Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 1946

Vol. 100 No. 1

Land Bill, 1945—Committee (Resumed).

SECTION 4.

Mr. Hughes

On behalf of Deputy Costello I move amendment No. 12:—

In line 24 to delete the word "whether", and in line 25 to delete the words "before, on or".

I think the Minister understands our point of view, that the law can be made retrospective. We all stand for making the people who have allotments under the Land Commission work their land properly. We are all anxious to ensure that the people will work their land properly. But we feel that we ought not to introduce any new provision and make it retrospective.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moylan)

There is no intention of the Bill having retrospective action in so far as it will mean any punishment for what has been done in the past. But, if I did accept this and the following amendment to the section, the Bill would be quite useless. I am dealing with a number of tenants who are already in possession. I have no intention of punishing them because of what they have done in the past. It is because I want to deal with them in the future in case they transgress again that I must insist on including these particular words which these amendments propose to delete.

Mr. Coogan

Perhaps it would be possible for the Minister to limit the period of time beyond which he will not go back to get after these delinquent tenants. Under the Bill as it is framed, it would be possible for the Minister to go back indefinitely to any period. He can appreciate that, because the Bill says any period before the passing of the Act. The Minister says that he has to get after a certain class of tenants. They probably came in within the past 20 years. Perhaps it would be possible to curtail the effect of the section if he would fix a date beyond which he would not go back.

Mr. Hughes

I think the Minister is right in saying that there is no intention of going back. But we are putting in a new condition for people who have held land for a considerable time. We are introducing a new condition into their agreement that was not there when the agreement was entered into. Once that new condition is provided for in this Bill, the Minister is asking for power to dispossess them if they do not carry out the condition. That is the trouble. We are imposing a new condition on the people which was not in the agreement at the time it was entered into.

Mr. Moylan

I read for the Deputy a few evenings ago the actual contract form made between the tenant and the Land Commission which shows that they did enter into this agreement under a section of the 1923 Act. I said before that this is a limited evil. We have to deal with a certain limited section. It is an evil, but it is limited. I have no desire to pursue all the allottees of the Land Commission, even if it were advisable or possible. There is, however, a certain limited number of tenants who are recent allottees. They may go back as far as 15 years ago. A great number of people got land in the past 15 years. The majority of these have proved to be satisfactory allottees. We have, however, a limited number who have not carried out the terms of the contract entered into by them, which is logically derived from the 1923 Act. I do not wish to go back into anything they have done in the past. What I want them to do is to act up to the terms of their contract in future. If they do not do that, this Bill, when it becomes law, gives me power to deal with them.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister admitted on the last day when we were discussing this matter that he was putting in a new condition. I think the records of the House will show that he admitted there is a new condition.

Mr. Moylan

All right. Perhaps I am not always quite clear on matters. But, again, I point out to Deputy Hughes, without making any debating point, that there is a section of the 1923 Act which sets out the conditions under which these allottees get their land. I read for the Deputy the contract form which they entered into.

Mr. Hughes

It is the interpretation of that in law that is the problem.

Mr. Moylan

It is hard to have two interpretations factually. The difficulty about this is that legally there may be several interpretations. It is to get at the actual facts of the matter rather than the legal interpretation that portions of the Bill are put in. I want again to impress on Deputies that there is no intention of punishing these people for any action in the past. Our whole purpose is to try to get them to fulfil their contract in future, a contract which is implicit in the 1923 Act.

Mr. McMenamin

Could the Minister let us have a copy of the contract these people entered into?

Mr. Hughes

He read it on the last occasion.

Mr. Cogan

I should like to ask why a distinction is drawn between the way in which allottees are dealt with under this section and the way in which they are dealt with under Section 2. Section 2, as I understand it, only applies to allottees whose lands are not vested. As I read this section, it applies to allottees whether the land is vested or not.

Mr. Moylan

We have no power over people who are the owners of vested land.

Mr. Cogan

That does not appear in the section.

Mr. Moylan

We cannot do it.

Mr. Hughes

The moment they are vested, the agreement goes. The people concerned there are those who have an agreement with the Land Commission. When a tenant is vested, his agreement ends.

Mr. Cogan

Why is reference made to unvested land in Section 2 and no reference made to it in Section 4?

Mr. Moylan

The fact is that once land is vested in the tenant the Land Commission have nothing more to do with him. That is quite clear from all the operations of the Acts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.

