I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
According to the Long Title, this Bill is designed " to amend and extend the Land Purchase Acts" but these formal words hardly convey its full significance. I would prefer to say that it is designed to furnish the Land Commission with new and improved instruments to be used in a determined drive to build up the basic farm structure wherever it is found to be wanting by reference to modern trends. Before I come to deal with the individual proposals set out in the Bill—on which, indeed, I think Deputies have got a particularly informative White Paper —I should like to explain to the House the background of the Bill as a whole.
On various occasions since my appointment as Minister for Lands, I have indicated, both inside and outside this House, that I was carrying out a full reassessment of the powers, functions and policies of the Land Commission to ascertain whether they were fully adequate to meet the needs of our times as indicated by social and economic developments at home and abroad. I have borne in mind particulary: the demand of the people in the congested areas for a higher standard of living; the fact that in certain parts of the country many holdings lie vacant and let, in most cases being badly worked, and, looking to the future; and the overall need to adjust the farm-structure of Ireland to the Europe of the 1970s and the 1980s.
Throughout most of my life I have had regular dealings with the problems of the small farmers in western districts and, as a result, I had some ideas as to the remedial measures required. However, to ensure that we found the best answers to the questions which might arise I appealed for widespread and public discussion on the various aspects of the Land Commission's work which might properly feature in the general reassessment to which I have referred.
It is heartening to be able to say that both inside and outside the House such discussion has taken place resulting in many useful suggestions. Some of the voluntary bodies addressed themselves in workmanlike fashion to studies of the structural problems of Irish land-holding and they have submitted very informative papers to the Taoiseach and the Government. These submissions from independent councils which are so well placed to interpret the present-day views of farmers and of the rural community generally were extremely valuable. The Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Problems of Small Western Farms was most useful also in filling out the picture of the problems confronting us.
Taking account of the ideas flowing from these various sources and noting also specific suggestions which emanated from other quarters, we sought to hammer out piece by piece a "new deal" for the small farmer. In doing so, we had in mind the necessity of carrying out much of the groundwork of reform before the anticipated participation of this country in the Common Market. The fact that there has been a delay about our entry, however, merely means that, in so far as structural reform is concerned, we must make the fullest possible use of the breathing space thus afforded.
First, it was decided that the plan must be based on the maintenance of our traditional family farm pattern but that:...
in this day and age the family farm must be capable of giving the family a standard of living comparable with that available to similar families engaged in non-agricultural employment.
On balance, we decided on an ideal standard of 40-45 acres of good land. In making this choice we were looking into the future and trying to visualise a unit which would be adequate to maintain a family in comfort under the intensified competitive conditions which we will have to face in future. I know that arguments can be made in favour of even larger units of, say, 50 or 60 acres but the available pool of land is limited and our aim is to do the best we can for the greatest number. We all know that there are far too many farmers in Ireland for whom the possession of even a 40-acre farm is still a distant prospect.
Having reached this policy decision on the farm size, we did not wait to fill out the rest of the general plan but forthwith directed the Land Commission to adjust its working practices to conform to the new ideal and that is now in force—in fact, it has been in force for the past year. New legislation was not needed for that.
I should like to mention that the decision on the family farm involved a final break-away from any idea of different standards in the congested and non-congested districts. For very many years, there was a theory abroad that because the west was congested the people there could not aspire to the same standards in land-holding as were found elsewhere. The practice was to aim at a poor law valuation of £10 there and regard this as an economic unit. Every landowner whose poor law valuation was over £10 was excluded by the Land Commission for consideration when land was available for division. Similarly, when as a result of the Land Commission's work landowners in a townland were brought up to, or even near, £10 valuation, they were then "written off" by the Land Commission from further consideration. It is clear that nowadays these standards are not acceptable to the present generation in those areas. Where it is possible, therefore, it is proposed to enlarge small farms to the full family farm size even though this in certain instances may mean fewer allotments. It is not at all suggested that the new family farm size holding can be achieved by the Land Commission in every case of land division. The new size holding structure, however, is being laid down as our national aim where it is capable of achievement; it will be the standard size for migrant holdings; and under the new policy landowners whose units are under this standard will be entitled to consideration by the Land Commission where lands are being divided. The different standards formerly applied by the Land Commission as between east and west must go, so that those dealt with by the Land Commission, irrespective of their location in the country, can be given an opportunity of earning a decent livelihood by present-day standards.
