I asked the Minister last night if he could explain to me why annuities are payable out of the holding. Has he considered it in the meantime?
Land Bill, 1938—Committee (resumed).
Debate resumed on Section 20.
Mr. Boland
I have. I see no reason why he should not pay it. The holding would be subject to a purchase annuity until the advance made on the holding had been repaid.
That is not my point. When a person purchases land under the Land Purchase Acts it ceases to be a holding. It becomes a farm owned in fee simple. A holding is something which you hold from somebody else. You do not "hold" land which you purchase out and which is held in fee simple. You do not hold it from anybody else. In ordinary vernacular "holding" is used as equivalent to a farm, but all farms are not holdings. There cannot be a holding unless there is a relationship of landlord and tenant.
Mr. Boland
I am told that that is not so, that the Act refers to farms which had been purchased subject to an annuity and on which the annuity has not been paid up and, being subject to a purchase annuity in that way, it would be a holding.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."
I think the Minister in this case should take power to vest the lands immediately in order to put the person placed on the lands into a position to get the benefits of the Land Acts immediately. Do I understand the section correctly that for a period he is under a rent until the land is vested? Or, does he, the moment he is put into possession after the agreement, get the full benefit of the provisions of the Land Acts?
There is another point in connection with that. The section says "the agreement or undertaking by the allottee to purchase the parcel is signed." Does he get possession on the date that he signs?
Mr. Boland
He only gets possession when the land has been divided. He signs an undertaking, but does not enter into possession until the land is actually divided.
That is just my point. Apparently, in a case of this sort, an instrument is signed on a particular day. The question I wanted the Minister to inform the House about is whether or not the day that he signs is the day that he gets possession. If he gets possession on the day that he signs his annuity ought to run from that day; if, on the other hand, he signs to accept in, say, a month's time, there is apparently a month to be reckoned, and it is not clear to a lay person whether the annuity runs from the date of the man's signature or from the date that he takes possession.
Mr. Boland
It runs from the date that he takes possession. He may sign an undertaking to purchase a month before, but the annuity is due from the date he takes possession.
From the date he takes possession?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
And the annuity runs from that date?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
There is no doubt about that?
Mr. Boland
No.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Why was it necessary to put in this section? Has there been no power hitherto in the case of employees working on estates to make grants to them the same as to migrants?
Mr. Boland
This was a case where an ex-employee was entitled to an allotment, but we were not able to provide for him on the particular estate where he had been employed and it was necessary to bring him some distance, and there was no authority to pay the expense of removal in the case of an employee. Where it is found necessary to give an ex-employee a holding somewhere else rather than on the estate on which he was working, the expenses would be paid. It was considered necessary to make this legislation retrospective because one case did arise in the County Cork.
Is that the only case?
Mr. Boland
It is the only one we know about at present.
I take it that it was the only one and that the man was not brought 40 or 50 miles.
Mr. Boland
That is so.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to this section, the Minister might make a point clear. This is a case in which a man has already been in possession of a house and lands, and gets an addition to them. Now, the two are consolidated in that case?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
He is not in a position, having got that addition, either to sell, sub-let or sub-divide the original holding. He had power before to sell if he so desired, but where an addition has been made—let us assume for a moment that he had a house and 20 acres, and gets an additional ten acres—though he was in a position to sell the premises before he got the additional ten acres, does this section mean that, having had an addition of ten acres, he cannot sell the 30 acres plus the house without the consent of the Land Commission?
Mr. Boland
It does mean that, because the idea is to make this holding economic, and when the holding has been consolidated he cannot sell the original holding or the portion allotted. He can sell the consolidated holding. This is designed to prevent the perpetuation of small uneconomic holdings. When the Land Commission have given him an addition to make his holding economic, their consent would be required before allowing him to sell either portion.
Either portion?
Mr. Boland
Yes. The idea is to make the holding a consolidated holding and an economic unit.
Might I ask the Minister would it not be fairer if it were to read "that he shall not sell either of them separately but may sell the two together"? If they become consolidated he could then sell the two, and it would be fairer if he were allowed to sell the two. I completely agree that if somebody has an uneconomic holding of, say, ten acres and might be given another five acres to make it economic, he should not be allowed to sell the five acres and reduce his holding to its original uneconomic position. I would, however, ask the Minister to consider the question of allowing the man to put the whole 15 acres, in my illustration, up for sale.
Mr. Boland
Where it has been consolidated, he can sell.
In that case it has been consolidated but he may not be allowed to sell. There may of course be different portions of the holding, which may be a couple of miles apart.
The whole point is that the sale is subject to the consent of the Land Commission. I take it that he would always have to get the consent of the Land Commission, but there would be nothing to prevent him selling both the old holding and the new addition once he got their consent.
Mr. Boland
That is so.
Obtaining the consent of the Land Commission may take a year.
We have no objection to any regulation which would keep the two parts of the holding together, but it is strange if a man who gets only a couple of acres and who had a much larger parcel of land himself should have to ask the Land Commission for permission to sell the lot. So far as preventing a holding lapsing into its previous uneconomic condition, I think everybody here will be in agreement with the section. A clause which would compel the whole holding to be sold as one lot would be universally agreed to, but the sooner the characterisation of an allottee leaves these people who get lands the better it will be. They should be put in the same position as an ordinary farm, especially in those cases where the man has an original holding himself.
This is a strange section. There are numerous small farmers and middle-sized farmers who may be allotted a small portion of land, such as a meadow. A man, for instance, who had a small farm with but little meadow, may be given a few acres of meadow contiguous to his farm, or perhaps a few miles away. This section would now place him in difficulties. It is not every ordinary farmer who is familiar with the wording of the Land Acts. He may find, if he puts his place up for sale, that he is barred unless he gets the consent of the Land Commission. That may take some period of time, and in the meantime the sale would be abortive.
There are cases where a man may be offered a quick sale, and if there is delay it may operate against him.
Mr. Boland
I am quite sure that there would be very little delay.
It must be a very exceptional Government Department.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."
I take it that this section refers to holdings held in commonage for grazing or other purposes. There may arise problems of this kind, and I wonder how the Minister suggests he will deal with them. Assume that, in 400 or 500 acres of commonage, there is a particular part that is cutting bog for turbary and that consists of, say, 100 acres at, perhaps, one end of it. Assume that he partitions this land, and divides it up between the respective holdings. When the arable land has been occupied, what does he purpose doing with regard to the bog? Will he assume that there is no bog on that part of the commonage allocated to, say, ten tenants, and that the bog is on the part allocated to, say, three tenants. Does he then propose to give the ten the right to go in on the commonage of the three? Cases of that kind will occur.
Mr. Boland
I do not think they will arise under this section. This section is designed to meet a case—I know a particular case myself—in which ten people hold land in common and there is one receivable order. Nine of them have been regularly paying their annuities, but one will not pay, and the consent of all is necessary for the partitioning of the land. This man who will not pay his annuity will not agree to the division, with the result that the other people are in a very bad way. In the case which I know in my own constituency, nobody can get any good of this individual. He will not pay his annuity and he will not agree to have the land divided. This section is designed to deal with such a case, where one cussed individual will not discharge his obligations and will not allow other people to carry on, and it is to compel a person who is standing out when the others want a commonage divided that we are seeking this point.
I agree with the Minister that that should be done, but that is not my point.
Mr. Boland
That is all we are doing.
My point is this: assume that the principal part of the turbary on a portion of land is situated on a limited area of ten, 15 or 20 acres. There is no turbary on the part given to the others—it is merely shallow moor, suitable for grazing. You will have to give turbary to the people who have not got any turbary on their own land. Where are you going to put them? Are you going to put them into the part allocated to the people with the bog on it, and are they to go in free and cut up that land, without penalty for trespass and so on?
Mr. Boland
The case we are dealing with here is where the Land Commission comes in at the request of the other people, who actually know what their own plots are, but where there is only one receivable order, and they are not able to get the other man to pay his way and to stand in. That is different from the point the Deputy raises, which, on this section, does not arise at all.
I am entirely with the Minister as to the advantage of this section, because I have known cases in which grazing commonage was valueless to everybody because, in the particular case I have in mind, a couple of men did not pay their poor rates for a considerable time, and the people who were willing to pay, and who did pay, could not use the commonage because the rate collector would come down and seize their cattle for rates which had not been paid by their co-partners in the commonage. I am entirely in agreement with the Minister that there should be a section of this kind, but I do think there is a tremendous amount in Deputy McMenamin's point, because, as the Minister knows from his knowledge of bogs, which, I am sure, is extensive——
Mr. Boland
I know a fair amount about them. It might surprise the Deputy to hear it.
——if you have a bog, and there are half a dozen owners in common, each with the right to cut turf, and everybody with his own particular bank of turf, he has, so to speak, what we call a profit á prendre over the place of which he is one of the owners in common. I foresee tremendous difficulty in dividing a place like that. You have one particular spot in which there are half a dozen people, each with his own bank of turf, and any Land Commission offical will have an almost impossible time, because he will have to give the grazing rights in one place, and then will have to divide it, so to speak, in rundale. That will be a very difficult job, as I am sure the Land Commission itself will agree.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister tell us what this is about and what is the nature of this loan?
Mr. Boland
This is a case in which the old Congested Districts Board—the principal cases, and, in fact, all the cases, are in Mayo—advanced a loan to certain tenants to purchase an estate. When the revision of the annuities came along, as they were not paying to the Land Commission, they were not entitled to the revision. It is to put them in the same position as other people who got the benefits of the revision that we are bringing in the section. They were overlooked in the other Act.
The loans were advanced to purchase their holdings?
Mr. Boland
A loan was got for them by the old Congested Districts Board, and that money purchased these estates. The loan was got from the bank by the Congested Districts Board, and they were paying to the bank. They did not get the benefits of the revision of annuities, although the money was really advanced for the same purpose for which the Land Commission advances money to allottees. They were left out and have been suffering hardship ever since. This section is brought in to right the position.
Is this interest going to the banks to discharge the debt, and, if so, will it meet the charges on the loan? Will the 50 per cent. meet the loan charges?
Mr. Boland
They are getting the same benefits as the other tenants got, which, up to this, they have not received.
Agreed, but will the 50 per cent. meet the loan charges?
Mr. Boland
The bank, I understand, has been paid off. The bank was concerned, in the first case, but it has been paid off. It was the Congested Districts Board lent the cash to the people to purchase the land.
So that it is a question as between the tenants and the Land Commission?
Mr. Boland
It is now, but it was a different sort of transaction to which the revision did not apply. It was different from the ordinary land purchase transaction, and they were ruled out for that reason.
Is there interest due on these advances?
Mr. Boland
There would be, to the Land Commission. The same arrangements are being made as to arrears.
The Minister proposes now to make the tenants pay up?
Mr. Boland
They will get the same treatment as people in arrears when the 1933 Act was passed.
Question put and agreed to.
With regard to amendment No. 13 and some subsequent ones, the Chair has informed the Deputies concerned that six amendments will be ruled out of order. Amendment No. 12 was so ruled out last night. In the discussion of Estimates, it is not permissible, as the House is aware, to refer to legislation, and Deputies seem to chafe under the restraint so imposed, particularly when discussing the Vote for the Land Commission. The Chair, therefore, allowed, and does not regret having so allowed, a wide discussion, ranging over many aspects of land law not affected by this Bill, on the Second Stage of this measure. The latitude so given, however, is no measure of the permissibility of amendments to be submitted on the Committee Stage. In general, as the House is aware, amendments must be inside the scope of the measure as read a Second Time. Neither may amendments which would impose a charge be submitted by private Deputies.
