I think we have debated this section long enough. The Land Commission must have a certain discretion when they are bargaining with a migrant to vacate his old holding. One of the difficulties that they have had in getting new allottees for the old holding is the fact that they object to paying off arrears incurred by the former occupier—the migrant who has gone some place else. We want to give the Land Commission a free hand in bargaining both with the migrant and with the new allottees. Now, in regard to the burdens that the new man is carrying there is always some saleable interest in the old holding, and when they transfer him to a new one they allow him for them. It may be a few pounds a year. Take a migrant paying a £10 annuity. The Land Commission may charge the incoming allottees £13 or £14. In his new holding the migrant is credited with the difference between his old annuity and the annuity paid by the incoming tenants. The carrying of his old arrears will not amount to a very big burden on the migrant when he goes to other land.
Committee on Finance. - Land Bill, 1936—Committee Stage (Resumed).
The Minister has not made the sub-section any clearer. Paragraph (a) of it reads:
Such funding annuity shall unless the Land Commission otherwise orders....
Is it not perfectly clear from the wording of that paragraph that the Land Commission has a discretion as to whether the funding annuity shall be transferred to the new holding or otherwise?
That is so.
Amongst other things which the Land Commission will deal with is the question of the payment of arrears. Quite a number of questions do arise in connection with the transfer of charges to holdings especially in the case of migrating a farmer from one county to another. These are covered by a section in the 1923 Act. I think it outlines the machinery, relating to burdens and charges, in connection with the transfer of migrants, but this is in addition to the existing charges. This is something quite new. It is not in substitution for any of the existing charges. This proposes to transfer a funding annuity on a holding, let us say, in the County Galway to a new holding which will be given, or which probably has already been given, to a migrant in the County Dublin. The thing seems on the face of it inequitable, unfair, and unjust. After all, how can you consolidate a charge on a holding in the County Galway with an annuity on a holding of land in the County Dublin?
What will you do with it?
Surely there is some other means of adjusting it.
What is it?
Why not transfer it to the new tenants or wipe it out.
Would you also transfer his shop debts?
There is no analogy between shop debts and a funding annuity. After all, these unpaid arrears of annuities accumulated during the years from 1930 to 1933, and if a tenant was unable to pay these annuities during those years, does the Minister imagine that he is able to pay them to-day—that a farmer is in a better position to meet arrears of that kind to-day than he was in 1933? As I stated earlier this evening, the mere fact of transferring a migrant from one county to another is in itself a sufficient handicap without adding charges which already can be transferred under Section 46 or Section 47 of the Land Act of 1923. This is quite a new charge. It does appear to me to be grossly unfair. It seems to me it is one of those charges that the Minister should either transfer to the tenant who will take over the old holding or else it should be wiped out altogether.
Let us be in some way logical. The Minister said that the Land Commission did not propose to transfer tenants who were in arrear, to any great extent. I hope if he is going to proceed in this particular matter that he does not do so. In any case, if we do proceed to transfer a migrant, we are taking pains in this measure to assume that the individual is in an impoverished condition, because apparently he needs assistance, a subsistence allowance, a travelling allowance and he has to be established in his new home. When he gets into the new home we will provide him with maintenance for 12 or 15 months. In view of all that, how can he be regarded as financially strong enough to meet the debts on his old holding? It is really an illogical proposition and I think, on reflection, the Minister should withdraw the first sub-section of this section. I do not think he has made any particular case for it.
If you do select a migrant who is in arrears—they are not always the best kind of migrants to select and I do not suppose the Minister will select them to any great extent-and if you are going to give him any prospect of being a useful occupant of land, you will have to put him in the same position as the migrant who is transferred without any burdens. The least you may do is to leave the old holding clear of debt. I would rather not see him transferred at all than transferred under such conditions. In the case of a man who would get into arrears and who then would be provided with travelling expenses, maintenance expenses and a subsistence allowance and everything else, it is rather illogical to say that that man can bear the added burden of arrears on his old farm, the burden of the annuities on his old holding.
