Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Aug 1935

Vol. 20 No. 12

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) (No. 2) Bill, 1935—Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Mr. Counihan

I move amendment No. 1:—

New section. Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—

Where agricultural land is situate in the rating area of the council of a county and is held in fee simple, such council shall make to the person who is rated for the service of the current financial year in respect of such land an allowance equal to one-half of the rates for which such land is assessed.

I do not think there is any necessity to argue the justice of this proposal. As I pointed out yesterday on the Second Reading, most of the land in this country is held from the Land Commission by the tenants, and the annuities were reduced under the 1933 Land Act by 50 per cent. As the Minister stated at the time, the reduction was given to try to compensate farmers in the period of depression through which they were passing. In short, the reduction was given by way of relief owing to the effects of the economic war, and was given in perpetuity. Previous to the passing of the 1933 Land Act, the annuities amounted in most cases to the same sum per acre as the rates. I discussed this matter on various occasions since the passing of the Land Act that reduced the annuities. I discussed it with the Minister more than once, and he was always very sympathetic, but I did not succeed in getting him to go any farther with the project. Sympathy is all right up to a certain point, but the farmers are in such a state at present that they want some financial relief. As sympathy is no good to them, in all equity the amendments should be accepted by the House and by the Minister.

Colonel Moore

I am totally opposed to any such proposal. I do not know on what grounds it could be founded. Some of these people got the land without paying anything for it. This amendment proposes to reduce the rates to be paid by one section of the community, namely, those who own land in fee-simple. It refers to those who pay nothing for the right to occupy land, and who are therefore in a better position than those who pay annuities. I oppose this because it is inequitable and because the money is not available. The money can only be obtained from the Exchequer or from the Land Fund or other ratepayers. The land annuities are built up from the contributions of those who paid them and are in the long run derived from the old rents—somewhat reduced, no doubt. I believe the land annuitants own this fund and that it cannot be taken from them. They are at present in a worse position than those who have land in fee-simple. Every owner of land is hard hit at present, but those who own in fee-simple less than others. I do not see on what grounds the claim is proposed. Why should they be given money taken either from the community or the other tenant farmers? They have had free land for generations and I do not see why they should be specially considered now.

Mr. Counihan

I am convinced that Senator Colonel Moore is wrong. He must be thinking of a few isolated cases of the old landlord class—his own class in whom he now has his knife. He does want to give these few landlords relief. The class in which I am mostly interested are the farmers who bought their fee-simple at a big price during the War, the farmers who purchased the fee-simple by redemption of the annuities and the farmers who would not get an advance from the bank and had to purchase their fee-simple. These fee-simple owners are excluded from the benefits conferred by the 1933 Act on all other farmers. I know the country better, perhaps, than Senator Colonel Moore. In the majority of cases, where people hold land in fee-simple, they are paying a rate of interest very much more than any land annuity or rent charged to farmers who hold land under a different tenure. Even though a few of a class to whom Senator Colonel Moore objects might get benefit under this amendment, he should consider the other large class of farmers who would get redress under the amendment.

Mr. Dowdall

What proportion of the farmers would the class Senator Counihan refers to represent?

Mr. Counihan

I could not give an estimate.

Mr. Dowdall

An approximation would do.

Mr. Counihan

About 5 per cent. The Minister was to try to get statistics for us to-day, but he has not succeeded.

Donnchadha O hEaluighthe

Tá dream eile de na feirmeóirí agus níor dhéin Seanadoir O Cúineachain aon tagairt doibh—na daoine do cheannuigh a gcuid talmhan fán Acht Ashbourne. There is another section of the farming community to which Senator Counihan did not refer. A number of tenants were farseeing enough to take advantagé of the Ashbourne Act and purchase their tenancies many years ago. I happen to know something about this matter because, when I was a mere boy, my father purchased his farm under the Ashbourne Act. My nephew is at present in the old place and has had it free of rent for the past couple of years. If some people were farseeing enough to take advantage of legislation in this way, one would be inclined to think that, in equity and reason, their successors should benefit in some small way through their industry.