Mr. Hughes

On behalf of Deputy Costello I move amendment No. 15:—

In line 30, after the word "parcel", to insert the words "and stating briefly the grounds or facts on which such certificate is based", and in line 30 to delete the word "conclusive" and insert the words "prima facie” and to delete the words “for all purposes” in lines 30 and 31.

This amendment is the same as the following amendment in my name and that of Deputy McMenamin, except that Deputy Costello seeks to have set out clearly on the certificate the facts on which the certificate is based. I do not think the Minister could object to that. If you propose to certify that a man is not using his land according to a proper system of husbandry, it is only right and proper that the grounds upon which the certificate is issued should be stated, that he is subletting or setting the land in conacre, as the case may be, so that the man may defend himself.

Mr. Moylan

I do not think so.

Mr. Hughes

Can the Minister say why?

Mr. Moylan

Under the 1923 Act, it is to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that the allottee must carry out his work. If the Land Commission are not satisfied with the way in which an allottee has worked his lands, and so notifies the allottee, and if he makes no amendment of his ways, surely there should be no necessity to go into a long description as to the whys or wherefores.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister has indicated his acceptance of the words "prima facie” instead of “conclusive evidence”. A man has to face a certain charge in court, and I submit that it is only fair that the allegations with regard to his failure to carry out his agreement should be clearly set out. The Land Commission have to prove in court that he has failed to fulfil the terms of his contract if the certificate is to be accepted as prima facie evidence, and we suggest that the certificate should show where the man has failed. If a man is setting his land in conacre, or making grass lettings, or doing anything other than carrying on a system of good husbandry, it should be set out on the certificate. I cannot see what objection there could be to that.

Mr. McMenamin

Surely the Minister will see the justice of it. Any person who brings a charge against another has to specify the charge. Can it not be easily specified in this case —whether he has refused to cultivate his land or to till the proper acreage assigned to him? The Minister is aware that in a huge establishment like the Land Commission, with 300 estates vested in one office in a central place like Dublin, which has to operate exclusively through its officers, there are bound to be officers who are, perhaps, cranks, and who will differ in their opinions of what is and what is not proper husbandry. Surely it is a simple matter, if one of the Land Commission officers makes a charge against A. B. that he is not working his farm on the basis of good husbandry, to specify how and why he is not doing so. It could be done in two or three lines, and we suggest that, when a man is being dispossessed, the charge against him should be specified. The Land Commission, as I say, must work through officers scattered all over the country, whose opinions on these matters will differ almost as much as day differs from night, and it would be very wise to get a detailed report from these men and to embody it in the charge. Is that not a just arrangement? We have no object other than to make this as workable as possible.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister must not forget that, having accepted my amendment, the charge has to be proved in court.

Mr. Moylan

The items in the contract are not so many that there need be any difficulty in understanding the charge. An inspector makes an examination of a particular piece of land and reports on it. Whether or not he is a crank does not arise, because it is not one inspector who makes the examination, but several inspectors, and all their examinations and reports have to be checked and rechecked by the senior inspectors before finally coming to the Land Commission, and it is only on the initiative of the Land Commission that any action is taken. We go into court and we offer our certificate as prima facie evidence on the question of a breach of the contract into which a man has entered. He knows what his contract is. It does not contain many clauses. It is his job to prove that the evidence we offer to the court is untrue. That seems to me to be the obligation of the allottee and not of the Land Commission.

Mr. McMenamin

I am not prepared at the moment to say that a certificate by the Minister merely thrown into court brings the matter into court at all. My opinion would be that it does not. If the offence is in the form of a statutory offence, in order to comply with the statute the charge will have to set forth the facts in respect of which the statute has been contravened. I am afraid the Minister will find that that is so, and that a district justice would say: "You have not brought yourself into court because a charge in relation to a statutory offence has to set forth the facts on which it is alleged there was a violation of the statute." I feel that it should be quite unnecessary to plead this case, but I warn the Minister that, in my opinion, he will have to set forth the facts before he brings himself into court at all. Would it not be wise to take that precaution here, by showing on the certificate how and why an allottee has failed to work his land according to a system of good husbandry? Why quarrel about a simple thing like that?

Mr. Moylan

I have indicated that I am accepting Deputy Hughes's amendment. He seemed to be quite satisfied that, in getting his amendment accepted, he was meeting the case. I do not see how I can go any further to meet the Opposition's views.