I wonder has the Minister any regard for equity when he is dealing with matters of this kind? That funded annuity represents arrears of annuity contracted on the first holding in a particular county and it belongs in equity to the county council of that county from which the agricultural grant has been deducted for that amount. The Minister deals with this as if it were Central Fund money. He transfers the obligation of paying a debt that arose on a particular farm in a certain county to another farm in another county. I take it he does not make it a personal obligation on the man who contracted it, but he places it as a mortgage debt on a farm on which it has never been contracted. Would not the equitable way of dealing with that be to have the man who is leaving the original holding discharged of responsibility? If the Minister does not want to penalise the man, then give him a loan on his new farm. It was a common thing in the old days, in addition to free grants in the case of new holdings of that kind, also to give loans that would be consolidated in the annuity. Why not let this man, out of a loan so given, redeem the funded annuity and let the county council in that county be paid that funded annuity which is due to that county council by reason of deductions that heretofore have been made in the agricultural grant on foot of these arrears?
What Deputy Bennett has said has very real force. The Minister in a previous section wants to give travelling expenses, money for food and money to work the land; he did not say beer money, but it almost amounted to that. He said a man would be paid for going to look at the holding that he was going to get. That man might say: "I will not take that," although he would be getting it reasonably, but still he would be paid for going to see it. He would be helped to work his land and he would be paid a weekly allowance for a year and a half. Now, if it is necessary to give such financial help to a migrant, surely it cannot be justified that that man carries a debt with him. Here is another view of the type of new farmer that is going to be transplanted in another county. We are being told, and I do not think by anybody have we been told so frequently and with such emphasis as by the Minister, that people who have not paid their annuities would not pay them. It was not a question of ability, but they just would not pay their annuities.
Why then does the Minister propose to give a better farm to a man who has not paid his annuities on his old farm? If he did pay his annuities and was up to the standard of farming that the Minister would expect, if we are to take his public declarations as a near approximation to what he believes with regard to the ability of farmers to run farms, then the man who has to have the arrears of his annuities funded would be a failure in farming and why take him from a small holding in which he failed and from surroundings to which he was accustomed and transplant him into another county, into a larger holding, into conditions that he does not understand and into land that he does not know and expect him to be a successful farmer in the new farm when he had failed in the other?
From any angle that this can be looked at, there is no sense in transferring a debt that belongs to the farm, and not to the man, to another farm in another county. That debt belongs in equity to the county council of the county in which the original farm is situated. It is really a monstrous proposal, but no more monstrous than the Bill itself, and, seeing the peculiar proposals that are in this measure, one is hardly surprised at anything. I should like to know how the Minister can justify the plunder of county council money—I might almost say the misappropriation of county council money—by the Government through an Act or a Resolution of this House, and then, having done that, the transfer of the debt from one county to another. It seems to me a monstrous proposal.
I should like to know how those sub-sections (a), (b) and (c), hang together in view of what the Minister says. He says that the farm from which a man has been taken has some saleable value, and allowance is made for that in fixing the rent of the new holding. Sub-section (b) says that the charge of such funding annuity on the new holding shall rank next in priority to the purchase annuity. Sub-section (c) says that the arrears and the annuity fixed for the new holding shall be consolidated. If that is so, I take it that one has not priority over the other. The payment shall be made from the time that the holding is transferred to the Land Commission. It looks then as if it is not paid until after the man has been transferred to the new holding. How then is it consolidated with the rent that is fixed on the new holding before he is transferred? I take it that the rent is fixed before he is transferred to the new holding. It is not payable until the land is transferred to the Land Commission, and then it has priority after the annuity that is fixed on the new holding. I should like to know how those two things are going to be operated, because to me it appears that when they are consolidated, it is one rent, and that they both are a first charge on the new holding.
There is only one point on which I should like some information from the Minister on this section. Sub-section (1) (b) says:
The charge of such funding annuity on the new holding shall rank next in priority after the purchase annuity.
That seems to be rather inconsistent with sub-section (c). At any rate, it seems to be concluded that they are two separate and distinct charges.
There does not seem to me to be provided any remedy for the recovery of that other annuity. I notice that when you come down to sub-section (4) you do provide, in those circumstances, a remedy for the recovery. It shall be "recoverable out of the new holding in like manner in all respects as if the said purchase annuity, interest, rent, or other annual payment had been payable in respect of the new holding"; that is, when you transfer arrears that have not been funded you provide a specific remedy for that. When you transfer a funded annuity why do you not put in a statement as to how it can be recovered? I am rather puzzled by it. It seems to me that you have left yourself without any remedy.
