Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 1949

Vol. 118 No. 7

Land Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

I move:—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

This Bill covers several matters which have an important bearing on the progress of land settlement. First of all, there is the question of the price of acquired land. Some months ago, when we were discussing a Private Land Bill, I told the House that the Government fully agreed with the principle of paying market value for acquired land. Section 5 of this Land Bill covers this very point. Deputies will recall that much criticism was aimed at the divergent statutory provisions which have regulated the fixing of prices for land taken over by the Land Commission— from fee-simple owners on the one hand and from tenants on the other hand. In the case of tenants, the Land Commission have been always obliged to fix compensation at the market value. But in the case of owners, the law says that, in fixing the price.

"regard shall be had to the fair value of the land to the owner and the Land Commission respectively".

This existing statutory basis for fixing the price of land acquired from owners has been operated by the Land Commission with the fullest possible sympathy towards owners. Indeed, only a very small number of cases of serious dissatisfaction with prices fixed by the Land Commission has arisen during the entire period since 1923. But the fact remains that the statutes have expressly conceded "market value" in the case of tenants and have not, heretofore, conceded it in the case of owners, and this distinction is a fertile ground for the growth of a sense of grievance. Section 5 of this Bill proposes "market value" for owners, with the object of removing this sense of grievance.

Section 7 of the Bill proposes the removal of another cause of grievance and dissatisfaction to owners of land acquired by the Land Commission. Under present law, they are obliged to redeem any purchase annuities on acquired land. This requirement occasionally makes a big hole in a purchase money. Tenants whose land is resumed have not to redeem purchase annuities and this further distinction between tenants and owners under the existing law has led to additional criticism and grievance. Section 7 of the Bill proposes to put an end to this trouble.

In short, Sections 5 and 7, coupled with the existing Acts, will place owners and tenants whose lands must necessarily be taken over in the interests of the country in the very same position as regards compensation and will guarantee to both classes a just price based on market value.

Until these new provisions come into operation there may possibly be some delay in price fixation by the Land Commission. I trust that the Bill will be enacted as quickly as possible, so that any inevitable delay will be short and that the Land Commission's programme will not be disrupted.

The next important matter in the Bill is the reorganisation of the Land Commission. As Deputies are well aware, the commission is charged with difficult and contentious responsibilities. It cannot avoid disturbing the interests of certain landowners. Then it is faced with so many applications for allotments and improvements, etc, that only a small percentage can be satisfied. In fulfilling its responsibilities, the commission must inevitably reject or fail to satisfy many applicants; and it is no wonder that its operations give rise to so many criticisms and complaints. I have had considerable experience of the Land Commission's activities from within and without the Department. The more experience I have gained the more I am convinced that the Departmental structure generally, with its complementary responsibilities of Minister and Land Commission, respectively, is the best type of organisation that can be set up for the work that to be performed.

As a result of many year's operations under the Land Acts, the Land Commission have dealt with the greater part of the land of the country but there still remain some 100,000 holdings and allotments to be vested. Approximately two-thirds of these are relatively straightforward and these straightforward cases are being cleared at present at the rate of 14,000 holdings a year. The remaining cases are much more difficult; they comprise about 30,000 holdings of congests awaiting rearrangement, enlargement or improvement by the Land Commission before they can be vested in the tenants. The vesting of the straightforward cases will take several years' hard work to accomplish. The more difficult work on the 30,000 congests' holdings will naturally be even more tedious. It is my aim as Minister to press on with the relief of this acute congestion as quickly as the resources of the State will permit. These genuine congests will not be neglected, but all possible action will be taken by way of land settlement schemes and other measures to improve their lot.

I need scarcely remind the House that since 1933 the Minister for Lands appears to have had a statutory control, in so far as he should think proper to exercise such control, in respect of the Land Commission's operations and decisions in all matters apart from the excepted matters specifically laid down in Section 6 of the Land Act, 1933. The excepted matters under that Act were confined to transactions impinging on the acquisition and allotment of land. The commissioners, in deciding whose land will be acquired, or who will be allotted land, or what price must be paid, or whether a particular landholder has worked his land properly, have remained completely independent of the Minister. These are very improtant functions which should in the public interest be divorced from the domain of everyday politics. The Government has no desire to restrict or curtail the independence of the commissioners in those and other analogous matters. In fact, the opposite is the case, as Deputies can see from Section 10 of the Bill which proposes to extend the commissioners' independent authority to several land-purchase matters which, heretofore, appear to have been within the statutory control of the Minister for Lands, in so far as he thought proper to exercise such control.

There is just one exception, and that arises out of the practical difficulties and inescapable delays associated with the rearrangement of rundale holdings under present methods. Experience has shown, and Deputies will not need to be told, that the success of rearrangement schemes for such holdings depends upon the speedy implementation of the schemes after the tenants have accepted the proposals in general form. This result can best be achieved by entrusting the conclusion of the details of the rearrangement schemes on the spot to the local senior inspector of the Land Commission. This would necessitate the exclusion of these rearrangement schemes from the excepted matters prescribed in the Land Act, 1933, and this exclusion is proposed in Section 10. For these rearrangement schemes, however, the commissioners would, as at present, first fix the general outline of each scheme by sanctioning the money to be spent on improvement works and by determining the total purchase money to be charged for the new holdings.

Experience has also shown up another defect in the provisions of the Land Act, 1933, governing the relationship between the Minister and lay commissioners. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of that Act obviously set out to give the Minister for Lands such full authority and responsibility in all non-excepted matters as he wished to have and to exercise in respect of them but it failed, in its operation, to attain that objective. All the Land Act, 1933, achieved in this respect was to give the Minister for Lands a power of direction and veto over the lay commissioners in non-excepted matters. The statutory functions under the Land Acts remained vested in the lay commissioners and the Minister himself could perform none of them, whether important or trivial, except through the agency of the lay commissioners. While the Act obviously was intended to give the Minister such responsibility and control as he wished to have and to exercise in all non-excepted matters, it omitted to give him the power of direct action. This strange position appears to have resulted through inadvertence. The present Bill sets out to correct this defect in the Land Act, 1933, by giving the Minister power to perform functions in non-execepted matters, in his own right—if necessary through the agency of the permanent officials of his Department who are answerable to him, and for whom he will have to answer on all occasions to this House.

Since 1934, the Land Commission has consisted of a High Court judge (known as the Judicial Commissioner) and six lay commissioners. The present volume of work does not justify that number of lay commissioners and four would be quite sufficient if appeals were left for decision to a tribunal consisting of the judge, alone, as was the position for many years prior to 1934. Since that year, appeals have been heard and decided by an appeal tribunal which consists of the Judicial Commissioner and two lay commissioners, but the number of appeals etc. has declined very much since the appeal tribunal was originally set up. For the years from 1934 to 1938 the number of appeals and applications to the tribunal averaged 470 a year but the corresponding figure for the last four years was only about 47 a year—representing a reduction of 90 per cent. This very serious decline in the volume of work of the appeal tribunal has raised the question of the performance of alternative functions by the lay commissioners nominated to the appeal tribunal but no satisfactory solution can be found except by making it possible for these lay commissioners to engage in the ordinary appealable functions of the commission. To make the position quite clear, I should explain that appeals can legally be taken to the appeal tribunal by aggrieved parties in almost all important land-purchase matters but naturally enough the number of appeals taken is limited. While the right of appeal remains, the lay commissioners nominated to the appeal tribunal cannot touch any of these appealable matters unless and until an appeal arises. This very fact debars them at present from most of the day-to-day work of the commission and the only feasible solution is to withdraw the two lay commissioners from the appeal tribunal so that they can deal with the ordinary work. Section 12 of the Bill makes provision accordingly.

The present opportunity is also taken of prescribing retiring ages of lay commissioners, as this has not been done heretofore. It is proposed to suppress the posts of two lay commissioners who have passed 71 years of age, and compensation will be payable in these two cases. The other four lay commissioners will retire at 72 years of age, which is the retiring age for Circuit Court judges appointed before 1947, but future lay commissioners will retire at 65 years of age in conformity with general Civil Service practice. It is also proposed to fix the maximum number of lay commissioners for the future at four.

The remaining sections of the Bill deal with minor aspects of land law and land settlement operations, and for convenience they can be subdivided into two groups.

The first group consists of six sections which propose additional powers for the Land Commission. These powers are necessary to overcome difficulties which have arisen. Among these sections is Section 23 which proposes that the Land Commission be empowered to buy land which may come on the market for sale by auction or private treaty. The ordinary processes of acquisition, resumption, and purchase for Land Bonds, which have been in force during the past 25 years, will still continue in full operation, but under these procedures it is almost impossible to get holdings of convenient size which are equipped with dwellings, outoffices, fences, pumps and so on, and which are ready for immediate allotment as new holdings. At present the erection of buildings takes a very considerable time and involves very heavy expenditure. I am confident that judicious use by the Land Commission of the power proposed in Section 23 would lead to the saving of time and money and would be of substantial and immediate help towards the relief of acute congestion.

Another new power proposed for the Land Commission is the power in Section 25 to pay gratuities to herds and labourers who lose employment when estates are divided. The number of such persons is comparatively small and in many cases the discharged employee will be found suitable as an allottee and will be given an allotment of land. At present an allotment is the only form of compensation that can be given to any such person and many allottees in this class who were given allotments in former years have proved themselves quite unsatisfactory. The allotments, in fact, have been wasted on them. By getting the power to pay gratuities as proposed in Section 25, the Land Commission would be able to save valuable land for those most in need of it and most likely to work it properly, that is, the class of small farmer whose holding is uneconomic and who cannot hope to enlarge his holding without the assistance of the Land Commission.