Mr. Hughes

Surely the Minister appreciates that Deputy Costello had a right to put in his amendment, and seek to go further? He has a legal mind and I have not. He wanted to have set out in the certificate the grounds on which a charge is made. The Land Commission has to make a charge, and specify it, and prove in court where a man failed to carry out his agreement. That has to be done, now that the Minister has accepted the words "prima facie”. I do not see why the Minister should object to having the reason set out briefly on the certificate.

Mr. Coogan

The certificate as produced in court will be in general terms, that the holder has failed to work his farm in accordance with good husbandry. That is all the certificate will contain, according to Section 4. But what Deputy Costello had in mind was that there will be at least five or six specific grounds upon which such a certificate may be made. It may be a breach of the condition to reside on the farm, or of the condition prohibiting subletting in conacre, or so on. All he is asking is that, in addition to the general certificate, the specific breach of condition will be mentioned. Then the aggrieved party would know straightway the case he has to meet, without having to consider any one of the number of cases he might have to meet in court. I think it would help to shorten the proceedings if the Minister would agree to set out, in addition to the general terms, the specific breach complained of. I do not see that there should be any objection to that course, which would make it clearer for both parties and help to shorten the proceedings.

Mr. McMenamin

In addition, the court would see on the face of the certificate what is before it.

Mr. Moylan

The Opposition agrees entirely with me that there is an evil which must be dealt with and, having got that far, is it not reasonable for everyone to suppose that the allottee being brought into court knows exactly what breach he has committed?

Mr. McMenamin

He may not.

Mr. Moylan

He is notified by the Land Commission not once but many times. Most of these people have been notified many times over past years of the particular breach of the contract they have committed. There is no intention of tricking these people in any way, no intention of keeping secret from them any piece of information which might be helpful to them. The terms of their contract are not wide: they are clear and specific and there is no great difficulty in understanding them. After long discussion with the leaders of the Opposition in conference, this question of the acceptance of the words "prima facie” was urged on me and, after much misgiving, I accepted those words. I have gone a long way from my original intention to seek very drastic powers to deal with this particular evil in the interests of individual liberty and democracy and I ought not be asked to go any further. We are being quite fair to these people, giving them every opportunity, bringing them even into court as a last resort, and accepting even then the amendment of the Opposition moved on their behalf. I do not see how we can be asked to go any further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hughes

I move amendment No. 16:—

In line 30 to delete the word "conclusive" and substitute therefor the words "prima facie”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 17 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Cogan

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the point I raised before. In both the proceding sections there is a clause which ensures that the sections do not apply to vested land, but there is no such clause in this section. There is no reference here to whether the land is vested or not. I think that any court would assume that this section would apply to vested land, unless there is such a clause or phrase introduced. In section 3 (b) you have the words "the purchaser makes, on or after the operative date and before the holding or parcel is vested in him...", but there is no such phrase used in Section 4. I think that is an omission which should be made good.

Mr. Moylan

The words in Section 3 (a) make the statement quite specific: "until the holding or parcel is vested in him". Once the holding or parcel is vested in him, he can no longer be disturbed. It is used in an exclusive fashion here. If the Land Commission had any power before, it entirely relinquishes it after the vesting takes place.

Mr. Cogan

I would say that the same words should be included in Section 4 after the words "operative date".

Mr. Moylan

I do not think so. The general practice of the Land Commission is quite clear.

Mr. Hughes

In Section 4 "where an agreement or undertaking to purchase a holding or parcel of land from the Land Commission..." is given. Purchase does not take place until the holding is vested, so that the agreement is operative up to the time of vesting. Once the land is vested, the agreement ends.

Mr. Moylan

And purchase is different from agreement to purchase.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Hughes

I move amendment No. 18:—

Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—

None of the provisions contained in this Act shall apply to a purchaser or allottee where the Land Commission has after a period of seven years failed to vest the holding or allotment in the purchaser.

As far as I know, the Land Commission have promised to invest a holding in an allottee after a period of seven years. It is generally understood that the probationary period is seven years. The reason which prompted me to put down this amendment is that the Land Commission have failed to carry out their undertaking—a verbal one, I admit—to do so. Because of the shocking condition of the Land Commission as far as vesting is concerned, I say that, if they are going to pillory an individual for failure to carry out an agreement, there is no reason why this House should allow the Land Commission to go scot free where they have failed to carry out their promise to vest. In the case even of a verbal promise of that sort which has not been fulfilled, the allottees who have held land over seven years should not come under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I want to express my disapproval of this amendment. To my mind, it would result in defeating the whole purpose of this Bill, if the Minister's hand is to be tied and he is not to be in a position to compel people to live up to the responsibilities which they undertake when first appointed as allottees.

