Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Mar 1950

Vol. 119 No. 13

Land Bill, 1949—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 12:—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (d), lines 49 and 50, to delete "(other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme)". —(Deputies Cogan and Moylan).

Mr. Beegan

I would make a last appeal to the Minister to change his attitude on this amendment and to accept it. I have listened to the arguments put forward, for and against, and while they were very interesting and, of course, important, I feel that I have to take the question of practical operation into consideration. I think the Minister should see that the powers that he now proposes to take are very unwise and unsound in principle. This, in my opinion, is a very retrograde step that he proposes. We have to ask ourselves the question, why were certain matters excepted under the 1933 Land Act, and why did the Government that came into this House with a clear over-all majority in 1933, after a very hard fought election, consider that it was right and proper to except such matters? Was it not because of the fact that numerous complaints were being made that there had been ministerial and political intervention in the division of land? In fact, the principal matters which were referred to in Section 6 as excepted matters were acquisition, resumption, price and allocation.

The Minister may say, as he has said on various occasions, that he is doing this for speed. I cannot see where speed comes into it. In fact, I believe there will be much greater delay. These matters were excepted because of all the complaining there had been. Now there was a great temptation, in the case of a Government that came in at that time, with an over-all majority, and having such a background of history, to leave matters as they were or, in fact, to further strengthen the hand of its Minister in dealing with acquisition, resumption, price and allocation. We Deputies from the West felt pretty keenly on that line of action at the time. Naturally enough, we felt that we had got our innings, that we should avail of it and have a levelling up, but better counsels prevailed and, after a good deal of consideration and discussion at our Party meetings, we did give way to common sense and reason, and so the excepted matters were put into the Bill and were enacted by the Oireachtas.

Now, the Minister is taking back a considerable share of the powers that the then Government divested itself of. Why is he doing it? He says, of course, it is for speed, and he also states that he will delegate his powers to a senior inspector of his Department to carry out. Nobody can read into this Bill anything other than what is written into it. If the Minister believes that his statement, that he proposes to delegate his responsibilities to a senior inspector, is going to make for harmony amongst the people concerned, and that it will dispel suspicion and doubt, he is making a very great mistake. Any Bill that goes through this House in which any section of the community or any individual is interested is just as capable of being interpreted by others as it is by any Deputy, whether he be a legal man or a layman. Knowing what is in the Bill, they will not be satisfied that the interfering hand of the Minister is not there and nothing will convince them that that is not the case.

In paragraphs (d) and (e) the Minister is taking back very wide powers. Everybody knows that, so far as any rearrangement scheme is concerned, if it is to be completed on a fairly satisfactory basis, it will be necessary to take land either in the immediate neighbourhood or elsewhere to make it a workable scheme. Otherwise, I think there would be no point in trying to bring about any rearrangement. It would hardly be possible to have any rearrangement if there was not additional land.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

Who has the last word in a rearrangement scheme?

Mr. Beegan

According to what is in this Bill, the Minister's deputy, to whom he is delegating power according to himself, will have the last word. But the instructions in this case do not come from the Land Commission; they come from the Minister to his deputy, in other words, to his servant.

Mr. Hickey

Is he not answerable to this House for what he does?

Mr. Beegan

That has nothing to do with it. It is agreed by everybody that you cannot have any rearrangement scheme carried out except with the consent of the people concerned.

Mr. Blowick

Now you are coming to the point.

Mr. Beegan

What will be the position? We shall now come to the question of speed. I have no doubt that the people concerned will be capable of interpreting the real meaning of this section, and particularly the subsections that affect them.

Mr. Blowick

What people?

Mr. Beegan

I am sure the Minister is not so dense as he pretends to be in this matter. It is all right to plead innocence in order to try to get out of an awkward situation, but I will not accept that from a man of the experience and intelligence of the Minister. The inspector goes to the locality and, naturally enough, he goes to the people and states that he has come there for the purpose of rearranging their holdings. In order to try and get agreement he has to give them very full information as to the type of scheme he proposes to prepare. What will be the answer to him? The answer will be: "We have got to consult with the other members of the household". They are not going to sign the agreement there and then. They will go back to the household. We know what human nature is; we know what political feelings are, what political hopes are and what political disappointment is. One man will be told by his wife: "Of course the Minister is the responsible instrument in this case. There is a nice plot a few hundred yards away from John Murphy. Did he promise to give you that?" The husband will answer, "No, he did not; that is going to another man." The woman of the house will then say: "We expected that we would at least get that and we are going to insist on getting it or you will not sign any agreement. You will engage a hackney car now and go and see the Minister about it. He has full authority."