The late Holy Father, Pope John XXIII, writing of the depressed state of European agriculture, asks these pertinent questions: "What can be done ... to ensure that agricultural living standards approximate as closely as possible to those enjoyed by city dwellers who draw their resources either from industry or from the public services in which they are engaged? What can be done to persuade agricultural workers that, far from being inferior to other people, they have every opportunity of developing their personalities through their work, and can look forward to the future with confidence?" The answers to these questions cannot, in the nature of things, be simple ones. But, as the first part of an answer, this Government put forward the ideal of the enlarged "family farm" which I explained to the house in detail in a speech on the Lands Estimate in June of last year.
At this point, I must emphasise that the adoption of an area of 40-45 acres for the family farm does not carry with it any implication of deliberately reducing the number of persons on the land. In common with other Western European Governments, we hold the view that it is essential for the wellbeing of our society that we maintain a strong rural population. In this context we aimed at achieving a worthwhile improvement in the farm structure while reducing to a minimum any consequential disturbance of the rural community.
In the Small Farms Report, there is confirmation of the view that there are far too many vacant and underproductive farms in the country. These clearly should be taken up and used in the structural reform. As I have said on several occasions, this country can no longer afford to allow absentees to hold valuable land in what I might describe as "cold storage". Accordingly, it was decided to re-examine the law relating to the acquisition of vacant farm land and if it was found to contain weaknesses or deficiencies that legislative proposals of a strengthening nature be produced forthwith.
The same report put forward the idea of providing old or incapacitated farmers with a form of pension which, with the right of residence and perhaps other amenities, would enable them to live out their time in peace and comfort in their own houses while their land was made available to younger persons better fitted to work it. We saw this as a suitable compromise which would on the one hand allow the Land Commission to proceed with the work of structural reform and at the same time reflect a proper concern for the aged and avoid any disruption of their accustomed way of life. The elderly farmer would not be treated as an obstacle to be removed; rather would he be accorded his proper place as a senior and respected member of the rural community who had earned the right to retire with dignity—and with security. A plan for life annuities along these lines was prepared and the basic legislation to implement it is now before you.
The Small Farms Report also suggested a system of loans to enable a progressive farmer in a congested area to migrate himself to a better holding of his choice rather than have him wait, as at present, until such time as the Land Commission might come round to dealing with his townland. This idea we found acceptable in principle and it was decided that it should be put into effect. Indeed, I have personally advocated a scheme of this kind for many years, both inside and outside this House.
In the preliminary drafting of schemes to give effect to these two new ideas, I found that in each case the Land Commission must be prepared to offer cash for the land they proposed to purchase. Indeed, in the case of the elderly farmer, it was vital that they should be able to offer him part cash and part life-annuity for his land. But I was only too well aware that the provisions of the 1950 Land Act relating to the purchase of interests for cash were very restrictive — so restrictive, indeed, that if they were to apply at all to the land of a particular elderly farmer it would only be by the merest accident.
In regard to this matter of cash purchase I found also that there were other ways in which the rigidity of the 1950 provisions hampered the progress of land reform. For example, if a holding is on the border line between agricultural land and forestry land, so that part of it could be used for re-arrangement of the neighbouring holdings but a substantial part of it should obviously and logically be utilised for State afforestation, the Land Commission are inhibited from purchasing it for cash. They may not make a positive purchase for the partial benefit of Forestry Division although, oddly enough, if they buy land for rearrangement and later find that they cannot use it for this purpose they may then consider the Forestry Division as a suitable allottee (Land Act, 1950, section 28, subsection (12) ).
It seems obviously desirable that, where small farms exist in mountainous regions, the work of the Land Commission on structural reform should be harmonised with the work of State afforestation and it follows that the provisions of the 1950 Act which inhibit co-operation should be reviewed. For the various reasons mentioned, it seems clear that the legal restrictions on cash purchase must be relaxed in several respects and my colleagues agreed that I should put forward legislative proposals for major changes in the relevant sections of the 1950 Act.
It was evident at this stage of the general assessment that we needed a new Land Bill for the purpose of authorising the entirely novel schemes now proposed and also to make better provision for the working of the existing machinery of compulsory acquisition and cash purchase. I must mention, however, that even if we had no new schemes in mind we would have been obliged to introduce a new Bill because of more urgent need under an entirely different heading. If Deputies will refer briefly to section 26 of the Bill they will see a proposal to make available a further £5 million in land bonds to the general land reform programme of the Land Commission. The position is that the legal limit on the total of land bonds which may be issued has virtually been reached and without new legislation in this respect this winter, the portion of the programme which is financed by bonds must come to an abrupt halt next March or April. It is estimated that at the New Year the Minister for Finance would only have a remaining authority to create land bonds to a total of £300,000 whereas we would probably be asking him for £1 million. Thus, though sections 5, 6, 34 and 41 are the most interesting items in the Bill the fact remains that it is more imperative that section 26 be enacted.