Mr. Counihan

They will come under this amendment.

Mr. Healy

I am merely suggesting that they are a section to whom you did not refer.

Mr. Comyn

This amendment raises a question that ought not to be decided in a hurry. It is a question that deserves very close examination. A number of classes would be affected. In the first place, there would be affected the people who purchased under the Church Act of '70—all the glebes throughout the country. In some of those cases, the tenants of the glebes paid one-fourth of the money in cash and, in many cases, the whole of it, and they are a body of small farmers who are fee-simple owners. Then, as my friend Senator Healy says, there is the class who purchased under the sections of the Act of '81, and, again, the tenants who purchased under the Ashbourne Act. They were tenants on water-logged estates in the poorest parts of the country. They are now fee-simple owners. These are two classes whose case ought to be inquired into. There is another class—the class represented by the man who had 30 or 40 acres, held in fee, around his house, and who had an outside farm held under a tenancy. The tenancy was purchased under the Land Purchase Acts. That man had, say, two sons. He left the home farm—the fee-simple farm — to one son. He left the other farm, which was subject to an annuity, to the other son. When he was making his will, he recalled that one son had not to pay any annuity, and he put £500 on him as a charge for a daughter. That has happened in hundreds of cases. In order to equalise matters between the two sons, the father took into account, in the settlement of his assets, the fact that one son had the land free from annuity. One son was, therefore, paying the annuity, and the other son was paying interest on a mortgage. The son who was forgiven half the annuity is in a fairly good position at present because the Government has in every possible way, within the limits of its power, helped all farmers. Notwithstanding what Senator Miss Browne is bursting to say, the farmer who is paying the annuity got a remission of half of it. The farmer who is paying interest on the mortgage has got no remission. This case of owners in fee-simple—particularly small owners in fee simple—ought to be considered, but it is too complicated to be dealt with by an amendment of this kind, and, therefore, I shall vote against it at present.

Cathaoirleach

May I put a question: Was the rateable valuation of lands altered in any way by the operation of these various Land Acts?

Mr. Comyn

No.

Cathaoirleach

I think that the rateable valuation is static?

Mr. Comyn

It is.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

This subject is an important and rather complicated one. As Senator Comyn said, it is one that would require a good deal of consideration and, probably, of discussion. One question that occurred to the minds of most people when they saw this amendment for the first time was the question put by Senator Dowdall: What is the amount of fee-simple land in the country? That I do not know. I have asked recently for information on that point, and, up to the present, I have not been able to get it. I understand that it would take a considerable time and a large staff to go through all the holdings recorded, say, in the Land Commission to find what percentage of the land in each county could be regarded as land held in fee-simple. Then there may be land that never came under the purview of the Land Commission, that might not be recorded there in any way, and that would have to be taken into consideration also.

The amendment, therefore, is not one that any Minister would, on such short notice, be inclined to accept; certainly not without having the matter investigated for his own information and the information of Senators who might require it, and also in order to be able to give the local authorities information on which they would base their calculations, because, as is clear from the amendment, it is intended that the other ratepayers should pay for any concession of this kind given to holders of land in fee-simple. The amount of the Agricultural Grant is fixed. It is not suggested that any further sum should be put into that fund to meet whatever liability might be put upon the fund as the result of this concession to the holders in fee. Therefore it is the other ratepayers in each county, to whom the amount would normally go under the Bill as it stands, who would be expected to lose a share of the grant for the benefit of the holders of land in fee-simple.

