Dáil Éireann - Volume 37 - 25 March, 1931

Private Business. - Land Bill, 1930—Report Stage.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: Would I be in order in proposing that the Bill be re-committed? My anxiety is that I would have an opportunity of replying to the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments. My colleague Deputy Geoghegan, is not here. He participated in the drafting of these amendments, and in any case I think re-committing the Bill at this stage would not prolong the discussion; it might even mean shortening it in the long run.

An Ceann Comhairle Michael Hayes

An Ceann Comhairle: That the amendments should be discussed in Committee.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: That would mean taking the Report Stage on Thursday.

An Ceann Comhairle Michael Hayes

2022

[2022] An Ceann Comhairle: What Deputy Derrig proposes is fairly usual practice in cases such as this. In effect, he desires to have an order of the House made which would enable amendments to be discussed under Committee procedure. If a number of these amendments are passed, the question, if no objection be offered, that the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration, could be taken this evening or to-morrow.

The President The President

The President: I presume we will be facilitated in the final stages this week.

Mr. de Valera Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera: Yes.

Ordered: That the Land Bill, 1930, be now re-committed to a Committee of the whole Dáil in respect of the amendments of which notice has been given.

Land Bill, 1930 — Re-committed.

The Dáil went into Committee.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: I move amendment 1:

In page 4, line 6, Section 4 (1), to delete the words “in such manner and at such rate” and substitute the words “at the rate of three and one-quarter per cent.”

I accepted the principle of this amendment on the Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I move:

In page 5, line 55, Section 9 (7), after the word “modification” to insert the words “that a Court letting shall be deemed a contract of tenancy and”

I think the Parliamentary Secretary promised to look into the matter of a Court letting in the special case mentioned by Deputy Ryan. That is, where such a letting existed for generations.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2023

Mr. Roddy: I have looked into the matter since the Committee Stage. I discussed it with Deputy Ryan, and I explained my difficulty in the matter. It is difficult to draft an amendment to cover a particular case, such as the one cited by the Deputy. However, I suggest that the tenant might secure redress by applying to the Court for [2023] a reduction in the present rent. I have no doubt if such an application was made the Court, in the circumstances, would grant such reduction.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I move:

In page 6, line 11, Section 10 (3), to delete all words after the word “Commissioner” to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words “shall be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

This amendment is, to some extent, met by the next amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, but his amendment only covers appeals on questions of law. Deputies are interested in appeals on questions of fact. If appeals cannot be secured on questions of fact, which are really the ones that are most vital to tenants, why should there be an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner at all, if a further appeal is not going to be allowed? On the other hand, we say that appeals to the Supreme Court may not, in the long run, leave the tenants any better off, after a good deal of expense and trouble, and I have suggested in a later amendment that the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner might be taken away where there is a well-established line of policy laid down by the Land Commission, and where they have experience and full knowledge of all the circumstances. I think there is a desire from all parts of the House to give the Land Commission the fullest possible powers, and not to bind them down, except where it would be clearly inequitable, except that all rights of appeal above the Land Commission should be taken away. I would like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say with regard to appeals to the Supreme Court on questions of fact. Is there any real argument against it except that it is rather a circumlocutory method, and is bound to be expensive on the tenants?

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2024

Mr. Roddy: To begin with, in the whole history of the Land Acts there has not been an appeal from the Land Commission or the Judicial Commissioner on a question of fact. [2024] If appeals were allowed on questions of fact it would hold up the Land Commission work indefinitely. It would cause innumerable delays and would really inflict on the tenants very serious hardships. I am quite satisfied there is no occasion when there should be a right of appeal from the Land Commissioners, or the Judicial Commissioner on questions of fact. There has been a right of appeal from the Land Commission to the Judicial Commissioner on questions of law, and in the next amendment I propose to continue that right of appeal. It is only fair to the tenants and to the owners that in matters involving questions of law there should be such right of appeal. I could not accept an amendment providing an appeal from the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme-Court on questions of fact.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: Were there not appeals on such questions as the price of land, the fixing of annuities, as well as amending the vesting orders? May they not involve mixed questions of law and fact?

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: The annuities are fixed automatically except in the case of non-judicial holdings.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I think the Parliamentary Secretary will admit that most questions of fact might be construed as implying questions of law. That is the trouble.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: I am opposed to the amendment because in my opinion the right of appeal to the Supreme Court from the Judicial Commissioner on questions other than law would load the dice in favour of the vendors. In my opinion an appeal would never be taken in the Supreme Court by a purchaser. Vendors who are better advised and who have more money at their disposal might very easily take advantage of a purchaser's timidity, so that in my opinion such procedure would load the dice in favour of the landlords as against the purchaser.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I presume I can discuss the abolition of the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner which arises later.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2025

[2025] Mr. Roddy: For the sake of clarity it would be much better to discuss these questions separately.

I move:—

In page 6, line 12, section 10 (3), to add at the end of the sub-section the words “save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.”

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: I move amendment No. 6, which is as follows:—

In page 7, line 13, Section 12 (4), to add at the end of the sub-section the words “save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.”

This amendment deals with the same point which arose on the other amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

SECTION 13 (2).

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 7, lines 22-25, to delete Section 13 (2).

The sub-section which I ask to have deleted reads as follows:— “There shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from every order made by the other Land Commissioners under the foregoing sub-section of this section and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on any such appeal shall be final.”

2026

That refers to an appeal in the case of dismissals of purchase proceedings in respect of certain vested holdings. The object of all parties here is, I think, to expedite the matter of land purchase as much as possible. This is a case where it seems to me that the Land Commission themselves would have a very good right to make their own decisions final, especially in cases where they have decided that certain holdings shall not be deemed to be holdings to which sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Land Act, 1923, as amended by the Land Act of 1927, shall [2026] apply. I think that the ruling of the Land Commissioners in such matters would be quite fair and reasonable and would take all the circumstances into consideration. I fail to see why there should be a right of appeal subsequently. It seems to me that if we give a right of appeal on every single matter we are apt to unduly burden and obstruct the work of the Land Commission. In this matter, at any rate, a beginning could be made by leaving the Land Commissioners to decide the question once and for all.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: In my view there should be a right of appeal from the Land Commissioners to the Judicial Commissioner on questions of this kind. The question really involved is as to whether the tenant's holding comes under the Act of 1923, and that is a very important matter from the tenant's point of view. Deputies must remember that the Commissioners are the statutory heads of the Land Commission. They acquire land by virtue of the compulsory powers vested in them and, in the further exercise of these compulsory powers, they fix the price of the land. It seems to me that in equity, justice and rairness there should be an appeal from any statutory body, exercising compulsory powers for the fixing of the price of land, to another authority. Either the vendor or the tenant should have the right of appeal from that body to another tribunal, and it seems to me to be only elementary justice to give such right. In this particular case it is vitally important for the tenant to know whether his holding comes under the Act of 1923 or not. It would be unfair to deprive him of the right of appeal.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

2027

Mr. Derrig: Are not the Land Commissioners, other than the Judicial Commissioner, exercising judicial functions every day in the year? If they are not, then I do not know what the position is. It seems to me that every statute gives them power to make judicial decisions on certain matters, the object being to enable them to expedite the work of land purchase. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfied that their decision should be final then where is [2027] the question of appeal going to stop? It might go so far as the Privy Council, if such were to be tolerated. It seems to me that the argument for allowing it to go to the Judicial Commissioner is not sufficient. We had a strong volume of opinion voiced here when this matter was referred to in the Committee Stage, and the general opinion was that it would be much cheaper and more expeditious in the long run to leave questions, on which the ordinary man in the street could give an opinion, to be decided by the Land Commission. The question whether a holding falls within the scope of the Land Act of 1923 ought to be one which could be determined by the Land Commissioners of whom there are now four. They have the experience and have exercised judicial powers. There is no doubt that by making their decision final we will be making matters much more expeditious and we would also be giving them power to go ahead with their work. There is no use in seeking compulsory power if, in the long run, you are going to hold up the body which is administering the Act by putting in a right of appeal, a right which, it is generally conceded, has to a certain extent militated against the work of the Land Commission and also against the interests of the tenant. The fact that in these particular cases the tenants are involved does not mean that in the majority of cases the interests of the tenants are likely to be prejudiced rather than otherwise by the maintenance of this right. If the opinions of tenants were taken, and if that were to be the sole guide on the matter, I think it would be found to be against this right of appeal. It is simply a question of making things shorter and more expeditious.