When I came to review the matters which need to be dealt with in the Bill, I found that in the years since the passing of the Lands Acts 1950 and 1953, a substantial number of flaws and inadequacies had appeared in the operation of the land code or that, through the passage of time, some sections of the Acts had become out of date. Clearly, the thing to do was to take advantage of the opportunity to remedy all these other difficulties in the one piece of legislation. The result is the present Bill of 45 sections.
Having given the House the background of this Bill, I now propose to deal with it section by section. As I suggested at the outset, Deputies have before them a very informative White Paper but I may nevertheless be able to add something further by way of verbal explanation.
I think that sections 1, 2 and 3 call for no particular comment and that section 4 is the first item on which I should speak. It was necessary to define "congested areas" for the purposes of two subsequent sections in the Bill and many Deputies who are familiar with the land code will have noticed that in furnishing a definition I have used as starting point the "congested districts" of the old Congested Districts Board. The Second Schedule is in fact a recital of the list of the counties and rural districts given in section 46. subsection (1) of the Irish Land Act, 1909. But there are other parts of the country which by modern standards must also be regarded as substantially congested; large districts in south Ulster and north Leinster and smaller areas mainly in the mountainous parts of south Leinster and east Munster could qualify for the description. So that justice may be done to genuinely congested areas whether north, south, east or west, section 4 contains machinery for the making of Ministerial Orders declaring further areas to be congested areas for the purposes of sections 5 and 7. I have in mind that after the enactment of this Bill the Land Commission Inspectors will carry out local surveys and submit reports on which a series of such Ministerial Orders will be based. Having regard to the many variable factors involved, we have tried to provide—in subsection (2)—a reasonably elastic formula for determining where congestion exists.
Section 5 provides the basic authority for the introduction of a scheme for the making of loans to progressive farmers in congested areas who are willing to migrate themselves but who lack the necessary capital. Details of this scheme have still to be finalised but the general pattern is outlined in the White Paper.
One of the advantages we see for this scheme is the fact that it can be made to operate very expeditiously. The procedure used in purchasing the old holding will be that followed under the cash purchase provisions of the 1950 Act—almost exactly the same as in a sale between private persons. When the applicant comes to take over his new holding from the vendor, the Land Commission will be ready to enter into possession of his old holding, pay him at once for it in cash and make available to him the additional loan on which they have decided. In the typical case, too, the applicant will be taking over existing buildings; he will not have to wait for the erection of new ones.
Deputies may remark that it is nowhere laid down that the migrant must remove himself out of the "congested areas" and they may be fearful that men may seek loans under this section to move merely from one congested area to another without any overall advance towards solving the main congestion problem. The Land Commission, however, will see to it that no such misuse of the section arises. The resettlement of self migrants under the scheme in existing congested areas will be controlled so as to ensure that it will not conflict with the general programme of the Land Commission for those particular areas.
I should make it clear also that this new scheme, which we might refer to as the "self-migration" scheme, will be in addition to and not in substitution for the traditional schemes for long-distance, short-distance and local migration which have been operated for many years by the Land Commission directly at its own instigation— these will of course be continued.
Section 6 provides authority for an entirely new scheme under which the Land Commission will pay for land by way of life annuity rather than capital sum and it is designed for the farmer who is no longer able to work his land to the best of his ability. Where an elderly bachelor owns a farm, or an ageing couple who have no children to succeed them, the tendency is that the land becomes less and less intensively worked. Even where the standard of farming does not notoriously decline, it may be found that it suffers a relative decline through the lack of incentive and the will of the owner to keep abreast of the times. In such a case, it is clearly in the national interest that the owner should be persuaded to allow the lands to pass on to more active hands. But an elderly countryman is not usually prepared to uproot himself and to face into, say, the noisy life of a big town. It seems to me, at all events, that he would more often be prepared to settle for a secure income, a quiet life in his own home in accustomed surroundings and, perhaps, a few roods of garden such as he would be able to tend in his declining years. This is the basic approach of section 6.