Mr. Moylan

Jacob waited seven years for Rachel and then, I understand, they pawned off another dame on him. I am not aware that there ever was a specific promise made that the land would be vested in the allottee after seven years. If there was any promise, it was that it would not be vested in him inside seven years. Vesting is a very difficult proposition. It is very slow.

Mr. Hughes

It is, indeed, very slow.

Mr. Moylan

It takes a good deal of time and the period may go even as far as 20 years. There is a belief among these people who do not wish to carry out their duties on the land that if they can hold the land for seven years they will be automatically vested and then they will have an opportunity of cashing-in on the land. It is that particular thing that the section is meant to deal with. Many of the people with whom we wish to deal under the Bill are people who have been more than seven years on the land and they have remained unvested, and they must remain unvested, because they are not carrying out the terms of their contract. I must oppose this amendment.

Mr. McMenamin

The Minister says that vesting is a very slow process. What should be slow about it in the case of land given to allottees? All the inspections and all the engineering works have been done already by the Land Commission before they take over possession from the person from whom they acquired the land. It is only a question of giving a certain number of acres to an allottee. All the engineering problems already have been disposed of. Is that not the practice? The Land Commission have had a good deal of experience in the administration of these matters and I think that where a good allottee is selected and where he carries on satisfactorily for a period of five or six or seven years—the period should be fairly short—then at the earliest moment the holding should be vested in him in order to give him that confidence that a person who occupies land should have. Once the holding is vested in him, he and his family will be in a position to buckle into it, make a good job of it, drain it and improve it in various ways. By the force of his work and ability, and with plenty of farmyard manure, he will be laying the foundation of a good, prosperous home. Where that can be done, it ought to be done at the earliest moment.

This practice of holding on to land for a number of years is bad in principle. It is a wrong procedure, in my opinion. I would rather see a provision inserted so that where allottees are found to be bad tenants, even after the holdings are vested in them, they should be put out, than that they should be allowed to block the progress of good tenants, good men and women, with their sons and daughters, who are glad to get land and glad to have an opportunity of improving it. Those people who prove they are worthy of getting a holding and who make a good job of it and make a decent livelihood out of it, should be encouraged. The sooner these people are firmly planted on the land the better for themselves and the better for the State.

We should like to have the Minister's views on this matter. Is he going to hold up all the good people who want to be firmly established on the land, simply because there are numbers of people, limited numbers, who are only anxious to get land with the intention, the moment they get it, that they will sell it and make money? I would prefer if we prepared some machinery adequate to deal with such people at any period sooner than that we should keep in mid-air, as it were, for a long number of years, the good people, the people who are good from the point of view of being deserving allottees. I think it would be unfortunate to vest the land in those who have no intention of making a good job of it. Such a practice would not, in my opinion, tend to achieve the end that we all have in view when we are imposing taxation in order to provide land for these people.

Mr. Cogan

I think this amendment raises a very important point. There was a general assumption, if there was not a definite agreement, that land would be vested in an allottee after seven years. The allottee who took land from the Land Commission on the assumption that it would be vested in him after seven years must have a very definite grievance if that is not done. In addition to that, the position in regard to the future will require to be cleared up because if, as the Minister says, it is now the policy of the Land Commission not to vest land and to hold that refusal to vest land as a kind of threat over the heads of allottees, I think a very irregular position will arise. It may happen that some people will secure the vesting of their land after seven years, as they did in the past, and others may be victimised. There must be one law for everybody. We cannot have one allottee coming in on a holding and, because he is able to pull strings, getting that holding vested inside seven years, while another allottee may be kept hanging on for 20 or 25 years.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Will you vest the failure the same as the man who succeeds?

Mr. Cogan

That is a very important point. That is constituting the Land Commission as a sort of judicial tribunal to try citizens and impose penalties on those who, in the opinion of the Departmental chiefs, have failed to carry out their duties. There is a very big principle involved there, because you are defeating the whole object achieved by the acceptance of Deputy Hughes' amendment. You are giving an additional power to the Land Commission which, heretofore, it was generally assumed they did not possess; that is, the power to hold up the vesting of land indefinitely, or until they were satisfied with the allottee, and, on the other hand, they could at any time, as they did in the past, vest land in people who had no intention of working it, but merely got it in order to sell it.