I think we have thrashed this matter out pretty fully. There is one fallacy that a lot of the arguments of Deputies opposite seem to be based on, and it is that this is meant to deal with the type of migrants who have been recently transferred to Athboy, whereas, in point of fact, it is brought in primarily to deal with holdings where migrants have been taken from the West for the relief of congestion in the West. That is the type of farm that it is designed to deal with. I explained before that it is not a very big economic problem; it is rather a psychological problem. The incoming allottees in the West who get those old farms object strongly to paying the arrears of the former occupier. Deputy Roddy says it is grossly unfair that the former occupier should carry his arrears with him, but the new allottees consider it grossly unfair that they should have to pay them. As I say, in pounds, shillings and pence it does not amount to very much; it is rather a psychological problem. The Land Commission want to have bargaining power either to keep the arrears on the old holding or to transfer them to the new holding given to the migrant.
In regard to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's point, I do not know whether as a matter of fact sub-section (1) (b) is necessary. I would have said that sub-sections (a) and (c) are sufficient, but it is the draftsman's way of putting it, and we can look into the matter.
I only wished to draw the Minister's attention to it, because it appeared to me that you may have left yourself without the ordinary remedies of recovery.
I hardly think that is so, because in the 1933 Act I remember that we took the same remedy for the recovery of the funding annuity——
I wondered whether that would apply to the transferred funding annuity. I only wished to draw the Minister's attention to it, and do not want to question it in any way.
I do not know how much is in it. In regard to Deputy Belton's point about the harm done to the County Council of Galway, or Kerry, or wherever the migrant comes from, by having the arrears transferred to County Meath, the whole business of the repayment of the arrears and the funding annuities is a matter that does not affect the county council very much. The Deputy and others objected very strongly that we should fund those arrears at all in 1933, and pointed out that the local county councils would not be repaid for 50 years. I made here on behalf of the Minister for Finance a promise that they would be recouped their arrears before the 50 years—that within as short a time as the Exchequer funds permitted we would repay in lump sums into the Guarantee Fund the arrears that were funded. That has been done already in a couple of years to the extent of over £500,000 and it really does not matter a thraneen to the County Council of Galway whether those arrears attach to the allottees down there or whether they go to Meath with the migrants. Largely, as I say, the whole section was brought in to deal with rather large farmers in the West whose lands were acquired for the relief of congestion there, and who were transferred to the East. It is not proper to associate this section with the other section that we passed here giving us certain powers to help the small migrant.
Did the Minister not consider meeting the case by a loan? It would come to the same thing.
The loans issued by the Land Commission are portion of the annuity on the farm just the same as the funding annuities.
But supposing the Land Commission were to loan sufficient to pay off the funded arrears, and that you then made that loan a charge upon the new farm, would you not be introducing a rather peculiar principle?
It is an effective one.
It would not affect the case financially, I admit.
The funding annuity is, in fact, sinking fund and interest on a loan which the tenant took by not paying his annuities.
It could be read that way.
With regard to the power actually exercised by the Land Commission in this section, paragraph (a) says:
"Such annuity shall, unless the Land Commission otherwise orders...."
Does that mean that the Land Commission can only determine whether the funding annuity shall remain on the old holding or on the new?
No.
The Land Commission has no power to wipe out that or otherwise liquidate it?
No.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (2), page 5, line 38, before the word "interest" to insert the word "of", and in line 39, before the word "were" to insert in brackets the words "(whether with or without costs and expenses)", and in line 45, before the word "so" to insert the words and brackets "and the said costs and expenses (if any)".
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (3), page 5, line 57, to delete the words "holding is" and substitute the words "old holding has been".
This also is a drafting amendment. It is merely changing the word "is" to "has been."
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (3), page 5, line 58, before the word "interest" to insert the word "of", and before the word "which" to insert the words and brackets "and all (if any) costs and expenses".
This is a purely drafting amendment.
Amendment No. 15 is out of order.
We had tabled an amendment to this section, Sir, that you could not accept, and so we have got to make our point on the section itself.
Quite.