Subsection (1) is framed on the assumption that the farmer is willing to sell his land to the Land Commission under section 27 of the Land Act, 1950. I have referred before and shall refer again to proposals for broadening the scope of that section. If he is, say, 65 years of age or if he is younger but incapacitated, he may obtain an offer of a life annuity, as an alternative to the usual cash. Depending on his own needs and prejudices he may choose either form of payment or, within reasonable limits, a combination of the two. Most often, I should imagine, he will want some hundreds of pounds in cash to meet immediate commitments and he will ask that the remainder be paid on an annuity basis. Under subsection (2), there will be a prescribed table of annuities based on life expectancy by which the amount of his life annuity will be established. Such annuity will, in the typical case, be substantially greater than the annual amount which could be got if, say, the vendor had been paid in land bonds; and had retained them as an investment.
If it is argued that a man should not dissipate his entire estate by taking an annuity which will die with him, my answer is that this section is meant, essentially, for persons without dependants. The farmer who has a son or daughter to succeed him will not be interested in the scheme one way or the other.
It will be noted that subsection (3) provides for "primary" and "secondary" annuities; for married couples this provision is compulsory. I have given careful thought to the question whether the owner of the land should not be given freedom to choose between this double annuity and a once-for-all annuity which would die with him or her. On balance, I have decided that it would be wrong for a State agency to deal with a man on the basis that he would take all for himself and leave nothing for his widow if he should be the first to die.
Although the section will apply to the sale of an interest in land which is held jointly or in common, it will be seen from subsection (3) that if a husband and wife have joint interests in the land, or interests in common, they will not come within the general rule for the provision of primary and secondary annuities. The theory here is that if each has a separate interest in the land there are, in effect, separate sales and each of them, as an independent vendor, gets a separate personal life annuity. The effect will be much the same as with other married couples; the household will have two annuities while both are alive and one annuity for the survivor.
In the case of the elderly owner who has reached or is approaching the age for a non-contributory old age pension, the scheme will carry the special attraction that the first £3 per week of a Land Commission life annuity will not reckon for means test purposes. It is felt that this concession must be offered if the owners of small properties are to be brought into the scheme; otherwise the full application of ordinary means test rules would bear so heavily on these smaller owners that there would be no attraction about selling to the Land Commission at all. This concession is not a matter for a Land Bill but will be dealt with later under a Social Welfare Bill.
Another obstacle to the success of the scheme came to light when I considered the case of the incapacitated man who is by no means elderly and who has a full expectation of life for the reason that the injury or illness which incapacitates him is not such as would hasten death. On a strictly actuarial basis, such a man would be likely to obtain a very small life annuity, perhaps half or one-third of what an elderly man might get for the same property. Accordingly, it is intended that the regulations to be made under subsection (4) should provide for a special additional allowance to be paid to the incapacitated owner from the date of sale until the date he becomes eligible for the old age pension. This will not be part of the life-annuity, which will in every case be calculated strictly in accordance with subsection (2).
Section 7 provides that in future the halving of annuities will not be conceded to allottees of enlargements, cottiers and other persons in non-congested areas. The State is subsidising the relief of congestion and the consequential problems arising from congestion to a very heavy degree. It is necessary, therefore, to establish certain priorities in these forms of State subsidisation so that the money expended will give the most effective results. It is in the congested areas that there remains the real hard core of congestion, including rundale estates. In many cases this hard core of congestion has proved virtually unbreakable up to the present time. In particular, in dealing with rundale estates, it is essential to get the co-operation of all the people concerned to enable a rearrangement to be achieved. It is therefore necessary to provide every inducement possible to try to solve these very difficult cases, and accordingly the benefit of half-annuities is being applied to the congested areas. The position, however, is very different in the non-congested areas and, compared to the exorbitant conacre rents now ruling in these areas —and which most of these allottees continue to pay before the Land Commission gives them the extra land they require—the full Land Commission annuity, based on the actual cost price of the land, must be regarded as a reasonable impost. Deputies will remember, of course, that this is a purchase annuity, and not a rent. I am sure it will be appreciated that the substantial State subventions that are required each year for land settlement work should in the main be utilised for those most in need of them, viz. the migrants and the small farmers in acutely congested areas.
Section 8 deals with a doubt which has arisen regarding the Lay Commissioners' powers to summon witnesses to attend at hearings. This power, incidentally, is rarely needed. The real difficulty arises from the fact that a power to summon is of little use if there is not also a power to punish non-compliance. Accordingly, subsections (1) to (3) set up machinery for summoning and examining witnesses and subsection (4) provides that persons guilty of non-attendance or obstruction may be referred to the High Court for correction.