Other sections in this group are Sections 16, 21 and 22. Section 21 proposes additional powers for the Land Commission to partition commonages. These powers are necessary so that difficulties arising in the afforestation programme may be overcome. Sections 16 and 22 deal with some unredeemed fee farm rents and mortgage payments which are being debarred from the benefits of previous Land Acts through mere technicalities. I propose to deal at greater length with these rather technical matters at a later stage of the debate.

The second group of sections relates almost entirely to the removal of legal difficulties which have arisen in the construction of previous Land Acts. These sections aim at clarifying the law about the admission of land to the benefits of land-purchase and the procedure for vesting such land. They would also clarify the law about the writing-off of land annuities on land which has been eroded or permanently submerged by the action of the sea or rivers. In addition, improved statutory provisions are also proposed for dealing with land transferred to trustees for turbary, tillage and other statutory purposes, and for the appointment of trustees required for the purposes of the Land Acts. For a preliminary explanation of these matters, perhaps I could refer Deputies to the White Paper which was circulated with the Bill. I shall be only too glad to answer any queries about them when I am replying to the debate.

Before concluding, I should like to explain that there are a number of other land-purchase matters for which amending legislation is desirable but they have had to be held over for inclusion in a later Land Bill. This is the only feasible course; otherwise further long delay would result and I am well aware that most Deputies are anxious that the "market value" clauses of this Bill should be enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. Moylan

Some years ago, in trying to educate myself in regard to matters of land legislation, I read over the debate on the 1923 Act, and it did not seem to me that there was a tremendous amount of enlightenment in that debate. The Minister did not get much help by way of constructive criticism or considered appreciation. Before coming to listen to the Minister on the question of this Bill, I read the speeches of three prominent members of the Opposition on the 1933 Act and I hope to deal with this Bill with a great deal less rhetoric and with more commonsense. The late Deputy Hogan spoke of the 1933 Act as being "destructive, disastrous and dishonest". The present Taoiseach called it "a socialistic, bolshevistic, communistic measure". The Hans Andersen of the Government, the Minister for Agriculture, prophesied that it would entirely destroy security of tenure on the land. It is surprising that the Minister for Agriculture had to take his trip to Washington at the present moment when this particular Bill of his is not being nursed in a very effective fashion by the present Minister. All is quiet on the Potomac so far.

I think the Minister is to be congratulated in regard to this Bill for his courage, or maybe his impudence, in bringing it forward in the terms it has. Like the curate's egg, it is good in spots, and where it is not good it smells like Samuel Pepys' late uncle. I have always been opposed to the specific payment of market value for land. It seemed to me that there should be some penalty accruing to the landholder who did not utilise his farm in some sense for the benefit of the community. I had, of course, traditions of landlordism and confiscation in my mind, and I had the idea that there ought at least to be some penalty inherent in action which had to be taken by the Land Commission. It took me quite a long time to shed that particular idea, but I have in great measure come around to the idea that a man's property shall not be taken from him without giving him adequate compensation, and I suppose that adequate compensation must be interpreted as market value, though arriving at market value will not be a very easy matter.

We are going to pay the market value; we are going to pay compensation for disturbance; and, further, we are going to pay compensation for any consequential damage that might affect the owner of the land in relation to his working of any other portion of his land left to him. All these things are going to create a problem which the Land Commission will find some difficulty in getting over, that is, if the various statements made in this House and in the Seanad have any foundation. It has been charged time and again by Deputies and by Senators that the Land Commission had set out in past years to rob the owners of property, that they never paid anything like adequate value for the land they acquired. If that is true, the payment of market value, compensation for disturbance, compensation for consequential damages and the non-repayment of annuities—all these things envisaged by the Minister are certainly going to create a problem for the Land Commission.

One of the sections in this Bill is rather a revolutionary one. It proposes to purchase land in such a way as to make the Land Commission a permanent institution. The Land Commission was never meant to be a permanent institution. It was set up to deal with a limited problem—a large problem, but a limited problem—and one terminable by time. The terms of this Bill will certainly make it a permanency in Irish governmental life. The completion of land purchase at any particular time is not envisaged in this Bill. We propose to purchase and acquire land and to distribute it, and we propose to repurchase it and redistribute it, in endless rotation. The Land Commission will go on for ever purchasing and distributing, repurchasing and redistributing, creating a new annuity, a different annuity, and a further different annuity.

One particular point that strikes me in relation to that position is that it is time the land laws were codified. The terms of the various land laws are so intricate and their verbiage clouds so much the issue for the ordinary citizen as to make it terra incognita for him and very often a source of bedevilment to the ordinary lawyer. In one way and another, the forms of the land laws are such as to create endless irritant litigation and dispute. Apart from this Bill and apart from Acts which are not specifically Land Acts dealt with in it, reference is made to 13 previous enactments, which start with the Land Act of 1881 and go on to the Acts of 1882, 1889, 1891, 1903, 1909, 1923, 1927, 1931, 1933, 1936 and 1939. In order to read this Bill, in order to have any understanding of it, one must go back to 1881 to examine some particular term there, if one is thoroughly to understand it. The law of mortmain is as nothing to the law of the Land Commission. It is impossible to decide without a complete discovery of documents what the terms are of any particular Bill or any piece of current legislation.

Not merely has land legislation been difficult of understanding by the ordinary citizen, and even difficult for the lawyer, but it has been the cause of endless delays and disputes and endless cost even to the State. The only valid argument that was ever made against the codification of the land law was that the Land Commission was not a permanency. It was merely set up for a short while to deal, as I say, with a large but limited problem. The Minister has said to-day that the greatest portion of that problem has been solved, but yet, in another part of his speech, he pointed out that we are to indulge in an entirely new scheme which certainly makes permanent the work of the Land Commission and keeps the Land Commission there for ever. If the Minister would confer a boon on the community, if he would do something during his term of office to make it memorable, he should set about a codification of the land laws and not have us continuing to flounder through the various Acts back to 1881 and probably further, because, if one goes back to 1881, one will probably find it necessary to go back to the Deasy Act to find what the interpretation is.

This Act of 1933 which was disastrous and destructive, according to one prominent member of Fine Gael and communistic, socialistic and bolshevistic, according to the Taoiseach, is not being repealed in its bolshevistic aspects by this Bill, and one would have thought that, when the Minister for Agriculture and the Taoiseach, who was so definite as to the evils of that Act, had an opportunity of doing so, its evils would have been repealed by this measure. Instead of that, the Minister proposes to go a good deal further and to be much more revolutionary.

I always had the idea that the Fine Gael Party was a Conservative Party. I had the idea also that the Farmers' Party, and farmers generally, were conservative. If there was any kind of revolutionary mind in the country I thought it resided among the woolly-haired, wild men of the Fianna Fáil Party but the first seven matters which appear here in Section 10 are matters which, with very inverted logic, the present Taoiseach condemned in the 1933 Act. These excepted matters were rightly put into the 1933 Act because it is essential that, in any Act dealing with fundamental matters like land, the interpretation of that Act and the manner in which it is to be administered should not be the playthings of politics. It was wise and necessary that these powers should be taken out of the hands of the Minister, whoever the Minister was, and so they were in the 1933 Act. The Minister has added to these quite a number of others and these others the Minister specifically mentioned were, as far as I am aware, always activities in which the Minister did not indulge. I think no Minister would ever interfere in the matters which the Minister specifically included in Section 10 but there are two very significant and very revolutionary changes in the seven points of Section 6 of the Act of 1933.

Section 10, sub-section (1) paragraph (d) states:—

"The determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme) of the persons to be selected as allottees of any land."

Paragraph (e) states:—

"The determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme) of the price at which land is to be sold to any such allottee."

The Minister can decide who the allottees of the land shall be in future and he can decide what the price of the land shall be to the particular people selected. The Minister may say that that merely affects rundale holdings—a cottage estate, for instance, or some such work. That is rather deceitful of the Minister because, in the way this Bill is worded, the Minister can take any land and suggest, and maintain effectively, that it is part of a rundale holding or that it was being used in connection with a rundale holding. Let the Minister not steal away with the idea that he is deceiving me or anybody on these benches by suggesting that he is merely dealing with rundale holdings. He can, with these powers, deal with any land anywhere in the country. The Minister who tells us that there is no work for the commissioners, who, having for four or five years during the war period pointed out that the Land Commission was doing nothing, points out now that, during those years, there were so many appeals to the appeals tribunal as compared with the years before the war. The Minister knows as well as I know that it was impossible to carry out the ordinary work of the Land Commission during the war years and, therefore, there could not be the same number of appeals to the appeals tribunal.

Mr. Blowick

I do not know any such thing.

Mr. Moylan

But if there is not enough work for the commissioners, why does he propose to take it from them? Why does he propose to take the authority and the work out of the hands of the commissioners and hand them over to civil servants? Deputy Hogan, speaking on the 1933 Act as reported in Volume 48, column 2405 said:—

"The duty of a civil servant is to obey a particular Minister and to be his agent."

The commissioners cannot be the agents of the Minister; since they are free, independent and judicial they cannot be his agents. Therefore he takes the work out of their hands and gives it over to civil servants who are there as his agents and are paid by him. These people, to whom I have already referred, called the 1933 Act a political measure. I call this a Party political measure. It certainly displays some of the views the Minister had when he was an irresponsible Deputy and now that he is an irresponsible Minister, he is going to put his irresponsibilities into this Bill.

I shall deal on the next stage with the Bill, section by section, but in an opening statement such as this I think it wise for the purposes of general discussion that I should touch on a number of major matters. Sub-section (5) of Section 10 says:—

"Where the Minister or an officer exercises or performs by virtue of sub-section (2) of this section any power or duty, he may exercise or perform the power or duty—

(a) in his own name, or

(b) in the name of the Land Commission or the lay commissioners."