2028

It is a question of whether or not we have faith in the Land Commission. They can only act in accordance with the various Acts and they are circumscribed in various ways. They have very little discretion given them in any matter affecting the rights of the tenants. For the life of me, I [2028] cannot see what new facts might be brought up or what new evidence might be disclosed upon an appeal that the Land Commissioners themselves would not have already considered. They are there to go into these questions. They are there to give a fair decision as between all parties. I certainly think we should not hamper them and that we should not perpetuate a grievance which the tenants complain they have at present, the grievance of allowing unnecessary appeals, appeals which, Deputy Gorey says, will in the long run further the interests of the other parties rather than those of the tenants concerned.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2029

Mr. Roddy: I am perfectly satisfied that if you deprive the tenants of the right which they enjoy of appealing to the Judicial Commissioner, in cases where questions of law are involved particularly, they would be labouring under a serious grievance. I stated on the Committee Stage that 75 per cent. of the cases of appeals to the Judicial Commissioner were from the tenants. I have had occasion to examine the figures very closely since then and I found from my examination that the figure which I then mentioned was altogether too conservative. I found as a result of that examination that out of every 100 cases of appeals which came before the Judicial Commissioner 87 are from tenants. I would ask Deputies to remember that when you are dealing with land you are dealing with the biggest and most fundamental asset in the State. If the tenant feels that the Commissioners have not interpreted his case rightly or that they may be wrong on a particular point of law, it is only fair and just that the tenant should have the right of appeal to a superior court. The ordinary individual has a right of appeal in the overwhelming majority of cases and, when you are dealing with the biggest and most fundamental asset in the State, why should not the owner of that asset have a right of appeal to a superior court? There has been always such a right of appeal and there has been no delay, as I explained very clearly on the Committee Stage, in the Judicial Commissioner's Court. [2029] He deals with these cases very quickly and there is never any delay in his court.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not arguing against himself in stating that the appeal will be allowed to a supreme court even on a question of law? As regards the question of the number of tenants who sent in applications and the proportion of appeals that originates from the tenants, I do not think that is a very good argument because obviously you might have 100 tenants applying to the Judicial Commissioner on appeal and the total amount involved might be smaller than in a single case where the landlord, or the other parties whoever they might be, would be appealing. I think if the total amounts involved were taken into consideration the percentage represented by the tenants would not be so high as the Parliamentary Secretary tries to make out.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: The figures are in the annual report if the Deputy cares to look them up.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

2030

Mr. Derrig: We have discussed this question before amongst ourselves and we are satisfied that if the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner were entirely abolished, it would be less expensive for everybody in the end, more expeditious and would greatly hasten the work of the Land Commission. We think if that were done the Land Commission would not have any legitimate grounds for grievance. As [2030] I have already stated, they have at present grounds for grievance in so far as we have given them the fullest possible compulsory powers but we have hampered them by appeals on various questions. I think I shall have to press the amendment as we feel that it is a vital matter.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: This amendment does not affect cases as between tenant and landlord. It is a case between one class of tenant and another class of incoming tenant.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: In this particular case.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: There might be more questions than the question of value involved. We need to maintain a certain policy and a certain standard of procedure. I could understand a new commissioner coming into a district and establishing a new standard totally different from that which had obtained in the district before. What is good in one part of the country should be good in another. In this class of case you must maintain a certain standard of procedure and you can only do that by having one man as a final court of appeal.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: Why should there be only one judge?

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: One final court of appeal.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: It is very unusual to have a court of appeal with only one judge. The Deputy will recognise that himself.

Question — “That the words proposed to be deleted stand” — put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 39.

Tá

Níl

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.

Question declared carried.

Amendment 8 not moved.

The following amendment was agreed to:

In page 7, line 25, Section 13 (2), to add at the end of the sub-section the words “save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.” — (Mr. Roddy).

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I move amendment 10:

In page 8, line 8, Section 14 (2), to delete all words after the word “Commissioner” to the end of the sub-section.

This is on the question of holdings alleged to be wrongly omitted from the list of vested holdings. This is a case where it is really a matter between the Land Commission and the landlords, and it seems to me that those who are interested in preserving the tenants' right might support this amendment when they would not support the amendment on which we have just taken a vote. However, I do not want to press the amendment at present, but I should like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is adamant on this question of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner here.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: If I accepted the amendment I would be inflicting a hardship on the tenants.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 11 not moved.

The following amendment was agreed to:

In page 8, line 11, Section 14 (2), to add at the end of the sub-section the words “save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court” — (Mr. Roddy).

Amendments 13 and 14 not moved.

The following amendment was agreed to:

2033

In page 9, line 43, Section 15 (3), to add at the end of the sub-section [2033] the words “save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court” — (Mr. Roddy).

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: I move amendment 16:

In page 9, before Section 16, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Where at the passing of the Land Act, 1923, a holding to which that Act applies was sub-divided or in part sublet in breach of a statutory condition or of a covenant or condition contained in the lease or agreement under which such holding was held, the Land Commission, if it so thinks proper having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may, on the application of any person in separate occupation of a portion of such holding by virtue of such sub-division or subletting, declare the portion or each of the several portions of such holding so separately occupied to be a separate holding, and the person in such separate occupation thereof to be the tenant thereof and, in the case of a sub-letting, declare the portion of such holding which is not so sublet to be a separate holding and the person in separate occupation thereof to be the tenant thereof.

(2) Where the Land Commission makes a declaration under this section such declaration shall have effect according to the terms thereof and the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) the sub-division or subletting (as the case may be) which is the subject of such declaration shall be and be deemed, as at and from the passing of the Land Act, 1923, to have been lawful and valid;

(b) in the case of a declaration made in respect of a sub-division Section 20 of the Land Act, 1923, shall apply to every portion of a holding declared by such declaration to be a separate holding with the modification that the date of such declaration shall be substituted in that section for the date of the passing of that Act;

2034

(c) in the case of a declaration [2034] made in respect of a subletting, Section 23 of the Land Act, 1923, shall apply as if sub-section (3) of that section were omitted therefrom and with the modification that the date of such declaration shall be substituted in sub-section (1) of that section for the date of the passing of that Act.

(3) The Land Commission shall not make a declaration under this section save either with the consent of all parties concerned or after notice of the application for such declaration has been served in the prescribed manner on all parties concerned and all such parties have been afforded an opportunity of objecting to the making of such declaration.

(4) Every application for a declaration under this section and every objection duly made to the making of such declaration shall be considered and decided by the Land Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner, and there shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the decision of the other Land Commis sioners on any such application or objection and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on such appeal shall be final, save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from the decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.