Another question likely to arise and come into the minds of people considering this matter is this: Is it to be taken for granted that, for every concession made to a tenant purchaser, a similar concession must be made to the holder of land in fee-simple? Concession of various kinds have been made to tenant purchasers in the last 50 years or so, but no case, on the ground of justice or equity, so far has been made for similar concessions from the Government or from the local authorities to the holders of land in fee-simple. The holders of land in fee-simple, however the land came into their possession, are regarded as people who are very well placed and as very lucky people generally. That would be probably true of those who have been in the possession of land for a considerable period of time. There is, however, the class that Senator Counihan has particularly in mind who bought land during the period when prices were at their peak and who are paying heavy interest to banks or other mortgagees on the money lent to them to buy the land. It is possible that these people feel themselves hit pretty hard and, of course, it is natural that they should look for concessions anywhere they think they can get them. I take it, however, that it is not that class alone that Senator Counihan wishes his amendment, if it were passed, to apply. It would have to apply to all holders of land in fee-simple, whether the land came down to them through heredity——

Mr. Counihan

Agricultural land.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

—— or whether it came to them by purchase in the manner Senator Healy and Senator Comyn mentioned, or however it came into their hands. If we had figures to show the number of people who are now absolute holders in fee, or who might be regarded, as the result of having paid off their mortgages, as holders in fee, we might discover that in some counties there would be a considerable number of such people and that the amount to be taken out of the fund available by way of the agricultural grant might in some areas be considerable and might mean a considerable reduction in the amount going to the ordinary holders of agricultural land. As I said to Senator Counihan earlier, I personally have sympathy with those people he had in mind who bought land when everybody thought the going was good, that the profits were going to be large and were going to last, because it did not turn out to be so and a lot of them are badly hit. I should like to see them getting any concession they could, but I do not know that it can be given in the way that the Senator suggests. I am afraid there would be a considerable amount of opposition in every county from the other landholders. As the Senator said, however, sympathy is not of much value. But as long as there is no extra money provided I am afraid the opposition will be all the greater.

However, as I said to Senator Counihan already, I have not had an opportunity of investigating this matter as thoroughly as I should like; in fact I might say of investigating it at all in the way it ought to be investigated. I should like to go into the matter further and see if I can get any kind of approximate figure from the sources open to the Government as to what this would cost as a whole and in each county. If there seems to be an equitable case for doing it, and it would not be too costly, or too much of a drag on the funds provided, personally I may say I would be sympathetic without in any way binding myself to it, as I do not know the facts. I do not want to make any promise that I would find it impossible to carry out. I certainly will ask, however, that all the information that can be got on the subject will be obtained for us. Then when a similar Bill to this comes up, as it must come up before another year is over, we might have further information and an opportunity of having longer notice of the amendment and discussing it at greater length.

Mr. Wilson

I am sure Senator Counihan is pleased at the sympathetic statement of the Minister in regard to this matter, but really I think the Minister is approaching the matter altogether from the wrong angle. It is well known that the promise was made at one time that when the land annuities were retained and not paid to Great Britain derating would take place in this country. A change of policy took place, however. I am not objecting to that change, but by reason of that change of policy on the part of the Government in reducing the land annuities by half, instead of giving derating, they deprived this class of land-holder of the benefits he would have obtained from derating. Therefore, it is not a question of the other ratepayers having to bear the brunt of this, but of the Exchequer making up the difference. It is not the fault of these people that the Government changed their minds. I am not blaming the Government for changing their minds. I think they made a good deal out of this because the rates are increasing every year, while half the land annuities is a fixed figure. Paying a fixed sum yearly is much better than paying a sum which is always increasing. It is because of the Government's change of policy in that respect that these people did not get the benefit of the reduction which was to be given on account of not paying the land annuities to Great Britain.

Miss Browne

I was going to say very much the same thing as Senator Wilson has said. It would be totally unfair to put whatever relief is given to these people on to the other ratepayers. I do not think that Senator Counihan ever intended anything like that. Personally, I know of cases of great hardship where people redeemed their annuities, thinking that they would be free then to put by whatever little savings they might have for some other purpose. In many cases they borrowed the money to do that, thinking that they would be safe, and not dreaming for a moment that such a catastrophe as has overtaken the country at present would ever come about. There is no doubt that the people were left clearly under the impression by Government spokesmen throughout the country that they were going to get derating when the land annuities were kept at home. Nevertheless, I know of very few farmers—to their honour be it said— who approved of that policy of retaining the land annuities even though they were going to get derating. I want for the honour of the class I represent to say that. They were always honest and they never wanted to be relieved of any burdens by an act such as the Government accomplished when they decided to withhold the interest on the land bonds as they did. I know of cases of very great hardship which will be affected by Senator Counihan's amendment. The Minister for Lands is here now and I believe that the proper time to relieve these cases was when the Land Act was going through. Senator Counihan tried his best then and many of us supported him, in trying to get some justice for this class. I am very doubtful that this is the proper place to deal with it, but I think the Minister was very fair in promising to investigate the matter.