This section gives the Land Commission power to take up a holding for arrears of annuities, and to discharge arrears-wipe them out. Now, in doing that, the Ministry is wiping out a charge which, in reality, does not belong to the Land Commission. It is the property of the county council in whatever county such land is situated. We had a long argument on another section on practically the same principle, but it seems to me unfair that such a procedure should be adopted in the case of lands which are valuable, because I am sure it will not be held that they are not of some value; otherwise, if they are waste or mountain lands, they will not be fit for distributing to anybody. Accordingly, we will have to assume that they are lands of value, and, if they are, and the Land Commission takes them over for arrears of rent, they take them over without any compensation except the arrears. Under this section they are now going to wipe out the arrears, and so diddle, if I may use the word, the county councils out of any chance they would have in the future to recoup themselves for reductions in the Agricultural Grant because of those arrears.
I am strongly opposed to this section and I believe that all my colleagues here are strongly opposed to it. It is unfair to do away with the possibility of county councils ever receiving compensation for the reductions in their grants and I believe that it would not be unfair to put these charges on the land just as the Minister put the charges on the man who was migrating from one county to another. It would not be unfair to put these charges on his land when a man migrated into a new farm. The Land Commission would be making some use of them and the added arrears if there were no other compensation given. I presume it could not amount to a desperate amount of money. The land, however, must be of some value. Anyhow, I object to these arrears being wiped out entirely at the expense of the county bodies.
This is a rather novel proposal, and one has difficulty in seeing how to approach it in order to justify it. Of course, one can see that where the Land Commission see any chance of getting money into the Exchequer or the Guarantee Fund they will see that they get it. Here, however, they are going to wipe out a debt that is really not due to them at all, a debt that is being paid by the ratepayers. It is certainly a very generous thing to cancel a debt due by a person to somebody else. That is a very simple method of book-keeping, but when it comes to any money that is due to the Land Commission themselves, of course they make sure to get it. How can this section be justified?
I do not know whether previous speakers saw this case as it appears to me. The Land Commission have obtained possession of a holding under section so-and-so. Well, then, the Land Commission will be the owner of such holding and the Land Commission will be liable for the arrears. These are not funded arrears. In such circumstances, could the Guarantee Fund be made to meet those arrears? Would the amount of those arrears be deducted from the Agricultural Grant? The Land Commission is the owner of the holding. Otherwise, it cannot have possession of it. The Land Commission is the owner of the holding or the parcel of land previously held by the allottee. Why, then, does not the Land Commission pay the arrears before it resells? What right has it to reallocate to somebody and wipe out the arrears when the county councils lose so much off their Agricultural Grant on account of those arrears? I take it that the Land Commission should pay the arrears when it resumes and not, in effect, make the county council pay them over. That is what it amounts to.
Exactly.
Who else should pay these arrears but the Land Commission? It has got possession of the land and it must take the debt on the land with it. Why are there arrears? There are arrears because the Land Commission did not do its job in collecting them. Then the Land Commission takes up the land and, as the owner or the mortgagee in possession, is it not liable for the arrears? I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the Land Commission should be liable. It can relet, resell or reallocate those lands to somebody else, but while it is in possession of the lands, it seems to me that it is liable for the arrears and that it should pay itself.
They have been paid already by the local rates.
I think that that section amounts to a pure swindle on the county councils. Words are juggled in order to swindle the county councils. Why place an annuity on a holding that the holding is not able to bear? If such an annuity is placed on the holding, then it is, due to the incompetence of the Land Commission, and if it is a fair annuity, surely the Land Commission, under the 1933 Act, took the direct method of collecting. They have the machinery—a machinery very well oiled and always going at high pressure, full steam ahead; and in the hands of its new chief I am sure it will go better than ever, because he seems to glory in that kind of thing, but he might be travelling a little fast in respect of this section. With such ample machinery at his disposal, and with his sense of justice and fair play, surely he ought to expect a fair annuity on a farm to be paid. If it is not paid within a reasonable time, it is his fault, and if he puts that machinery into operation, it will be paid before the arrears accumulate to any extent. Mind you, a half-year's annuity is not long in arrears until a duplicate copy of the demand is forwarded to the annuitant from the sheriff or the court messenger or whatever he is called now. It is some nicer name than sheriff.