This is, in essence, an amending Bill. Outside two sections which deal with two recent decisions, the main purpose of the Bill, despite its 58 clauses, seems to be to tie up loose ends discovered in the operation of the land laws. In the case of an amending Bill, by long established precedent, the acceptance of amendments is more restricted than in the case of an ordinary Bill, being limited to amendments to sections of Land Acts affected by the measure under consideration. The Chair has, therefore, after careful consideration, decided to rule out amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 24, as being outside the scope of the measure. Some of them, in addition, would impose an actual or potential charge. I make that statement because the Deputy most affected has not had long experience in Parliamentary procedure.
SECTION 26.
Question proposed: "That Section 26 stand part of the Bill."
Section 26 appears in the first sub-section to give an advantage, and, then in the second sub-section, it would appear as if the advantage were going to be withdrawn from certain people. If the interpretation which I put upon sub-section (2) is correct, it would appear that where people have been brought into court for arrears, and where a decree has been given against them, that decree is not affected by this section and will operate. The arrears can be collected. In the case of the Land Act of 1933, quite a number of decrees were obtained all over the country. This particular Act provided they would not be enforced. It does appear to be a strange measure of justice or injustice to grant a concession where people were not brought into court, and to deny it where they were brought into court. Perhaps the Minister would explain that?
Mr. Boland
Under the 1933 Land Act people whose land was subject to a tithe rent charge had to apply for revision and, where they neglected to do that, the Land Commission proceeded against them for arrears. It was due to their own neglect that they did not apply. If they had applied in time they would have got the benefits. There were other cases where lands were subject to a tithe rent charge and are now subject to land purchase annuities but were not subject before. They will also get the benefit of the halving. We do not propose to refund generally the small amounts. The fact that they have the benefit of the halving is quite sufficient without getting the benefit of the refunding as well.
The arrears in connection with (2) are concerned with a hundred per cent. charge. The first sub-section refers to cases where no action was taken to give a concession but in the other cases the Minister insists upon his pound of flesh where people have been brought into court. That is not fair. Those who were unfortunate enough to be brought into court would have to pay the full amount including costs whereas those who were fortunate enough to escape being brought into court get the benefits of the reduction. Perhaps the Minister would look into that before the next day.
Mr. Boland
I will look into it, anyway.
I confess I do not know a whole lot about tithe rents. I want to know from the Minister is it the intention of the section to have these tithe rents collected or what will be the effect of this section on tithe rents? I was asked about this matter recently. Perhaps the Minister would explain.
Mr. Boland
Tithe rents can be halved on application by the person paying them. That is to say, tithe rents payable on land subject to land purchase annuity can be halved on application. In this case there was no provision for land that would come in after the 1933 Land Act, and which had been subject to a purchase annuity before that. Now, these can get the benefits of the halving of the tithe rent charge as well as the benefits of the land purchase annuities. They were not provided for previously.
Will this legislation be retrospective?
Mr. Boland
No, they will get it from the date of the application.
That is hardly fair.
Mr. Boland
It is a concession they did not have previously.
I admit they are getting better treatment. They are getting a concession now but I do not see why we should go as far as the 1933 Act. They are getting benefit that they had not before.
Does the Minister see the implications of this whole matter? Tithe rent charges are something that to-day the English people are all up against and they are about being abolished by the British Parliament. Because this legislation took place in Gladstone's time and because a tribute was paid through the Land Commission to the Protestant Church funds the people are still compelled to pay these sums. That state of affairs fell into our hands with the settlement with the British in 1921 and 1922, but the Minister is still continuing to collect this tribute that everybody everywhere deprecates. This is a sort of thing that nobody in these days of modern civilisation would think of enforcing. The facts are that the Minister is the inheritor of one of the worst impositions that was ever enforced or imposed on a people. Because it brings revenue to the State he still goes on collecting it. It is really like somebody living on immoral earnings. That is about the size of it. This thing really has no more sanction in morality or justice than the other thing has. But still it is imposed and the Minister continues to extort it. Within the next few years, perhaps within two years, this tithe rent charge will be abolished in England. Still the Minister goes on collecting it here. That is an infamous imposition.
Mr. Boland
This money is not going to the church funds. We abolished that long ago. This money is going into the exchequer of the State.
That does not alter the morality of the thing.
Mr. Boland
No, but I understood the Deputy was saying we were collecting the money and handing it over to the church funds.
It is just as immoral one way as the other.
Would the Minister say offhand what these charges were?
Mr. Boland
I would have to get notice of that question.
The position is that this tithe rent charge has been added on to the annuity. It is grafted on to the annuity already existing. It is an extra imposition on a particular holding of land. There was no consideration in the first instance for this charge. I have known of cases where out of 300 or 400 holdings one holding was subject to a tithe rent charge. This imposition was on one farmer out of the lot. He had no way out but to pay. The Minister continues to impose it. It is a most extraordinary injustice and should not be continued.
Question put and agreed to.
I have already ruled amendment No. 15 out of order.
I was hoping the Chair would bear with me on that matter.
Not on amendment No. 15.
I am not questioning the ruling of the Chair, but I want to point out that this amendment No. 15 deals with a set of circumstances over which the present Government had no control. It arose out of the difficulty at the 1933 period in acquiring land. I ask the Minister now to accept the principle embodied in the amendment and on report to bring in something which would carry out that idea.
The Minister may not discuss the amendment.
I appreciate that, but you will permit me, Sir, to make a request to him.
A Ministerial reply to the request would be equally out of order.
The Minister, I am sure, will agree that it is unfair to collect moneys which are altogether out of proportion to the value of the holding.
The Chair does not express assent or dissent.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Lynch
I raised a matter on the Second Reading of the Bill to which I desire to refer on this section. I pointed out on Second Reading that I raised the matter then because it would not be competent for me to put down an amendment dealing with it. I should like to raise it now with a view to seeing if the Minister has anything to say on the matter. This was a case in which persons got in under Section 44 of the Act of 1931, as amended by Section 43 (c) of the Act of 1936. That door is now closed by this Bill. These persons were admitted by the Land Commission under that section and I asked the Minister whether he would not permit them to receive the advantages of Part III of the Land Act of 1933— in other words, the revision portion of the Land Act, 1933—the same as any of the other tenant-purchasers. In this case, the persons were paying annuities. They were still paying a fee farm rent. Instead of going under Section 39 of the Act of 1923 for the redemption of that fee farm rent, they took advantage of the looseness of Section 43 (c) of the Land Act of 1936, and went by that road. By taking that route, they were excluded from the provisions of Section 33 of the Land Act of 1933. There were, however, heavy decrees against them for arrears of fee farm rent and these were wiped out. Under Section 44, these arrears will, in the ordinary way, be compounded, whereas, if they had gone under Section 39, the decrees would stand because there is no provision for compounding arrears under that section. They are not in the position of persons who will get a double revision. The Minister's object, as far as I can gather, from the Bill and from the explanatory memorandum, is to prevent persons from getting a revision of their annuities twice over. I admit that these persons have got a revision of the annuities they were paying but the fee farm rent has never been revised under the 1933 Act and, in justice, I think the persons concerned should come under Part III of the Act of 1933, and that the proportion of the annuity which will be settled, when they are admitted under the Land Act, should be subject to revision the same as in the other cases.
There is another type of case which is almost analogous to that mentioned by Deputy Lynch. It is a case in which persons bought out under the Land Act of 1881. The provisions of that Act restricted them to an advance not in excess of either two-thirds or three-fourths of the purchase money. In these cases, the remaining one-third or one-fourth, as the case may be, was out on mortgage. Properly speaking, that land is not yet purchased. If there is still a claim in respect of the original purchase money of a third or a fourth, land purchase is not completed. Owing to the events of the last few years, the position of these people is rather serious. There have been arrears and there are difficulties. It would be very satisfactory if, now, when efforts are being made to straighten out the whole business, steps were taken to wind up that particular phase which has lasted so long and which ought to have been considered long ago.
Mr. Boland
I think it would have been better if Deputy Lynch had raised his point under Section 45. However, I intend to go into it and I hope, on Report Stage, to be able to provide for those people who got in through a door which is now closed and who are isolated. I shall have to consider the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave to see if anything can be done. I am not very familiar with the cases mentioned and I am not in a position to make any comment at the moment.
I think that the Minister should very seriously consider the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave because an injustice is done to the persons concerned. It is admitted that there have been no land purchase operations in regard to the mortgage money. That is an undealt with part of the purchase money. As Deputy Cosgrave has said, this is a matter that should be dealt with, now that we are clearing up affairs. The trouble is that fee farm grantees and the payers of tithe rents were specified in the section with which we are now dealing and the persons to whom Deputy Cosgrave referred were advised that they did not come within the section because they were not specified.
Although it may be irrelevant to say so, I do not think that there is any provision in any of these Acts to prevent a recurrence of this whole land problem. Persons who have bought out are entitled, if they clear off, to relet the land at a rental. That should be stopped. We do not want to leave the people 30 or 40 years hence with a problem which it has taken us 50 or 60 years to clear up.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28
Question proposed: "That Section 28 stand part of the Bill."
The explanation which the Minister gave me on Section 26 really referred, I think, to Section 28. That makes a stronger case for the point I put to the Minister.
Mr. Boland
What the Deputy has said is correct. The explanation I gave referred to this section.
Section agreed to.
Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That Section 31 stand part of the Bill."
What is the purpose of this section? Is it that, when the Land Commission proposes doing certain work, they can fix the amount for it and then spend that amount in various ways?
Mr. Boland
This section arose from a difference of opinion between the Department of Finance, the Land Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The question was as to whether, when expenditure exceeded £500, the particular job was to be counted or several jobs were to be counted. We have provided in this section that the one job that comes to £500 is to count and not the aggregate of several jobs. That will obviate the necessity for going to the Department of Finance for sanction to spend these moneys.
Embankments are mentioned in this section and they are a particular source of worry to me. Does this section mean that the Government are prepared to spend a certain amount of money on the reconstruction of embankments and that the Land Commission will bear the expense?
Mr. Boland
It means that they can spend up to £500 without going to the Department of Finance for permission.
And that it will not be charged on the tenants?
Mr. Boland
That is another matter. There was a limit on the amount which the Land Commission could spend on this class of work. It was limited to £500.
You have a fat chance of getting £500 from them.
Mr. Boland
We have got something out of them in this case anyhow. Our point of view has been accepted in this matter. That may be a gain.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 32 to 38 inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 39.