This amendment is in substitution for amendment 25 on the Committee Stage. It enables the Land Commission to validate the sub-division or sub-letting of a holding made in breach of a contract of tenancy, where such a transaction took place before the passing of the Land Act of 1923. It is not required in the case of any sub-division or sub-letting since the passing of that Act, as the Land Commission have power to deal with such a sub-division or sub-letting. I think it meets the Deputy's point fully.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I think the Parliamentary Secretary has met our point.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2035

Mr. Roddy: It preserves the discretion of the Land Commission, as I [2035] made it clear to the Deputy that I must insist on maintaining that discretion.

Amendment agreed to.

New section to be inserted.

Amendments 17 and 18 not moved.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I move amendment 19:

In page 12, line 52, Section 24 (3), to delete all words after the word “Commissioner” to the end of the sub-section.

There are a few points which I should like to get information upon. The first is, what exactly are these holdings on untenanted land? What is the difference between holdings on untenanted land and the ordinary Congested Districts Board holdings? Secondly, what exactly would the amendment of these lists of holdings cover? I presume it would cover the exclusion or inclusion of holdings in the list.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: Yes, or probably the resumption or retention of a holding.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: As to the holdings on untenanted land, what is the distinction there?

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: The distinction is very slight. Probably it is not necessary to include untenanted land in that sub-section, but it is conceivable that cases may arise where it may be necessary for the Land Commission for the purpose of carrying out a scheme of re-arrangement to resume holdings on untenanted land.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: As the resumption question arises here, is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that an appeal is necessary?

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 20 not moved.

The following amendment was agreed to:—

2036

In page 12, line 56, Section 24 (3), to add at the end of the sub-section the words “save that an [2036] appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.” — (Mr. Roddy.)

Amendment 22 not moved.

The following amendment was agreed to:—

In page 14, line 26, Section 27 (3), to add at the end of the sub-section the words “save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.” —(Mr. Roddy.)

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I move amendment 24:

In page 14, line 55, Section 29 (1), before the word “Where” to insert the words “Without prejudice to the powers in that behalf heretofore exercisable by the High Court and the Circuit Court the following provision shall apply, viz:—”.

This is merely a matter of preserving the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts which I understand have exercised jurisdiction in this matter up to the present. The Parliamentary Secretary on the last stage, I understood, did not favour this amendment. I have simply put it down to elicit information as to how the matter stands.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: I explained on the Committee Stage that this amendment is not really necessary. The jurisdiction of the existing courts is preserved in the Bill and the power of the existing courts to supply relief in such cases as this when an application is made is still preserved completely. I am satisfied about that and I have examined it very closely since the Committee Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I move amendment 25:

In page 15, Section 29, before sub-section (7), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

“There shall be a right of appeal to the Supreme Court from any order made by the Judicial Commissioner under this section.”

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: There is such an appeal and the amendment is really unnecessary.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

2037

[2037] Mr. Derrig: Where is the appeal on questions of law generally?

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: There is an appeal under the existing law which this section does not take away.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: I move amendment 26:

In page 16, line 43, Section 33 (1) (a), after the word “may” to insert the words “after publication by advertisement or otherwise of such notice as the Court shall consider sufficient.”

This is the official draft of amendment 27 which I accepted on the Committee Stage, and I think it carries out the Deputy's intention effectively.

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 33.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I move amendment 27:

In page 17, lines 41-42, Section 33 (4), to delete the words “out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas” and substitute the words “out of the special reserve fund provided under Section 20 (4) (d) hereof.”

The section deals with the payment of compensation to claimants who subsequently appear to prove their title. Under sub-section (4) of this section the State is made responsible for providing the money. I think there are no very good grounds for doing that, when you have a guarantee deposit already as part of this Bill. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the amendment. I think the total amount involved is not very large, but whether it be large or small, I think there is no sound reason for making it a State charge. The State has sufficient to attend to, I think, in financing land purchase generally as it stands without having to finance new and additional charges such as this is.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2038

Mr. Roddy: I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment. I do not consider it necessary. It is most unlikely that any claim will ever arise under this particular section. As I explained on Committee Stage, the Land Commission for the last twenty or thirty years has always acted as if this section [2038] were operative, and no claim was ever made against the Land Commission in respect of moneys paid out under this section. It is almost inconceivable that any claims will be made against the Land Commission in future. This section was discussed very fully with the Department of Finance when it was being drafted, and they were satisfied, in view of past experience, that it was not necessary to safeguard the interests of the State in this particular way.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I take it there will be considerable expedition in the distribution of the purchase money when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: The Bill is designed for that purpose.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: There would be great expedition in this matter, and would not the Parliamentary Secretary think it right that the State should be safeguarded? If legal matters are so complicated, when you deal with them in a very rapid and expeditious fashion as is now proposed, would there not be danger of doing the wrong thing and making yourself liable? Surely there is a good case for the Land Commission taking steps to insure itself against risks as it was very well put here when this matter was referred to before. I do not see any reason, even if the practice was as the Parliamentary Secretary says it was in the past, why it should not have been changed now when there will be a great increase in the distribution of the purchase money, and when I take it millions of pounds will be paid out.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2039

Mr. Roddy: It is quite true, as Deputy Derrig said, that this section will undoubtedly expedite the investigation of titles, but the Deputy must realise that in this matter the Land Commission will be dealing with exactly the same style of cases as there have been for many years past. This section will only apply to a very small type of owner and to tenants on resumed holdings, and, as I explained already, if the Land Commission had to make a very close and rigid investigation of title it would mean a very big claim on the cost funds. I think [2039] an estimate was made already, and I think I gave the figures on the Second Reading showing that if a very close and rigid investigation of title was to be made in all cases it would mean a loss of some thousands of pounds to the State. As I say, there is very little risk involved in this particular section. I am quite satisfied about that. After 30 years' experience not a single claim has ever been made against the Land Commission. In the future the Land Commission will be dealing with the same class of cases, and it is almost inconceivable that any claim of this kind will arise. At any rate, 2 per cent. is ridiculous; less than one-fourth per cent. would be quite sufficient.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: The Parliamentary Secretary refuses to grant compensation in every case. He is now not going to grant compensation. Whether the amount is great or small, the possibility is there that things will not turn out quite so well as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested. When these huge sums of money are being paid out even a few mistakes may involve the State in the payment of a considerable sum for compensation. I do not at all agree to the principle that we should pay compensation in these particular matters if we are not prepared to pay it in every case.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2040

Mr. Roddy: Even though the distribution of the purchase money will be considerably expedited in these cases, it does not mean at all that the titles are to be read in a careless fashion. The same meticulous care will be exercised as in former cases. If in fact the Examiners feel that in any case claims are likely to be made against the purchase money being paid in the future, they can always apply to the Judicial Commissioners to withhold the sum in order to meet such claim. I do not want to have a waste of time. The whole object of this Bill is to expedite and hasten the work of the Land Commission. If the Land Commission is to administer a fund which is never likely to be called upon at any time to meet such claims as that provided by this particular amendment [2040] it would mean certainly a waste of time and it would mean that certain members of the staff would be engaged on this particular work unnecessarily.

Mr. Aiken Mr. Aiken

Mr. Aiken: The Parliamentary Secretary attacked the figure of 2 per cent. I am sure Deputy Derrig does not want to reserve a greater sum than is necessary. If the Parliamentary Secretary would say a ½ per cent. would cover the cases, then will he accept a ½ per cent. and keep that amount back from the landlords, and use it as an insurance fund to cover any payments that may be made when he is making other payments for the landlords? I think it would not be unfair to ask the landlords to put up an insurance fund of one-half per cent. or even the full figure of two per cent. They are getting out of this thing very well and much better than many of them expected.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: They are getting nothing except what they are entitled to get.