County registrar.
It is all the same. A rose smells the same no matter what you call it. The most that could accrue would be one year's annuity, and surely if the business is done efficiently at the beginning, by the placing of a fair annuity on the farm— and that is the responsibility of the Land Commission—a year's arrears of that annuity are not going to impose rack-rent conditions on the owner.
When the Land Commission resumes, the most there can be is a year's arrears, and perhaps only a half-year. Why remit it? It takes up possession, and surely it must meet its own obligations? It wants to create a line of least resistance for itself, and wants to offer the land with no arrears on it. It is its own funeral. Let it come out of the expenses of the Land Commission, and let the Minister in charge of that Department come here annually with his Estimates. Otherwise, to take an extreme view of it, the Minister can be the good fellow and give time to everybody who comes to him. He need not press them, knowing that he is sure to get the annuities, and that if he does not get them he has to sell out these farmers. He knows the Land Commission will not have to foot the bill, but that the local authorities will have to foot it.
I think the Minister in charge of the Land Commission should do his work properly in the first instance, and put a fair annuity on those farms, an annuity which a man can pay and live. If the annuity is not paid, the machinery at the disposal of the Minister can be put in motion in due time to clear it, and if the worst happens, and the Minister has to take possession and become mortgagee in possession, the load of arrears will not be so heavy as to preclude a sale in the open market. What would the Minister have to recover? Only a half-year's annuity and the little cost attached to the sale. Would that not be all he would need to get for the farm? He could then hand it over free to the new allottee. Take the man who has a farm and who runs into arrears. The Land Commission sells that by putting it up for auction. Will the Land Commission not be recouped if they get the arrears and the cost of the sale? The Minister wants to give that farm to somebody else, apparently, for nothing, and make the county council pay the arrears. Why not put it into the market and sell it for the arrears?
May I interrupt the Deputy at this point? I did not think the Deputy was going to speak so long. I will explain the thing a little.
It should not be in the Bill. Then the Deputy would have no reason to talk at all.
If it was not there, the Deputy might have reason to talk.
The Deputy generally knows what he is talking about, and he could teach the Minister a lot of this stuff.
I am sure he could, but I am perfectly certain that if this section were not in the Bill, Deputy Belton would be asking us to put it in for the relief of the county councils. I explained on the Second Reading that there were certain farms for which we could not get a purchaser, even when given for the arrears.
Why?
Because the land is not value for the arrears. They are derelict farms that have been allowed to go into rack and ruin.
What was the Minister doing that he did not collect them and sell the farms before.
There are a few farms in this country which have been derelict for a very long time. It was valuable land at one time, bearing a high valuation, but it was allowed to go derelict and to become overgrown, some of it not even being grazed. It is a liability on any man going to work it for a few years until he gets it into good heart again. There is one particular farm which the Land Commission had in hands. There were arrears amounting to £200 on it. It was land that had been derelict for years. There was £1 an acre valuation on it and they could not get anybody to take it, even for the arrears. We have no power at the moment to wipe out arrears in any circumstances. At least, I think there is one circumstance. Up to 1933——
What was the extent of the farm?
190 acres. The valuation was £182. It was derelict and overgrown, and to put it into any sort of shape, an incoming tenant would have to spend a great deal of money on it. The Land Commission offered it and could not get a buyer at the £200 figure.
When was possession taken by the Land Commission?
It must have been recently. It was three years ago. I suppose the Land Commission are trying to let it each year to get even the annuities out of it, but the position with regard to that farm is that the longer it is in the Land Commission's hands, the higher are the arrears becoming, and the greater is the sum being taken out of the guarantee fund of the local county council. It is much better to cut the losses on it and get a tenant into it who will pay his annuities and relieve the local ratepayers of paying.
Is it the case that you are not paying the annuities on land in your possession?
We are trying to get out of the land.
It is in your possession and you want to take money out of the county councils' pockets and put it into your own.
We want to leave the rates with the county councils and to cut the losses.
Because you are not paying the annuities.
Because the farmers are not paying them. We are paying them to ourselves.
Then there is no loss to the county councils?
If we can get the annuities out of the 11 months' system we pay them. If we cannot get them they accumulate as arrears and are added to the county councils' burdens.
