In connection with Amendment No. 14 on the paper I do not know whether, in view of the division on his Amendment No. 12, Colonel Moore wishes to put it forward.
LAND BILL. - COMMITTEE STAGE RESUMED.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Oh, no.
"To add after the word ‘residence' in line 3 the words ‘(unless the land comprised in such holding has been used for at least three years prior to the passing of this Act as an ordinary agricultural or pastoral farm).'"
There seems to be some doubt as to whether certain holdings are included in the Land Bill, and the object of this amendment is to say that these holdings are included.
I can accept an amendment which I think will meet the Senator's case, that is to say, in page 11, line 3, after the word "residence" to insert the words "and which at the date of the passing of this Act retains its residential character." That will be in line with other sections in the Bill which provide that any issue to be decided is to be decided in view of the circumstances existing at the passing of the Act.
That will mean that at the passing of this Act, if these are used as agricultural holdings?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It must be the residence used as such at the date of the passing of the Act before it is excluded.
Would that mean that it must be occupied at the time as a residence?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the answer to that would be certainly not, because the occupation is not necessarily a condition of qualification of residence.
I only thought it would be a jointure house or something like that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think that would be a condition which would be one of the elements the Court would consider if any question were raised on it.
I am not quite satisfied about this amendment. Does it mean to say that a residence which has a small farm attached to it, which is practically to all effects and purposes a demesne in point of view of utility and amenity, is not to be excluded under this provision?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the object is to be the reverse. Sub-section (b) contains certain exceptions. One of them is that any holding the main object of which was a residence, and the point raised by Senator Butler was that it should retain that character at the date of the passing of the Act. In other words, that it should not be unless the land comprised in such holding has been used for at least three years prior to the passing of the Act as an ordinary agricultural farm. His object was to exclude from the benefit of this exception any holding which, although it might be called a residence, had been for three years previously used as an ordinary farm, and the Government, through the Minister, suggests that that result might be better achieved by the use of the words “and which at the date of the passing of this Act retains its residential character.” It is only to preserve the character of residence up to the date of the passing of the Act.
It has occurred to me that that is a reason for preferring the amendment in its original form. Had there been the case of a house burned, then at the date of the passing of the Act it would not be a residence.
In the case of a farm on which there was a residence, and which might have been used as an ordinary farm, if it so happened that this residence was intended as a jointure house, it might not be required at the time, but it might be required under certain circumstances. I do not think that such a farm ought to lose its residential character merely because it was not used as an ordinary farm at the time of the passing of the Act or three years before it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Therefore, your view is that the Government amendment is better?
Certainly, because I understand it would not have lost its residential character even if it had been used as an ordinary farm for three years before the passing of the Act.
The position is that it was a residential building at the beginning, and it retains its residential character.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Is Senator Butler willing to accept the proposal of the Government?
Yes, sir.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It would be more grammatical if the word "retained" is used, for you will be dealing then with a past event.
Yes.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I propose: "To delete in lines 6 and 7 the words ‘by a person regularly employed on' and to substitute therefor the words ‘in connection with.'" I take it that that is quite in conformity with the spirit of the section. It is, of course, a little bit wider, because one can conceive of cases where a person might not have been in the strict sense of the word regularly employed on the demesne, but might have been employed in connection with that demesne, and the words I have taken are in the 1920 Act, Section 7 (4) (c).
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think we had better call it a Bill, Senator.
The EARL OF KERRY
Yes. I do not need to say any more except that I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
I accept that. I do not see any difference, except you might have a case like this where a man came into the house three or four days before the passing of the Act, and might not be regularly employed at the time, but the house might have been regularly occupied by some person connected with the holding.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to propose:—"To insert after the word ‘or' in line 8 the words ‘which, being any such parcel as aforesaid, is let for the purpose of temporary depasturage, agistment, or conacre, or for temporary convenience, or to meet a temporary necessity or.'" That is merely an amplification of the clause, and the words I have taken occur in the definition. In Section 69, page 27, line 14, where they come in, is as a definition of land which is not tenanted land, or in other words land which is untenanted land.