Padraic O Maille

An mhuinntir a bhfuil an Sheanadóir O Cúnacháin a labhairt ar a son, iad seo a bhfuil a gcuid talmhan ceannuighte thar bhárr amach aca i gan aon chios; níl ionnta acht uimhir bheag daoine. Taobh amuigh de sin, tá feilmneacha móra, agus saidhbhreas ag a mbunáite, agus ar an adhbhar sin, ní chóir, agus níl sé tuillte aca go ndéanfaidhe dlighe fa leith a reachtú ar a son.

It is very unfortunate that in dealing with an amendment of this kind, Senator Miss Browne should try to make a political speech or that she should refer to honesty and straight dealing when a question of this sort is being discussed. She professes to speak for a certain type of farmer in this country. I believe, on the other hand, that she represents a very small section of the farmers of this country. She might represent the grazier type, the type who hold 300 or 400 acres each. The question of the land annuities has been dragged in here on every possible occasion, but when that question was put to the people at two successive general elections they voted for retaining these moneys in Ireland because they believed that they were the property of the Irish people.

Miss Browne

I absolutely deny that on behalf of the farmers.

Padraic O Maille

If these moneys were given away at a former time, and if a mistake were made, that does not prove that the people were in any way dishonest when they insisted on having their rights respected subsequently. In regard to the amendment, there are, no doubt, some people who purchased fee-simple land during the years of peak prices, but if these people who redeemed their annuities during that period, when public funds were available for the purpose at 4½ per cent., and who paid 6 or 7 per cent. to the banks for the money, made a mistake, they have only themselves to blame for it. A lot of the tenant purchasers throughout the country have always felt that those tenants who were fortunate enough to purchase under the Ashbourne Act were, undoubtedly, in a favoured position as against those who purchased under the subsequent Acts because they got far better terms. The number who hold lands in fee-simple is very small, and it is a very difficult thing to bring in special legislation to deal with a small number. The bulk of the tenant purchasers feel that the small number who hold land in fee-simple and the equally fortunate number who purchased under the Ashbourne Act, are in a far better position and are far better able to bear the shocks of the economic war than the people who purchased land under the more recent Land Purchase Acts. We all know that the annuities were far higher under the more recent Acts and that the people who have to pay them are bearing a bigger burden than those who purchased under the Ashbourne Act. We know, too, that the bulk of the farming community have suffered a good deal owing to the economic war but, in the present position, the big graziers who are able to buy large droves of cattle are likely to make far better profits than the people who are struggling on small holdings of land. They are not nearly so badly hit by the economic war as the small holders. The small holder is suffering more than the people who can buy in cheap stores and sell them at a good profit, bad though prices are.

Mr. Staines

I do not want to make a political speech, but I think a lot of nonsense is being talked here to-day. We heard about graziers from the last speaker. What is a grazier?

A Senator

A young rabbit.

Mr. Staines

A man who has more cattle than you have. This amendment deals with a very definite thing, and, while I do not want to make a political speech, I should like to point out that all the trouble arises out of the economic war. In order to calm down the farmers who were paying annuities, half the annuities were remitted. Then you have farmers who, for one reason or another, under one Land Act or another, or because they bought out their annuities, hold their land in fee-simple. They have been hit by the economic war in the same way as every other farmer. They are paying annuities to England or rather England is collecting the annuities from them just as she is collecting from the people who owed annuities. This amendment would put farmers who hold in fee-simple on the same level as others. Like Senator Colonel Moore, I have no sympathy with the old landlord class but there is a big number of people who redeemed their annuities— call them annuities or rents, it does not matter—for one reason or another. I think it would be a very simple thing for the Government to remit half their rates. I do not want the local authorities to make up the deficiency. It would be a very simple thing for the Government to increase the Agricultural Grant by an amount sufficient to meet the cost of remitting half the rates to these people. I think that is what the amendment means, and it is only just and reasonable that that should be done.