But the land is not in the possession of the county councils. The Land Commission is responsible for the annuities and not the grazing tenants.
The whole system of making the Guarantee Fund responsible for the payment of annuities to the Land Commission has been in operation a long time and until it is changed something has to be done to make this land a working proposition, so as not to leave it derelict. That is all I am concerned about. If the Deputy is interested on behalf of the county councils he should be in favour of this section.
Does the Minister propose to reduce the annuity on the farm he referred to?
We have no power to do so.
Will there not be further arrears, if the farm is not worth the arrears now due on it? How would it be a business proposition for any man to take up that farm and to pay the annuities when the previous tenant failed to pay? Apparently the Minister does not understand the job. If the Land Commission put up land for sale could they not buy it and divide the 180 acres into two or three holdings, if the land lends itself to sub-division?
If?
I do not know the farm. The 190 acres would make eight or nine farms and that would be better than to have the Land Commission ranching it. The Minister knows that the Land Commission lost thousands of pounds out of money voted by this House on the purchase and resale of land. Why not purchase this land and resell it at a loss instead of pushing the baby on to the county councils? Is this section for the purpose of relieving the Land Commission of two derelict farms on which there are arrears that the Land Commission failed to collect? It is a censure on the Land Commission. It surprises me that even the Minister for Lands has sufficient cheek to bring forward a Bill asking county councils to pay arrears due on that farm the Land Commission failed to collect. A separate section has been introduced for that purpose. It is a disgrace.
I am in agreement with what has been said by Deputy Belton, Deputy Bennett, and Deputy McMenamin as to the manner in which this section deals with the county councils, but I want to approach it from another angle, and to suggest that this is a section it would be wise for the Minister to withdraw from the Bill. I do not think the section is in any way helpful. It certainly puts power into the hands of the Land Commission that ought not to be in their hands. This section enables county councils to sell land subject to the annuities and if there are arrears subject to the funded arrears. The maximum amount of arrears that can be on a holding is something in the nature of three years. Arrears prior to that can be funded. The Minister asks the House to believe that there are holdings of land which are not worth three years purchase of the annuities. I am willing to agree with the Minister in the contention that the value of land has depreciated within the last three or four years to a tremendous extent, but I do not believe that land put on the open market for public auction would not bring more than three years purchase. While there might be circumstances to prevent land having what might be called a free market, such as local agitation and things of that kind, I do not think this section serves any purpose. I wonder if in the case the Minister mentioned, the land was unsaleable in a large division. The Land Commission has perfect power to divide and sell in smaller areas of 15 or 20 acres. Some farms of 100 acres would be more valuable as one holding than if divided into smaller lots. A big grazing run will turn out better cattle than small areas of land. Taking the proposition as a whole I am perfectly certain that there is no land which is not worth three years purchase.
What are the disadvantages of this section? The Land Commission takes possession of a farm which may have been held by a certain type of tenant. It may have been held by an undeserving man who let the annuities run into arrears. If the Land Commission takes it over, they need not sell it by public auction, nor attempt to get the highest price for it. Properly speaking they should get the highest price, and should then pay the mortgagees or persons who have charges against it, giving the owner the difference between the amount of arrears due and the purchase price. Under this section the Land Commission need not put up the land for sale but can hand it to any person they like as an absolutely free gift, discharged from all arrears of annuities. These annuities may run for five or six years or they may run for 40 or 50 years. No matter how long they run the Land Commission can hand over the land discharged from any charges. I do not think the Land Commission should be given such power, and I do not think the Minister made a case for getting such power. Remember that this land is not being given to congests or to migrants but is land that is going to be sold, possibly, to very rich people. Suppose that one of the wealthy members of the Fianna Fáil Party, a rich man like Deputy Corry, bought a holding of land on which there were arrears due, the Land Commission could wipe out the arrears. It did not matter whether the purchaser was a rich man or a poor man.
We are all straw men over here.
I daresay you are very strong.
Straw men, I said.