That is going to be the position. There are two very historic places in County Mayo already to which pilgrims go from spiritual motives. We shall now have a third one added to them where they will go henceforward from corporal and material motives. I have no doubt that the Minister will receive his guest very courteously and civilly. He will take him into his parlour or drawingroom and they will proceed to discuss the matter. The Minister will say: "I have nothing to do with the preparation of that rearrangement scheme. I have handed that over to the senior inspector and he has full discretionary powers in the matter". Then the man will say: "Not at all. You took the powers. It was you delegated him to come here, and certainly you can do it if you like". The parting at the door or the gate will not be nearly as friendly as the meeting was when this man arrived. Even the hackney car driver will sense the changed atmosphere. It will be a very silent journey home. The woman of the house will be very disappointed and will say: "That is how Joe has treated us after all we did for him since he started out to be a T.D. You will not sign a rearrangement scheme until we get that two acres".

Mr. Commons

That was the old way.

Mr. Beegan

It was not the old way. I challenge anyone to give specific instances of it. But that is going to be the way now, and that was the way before Section 6 was put into the Land Act of 1933. Were it not for the fact that I do not want to uproot the past I would give specific instances and bring forward documents to prove that I am right. That, as I have said, will be the position. That will be the speed we shall achieve, and that rearrangement scheme will not be finished for the next ten years. If the Minister is sincerely anxious to speed up rearrangement, and I am sure he is, he should leave the authority with the Land Commission. He should give that body an outline of Government policy. The proper thing then for the Land Commission to do would be to delegate their powers to one of their senior inspectors. They should give him special powers to deal with the problem under their authority and not under the authority of the Minister. We would have satisfaction then and there would be no necessity for a pilgrimage to the Minister's abode, either the present Minister or any Minister who may follow him. I believe much greater speed would be achieved in that way, rather than in what the Minister proposes to do under this section with the powers he now proposes to take back. After all, in the days of the old Congested Districts Board——

Mr. Blowick

I was wondering would you come to it.

Mr. Beegan

In that board the inspectors had discretionary powers. They were not controlled by the Minister. The Minister cannot tell me anything about land division or Land Acts. I grew up amongst them. I know all about them. The powers the Minister proposes to take back under this section may create for the time being a vain hope; but, very shortly, there will be both keen disappointment and suspicion. That will be the outcome of it. I do not think we have yet reached the stage where all hope is built upon reason, where disappointment is taken as a cross and suspicion regarded as a temptation that must be resisted. I do not think we shall ever reach that stage in this world. I suggest to the Minister that he should accept this amendment in the names of Deputy Cogan and Deputy Moylan. Surely it cannot be argued by the Minister or anybody else that there is any conspiracy between Deputy Cogan and Deputy Moylan in tabling a motion of this kind.

Mr. Blowick

There is not, but Deputy Cogan is a better man than anyone on that side of the House.

Mr. Beegan

I am sure we appear very small in the Minister's eyes, but we must put up with that. There is no justification for the powers the Minister proposes to take back. The Taoiseach might just as well come in with a Bill to curtail the power of the Local Appointments Commission or the Civil Service Commission. The Minister says, of course, that there are several other excepted matters given now to the Land Commission. But, as I say, the Taoiseach could just as easily come in and give additional minor powers to the particular commissions I have mentioned while taking back to himself the right to have appointments made through some deputy of his, that deputy being a senior official in any department of State. I am sure there would be a swift reaction to that on both sides of the House. There would be a volume of criticism and resentment. But the Taoiseach would be quite as well justified in doing that as is the Minister in doing what he proposes to do under this section. Even at this late hour I appeal to him to take power from himself and give it back to the Land Commission. I cannot understand the Minister allowing himself to be used as a chopping-block. That is what he will be. No matter how strongwilled he may be in resisting the influence and pressure brought to bear on him, there will be endless dissatisfaction. There will be suspicion, whether well-founded or unfounded. Instead of achieving speed in rearrangement and relieving congestion, the powers the Minister proposes to take back will have the opposite effect.