(1) The following provisions shall have effect whenever the Land Commission proposes to apply to the Appeal Tribunal for leave to resume a holding or part of a holding, that is to say:—
(a) the Land Commission shall give in the prescribed manner to the person appearing to be in occupation of the holding or of the said part thereof notice that the Land Commission propose to apply for leave to resume the holding or the said part thereof (as the case may be) and that the person to whom such notice is given may, within the prescribed time, present to the Land Commission a petition that the holding or the said part thereof be not resumed without further inquiry;
(b) it shall not be obligatory on the Land Commission to state, in any notice given in pursuance of the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section, the power under which or the ground on which they propose to make the application for leave to resume mentioned in such notice;
(c) if such petition as is mentioned in the said notice is presented to the Land Commission within the prescribed time, such petition shall be considered and all questions arising under it shall be decided by the Lay Commissioners (other than the members of the Appeal Tribunal) and the decision of those commissioners shall be final subject only to an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal on a question of law;
(d) if no such petition is presented within the prescribed time or if such petition is so presented and is refused, the Lay Commissioners (other than the members of the Appeal Tribunal) may certify that the holding or the said part thereof (as the case may be) is required by the Land Commission for a purpose (which need only be indicated in general terms) for which the resumption of a holding by the Land Commission can lawfully be authorised;
(e) the said certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the holding or the said part thereof (as the case may be) is required by the Land Commission for a purpose for which the resumption thereof can lawfully be authorised, and upon receipt of the said certificate the Appeal Tribunal shall authorise the resumption of the holding or the said part thereof, as the case may be.
Amendment No. 16 ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 43, to delete the word "not."
I have put down a number of amendments to try to remodel the section because in its present form it is difficult to find language to denounce it. I shall leave it at that. If you read sub-section (1) (b) along with (1) (e), you will get a rough sketch of the section. I shall read these two paragraphs together. Sub-section (1) (b) reads:—
"It shall not be obligatory on the Land Commission to state, in any notice given in pursuance of the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section, the power under which or the ground on which they propose to make the application for leave to resume, mentioned in such notice."
Running that into paragraph (c) we read:—
"The said certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the holding or the said part thereof (as the case may be) is required by the Land Commission for a purpose for which the resumption thereof can lawfully be authorised and upon receipt of the said certificate the Appeal Tribunal shall authorise the resumption of the holding or the said part thereof, as the case may be."
Here is a statutory body, created by statute, dealing with statutes. They can make out a certificate, put anything at all in it, throw it down and say: "That is our certificate and we are going to do this. We are not going to give you any reason why we are doing it." They can walk in, throw that down and say that the certificate shall be conclusive evidence. Of course, that is obviously ridiculous. No certificate, of course, is conclusive evidence unless the statutory body that issues the certificate has jurisdiction with regard to the act which it purports to do under the certificate. Otherwise, it is not evidence at all because the whole thing can be set aside. You cannot resume, you cannot claim nor can you purport to say that any certificate is conclusive evidence of anything until it is first admitted that they had jurisdiction to do what was done when they did it. It is only then that it might be claimed that it was conclusive evidence. I do not think that, even in circumstances like that, it could be conclusive evidence. It would be prima facie evidence and it would throw the onus of proof on the other side to show that the certificate was not right or conclusive and that what the certificate purported to be was in fact wrong. The body who issues the certificate cannot claim for it that it is conclusive until they show first that they had jurisdiction to do the act which they in fact did. Here they issue a certificate which will not show anything, why they did this act or under what power they did it.
This section is inserted as a result of the decision of the court. The Land Commission is afraid to sit down to tackle its job properly and to state on the certificate for what purpose they are acquiring or resuming these lands. Surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of somebody in the Land Commission to do that? If there is nobody there capable of doing it, there are plenty of lawyers in this country who will draft a form for £2 2s. od. that will cover all the things that the Land Commission require to do when acquiring or resuming land. That could be made a stock form for all the certificates they issue. As it is, the Land Commission can sit down, write out anything and say: "This is what we have done and we are not going to state why we did it." That certificate is conclusive evidence of what they have done. The whole thing is shocking in law. It is simply shocking that a statutory body, created under statute and dealing with statutes, will not declare in the face of the certificate under what power or powers they do the thing that they purport to do. The remedy for it is quite simple—a stock form of certificate that would embrace everything the Land Commission could possibly do when they take over land. That could be included in every certificate but, for Heaven's sake, let us show some sense of justice and when we do a thing let everybody see why it is done.
Say, for instance, a certificate is handed to me when the Land Commission is resuming or acquiring my land. When the certificate is fired at me, I go to a solicitor and I ask him: "Is that certificate right or not?" Nobody can tell me whether it is or not. There is nothing on the face of it showing the authority by which it does the thing which it purports to do. How is a man then to know whether his rights are adversely affected or not? This is, of course, another attack of the "jitters" by the Land Commission as a result of the decision given against them. I would ask the Minister to face this problem. It is much more simple than what he thinks it is. As I say, all he has to do is to get a stock form drafted which would embrace everything which the Land Commission wish to do when acquiring land. They can set that out in the certificate which they issue, but let there be some semblance of justice and equity in their work. They are apparently afraid of the courts, but if they get a stock form such as I suggest, include in it all the things that they want to do, and embody that form in the certificate, they will be sufficiently protected.
Here we are dealing with the greatest asset in this or in any other country, and yet we give a statutory body the power to take a sheet of paper and write something across the face of it. They may write that they have done this or that and then throw the paper at somebody else. When they do that, the paper is to be taken as conclusive evidence as to what they have done. But there is nothing on the face of the paper to show why they did it or anything else. Surely the Minister will admit that is an atrocious proposal. They have got frightened but they need not be. There is a simple remedy, and it is that they can get a stock form and enter on it all the things in the certificate.
In the main, what do you take land for? Is not the answer to that a simple question? You take it for the relief of congestion or to enlarge holdings or for some such purpose. In the vicinity of towns a clamour may be got up for some land to be utilised as a football grounds or sports ground. Cannot all that be put into the stock form and be embodied in each certificate? You can then send out the certificate in that form. My comment on all that is that it is a shocking way for dealing with such an important asset as land.
I would put it strongly to the Minister that he should accept amendment No. 17 because the effect of it will be that a person will know what case he has to meet. After all, is that not fair: that if a person's land is going to be taken up that he should get notice in order that he may prepare his evidence and know what case he will have to meet. There are two general purposes for which the Land Commission can acquire land. The first is for the relief of congestion, and the other, under the Act of 1923, is for the purpose of giving landless men, etc., holdings. I suggest to the Minister that a person who is to be brought into court ought to know the case that the Land Commission is bringing against him. Suppose the Land Commission are taking his land for the relief of congestion, he ought to be in a position to bring evidence to show that there is no congestion in the district. I cannot see how that would make the position of the Land Commission more difficult. What I am about to say may be a bit irrelevant on this amendment, but personally my wish is that the Land Commission would use all the land they acquire for the relief of congestion, because, due to the way in which land is being divided, I am afraid they will not leave enough of it for that purpose. I sincerely hope that the Minister will do what is proposed in the amendment.
We are dealing here with four amendments which hang very much together. The section proposes that the Land Commission simply give notice in the prescribed manner that they require to resume a holding. Another portion of the section says "it shall not be obligatory on the Land Commission" to state the power or the grounds under which they propose to acquire land. That, on the face of it, is a very extensive authority to give to any Department of State. It is certainly an authority that would not be given to an ordinary Guard. I do not think it would be given even to a superintendent, nor do I think that we would give such an extensive power to the Attorney-General in connection with regulations or enactments made in the case of treason or offences against the State. Here we are dealing with property. Surely the reasons for giving such powers to officials of the State to make a claim for the resumption of land should be put clearly before the Dáil, because the question is one that the Dáil should decide.
The phrase, "the resumption of land," is a very nice one, but I am sure the Minister will admit that what it really means is the confiscation of whatever rights a person has in the land that he holds and which it is proposed to take from him. We have got to the point now where we are dealing with tenanted land. Families have been in occupation of it for great numbers of years, and both themselves and those who went before them have put their sweat, their money and their fortunes into it. Under this legislation we can take as much of that land now as we like, provided we leave the man in possession with a holding which is value for £1,000. That is all done, we are told, for social purposes. It is questionable whether the transfer of land will effect the great social improvement that we are told it will, but assuming that it does, is it not but fair that the person whose property is going to be taken in the manner laid down in this section would be informed as to the authority, the power or the grounds upon which it is to be taken? That is all that we are asking in the first amendment. The second amendment deals with the Appeal Tribunal: that it would have a certain amount of discretion, and is not to be confined to dealing with questions of law.
The third amendment seeks the deletion of the words "which need only be indicated in general terms". What we ask is that the purpose "must be clearly and precisely indicated", and then we go on to ask that the certificate given in the case be "conclusive" evidence on its face. That is one of the troubles that I see in connection with these cases. At least this is how the matter appears to me as a layman: that when we have set up a Supreme Court in this country a man ought surely to be entitled to go to it and say: "The statement in that certificate is not correct." The certificate cannot be conclusive evidence on its face when it has not the characteristic of being even prima facie. That is the sum and substance of all these amendments. If the Minister will not accept the first amendment it would only be a waste of the time of the House to go on with the others. What some of us are very much concerned about is this: that it would be open to anybody to say in ten or 15 years' time or indeed at any time: “There is a type of the legislation that was passed through the sovereign Assembly in this country.” If anybody could say that, it would not be a credit to us, and that is what can be said if this section goes through in its present form—that the certificate is “conclusive” evidence on its face when, in fact, it has not the character of being even prima facie.
In supporting the amendments I desire to say that in my opinion this is the most objectionable section that ever was inserted in a Land Bill. The 1933 Land Act, drastic and all as it was, did not contain anything as revolutionary as this section. In the discussion on the 1933 Act we made several attempts, by amendments and otherwise, to effect some safeguards, for the ordinary holders of land. We did not succeed to any great extent. We were met with assurances from the Minister in charge at that particular period that certain things would not happen. Some of them have since happened. In the Second Reading debate on this Bill we had the Minister—answering certain expressions of opinion made by Deputies on this and other sides of the House in regard to the resumption of land—stating definitely his view that no responsible farmer who farmed his land in a proper manner would be interfered with. That was a very pious expression of opinion from the Minister, but with nothing behind it except the Minister's good-will. We had similar expressions of opinion made, not once, nor twice, nor thrice, by the Minister in charge of the 1933 Bill, and they were not worth anything. I do not say that either the Minister in charge of the 1933 Bill or the present Minister meant to mislead the House. They are both eminently well intentioned persons. There is hardly a Deputy in the House who would not place every confidence in the then Minister and in the present Minister, but we require something beyond an expression of the Minister's opinion to defend the rights of tenant farmers in this country, particularly as we found on previous occasions that the Minister's wishes were not carried out.
There is nothing to indicate here that what the Minister expressed so very nicely will be carried out in the future. In fact, everything points to the contrary. Under the 1933 Act, land can be resumed for three or four different reasons. The Minister says that if a farm is well worked it will not be resumed. But, if this section is passed, when notice is given to a holder of land that his land is to be resumed he need not be given an indication as to why it is being resumed. He will not be told for what definite purpose the land is required. He may make what defence he likes, but the Land Commission need not give any reason for the resumption. Later on, if Deputies raise the question here, pointing out that the person in question was a good farmer and worked his land well, they can be told by the Minister—I do not say the present Minister, perhaps some future Minister—that the reason why the land was resumed had nothing to do with the manner in which it had been worked. They can be told that there were various reasons why this land was taken, and no definite reason need be given. If, at any rate, the first amendment here is not accepted, it will be, as Deputy Cosgrave said, useless for any of us on this side of the House to attempt further to debate this particular section.