Mr. Kennedy

Since I came into this House I have protested on every occasion against this rule of vesting land after a period of seven years. Since the Land Commission started operations—I dealt with this on the Second Reading—all over the Midlands there were farms given to people who never put a goat on them and never tilled an acre. These people let their lands all the time. Unfortunately, in Meath, Westmeath and Longford, these farms were vested in these people, and in many instances the moment they were vested they were sold again, and new ranches were created. In my opinion, there should not be vesting for at least 20 years, or until such time as the incoming tenant has proved himself a good farmer, a man capable of carrying on good husbandry. I am against this amendment.

Mr. Hughes

When I submitted this amendment I merely wanted to get the Minister's views. I do not agree with Deputy Kennedy's viewpoint. I think a period of seven years ought to be quite sufficient. If a man is put on trial, the Land Commission ought to be capable of determining in a period of seven years if he is a fit and proper person to own that parcel of land. This Party does not stand for putting people into holdings if they are not capable of working them properly. We do not approve of putting in people who will abuse the land. We are all for efficiency on the land and for justice and fair play in the matter of selecting tenants.

There is one aspect of this matter that Deputy Kennedy overlooks. As the Minister says, they are not all bad tenants. The men who have proved worthy of getting a holding, the men who have proved themselves entitled to become the owners of their parcels of land, who are quite prepared to borrow, if necessary, in order to improve their holdings, should receive every encouragement. I do not propose to press the amendment. I merely put it down for the purpose of drawing the Minister, as it were, so that he may give the House his views on the subject of vesting. It is a very big problem, and it wants to be handled carefully. Whatever vesting has been done in the country, it has been well done, but surely there is no excuse for expediting vesting in the case of failures? There is a big number of people, apart from allottees, who are not vested, and that problem has been hanging over for years.

I did not think the Minister was going to deny that verbal understanding to which reference was made. I will not say there was a promise or an undertaking, but anyway there was an understanding generally given when an estate was divided that allottees might expect to have their parcels vested at the end of seven years. Instead of denying that, I thought the Minister might tell us what the problem was, so far as vesting is concerned; that he might give some undertaking to the House to have the whole question of the vesting of a very big number of people expedited, and that he intended to provide the necessary machinery to do that within a reasonable period.

Mr. O'Donnell

What exactly is a squatter's title? How long can a man be in possession of land before he becomes a squatter?

Mr. Moylan

In reply to Deputy Hughes, if a thing is not correct, is it not just as well to deny the fact that it is not correct? I am not aware of any specific promise of any kind to allottees that they would be vested in seven years.

Mr. Hughes

Surely the Minister admits that that was the view on all sides. Otherwise, how did the period of seven years arise?

Mr. Moylan

I cannot account for the sense of humour of the Deputy. The Land Commission is quite alive to the necessity of swift vesting, and there was a special section set up in recent years for the purpose of dealing with vesting. It must be remembered that during the past six years it was impossible to do anything, because most of our inspectors were with other Departments during the war. Even though Deputy McMenamin thinks it a very simple matter, it is far from being simple. There has to be a complete examination of every piece of land before it can be vested. As Deputies know, nothing is so litigious as the question of tenure. The Land Commission has set up a special section which is working solely on the question of vesting. Deputies can be sure about this, that vesting is taken in order. No particular allottee is taken out of the line of order, except to some extent.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister must have a very short memory.

Mr. Moylan

I have a very clear memory. I am quite aware of what Deputy Hughes has in mind, but the few cases that he has in mind hardly make a rule. They were very very meagre cases.

Mr. Hughes

They make one very suspicious.