Perhaps it is a minor matter, but when the Minister does a thing he should stand over it in his own name and when he presumes to seal a thing, let it be sealed by the seal of the Minister. Let the Minister accept full responsibility for the things he does. The commissioners, for whom there is no longer any work, are to be removed from office and the work which they have not, is to be distributed amongst civil servants. It will be very interesting to see the remaining commissioners moving up on their benches, making way for the old guard of the Civil Service and dividing the work they have between them. Expressing a personal opinion, may I say that when a nation recovers its freedom and sets up its own Government, it is natural that there should be a certain suspicion of the servants of the former alien Government? Even when the new Government discovers to their own satisfaction that there is no reason for that suspicion, the suspicion will remain among the public and the public mind must be reassured. That seems to me to be one very good reason for the appointment originally of the appeal commissioners under the 1933 Act.

Further, I would say that a man whose training and experience are entirely legal is perhaps not the best man to deal with a subject which has so many intricacies as land and land law, and I think it is well that there should be associated with him men whose training and experience are on an altogether different and wider scale. For that reason I think it was wise that the lay commissioners should have been associated with the judicial commissioner. There is also the fact that in the courts, when there is an appeal from one court to another, it is generally not an appeal from one judge to a particular judge, but from one judge to a group of judges, and when we have a decision by two or three commissioners, the appeal ought to be not to a single individual but to a group of men as well qualified and, possibly, better qualified than the men who have given the decision. I think it is altogether unwise to do away with the appeal tribunal. Apart from that, I think that it creates a bad precedent. I think that when a Government makes an appointment of that nature, except there is a definite offence on the part of the occupant of the position, there should be no derogation of status. I think there is in this case, and a reflection on the man who was appointed to this important position.

Now, in Section 14 there is something which I regard as quite reasonable, and that is making the tenure of the existing commissioners permanent. In regard to the termination of their term of office, no injustice is being done by the Minister at the moment. As I understand it, the position was that, up to now, the term of office of the commissioners was merely terminable at death. That was hardly a desirable position, and I think the Minister is wise in laying down a specific age at which they shall retire, and the age of 72 is reasonable. But then he goes on to state that, in future, the retiring age of commissioners shall be 65. I do not personally believe that that is complete wisdom. I think that the accumulated experience and wisdom of a man of 65, if he is physically fit, should not be thrown away by the State. I think those seven years between 65 and the later retiring age should, if possible, be utilised. That is my personal view. But, if the Minister is going to decide that the retiring age of commissioners shall be 65, let us have it 65; let us have something definite and something certain. Some time ago the retiring age of district justices was 65. Recently, the Minister for Justice, as I understand, extended it to 70. So far as physical effort is concerned, the work of a district justice is much harder work than that of a land commissioner. What I want from the Minister is that, if he does, in his wisdom or lack of it, decide that 65 shall be the retiring age, then let it be that and let us have no more shilly shallying in any particular case.

In Section 16 we are dealing with five County Limerick farms. I am a Limerick man and I am interested to know why County Limerick has been segregated from all other counties and gets specific treatment. I wish the Minister would give us some clarification of that position, because the Dáil wants to know why any five particular individuals should be selected for special treatment.

Mr. Blowick

Surely the Deputy knows why, knows the cases.

Mr. Moylan

The Deputy does not know and that is why he is asking. Then again, in Sections 17 and 18 power is taken to prevent in the public interest certain people from getting the benefits of the Land Acts. I can see the reason for that, but I think those sections demand a much clearer explanation than we have got. I think it is only fair to the Dáil that that should be given.

There is one other section which I regard as being very dangerous—Section 23. I want the Minister to understand, so far as we on these benches are concerned, that we are 100 per cent. with him in regard to the relief of congestion. We do know, however, that, no matter how much you do, you cannot find a definite and conclusive solution for congestion. That is impossible. There is not enough land. You cannot acquire enough land. We cannot deal with the human nature that opposes in a certain fashion the relief of congestion. I suppose Section 23 has some connection with the cottage farm at Ballyhaunis. If we had Section 23 a couple of years ago, we would not have had ex-Deputy Cafferky and Deputy Commons present on that occasion and the Minister would not have had to make so many excuses for them. Authority is given by the section to bid for land for sale at public auctions. As I see it, that will mean the purchase of a farm at public auction as a going concern and the placing thereon of a migrant. That seems to be what the Minister has in mind. It does not entail any delay in solving that particular problem and it does not involve any added expenditure by way of improvements. You buy the farm at a public auction as a going concern and you put a migrant on it.

Of course, under Section 10 (1) (d), which deals with the determination of the person to be selected as allottee, not merely will the Minister purchase the land at public auction and put a migrant on it, but he will select the allottee himself. That is what the Bill says. It is very nice, too. The lay commissioners will fix the maximum price to be paid for the holding. The Minister will then fix the price at which it is to be sold to the allottee. Having purchased the farm, having ensured that the lay commissioners will fix the maximum price and, having sold it to the allottee, he will then decide how much the poor devil is going to pay.

Now, the type of farm which the Minister needs for that particular purpose is the most sought after farm in the country, the small farm or the moderately sized farm. It is the type of farm that a hardworking, successful farmer, with several sons to do for, will seek out. He will try to place one of his sons on that farm at the cost to him of years of toil and sweat. Such a farmer will have to oppose his slender resources against the resources of the State which are at the disposal of the Minister. In the debate on the 1933 Land Bill, this particular type of farmer was mentioned by the late Deputy Hogan as being "the best and the most deserving type of farmer in the country". Whenever such a farm appears on the market, the bidding for it will be brisk and the price will be high. I think it is an undue interference by the State to indulge itself in competition with these deserving people, especially when it will have all the resources of the State behind it as against the very slender resources of these men.

I have no doubt that the Minister, in doing this, is doing it with goodwill and with the desire to help the question of congestion, but still he is going to create another problem. He is interfering with an accepted and functioning system of rural economics that has stood the test of time. If he is going to find a holding for a gentleman in a particular part of the country, he is going to deprive a deserving applicant for it who has money in his pocket and who proposes to buy the holding to work it. I think that the one evil which the Minister is trying to destroy will be replaced by a much greater evil in another part of the country.

Now, I wonder how this thing is going to work out. A farm is advertised for sale and, naturally it will be brought to the Minister's view. There will be no difficulty about that, anyhow. The Minister will send down one of these inspectors to whom he has delegated authority which he has filched from the Land Commission. That inspector goes down the country and walks over this farm. He comes back and makes his report, naturally, to the Minister. The Minister draws the attention of the commissioners to the position. They will make a full examination of the report and decide on the maximum price. Then he will have to secure an agent to purchase that farm. Naturally, the Minister himself cannot go down to do that. He is too well known; he is too big and could be seen too easily. An agent, then, is secured. Now, he may be a local auctioneer. If he is a supporter of one of the various Parties in the Coalition, he might be a solicitor: he might be anybody, any pal, and, mind you, it might be wise, in getting some pal, that he would be an obscure person. This gentleman bids for the farm and maybe he would put one across the Minister. He may be a good-natured fellow; he may want to do a turn for a local man and tell him the price. That could happen, too. At any rate, the commissioners will have to be very generous, and the Minister, in fixing the maximum price, because one thing that will be known about it, as well as the fact that the Land Commission is bidding, is that it will also be known the agent cannot go beyond a certain price. I know that, within the parish where I have lived for the past 20 years, it would be impossible for any outsider to buy a farm in it—the bidding is so keen. The Minister may frighten off some people for a start, but the only effect, eventually, that his activity will have in relation to this Bill is to increase the price of the land.

There are, in Section 24, some proposals with regard to the preservation of public rights. It is unfortunate, but it is true, that wherever the Land Commission takes over an estate—and there are public rights—there is no adequate protection of these public rights.

Mr. Blowick

No what?

Mr. Moylan

No adequate protection of these public rights. I shall go into that later with the Minister. I know one estate in the County Limerick which was divided by the Land Commission. In the case of that estate the people of the town had one of the remaining rights that survived many confiscations and dishonesties. That was the right to move along the river bank: to fish there, to swim there and to take the air there, but since the Land Commission took it over, even though they put up certain stiles and fences, all these stiles have been removed. The right-of-way has been blocked to the general public; it has deteriorated since the Land Commission took it over.

I want to say this, too, that if the Minister could include in this Bill a real defence of public right as it still exists, he would be doing a great public service. I have often seen, of course, demands for upholding rights-of-way on farms. These rights-of-way, many years ago, were wholly desirable, but with the number of new roads that have been made throughout the country in the past 30 years, many of these rights are no longer necessary to the public. I do realise that there is nobody so damaging to the farmer as the trespasser. A man's farm does not want to be interfered with. Cattle are affected by people going through land, and there may be diseases brought through land, and, so far as possible, a farmer's farm ought to be his castle and his castle grounds.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Hear, hear, Mr. Dillon!

Mr. Moylan

As far as there are any rights-of-way that could reasonably be eliminated now, I would be totally in agreement with them. Where there are rights-of-way, public rights, that have not been protected by the Land Commission, the Minister should take note of them and protect them from being filched.

In Section 25 there is a new proposal in relation to gratuities for workers on estates. So far as I am aware, the only workers on estates who have got land as a result of the division of the estates are those who worked on the land—no house servants or anybody else of that nature are entitled to land. I can sympathise with the Minister in regard to that particular proposal. I would sympathise with him far more if I could be assured that it is the Land Commissioners who will make decisions in these cases and not any Minister or civil servant. I can see that injustice could be done. I realise many of those people who got land as a result of the division of an estate, being servants thereon, were not successful. One of the reasons why they were not successful is that the Land Commission divided the land into too small portions.