Section 9 simply confirms that a local authority has power to contribute voluntarily towards the cost of Land Commission works from which the local authority derives benefit.
The next two sections deal with maintenance of improvement works and rates on vacant buildings. The provisions are fully explained in the White Paper and it is scarcely necessary to elaborate on them at this stage. I assure the House that they are not intended to absolve the Land Commission or the Minister from any responsibility or liability which a reasonable man would impose upon them.
Section 12 is of importance because it introduces the idea of a thorough control over the subdivision, letting and subletting of all agricultural land. Under the existing law, in various Land Acts between 1881 and 1936, the majority of owners of agricultural holdings are obliged to obtain the consent of the Land Commission if they desire to sub-divide or make lettings of their lands. There are a number of exceptions to this requirement, for example, holdings sold under Acts before the Land Act of 1923 are subject to sub-division control only while the purchase annuity is payable. The Land Commission's control over the fragmentation of holdings, therefore, has a very incomplete and patchwork pattern. The proposition now put before the House is that there should be complete and uniform control in all cases whether the lands were or were not purchased under the Land Acts; without such uniformity much of the work of land reform could be impeded or frustrated. Deputies will accept that landowners must not themselves be free arbitrarily to recreate the conditions which we are striving so hard to undo.
I regard section 13 as one of the most important provisions in this Bill. It is designed to counteract any deliberate obstruction by way of sale, etc., to compulsory acquisition proceedings by the Land Commission. Such attempts at deliberate obstruction are not uncommon and not only do they cause confusion when they occur but they may ultimately result in the proceedings being defeated. It is considered unreasonable that a land owner with a bad ownership record should be able to frustrate the land settlement plans of the Land Commission for a particular locality just by effecting a quick sale of his property. The section accordingly provides a system of control on dealings in lands in respect of which the Land Commission have issued a Notice of Inspection or where a provisional list has been published.
In many proceedings under the Land Acts, the Land Commission find it necessary to appoint Limited Administrators to enable dealings to be carried out in relation to lands of deceased persons but over the years the Land Commission and the Land Registry have found that the existing powers in this type of case are deficient in a number of ways. Section 14 is designed to overcome all these difficulties by introducing a new concept of a Land Commission nominee who will represent all parties with interests in a holding and who will normally be the person in effective control of the holding, whether as principal or as agent. There will be legal power to deal with this nominee as if he were the owner for all purposes except the distribution of purchase money. This procedure will facilitate the completion of the Land Commission proceedings without affecting in any way the various legal interests in the property.
It is often alleged that one of the great troubles about the Land Commission from the point of view of landowners is the delay in getting paid. The system of judicial allocation of purchase moneys is necessarily involved but it has many merits from the point of view of protecting the rights of all interested parties, especially where land has been compulsorily acquired. With a view to expediting this branch of the Land Commission's work, sections 15 and 16 provide for:— (1) the delegation of decision functions to Examiners of Title, and (2) the authorisation of acceptance of a shorter root of title than heretofore.
So that Examiners may not be inhibited from exercising these enlarged powers, section 17 provides an indemnity for them against actions which parties aggrieved by bona fide decisions might otherwise take. Similar statutory indemnity has always been available to the Public Trustee under the Land Acts. There will be a right of appeal from the Examiners' decisions to the Judicial Commissioner.
Section 18 provides a simple machinery by which reserved game rights which have not been exercised for upwards of 20 years will lapse. This measure will be especially useful where former landlords to whom rights were reserved under the early Land Acts have left the country and their successors cannot readily be traced. It is envisaged that if a farmer wants to have the exclusive game rights over his own lands and if the rights reserved on sale under the Land Purchase Acts have not been exercised for 20 years, he will submit to the Registrar of Titles the necessary proof of non-user. If, because of a valid counter-claim, it appears that the reserved rights have in fact been kept alive, the application under this section will fail but once the owner of the rights has made himself known the acquisition of the rights by the landowner can then be dealt with under section 34 of the Land Act, 1933, or section 39 of tre Land Act, 1936. Thus there will exist comprehensive machinery for dealing with all owners of reserved game rights whether known or unknown.
I would like to emphasise that this section is in no way aimed at persons who exercise actual shooting rights at present. The real purpose is to clear away the debris of old pointless reservations in favour of landlords who have long since departed from the Irish scene. Incidentally, it is intended that the Land Commission themselves should use this section to divest themselves of reserved sporting rights in appropriate cases.