Mr. Blowick

A good deal of time has been spent on this amendment. There has been a good deal of what can only be described as misrepresentation of the powers sought under this particular section that the amendment proposes to delete. The solicitude of Deputy Beegan, because of all the trouble I shall bring down upon my head, and of Deputy de Valera, who occupied the time of the House with purely delaying tactics, almost makes my heart bleed. I never knew I had such good friends on the Opposition. It struck me while Deputy Beegan was speaking that he missed his vocation in life. He should have been on the stage. He painted a dramatic picture of these petitioners at the new shrine. I did not expect Deputy Beegan to descend to that level. In view of the deliberate refusal of the Opposition to accept exactly what is in the Bill, backed up by what I have said in the House, I think I must repeat it again. Both Deputy Moran and Deputy Beegan tried, though not very successfully, to give a faint impression that powers of resumption and acquisition were being taken here.

Mr. Beegan

I did not say anything of the kind. I said acquisition and resumption were some of the principal excepted matters under the 1933 Land Act.

Mr. Blowick

And still are and will continue to be while I have a tongue to wag.

Mr. Beegan

Allocation is a different matter, and you are taking back the power to allocate.

Mr. Blowick

We will examine exactly what the powers of allocation are. First of all, there were six or seven excepted matters under the 1933 Act. I think that Deputy Beegan, Deputy Moran, Deputy Walsh, Deputy Kitt and Deputy Bartley, as well as others representing the congested areas from Donegal to Kerry, will admit that rearrangement during the period in which the last Government was in office was a hopeless failure. There is nothing to show.

Mr. Moran

There is much more to show than you have to show. There is 100 per cent. more.

Mr. Blowick

Time and again I have admitted that land was divided in the first years in which Fianna Fáil was in office. But Fianna Fáil did not handle the land question as it should have been handled or in the way it will be handled now.

Mr. Moran

Give us the figures. We did 100 times more than you have done.

Mr. Blowick

If the Deputy wants to muscle in he can do so, but I shall not follow him along that path. My main concern is to relieve congestion. I stated that on the first occasion on which I moved an Estimate here. It is an evil that has confronted successive native Governments, including the present one. I do not impute blame to anyone. I do not think Governments should stand idly by and see that evil without making some attempt to remedy it. So far no such attempt has been made. Perhaps Fianna Fáil did its best in the light of its knowledge. It is a significant fact, however, that there were seven Ministers for Lands during that régime and not one of them came from a congested area. I do not think it is fair to ask those who do not know the area to tackle such a complex problem. It requires an intimate knowledge from childhood up. There must have been some in the Fianna Fáil Party who understood the problem.

The fact remains that, while a certain amount of land was divided, the 1946 Act had to be introduced to dispossess those who got land under the Fianna Fáil régime, but who were not working it or using it. It was clear proof that the land which was bought and purchased with the taxpayers' money and which should have been devoted to the relief of congestion was given to the wrong class. I must say in favour of the previous Government that when they realised they made a blunder they did their best to set the matter right.

No power of acquisition or resumption is being sought in this Bill. The power of allotment of additions to old holdings on the one hand or the allotment of new holdings on the other hand is specifically safeguarded because I have adopted some of the excepted matters of the 1933 Act and re-embodied them here. I do not know where Deputy Major de Valera received his tuition—although I have a shrewd suspicion—but he left me powerless to attack him because he qualified every second sentence by saying: "I must admit that I know nothing about the problem." Nevertheless he did his best to convey that the Minister, under this rearrangement business, has power to allot a new holding. That is not true. I should like to see Deputy Moylan going back as Minister for Lands and telling the Commissioners that he had power to allot a new holding. He knows well what they would tell him while paragraph (f) is there.

The relieving of congestion means rearrangement in a vast number of cases. I cannot see how any Deputy—particularly a Deputy from the congested areas—who has the interests of these people at heart, can conscientiously delay a measure which he knows is going to do good for these people. If an inspector is given a task he is either fit for it or he is not. If the Minister tries to do it himself he will find that many other weightier things in the Department will go undone. Unfortunately a Minister cannot even attend to the bigger matters as fully as he would like to most of the time. He has not time to give even slight attention to small matters like this in some cases.

