HC Deb 16 September 1909 vol 10 cc2321-8

(1) Where the Estates Commissioners have made a proposal for the purchase of an estate or untenanted land, and the owner objects to the proposal on the ground that adjoining lands belonging to him have not been included in the proposal, if the Estates Commissioners refuse to withdraw the proposal or to amend the same by including therein such adjoining lands the owner may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the Judicial Commissioner for an order that no further proceedings be taken upon the proposal.

(2) Upon any such application the Judicial Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the said adjoining lands would be substantially depreciated in value by the purchase of the estate or untenanted land as proposed, order that no further proceedings be taken for the purchase of the estate or untenanted land upon the proposal unless within a time to be named in the order the Estates Commissioners amend the proposal so as to include the said adjoining lands or such portion or portions thereof as, in the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner, ought properly to be included.—[Mr. Birrell.]

Mr. MOORE

moved to leave out the words "an estate or" ["purchase of an estate or"].

This matter was raised in Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman has not carried out—I am not suggesting any breach of faith—what he intimated he hoped he would be able to do; hence my Amendment. I should have been glad had I been able to move my next Amendment, which is to leave out the consecutive words "untenanted land" at the same time, but the Chairman in Committee ruled that it was not possible to leave out both simultaneously because that would destroy the subject matter of the Clause. We had two very interesting Debates, because this goes to the whole root of the matter, and at the end of a rather long Debate, and a very valuable one, we withdrew our opposition because the Chief Secretary met us, and, after saying he hoped the Debate would be continued in the spirit in which it had been conducted, promised to try to elucidate this subject of what is meant by "an estate" and by "untenanted land." It was on 26th August and at page 2345 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he said:— After taking legal advice, if it can be shown that it would be possible in this compulsory part of the Bill to have a definition of an estate and also a definition of untenanted land, I shall be willing to propose it. We are now on the Report stage, and the right hon. Gentleman I have no doubt will be able to show that it is impossible to give a definition unless this is an inadvertence. As a matter of fact, I am not saying that is a pledge, binding in any way, but if it was so intended it has not been carried out, and still these words are left at large, and as undefined as ever, and with all their wideness. The words "un-tenanted land" are left undefined as well as "an estate," and I have also an Amendment on the Paper in regard to them. The Chief Secretary will not contradict me when I say in regard to the definition we are as far off from it as ever we were. In dealing with the question of estate, I want to draw the attention of the House to how this Clause stands, because this is the first and only opportunity we have under the guillotine of discussing it. There is a clear distinction between estate or untenanted land, and any court would hold that estate must mean something which is not untenanted land. That is one of the considerations which I think led the Chief Secretary to say that he would at this stage give us a definition of estate if it was possible to do it.

Mr. SPEAKER

This is hardly the time to raise the question of what "an estate" is. That is surely a matter to be raised on the Definition Clause. This is a recital, "Where the Estates Commissioners have made a proposal for the purchase of an estate or untenanted land," then certain things follow, but the hon. Member cannot avail himself of this opportunity of inserting here a definition of the word "estate"; that must come in its proper place later on. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member would be not to apply these proposals as to severance to cases where estates were taken, which is the very opposite probably of what the hon. Member desires.

Mr. MOORE

May I say, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that it was exactly the parallel Clause on which we got the offer from the right hon. Gentleman, and surely I should be in order in discussing what the proposal is; so that the Chief Secretary could give us an explanation now, and if it was possible, I am quite sure he would put it in the Definition Clause. I bow to your ruling, of course, but it seems to me that the definition of "an estate" is the subject matter of the whole Clause, and the House should have an opportunity of considering what is the subject matter.

Mr. SPEAKER

The very fact that the hon. Member wishes first of all to leave out "an estate or" and then to leave out the words "or untenanted land" shows that the matter cannot be raised now; because, supposing the Government accept both Amendments of the hon. Member, what is to become of the Clause? This Clause is intended as a concession to the hon. Member, and if he knocks out these two sets of words the whole of the Clause is gone. We must assume that the hon. Member intends something by his Amendment.