I would impress on the Minister, under this measure or under any other measure that has been passed, that when the Land Commission or the Minister—as he now takes power to do —gives a piece of land to anybody, he will give him a farm and not a patch of land. If you give a labourer a farm, take him off the labour market; give him a decent farm and let him work it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That is repentance.

Mr. Moylan

There is one thing missing from this Bill. Somewhere there is a section dealing with Land Commission advances. One section limits the advance to £3,000 and in another section the limit of advance for a certain type of farm is £5,000. Those amounts have never been adhered to. One undesirable feature of land-holding is the accumulation of numerous farms in the hands of one man. If a man owns a farm on which the £3,000 advance has been given, why should he be given a farm on which another £3,000 advance has been given? Why must he not be made pay the full value of the land and why should the State have to pay for a second farm for him? That is wrong, and the Minister should examine it.

I know there is bound to be a certain amount of attrition between the Minister and the Land Commission—between a Minister and any settled department of civil servants. Civil servants are permanent. They take a long view, and sometimes they take too long a view. So long as the machine is working reasonably well, they do not worry too much. It is the business of the Minister and of politicians in this House to worry about inequities whereever they exist. The Minister is in a position to rectify certain inequities that exist in practice in connection with land legislation. I hope to introduce some amendments that will help him to get rid of these inequities.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We have heard an interesting speech by Deputy Moylan with reference to this Bill and with reference to the whole question of land division. I was interested to hear him at one stage making reference to the policy of the Fine Gael Party. The Fine Gael Party requires no certificate or bouquet from Deputy Moylan or any other Deputy in this House with regard to its policy in connection with land division. As most Deputies know, it was the Hogan Act that did more than any other item of land legislation in this country to undo the work of the conquest. Any discussion in relation to land legislation or land division that does not recognise the work of the late Patrick Hogan would be a discussion without any merit whatsoever.

Deputy Moylan has made reference to other land purchase Acts and, so far as I could understand, listening to his speech, he seemed to regard land division in Ireland as commencing with the Fianna Fáil Act of 1933. Every Deputy knows that the big step in the resettlement of the land in this country—the really substantial step— was taken under the 1923 Act, which declared that as from a particular day all tenanted land in Ireland should be deemed to vest in the Land Commission. Recognising that, most of us appreciate this fact, that subsequent legislative efforts were merely efforts to improve in some small way the principal Act, which is, and always must be, the Land Act of 1923.

There are certain important steps being taken by the Minister in this Bill. The two outstanding departures are the provision relating to the payment of the market value for land acquired and the power given to the Land Commission to enter into the property market. With regard to the question of price, I cannot for one moment share the sentiments expressed by Deputy Moylan. As I understood his speech, he thinks that there should be some perpetual penalty attached to the unfortunate person from whom land is acquired under our land purchase code and that there should attach to that person some kind of stigma which would entitle us continually to penalise him by giving him something less than his rights. I do not think that type of mentality is one that should appeal to people in a Christian country. I can well understand the mentality which regards the 1923 Act as socialistic, bolshevistic and communistic.

Mr. de Valera

I am sure the Deputy did not say that.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Deputy de Valera will have an opportunity later of making a statement.

Mr. de Valera

I am anxious merely to see that the Deputy is correctly quoted.

Mr. Moylan

Deputy O'Higgins was not listening to me, apparently.

Mr. S. Collins

Deputy de Valera is no expert at giving accurate quotations himself.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I understood Deputy Moylan to say that that was his view in relation to that land purchase Act and that he held that view for a considerable time. Like some latter-day saints, he has now changed his view. I am merely referring Deputy Moylan to what was at one time the mentality which, apparently, shaped his mind in relation to land purchase, and I say that that particular view never appealed to me. I think most of us agree that the taking of something which belongs to another is distasteful. But in this country, by reason of the events which shaped our history and by reason of the various plantations and settlements of foreigners here, we have rightly adopted the policy of restoring to our people evicted in the years gone by the lands that were formerly taken from them. That has quite properly shaped our policy in relation to land purchase. With reference to that policy, we make an apology to no one. That being so, we must, nevertheless, attempt to be as fair as circumstances permit, not merely to the people we will resettle on the land, but also to those from whom the land will be acquired.

For that reason I welcome the proposal with regard to the market value for land. I compliment the Minister on including this proposal in this Bill. I think it is a courageous proposal. It is a fair proposal and a reasonable one. Undoubtedly, as Deputy Moylan has pointed out, there may be difficulties in the practical application of market value to acquisition proceedings. Simply because such difficulties may exist, we shall not throw in our hands and say: "We must drop the entire proposal". I am sure Deputy Moylan would not suggest that. Undoubtedly, there will be difficulties. Even now there are considerable difficulties in assessing the purchase price of land under the present land purchase code. There is no rule of thumb which can be applied in a matter like this. I welcome the power given to the Land Commission to search for what the market value may be. That market value will be assessed upon the evidence available. Added to that will be the practical knowledge of the administrative machinery of the Land Commission and its officials. In that way, it should be possible to arrive at a rough market value. I am sorry that that particular provision in relation to market value for land acquired does not operate from an earlier date than the enactment of this measure. I can conceive there are substantial reasons the Minister might put forward for not making this provision retrospective. I hope, however, that in relation to proceedings at present under way in the Land Commission no price will be fixed by the Land Commission pending the enactment of this Bill and that, in so far as pending cases are concerned, those who own the lands about to be acquired will share in the benefit of this particular piece of legislation. I see no reason why a man whose lands might be acquired on 1st November, 1949, should get a substantially lower price than a man whose lands might be acquired on 1st December, 1949. I trust that, recognising the sense of that, the Land Commission will ensure that the price paid for land pending acquisition at the moment will not be determined until such time as it can be determined under this Bill.

Another novel feature of this measure is the power given to the Land Commission to purchase holdings on the open market. I think most of us recognise the difficulties and the problems in relation to the application of that power. I do not suggest that there is any member in the House who recognises those difficulties clear than does the Minister himself. If that power were exercised extensively it is possible that considerable drawbacks would quickly manifest themselves. An effort might be made to foist land on the Land Commission at an inflated price. The tendency might lie in the other direction. This is a new departure so far as the Land Commission is concerned. This is a new power being taken by that body. I believe that in the exercise of that power the Land Commission will act very slowly. In utilising that power I hope their first concern will be to purchase farms of a certain limited size and conforming to certain specified standards. If they do that, then experience may teach them what dangers to guard against. Merely because the power may hold certain drawbacks and because certain difficulties may arise, we should not say that the power should not be given to the Land Commission. Deputies who represent rural constituencies have come across particular cases time and time again where, by reason of the existing machinery for land purchase, quick resettlement cannot be effected. There have been cases of particular congests who had to wait a considerable number of years before they could be resettled because of the existing procedure. I think we should welcome the power now given to the Land Commission to purchase existing holdings of 30, 40 or 50 acres as a going concern where no delays will be entailed apart from the usual conveyancing delays. I think we should welcome anything which will enable the Land Commission to purchase a holding and hand it over straight away to a deserving allottee. I welcome that particular provision contained in this Bill.

We got from Deputy Moylan this afternoon a number of very pious statements with regard to the impartial administration of a proper land purchase code by the Minister. I do not know to what purpose we had that particular speech from Deputy Moylan but, apparently, it was all centred on the provisions contained in Section 10 of this Bill. Deputy Moylan fears that, by reason of the reservation contained in two of the excepted powers of the Land Commission under Section 10, the Minister is now going to have power and will exercise power in relation to who is to be an allottee on an estate and in relation to the price to be paid by particular allottees. We all know that that is so much moonshine and so much nonsense. Any Deputy who has any experience of conditions on divided estates at present knows that by reason of an archaic code in operation in the Land Commission not a single thing can be done— not even the repair of a Land Commission pump—unless the order comes down direct from the commissioners themselves.

There is an entire machinery built up over years whereby all these matters must go up through Civil Service channels until the commissioners themselves, and nobody else, signify that certain necessary work must be done. I know of one case where an entire file grew from nothing other than that in one particular part of Offaly a pump was out of order and had to be repaired. I take it—I do not know but I take it—that that particular type of problem is being aimed at by the Minister in this Bill. The Bill confers power on certain delegated Land Commission officials to deal in a businesslike and in a sensible way with matters of that kind. I think that that is a very welcome and a very necessary provision. I have heard, in different debates on the Estimate for the Department of Lands, Deputies from all sides of the House blaming this Minister and, I suppose, previous Ministers, for the delay in the Land Commission——

Mr. Hickey

They had good cause to.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

——and in relation to different things. I am certain that most of the criticism was entirely justified. Certainly, it is my limited experience that that particular type of archaic code that I have described—which provides for the exercise only by the commissioners of discretion in relation to certain matters —is responsible for a certain part of delay in the administration of estates. I welcome any legislative proposal which cuts across that red tape and provides a quicker and a clearer method of having trivial matters such as that attended to.

There are other matters to which I should like to refer in relation to the Bill but which are, perhaps, more suitable for discussion at a later stage of the Bill.

Deputy Moylan has expressed a certain reasonable objection to the power given to the Land Commission to purchase holdings in the open market. He has based his objection on the time-old basis of the resources of the State being used against individuals and against ordinary persons with limited means. That is a reasonable point of view for any Deputy to take and I am certain that it is an objection to which Deputy Moylan has listened for a great number of years while he was a Minister in this House. I am certain that the objection itself is one that Deputy Moylan must know nearly by rote, because his Party had to listen to objections of that kind when they permitted the resources of the State to be used—for instance in the hotel business—by hotels being sponsored by State funds and by all the different activities to which, in the past 16 years, they have allowed the resources of this State to be diverted, in competition with individuals and with ordinary citizens. However, I appreciate the motives which prompted Deputy Moylan to express that fear. If I thought that we were going to reach a situation here where the Land Commission, for no adequate reasons, was going to purchase and use its resources to freeze out ordinary people who might wish or desire to purchase land, I would be dead against it. But what we are doing here is giving to the Land Commission an additional power to fulfil its functions and to discharge its duties—and its functions and its duties are to assist in the resettlement of our people on the land. I think no Deputy could take any reasonable objection to any additional power being given to the Land Commission that will result in some quickening of that process. I think, therefore, that while there may be good motives prompting Deputy Moylan's remarks in relation to that matter, his fears are not well-founded.

