I have no desire to prolong unduly this discussion, but I want to put this point as an essential point and I do so merely on the construction of the section as it stands. I personally have not enough experience of the problem to express any view as to what should be done, but I am commenting on what, in effect, this section so far as I can see would do, if it were law. These are two different things. The point I was making when the discussion was adjourned last night was that it seemed to me—and I have since made inquiries from people who have some experience of these congested areas—that a rearrangement scheme could be such as to involve a rearrangement of lands in rundale or intermixed plots in a congested area in such a way that some of the people there involved would be removed to land elsewhere to facilitate the rearrangement in the congested area. Let me be more specific about that. In the Minister's own constituency, it is possible, so far as I can see, that there will be a number of people involved in these intermixed plots and that a rearrangement there will be desirable. Being congested, merely rearranging them amongst these people, I understand, will not be very much of a solution. You can only get a practical solution in these cases if you remove some of the people and transfer them elsewhere and rearrange what is left. That whole scheme in its broader outline will be a rearrangement scheme. As I read the section, it means that in the allocation of lands in, say, Tipperary or Meath, to facilitate the rearrangement scheme contemplated in the Minister's constituency, the Minister, if these words which Deputy Cogan and Deputies on this side seek to have deleted remain, will have complete power. He will also have that power in relation to the determination of the price, because I think we are taking these two amendments together.
In Committee on Finance. - Land Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Major de Valera
You are exciting yourself unnecessarly.
Major de Valera
I should be delighted to hear that I am and I hope the Deputy will give us cogent and good reasons why my interpretation is wrong.
Did you not listen to me on the last occasion?
Major de Valera
I did, but I could not follow you, and I cannot follow you in print still. It is in print and I throw myself on the mercy of the House as a jury to decide, reading the report, who is intelligible and who is not. I will let Deputies decide that for themselves. The point I am making in the net, however, is that, in connection with a rearrangement scheme, in order to facilitate the arrangement, a question may arise of allotting land which has been acquired or otherwise has come within the power of the Land Commission in Tipperary or Meath, that being land, to use the words which we seek to delete, "arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme." It seems to me that the Minister has power not only to determine the allocation and the price in regard to the actual plot in the congested area, but that, through that loophole, he gets complete power qua Minister in respect of the price and the allocation of the land in County Meath or County Tipperary or anywhere else.
I am not questioning the desirability or otherwise at the moment of the Minister having that direct power. I have heard theoretical reasons why he should not. I think it would be wiser for himself not to put himself in the position of attracting political odium and of being charged with corruption by taking such powers. I am not dealing with that aspect at all. Other Deputies who know the situation better than I can do that. From the point of view of the content of this section, there is a problem to be faced, and the wording of the Bill as it stands—and now I come to the last paragraph, to which Deputy Collins and the Minister referred me—as far as I can read English, more than confirms me in that respect.
The paragraph I referred the Deputy to is paragraph (f) of Section 10.
Major de Valera
It says:—
"the determination of the new holding which is to be provided for a tenant or proprietor whose holding has been acquired or resumed by the Land Commission;".
Now, the determination of a new holding which is to be provided for a tenant or proprietor whose holding is being acquired or resumed by the Land Commission is a totally different thing. I will deal with that now, though it is out of sequence with my argument. The Minister will be aware, through his legal advisers, that in the construction of an Act of Parliament the courts will first of all endeavour to make sense of it and try to give some force to each particular provision, and will be very loath to construe a section as being redundant or merely repetitive. If there is any point where they can reconcile such sections that seem to overlap and give separate meanings, the court will seek it out. Here is the distinction and here is what possibly could be held—that that determination of a new holding which is to be provided for a tenant or proprietor whose holding is to be acquired or resumed by the Land Commission simply means this. We have had all over the country cases where people had got holdings and were not working them and where the Land Commission was resuming them. That is one case, happening all over the country. Another case is where the Land Commission has acquired simpliciter without any rearrangement scheme. They are concrete cases upon which paragraph (f) to which the Minister referred can operate and it still leaves the peculiar qualification of rearrangement standing alone as it is in the first paragraph.
I come back to my argument on this. I would have great sympathy with the Minister in the interpretation he puts on it, were it not for the words at the end of sub-section (1):——
"In this sub-section, the expression ‘rearrangement scheme' means a scheme which is framed or approved by an officer by virtue of sub-section (2) of this section for the rearrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots——"
It may stop there—I would not be so sure of it myself, but you go on and say explicitly:
"——whether with or without the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said rearrangement."
Surely that is no crime?
Major de Valera
I am not saying it is a crime. I am merely pointing out the legal effect of this section on what you will be doing. I leave it to people knowing the factual circumstances in dealing with this land to know what should or should not be done. I am purely concerned with the legal effect.
What you believe it to be.
Major de Valera
I am saying it will be this, that by virtue of the paragraph which we are now seeking to delete, coupled with the definition of the rearrangement scheme at the end of the paragraph, taken in conjunction with the fact that sub-section (2) is a completely new departure in this Bill, radically different from the corresponding section in the 1933 Act, which is repealed, coupled with the fact that later on in the section, I think it is sub-section (5) (a) and other provisions in the section generally which have the effect of giving the Minister power to direct both his servant and the officer of the Minister under paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) and the Land Commission generally under sub-section (3), coupled with all these powers, the net effect of this enactment, as it stands on its present draftsmanship, is simply this, that the Minister simpliciter can deal with rearrangement of rundale or intermixed plots in the congested area and has only got to tie up in that scheme, as has frequently, I understand, been done to date, the allotment of land in any other part of the country.
Pure rubbish.
Major de Valera
To secure as part of the rearrangement scheme——
Pure rubbish.
Major de Valera
I understand—I am open to correction—that in practice it has frequently been done to date in regard to rearrangement schemes. I understand—and I would be grateful if the Minister would categorically contradict me, as I am completely in his hands on a matter of fact, if I am wrong—that there has been no rearrangement scheme where these arrangements have been facilitated and made possible by the removal of certain tenants or persons involved in the holding from the congested area, leaving their land to be redistributed and rearranged as part of a scheme in the congested area, and these people taken and allotted land elsewhere.
Has not that been done? Where is the connection between that and this?
Major de Valera
Well, if that has been done, the connection is this, that not only has the Minister complete power in the determination of who are to be selected as the allottees and the price in regard to all the parcels of land in the congested district but, by virtue of the draftmanship of this particular section and the Bill as a whole, he secures similar power over the lands in the other counties, the land from which these have been turned. In other words, he finds himself in the position that, having got a rearrangement scheme, he can dictate or decide the price and the persons to be allocated, both in regard to the lands in the congested area and the lands outside. In other words, he has the power, without fetter from the Land Commission, and as a matter personally to himself, so to speak, qua Minister—I do not mean personally, but in a purely ministerial capacity— to allot these lands and to fix their price without relation to the Land Commission as it stands there.
And you are objecting to that?
Major de Valera
I am carefully refraining from expressing any opinion on the facts. There are other people who know more about it. I want the House to appreciate very clearly that that is the content of the section.
The Deputy will be able to report progress for the second time.
Is not the Minister responsible to this House for what he does?
Major de Valera
If the Deputy wants me to deal with that, it would take an hour. I move to report progress.