asked the Minister for Lands whether he is aware that it is the practice of the Land Commission to require as a condition for its consent to a sale of unvested land the refunding of the amount of any grant previously made to the tenant for the erection of a house and that in such circumstances the Land Commission obtain the construction of a house at the cost of the tenant; and, if so, whether he will have this practice discontinued.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sale of Unvested Land.
The practice referred to affects only land which has been acquired and divided by the Land Commission and on which buildings have been erected the cost of which has been met, in whole or part, by means of free grants. No question arises of requiring any refund of the kind referred to as a condition for the Land Commission's consent to the sale of an unvested tenanted holding not created by the Land Commission.
The purpose of the Land Commission in making, at considerable expense to the State, an allotment of land with buildings is to provide the allottee with the means of livelihood as a farmer. The allottee is required by statute to reside on and work his allotment. The Land Commission are not under any obligation to accede to an application for permission to sell the allotment and it is only in exceptional circumstances that a sale is allowed. The granting by the Land Commission of their consent to sell is a concession of much value and importance to the allottee and it is not unreasonable on the part of the Land Commission to seek a refund of the free grant or portion of the free grant which went in the provision of buildings on the allotment. It is obvious that the existence of the buildings on the lands is bound to enhance very substantially the value of the allotment as a saleable commodity and, in effect, the refund—if any be required—is made by the new purchaser and not by the allottee.
It is not intended to make any alteration in the existing practice under which the Land Commissioners are free to exercise their discretion.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, do I understand him to say that this practice applies only in the case of vested holdings?
No.
Is the Minister aware that under the practice at present obtaining the Land Commission, as a result of demanding the return of the grant, get both the grant and the fully constructed house?
They do not get the grant and the house back. In the case of a vested holding, the owner of which applied for a grant to build a new house, the Land Commission never interferes. A refund is only sought where the Land Commission gives a parcel of land as a free gift and a free grant to build a house thereon, the construction of which enhances the holding very considerably. If that tenant subsequently seeks permission to sell before the holding is vested in him, naturally he is asked to refund the grant because the construction of the house has enhanced the holding beyond the amount of the original advance.
Is the Minister aware that in this particular case a house has been constructed as a result of a grant, and the Land Commission will get back the holding plus the money that was advanced?
I am afraid I do not follow the Deputy.
There is a house there, anyway.
I take it that the Deputy is referring to an application for sale of an unvested holding. In that case we ask for a refund of the grant if we allow the sale of the holding.
In two cases I have in mind at the moment allotments were made, grants were applied for and houses constructed. Subsequently an application was made to the Land Commission for a consent to a sale and the consent was given, provided the grant was returned. In that particular case, the Land Commission got a free house.
Is that a question or an assertion?
You would not understand it—it is ordinary English.