When I was dealing with this matter on the last occasion on which it was before the House I had already pointed out the objections to the method of expression of the Minister's intention in this regard; I had already pointed out also that there was a radical difference between this section and the comparable section which it repeals in the 1938 Act. These were all matters regarding the legal interpretation of the section, but, as I said on that occasion, it is the legal content of this section which will rule and not any ministerial assurance. I am not going to repeat these arguments—I would not be let even if I tried to—but perhaps the Chair will bear with me if in a few short sentences I summaries seriatim the arguments which I advanced against leaving the words which we seek to delete in the Bill. In the first place, it is legislation by way of exception to an exception. The Minister would be unwise to take on such powers as he would leave himself open to possible charges of corruption even with the most bona fide administration of the section.
The section is objectionable also because it introduces a completely new principle into this code, so far as I can see. Perhaps I should qualify that statement. It is specifically objectionable, in this, that it makes the Minister, qua Minister, practically an overriding authority in all but a few excepted matters. It is rather more than was heretofore the case. Admittedly, heretofore the Minister had directive powers, practically overriding powers over the Land Commission, but in this case he can do it in the secrecy and privacy of his office, with the help of his private secretary.
I do not think the Minister is wise in taking these powers. All the formal safeguards that are there for the public are remote. I am not going into this argument again and I am not going into a particular argument that I might advance. If the Minister would only look back on some of his colleagues' dissertations on that principle, he will find them very clearly set out. These are all reasons why this section should be amended in the way we suggest, from the legal point of view. I want to come at it from a practical point of view and I want it to be clear that all I have said has been from the point of view of the legal content of the section. I have carefully refrained from any expression of opinion as to what should or should not be done with regard to the powers the Minister needs or seeks.
There are only a few minutes left and as I have no desire to have possession again on another occasion, I will put this practical question to the Minister. Is it not true that in the majority of rearrangement scheme it will be necessary to remove some or other of the tenants in the congested areas from the holdings which are to be rearranged in order to make room or make feasible any justifiable rearrangement? In other words, in the vast majority of schemes you will really be in the position that you can do nothing unless you have several people in the area you want rearranged. Any rearrangement between, say, ten people will achieve no useful purpose unless you take three or four out and get them holdings elsewhere and then rearrange the remainder. I take it that sums up the position. If you take out three or four from the congested area they will be given land elsewhere. That is as I see the position.
Is it wise for the Minister to take complete power of allocation and price? Is it wise for the Minister to put himself in the position of being able to pick and choose between people in a congested area, say in County Mayo, as to who will go and who will stay? Is it wise to take complete power in relation to any prices that have to be paid? In addition to that, by virtue of the implied powers by law that will follow from the section, is it wise for the Minister to add to them the power of price and allocation in regard to land in Meath, Tipperary or anywhere you like where these other men are?
Other Deputies have a much more intimate knowledge of land division problems, but I am asking that as a bona fide question. Is all this wise, even from the Minister's point of view? Will he not create a difficult problem for himself and will he not leave himself ultimately open to odium and the possibility of having charges made? I am asking that question perhaps for the purpose of the record, but I should like to know the Minister's answer to it.
If that is not the Minister's intention, if he wishes to have safeguards, then let me strongly urge on him an amendment of this section, and the amendment that is best, most concise and most direct, and that will apparently do what the Minister wants, is the deletion of these words. Unless the Minister wants to take these powers which I have pointed out, this section will have to be amended in some form or other to close the gap. If the section is not amended, we must take it that the Minister is accepting these powers with full knowledge and, therefore, he must be answerable for their use hereafter.