Mr. Moylan

Vesting will be carried out definitely and in due order. Cases will not be taken out of their due order for anybody. Deputies from every Party have approached me and asked me to take particular cases out of order. Recently Deputies from a number of Parties came to me about the vesting of one particular allottee on an estate, and I told them that it could not be done. They came back a week later and told me that two neighbouring allottees had in the meantime been vested, without having asked. It seems to me that the Land Commission knew a great deal more about vesting on that estate than the Deputies who came to ask about having the other man vested. A man may be in a holding seven years under present conditions without being vested. Because of our difficulty with the law in getting the question of fact decided we have been unable to get rid of men, even though they let the land, did not live in the houses and did not do a stroke of work. That type is hopeful that after seven years the Land Commission will vest the holding and then, as Deputy Cogan knows, the Land Commission will have no further control and they may sell the land. Deputy McMenamin, while, on the one hand, he is completely at one with us in desiring to deal with intransigent tenants, on the other hand, is trying to prove that these are worthy people who are adversely affected by an act of the Land Commission. This Bill is intended to deal with people who have broken their contract. It is not intended as a punishment. All it asks is that they should go along the right road in future. We want power from the Dáil to deal with that position. The question of vesting is a slow process, but it has been very much speeded up in the last 12 months and will, I believe, be speeded up more in future, particularly for people who will not be bringing in Deputies to ask the Land Commission, for ulterior motives, to have them vested.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister seems to be shifting between two grounds. He is claiming first that he will refuse to vest any land where the tenant has not done his work satisfactorily, and he is defending himself also on the ground that vesting is a tedious process. I think the Minister should come down on one side of the fence or the other. If he takes his stand on the ground that vesting is so tedious and that there are probably greater delays on some estates than on others, there may be a great deal of justice in that, as between one allottee and another. An allottee who is, probably, unsatisfactory may succeed in getting his land vested, and thus escape completely from the control of the Land Commission, but another allottee, because of legal difficulties, may fail to have his land vested, and he is, therefore, penalised while his neighbour escapes simply through a fluke, so to speak, in legislation. The whole matter should be cleared up and there should be a definite form of vesting. If the Minister desires a probationary period there ought to be a probationary period for allottees. Let us not have one law for one allottee and another law for another allottee. I know estates on which some holdings have been vested while others have not. There does not seem to be any reason for such a distinction. I think it is three years since some of these holdings were vested but the remainder have not yet been vested. It seems peculiar that the legal difficulties cannot be got over.

Mr. Kennedy

I never knew of an allottee in the Midlands who went to live in the house that was built for him and who had live stock on the holding, who refused to work the land. It is a wrong contention to suggest that there are any penalties imposed. I do not see where any wrong has been done to these tenants.

Captain Giles

I intend to support the amendment. I am one of the few materially concerned with vesting. I am on a farm on an estate in County Meath and after 20 years there is no sign of its being vested. The Minister stated that these cases were taken in rotation. I should like to be clear if that means that it will take 20 years to vest land. The allottees on the estate I refer to are good allottees, men who are doing well. I know that if allottees go to a bank, the fact that they are not vested tells against them, as they will not get an advance to work their holdings.

Many small farmers, including myself, are anxious to acquire land when four or five or ten acres are put up for sale, adjacent to our holdings. We find that we cannot go to the bank and get the money. We have to let these small farms go for want of credit. I do agree that there should be a fixed period and I think seven or eight years is long enough. The Minister will know whether a man is bad or good after seven years. Deputy Kennedy said he would not vest within a period of 20 years. If he were in the same position as I am, he would be glad to seek the ear of the Minister and try to have the land vested. I think it should be done because, if land is not vested for 20 years, it means that very little improvement will be made in it. From the moment the land is vested, the owner is a free man with title to his holding and can go to the bank and get credit. A man on a small holding requires credit and he must have a title to his holding in order to secure credit. It is the ambition of every ordinary man to make reasonable progress and to extend his holding, if at all possible. In my case I cannot do that. I have been waiting 20 years for vesting and I work my land at all times in perfect husbandry. Every inspector of the Land Commission who has called on me has said it is one of the best worked holdings, not only in Meath, but in Ireland. That is not just boasting. I am in the happy position that I like work and I work hard and have a good holding. The Minister said they are being taken in rotation. There must be something wrong, if any vesting has been done for the last 20 years, that we are being left in the lurch. Deputy Kennedy said that bad tenants should not be vested. My opinion is that tenants, bad or good, should be vested after seven years. If the land is not taken from them it should be vested and let them sell it.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

After taking in the cash?

Captain Giles

Let them.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Why should they?

Captain Giles

After seven years on the holding, I would vest the land in him and if he is no good let him cash-in. The Land Commission will not let the big ranchers have the farms. Let those who can buy the land. A small farmer's son will come in and work the holding to the advantage of the State. If a man has had the holding for ten years, whether he is good or bad, it should be vested in him and let him sell it and get out and let a good man into it.