Men of straw? Are you? "I hae ma doots." That is the position in which the Land Commission are. That is not necessarily helping some poor person coming in. This is to help a person who is buying land in an open market. It is not land which is being divided amongst migrants or poor people. I think that when the Minister was considering this he would have been better advised to take these powers to wipe off arrears in another direction. I mentioned the case of an undeserving person. There may be the case of a deserving person, a man who has met with a great number of catastrophes, whose cattle or sheep may have died from fluke. He may be very much reduced in circumstances and he is not able to pay his arrears. I think it is the arrears of a person like that the Land Commission ought to take powers to wipe out and not the arrears of some person coming in to a holding who had no prior claim to the land at all. I put it to the Minister that he has not really made a case here for Section 9 at all and that he would be well advised to withdraw that section from the Bill altogether.
I should like to inform Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, if he does not know it already, that there are several derelict farms in my constituency which nobody would accept as a present. Nobody would take a present of them during the years the Deputies over there were in office.
Would they take them if there were no arrears on them?
They would not take them at all. They would not take them even if they had to pay only the current annuity and I shall tell you why. When these estates were taken over in the first instance and when the Land Commission and judicial commissioner had finished with them, the annuity fixed on them was so high that nobody could ever hope to pay it. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, who was Minister for Justice at that time, might get some information from his colleague. Deputy Roddy, if he does not know of these matters himself, as to how many farms were put up for auction by the Land Commission in their time and how many buyers they got. In how many of these cases were they able to clear the arrears of annuities? I am aware that they would not be sold unless the purchasers offered to clear the arrears. The majority of these cases have been handed down to us as legacies of past maladministration. They are lying there to-day as derelicts and legacies.
Perhaps the Deputy would give us the names and extent of these farms.
You can go down to the Gubbins estate in Carrigtwohill and to the Barrymore estate in Watergrasshill. You will find them.
A Deputy
Why do you not take some of the migrants from the Gaeltacht there?
I know nothing about the Gaeltacht. I am speaking of my own constituency and I know the manner in which land in that area has been maladministered.
We will tell you all about the Gaeltacht when you come down to the by-election.
I know how much the unfortunate tenants in these areas have to pay owing to the anxiety of the late Government to have a superman, a wily judge, in charge of the operations to fix a price——
This is quite irrelevant.
We are talking about derelict farms.
I am talking of estates taken over and divided and on which the annuities were fixed at such a high figure that no man could pay them. The people who accepted holdings on these estates walked blindly into it. Then after a couple of years they were put out by the Land Commission. These holdings have been lying derelict there ever since. I would also tell the Minister that it is useless for him to wipe out the arrears on these farms unless he takes power also to deal with the annuities on them. We have heard a lot of talk about the loss to the ratepayers as a result of this section, but these farms have been a loss to the ratepayers for the past eight or nine years and they will continue to be a loss unless the annuities are reviewed, no matter what Government is in power.
What is the Land Commission doing?
The Land Commission will do what it always did.
I wish Deputy Corry had been more definite in the information he gave us. He merely made a rambling statement about the Gubbins estate at Carrigtwohill and the Barrymore estate at Watergrasshill. I should like to have some information from him about one or two of the derelict farms which are covered by this section.
I can give you one guarantee. Come down with me in the morning and I will show you some of these farms and be delighted to hand them over to you to see what you can make of them.
Give me the name of one derelict farm to which you are referring?
I have given you the names of two parishes in my constituency in which there are several farms of that kind.
Give me the name of one derelict farm?
Are the Cork men not able to work the land down there?
If we do not get down to rock bottom we can get nowhere. The Minister was more definite. When I asked the Minister for an instance, he gave me an instance of a farm of 190 acres on which he said there was a debt of £200. The Minister expects us to believe that a sum of £200 could not be funded on a 190 acre farm in such a way that it would amount to a very small burden on an incoming tenant.
That farm might not be value for £200.
There was merely a debt of £1 per acre on that farm and that when funded would only represent about 1/- per acre. I do not see how anybody would be deterred from taking a holding by the prospect of having 1/- per acre added to the current annuity. This section offers illimitable opportunities for political gratuities, if you like to call them that. You can take a farm on which there are arrears from a father and pass it on to his son.
You can take it from the father, wipe out the arrears, and give it back to the father again without bringing the son into it at all.
This section would be ridiculous in any Bill. We shall get back to the 200 acre farm again. I move to report progress.