I would suggest that they may be added at the end of the section as an amplification, and to make sure that that particular class of land should come within the scope of the section. It would meet the case of a purely temporary letting which might have been made in the case of a minority or lunacy within the demesne in question.
The point is covered already. If it is untenanted land of the character set out, namely, demesne, home farm, etc., it does not vest, and it does not matter if there is a tenant on it. The position is not altered by reason of there being an agister, a tenant of conacre, or someone who has taken a letting for temporary convenience. It would be altered if we did not provide that such persons were not tenants. If there were tenants it would vest, but we have provided that they shall not be regarded as tenants. It does not, therefore, vest either as tenanted or untenanted land.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think there is this point still remaining. I do not think that the Senator intends that the word "which" should refer to the previous parcel. What he really intended, I think, was any parcel of untenanted land.
I meant it to apply to land within a demesne. I think the Minister has met my point.
I had a different idea as to how this should operate. These temporary lettings are, I think, untenanted land, and vest automatically under the Bill in congested districts. Those are only temporary lettings, and my hope was that they would not vest, but only pass to the Land Commission in the same way as demesnes and other excluded parcels pass when required for the purposes of relieving congestion.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
If you want to do that the words should be "or any parcel of land which is let for the purpose." In the amendment of Senator the Earl of Kerry he has not referred to any parcel, but to the demesne.
I hope I shall be allowed to bring up an amendment on the Report Stage to effect my object.
Is it suggested that because a parcel of land outside the demesne has a tenant on conacre that it is not to vest?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." I wanted to see that there was no misunderstanding on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to propose the following amendment:—In Section 24, Sub-section (3): "To insert after the word ‘or' in line 16 the words ‘is a town park or land let for dairy purposes within or adjacent to an urban district or.'" Town parks were exempted in the Act of 1903, and in the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Convention of 1918, and also in the Bill of 1920. The Minister in charge of this Bill has referred more than once to the fact that he has based a great number of the clauses in this Bill on the Bill of 1920. I hope he will bear in mind the fact that town parks were exempted in that Bill. They were always exempted from land legislation. They have a special value of their own, not so much in the interests of the owner, but in the interests of the town near which they are situated. It may be wanted for building purposes, for the development of the town, for the promotion of trade, or for various other purposes. It is as much in the interests of towns as in the interests of the owners that it should be exempted. The value of a town park greatly exceeds its letting value. A man lets it for £10 or £15 a year, but in the open market it would be worth three times its capitalised value. As regards dairy lands, those are wanted in the interests of the amenities of the town or village for the purposes of dairying, which is of great importance to the poorer people of the district. Seeing that it has been exempted in all previous Acts and in the abortive Bill of 1920, I hope that the Minister will exempt it now.
Sir Hutcheson Poë is, in this case, full of the milk of human kindness, but I foresee a difficulty there may be with regard to town parks, because there are some places where towns wish to increase. I am perfectly well aware that there are town parks used for dairying purposes, and I feel very strongly on this question of a pure milk supply for children. It is a great thing to have dairying near towns, because there is not the difficulty of the milk being contaminated in transit. That is a philanthropic notion. I do not know what Sir Hutcheson Poë would think of a suggestion to leave out "town park," and also "let for dairy purposes."
I think one point should not be lost sight of. If a town is ringed round with occupiers it would mean there would be owners in fee, and it would be very difficult to acquire land for building purposes except at high prices. The landlord might be willing to sell quite regardless of the interests of the town. I do not think that that should be the only factor to be taken into consideration. Land in the neighbourhood of towns is exempted when available for building purposes. That is the point about which there might be a good deal of contention, and it requires very serious consideration.
It is not exactly right to say that no town parks were purchased under former Acts. Where the Land Commission bought parks they often sold them to tenants. Town parks may be either tenanted or untenanted. Consider the tenanted town parks for a moment. If the tenants are not temporary but future tenants under the Act they would be entitled to purchase for this good reason. This Bill sets out to complete Land Purchase, in fact to abolish the relations of landlord and tenant so far as agricultural land is concerned. We could not possibly omit future tenants who happen to be tenants near town, and who worked their land as agricultural land.