Mr. Aiken Mr. Aiken

2041

Mr. Aiken: They are entitled to what the people of this country can afford to give them. That is all. There were quotations given here from the British official records in the course of which numbers of people over there, who are not any friends of the Irish people, said that the landlords are getting out of the Irish land situation here much better than they ever expected. Certainly everybody knows that investment in land is not a very good thing. These landlords are going to get their bonds which are already convertible. They are getting them at a time when bonds of that description are at a premium. They are, I think, getting very well out of it. If it were necessary to withhold one-half per cent. in order to ensure that they would get their money quickly I think they would jump at the opportunity they would have been given of getting their bonds at once. We do not want vesting held up for any very close scrutiny of the titles if the landlords would have to pay for the mistake. Naturally if the people here have to pay, or if there is any likelihood of the people having to pay the landlord [2041] twice, we would like a careful scrutiny. We want the work speeded up and I think Deputy Derrig's suggestion is the best one. It is bad enough having to pay these boys once without having to pay them twice. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should accept Deputy Derrig's amendment. If he thinks the whole figure of two per cent. not necessary, let him accept the lesser figure of one-half or whatever figure he might think necessary.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I am not quite clear at all as to the Parliamentary Secretary's argument that this amendment would in some way involve an increase of staff. Surely to goodness the same staff substantially would be necessary to deal with the matter of compensation from whatever source compensation may be provided. I am not clear as to his argument or that it affects the question of title at all. I presume in spite of the new facilities that are given for dealing with the question, that the examiners of title will go into the question of titles as fully as they can. Machinery is there for going into the question of title and the question of where the compensation is to come from is not directly affected by the question of the examination of the title. The examination of title is going on at present. It is specially provided for. We have a special staff to deal with it and I presume that will continue.

2042

As to the amount that would be necessary to provide the assurance, if the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that the total amount involved is going to be so small, then if that is so it is one of the very best arguments in favour of this amendment when he says that a half or a quarter of the two per cent. would be sufficient. Since he has set up a guarantee deposit, I think that is a sufficient margin. I think when that was being passed the Parliamentary Secretary said that the amount provided was four or five times or more than what would be required. There was a very handsome margin, and there will be more than sufficient surplus funds to provide for any compensation that may be necessary. What is the objection to agreeing to that [2042] small percentage to cover it? The danger is that the Parliamentary Secretary's forecast may not work out, and there may be difficulties otherwise.

I think it is up to the representatives of the people here to see that nobody is going to get away with compensation at the expense of the State, and that any difficulties that may subsequently arise will be provided for, and will be provided for by the people who are going to get the money. If these people are going to get away with their purchase money far more quickly than would be otherwise the case, the Parliamentary Secretary has stressed that. I submit that these people ought to be willing, as the guarantee deposit is more than sufficient to do the work, to add a small percentage to cover this provision for compensation.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: How does the Deputy propose to deal with this fund inasmuch as there is a percentage taken from every estate and that that is a separate fund?

Mr. Aiken Mr. Aiken

Mr. Aiken: A common fund.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: What is the objection to that?

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: A common fund! The suggestion is that the estates should leave a certain percentage in a common fund. It is a joke to make such a suggestion. If there happens to be a flaw in Deputy Aiken's title, and if the rest of the cases of the Deputies here are right, why should they pay for the flaw in his title?

Mr. Little Mr. Little

Mr. Little: Why should the State do it?

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: Why should the individual do it? Why should people who have no responsibilities at all in the matter do it?

Mr. Aiken Mr. Aiken

Mr. Aiken: They are getting liquid assets.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: I do not see how you can reconcile it.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

2043

Mr. Derrig: It does not really matter whether it is a common pool or not, whether it is that Deputy Aiken's percentage for insurance is going to be added in with the others to form a [2043] common pool or whether it is going to be a single item. The question is entirely a frivolous one. It does not matter whether it is a common pool or not so long as a definite percentage is appropriated on each particular estate, according to the distribution of the purchase money. It does not matter whether it is a common pool or not. It is a matter of machinery as long as the principle is admitted. Is the State or Deputy Aiken, for example, going to pay — that is the question. Deputy Gorey is one of those people who talk a great deal about financial matters and compensation generally. I am rather astonished to find on this matter that though he voted down the principle of compensation in another part of the Bill, which I imagine appealed more to his heart and to the interests of his constituents, he is now anxious to save those people at the expense of the State.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: No, I am not.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I would not rise at all only for Deputy Gorey's objection being frivolous. It is only an attempt to draw a red herring across the trail. Are these people going to provide this re-insurance for subsequent claimants? They are the people who will get away with the money, and surely they ought to be made responsible for any claims that may subsequently arise.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: I cannot see the frivolity of it at all. The State comes along to these people and say “you must sell your property.” They introduce a compulsory measure here forcing the landlords to sell, forcing people to dispose of their property. These people have no free will in the matter at all. The State is riding the horse in every instance and the State must bear the responsibility such as it is. If the State make any mistake through the machinery they set up to investigate title they must put up with the consequence. I have no brief for these other people at all. I do not think the attitude taken up by Deputy Derrig could be argued, and unless I am extremely dense I cannot see the point.

Mr. Allen Mr. Allen

2044

[2044] Mr. Allen: Deputy Gorey has become very solicitous of the landlords.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: I am not a bit. I do not care two pence if you give them nothing.

Mr. Allen Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen: Is Deputy Gorey not aware that if this section is passed it will set up a new horde of landlords all over the country? You will have claims for the next thirty years against the State, in order to compensate somebody who does not perhaps exist at the moment at all. Deputy Derrig's amendment will safeguard the interest of the State and that is what it is meant for. There is no reason why the owners should not create a pool.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: A common pool?

Mr. Allen Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen: Yes. Some of them may suffer. The Parliamentary Secretary said that a half per cent would make a sufficient pool to cover all the claims. If what the Parliamentary Secretary has stated is true, there is no reason at all for this section. He told us that there have been no such claims made in the past. Why does he think there will be claims made in the future? Is it because he is giving a right here to make claims or an inducement to do so, that the State has such a lot of surplus funds at its disposal that it will come along and give with a fifteen years' purchase some further years? There is no doubt about that. There is absolutely no reason in the world for this section.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. Finlay Mr. Finlay

2045

Mr. Finlay: If Deputy Allen considers that the amendment proposed will have the effect of forming, as it were, an insurance fund against these claims, I am afraid he is somewhat mistaken, because the effect of Section 20 in the Bill is simply to provide a guarantee deposit in respect of each distinct and separate estate which is being sold and that guarantee deposit is to answer claims in respect of estates generally throughout the country and in respect of claims arising out of the sale of a particular estate. The three amendments that have been introduced by Deputy Derrig, namely, [2045] amendments 17, 27 and 28, have not the effect that it is thought they should have, the effect of making the guarantee deposit which was set up under Section 20 of the Act, as it were, a common insurance fund. If these amendments were carried they simply provide this. Out of each particular estate any claim arising by reason of defect in title would be met out of the guarantee deposit. The idea of Section 20, as it would appear to me, would be to provide for what might be called ordinary claims in respect of the estate. That is the idea of the guarantee deposit. Claims arising out of defective title will be very few and far between, and I think the provision which is already made in Section 33, sub-section (5), of the Bill, namely, that the State can recover these moneys from the person who has wrongfully obtained them, adequately meets the case.

Mr. Allen Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen: Will the Deputy state in what way the State can recover these moneys? The person from whom it is proposed to get them may be outside the jurisdiction of the State.

Mr. Finlay Mr. Finlay

Mr. Finlay: They are recoverable here.

Mr. Allen Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen: How will they be recoverable if they are outside the jurisdiction of the State?

