks to make agreements between landlord and tenant for temporary abatement of rent to operate as agreements for permanent reductions, upon which figure the reduced purchase money of the holding is to be calculated. The Bill is wide enough in its scope to cover every type of abatement and every type of agreement entered into between landlord and tenant. Take the case of a benevolent landlord—after all, there were many benevolent landlords or, at least, landlords who acted in a benevolent way prior to the Land Act of 1923—
I am glad that you are so fond of them.
As I say, take the case of such a landlord who, by reason of sickness in a tenant's household, loss of crops owing to bad season, or through an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or some other cause, gave an abatement of rent for that one season or one gale. Such landlord will find the abatement by this Bill converted into a permanent reduction of rent. I think that the injustice of that proposal is quite apparent and that it is unnecessary for me to labour it further. An agreement made some years ago is perfectly clear in its terms and is perfectly understood by both parties to be intended to operate for a temporary period either for one gale or for one year, but by this Bill it is to be given the effect of a permanent abatement, an effect which was not contemplated as likely to result by either party to the agreement at the time. The Bill would upset the whole basis of contract entered into by landlord and tenant on that occasion and in that sense it is entirely unjust.
It was quite a customary thing, as Deputies are aware, for landlords to give temporary abatements for one reason or another. As I say, they gave abatements for one year or for one gale but it was never intended and the tenants never expected that they would assume anything in the nature of a permanent character.
The Bill affects and causes injuries to parties who are not parties to these agreements. The landlord in many cases, being only a tenant for life, had consequently no right to bind his successors by any agreement entered into with the tenant, but he had a right in law, as it then existed, to give abatement to tenants during his lifetime, but, as I say, he had no right to bind his successors. Consequently those people who would be entitled to the rent or to their particular share of the purchase money—they may be mortgagees, trustees or others—would be naturally affected by an arrangement of that kind. This Bill cuts at the very foundation of the Act of 1923. Certain prices were then agreed on as to the purchase price of a holding. Certain reductions on rent payable by the tenants were to be the standard purchase annuities. It was on these rents that these reductions were to be calculated, and, in case of any obscurity or ambiguity as to what the rents were in fact, the court, as I have just said, had power to investigate and decide. They had power to call witnesses, to examine documents, to examine the nature of the contract entered into between the landlord and the tenant, on the occasion of the agreement for the reduction of the rent. They had a right to call evidence, to hear evidence in court, to investigate fully the facts of the case, and having investigated fully the facts of the case, a decision was given. The Bill, however, seeks to enact that the purchase prices are to be calculated not on the rents, for everybody must admit that temporary abatements are not rents, but on the annual payment which the landlord for a special reason may have agreed to accept for a specially limited period.
I do not think I need say anything further on this Bill. There is in the present land code ample provision to ascertain what the intention and the effect of the agreement made between landlords and tenants were and to carry out such intentions. The only use that can be made of the Bill is to enact that agreements shall have an effect quite different from that intended by the parties, both by the tenants and the landlords when the agreements were drawn up. The Bill, in my opinion, is ridiculous, it is absurd, and it is quite unnecessary, because within the scope of the present land code, the Land Commission has ample power to deal with cases of dispute between landlord and tenant. In the Land Courts every day of the week such cases are heard, and the tenants are thoroughly satisfied with the manner in which the cases are decided. I might further add that a big number of cases have been dealt with in the Land Commission Courts and, in the overwhelming majority of these cases the decisions have been in the tenants' favour.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. On the 28th February, 1929, I asked him a question, and when I pointed out that the landlord had returned the old rent as the rent, the Parliamentary Secretary said: "That is sheer nonsense. The twenty-five per cent. is based on the abated rent the tenant was paying at the passing of the 1923 Act." When he made that statement to me, and when that decision was upheld by three of his Land Commissioners with several years' experience, who tried it in the Court of the Land Commission, it was rather strange that Mr. Justice Wylie upset it. Does he now absolutely draw back? The present Bill is based on the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary as to what the intentions of the 1923 Land Act were. Does he deny that the Bill is based on his statement, that I am not going beyond his statement in the Bill? That is the point at issue. If I find out that he is going to give way——
Now, the Deputy only wanted to ask a question.
The House can decide it what way it likes.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- 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.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- 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.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Boland and Little; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Motion declared lost.