While there are people in Ireland and while there are Deputies coming to this Dáil, and while time is time people will approach Deputies and Ministers and ask them to do something for them. That is perfectly natural. However, I hold, as Deputy Beegan holds, that wiser counsels will always prevail. I am often asked by some of my supporters to do things for them which are impossible, and sometimes they are not too pleased. However, I am not going to tell them that I can do something for them which I cannot do. I am not going to take from one man what the Department would normally give him in order to rob him and give it to another man. Some day I shall have to meet the Supreme Judge, and I shall have enough to answer for besides that sort of behaviour. It does not matter whether it is the Minister, the inspector or the Commissioners who sanction it. The important thing is that the tenants themselves sanction it. I can guarantee that you cannot have severer critics than these people who are watching one another. The old scheme did not work. Rearrangement schemes were agreed to by the tenants after the inspectors had, on many occasions, spent weeks and sometimes months reducing a bad rundale or a badly mixed townland into some kind of order on the map and getting the tenant to agree to it. The delay occurred after the matter left the hands of the inspector. That was the trouble. The main thing is to get the tenant to agree, and after that to get sanction instantly for the scheme before there is time for a change.

I asked the Opposition to put down an amendment on the Report Stage, if they could, in order to make this more watertight. They have absolutely refused to take up the challenge. There is no intention—nor is there room in this Bill, as far as I can see—of the Minister taking unto himself the power of the allotment of holdings or of additions to holdings. The only additional power is the readoption of the old Congested Districts Board system—that a senior inspector would have the sanctioning of a rearrangement scheme on the spot. In view of the fact that the Opposition cannot make the matter more watertight than it is, I shall ask the Department to put the matter under the microscope and to see if there is any loophole although I do not think there is and I cannot see one. If, by any chance, there should be a loophole, I shall bring in an amendment on the Report Stage seeing that the Opposition are not doing so.

Mr. Killilea

How can the Opposition bring in an amendment on the Report Stage when we are now only on the Committee Stage?

Mr. Blowick

The only flaw, according to the Opposition, is that the Minister is going to bring a lot of trouble down on his shoulders. The present amendment is going back to the system which obtained since the 1933 Act which has left something like 16,000 tenants in the country in the plight they are in and which has been largely responsible for the flight from the land. Deputy Beegan has such villages in his constituency. He knows that it would be absolutely inhuman and uncivilised to ask young men to remain on there and to live the life which their fathers have lived before them. If it is a crime to bring in a Bill to this House to come to the rescue of these people, I gladly shoulder responsibility for that crime. I have been in Roscommon and I have seen villages there. A few nights ago Deputy Fagan revealed what I did not think existed, that is, a bad case in Westmeath—a county which we regarded as being fairly completely settled. Has the Deputy been in Kerry? Has he been in the Rosses in Donegal? Has he ever been in County Leitrim? We must not forget County Cavan—a county about which we hear little but which, nevertheless, has its own congestion problems. Very few counties have not. I am asking for that power and let me say without any ambiguity that there is no authority for the Minister to allot a new holding or to allot an addition out of a farm to an existing holding as was done in the past. The power I am asking for under the section is that when the tenants themselves agree on the rearrangement the senior inspector will be able to sanction it before, for instance, any mischief-maker can stir up trouble or before, perhaps, some person dies in the village and makes a complete change, or something like that. I am sure that the majority of the Deputies who are anxious to come to the rescue of the people will agree that that is reasonable. I have very little time for the Judases who had the cheek to ask these people for their votes at the time of the election and who are now trying to impede this Bill because it is good just as they impeded the Local Authorities (Works) Act last year.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is wrong.

Mr. Kitt

Who impeded this Bill last week?

Mr. Blowick

The Deputies on the far side of the House and Deputy Major de Valera, who admitted that he did not know the first thing he was talking about but who still insisted on talking for four hours.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moran.

Mr. Moran

We have got a rather interesting lecture from the Minister this evening. It was particularly interesting to hear him lecture Deputy Beegan about being on the stage, because we know that under this section the Minister is on the stage and we all know that the Minister's supporters are waiting at the stage door to grab what the Minister is able to give them.

Mr. Donnellan

They are not "suckers".