Deputy Moylan has spoken with regard to the codification of our land code and I entirely endorse what he has said. The land purchase code from 1881 down to the present Bill is a code quite immense in stature. It is a code which, to even the trained lawyer, is completely uncharted and about which very few can possibly expect to have any real knowledge. The land purchase code is one which affects the rights and property of the greater part of our people. I hope that the question of codification is at least being considered by the Department of Lands. Quite apart from the temporary nature of the Land Commission, the land purchase code, the code itself and its provisions, must always remain. After all, the land purchase code represents the documents of title of every person who has purchased a holding under the Land Purchase Acts. The fact that we may, in the foreseeable future, expect the end of the Land Commission is no reason why the Land Purchase Acts should not now be codified. I think that at some stage, some time in the foreseeable future, the Minister should contemplate an Act which would say to all those who have vested holdings under the Land Purchase Acts: "Your rights, your responsibilities, are contained in this particular Bill. Inside the four corners of this Bill you can see what is expected from you and what your rights might be." I think that is something which every owner of land in Ireland is entitled to expect while the title to his land is being conferred on him and I hope that this question of codification obtains the attention and concern of the Minister.

That is as much as I have to say concerning this Bill except to express my personal congratulations to the Minister on this Bill which he has introduced. I was interested in hearing him say here to the House that there are—as I am sure there are—other matters in relation to land acquisition procedure that will require legislation. I congratulate him on not delaying this Bill by reason of these other matters even if it means that we will have one or two or even three more Land Bills within the next few months. The number, with all the legislation that has gone before, cannot make matters any different. I congratulate him, therefore, on introducing the Bill and on the new powers which he seeks for the Land Commission, and I wish him every success in this legislation.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy O'Higgins started out by rebuking Deputy Moylan, and I think rightly, for not paying full tribute to the men who initiated the legislation of 1923, but I think that Deputy O'Higgins left himself open to even more stern rebuke in that he himself did not pay tribute to the men who initiated a lot of legislation in this country, Michael Davitt and Parnell. Those men had to start at a time when the farmers here were in the condition of serfs and they had to free them from that condition. Under the legislation which they forced through an alien Parliament, three-fourths of the land of this country was purchased from the landlords and only one-fourth was left to be purchased under our own native Parliament. That was a tremendous achievement and one which will never be forgotten by the farmers of Ireland as long as grass grows and water flows.

I want to say I am glad that the Minister has introduced this Bill. When I brought a Land Bill before this House last year I got a good deal of criticism from people who went so far as to say that I was fighting the landlords' case. I think it is now quite obvious that I was fighting the case of the simple farmer who owns land in this country which may be acquired by the Land Commission. The Minister last year promised that he would introduce a comprehensive measure containing the principal point which I enshrined in my Bill—to pay owners the market value for the land—and he has done that very effectively in this Bill. As far as I can see, the provisions of Section 5 of this Bill are satisfactory. No one can tell—certainly no ordinary layman who has not experience of the technicalities of administration—how this particular section will work in practice, but I am quite sure that with efficient administration and goodwill no owner of land will be left with a grievance such as has existed over a number of years past.

I also welcome in this Bill the provision of compensation for disturbance. There are cases—and cases will occur —where land is acquired compulsorily by the State and where the owner is paid the full market value but where nevertheless he suffers grave loss inasmuch as he is uprooted out of the holding which he was working and must seek a living elsewhere. There is absolutely no reason why such a person should not be compensated for that disturbance in his way of living and in so far as this Bill provides for that I think it is satisfactory.

Deputy Moylan did a foolish thing when he was speaking on this Bill. He made a confession. I think if he were wise he would not make a confession in the presence of members of the legal profession. Certainly he was severely chastised for admitting that at one time he held a prejudiced view against those whose lands were acquired and felt that they should be penalised, but that in the course of time he came to realise that that view was inequitable and unfair. Under no conceivable circumstances should compulsory acquisition of land be regarded as a penalty upon any owner of land. If you want to punish a man you should take him to court, find him guilty of some statutory offence and fine him for it, but you cannot impose a penalty through land legislation. You cannot link with the resettlement of our people on the land some kind of legal penalties for perhaps unsatisfactory usage of the land. Those two things should be kept absolutely and completely separate. The Land Commission has a special function to perform, to ensure as far as possible that every uneconomic holding in this country is made economic. That, I think, is the most important of all their functions and they cannot perform it if they are also to be a branch of the Department of Agriculture or some other Department to investigate how ordinary farmers whose land is vested in them use that land or to what extent their usage conflicts with the interests of the people. We have other legislation to deal with that. Therefore, I say that when land is acquired adequate compensation should be provided for any injury or unjustice inflicted upon the owners through disturbance. In the Land Bill which I introduced last year I sought to have some provision to safeguard the ordinary farmer from interference which was not justifiable, and as far as I can see, there is no similar provision in this Bill. I think something of that nature is necessary.

I have referred earlier on to the great men of the past who achieved fair rents, free sale and fixity of tenure. Those were regarded at that time as the essentials of our land policy and the basic right of the tenant farmers of this country. But can you have absolute security of tenure or even a reasonable measure of security of tenure, as long as it is open to any political organisation to initiate proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of any holding upon which they set their eyes? I believe that this Bill should contain some safeguard for the man who is using his land properly in the best interests not only of himself but of the nation. Some Deputies will say that it is impossible to put in any statutory provisions of that kind without interfering unduly with the fundamental task of the Land Commission. I do not believe that that is true. While the particular section which I framed in the Bill last year may not have been worded exactly as the Land Commission would require, it is possible to provide for some safeguard.

Some people suggested that there ought to be a safeguard in regard to the size of the holding, that there ought to be a certain acreage below which the Land Commission would not interfere in any way. That may be one viewpoint. On the other hand, some provision might be made by which a certificate would be given to the owner by, say, the Department of Agriculture, that he was working his holding in a proper way; and such holdings would not be interfered with. I would like to see some means by which a person who has acquired a holding, either from his ancestors or by purchase, could, by complying with certain statutory conditions, be able to say that his holding was absolutely safe from acquisition by the Land Commission. There are Deputies who may say that there is no such provision in regard to the Housing Acts, hydro-electric development, and so on. However, the necessity for such provision does not arise in regard to those works. In housing, for example, the sites to be acquired are determined by the needs of the city, town or locality; and by the nature of the site. If the site is unsuitable for housing, it will not be acquired: if it is suitable, you cannot prevent it. Also, in regard to housing, you are dealing with a basic and fundamental need of the community. No person can live without shelter, so houses must be provided no matter where the land is obtained. But when you come to the question of taking a farm from one individual to give it to another for the purpose of farming, you are dealing with an entirely different problem, a problem for which certain provision should be made in this Bill.

I mention this particularly because I have noticed, in the course of proceedings in this House, questions asked again and again in regard to the same holdings. I have been told that some of those questions relate to farms where there is really no justification for their acquisition, but perhaps because the Deputy who raises the question has some ill-will to the owner of the farm. It is possible under existing law for any Deputy who has a family feud or dispute with his neighbour to press, and press persistently, until he forces the Land Commission, by sheer exhaustion, to acquire that farm. I think there ought to be protection against that kind of abuse—as it is certainly an abuse—of the important functions of the Land Commission. They should not be pestered or plagued to acquire a holding because some political organsiation or some politician has ill-will against its owner. Security of tenure cannot exist side by side with that system. I will endeavour, at a later stage of this Bill, to include in it some safeguard for the owner of land, so that even though the price may be fair and there may be compensation for disturbance, if he wants to keep on farming on his own farm he would be allowed to do so.

Like Deputy Moylan, I welcome the provision of the Bill which enables the Land Commission to purchase land by agreement, that is, to purchase lands that are being offered for sale in the public market, if and when they are so offered. That is a very welcome provision. There is no reason why, where lands are put on the market, the Land Commission should not be able to send down a buyer and purchase that land in the open market, without any of these objectionable compulsory powers that we have heard so much about. There is, of course, a danger in connection with that particular power, that the price paid by the Land Commission might be excessive, inasmuch as they might find themselves competing with other buyers. However, it would be natural to expect that any responsible officials would value the land first of all and fix its valuation and then, if they could obtain it by agreement at that price, or less if possible, there should be no difficulty whatever. The question of their bidding against some local buyers would be ridiculous, that is, bidding up a farm far beyond its value. The value should be ascertained definitely first, and then the price agreed upon. There should be no very serious difficulty in carrying out that, if there is prudent administration.

I can see great advantages in extending the power to acquire land anywhere it is offered for sale and where it can be had at a reasonable price. For example, I have known certain farms offered to the Land Commission again and again which were suitable for division, but, because they did not comply with certain requirements of existing legislation, the Land Commission had to pass them over; whereas, if they had acquired them, even if there were not congestion in the district, they would be able to use them to satisfy migrants from other districts where there may be congestion. Anywhere land is being offered for sale and can be acquired at a reasonable price, they should have no hesitation in acquiring it, regardless of what the position may be in the immediate district in regard to congestion. I hope this Bill enables them to acquire such land, as very often it happens that there is very little land offered for sale in areas where there is congestion, while there may be a considerable number of farms on the market where there is very little congestion. I think the powers should be widened, to enable them to acquire such holdings. They would then get land at a reasonable price.