I have said on a previous occasion that I regard the Minister as a reasonable man. I am for the moment primarily concerned with amendment No. 17. I do not think, if the Minister will dwell on the nature of this amendment, that he will insist on rejecting it, because we are not asking something which is revolutionary or unreasonable. Anyone who is familiar with the history of legal history in this country or in Great Britain must recognise that we are simply asking to establish what the courts have repeatedly pointed out as essential to the due administration of justice between citizens and the State. The first point to bear in mind is that, in proceedings of this kind, far from giving the State superior rights to those of the citizen we ought to be slow to give the State even equal rights, for this reason, that when the citizen goes into court against the State he is at once confronted by a much more formidable antagonist than if he went into court against a fellow-citizen. The most the Legislature ought to do is to permit a Government Department to enter the court on an equal footing with the citizen, because after all one of the primary functions of an independent judiciary is to protect the citizen from the Executive, and we should not empower them to do anything to destroy the rights of the citizen vis-á-vis the Executive. In so far as we do that, we make it more difficult for the judiciary to discharge their primary function.
Prior to 1870, in this country you had the old pre-Judicature Acts system, whereby a large part of the Chancery proceedings both here and in Great Britain was devoted to defining the issues joined between the parties. That science had so far advanced that it sometimes took six months to get into court, because the two parties had such extensive legal rights in bringing each other to exactitude in regard to the issue that they wanted to try before the court. After the Judicature Acts, that procedure was largely swept away and a very much simpler procedure was laid down, which required the plaintiff to make a statement of claim and the defendant to make a reply, to which the plaintiff could make a counter answer.
A defence.
At that they were stopped. But, if either party went into the court with those documents so drawn as materially to deceive the other party as to the issues they proposed to join in the course of the trial, instantly he destroyed his own case, and found himself hopelessly circumscribed in the proceedings. The judge would take up the position most emphatically that the defendant was entitled to know before he came into court precisely the cause that was alleged against him by the plaintiff, and that, if he was not so informed, the court would not allow him to be taken at a disadvantage as a result of the failure of the plaintiff clearly to define the issues that he wanted tried.
Now, that is doubly true in the Criminal Court. It is clearly laid down that, if you are indicted under the incorrect section, on that technical point in the vast majority of cases you can get your indictment dismissed. Here we are dealing with something which is analogous to a purely civil action, and the danger of reforms such as those included in the Judicature Acts is that when you are trying to sweep away old doubts you may go altogether too far. The judiciary checked any tendency to go too far. Several such attempts were made. There was an attempt made when the commercial courts were set up in London. Certain members of the judiciary did try to go beyond the reforms contained in the Judicature Acts in commercial causes, and argued that the procedure—even the simplified procedure laid down in the Judicature Acts—was still too complex for the disposal of causes joined between merchants of the City of London. Instantly, the judiciary segregated that particular branch of the law and said:
"If it is to be simplified, let it be simplified in regard to the merchants in the City of London, but do not attempt to carry those reforms out into the general body of law because, if you do, it will be gravely prejudicial to the whole administration of justice."
They succeeded in segregating the commercial causes, and restraining all the other causes from going further than the Judicature Acts permitted.
We are trying by statute not to simplify the procedure as between two citizens but to give the State the special privilege of going into the court against the citizen without telling the citizen what the cause of action is going to be. I know there are Deputies who have got the kind of idea that it is good to rob the rich in order to give to the poor, that it is good to jump on the fellow who owns land when you are going to distribute his land amongst those who have not got any. If such a doctrine were to be adopted by this House it would destroy this State. The only doctrine for a democratice Parliament to establish is that all men are equal before the law, that the poor man, the rich man, and every other man will be given the same rights, with no privileges for anybody and no victimisation for anybody. Whether a man is a pauper or a prince, coming into our courts he is entitled to justice and no more than justice. He cannot get justice if he does not know what cause is being brought against him.
It is ridiculous to say that the most experienced men in Ireland in the land code cannot state precisely the ground upon which they want to acquire land. There is a certain body of men in this country who are peculiarly equipped to do that thing and better equipped to do it than any member of the Bar in the Four Courts, and these are the higher officials of the Land Commission. They are, perhaps, the only men in Ireland who really know their way through all the devious paths of the land code. Certainly, there is no legal practitioner in this country who, without hours of study, can compare with them in their knowledge of that peculiarly complicated code. Is it not grotesque then for the Minister to say that it places an unreasonable obstacle in his way to ask him to state the ground on which he wants to acquire land? The only possible reason why there could be any objection to that course is that the Land Commission, desiring to get land which the Legislature would not give them authority to acquire, want to go into court leaving the defendant in such a position that he is quite unable to prove that they have not conformed to some particular ground on which they might acquire the land.
That would be bad enough, but if you once create the impression that if you go into court against the Land Commission they will keep changing feet in court indefinitely, so that if you are to defeat them on all the possible lines which they might pursue, you would require to spend a couple of thousand pounds in preparing the necessary briefs, making the necessary inquiries, summoning the necessary witnesses—and you will have to have witnesses to meet every possible contingency provided for in the entire land code—what is really going to happen is that you are going to deny the right of appeal to the Appeal Tribunal at all, because every conscientious solicitor will be bound to say to his client: "There is no use going to the Appeal Tribunal against the Land Commission, because they can change their feet 15 times in the course of the proceedings, and if you want to provide against the grounds they can produce, you will have to bring up 250 witnesses to Dublin; you may have to keep them for three weeks in the city, and by the end of the proceedings your costs may amount to far more than the land is worth. In any case, even if you recover costs against the Land Commission, there will be certain costs over and above those which the court will award against the Land Commission which will absolutely cripple you. Therefore, all talk of your right to go before the tribunal is merely eyewash. Theoretically, you have that right in practice, but no sane legal adviser would advise you to adopt it."
That is not a desirable situation to create. I do not care whether the litigant is a prince or a pauper, as I said. We should not enact a law which makes it impossible for people to go into court, and unless people know what are the precise terms of the cause alleged against them, they cannot get redress from the judiciary. All we are asking for is that the Land Commission, in starting an action against a citizen, will give the same information, not one syllable more, as any citizen would have to give if he were starting an action against the Land Commission. Is that an unreasonable request? I do not think it is. I do not think it is one which the Minister ought to resist.
This section proposes to give the Land Commission absolute and unlimited power to resume any holding, large or small, in this country. I think that the Government, just the same as an individual, are bound by the law of justice. If it is decided to resume any holding, it is the duty of the Land Commission, first of all, to have a sound reason for so doing, and it is also their duty to give that reason to the person whose holding they are going to acquire. Under this section, a holder of land is allowed to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, but how can he appeal if he is not given the grounds on which the Land Commission propose to acquire his holding? Therefore, you have the ordinary citizen's rights completely and absolutely swept away. We must remember that holders of land are just simple citizens, plain farmers, some of whom may be uneducated, and they are brought by this face to face with a powerful Government Department. Surely they should be put on an equal footing. Surely they should be given the right to know exactly on what grounds their holdings are proposed to be acquired.
I have said that this section gives the Land Commission absolutely unlimited power. I hold that there is absolutely no justification for giving that unlimited power. I hold that it is possible to do all that the Land Commission propose to do in regard to the acquisition and division of land without having that absolutely unlimited power to resume any and every holding throughout the country. Under this section, if it becomes law, it is possible for a Socialist Government, or a Communist Government if you like, to acquire every acre of land throughout the length and breadth of Ireland and to destroy completely private ownership of land. I know that is not the present intention of the Land Commission.
What else is it?
I believe it is not. At the same time, they are asking for legal power to do that injustice and to sweep away completely the rights of private ownership. In the debate on the Second Reading, there were frequent declarations on the part of the Minister and members of his Party that the Government had no intention of acquiring any holding which is being worked properly and according to the principles of good husbandry. Yet the Minister absolutely refuses to embody that principle in this Bill. He absolutely refuses to deprive the Land Commission of the power to acquire a holding which is properly worked. Why is that necessary? Why is it not possible for the Minister to put into this Bill the declaration which he made in this House, namely, that any holding which is properly worked will not become compulsorily acquired? I think that before the Bill becomes law the Minister should embody some provision in it to that effect. So far as this section is concerned, I do not think that any Deputy who values the right of fixity of tenure can vote for it because it completely takes away every bit of right to security of tenure.
The last speaker was charitable enough to say that certain things were not prompting the Land Commission or the Minister when dealing with land in the method proposed in the Bill. I pay a higher tribute to the intelligence of the Minister and the Land Commission. They know very well what they are doing. They know that it is sheer unadulterated plunder. If Stalin were in charge of the Land Commission he could not ask for any more—not one iota more. Not only is the Minister asking for power to take land from anybody, no matter how it is worked, and no matter what size the farm, but he gives no reason. What more could a Communist Government do? Another Department of State, until the last shot was fired by the Communists in Madrid, would not recognise the Government of Spain, but connived at feeding the Reds in Spain, and did not hesitate—
Mr. Boland
What has this got to do with the Land Bill?
It has, because they are first cousins or, I might say, brothers.
Mr. Boland
I do not think the Deputy came too clear out of that.
What does the Minister insinuate? I wish he would make that statement outside.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy was asked to make a statement outside and he would not.
I would not be as vague about a statement.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy was asked to make a statement outside that he would not hesitate to make about private citizens.
I do not think that references to Spain are in order in connection with this Bill.
The Chair heard the Minister making the statement, that the Deputy did not come very well out of the Spanish business. I demand a withdrawal.
Better leave the Spanish business alone.
I ask that the Minister be requested to withdraw that statement. There is an insinuation in it.
It is a matter that is outside the discretion of the Chair. It is purely personal, and I rule that any references to Spain are altogether out of order.
I am not asking the Chair to make a ruling about Spain or anything else, but I am asking for a ruling on a statement affecting my character that was made by the Minister.
I heard no such statement.
All right, I will leave it so. Deputies heard it. This section, which the amendments try to water down, gives the Minister power to take land from anybody, whether it is worked according to the methods of good husbandry, or whether it is waste, without giving any reason for taking the land. Call it expropriation, resumption, or what you like, it is taking what belongs to another without giving any reason and paying scrap price for it. Is that what the Minister calls social service? Surely when a Government starts to plunder the citizens the credit of that country is gone. Is the Minister aware of the precarious condition of credit here? Is he aware that agriculture commands no credit? Is he not aware that the Banking Commission appointed by this Government advised against this work on the part of the Land Commission? The credit of the country has been destroyed by this kind of Bolshevism. Now we are going to have more Bolshevism. I wish that the direct representatives of the farmers would speak in the language that farmers and the country could understand. This is Bolshevisation of the land. Let the country know it. It was stated here by Government spokesmen that fixity of tenure and free sale were not interfered with. Where is there fixity of tenure when by law land can be taken, no reason being given, and any price offered for it? If a man whose land is being taken wants to put in a petition, what question will he ask himself? Will he not say to himself: "Is it worth doing?" Any man who mixes up in law knows that he will have to employ a solicitor and a couple of senior as well as a junior counsel and give them a roving commission. They do not know what they are after but, in the end, when he is sold out, everyone that had anything to do with it is paid, except the owner of the land. There might be nothing left then.