Section 19, 20, 21 and 22 are all aimed at correcting technical flaws in the existing machinery of resale and revesting. They are explained rather well, I think, in the White Paper and none of them should prove troublesome or contentious. I cannot deal with them at any length without becoming involved in considerable technical detail and so, if the House will permit it, I propose to await questions on any aspect of these sections which may trouble Deputies.
Sections 23 provides for adjustments in land finance accountancy to meet some of the effects of the Statute of Limitations, 1957. The Land Commission will lose title to certain annuities, mainly payable in respect of island holdings, because of the operation of the Statute of Limitations. It is desirable to ensure that the resultant deficits will not fall to be borne by the ratepayers but will be defrayed, where necessary, out of central funds.
Section 24 dealing with consolidation of holdings is the positive counterpart of section 12 which strengthens the power of the Land Commission to resist the fragmentation of agricultural holdings. That is the negative side of the picture. On the positive side, every effort should be made to facilitate the building up of legally-consolidated units of viable size. But the existing law is deficient in that, for example, it does not allow for the consolidation of a Land Commission enlargement with a parent holding which was not purchased on an annuity basis under the Land Acts, or where the annuity has ceased to exist by reason of amortisation or redemption. In working to build up viable units, we must not be hampered by unrealistic technical difficulties which could lead to the ultimate undoing of the good work. So here we have a global provision to achieve effective consolidation in every appropriate case—subject to consent of the owner of the lands.
An occasional complaint made by vendors against the land bond system of payment is that, when interest rates are generally rising, a higher interest bearing series of land bonds may come into use in the interval between price fixation and vesting of lands, but owing to the terms of the existing law, payment in such case had to be made in the lower interest bearing series. There is no doubt that some landowners in the past had a sense of grievance about this point but because of the stable interest rate of land bond series, for the past three years it has not been a practical problem. Section 25 will put the position right for the future. There is no question, of course, of penalising any landowner should the interest rate fall after price-fixation.
Section 26 is one to which I referred in my opening remarks. It is essential for the continuance of the system of purchase for land bonds because the total supply of bonds permitted by law is coming very close to exhaustion and authority must be obtained within the next few months to create bonds up to a higher over-all limit. An increase of £5 million is proposed. The present annual rate of expenditure is about £1 million, so that on the face of things we are making provision for about the next five years.
Sections 27 and 29 are best considered together. The first makes it clear that it is legal to delegate to a senior inspector of the Land Commission the power to decide on an inspection of lands with a view to possible acquisition; the second deals with the issue of the inspection notice to the landowner. The reason for these sections is that it is sometimes necessary for the Land Commission to act quickly—as when it is believed that an unsuitable sale is about to take place. They will obviate the necessity of referring cases to Dublin because the senior inspectors referred to are stationed in the provincial headquarters of the Land Commission. I need hardly say that the decision to start proceedings for compulsory acquisition, as distinct from merely having an inspection carried out, will still be a matter for decision by two Lay Commissioners.
I now refer back to section 28. This section has been inserted at the request of the Minister for Finance and though it is not of great significance at the present day, I should perhaps give some brief account of its historical background.
At the time of the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, it was recognised by the authorities of the time that Trinity College, Dublin, would suffer partial losses of income through the redemption under the Land Purchase Acts of superior interests owned by that college. Provision was made in section 39 for an annual payment of £5,000 to offset such losses. The £5,000 was payable to the Public Trustee and he used it to pay the college the amount of actual losses for each year; any surplus at the end of a year was invested by him to be used to cover losses in later years.
Under section 15 of the Land Act, 1923, the 1903 arrangement was abandoned and instead the college was paid a fixed sum of £3,000 per annum. The funds in the hands of the Public Trustee were handed over to the joint control of the Minister for Finance and an officer of the college. The matter has remained so for the past forty years; mention of the £3,000 to which I have referred will be found in the current Book of Estimates under Vote 35, "Universities and Colleges", Subhead F 2. The Minister for Finance is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary or desirable that he should exercise joint control over these funds and so the Act of 1923 is being amended in such a way as to leave the college in sole control. I should make it clear that all this relates only to the old accumulation of funds handed over in 1923; the disposal of the annual £3,000 has never been subject to the Minister's control.
Section 30 settles a very technical point about the precise manner in which valid claims for rates should be met out of purchase moneys and compensation moneys. It confirms the procedure at present followed.