There is then the point, and it is a question of public policy, as to whether there was not a danger in selling all town parks to occupying tenants when that would prevent the town from developing by ringing it round with small owners in fee unwilling to part with their land. To meet that specific case we inserted Sub-section (3). Now, if any of those tenancies on which there are future tenants of town parks possess a potential or actual utility as building ground in the opinion of the Land Commission they will not be purchased. That goes a long way to meet the objection to purchasing land near towns, and preventing towns from spreading. Now, with regard to the price, we do agree, of course, that a better price should be given for land held nearer town than for ordinary agricultural land out in the country which is not as valuable from a good many points of view.
To meet that case we inserted in Part 2 of the Second Schedule which deals with holdings subject to rents other than judicial rents, the words "the annuity shall be fixed by the Land Commission on the report of their inspector, and without hearing in Court, regard being had to the nature and situation of the holding, the date of the commencement of the tenancy, the rent payable thereunder, and all the circumstances of the case." Of course, it is a fact that the tenants of town parks whose tenancy may be commenced 10 or 12 years ago, who own the land near towns and being for that reason extra valuable, and who in other respects are on all fours with agricultural tenants, it is only right that they should pay more for their holdings. We have tried at least to take all the special circumstances into account. We were coerced to complete land purchase and deal with every tenant, to abolish the relation between landlord and tenant and deal with any tenant who in a general way farms agricultural land. A large number of tenants of town parks would come in. There were two objections: (1) that it would prevent the development of the towns, and (2) that the price should be something more than that of an ordinary agricultural tenancy. We provided for both.
With regard to the points about dairying: if it is dairying land the tenant keeps cows. He either keeps cows or he does not. The holding is vested as before. There is no difference if the land is tenanted. If it is untenanted the Land Commission can vest the holding in trustees, under Section 66, which gives them ample power to vest any land in trustee for the purpose of pasturage or tillage, and these trustees may be any local authority, so that that point is adequately covered. In all the circumstances of the case, we have to deal with town parks which were occupied by tenants who were agricultural tenants, and who work their land as a farm. We had to do it, and it would be a very serious matter from the point of view of carrying this Bill if that were interfered with.
I am prepared to accept the Minister's explanation. We see that the potential values of town parks for building is there given fair value of the holding. That meets the point in my amendment, and I am prepared to withdraw it.
I do not think that the main purpose for which this amendment has been advanced is secured under the Act, this question of building value. The Minister said that we reserve in sub-clause (e) power to exclude lands of a potential building value. The land is going to vest on a certain date. The Government cannot claim the spirit of prophecy. These towns may in 5, 10, or 15 years develop considerable industrial activity, and wish to extend and in the meantime it has been ringed round owing to the inability of the Government to foresee this industrial development, which is quite natural, and we appreciate the owner of freehold land in raising the value as much as he can. Honestly I feel uneasy, and I cannot see that under the Bill at present potential building value does enable development in the future to be forecasted and anticipated and allowed for. If the Government have any reluctance, and feel that this amendment will spoil the symmetry of the Bill, if they wish to be completely logical and abolish dual ownership in this case, I think they should consider whether the Land Commission will not retain these town parks, so that there will be no possibility of industrial development being strangled by a circle of freeholders round the town. In most cases these town parks are owned by shopkeepers, and they are accommodation land to urban occupations.
We feel that this Section is absolutely necessary. The only point that Senator Sir John Keane has made is that he has discovered another instance of the fact that the Land Commission is not gifted with the gift of prophecy.
I still stick to the cows and dairy. I think it is important, as I said, and I wish to give notice that on the Report Stage I shall move to insert at the end of Sub-section (c), after the word “or” the words “land let for dairy purposes within an urban district.”
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is now time to adjourn the Committee Stage of this Bill in accordance with the wishes of the Seanad. Will some Senator move the adjournment of the Committee Stage, say, until to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock?
I beg to move that the further consideration of the Bill in Committee be adjourned until 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.
Motion put and agreed to.