Mr. Finlay Mr. Finlay

Mr. Finlay: A case can be made, if it is money obtained in mistake of fact.

Mr. Allen Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen: Outside the jurisdiction?

Mr. Finlay Mr. Finlay

Mr. Finlay: Representation would have been made here.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

2046

Mr. Derrig: As regards Deputy Finlay's statement, it seems to me that he has replied to Deputy Gorey rather than to me. Deputy Gorey wanted to know what was the position as regards the common pool. I suggested it was a matter that did not arise at all. As Deputy Finlay pointed out, if we wanted to have a common pool we would have to make the guarantee deposit applicable to all estates. We have to take the guarantee deposit as it affects each particular estate. Therefore, my amendment as it stands affects each particular estate, and if [2046] the Government Party, at the instigation of Deputy Gorey, wish to move in the matter, I am sure they can get the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce the matter of a common pool. At present the provision to which Deputy Gorey has agreed is a guarantee deposit of 10 per cent. from each particular estate. We say, under this amendment, that from that ten per cent. should come — and there is sufficient finance to enable it — further provision for compensation under Section 33. I do not see where Deputy Gorey's point arises. I think the House should be grateful to Deputy Finlay for having explained to Deputy Gorey, who does not take nicely to lectures from lawyers, this matter. I hope in future, before Deputy Gorey comes out with his legal statements, that he will consult somebody like Deputy Finlay. I do not pretend to be a legal luminary.

Mr. Maguire Mr. Maguire

Mr. Maguire: I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what are his objections to accepting such amendments as Deputy Derrig proposes. Deputy Derrig proposes that a fund should be set up out of the moneys payable to the landlord to meet contingencies which it is natural to expect will arise as a result of the increased facilities that are now being prepared for vesting the land. If this Land Bill means anything it means that the Land Commission will speed up the work of vesting. It means that the vesting will have to reach its final stage earlier than heretofore, and that the period of supervision which heretofore, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, safeguarded the State, is to be removed. The removal of that period of investigation naturally removes a certain safeguard that the State has had and that saved the taxpayer up to the present. In any new departure it is merely the interest of the State to safeguard itself.

2047

What is the objection to taking the ordinary safeguards that any business man will ask for, if he is taking a new departure in his business? A new departure must mean additional risk. The reason in this case is due to the fact that the period of examination that heretofore has been the rule will [2047] in the future be very much curtailed. Deputy Gorey asked what is the object, and stated that there was a guarantee fund already in existence; that that guarantee fund is supposed to cover all the responsibility involved in the transfer of land, and that the State is the driving force all the time. The State is compelling him to sell the land, and it is the responsible party all through the transaction, but in this case the State is not the responsible party to this extent. The Land Bill of 1923 is merely a continuation of earlier Land Acts for which this State was not responsible. Deputy Gorey wishes to put it to the landlord interests in this country, that if they are prepared to have the Land Act of 1923 withdrawn, they could take up the position they were in prior to the 1923 Act. They would not. The Land Act is of greater importance, and for the last four or five years of greater value, to the landlord than it is to the tenant. Under these circumstances it is only rational that the State should safeguard itself. I have listened to no arguments put up from any side as to justification for asking the landlord to take responsibility for the new conditions now about to arise; that has always been demanded from the tenant. The tenants, in order to get a loan from the State or various Governments, have had to go as guarantors for each other. This is asking nothing more than the tenants had to submit to in the previous Land Acts. I fail to see how these people could reasonably complain of being asked to give reasonable guarantees to the State, and that once their interest is being bought out by the State the State should not be asked to meet the second claim. Those are the rudiments of any ordinary business transaction. The Parliamentary Secretary may have taken up a certain attitude on this matter, but I am sure that the President and the other responsible members of the Government Party will see the case put forward in the amendment is a reasonable one.

2048

If there is no demand at the end of a specified number of years there is no reason why that fund cannot then be distributed back to the landlord. I [2048] do not know from Deputy Derrig's amendment that it is to be confiscated by the State. This is only asking that such a credit be left and made available in the event of something occurring so that that mistake will not become a burden on the taxpayers of this country to the extent that they will have to pay a second time for property for which in their judgment they have paid enough.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: Do not the terms of the Act provide a ten per cent. guarantee fund? Does the Act say that it would be more than 20 or 30 years? The arguments in favour of this amendment were based on the assumption that there was going to be a common fund. That was Deputy Aiken's and Deputy Allen's contention and when Deputy Derrig spoke that was his contention. The terms of the Act provide that there was to be a common fund.

Mr. Allen Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen: What is the necessity for this section?

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: There is no necessity for this amendment.

Mr. Allen Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen: What is the necessity for this section?

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: In case they make some mistake in 100 or 200 years time.

Mr. Little Mr. Little

2049

Mr. Little: Deputy Finlay appears to hold very strongly that under the law generally the State could follow the persons who would have obtained the money under a mistake and recover it on behalf of subsequent claimants. If that be so the whole section is of no value at all and the only regret we have is that Deputy Finlay did not make that speech when the section was voted on. Again he appears to disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary, because the Parliamentary Secretary said one quarter per cent. would be sufficient for the reserve, and the conclusion one could draw from that was that the Parliamentary Secretary was of the opinion that it would be a common fund. We have a difference of view upon the matter. In any case, I think Deputy Finlay has made a case for this particular amendment, because in the first instance you are going to save the State at least two per cent. on the [2049] estate against loss. Then again, it may be able to get a portion of what is due to the ordinary channels of law and it will have this reserve fund as some kind of security. Our amendment is somewhat similar; many of the the members of the House assumed that at first and for that reason it is one which should be passed and accepted because it establishes a principle and to some extent protects the ordinary taxpayer.

Mr. Aiken Mr. Aiken

Mr. Aiken: Deputy Gorey was successful the other day in getting the Parliamentary Secretary to accept an amendment of ours when we failed. Undoubtedly people like Deputy Gorey have a great influence on the Government, who after all are hanging on by a narrow majority. If Deputy Gorey and a few others put their heels on the ground and say, “We are not going to support the Government unless the Government do something for the people we represent, they would have to give in. I think Deputy Gorey and the other farmers here will have to admit that farmers throughout the country have to go guarantors for each other that the land annuities will be paid up.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: You are arguing on the common fund basis. The Act does not provide for that at all.

Mr. Aiken Mr. Aiken

Mr. Aiken: If Deputy Gorey stands for the common fund and we stand for the common fund, then we can get on.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: This does not provide for it.

Mr. Aiken Mr. Aiken

Mr. Aiken: Whether it does or not, we want agreement that there should be a common fund.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: The Act provides that.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: Where is it?

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: What is a guarantee fund at all?

Mr. Aiken Mr. Aiken

2050

Mr. Aiken: If the Act provides for a common fund out of which second payments can be made to the same family for the same land, why should this section be in the Act which guarantees [2050] that the State is going to pay if there is a common fund there, withheld from the landlord?

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: Two per cent. goes nowhere to meet claims.

Mr. Aiken Mr. Aiken

Mr. Aiken: Two per cent. is to be withheld to form a special reserve to be placed to the credit of a separate account and meet compensation under Section 33. Anyway the idea of a common fund is not a new idea. Take the mutual insurances of co-operative societies. They pay a certain small percentage. If no fires occur either the premiums are reduced or the profits are distributed. I think the idea that the landlord should pay this half of two per cent. in an insurance fund which, if it is not used to meet the claims of people who come along, will be distributed amongst the landlords is a very good one, and we should stand for it. It is not unfair to ask the landlords to do this, because everyone knows that landlords getting out with 15 years' purchase immediately are getting very good terms.