Mr. Counihan

I am not surprised at Senator Colonel Moore's antipathy to the landlords, but Senator Staines' opposition to the old landlord class puzzles me. He poses here as a constitutionalist and the constitution says that we are to give justice and fair play to all classes and creeds.

Mr. Staines

I merely said I had no sympathy with them.

Mr. Counihan

This amendment will apply to a very small percentage of landholders and it should be passed. I am afraid that Senator O Máillie knows very little about the circumstances. Listening to him here one would imagine that he was speaking at some cross-roads — at Maam Cross at the recent by-election. His speech had no connection with the amendment under discussion. It is surprising. I moved this amendment with the object of having a calm and cool debate on the justice or equity of what I put forward. I am glad to say that it was favourably received by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, but Senator Colonel Moore was the first to jump to his legs and oppose it. There is one thing that I agree with Senator O Máille on, and that is that the people I am pleading for form a very small percentage. I can assure Senators that I am not pleading for myself. The amount of fee-simple land that I possess is very small. A lot of irrelevancies have been introduced. As a matter of fact Senator Wilson's speech was the only relevant speech that was made. I admit that he touched on the economic war, but only so far as it was relevant, and I am sorry to say that neither Senator Miss Browne nor Senator O Máille did that. Both their speeches were quite irrelevant to the subject.

I should like to point out to Senator Colonel Moore and Senator Staines that, in many cases, those landlords, to whom they seem to have such antipathy, purchased their land from the Land Commissioners and bought their demesnes and came in for the remission of annuities under the 1933 Act, with the result that the amount remaining now would be a very small percentage. I also wish to point out that the people who would benefit under this are the hardest working class in the community. They are people who saved up money by hard work and industry in previous years and who were unfortunate enough to invest it in fee-simple land, thinking that they were getting a very good bargain and that they were getting something which, as Senator Comyn pointed out, would be a very valuable asset. Now they have found out that having it in fee-simple land was more of a disadvantage than anything else. In nine cases out of ten this land is land that has been bought by the people. It it not a case of the land being hereditary. It has not been handed down to them. It has been bought with the savings of a hard working class of the community, and I say that they deserve as much consideration as any other section of the farming community. I shall not discriminate between any section of the community holding fee-simple agricultural land and another section, and I should not like to accept an amendment which would not include everybody. I am very glad that the Minister has received the amendment sympathetically and has promised to give it sympathetic consideration. I shall not ask to have it considered in this Bill. I think the Minister is right in refusing to have it considered in this Bill, but I would ask him to try to have it considered in time to allow the local authorities an opportunity of considering it when they are budgeting for their next rates. If he would do that, it would give the Dáil and Seanad an opportunity of accepting the proposal.

Cathaoirleach

I take it that you are not pressing your amendment, Senator?

Mr. Counihan

No, Sir.

Colonel Moore

It seems to me now that anybody who has not got a sop already must get a sop now. That seems to be the whole tenour of the remarks that have been passed. Why should these people get a sop now, and where will they get it from? Who is to pay it? It seems to me that the whole thing is ridiculous. Certainly, I do not see why I should be accused of being hostile to a certain class. In the circumstances, it seems rather ridiculous to accuse me of that. However, people, evidently, will say anything once they get on their legs. However, I should be very glad if anybody could get a sop of some kind or another, but it is not practicable, and I think that those who deserve it should get it. I think that it can only be got out of the annuities and the annuities belong to the people who paid them.

Mr. Counihan

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 7 to 22, inclusive, put and agreed to. Short Title, First and Second Schedules, and Title put and agreed to, and Bill reported to the House.