Mr. MOORE

I am not quarrelling with your ruling, Sir; but surely we are entitled to discuss this question. It may be that my Amendments are inconsistent, but they are definite. If the right hon. Gentleman says he will drop "untenanted" and leave "estate," I shall be satisfied. I only wish to know; though, of course, I acquiesce in your ruling. Am I not at liberty to know how far the application of this Clause goes, and to show what it does affect under the words "an estate"?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think so. I think this is merely a recital, and this Clause simply means that where these proposals have been made and severance takes place, then certain things are to happen, but this surely cannot be the proper place to raise the question of what is intended by the words "an estate." If the hon. Member thinks that the words "an estate" ought to be properly defined, he ought to put down an Amendment to define them in its proper place in the Definition Clause.

Mr. MOORE

I shall not pursue the matter any further. My excuse for raising it now is, that in Committee it was debated, and we have so very few opportunities under this guillotine Resolution of discussing what we really want to arrive at, but in obedience to your ruling I shall not pursue the matter further.

Mr. SPEAKER

That also applies to the second Amendment of the hon. Member, and in regard to the next Amendment, I do not think it is relevant to this Clause. I do not see what relevancy it has; nor will it read as it stands.

Mr. KILBRIDE

The object of the next Amendment which stands in my name is to enlarge the scope of the Clause, and the aim I have in view is one which is not opposed by any party in this House, either above or below the Gangway, at the present time. I wish to apply the proposed Clause to any land, "provided that in case it shall have been previously sold under the Land Purchase Acts, the Estates Commissioners shall, on or before the completion of the proposed purchase, redeem the existing annuity." At the present time, when the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners desire to relieve congestion in certain parts of the West of Ireland, or to increase the number of economic holdings in other parts of the country, they are debarred as the law stands from purchasing land which has already been purchased, but if the annuitant himself redeems, then he becomes the owner in future and the Estates Commissioners can purchase under those circumstances. There have been cases in the West of Ireland where a very large landlord purchased considerable quantities of land under the Ashbourne Act and other Acts. The Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board were anxious to acquire this land for the relief of congestion in Galway, and they found themselves unable to do so until the occupier had made application to the Land Commission and ascertained from them how much, by actuarial calculation, of the original land had been paid for and how much the outstanding debt was. He ascertained the amount of the outstanding debt, but had to apply to a bank, not having the ready money himself, for the amount of the outstanding loan, thereby acquiring the fee simple, and then he sold to the Congested Districts Board. The object of this Amendment is to remedy that defect in the existing law and to give the Estates Commissioners a more extended power than they already possess.

Mr. SPEAKER

No doubt the object of the hon. Member is a very desirable one, but I do not think it can be raised upon this Clause. This Clause deals simply with the question of severance. What the hon. Member has said has really no reference to the question of severance. He must raise it as a separate Clause.

Mr. MOORE

moved, in Sub-section (2) of the proposed new Clause, after the word "may" ["the Judicial Commissioner may "], to insert the words "at the option of the owner."

This Amendment deals with the question of severance, and goes, I think, to the very root of it. The Chief Secretary rather complained last night that he was taken by surprise at adverse criticism of his new Clause, because he said when he undertook to bring it in there had been no mention whatsoever of the damage which might be sustained by severance under the Bill. In column 2337 of the OFFICIAL REPORT I drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact, in the very Debate he was referring to, that as the Bill was drafted It would lead possibly to the danger of severance without compensation. I think the Chief Secretary dealt fairly with the House in saying that he would consider between now and the Report stage whether this can be avoided. This Section does for the first time give powers of severance. Would the right hon. Gentleman take that into consideration when he is carrying out his undertaking? Mr. Birrell: What clause? Mr. Moore: Sub-section (4) of Clause 59. Mr. Birrell: All right. I will consider it. I think it was hardly accurate of him last night to say that the question of loss arising from compulsory severance was not brought to his knowledge. Certainly I had it in my mind.

Mr. BIRRELL

I thought I got over that difficulty by securing that there should be no severance.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should accept all the Amendments moved by the hon. Gentleman, and if they make the Clause worse it is only the landlords who will suffer?