Yet, in that state of affairs, we are expected to produce more in agriculture. We are expected to get agriculture capitalised. How can it be done? After this Bill is passed surely the banks will not only say: "We will not give any more money on land, and we can congratulate ourselves on how farseeing we were in tightening the cost of money in the last few years." It is strange how empty the Government Benches are for a debate of this kind. It is strange that the Minister for Agriculture never comes into it. We get armchair and geranium farmers discussing how land should be worked. It has been stated that land would be taken from people and distributed, and that there would be fair wages and increased production. How is production going to be increased? Ask any Deputy who knows anything about farming to tell how a man is going to get credit and capital to work a farm when a notice may go out saying that the farm is wanted? Who is going to buy that farm unless there is free sale? No one. Nobody is going to buy it because no credit is to be got. No one will advance money on land. Where there is not credit in a business it cannot be capitalised. Why does the Minister not take a ramble down Capel street, Henry street or Mary street and say to Todd Burns that as they have two large counters, and as people in Liffey street have only two small counters he would take some from Todd Burns.
And no cause stated.
If that were done what value would there be in commerce? Every kind of advance would be closed. The key to the poverty of agriculture is the matter of credit. We have people dealing with agriculture and with land who do not understand the economics of land or agriculture. Even without this the three F's are gone.
And buried.
The whole land agitation, the whole land war, the whole Land League code were wrong, according to those who are the successors of the men of that period. There are people who have been generations in the same place and everybody who knows rural Ireland knows the tenacity with which people cling to the old home. They are to be uprooted, with no cause given. What are you going to do with the land when you uproot them? You call it a social service to take a farm that is well worked and split it up and give five, ten, 15 or 20 acres to men who will let it in conacre on the eleven months' system. Is that not being done? There is no precaution taken to stop that. I would have sympathy with land division if the land were given to men who have proved they are capable of working it, and who are prepared to work it better than the person who worked it before But no such precaution is here being taken.
I do not want to go too widely on the whole principle. We have reached a position where land is to be taken in a most unusual manner. This section proposes to give no reason for the taking of the land. The amendment requests the Minister to specify a definite reason, a definite purpose, for which the land is being taken. In all fair play, if a man is charged with an offence he should be told the nature of that offence. I look upon this as making a charge against an individual. If the Minister came to resume some of my land, I would ask him why he is resuming it. I would ask him have I not worked it well and what does he want it for. He will not tell me, he need not tell me. He is looking for a very drastic power now and the next thing the Government will ask for is authority to call a citizen a thief without giving any explanation.
The last vestige of any fixity of tenure, of any rooting in the soil, of any real property in land, is now going to be surrendered under the powers contained in this Bill. I have no doubt at all that when the bell rings Deputies will come in and vote the way they are told to, and they will hand away the liberties that our fathers and our grandfathers fought for in order to get rooted in the soil of this country. We are now being asked to give those liberties away without being told the reason why we should do so. Liberty is not being given away, but it is being taken from us and we are not going to be told the reason.
We are told that this is a social service. I say without fear of contradiction, that if you are going to have proper social conditions in this country you must have economic holdings. If we are going to prosper as an individual country, if we are to save ourselves from bankruptcy, we must have decent-sized holdings that will be capable of producing food at a reasonable cost to the consumer, that will enable the producer to get an economic price, and that will also enable fair wages to be paid. That cannot be done on little scraps of holdings where people start in debt and where, because of the methods adopted by the Government, the land is deprived of security from the aspect of borrowing and consequently the owners have no credit facilities in order to work it. That position has been created by this Government and it is now being aggravated by this Bill. I hope that every Deputy who has any concern for the future of the country will vote not only against this section, but will take immediate steps to restore the land to the position it occupied when the present Government started their Communistic policy in the matter of land and other things.
I am not concerned with the size of holdings or the value of land. In my opinion, there is a much bigger question and it emerges under the terms of this section. It is the question of justice or the death of justice in this country. I do not think it is the Land Commission that is asking for those powers. It must be somebody outside the Land Commission who is anxious to confer these powers on that body. It is either the Minister or the Party behind him. The Constitution, about which we have heard so much, made a great blow about its claim to justice. What does this section mean? It means that the owner of land, when he is served with a notice by the Land Commission, is made a defendant. The position of defendant is forced upon him. This defendant must be brought into court with his hands and his feet tied and, in addition, he must be blindfolded. Is that not the plain English of the section?
Will the Government, the Land Commission, or the Fianna Fáil Party apply that principle to every business in the State, to people in other occupations? Would they dare to do it? I saw on yesterday's paper where a district justice commented upon the horrible position obtaining where moneylenders were charging compound interest up to 75 per cent. If one of these persons was brought into court, would he be tied hand and foot and blindfolded? Would he be told the reason he was brought into court? I have here a very peculiar document, although I am sure there is no great significance in it. It is headed: "National Finance Company, Ltd. Directors—M. Boland and Y. Boland." One is described as an Irish citizen (22), Lithuanian-Rus. origin, and the other is Y. Boland, Latvian-Rus. origin, naturalised Irish citizen.
Have these men anything to do with land purchase?
I advise you that you are young in the Chair and you should hesitate before you start making inquiries. I want to contrast the position of the owner of land with the position of a person in a business concern. Would the person counected with a business concern be treated as other people are treated in this section? Would provisions be brought into a Bill to deal with people of that description, provisions such as are introduced into this section? Now, the Chair will know the point I am trying to make. It is evidently a considered movement to strike the first decisive blow at justice in this country. If this provision is going to go through in its present form, then I think we might mark the death of justice in this country to-night. I am sure it would not be intended by anybody who gave thought to the actual provisions, who had any regard for statesmanship, any regard for justice or any regard for fair play. I take the view that this was done without adverting to the consequences, without any knowledge of what is really being done. It is a monstrous predicament, a terrible thing, that a person who is being forced into the position of a defendant will not be told the cause of action, the real reason why they are proceeding against him. I am not concerned about price—about the prices of holdings—but about the principle that is here involved with which every citizen of the State is concerned. It is the owner of property in land to-day and it will be the owner of property in other things to-morrow, and if it is not extended to other walks of life, then it is even more criminal if the owners of property in land alone are to be treated in this fashion and denied their rights and if justice in their case is to be dead and buried for all time.
I want the Minister and his Party to realise the issue that is involved here. I say that it could not happen under any Government that had any regard whatever for the name of justice. It could not happen under alien rule, the rule that we had here at one time that certainly did hold justice on a pinnacle and did not throw it down in the mud and walk on it as is evidently attempted to be done under this section. If this were passed it would indicate that you have not even a nodding acquaintance with justice; you would make a farce of the Constitution, a farce of liberty, a farce of the right in property, and I am sure that you are going much farther than you ever intended. If this is to be a precedent with regard to all other classes of ownership in property, then I think that the whole public should take alarm and that the whole public should take a definite stand here to maintain the rights of the citizens. I say that it is nothing short of treachery for a public representative in this House to see the rights of the citizens taken away without doing everything possible to prevent it. Surely, it is not asking too much to say that when a man is made a defendant, he should be told why he is made a defendant, under what he is being proceeded against, and why the action was brought. If that is too much to ask, then every common murderer in this country would be treated better or any criminal in the State would be treated better than these unfortunate people. As I said before, to my mind this is the first decisive blow to kill justice in this country, and, if the section is passed as it is, you can have bonfires—if there is such a mentality in the country to appreciate that—lit all over the country to-night; ther is enough dry grass and dry furze now to make good bonfires to-night, and you can celebrate the death of justice in this country in that way.
Mr. Boland
On these amendments the point has been raised again that we were taking, have taken, or will take property and well-worked farms. I said before, and I repeat, that no such farms have been taken. The undertaking that was given by the Minister in the debate on the 1933 Act has been kept both in the spirit and in the letter, as I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, and on that occasion I asked any Deputy who knew of any cases to the contrary to let me know of them, but no Deputy has mentioned any case.
The matter was raised in this House.
Mr. Boland
I repeat that no farm that was even moderately well worked was taken or will be taken.
Will the Minister enshrine that in the Act?
Mr. Boland
There is no necessity to enshrine it in the Act. It has not been done and it will not be done, and the Deputy and everybody else can rest assured that that is the case. Now with regard to the first amendment, amendment No. 17, that is to delete the word "not," and make it obligatory. Theré was never any intention of not stating the authority on which the Land Commission acted. As a matter of fact, it is always done, and has to be done.
Surely, not under this section?
Mr. Boland
It is always done. Deputy McMenamin made a suggestion that a general formula could be got which would set forth these powers, but the point is that we would name all the sections under which it was proposed to act, not a particular section.
Why not omit paragraph (b) altogether?
Mr. Boland
No. I would be prepared to consider doing what Deputy McMenamin suggested, when he was speaking on the amendment, and that is to state in any notice all the different sections, but apparently that is not what the court wants. They may want a particular section and they may take a different view from the Land Commission as to whether or not that particular section applies. We have authority to take land under certain conditions, and these authorities are all set out. I have a copy of one of these notices here with me. If it would satisfy Deputies, however, I am prepared to insert for the next stage—of course, it would have to be put in the correct form—something to the effect that the different sections under which the Land Commission propose to act will be set out so that there will not be any question of anybody objecting.
I would ask the Minister to consider the form of paragraph (e).
Mr. Boland
Well, paragraph (e) is another matter. We shall come to that as we go along. All these amendments have been debated, but let us start with paragraph (b). We shall redraft it in the way I have suggested—that is, that the sections under which it is proposed to take power to resume lands shall be set out. I think that deals with the first point.
Yes, that is the first point.
Mr. Boland
The next amendment, amendment No. 18, deals with a point that has been settled time and again. We divided on that point, as a matter of fact, last night. I am not accepting that amendment. We debated it last night and we took our stand on the 1933 Act which the Oireachtas decided on. I am going by the vote taken last night and shall not accept the amendment. The next amendment, amendment No. 19, deals with the indicating in general terms. The amendment proposes to delete the words and brackets "(which need only be indicated in general terms)", and it is proposed to substitute the words and brackets "(which must be clearly and precisely indicated)". That would be practically impossible. There are several purposes for which land may be acquired, all contained in the statutes. The effect of this amendment might even be that we would be required to give the names of the actual persons. It might even go so far as that, if we were to do what we are asked to do here. That is why we ask for the right to state, in general terms, the purposes for which we require land. They are all set out in the statutes, and if we were to do what we are asked to do here it would make the thing practically impossible.
Has the Department a form that it has been using up to now? What do you mean by "general terms"? Does it indicate what you are going to do?
Mr. Boland
For Land Commission purposes. That is what is meant by "general terms."
That is very wide.
Mr. Boland
Well, the purposes under which they are empowered by the Acts to acquire land—something of that kind.
There could be a good case, and one would fall back on another?
Mr. Boland
Yes that is so; provided they were entitled to use the land for that purpose. For instance, there might be no congestion in a particular district and it might have been the intention to bring migrants there but it might be then found impossible to get a migrant from some congested area to come there. It might be necessary then to use it for some other purpose and if we were to agree to what Deputy McMenamin asks the Land Commission would be tied down and could not work.
Well, I shall meet the Minister to this extent. Assuming that that is correct, perhaps it would be possible to draft a form which would indicate the powers under which they are entitled to take land under the Land Acts.
Mr. Boland
Yes, I see.
Then, if any persons considered themselves wronged they could look up the law, if they liked.
Mr. Boland
We mention the actual sections.