Another point arises which concerns the Land Commission and the Forestry Department. A large number of farms are offered very frequently to the Forestry Department, portions of which are good agricultural land and portions suitable only for forestry. The Forestry Department are always anxious to get the suitable portion for planting, but find it difficult to acquire the agricultural portion, as they have not powers to give an adequate price for such lands. That is a provision which should be in this Bill, if it is not in it already— and I cannot find any trace of it—to enable such holdings to be acquired by the Land Commission for the relief of congestion, if you like, and then the portion suitable for planting to be handed over to the Forestry Department. Such provision would make the operation of the Forestry Department much less difficult. I have known the Forestry Department to lose the purchase of very useful land simply because their powers were inadequate or because the powers of the Land Commission were restricted and they could not do business with the owner. That aspect of land purchase should be very seriously considered.

I do not know whether the Minister has considered the question of financing the better price which is provided for in this Bill or not. I have always felt that it would be possible to pay a reasonable price for land, namely, the market value, without imposing any additional annuity on the incoming tenant simply by extending the repayment period. That aspect of land purchase legislation should be considered. The incoming tenant is not worried whether he has to pay over a period of 50 or 150 years. It is very much the same to him.

While I am very happy that the Minister has met the demand which has been made over a long period for the payment of the market value for land I regret very much that it is not provided in the Bill that that price will be paid at least for the period since the Minister took office as Minister for Lands.

Mr. Blowick

Why stop at that date? Why not go back further?

Mr. Cogan

The Minister has made it clear beyond all question that he is satisfied that existing legislation does not provide for a fair price for land acquired. He has been in office since 18th February, 1948. Surely the Minister will agree that at least he should accept responsibility for the period that he has been in office. I am not asking the Minister to accept responsibility for what was done by Deputy Moylan, Deputy Derrig, Deputy Boland or his other illustrious predecessors. At least, he should be prepared to deal justly for the period that he has been Minister. Once the Minister has acknowledged that an unfair price was paid, an obligation rests upon him to see that justice is done. The previous Ministers, I suppose, do not acknowledge that the price they were paying was unfair and, in that way, evade the responsibility. There are no means by which the present Minister can evade responsibility to pay the full market value as and from the date on which he became Minister.

I was anxious to know if there were many holdings involved and I asked a question to which the Minister replied that 40 such estates had been acquired since the beginning of 1948. I think any farm that is vested in the owner is called an estate. At any rate, the Minister's reply covers only the first six months of this year, and a few holdings may have been acquired during the last few months and a few more may be acquired before the Bill becomes law. In my opinion, they should all be covered by this Bill. The number would not be more than 50 at the outside and it would be reasonable to date the Act as and from the date on which the Minister took office.

I have been informed by persons directly concerned that there has been a tendency on the part of the Land Commission to rush the fixation of price in acquiring land in the past few weeks so as to have the price fixation completed before the passing of this Bill. I do not know how true that is but there will be a hardship on people whose lands have been acquired during the past few months or people whose lands are acquired while the Bill is going through the House. I would therefore ask the Minister to date the Bill from the date on which he became Minister for Lands, in view of the fact that he definitely stated from the very outset that the price paid was inequitable and inadequate.

It is a desirable provision in the Bill that workers on holdings should have the option of a gratuity in lieu of a holding. It often happens that workers who have been employed on a holding for a long time and who are entitled to compensation on the termination of their employment would be very happy to accept payment in cash rather than to be saddled with the management of a farm. They may not have any great ambition in that direction. The provision for compensation in this Bill is a fair and reasonable proposition.

Deputy Moylan seemed to be rather astonished at the suggestion that there appears to be no end to the work of the Land Commission. The end seems to be very far from sight. While the Land Commission are acquiring land for the purpose of relieving congestion, at the same time they are creating uneconomic holdings in many places. Any cottage tenant whose land adjoins an estate that is being divided is entitled to three, four or five acres. That represents an uneconomic holding and, thereby, he is entitled at a later date to claim, as an uneconomic holder, that he is entitled to land. If you go on creating new uneconomic holdings the work of the Land Commission will be perpetuated.

Another development in regard to land is the acquisition of farm after farm by one individual and the consolidation of a number of farms in one farm. There again the work of the Land Commission is, to a certain extent, frustrated. Homesteads disappear and new large estates are created. There again is a problem which requires consideration.

From that point of view, however, I think this Bill will be welcomed by Deputies. It will ensure that the uneconomic holder, the person living in a congested area, will get an addition of land that will make his holding economic and he will be able to feel, at the same time, that he is robbing nobody when he takes possession of that additional land. He will be able to feel that the former owner has been fairly and adequately compensated and that justice has been done. That is one very satisfactory feature of this Bill and one which will commend it to the House. I hope that the other suggestion I have made, namely, that the Minister should date the Bill from the day upon which he took office, will be accepted by him. It is a fair and reasonable proposition and I am sure he will have no difficulty in getting the Government to agree to it.

Mr. C. Lehane

If the observations made by Deputy Moylan had been made by any other Deputy on that side, they would not perhaps merit the consideration they do merit, coming from him as the former Minister in charge of this Department. In approaching this Bill, I think it is correct to say that its main features are contained in two sections, Sections 5 and 23. Deputy Moylan made a number of general observations, with many of which I found myself in agreement, as did Deputy O'Higgins who followed him. The plea he made for the codification of our land laws is one to which the Minister, or some successor of his, will at some time have to give an attentive ear. Reference was made to the difficulty of the ordinary layman appreciating or understanding the purport of the various Land Acts which we have had over the past 27 or 28 years, and before that period.

Let me say this, that, as an ordinary lawyer, earning my living in the city, I do not find myself in any much better position than the average layman. It is a matter which does not normally come within the scope of the business with which one deals in a city area, but, even for the country practitioner, the existing body of legislation, which we know collectively as the Land Acts, presents a very formidable mass of law, not easily assimilable and not readily comprehended, except by people making a very special study of that branch of the law. I think the Minister must, at the same time, pay heed to the pleas which have been made to him for the codification and, if possible, the simplification, of our land laws.

There are two sections which are likely to give rise to controversy, Section 5 and Section 23. Because I accept the Minister's assurance that he is concerned with the speedy relief of congestion and with the general speeding up of land division, we in Clann na Poblachta are prepared to support this Bill; but let me make no secret of the fact that we support Section 5 with very grave misgivings. If, in effect, it will mean that division will be speeded up and relief given in congested districts more quickly than might otherwise be possible, we will balance that favourable aspect of it against the fact that it may very well lead to increased amounts being paid, by way of annuity, by allottees.

Mr. Blowick

There is no connection between the two things.

Mr. C. Lehane

Surely there is a connection between the amount of money that is going to be expended by the people through the Land Commission in acquiring land and the general levy, if not on particular sections, on the public as a whole. I do not subscribe to the view that any grave injustices were perpetrated in the past by reason of the figure at which lands were acquired. There may have been cases, few and far between, in which some injustice was unwittingly perpetrated, but I do not subscribe to the view that such cases would form any substantial proportion of the whole.

In approaching a Bill of this kind, it might be no harm to relate it to the fundamental background against which it should be examined, to relate it to what we conceive to be the function of the Land Commission. In my submission, the function which the Land Commission should be carrying out—I am afraid I am a little cynical as to whether the Land Commission ever did succeed in carrying out that function— is the undoing of the conquest, so far as the land of the country is concerned. I am afraid that that spirit does not animate the workings of the cumbrous machinery of the Land Commission and I am doubtful if we are going to get any nearer to that spirit by reason of the inclusion in the Bill of Section 5. However, our view is that if the Minister says he wants the powers contained in Section 5 in order to help him more speedily to acquire and divide land in order to relieve congestion, we are not prepared to withhold from him any powers which he assures the House are necessary to him in order to pursue that end.

There are inherent in Section 23 certain dangers, dangers that flow from the very essence of human nature. The Minister is much more au fait with the problem than I or probably anybody on these benches, but I think he should give heed to the warning that was sounded. I think he should try to ensure that the passage of this measure is not going to mean inflation of land values. For a reason similar to that expressed in relation to Section 5, I should not like, nor would we be justified, in refusing to the Minister the powers which he seeks in Section 23. If the Land Commission in the past, working under the then existing legislation, has not always given cause for confidence in it, confidence in the correctness of its fundamental approach to this problem, then I would urge on the Minister that he should, at as early date as possible, consider the introduction of such amending legislation, or whatever steps may commend themselves to him, as will make it possible for him to assure this House that we can in the foreseeable future look forward to the time when the Land Commission will have completed its job, namely, to restore to the Irish people the land taken from them by conquest.

One final matter with which I should like to ask the Minister to deal in his reply is: will he give the House an assurance that in no case will the market value of land be paid to aliens who bought land? I should like the Minister to deal with that in his reply.

Mr. Corry

I welcome the part of this Bill which deals with the payment of the market value for land. The land, with which we had to deal in the old days under the Hogan Act, practically all consisted of estates owned by landlords. As time went on, the Government came to acquire smaller parcels of land until now, apparently, we have reached the position where the only land left to be acquired is land owned by the ordinary farmer. I think the Hogan Act was the first Land Act under which the landlords were compelled to sell and for that I give the then Government credit. There were, however, always the outside cases of men who were wronged and, unfortunately, in my constituency there is a large number of people who were wronged, and gravely wronged, by the Hogan Act. As the Minister knows, men who fought the landlords in my constituency in order to prevent the filching of a right that they said they should have and which they felt should be vested in them—sporting and fishing rights—and who refused to purchase because these rights would not be vested in them, were compulsorily purchased under the Hogan Act and are now being compulsorily vested by this Government, again under the Hogan Act. That is one of the wrongs that one meets in dealing with these Acts. As time went on, we found many anomalies. If Deputies would go to the trouble of looking up the files of the Land Commission over the years 1934, 1935 and 1936, they would find that there was an enormous area of land which was left outside the Hogan Act.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Not tenanted land.