Any landlord in this or any other country would jump at the offer of 15 years' purchase even though there were two per cent. deducted to meet some other claim. If the two per cent. is withheld the landlord will get interest on his money. It is simply a deferred payment. If it is not called up he will get the interest and the full capital sum later on. There is not any reason in the world why it should not be done. I hope farmers in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party will put their heads together and see that the Government puts it into the Bill before it goes through finally.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

2051

Mr. Derrig: I would like to say that the principle of the sub-section is that compensation shall be paid out of money provided by the Oireachtas while our amendment proposes that it shall be provided by a special reserve fund which is provided for in a further amendment. It is quite true that a reserve of 2 per cent. is perhaps small, but, in this particular case, as Deputy Aiken rightly stressed, the question we are looking for agreement upon is whether the [2051] State should be responsible for this compensation or not. If the principle was that the guarantee deposit should be made responsible I do not see why Deputy Gorey, if he insists on the principle of the common pool, should not be able to get it. As I read Section 20 the guarantee deposit applies to each particular estate. I do not see how Deputy Gorey argues that there is a common pool except in so far as the moneys are payable to the Land Commission. The section refers in several places to the appropriate deposit, to every guarantee deposit and so on. I do not see any reference to a common pool. If the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to accept the suggestion of Deputy Gorey we will, of course, be delighted.

As the matter stands the House has already provided a guarantee deposit but as I read the section it is with reference to each particular estate. We had to bear that in mind when framing the amendment. The principle we are now asking the verdict of the House upon is whether the State or the persons who will receive the purchase money are to be made responsible. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that if the experience of the past was to be taken as a criterion, a half per cent., or even less, would be sufficient. It is for that reason I say that the 10 per cent. already withheld ought to be sufficient to cover the small amount which, he alleges, will fall upon the guarantee deposit and upon the State, as the case may be, through the operation of this section. If the sum is small, and if the amount necessary to provide the safeguard is only a small percentage, I cannot see any reason why the House would not agree on the matter.

2052

We have a definite amendment asking that the State shall not be made responsible. The only alternative is to make the guarantee deposit fund in some way responsible, and I suggest that Deputy Gorey instead of helping to bring about that state of affairs is really obstructing. He could urge the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the principle of the amendment, the principle [2052] being that the State shall not be made to suffer, and that the persons who are getting away with the purchase money should be the persons to provide compensation or the necessary reserves to meet it. Exactly how that would be done would depend on the amount that would be necessary. If we take ordinary circumstances into consideration and ordinary cases of insurance it is quite possible that 2 per cent. would not be enough. On the other hand if we are to take what the Parliamentary Secretary said as correct, then 2 per cent. would be more than enough. We are quite prepared to meet Deputies on the opposite benches in the matter of a common pool. What we are going to insist upon is that further charges shall not be made at the expense of the State in order to facilitate the distribution of the purchase money and the adjustment of subsequent claims.

Mr. de Valera Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that a half per cent. would be sufficient as an insurance fund, supposing it was a common pool to cover risks involved in paying vendors before he was certain their title was unimpeachable?

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2053

Mr. Roddy: I repeat what I said on the previous stages of the Bill, that it is not necessary to stop any money at all in these particular cases. I stated that the Land Commission has been acting as if this section had been law for a number of years, and that no single claim had been made against the Land Commission in respect of moneys paid out in this way. The stopping of this percentage will really be hard on small vendors. It is not designed to benefit the landlords. It is designed to benefit small vendors, men from whom we are resuming holdings or acquiring purchased holdings. As I explained on more than one occasion, if we were to insist on a rigid examination of title it would mean a considerable loss of money to the State. These investigations have to be prosecuted very often outside this country, probably in America or Australia, and the cost of such investigation has to be borne by the State. The Land Commission has always acted as if this was the law. [2053] Not a single claim was made. They will act in the same way in the future, but they will deal with such cases more expeditiously. The same meticulous care will be taken to investigate title. There will be no difference in the procedure, and I am satisfied that it would be almost inconceivable that any case could arise where a claim will be made against the Land Commission. It will cost a certain amount of time on the part of certain members of the staff if the amendment is passed. In my opinion all that is unnecessary. I have gone into the matter and I am satisfied that it is unnecessary to establish any fund of this character. In view of past experience I am satisfied that it is almost inconceivable that any case would arise where a case would be made against the State.

Mr. de Valera Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera: The difficulty is that we are not satisfied that cases may not arise in which the State will have to pay, and I think it is only right that we should safeguard the interests of the community in that respect. If the amount sufficient to cover it is as small as the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested I would be in favour of a small percentage being put into the common pool. I think it would not be unfair at all.

2054

By that the landlords would be getting their money more quickly, I take it. The whole procedure will be hastened up. To put a small sum like one-half per cent. aside from each particular estate to be used as an insurance fund would, I think, be just and fair. I do not take Deputy Gorey's view on that. I think that if the sum were considerable we might [2054] hesitate about it, but relatively it will not be much, so far as the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated. I think it is our duty in a matter of this kind to put a sum aside to meet possible demands on the estate. The dividends will be paid all the time, and, if the Parliamentary Secretary is right, all that will be done is that a small percentage will be held up which will eventually go to the landlord. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not right, the interests of the community will be safeguarded, and those who are facilitated in the sale will get the advantage.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: Even if such a thing could be done at all, it should have been introduced in the Committee Stage, as it involves a new principle. In any event, the amendment does not achieve the purpose it has in view. It merely deals with the guarantee fund as at present created.

Mr. de Valera Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera: I agree.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: It is a principle which was not in the Bill before, so what is the use of arguing about it?

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: Deputy Gorey wants to have it both ways. He is not satisfied with the amendment, because it does not include a principle which he says is preposterous, and should have been introduced on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: I did not say that.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: What is the Deputy looking for?

Mr. Gorey Mr. Gorey

Mr. Gorey: I am trying to dispel the apparent stupidity of the Opposition Front Bench.

Question —“That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill” — put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 38.

Tá

Níl

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Allen and G. Boland.

Question declared carried.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle Patrick (Clare) Hogan

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendment No. 28 is consequential, and is therefore not moved.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: I move amendment No. 29 as follows:—

In page 17, Section 33 (6), to delete lines 57 and 58 and substitute the words “and paid to such agent at such time or times as the Judicial Commissioner shall direct.”

This is a slight re-drafting amendment. I undertook on the Committee Stage to produce an amendment on these lines to make the point clear.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 30 not moved.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: Perhaps in regard to amendment No. 30 the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what exactly is the position in regard to appeals under Section 33?

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: There would be a right of appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law under that particular section.

Amendment No. 31 not moved.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: I move amendment No. 32 as follows:—

In page 20, before Section 39, to insert a new section as follows:—

2057

(1) Where the tenant of a holding to which the Land Act, 1923, applies openly enjoys any grazing or turbary on the lands of his landlord and has so enjoyed such grazing or turbary without lawful interruption since a date prior to the passing of the said Act, the Land Commission may, on the application [2057] of such tenant and if it thinks proper so to do having regard to all the circumstances of the case, declare the enjoyment of such grazing or turbary (as the case may be) to be a right appurtenant to such holding subject to such (if any) conditions and limitations as the Land Commission shall think fit to impose and shall specify in such declaration.

(2) Where the enjoyment of grazing or turbary is declared by a declaration under this section to be a right appurtenant to a holding, such enjoyment shall be a right appurtenant to such holding accordingly, but subject to the conditions and limitations (if any) imposed by such declaration, and such right shall, if and when such holding is vested in a purchaser by a vesting order, continue to be so appurtenant to such holding, but subject as aforesaid.