There are a couple of points which I think I can properly raise on this amendment. I desire to do so because the higher officials of the Land Commission are present. I will be as brief as I can. I know a case in my area where the revenue authorities were interested in the land. In the first instance the land had to be valued and it was valued on behalf of the tenant or his successors at £1,750. The revenue authorities would not have that. They sent down their own valuer and he valued it at £2,000. The Land Commission sent down their inspector and he valued it at £800. I mention that because the higher officials of the Land Commission are here. I do not want to dwell on it, and it is only because the thing seems to me so desperate, so unfair and so unjust that I mention it at all. The second point I want to mention in regard to this matter is that the Land Commission cannot make up their mind in connection with land division. A case occurred in my area where a farm was put up for sale. The Land Commission sent down a notice on the morning of the sale that the farm should not be sold, that they intended to acquire it. The farm was being sold under a court order. It has been there for years, a commonage for everybody, neither paying rent, rates nor anything else. My point is that if and when the Land Commission intend to resume a holding they should do so immediately because it is well known that if a farm is being put up for sale now by public auction it is the easiest thing in the world to make the sale abortive. It may be rumoured that the Land Commission want the land and nobody is going to bid for it. The farm I referred to was left there to go derelict. It is because I want to see that that will not happen again in the case of land division that I mention this matter because this land is only a burden on everybody, not paying land annuities or rates.
I would ask the Minister to consider between this and the next stage if it is desired to retain this form of words which is offensive to our ordinary legal code?
Mr. Boland
I will consider that.
Because it does in my opinion raise a very huge question.
That is the fourth amendment which the Minister has not dealt with.
Mr. Boland
It says here that the certificate is conclusive evidence. This certificate is given after all the facts have been considered. After the Land Commission have heard all objections they decide to do a certain thing and they give a certificate to that effect which the tribunal has to accept as conclusive.
You are standing over that?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
Do not commit yourself for a moment. Bear in mind that we had exactly the same principle advanced in very much more urgent surroundings by the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Justice, in connection with the Offences Against the State Bill, sought in certain very difficult circumstances to issue a certificate which would be conclusive evidence of the facts set out therein. On representations from the Opposition he reconsidered that position and admitted that, even in a state of national emergency in which the State found itself gravely embarrassed by conspiracies to overthrow it, he did not think it was right to set out in a certificate that the facts mentioned therein were conclusive evidence, and he altered that to read that that should be prima facie evidence, which goes a good way, because you are shifting the burden of proof off the shoulders of the person who asserts the facts and putting it on to the shoulders of the person who rebuts it. That is going a very long way. If the Land Commission is furnished with the liberty to have their statements accepted as prima facie evidence of their truth without any obligation upon them to call in witnesses to sustain that allegation, and if they are allowed to shift the entire burden of proof over on to the defendant so that he cannot controvert that without producing evidence, that is a very substantial concession to the Land Commission and one which I would make with the greatest possible reluctance but, in all the circumstances, if the Minister states that there are difficulties and that expedition is greatly hindered for want of this facility, I think we would be prepared to go so far as to accept that the certificate should be accepted as prima facie evidence, leaving the defendant the right to rebut it if he can. I do not think the Minister would find that concession to be extravagant, particularly in the light of what the Minister for Justice, on reflection, felt himself bound to do.
I was in considerable difficulty in facing this sub-section because I quite appreciate that something very definite would have to be done to put the Land Commission in a way to carry on. I think that, for practical purposes, the insertion of the words I have proposed will give the Land Commission all that it wants without this offensive word that is used in the sub-section in its present form. What happens if it is admitted to be prima facie evidence? Immediately that is so, the onus of proof is shifted on to the other party and it is shifted on to him in a very substantial way because a document is put down in court and he will have to show, by some very substantial evidence, documentary or otherwise, that the contents of that certificate are not right. He is going to have a devil of a job—if I may use that word—to do that. He will have to put up some very strong rebutting evidence against the certificate so that the Land Commission will have to call oral evidence to rebut what he says.
I put the amendment down for another reason. I think it would be legally futile to retain that provision in the sub-section in its present form. I do not think the court would accept that any document is conclusive evidence. If rebutting evidence was put up to show that the contents of the certificate were not right, I do not think any court would entertain it. They would not accept that it was conclusive evidence. It would be unnatural and completely contradictory to the procedure of the courts or to justice.
I think I put it in the best form I could. I had considerable trouble in drafting it. The form is very simple as it is. I could not put it in any better form in order to put the sub-section on a just basis. I think I have gone far enough. I put the Land Commission in a strong position. They can walk in, produce this document which requires rebutting evidence, very strong rebutting evidence. I suppose the Minister knows—certainly the officials know—that when any of these documents of theirs are put down it takes very strong rebutting evidence to displace them. Take for example, cases that everybody is acquainted with, the question of the collection of the land annuities. A civil bill is served on a tenant and he goes into the court and says that he does not owe the amount of money at all. What has he got to do? He may have got his hands on a neighbour's receivable order. The neighbour may be a man of the same name and having the same amount of land and consequently paying the same amount of land annuity. That has occurred in my own county. There are townlands of the same name where there are a number of people of the same name, both Christian name and surname, and holding the same amount of land and paying the same annuity. The case may be brought against him that he has not paid his annuity and it may then be discovered that he had got hold of his neighbour's receivable order.
What about the folio number on the receivable order?
I did not know there was a folio number on a receivable order. Does the Deputy mean a receivable order number?
I have put this in the best form I can, and in the form which I think would be most acceptable to the House.
We would agree to withdraw these amendments until we observe the Minister in a mood when he would like to give something on the condition that it is something very small. It is no use trying to mislead people by saying there is no difference between the Parties in this House on these measures. There is. We object positively and emphatically to giving any power in excess of the power that is going to be used. The Minister comes to this House with the philosophy that he ought to be given power by this House on the undertaking that he will use that power sparingly and with justice. We cannot agree. I think it is fair neither to the Land Commission nor to the Minister. It is power to get land whenever he wants it, and having that power, he cannot stand up and say he cannot do certain things. He will be told that these are the powers and there is no excuse for his not putting them into exercise. We are in disagreement with that.
In sub-section (a) there is a reference to "the person appearing to be in occupation." That is a peculiar description. It may be that it has appeared before in Land Acts. However, it may happen that the correct person may be addressed in connection with a notice, or the service of the notice, or whatever it is; and it would not be fair that by reason of its having being served on the person who appears to be in possession, that the person who was not served should be penalised. We must be scrupulously fair if we are going to put people in possession of power. The possession of power by no means postulates the abuse of it. Every possible care and protection must be taken that the citizens will know where they stand and how they stand.
There is a point in connection with sub-section (e) that the Minister should bear in mind. Presumably the Government, in connection with the previous Bill which was mentioned by Deputy Dillon, would give fair and impartial consideration to their decision in laying it down that a certain person or organisation was illegal or improper. Presumably. Can we give the same character to the Land Commission—speaking now impersonally, seeing the power they have got to acquire land anywhere they wish or from anybody or for any particular purposes that they want? Obviously their disposition will be to give the certificate as distinct from the Executive authority in the State, whose disposition would be to consider everything before finally making up their minds. If, on the better grounds and the more impartial grounds, the Minister for Justice could not possibly stand over that proposal, how can the Minister stand over this? Is it honest for us to give to the officials or to the State an authority and power which the Minister could not make a case for to this House for the Government? I think that there must be reconsideration—serious reconsideration—of this question.
I would like to call the Minister's attention to a statement made by Deputy Childers in this connection. He pointed out that Deputies of this House were being subjected to extraordinary pressure to secure the division of land, and he emphasised that some protection should be afforded to Deputies, that there should be some limitation placed on the powers of the Land Commission. The fact that they are given unlimited powers will be used by unscrupulous politicians to bring pressure to bear on Deputies and force those Deputies to bring pressure to bear on the Government and on the Land Commission. It would be a protection to the Land Commission and to the Government and to members of this House if there was some limitation to the powers under this Act. Any unscrupulous local politician or candidate for election to this House could go round and offer everybody's land or anybody's land to anybody else who is prepared to support him. That is what is going to happen. They can hold up this Bill, showing that the Government has unlimited powers to divide land. There is absolutely no protection against that unscrupulous kind of agitation.
Mr. Boland
I cannot accept these amendments and I do not see there is very much use in saying that I will reconsider them. In the case in question, it is sought to make a change from there being an appeal on the question of law and the question of price to the Appeals Tribunal, to make it the general policy. I am standing over that, and saying that there shall be an appeal only on law and price. If we accept this amendment there would be a general appeal and we would have all sorts of delays.
Is that amendment 18?
Mr. Boland
That would be amendment 20 or 21.
Surely this has nothing to do with 20?
Mr. Boland
It is in regard to the question that the certificate shall be conclusive evidence, because that certificate would only be issued by the lay commissioners after all the facts had been examined and after every opportunity had been given to have the case decided. It is only after that that the certificate is going to be considered as conclusive, and if that were not so there would be an appeal on every question to the tribunal.
It means that it would be for amusement that you would use the Bill in that case and not for business.
Mr. Boland
There may be obstruction. It might be used for amusement but it might appeal to some people whom it might amuse to obstruct.
Why go through the farce of having the Bill at all?
Mr. Boland
There is an appeal on law and on price and these are very vital things.
The Minister ought to do the right thing once and for all, and if he wants to do the right thing he should get power to take land at any time from anybody, and finish it.
Mr. Boland
Amendment 21 is quite definite on one point. It is sought to remove the words "shall authorise the resumption of the holding or the said part thereof, as the case may be". I say that that section must stand as it is, and that the lay commissioners' certificate must be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal.
Are we to take it that the Minister will make no concession on amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21?
Mr. Boland
On amendment No. 17 I am prepared to set down there the sections under which we are proceeding.
But not the grounds?
Mr. Boland
Those are the grounds. Regarding amendment No. 18, I could not specify the particular purpose, for the reason that I gave, that it may be held up by a court for a long time and it may be necessary to go actually into the court and give a list of the people.
Is it not true that you will be required to give the grounds? Why not go on with that?
Mr. Boland
Perhaps we could. If we are pinned down to a particular section, rather than setting out all the sections under which we have power to proceed, it might be held that that section did not apply, whereas other sections might, and, on a mere technicality, we might be defeated. If we accepted what Deputy McMenamin suggests, it would not really meet the case. We might be required to name, and we object to naming, the particular section, and what we will do is to set out all the sections under which we have power to proceed.
I cannot see the trouble at all. All that is necessary is to get somebody to collect all the sections which deal with the resumption or acquisition of land in a stock form. Is that not done with regard to all these Acts?
Mr. Boland
I am prepared to do that.
What did the Supreme Court actually say with regard to the procedure at present adopted by the Land Commission when they were considering Potterton's case? This question of a clear definition of the grounds upon which the land is to be acquired came in as a subsidiary matter in the Supreme Court decision in Potterton's case. What did the Supreme Court say?
Mr. Boland
That the notice should have had strict reference to the particular power under which the individual holding was being resumed and to the particular purpose for which the land was being acquired. These are the two things I am trying to make provision for. I want to be able to specify the general powers under which we are proceeding, and to state the sections, but not the particular section, because, as I say, at the whim of a judge, we might be turned down, whereas there might be other sections, which were not included, under which we could act. In the same way, the Supreme Court say that we should state the particular purpose for which the land is required. That might be held to mean that we should actually give a list of the allottees to whom we were to give the land. It might seem fantastic, but the Land Commission thinks that it might be so interpreted, and it is to avoid having to specify as particularly as that that we brought in this proposal.