Mr. BIRRELL

I have too much interest in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER

Does the second Amendment necessarily hang upon the first? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman now arguing the question of compensation or is the second Amendment, "at the option of the owner," a separate Amendment?

Mr. MOORE

They hang together.

Mr. SPEAKER

Then I will ask the hon. and learned Member out of what fund compensation is to be paid?

Mr. MOORE

Out of the price.

Mr. SPEAKER

As I understand, the Estates Commissioners are to buy, and they are to give more because of the severance, and they are to recoup themselves by selling back to the tenants. Suppose the tenants do not pay, the Consolidated Fund will have to pay. Is that not so?

Mr. MOORE

The Guarantee Fund.

Mr. SPEAKER

Then the hon. and learned Member is placing an additional charge on the Guarantee Fund. That can not be done on Report.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, a amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. M. HEALY

Am I right in supposing that "untenanted" refers to the Clause the right hon. Gentleman proposes to move later on in the Paper, where it is defined as land in the occupation of a person holding under a fee farm grant or a lease for lives renewable for ever, and, if so, how will he define land to be untenanted which ex hypothesi will not have a tenant upon it. Take the case of a lease for a year. You might have a lease for 60 years unexpired. I cannot see how leasehold land could be anything else but tenanted land, or how by construction you can extend this Clause, and say untenanted land is tenanted land. It is more than I can understand.

Mr. DILLON

I do not know that this question arises at all on this Clause. The question of the definition of untenanted land is raised by a subsequent clause. I do not think this Clause has any reference whatever to the matter.

Mr. MAURICE HEALY

The connection of this Clause with untenanted land is this, that when the whole subject was discussed in Committee undoubtedly we understood that it covered not merely the case dealt with in this particular Clause, but also the case of the acquisition by the Estates Commissioners of land in the hands of an ordinary tenant. It was on that aspect of the matter that I raised the question when the Clause was being read a. second time, and the answer of the Attorney-General was that the remaining branch of the undertaking given by the Government was dealt with by the Amendment. But that is not the fact. The undertaking given by the Government was an undertaking to give power to place certain restrictions on the acquisition of land, and the later Clause, instead of placing restrictions, extends the power. I do not discuss whether that extension is reasonable or not; but the point remains that there has been no fulfilment of the pledge given by the Government that they would deal not merely with the case included in this Clause, but with the other cases, namely, the case of an ordinary working farmer in the occupation of land.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member is really anticipating a new Clause in the name of the Chief Secretary, which raises the very question he is now discussing—what untenanted land is.

Mr. MAURICE HEALY

I only raise the matter now to make it clear that I did not regard this particular Clause which the Government have put down as a complete fulfilment of the undertaking which they gave.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. BIRRELL

moved the following Clause:—

(Amendment and Withdrawal of Proposals of the Congested Districts Board.)

"Where the Congested Districts Board make a proposal for the purchase of an estate or untenanted land the provisions of Part II. of this Act with respect to the Amendment and withdrawal of proposals of the Estates Commissioners shall apply, with the substitution of the Congested Districts Board for the Estates Commissioners."

This new Clause applies to the Congested Districts Board, the Clause we have just added to the Bill relating to the Estates Commissioners.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

This emphasises the point about which I asked a question. Does the second next Clause apply both in the case of congested districts and outside congested districts?

Mr. DILLON

Will it not be more convenient to decide that question when we come to the Clause?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry)

I have no hesitation in saying I think it will. As far as I can see these proposals in regard to compulsory purchase are intended by the Act to be exactly the same in the congested districts or outside. There is no distinction. This Clause is introduced entirely in favour of the owner to prevent what we consider would be a hardship to him. A portion of his land is taken, and a very small and bad portion left. There is no reason, so far as. I can see, why he should not get the benefit of this provision.

Mr. MOORE

The feeling of the House seems to be that we should discuss this matter on the Definition Clause. Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way not to move this Clause until after we have disposed of the Definition Clause?

Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.