(3) The Land Commission shall not make a declaration under this section save either with the consent of all parties concerned or after notice of the application for such declaration has been served in the prescribed manner on all parties concerned and all such parties have been afforded an opportunity of objecting to the making of such declaration.

(4) Every application for a declaration under this section and every objection duly made to the making of such declaration shall be considered and decided by the Land Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner, and there shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the decision of the other Land Commissioners on any such application or objection and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on such appeal shall be final, save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from the decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.”

2058

The official amendment recognises turbary and grazing rights which have been openly exercised prior to the Act of 1923, and which have been continuously exercised ever since. I think [2058] that that was the point made by the Deputy on the last occasion. This amendment has been drafted to meet that particular type of grievance.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig

Mr. Derrig: I move amendment No. 33:

In page 21, line 27, to add the following provison at the end of Section 41:—

“Provided that in the resale of such holding the sums paid in compensation for disturbance or for the damage sustained by the tenant by reason of such resumption shall not be included in the price to be paid by the person or persons to whom same shall be sold.”

A new section providing for compensation for disturbance or resumption of holdings was inserted on the Committee Stage of the Bill and this is an amendment to it. I think the trend of the discussion on the last occasion was that there was a case for payment of compensation. Our view was that the section as it now stands was too wide and that it should be limited. There are two other amendments which seek to limit it as well as this one. The one which I am now moving deals with the question of the price which the incoming tenant will have to pay. I think the greatest burden of objection to the new section, providing this compensation for disturbance on resumption, was that it would fix an increased charge upon the incoming tenant. I would like to know what is the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary in the matter. Is it intended simply that the compensation shall be paid by the State and not recovered from the tenant, or will it be fixed on the incoming tenant in the ordinary way?

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2059

Mr. Roddy: Of course it was intended when the section was introduced on the Committee Stage that the Land Commission should have a discretion in a matter of this kind. It is quite conceivable that cases may arise where the Land Commission may consider it advisable to ask the tenants to pay back some portion of the compensation in the form of annuities. The point is that it must [2059] be left to the Land Commission to determine whether an annuity is economic or not. If the placing of any of this compensation on the tenant in the form of an annuity would render it uneconomic then the Land Commission would not place the compensation on the annuity but in all these cases, as I say, it is undoubtedly intended by the section that the Land Commission should be given discretion in the matter.

Mr. Geoghegan Mr. Geoghegan

Mr. Geoghegan: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would elaborate a little further the explanation which he has been good enough to give the House. The object of the amendment now before the House is to prevent an incoming purchaser from being burdened, perhaps unduly burdened, by the addition to the ordinary price of the land of this compensation which the section will give the previous owner. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Secretary now states that the Land Commission propose to exercise a discretion and, if I understand him rightly, that where the parcel of land in the hands of the new purchaser can bear the special compensation in addition to the ordinary price, the new purchaser will have to bear it and it will be part of his standard annuity, but in other cases it will not. What is not quite clear, to some Deputies at all events, is the source from which the Parliamentary Secretary will obtain the money in the case where he does not put the burden on the new purchaser. Subject to correction by the Parliamentary Secretary, I think there is nothing in the Bill or in any resolution ancillary to the Bill, which provides a fund for the payment of this money. The Parliamentary Secretary, who of course is conversant with the whole land code, may be able to tell the House where the money will come from and under what authority the Land Commission will pay the difference in cases where they consider it may be uneconomic or inequitable to burden the new purchaser with the extra sum paid for compensation.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2060

Mr. Roddy: The Land Commission, of course, has already power to lose [2060] money on the re-sale of land resumed for the purpose of relieving congestion. They have been given power under Section 27 of the Land Act of 1927 to lose money if in their opinion it is necessary to re-sell land at a loss. As a matter of fact, that frequently happens when the Land Commission resume land and it is very necessary that they should have power to re-sell at a loss. Otherwise they would be forced to put uneconomic annuities on the holdings into which the farms are being divided. As I said in reply to Deputy Derrig, the Land Commission must be given a certain discretion in the administration of this particular section. It would be unfair to ask the State to bear a burden which the tenants themselves in all equity and justice should be asked to bear. It must be left to the discretion of the Land Commission to say whether the annuity which they propose placing on the holding is an economic one or not. Certainly, if the Land Commission felt that in order to recover the re-sale price of the land they would have to put an uneconomic annuity on the particular holdings into which the estate would be divided, they would use their discretion and see that the annuities were not uneconomic. But it is necessary that the Land Commission should be given a certain discretion in the administration of this section. I think the Deputy will agree that it would be unfair that the State should be asked to bear the burden which the annuitant in such a case should undoubtedly bear. As I say, we are re-selling land of that kind frequently and losing money on the re-sale of it, because if we endeavour to recover the full amount which we pay for an estate, it would mean creating a number of uneconomic holdings, which we are not prepared to do.

Mr. Geoghegan Mr. Geoghegan

2061

Mr. Geoghegan: The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that where the annuity to be placed on the purchaser would be uneconomic, the Land Commission are prepared to lose money. It might be desirable to have some elucidation of what the phrase “uneconomic annuity” means. The annuity to be paid on the land if you put it on a competitive basis, might be quite economic. You might get [2061] plenty of persons who possess capital in money or in stock or farm implements prepared to pay the annuity on a parcel of land, and the annuity in a sense would be quite economic, because we must assume that the person going in has available the requisite capital to work the land. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that these parcels of land are usually allocated to people, sometimes called congests, sometimes landless men, sometimes evicted tenants, a class who do not possess a very great abundance of capital either in cash or kind.

A standard annuity equivalent to a full economic rent on them might be quite inequitable. I would ask the House at least to elicit from the Parliamentary Secretary a statement of policy to the effect that not merely will a congest or an evicted tenant be relieved of an uneconomic annuity, but that he will not be put there at an annuity which, having regard to his circumstances, would be inequitable or harsh. There is another matter which perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to state. He has stated that already the Land Commission have utilised money under Section 27 of the Act of 1927 for financing the purchase and re-sale of some of these parcels of land. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give in round figures an idea of the amount that has been expended each year since 1927? Would he give even roughly the difference between the cost of this land and the amount which has been placed on the tenant, so that the House might know to what extent, even on the existing basis of acquiring land, the State is being burdened? At least we draw the inference from what the Parliamentary Secretary states that even under existing legislation of acquiring the land without paying the special compensation, that burden has fallen on the State and we would like to know what that burden is. It might help Deputies in making up their minds as to the attitude they would adopt in regard to this amendment.

Mr. Moore Mr. Moore

2062

Mr. Moore: Might I ask a further question—whether in the ordinary course there is a close relationship [2062] between the price paid for the land and the annuities fixed when that land is divided?

Mr. Corry Mr. Corry

Mr. Corry: I cannot agree with the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary in this section. This land already carries an annuity payable to the Land Commission. In addition, the tenant's value of the holding is going to be added to that, and now it is proposed to add a third rent—the amount of compensation for disturbance. If I was not well aware of the effects of these manoeuvres on the part of the Land Commission I might not perhaps be so strict on this. I know however of a farm lately taken over by the Land Commission on these lines. In that case the tenant owed the bank £600, and he also owed a sum of money to the Land Commission. The Land Commission sold out the farm, which was bought in by the bank for £500. The annuity on the farm was £74 and the Land Commission are now demanding from the incoming tenant £120. How long do they think the incoming tenant will be able to pay that? There is a more serious position in regard to these farms than people think. There is the possibility of having them thrown back on the unfortunate ratepayers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle Patrick (Clare) Hogan

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is not dealt with in the amendment.