There is a remedy for that, because all you need do is to bring in an amendment, in place of amendment No. 17, setting out an obligation on yourself to state the specific ground as described in the land code, and that will preclude a judge from requiring you to name the allottees. If you set out, in the form, that you want it for the relief of congestion, the provision of land for landless men, the provision of a playground, or for any one of the several purposes described in the land code, that is all we want.
Mr. Boland
We will try to bring in something suitable.
If that is done, it will absolutely preclude any court of law from saying that you must give the names of the allottees. You can say: "We have set out the particular line in the section describing the purpose for which we want it." It is not sufficient to refer to the section because I think it is Section 28 of the 1933 Act which sets out a list of the purposes as long as my arm. If you simply refer to the section, it gives no indication whatever of the purpose. I do not ask you to leave it open to a judge, and we do not ask you to do so, to call upon you to name the allottees. All we ask you to do is to give one of the sub-heads, or two, or three, or four, and to say: "We want to acquire the land for this one, or these two, three or four purposes." That is all we want, so far as amendment No. 17 is concerned. If the Minister is prepared to say that he will look into it, I do not think we will divide on amendment No. 17 now.
Mr. Boland
I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (1) (c), line 56, to delete the words "on a question of law."
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá. 54; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Carty, Frank.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Curran, Richard.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Little and Smith; Níl, Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Mr. Boland
Before you proceed to the next amendment, I would like to say that I wish to apologise for my remark to Deputy Belton. You, Sir, did not hear the remark I made. In the heat of the moment, I did say something about Deputy Belton which I regret. I should not have said it. It was drawn from me by the Deputy's reference to Spain.
I accept the apology. I thank the Minister for it.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (1) (d), page 23, lines 4 and 5, to delete the words in brackets "(which need only be indicated in general terms)" and substitute the words and brackets "(which must be clearly and precisely indicated)"
Mr. Boland
I think we already debated together every point in this group of amendments.
I was the first to mention that, but the Minister seemed to prefer debating them separately.
Deputy McMenamin is quite in order.
Is the Minister prepared to go as far as he has attempted in (b)? We want something of a general nature to give us some flavour of justice.
Mr. Boland
I am afraid that would be very difficult.
I understand the Minister is in a very technical position and I appreciate that, but at the same time there should be some medium between the two extremes. By the decision that has been given the Minister has got a jerk. Now I think some form of words could be prepared and drafted by the officials of the Land Commission, who are experts in these matters. If the officials try they can produce a form of words that will meet the difficulty. They know all about land cases from A to Z and nobody else in this country except these experts knows all about them. I am quite convinced that they could produce a form of words and draft an amendment that would be acceptable.
Mr. Boland
We tried to obviate what I said—having to give the details to the extent of even giving the names of the allottees.
Is the Minister confining himself, according to the phraseology, to that particular course so far as an appeal is concerned? A case is heard by the lay commissioners. They consider the representations made by the Land Commission to acquire land for a particular purpose. That is what we call "fact". The facts have to be established to the satisfaction of the lay commissioners. That looks as if a person were called upon to establish facts, which he adduced himself, to his own satisfaction. How could we break up the Land Commission into its component parts and have one portion persuading another portion that one thing is fact and that another is law? On appeal, we come to the third section of the Land Commission, but we are allowed to go to that section only on a question of law. Having gone to that section on a question of law, the case being made that the law is interfering with the operations of the Land Commission, the Land Commission ask for more law. Is not that the sum and substance of the whole thing?
If there be any extra authority in the jurisdiction of the Appeal Tribunal, what is the objection to allowing it to decide questions of fact as well as questions of law? The Judicial Commissioner is, evidently, a man of experience. He has had court experience of one kind or another, although he may not have had to decide questions of fact as often as he has had to decide questions of law. There is, however, no question of his not having a legally-trained mind. He would not be there if that were so. Why not give him an opportunity to consider the facts as well as the law? Let us consider the possibility that a man would have a stronger case in going to the Appeal Tribunal on a question of fact than he would have in going to that tribunal on a question of law. On the Minister's statement, we want more and more law and we want more power for the Land Commission, even though they will not exercise it. Then, on the only ground on which a man has any hope of succeeding—a question of fact—we are putting him out of court. We say to him that we are taking every precaution that, on the one spot on which he can stand, he will not be allowed to go to the Appeal Tribunal, that that is reserved to the lay commissioners. That is not right.
If notice is served on a man that his holding will be resumed, and he can only appeal on a question of law, what law is there on which he can appeal?
I am afraid that Deputies are discussing amendment No. 18, which has just been decided by vote. We are now considering amendment No. 19.
Then I shall raise the question on the section.
Amendment No. 17 was withdrawn, and the House divided on amendment No. 18.
We come now to the general terms.
Are we discussing the section now?
Mr. Boland
No, amendment No. 19.
This amendment is closely allied to amendment No. 17. If the Minister is going to make any concession in respect of amendment No. 17, he will have to make a concession in respect of amendment No. 19.
Mr. Boland
The general terms are set out.
There is no use in taking up the Minister's time and the time of the House in discussing amendments which must be met, to some extent, if the Minister proposes to meet amendments which have already been discussed. If the Minister becomes more precise in regard to amendment No. 17, some of that precision can be transferred to the certificate. We should be glad to say that, if the Minister will consider amendment No. 19 when he is considering amendment No. 17, we shall postpone further discussion to the Report Stage.
Mr. Boland
I agree to do that.
Amendment No. 19, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In sub-section (1) (e), line 8, to delete the word "conclusive" and substitute the words "prima facie”.
These amendments hang together as a set.
Mr. Boland
That is what I said.
Is the Minister prepared to accept this amendment or some amendment analogous to it? In my opinion he will find trouble in forging anything better than it. I think it gives him absolute protection. If the jurisdiction is not there, the word "conclusive" is of no use. There must be jurisdiction before a thing is conclusive. The use of the word "conclusive" is futile.
Mr. Boland
That is not my opinion.
There are two grave objections to this provision. One is the grave objection relating to the the cases of the individuals to whom it will apply and that is bad enough. There is an additional grave objection inasmuch as it creates a precedent in the whole code of law in this country by giving a Government Department the right to exclude the judiciary from their proper functions. That is not desirable. What you enshrine as an acceptable principle in a Land Act may be quoted hereafter as a justifiable precedent in respect of any other Act. The Minister for Justice saw that point and on these grounds——
There was no analogy.
I admit that one relates to the criminal law and the other to the civil law, but surely it would be far more legitimate for the Minister for Justice to say that when the whole safety of the State was imperilled and when delay might give those desiring to upset the State the very time they wanted to carry their fell purpose to a conclusion, he must make a breach in the established rule of the common law in the supreme interest of the safety of the State.
And the supreme protection of the individual.
When the interest of the individual and the interest of the community clash, subject to the overriding principles of the moral law, the interest of the individual must give way.
And must give way here.
Therefore, the Minister for Justice would have been entitled, if any man was entitled, to say that where the interest of the very survival of the State clashed with individual liberty, he put the survival of the State on a higher plane.
There is no exclusion of the judiciary.
The Minister for Justice did not persist in his proposal. He said:
"I decline to introduce into the normal code of statute law any provision entitling the Government to set aside the judiciary by withdrawing from them the right of inquiry into the veracity or exactitude of a certificate issued by the Government."
He would not give the Government the power to take away a citizen's right before a court by a certificate and he had that provision amended. Now, the Minister for Lands comes along and, although there is no question of the safety of the State——
Is there a question of life and death?
No. No urgent question is involved. It is simply a matter of the convenience of the Land Commission. They say, "We do not want to be kept in court three weeks when we should be able to do the thing in three hours."
Exactly.
In order to convenience the Land Commission, you are going to carry into statute law a precedent which the Minister for Justice refused to bring into the statute law although he might have pleaded the supreme consideration of the protection of the State as a reason for doing so. Why do that? The very essence of liberty is that an independent judiciary, over whom the Government has no control, should stand between the citizen and the State. This is an attempt to coerce the judgment of the judiciary and create a position in which the presiding judge of the tribunal which is set up between the State and the citizen will say: "We believe every paragraph of that certificate to be untrue but we are bound by the legal fiction that it is, in fact, true."
It has to go before the lay commissioners.
Suppose it has to go before the lay commissioners?
Surely to goodness, they are a body of reasonable men?
I quite agree, but many a body of reasonable men, sitting 12 men in a jury, have condemned a man to death and yet when the man went before the Court of Criminal Appeal his conviction was quashed.
On a question of law?
Of fact or law. The Deputy knows that some States considered that they could do without a court of criminal appeal on the assumption that where you had 12 reasonable men all agreeing on a verdict, there was no good ground for a court of criminal appeal. Yet the fact is that an appeal has been provided to the Court of Criminal Appeal here, that very wide powers are given to that court to send back a case for retrial, to quash a conviction, or to take such other measures as they think right to ensure that justice will be done.
There is nothing to stop the Land Commission abandoning the proceedings if any flaw is discovered. You might imagine that the Land Commission was straining at the leash to get land. They have far more land in their hands than they can distribute. If the Land Commission stopped acquiring land to-morrow and concentrated all their attention on distributing land, they have already got sufficient land to keep them occupied for nine months without acquiring an acre further.
A Deputy
That is not so.
Well, that is according to the Minister's own figures. They have sufficient land to keep them occupied for nine months without acquiring another acre. It is not suggested that in all acquisition proceedings you are going to have this section invoked. It will not be invoked in one case out of every 20. The other 19 will go through and add to the pool of land in the hands of the Land Commission awaiting distribution. It may be suggested that where this question arises there will be delay. It may result in the Land Commission being held up for a fortnight or three weeks or a month but what matter?
Or two months or six months.
What matter so long as justice is done? There is no question of having hordes of people standing round a property waiting to get in. It is ridiculous to suggest that it is going to make any material difference to a family whether they get their particular portion of land now or on the 1st January next. It could rightly be argued that it might mean a difference if, instead of saying "You are going to get the land soon", you said "You will never get the land". It can, however, make no material difference to any family in this country if we say that instead of getting it on the 1st June they will get it on the 1st December. It may, however, make an immense difference to individuals if they feel that their land is being taken from them unjustly and that they are being deprived of the protection which every individual is entitled to expect from the Government. I ask the House to bear this in mind: Whether we like it or not, a good many people who will resist the acquisition of their land vehemently are people who may fall victims to the illusion that they are being victimised, that the Government is unsympathetic to them, that the vast majority of the people look upon them with suspicion, and that they are being discriminated against because they have certain antecedents. For the peace of the country, for the good government of the country, and for the reputation of the country, I should like that we would reassure these people. There is no use in saying that they should be reasonable. Reasonable people, prudent people, are never scandalised; it is the simple people, or the people who are susceptible to mistakes, who are scandalised.
We ought to lean backwards so as to reassure people who are apprehensive, albeit they have no particular ground for apprehension, that their rights will be as faithfully protected by this Parliament as if it consisted exclusively of landlords. There are no landlords in this Parliament. We are all people who have been traditionally on the tenant's side. We are the evicted tenants' children but we have in our hands the fate and destiny of those who were landlords and landlords' men. Whatever rough treatment we mete out to our own for expediency sake, we ought to be solicitous about those whose opposition we have overcome so as to assure them that under a National Government, no matter what their views may have been before the Government was established, they will get the fullest justice and that we, who are the tenants' children, will take no short-cuts. We ought to assure them that they will get the fullest possible protection the law can give to any citizen of the State. That is the right attitude.