Mr. Corry

Tenanted land, certainly. I am surprised at a professional man like the Deputy making a statement of that kind. I shall give an instance I met of one unfortunate farmer who was paying four rents for his holding. He was paying a land annuity to the Land Commission, rent to the landlord, a tithe rent and Church temporalities. Under the Hogan Act he could not purchase or under the 1929 Act he could not purchase.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That was a previously purchased holding.

Mr. Corry

That was tenanted land and it might amaze the Deputy to know that I have something over 130 of these cases of tenanted land in my constituency alone. When the 1933 Act was being prepared, we had to bring up those leases, if you like to call them such, and make sure that the Act would cover them and that those people were at last enabled to get out from under the load imposed on them.

Mr. Blowick

There are five farmers in Limerick you did not cover.

Mr. Corry

This Bill, like the curate's egg, is good in patches. I listened very attentively to-night and the discussion took my mind back to what occurred in this House on the Land Commission Vote last year. I am quoting from Volume 111, column 292, of the Official Reports, when I was repudiating a statement made by Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, as follows:—

"I trust that the Minister will endeavour to get away from the basis upon which land was divided in the past. I regret to say that land division was concerned with the particular colour of the applicant. I do not know whether Deputy Beegan spoke with his tongue in his cheek but he had the gall to stand up in this House and suggest that there had been no political interference on the part of the last Government as far as land division was concerned."

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not dealing with legislation now, but administration.

Mr. Corry

I am dealing with Section 10, with the change that is proposed to be made in the previous position.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is quite in order. It is the first time the Deputy has referred to the Bill.

Mr. Corry

I want to quote the reasons I gave then why there could be no political interference with the Land Commission.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Why there should not have been.

Mr. Corry

I quoted Section 6 of the Land Act, 1933, as follows:—

"The following matters shall be excepted matters for the purposes of this section, and the expression ‘excepted matters' shall in this section be construed accordingly, that is to say—

(a) The determination of the persons for whom land is to be acquired or resumed;

(b) The determination of the actual lands to be acquired or resumed;

(c) The determination of the price to be paid for land so acquired or resumed;

(d) The determination of the persons to be selected as allottees of untenanted land;

(e) The determination of the price at which land is to be sold to any such allottee;

(f) The determination of the new holding which is to be provided for a tenant or proprietor whose holding has been acquired by the Land Commission;

(g) The determination of whether or not a holding has been used by the tenant thereof as an ordinary farm in accordance with the proper methods of husbandry."

That was the law and is the law at present. I stated then that the Minister had no power whatever in connection with any one of these items. All these matters were handed over to the Land Commission and since that Act was passed any charge of interfering with the division of land or anything else was a charge not against any Minister, but against the Land Commission and its officials. That was the position. Now we find that under Section 10 the Minister is taking over certain of these functions and will now have power to say what allottees shall get land and the price that the allottee shall pay for it. I do not think that the Minister is wise in taking that power. He is laying the foundation for the making of allegations such as these which were very falsely and wrongly made in this House. We were told by Deputy O'Higgins that this change which is being made is only giving power to deal with Land Commission pumps which are out of order. That is rather a joke.

The next thing I am concerned with is Section 23. We are rapidly approaching the time in this country when every man can get land except a farmer's son. The majority of Deputies represent rural constituencies and they should know the position in their own immediate district. They know that when a farm is put up for sale in a district there are five or six local bidders. There will be a number of farmers with two or three or four sons who have been working all their lifetime on their father's holding—generally a farm of 40 or 50 acres. By their industry they have collected what they think will buy a farm for one of them. The usual openings for these young men have been gradually closed year after year. If you want to become a baker now you must be a baker's son; if you want to become a mason, you must be a mason's son, and so on. Trade unionism has closed the ordinary avenues of employment into which these young men would naturally go, so that they have no outlet except emigration or becoming an agricultural labourer. We were told by Deputy O'Higgins to-night that the Minister's activities in that direction are to be in connection with farms of limited size.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I said "should be".

Mr. Corry

Farms of 30, 40 or 50 acres. These are the very farms which are watched with anxious eyes by the young men in each parish, the very farms they are looking for. If the Minister takes power, when a farm is put up for auction, to send a buyer to purchase it, he is closing the outlet for those young men. He is going to go in with the wealth of the Land Commission behind him and will wipe out any hope these young men have of getting land. In my opinion it would be wrong to deny such men the right of getting a decent livelihood in their own country. I certainly think that is a power which the Minister should not have. I can see it leading to endless abuse. One of the greatest abuses would be that the Minister would be closing the only avenue left to a farmer, who has three or four sons, of settling a second son on the land. I do not think the Minister should do that, and I think it would be wrong for the House to give him such power unless he can produce much stronger reasons than those he has already advanced.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Corry must not be a congest himself or he would not be talking in that strain.

Mr. Corry

I am not a congest.

Mr. Blowick

Faith, you are not.

Mr. Corry

I am congested enough, but where you find a farmer even with 100 acres of land and four sons to provide for, that holding, if it be divided into two economic holdings, can only give a livelihood to two sons. What is to happen to the other two? Suppose a holding is advertised for public auction, what hope is there of a neighbouring farmer buying that holding for his son if the Minister's representative is there? He may be some official of the Land Commission, a lawyer with some pull or some auctioneer, but what hope is there of a neighbouring farmer being able to buy against the Minister's representative, even though that farmer has a son who has worked on the land all his life and he is anxious to get that farm for him? Has not that farmer's son as good a right to that holding as any congest that the Minister speaks of, if his father can buy it for him? I maintain that he has. All that I want in this is fair play. I think the Minister is making a mistake in doing what he proposes in the Bill.

I should also like the Minister, when replying, to deal with the proposed change in regard to the Judicial Commissioners. Over a number of years, up to 1933, I definitely opposed in this House the idea of one Judicial Commissioner. He was only a lawyer. I think that during all that period I gave very good and sound reasons for the objection I made to having one Judicial Commissioner. As a result of my objection, we got three commissioners. We succeeded in getting on the Appeal Tribunal the opinion of the man with practical experience as distinct from that of the man of legal training. That system has since worked pretty successfully. I would advise the Minister to read the debates that took place in this House previous to the appointment of three commissioners on the Appeal Tribunal. If he does he will find instances such as this: that in cases where a value had been placed on land by the Land Commission in the first instance it was increased by 150 per cent., and in one case by 250 per cent. I ask the Minister to imagine a Government Department paying a value to go down the country to value an estate, and later, on appeal, his value being increased by 250 per cent. If he studies cases of that sort he will get some idea of why it was a practical impossibility afterwards to put a man into a Land Commission holding without putting on his back a burden that he could not bear. I want to tell the Minister that that was the effect of having one Judicial Commissioner. When, as I have pointed out, we afterwards got three commissioners and thus secured the opinion of ordinary lay commissioners, better results were obtained. I would ask the Minister to go into this matter himself and to read up the debates that took place between 1927 and 1933. If he does he will discover two things: (1) the decision of the commissioners; and (2) the appeal decision.

Mr. Blowick

It is because I did go back and of what I saw that I am doing what I propose now.

Mr. Corry

I think I am giving the Minister very good advice.

Mr. Blowick

I would ask the Deputy to be in the House when I am replying.

Mr. Corry

The Minister may be quite certain that I will be here. There are some other matters that I can deal with on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr. Blowick

And there are a few things that I would like to take up with the Deputy.

Mr. Corry

These are the only matters that I wish to deal with now. I regret that the Minister did not take a little more time in the preparation of this Bill so as to include something in it that would give those unfortunate men, whom he is compelling to vest in the Fermoy area, the right to own the fishing and sporting rights on the land for which they are paying annuities and rates and not leave those rights to be held, as they are at present, by an alien in this country.

Mr. McMenamin

I welcome this Bill, and particularly the revolutionary part of it, which is long overdue. When this House reflects on what has taken place in this country under the operation of our Land Acts, I think it will have a considerable amount to be ashamed of. Perhaps it is better that we should forget what has been done in the past and try to do justice in the future.

The important part of this Bill is that portion of it which relates to paying the market price for land. Deputy Moylan appeared to be considerably perturbed about that. I do not see that anybody should be perturbed about paying the market price for land. That price has always a way of finding its own level. I feel ashamed of having been a member of this House and a party to the things that have taken place under this Department, which gets its authority from this House. I wonder have Deputies of the House ever reflected on what has been done under our land legislation? Have they reflected on the utterly indefensible things that have been done? There were certain things done by landlords when I was a youngster and I need not say here what happened to them. As to what has been done under a Government Department, of course there was not a word about it. I say that cruel injustices were done and they were done silently, but the victims had to suffer. Where they are to-day, I do not know. It is to be hoped that somebody has looked after them, that somebody has made provision for them. But certainly this State has not so far done so.