Mr. Corry Mr. Corry

Mr. Corry: Yes, we are dealing with the question of who is to pay compensation for disturbance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle Patrick (Clare) Hogan

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: On resumption of holdings?

Mr. Corry Mr. Corry

2063

Mr. Corry: Yes. These are tenanted holdings taken over by the Land Commission. I am pointing out that if these tenanted holdings are taken over by the Land Commission and an uneconomic rent is placed upon them, they are going to prove a future burden on the ratepayers. There is no doubt about that, if the Government insist on paying these people not alone for the late tenant's interest in the holding, but in addition compensation for disturbance. I think the majority Party in this House who lay down that principle should also lay down the principle that this money should be [2063] provided by the State and not out of the pockets of the unfortunate tenants concerned, because there is very grave danger that these holdings will again become derelict and that the ratepayers will have to lose the rates on them, and in addition will have to bear the burden of the uneconomic annuities, because they will be stopped out of the agricultural grant. This is going to create a position which, to my mind, cannot be tolerated. If the Government insist on paying compensation for disturbance they should see that the burden is not going to make the holding an uneconomic holding for anyone who comes into it. I think the burden of the old annuity, plus the principal and interest paid for the tenants, is already too high a burden without adding a third burden by way of compensation for disturbance. The three of these coming together will make a burden that cannot be borne. I have given an instance where on one farm in my constituency the amount was raised from £74 to £120 per year. I think that is burden enough without paying compensation for disturbance. I should like something definite from the Parliamentary Secretary in reference to this. I hope the House is not going to create a new land trouble in the country, because that is what it would mean by throwing this burden of these derelict farms upon the ratepayers because of the attitude of the Land Commission in taking over these holdings at three times their value and throwing all that on top of the tenants. We do not want this third burden of compensation for disturbance thrown upon the tenants.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

2064

Mr. Roddy: In reply to Deputy Geoghegan I could not, of course, at the moment give the figures showing the actual loss the Land Commission have sustained in the resale of believe I did circulate a statement recently to his colleague, Deputy Derrig, giving those figures. I am not, however, quite sure about that, and as Deputy Geoghegan is interested in this matter, I can easily get the figures and circulate them in due course. I am quite satisfied the [2064] Land Commission have sustained loss in many cases in reselling these lands. They must, of necessity have sustained loss in the resale of such lands to the tenants.

Deputy Moore asks does the annuity bear any reference to the purchase money. Of course it does. If we pay a certain price for the farm or estate we naturally try to get our money back in fixing a proportionate annuity on the holdings into which we divided the estate. Our primary consideration is the amount of money the estate is security for — that is the primary consideration of the Land Commission. Naturally the annuity is based on the degree of the security of the land.

Mr. Moore Mr. Moore

Mr. Moore: The words “economic annuity” are strictly adhered to in the policy of the Land Commission.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: The Land Commission of course take into consideration very many things, but their primary consideration is security of the land, the circumstances of the district where it is situated, whether it is possible for the tenant to make a living out of the land with the annuity fixed upon it. The Land Commission take into consideration many factors and, although probably the term economic or uneconomic annuity is not used in the language of the Land Commission, nevertheless the fixing of the annuity has a certain reference to the economic conditions prevailing in the district. Of course the interpretation of what is the annuity that will enable the tenant to make a livelihood out of the land is entirely for the Land Commission, and it is a matter that the Land Commission determines in accordance with the circumstances of each particular estate or the circumstances of the particular townland into which the estate acquired is divided.

Mr. Moore Mr. Moore

2065

Mr. Moore: I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary could accept this amendment. All the amendment seeks to establish is that it shall not be the principle of the Land Commission to get from the incoming tenant the sum paid for compensation for disturbance, or for damage sustained by the tenant by reason of such resumption, but that [2065] the ordinary criteria that the Parliamentary Secretary has just described shall still prevail and that the land shall not be unnecessarily increased in price because of this new provision.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: The amendment would do away with the discretion of the Land Commission altogether. There are cases where compensation may be paid where it might be deemed reasonable and fair to ask the tenant to pay back portion of it. It would be unfair to ask the State to bear such a burden when the tenant, in all fairness and justice, should pay. If this amendment were accepted it would deprive the Land Commission of this discretion.

Mr. Moore Mr. Moore

Mr. Moore: I do not accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says. If the Land Commission have not necessarily been bound to the purchase price in fixing the annuities to be paid there is no reason why they would necessarily be bound to adhere to the price in the future. I suggest, since it is not a very tight arrangement at present and that the Land Commission have a certain amount of discretion, they should accept this principle. The amendment is only a principle.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: As I pointed out, this amendment would deprive the Land Commission of this discretion altogether.

Mr. Moore Mr. Moore

Mr. Moore: No, I do not think so.

Mr. Geoghegan Mr. Geoghegan

2066

Mr. Geoghegan: I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the statement he has made. The amendment now proposed would undoubtedly prevent the Land Commission placing the special compensation given by the new section on the incoming purchaser in any circumstances. That, of course, is perfectly clear, but it does not interfere with the existing discretion of the Land Commission as to the amount that they will place on the incoming purchasing tenant in respect of the purchase money for special compensation. This amendment is relevant only to the sums to be fixed in respect of compensation for disturbance or damage sustained by the tenant. It does not seek to detract from the existing discretion of the Land Commission as to whether or not [2066] they will put the ordinary price on the tenant.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: I am afraid the Deputy is not quite serious.

Mr. Geoghegan Mr. Geoghegan

Mr. Geoghegan: Perhaps not, but I would change from a state of levity to a state of gravity if the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate the word or words in this amendment which interfere with the discretion of the Land Commission as regards the ordinary purchase money. The amendment does not refer at all to the ordinary purchase money.

Mr. Roddy Mr. Roddy

Mr. Roddy: It says “shall not be included in the price.”

Mr. Geoghegan Mr. Geoghegan

Mr. Geoghegan: “Shall not be included in the price to be paid by the person or persons to whom same shall be sold.” That is, that the compensation for disturbance shall not be included. It does not say that the price paid for the land shall not be included.

2067

Let us be clear at all events about what the amendment means — whatever the House may do with it. The only provision this makes is that the new, additional and extra compensation which the new section gives will not be placed upon the tenant; if in the exercise of their discretion the Land Commission care to place the entire purchase money of the land, apart from this sub-section, upon it, they are at liberty to do so, though that may be a very heavy burden indeed. I think it was to-day that my colleague, Deputy Derrig, received from the Parliamentary Secretary's Department a return of the holdings resumed by the Land Commission, and it would appear from that return that in the year 1930, in the non-congested counties, the Land Commission resumed twelve holdings at rents aggregating £1,198, and that the total purchase money paid to landlord and tenant was £30,858. As I calculate it, that is something like 26 years' purchase. There is nothing in this amendment now before the House to prevent the Parliamentary Secretary putting that 26 years' purchase on the tenant if he likes, but it will prevent adding on to this 26 years' purchase this new and special compensation [2067] for disturbance which the new section gives.

Mr. Maguire Mr. Maguire

Mr. Maguire: The Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to Deputy Geoghegan, stated that the Land Commission had regard to what was an economic price and to various interests involved. If they have regard to what is an economic price we will assume that the price that the tenant has paid originally to the landlord is, first of all, about the most economic price you have in existence. The Parliamentary Secretary is very well aware that quite a number of tenants who purchased under the original Land Acts have fallen into arrears of annuities and that these people have now become a burden upon the rates of their counties. If that is so on account of the present economic conditions will not the position of the incoming tenants in the land to be acquired in the future be much worse in that respect when you have, in addition to the original rents between landlord and tenant, added the other extras referred to in this section of the