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy Gile's statements have induced me to speak on this matter. If the Minister takes the advice that people who get land from the State, whether they make a success of it or not, should have the land vested in them and should be given power to sell that land, which means giving them a present of £300 or £400, or sometimes £700, at the cost of the State, he will be doing the worst thing he ever did in his life. I come from the West of Ireland where, naturally, land division is a very important subject. It is a matter of regret to see some of the people who get a holding or an addition to their holding and who do not make good use of it when you consider that, because of the scarcity of land, people who would work it cannot get it. It would be disgraceful to allow the vesting of land in these people who will not work it and to allow them to do what they like with the land, perhaps to sell it and then to look for land again. I have known cases like that. They have the cheek to come along and approach the Land Commission again. I know a case where it was successful, where they got land again. That case, of course, was the exception. It is my view that people who got land got it at the expense of this State. They got a present of it. They got it on condition that they would work it well for their own benefit and for the benefit of the State and, after a certain number of years, if they do not prove successful, the land should be taken from them and given to people who would work it for the benefit of themselves and of the State.

An Ceann Comhairle

We might get back to the amendment. The debate has spread out to the general question of vesting. The amendment before the House is amendment No. 18 on the Order Paper and not the general question of vesting. Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Mr. Hughes

As I have already explained, I put down this amendment for the purpose of getting the Minister's views on this question of vesting. I am surprised at Deputy Kennedy. In this country we set a very high value on the right of ownership. Our land system is different from that of most other countries. We appreciate that the British system and the Scottish system are completely different from ours. The fight that was fought by the people who went before us for the right of ownership in this country has enhanced the value of land. I do not know whether it has been advantageous in the long run or not. There may be differences of opinion on that. The Irish farmer feels, however, that he has a right to own his land and I think that is a fair claim. I am in entire agreement with the Minister and with those Deputies who have expressed the view that it is not in the national interest to settle on land people who are unsuitable and who will not work the land efficiently and according to methods of good husbandry. We cannot afford that sort of thing. I submit that the man who has proved efficient and who has made good is entitled to his own land and, until he owns his land, he is not sure whether he is justified in spending money on it and improving it generally. Once he can claim ownership, it is an inducement to him to spend money and, because it is his own property, he can raise capital on it, if necessary, wherewith to improve the holding. That is an important matter. The Minister has admitted it. I think the Minister appreciates the necessity of pressing forward the whole question of vesting. The Ceann Comhairle has very generously permitted us to wander a little outside the amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy need stray no further.

Mr. Hughes

I do not propose to stray any further. With your permission, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hughes

I move amendment No. 19:—

To delete sub-section (2).

Mr. Coogan

Deputy Costello's amendment, No. 20, is similar.

Mr. Hughes

Deputy Costello's amendment is practically the same. This sub-section which it is proposed to delete has retrospective effect. We are opposed to retrospective legislation. The Minister here is attempting to nullify the effect of an agreement entered into before the introduction of this Bill. I do not think that is fair. Whatever we do, the Minister has denied up to this that he had any intention to make this measure retrospective in effect. In regard to this particular section he cannot deny that he is trying to make it retrospective. I appeal to his sense of fair play. This sub-section can only affect very few cases and is it worth while, I put it to him, in the case of the very few that may be affected, to make the section retrospective?

Mr. Moylan

I do not blame the Deputy for not being quite clear, because I was not quite clear myself. It is a legal matter. It really is for the protection of the occupier. It has nothing to do with the Land Commission. This is to have assured to the occupier that the law in relation to devolution shall be the same in regard to land as in regard to everything else. It is really for the protection of the occupier, or his heir.

Mr. Hughes

Get down to the amendment.

Mr. Coogan

There is more than that in it. Take the principle of devolution. Sub-section (2) refers back to agreements and undertakings to purchase parcels of untenanted land made and deaths which occurred before the passing of this Act. I have in mind disposition of land that may have been made, say, by a widow, under the Intestate Estates Act, or an heir-in-law and I am not clear at all in my mind as to what the effect of this retrospective provision in sub-section (2) will be in relation to such dispositions. There may not be a great number of cases but it is quite on the cards that certain Acts now may be reviewed in the light of this sub-section and that dispositions which were lawful when made may become unlawful as a result of this provision. I should like to hear more from the Minister as to what particular cases they had in mind because you are equating now the position of these people to that of tenant purchasers under Part IV of the Registration of Title Act, 1891, and the descent will be to the personal representative, as if the land were a chattel real. I am afraid that sub-section (2) may create a certain amount of confusion because of its retrospective effect.