To imagine that for the sake of saving six months' time we should create this apprehension in the minds of these people is the acme of folly. We can afford to be magnanimous, generous and especially just in their regard. There is no trusteeship more sacred than the rights of the people over whom you happen in the course of time to prevail. The fact that they have lost in their contention places on us a most exceptional obligation to see that their defeat involves them in no injustice whatever, that they will get at our hands all the consideration, justice and forbearance they might ever have hoped for from a Tory Government. To do that we are called upon to make no substantial sacrifice at all. If it did mean a very real sacrifice I would still ask the House to do it because I feel that we are trustees for these people's rights. We have got to show them that having secured rights for our own people which they resisted, our concern is to return good for evil and not to treat them as they might treat us were they in our position. We are not asking you to make any substantial sacrifice for that purpose. The utmost possible sacrifice that it may involve or that can be expected is a delay of six months in the compulsory acquisition of land.
Much longer.
It may be six or nine months, but whatever it is, it is not going to hold up or prevent the acquisition of land which the land code contemplates acquiring. I press the House most strongly that we would be guilty of folly if we do not make that concession to what may appear to Deputies on the far side of the House as unreasonable fears on the part of landlords but, reasonable or unreasonable, let us reassure them that they are going to get at our hands as square a deal as they could ever hope to get from their own.
Shall I put the amendment?
Is the Minister going to make any concession?
Mr. Boland
That principle was settled on the last division. This only follows from it.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Carty, Frank.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Curran, Richard.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (1) (e), to delete all words after the word "Tribunal", line 13, and substitute the words "shall have power to and shall consider and decide whether the Land Commission shall resume the holding or the said part thereof, as the case may be".
This sub-section simply means that the Appeal Tribunal will get a certificate handed to them by the Lay Commissioners. They will simply pass that on. They will simply do what the Lay Commissioners tell them to do, and they will have no further jurisdiction. What are they for? Why send it to them at all? Why not take the certificate of the Lay Commissioners, hand it to one of the ushers in the Land Commission and say: "Pass this on to the inspector, and tell him to do what is ordered to be done in this certificate." Is not that the meaning of this sub-section? Why is the certificate sent to the Appeal Tribunal? Is it simply in order that they will countersign it? What is their function with regard to this sub-section? Why is the certificate sent to them at all? They are merely automatons. That is all they are. I drafted this amendment so as to ensure that they would be able to consider whether, either on a question of law or a question of fact, the thing is right. According to the sub-section as it stands, the certificate is sent along to them and they are simply told to pass it on to somebody else. Why is it sent to them at all? This is the most ridiculous and meaningless thing one could imagine. Why not cut it out altogether? It is insulting to those men, if they have any sense of dignity at all, that the Lay Commissioners will make out a certificate and pass it on to them, and that they will simply countersign it. They can say neither "Yes" nor "No" to it. Does not that make this body of men very ridiculous? What sort of men would accept such a position? They are mere robots. The certificate is passed on to them saying: "Do this"; they do it and away it goes. It is the most meaningless thing one could imagine.
It is rather puzzling to know what meaning there was for inserting (e) at all. In essence, it means that, where the Lay Commissioners have decided to resume a holding, their decision is final and conclusive, and shall not be appealed against to the Appeal Tribunal. In essence, this is not an appeal at all. It comes before them, but it is not an appeal. What the reason is for putting that extra operation on the Land Commission is difficult to understand, unless it is desired to get the signature of the Judicial Commissioner to something that has already been done. Whether the Minister likes it or not, the action of the Lay Commissioners has something judicial about it. They are laymen, but there is something judicial about it. What Deputy McMenamin desires to achieve is that when the Judicial Commissioner sits, he will have some power, and that he will exercise that power. It will not interfere with the desire of the Land Commission to acquire land. Certainly, as the Bill stands at present, I can imagine any man on the bench desiring to escape being appointed a judicial commissioner. A greater indignity could not be put upon a person in any judicial office.
Would the Minister explain to us what exactly is the purpose of this reference to the Appeal Tribunal for a purely formal procedure? The next section is comprehensible, because under that you get special leave from the Appeal Tribunal to handle and distribute the land before the purchase price is agreed, but what exactly their functions are under paragraph (e) it is hard to understand.
Mr. Boland
They have got to authorise the Land Commission to resume any land which they have decided to resume.
They have not.
Mr. Boland
On the certificate of the Land Commission. It looks a matter of form. I must say. The fact is that the Lay Commissioners decide.
Now, you are trying to take away from the Appeal Tribunal that function. The way you are doing it is you are authorising the Lay Commissioners to issue a certificate, which shall be conclusive evidence of the facts, and then requiring the Appeal Tribunal, on the issue of that certificate, to purport to give a certificate on facts which have never been before them. At least it behoves the Minister to explain to us what is the purpose of that procedure. Why not drop the reference to the Appeal Tribunal?
Mr. Boland
The last three amendments deal with the same point. The fact is that the Lay Commissioners decide, except on questions of law and price, and then the Appeal Tribunal tries appeals. They have got to authorise the Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission to acquire land.
They can also deal with appeals on price and on questions of law. They are there for a definite purpose of appeal, and for authorising the Land Commission to do what they have given a certificate that they require done.
As the thing now stands, it appears to me that, even where a farmer, say, whose holding is to be resumed had entered his appeal on a question of law, the Lay Commissioners can come along, in spite of the fact that the matter is sub judice, and issue their certificate. Under the wording of the section at the moment, even though the matter is sub judice by reason of the fact that an appeal has been lodged, on a question of law, against the finding of the Lay Commissioners, the Lay Commissioners, can go along and issue their certificate, thus binding the Appeal Tribunal when the matter comes before them. That appears to me to be a point which should be looked into. To my mind, there is nothing in the section which would prevent their doing that.
As far as I understand the section, the position is that when any question of law shall be referred to the Appeal Tribunal they will issue a certificate——
Mr. Lynch
That is not what is in the section.
—but that on a question of fact there will be no appeal to the tribunal. It would not look well if the certificate were issued by two diffierent bodies—the Appeal Tribunal in one case and the Lay Commissioners in another.
Really, there cannot be any mystery about this. It is not as if we were dealing with some ancient tribunal, established in the reign of King John, about which strange and archaic procedure had grown up. I remember instituting the tribunal myself five years ago in this House. What is the reason for this procedure? Somebody must know. I have the fullest sympathy with the Minister. It is hard to cross-question him about obscure legal matters without notice.
But we gave notice here because there is an amendment down inviting him to tell us what is the procedure.
Mr. Boland
The point is that the tribunal is now in the position which the Judicial Commissioner formerly occupied. His certificate was necessary in the past. The certificate of the tribunal is necessary now. But certain powers have been taken from the tribunal. The tribunal has not the powers which the Judicial Commissioner had. There were appeals on law to the Judicial Commissioner, and other things which do not lie with the tribunal. They are in the same position as a judge, minus the right of appeal on facts. We simply have continued the practice of sending the certificate by the Lay Commissioners and requiring, where there is not an appeal on law and price, the tribunal to order the resumption of a holding or acquisition, as the case may be. They are just left there, with certain powers taken from them that were there before—that is the right to have an appeal on any question. That is the explanation.
This, in fact, withdraws appeals on fact from the Appeal Tribunal?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
Let us look at the thing from the start. The Land Commission decide to take land. A person objects and enters a petition. That comes before the Appeal Tribunal, and is decided on the question of law only. The Appeal Tribunal cannot decide anything else, except a question of law.
Mr. Boland
Or price.
When the petition is presented within the prescribed time, or, if presented, is refused, the Lay Commissioners, laymen other than the Appeal Tribunal, certify. The certificate having been given, it is to the effect, "We require the land". Having got that certificate, that is conclusive evidence before the tribunal, and the tribunal must put its imprimatur on it. Is not that the sum and substance of it?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
Is the Judicial Commissioner going to draw a salary for that?
Mr. Boland
He has other questions to decide on law and price.
There is an Appeal Tribunal drawing money when the cost of governing this country is at the peak point. We are proceeding to appoint people and pay them for signing their name, and that is what is termed conclusive evidence, but it is not even prima facie evidence.
Why proceed with the farce of pretending that the Appeal Tribunal has functions which in fact it has not? Why not be honest and say in the Bill that the authority for resumption by the Appeal Tribunal is not necessary at all? That is, in fact, what it means—"On receipt of such certificate, the tribunal shall authorise the resumption of the holding." Why not say that the authorisation of the Appeal Tribunal is not necessary, that the commissioners can do it without reference to the Appeal Tribunal, instead of having this farce that the Appeal Tribunal must, on receipt of a certificate, sign it?
I have not seen any amendment put down to this Bill to abolish the Appeal Tribunal. If Deputies think that the Appeal Tribunal is serving no useful purpose, why did they not put down an amendment to have it abolished? The very people for whom Deputy Cosgrave and other Deputies are appealing would have something to say to that. The Appeal Tribunal certainly affords an opportunity for appeal on price, which Deputy Curran and other Deputies were so anxious about to-day, and some constituents of our own. I have seen on several occasions a fairly wide difference between the price fixed by the Lay Commissioners, in the first instance, and that fixed by the Appeal Tribunal afterwards. On the other hand, we had the experience under the old tribunal that the price fixed by the Lay Commissioners was increased four or five times by the Appeal Tribunal of that day.
When?
From 1926 to 1929.
The Deputy is raising a very wide question.
The Lay Commissioners only came into existence in 1933.
The valuation put on the land by the Land Commission valuers.
You said the Lay Commissioners.
The price fixed by the Judicial Commissioner on appeal afterwards was five times higher than that fixed by the valuers.
Merely because of one sentence uttered by an Opposition Deputy, the Deputy may not initiate a debate on the abolition of the commissioners or the relative prices fixed for land now and in former years.
The suggestion that they were serving no useful function came from the Opposition. I am pointing out one useful function that they serve.
There was only one sentence uttered in that connection and I will not allow a debate to be initiated on the relative virtues of the commissioners and their predecessors.
If they go down to any farmer in the country he will tell you about it very quickly. What happens is that a bunch of Deputies come here with 50 or 60 amendments on one line or another. These amendments are fixed up beforehand, and the moment they are through we have the position that previously existed in which it was absolutely impossible to acquire land.
The question before the House is amendment No. 21, not 50 or 60 other amendments.
Deputy Dillon on the previous amendment made an appeal to us.
Amendment No. 20 has been disposed of.
Then we will have it on the section.
What is the point of appointing Lay Commissioners? Remember, we put two gentlemen seated one on each side of the Judicial Commissioner in order to bring to his aid the valuable assistance of commonsense men. What is the point of putting those two gentlemen there if you are going to withhold from them——
Mr. Boland
They have very important work to do in connection with the question of price.
——if you are going to withhold from them all questions of fact? Surely the Judicial Commissioner is the person who, in fact, rules on points of law.
Mr. Boland
The members of the tribunal.
In fact, it is the Judicial Commissioner who overrules the tribunal in the matter of points of law. I admit that the whole tribunal may advert to the matter of price, but surely the principal function of the lay members of the tribunal should be as reviewers of facts. Having put those two gentlemen there, you take away from them all discretion as to fact. Surely we did not put them there exclusively for the purpose of helping the Judicial Commissioner to fix the price. He was well able to do that before.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported.
Committee to sit again on Tuesday, 20th June.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20th.