I would like to give some examples of what has been done. There are two cases which, for years, I presented to the House in order to draw attention to them so that some justice might be done. I have no interest in these cases at all. I do not know the people and I merely give the facts from the records of the Department. There is the case of a farm in Westmeath. The husband died and the Estate Duty Office assessed the value of the farm at £7,000. I am giving these things from memory and I wish to be as accurate as I can. The estate duty was levied and the widow had to pay on the £7,000 valuation. She had one child and, of course, she wished to retain the farm for the daughter. She struggled for some years and then found it was impossible to continue. Finally, she decided to put the farm up for auction. The highest bid was £3,500. She thought she was being cheated when such an offer was made, that she was being taken advantage of by the people at the auction. She refused to accept that offer. The final act came when the Land Commission stepped in and acquired her farm and, after the redemption money was taken from the price, she got £1. I ask Deputies to consider the circumstances of that case. We call ourselves not only a Christian but a Catholic country, yet we threw the widow and her orphan on the roadside and gave her a pound note. You would give that as a tip to somebody if you were in a generous mood. There was wailing in the House this evening because the Minister came in here to remedy that state of affairs. If he does nothing else for this country, he will do a great thing by effecting that remedy.

The second case comes from the County Roscommon. There, a man's farm was acquired and, when the account was settled, the Land Commission served him with a demand for £15 —they said he owed them £15 after they had taken his farm. What justification is there for such conduct? Can anybody justify it? Is there any man here or outside who would dare defend such action, unless he was playing on the passion of some people whom he wanted to placate or pacify? I suggest that nothing would justify such conduct. It is a violation of the natural law. It would be unjust for any man to do it.

What principle could there be behind such a thing? Would it solve congestion or give land to landless people? Does it justify confiscating a person's property in order to do justice to another? Are you justified in committing an injustice in order to pretend that you are doing justice? No crisis could justify some of the things that were done in the exercise of the power that is obtained under the Land Acts. I am proud to be here this evening to give my approval to the principal part of this Bill which is contained in this section.

I have some reservations arising from this Bill. There is a section which gives power to the Land Commission so that they will be the sole judges of the price to be paid for land. I am troubled in this connection and I should like to have an explanation from the Minister. For example, will they go to an auction where there will be other would be purchasers and, if somebody else bids higher than the Land Commission, will they make offers on the one hand and issue threats on the other hand that if anybody bids above what they think is a fair price, they will say: "We will veto that and we will not permit a conveyance to be made to the bidder"?

I want to protect the public in these matters. This section would be worthless if we allow the deduction of the redemption money from the price fixed for the land and if we give absolute power to the Land Commission to permit their agent to go to an auction or anywhere else when land is being sold and to say to the person who makes the highest offer: "We will not authorise that, we will veto that and we will not allow the conveyance to be made to you."

Deputy Moylan has raised what would appear to be a spot of trouble. He said that under this measure you will increase the price of land. I cannot see any difficulty in that regard. A Land Commission official bidding for land will, if he is a competent official, know the current market value of land. The Land Commission officials are men of ripe experience. They will know if there is a puff bidder present and they can sit down and leave the land there.

Mr. Allen

How will they know?

Mr. McMenamin

The difficulties will solve themselves. Deputy Moylan was perturbed about some of the criticisms made in this House against the Land Act of 1933. Possibly some adverse criticisms were made, but I think they were justified. I am sure that Deputy Moylan will agree with me now that there is a provision in that Act which destroys the value of land as a security. There was never a Land Act passed since 1880 which did not contain some outstanding section that laid hold of the imagination of the people who owned land. The particular section of the land Act of 1933 that left its mark on the country and on the tenant farmers was the provision that the Land Commission could at any time enter upon land and acquire it.

Mr. Allen

They can do that under this Bill.

Mr. Blowick

What section gives them power to do that?

Mr. Allen

The law is there.

Mr. Blowick

Quote the section.

Mr. Allen

Why do you not amend it? It is already there.

Mr. McMenamin

I am not discussing this in any spirit of controversy. What was the result of that particular section? The title deeds or the certificate of the Land Registry was not worth tuppence in any bank in Ireland. Our farmers were in the position that, if they wanted credit, they were compelled to go to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and pay interest there at the rate of 6 per cent. I know that was not the intended result and I know that such a step was never taken. But the power was there and that is what did the damage. When one is dealing with property, be it house property or land, one is dealing with a very delicate matter. Any very vital step in the wrong direction spells ruination. That particular section was the death knell of the Land Act of 1933.

Mr. Allen

Of the Land Act of 1923.

Mr. McMenamin

All the Land Acts, as I have said, were known by a particular section. It was that particular section which made a particular Act remain in the minds of the tenant farmers as their charter. A particular section of the Act of 1933 empowered the Land Commission to acquire any farm of land in Ireland. I know perfectly well that it was never intended to take drastic action under that section. But the power was there and the banks picked on the significance of that particular section and refused to give credit to the farmers. That, in turn, was linked up with another matter. I do not want to discuss this matter in a controversal spirit but, contemporaneously with the passing of the 1933 Land Act, there was the economic war.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that is not relevant.

Mr. McMenamin

Many of our farmers were financially embarrassed as a result of that. When the economic war ended in 1938 they wanted credit. Some of them wanted extensive credit in order to restock their lands to make up the losses during the economic war. I make no comment upon that matter beyond stating that. I merely draw the analogy. Not one farmer in the country, generally speaking, could get credit in any bank in Ireland. Before the passing of that Act a farmer could always borrow £50 or £100 if two neighbours were prepared to back him. He could get that sum in order to restock his lands if he had lost stock through disease and could not replace it out of his own resources. Farmers could always get a loan like that and they always paid it back. As a result of the provision in the 1933 Act they could get credit nowhere.

There was some reference made here about the resettling of evicted tenants. In my own county evictions took place on a very considerable scale. I am sorry to say that nothing at all has been done for the descendants of the evicted tenants. I have a list of them in my own house. I think the most generous thing to do, remembering all the talk there has been in the past about resettlement, is to draw a veil over the matter and forget about it. Nothing whatever has been done for them despite all the talk.

Comment has been made on the powers given to officials to do certain things. Surely Deputies will agree that it is ridiculous for them to be writing to the Land Commission about relatively unimportant matters in relation to which the local officials of the Land Commission are quite competent to give them information. There is not a Deputy in the House who does not know the chief officer of the Land Commission in his respective county. He knows that officer is fully competent at his work because he knows the local facts. I certainly would prefer to approach the man on the spot rather than help to build up files and increase expenses unnecessarily. I certainly approve of that method as against that of delay, the creation of files and the building up of expenses and costs, when it could be done by the local officer. There is a local officer in charge in my native county and I have every confidence in his integrity.

Deputy Moylan thinks that the Land Commission is to come to an end. I cannot foresee that. It seems to be forgotten that under the Land Acts, particularly when it came to the Land Act of 1923, the entire operation of 300 landlords' offices in this country was amalgamated and centred in Merrion Street. They were concerned with anything at all from a turf bank upwards. If somebody comes to me in Donegal and asks: "Will you give me a bank of turf?" the answer will be: "No, I cannot, until I see the Land Commission. They have the final say about it." Then the whirligig begins—I write to the local officer and the matter proceeds to Dublin. It would be, perhaps, two years afterwards before the matter would be finally settled of whether or not a man is permitted to cut turf on my land. I hold that that system is positively ridiculous. In the past, those powers were vested in the landlord's agent. We collected all these small, infinitesimal things that were done down the country in the landlord's agent's office. He attended to the question of turf banks and so forth and used his own discretion. Surely, if a man can trust his bailiff to do that, this House can trust officials who have had long years of experience and of training, who have had a good education and who are men of the highest integrity to do all those things. I think it is an excellent provision and that it is a matter which should have been attended to long ago.

I cannot see the Land Commission going out to buy farms, say, at auctions, of 40, 50 or 60 acres and I do not see any difficulty in that respect. What are you going to do with them? I cannot see the possibility of the Land Commission subdividing a farm of 30, 40 or 50 acres. If there is a larger farm, and if the Land Commission considers that it is an amenity for the good development of some scheme they have already, I am quite prepared, as far as I am concerned, to trust the judgment and the integrity of the officers of the Land Commission in regard to the price they will offer. However, I want to be assured, in giving my assent to that, that these men will not exercise any redeeming power. Already, officers of the Department of Lands, when men have put up their farms for auction and the sale was completed and the conveyance prepared, said: "You should not have sold it," and, as a consequence, the vendor would not execute the deed. The inference I draw from that is that the officers of the Department have already been instructed that they are to inquire as to the price that a man will accept for a farm of land that he is offering for sale and that they know he is offering for sale.

In one particular case the sale was completed and the deed was prepared but the vendor would not execute the deed because the Land Commission officer had said to him: "You should not have sold that farm." What is the position? Have we, on the one hand, a section in this Bill which purports that everything is free and open and, on the other hand, a state of affairs whereby the Land Commission, who purport to be there at the market to buy, will be there not only as a competitor but also with the power of veto in regard to anybody getting the holding against them? That would nullify the whole thing because you can then destroy what you purport to give to the people from whom you are taking land by the way you are abolishing the redemption money, and you can destroy it otherwise by holding the price of land by this veto, at the same time pretending that there is absolute freedom. I hope nothing of that kind will take place. I want to issue that qualification in my subscribing to my acceptance of this Bill.

There is nothing else of a very serious character. That is a part of the matter which I like. I am not concerned about the cost of it. What I am ashamed of and the feeling of regret that I have is in respect of those people who have been thrown on the wayside in absolute poverty—people who for generations lived well, worked well, farmed well and who, through the operation of a State Department, were hurled on the roadside as if they had committed some major crime. If they had committed treason they could not have been worse treated by the State. What can we say to those people? I know that the Minister is not to blame. Nevertheless, these people have suffered—and at the hands of Departments set up by this House. I feel remorse that I have been a member of this House all these years while these things were taking place and that nothing was done for them. However, it is well that the Minister has the sense of justice, at least in his time, to put an end to that state of affairs. Therefore, I congratulate him and I welcome this Bill.

Mr. Allen

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned until to-morrow.