Section 31 and 36 bring into conformity with monetary changes since 1931 the monetary limits regulating the modified title requirements which under sections 35 and 38 of the Land Act, 1931, and section 52 of the Land Act, 1933, are to be applied in small purchase money and compensation cases. The limits set 30 years ago are much too small in terms of present day values.
Section 32 disposes of some awkward legal points which have arisen in relation to orders conferring and defining rights of way. The tendency has been for the courts to apply rather restricted meanings to the wording of the sections governing the Land Commission's powers in these matters. Section 39 of the Land Act, 1931, in particular, has been found to be of much less widespread application than one would assume from a straightforward reading of it. Needless to say, it is essential that the Land Commission should have adequate powers to provide rights of way in and out of the lands they deal with, subject to the payment of adequate compensation and the erection of fences, gates etc. where appropriate. These latter are already provided for; but section 32 of the Bill now introduces a rewording of part of the unsatisfactory section in the 1931 Act which, it is hoped, will remedy the flaws found in it.
Another small change in a money limit to allow for the changing value of money is introduced at (b) in this section.
Still pursuing this question of falling money values, we have in section 33 an upward adjustment of the figure in the 1933 Act relating to the possible value of the alternative holding which must, in certain circumstances, be provided for the owner of lands acquired.
In section 34, with which incidentally section 41 is intimately associated, we come to a very important matter related to the acquisition and resumption of land.
If we set before ourselves the ideal of the well worked family farm as the keystone of rural life, we must, I think, be prepared to take all necessary steps to implement it. Now the holding which is vacant and let all too often displays clear evidence that it is being inadequately cared for by an 11-months tenant. The law as it stands, and especially section 32 of the Land Act, 1933, is not very effective to remedy this state of affairs because neither absenteeism nor repeated lettings on the 11-months system constitute of themselves, a sound legal case for compulsory acquisition.
Section 32, Land Act, 1933, is chiefly relied upon in objections to compulsory acquisition since it provides a defence based on two "adequates"— that is to say, adequate production and adequate employment. But it was established in a legal decision some years ago that these adequates did not necessarily have to be supplied by the owner of the land. If the lands were let, the production achieved and the employment created by the efforts of the letting holders could be pleaded by the owner towards satisfying the requirements of the two "adequates". It seemed, then, that the answer was to legislate against the let lands; to provide that the "adequates" must be provided by the direct action of the owner and his immediate family.
On consideration, however, it was seen that the proof of letting might be very, very difficult if both parties to the letting contract set out to deceive the Land Commission. At best, it would be a most unpleasant thing to force a man's neighbour into court to say on oath whether the cattle grazing on the lands or the growing crops were the property of the landowner or of another. Even the harvesting of a conacre tillage crop by persons other than the owner of the land could be represented as a neighbourly obligement or as a matter of a wage-contract. I am assuming that the conacre letting would be by verbal arrangement only and could never be proved to exist save by the spoken evidence of the parties.
Apart from these considerations, there is the difficulty that not all lettings are to be condemned. If we are to retain a reasonable balance in this matter, we must be prepared to make allowances for the good farmer who falls seriously ill at sowing time and for the widow whose family are too young to work the farm. Such people must be free to make temporary lettings without the fear of losing their lands.
These thoughts have led me to the conclusion that the realistic thing to do in future is to proceed against lands on the grounds that they are vacant rather than because they are let. In other words, the absentee or non-resident should be denied the defence of the "adequates".
Today, when the reform of the land structure in this country is one of our most urgent problems, we can no longer afford to tolerate the position that vacant and let lands may be immune from the compulsory acquisition powers of the Land Commission. This is not to say that these powers will be used indiscriminately by the Land Commission in all such cases. As heretofore, where people are temporarily absent for special family or economic reasons from their holdings the Land Commission would not interfere with them.
Another feature of the law on acquisition which causes concern is the fact that a man could use the adequates defence even though he had already indicated his intention to sell his lands. I do not think it very logical that good production and employment by an individual should prevail as a defence against acquisition in those circumstances and thereby frustrate the hopes of local uneconomic holders of securing viable holdings. Since market value is guaranteed in any event, I think that lands offered for sale should immediately be considered by the Land Commission where they are required for the relief of congestion, and power to enable this to be done is being provided for in this Bill.
Accordingly section 34 provides that the defence of the adequates will not be available to the non-resident or to the owner who has tried to sell his lands in the preceding year.