Mr. Moylan

This section deals with the devolution of parcels on the death of allottees. It is intended to remove a doubt which the lawyers believe to exist in connection with the devolution of certain parcels of land allotted by the Land Commission. The doubt exists only in regard to parcels which at the date of allotment were not registered in the Land Registry and, therefore, not subject to the provisions of Part IV of the Registration of Title Act, 1891, regarding devolution. The position is that, after vesting, all parcels, and, before vesting, those parcels which at the time of allotment are subject to the provisions of Part IV of the 1891 Act, devolve, as it is technically termed, as chattels real, that is they pass on the allottee's death to his personal representative for, broadly speaking, the benefit of the next of kin if the allottee died intestate, or for the benefit of the devisee if the allottee died testate. Section 5 is designed to ensure that the remaining parcels (i.e., those not subject to Part IV at the time of allotment) shall devolve in the same way. The Land Commission have in fact so far regarded these parcels as so devolving. Section 32 (4) of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, was enacted to rectify an anomaly of an analogous nature in relation to purchasing tenants.

The clause will ensure that the Land Commission are satisfied as to their powers to appoint limited administrators in respect of all classes of deceased purchasers and to deal with such administrators as entitled to the interest of the deceased purchasers and to vest the parcels in such administrators. As very many parcels have been vested in personal representatives sub-section (2) makes this section retrospective for the validation of such of those vestings as would come within the doubtful category mentioned. Deputy Hughes has, however, suggested the deletion of sub-section (2) altogether and Deputy Costello advocates the deletion in sub-section (2), line 42, of all words after the word "occurred" down to and including the word "occurring" in line 45. Both of these amendments have the same aim—to render inoperative the retrospective effect of the section. Their belief apparently is that the sub-section may upset past titles. So far as the Land Commission are aware the devolution of parcels of unregistered land on the personal representatives of deceased allottees has never up to recently been questioned by anyone and the commission have acted on the assumption that these parcels of unregistered land did so descend; so far from unsettling past titles, the section would settle and confirm them. The point at issue is purely a legal one and the Land Commission are acting on legal advice and are satisfied that no person will be damnified by the provisions of the section. It is a legal matter which I cannot explain any better, but it really is for the protection of the occupier, his heirs and successors.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 20 not moved.

Section put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 21,22 and 23 to this section hang together, and a decision will be taken on one.

Mr. Hughes

I move amendment No. 21 which stands in the name of Deputy Dillon:—

In sub-section (1), line 54, to delete the words "assign, transfer".

Perhaps the Minister will tell the House why it is necessary to have this section in the Bill. Has not the Land Commission got the power already to prevent an allottee from assigning or transferring his allotment?

Mr. Moylan

Section 23 of the Land Act of 1939 deals with this matter. That section was found to be defective. The purpose of this section is to prevent the division of a holding to which the Land Commission has added a portion of an allotment to make the holding economic. That is the whole point. The section in the Land Act of 1939 was found to be defective and therefore we are inserting this section here.

Mr. Hughes

Surely under the law as it stands an allottee cannot sell an allotment without the consent of the Land Commission?

Mr. Moylan

That is not correct. As I say, the section in the Land Act of 1939 is defective. It is not sufficiently certain for our purpose. Therefore, we want to make it certain.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Hughes

If we set up a Department to attack this problem of uneconomic holdings and, in doing that, provide an allotment for the purpose of making a holding economic, if you allow the tenant in that case to sell the allotment you are creating a double problem where originally there was only one, because you are creating two uneconomic holdings. Once a holding is made economic, and before consolidation takes place, the question of vesting arises. If the allotment was vested and both places consolidated, this question could not arise at all.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is an amendment by Deputy Heskin to this section which is out of order.

Amendment No. 24 not moved.

Section put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 25 not moved.

Section 9, Schedule and Title put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Hughes

I wonder would the Minister inform the House whether he has considered putting in the amendment that he promised to look into, namely, a definition of "residence".

Mr. Moylan

I am considering that and will let the Deputy know.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, March 27th.