It is to be noted that a body corporate cannot satisfy the residence condition by any technical device such as making the farm the registered office of a limited company. The persons holding the real beneficial interest in such a company must themselves physically fulfil the residence qualification. Subsection (2) of this section allows for the completion of current acquisition cases under the existing law.
The opportunity is also being taken to expand the provisions relating to sports fields, parks, pleasure-grounds, et cetera, so as to include sites on the shores of lakes or the banks of rivers which might be required for use in connection with boating or fishing. Section 41 provides for the amendment of the law relating to resumption of tenanted holdings so as to bring it into agreement with the foregoing.
Section 35 is simply another amendment to allow for the changing value of money. In this case, however, a specific financial limit, for certain expenditure on watercourses et cetera, is to be removed from the statute and replaced by a system of administrative control. Section 36 I have already dealt with in conjunction with Section 31.
Section 37 deals with one other problem affecting the acquisition of vacant and let holdings. Section 38 of the Land Act, 1936, guarantees the immunity from acquisition of a newly-vested holding and this guarantee at present operates for seven years. It is possible for the owner of such a holding to vacate it and, however badly it may be neglected in his absence, the Land Commission are at present powerless to take any action except to make him an offer for his lands on a voluntary basis. I think this guarantee is over-generous. It is cut by section 37 from seven years to two.
Section 38 is intended to cover cases in which, following upon acquisition proceedings, landowners obstruct the Land Commission in taking over possession or, in extreme cases, reenter into possession after the Land Commission have moved in. The purchase money is put to credit but the owner continues to act in such a way that the Land Commission suffer damages and loss of revenue, and also incur legal costs in dealing with him. The law permits of claims to recover many of these sums but it has been found to be deficient in some respects but most of all in relation to claims arising after the date of vesting, that is to say, principally in cases of re-entry. This new section provides that all sums owing to the Land Commission by or on behalf of the owner may be validly claimed and allowed out of the purchase money. Corresponding provision is included in respect of sums due by tenants of resumed holdings.
Sections 39 and 42 deal with certain aspects of the law relating to the sale of default holdings. Existing provisions deal with the writing off of all or part of the arrears and with the recovery of such arrears or part of them by way of advance to the new purchaser but these provisions are over-rigid in that they cannot come into play until the Land Commission have gone to the trouble and expense of obtaining possession under an Order. In practice, the opportunity sometimes arises to sell such holdings without the necessity of first taking possession; the present proposal is to relax the two relevant sections so that they can be operated in these instances —with consequent saving in time and expense.
Section 40 rectifies a small legal defect in the machinery for partitioning commonages. Its effect will be that burdens attaching to an undivided share will transfer fully to the appropriate divided share and will be re-registered accordingly.
I dealt early in my speech with the need, under several headings, to expand the cash purchase provisions of the Land Act, 1950, that is to say sections 27 and 28. In this Bill, the really significant item covering cash purchase is the second-last item in the Repeals Schedule. The removal of a small part of section 27 of the Act will eliminate the narrow restrictions on cash purchase and will leave the Land Commission free to pay cash for any land or interest in land which they require for any of the purposes of the Land Acts.
This is not to say that all future acquisitions will be paid for in cash; the practical extent to which the expanded 1950 provisions will operate will have to be settled administratively from time to time. But the flexible statutory power will be there to apply them to lands held by applicants for loans under section 5 of this Bill and the elderly and other vendors mentioned in section 6 and any other appropriate cases, in addition to the limited field of activity laid down in the 1950 Act.
Section 43 is a corollary to the repeal I have just dealt with. It will free the hands of the Land Commission in reselling lands on hands which were purchased under the narrower formula existing before the repeal.
The first seven items in the Repeals Schedule are associated with the sub-division control to be set up under section 12 of the Bill. They represent the various parts of the older patchwork of control which is now being abandoned. The eighth item is one with which I have just dealt.
The last item is very much a matter of technical detail. Part of section 15 of the Land Act, 1953, is listed for repeal because it will be rendered redundant by the wording of section 30 of this Bill.
As I said at the outset, my ambition is to provide an effective weapon in this State's campaign to advance first to a sound farm structure and then, as we all hope, to a good living for those families who devote their time and talents to the farms. In my view, the existing powers of the Land Commission are completely inadequate to deal with the solution of the congestion problem in present day circumstances. This enabling Bill is designed to provide the Land Commission with modern and effective machinery to deal more effectively with this great national problem in this day and age. I, therefore, confidently recommend the Bill to the House.