Mr. Moran

Let the Deputy keep quiet until I have finished. Our objection to the section, and particularly to paragraphs (d) and (e), is that we want to take away from the Minister the powers which he proposes to assume under this section. It is a very simple matter. These are powers that were never exercised by the political head of the Department before. I do not see what great objection the Minister could have to the amendments put down to this section. If the Minister is anxious to do what he purports to do, if he is anxious to get on with the job, why should he take upon himself the allotment of lands under paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10? Speaking here a few nights ago, Deputy T. F. O'Higgins said:—

"You must get the agreement; you must be in a position to enforce it there and then."

And the Minister added:—

"On the spot; that is the principle."

Will the Minister or anybody behind him tell us how he is going to deal with the matter on the spot by the powers he proposes to take under Section 10? The Minister knows quite well that if he sends a junior inspector into a congested area, and if that inspector can get the people to sign a provisional agreement, it commits the tenants but it does not commit the Land Commission——

Mr. Blowick

It does not commit the tenants.

Mr. Moran

So much so that the Minister went round himself in places like Kiltarsaghan and tried to upset a scheme recommended to the Land Commission and did in fact upset some of its schemes.

Mr. Blowick

That is completely wrong.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I told Deputy Moran before that I would not allow administration to be discussed on this Bill. If every other Deputy discussed administration we would never complete the Committee Stage.

Mr. Blowick

May I ask, on a point of order, when a Minister asserts that what a Deputy has stated is completely in error, does the matter rest at that?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is purely a discussion on the merits of the measure. Deputy Moran has his opinion on that as has the Minister, but the Chair is not going to decide who is right and who is wrong. I have asked Deputy Moran not to refer to matters of administration and I shall strictly adhere to that ruling.

Mr. Moran

I am only trying to point out that the Minister stated, as reported in column 1165 of the records of the House for the 2nd March, that the principle of the section was to divide land on the spot. I just want to know how the Minister proposes to expedite the division of land on the spot under this section.

Mr. Blowick

I respectfully submit that the Deputy is not quoting the exact words I used.

Mr. Moran

Again, Sir, maybe the Official Report is wrong, but all I can do is to quote it.

Mr. Blowick

Read it.

Mr. Moran

In column 1165 of the Official Report for 2nd March the Minister is recorded as saying: "On the spot—that is the principle."

Mr. Blowick

What about dividing land on the spot?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would give the full reference.

Mr. Moran

Immediately preceding the Minister's remark which I have quoted, Deputy T. F. O'Higgins stated:—

"You must get the agreement and you must be in position to enforce it there and then"

and the Minister said:—

"On the spot — that is the principle."

I take it he was dealing with this section, that it is the principle of this section to deal with the rearrangement and division of land on the spot. I presume that is what the Minister refers to.

Mr. Blowick

Rearrangement and division are two different things.

Mr. Moran

I am entitled to know how, under this section, the Minister is going to deal with the rearrangement of land on the spot, by transferring the power of rearranging land from the Land Commission to the Minister, the political head of the Land Commission. The Minister may have done it at other times but he cannot do it now. He will not now have time to walk the Peyton estate or to walk the lands at Kiltarsaghan. He will have to send one of his minions down to deal with this matter, and under this section he will have the names submitted to him. He will have deputations from John Browne and John Jones to see who is going to get land in that particular area. Anybody who would suggest that where there is a rundale system in existence it can be solved without getting people out of the area or without making land available to enlarge the holdings simply does not know what he is talking about. The first essential is to get one or two men out of the area and to acquire land in order to satisfy the demands of those who are ready to swap their fields for those of their neighbours. A man may swap a field which has been in possession of his family for years in consideration of the fact that another field may be given to him.

Mr. Blowick

That is no crime.

Mr. Moran

The crime I am talking about is that the Minister is the man who is going to decide the claims of his own Clann na Talmhan supporters in the area. That is the objection which we are making. The Minister knows quite well that before any rearrangement takes place some people will be migrated. How the lands of these people are going to be acquired is another matter. The Minister had his tongue in his cheek when he quoted paragraph (f) of this Bill. I direct the attention of the House to what is contained in that paragraph—

"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."

The Minister suggested that under paragraph (f) there was room for all and sundry by the Land Commission. If you examine paragraph (f) it purports to deal only with new holdings to be provided for a tenant or proprietor whose holding has been acquired or resumed by the Land Commission. The Minister wanted to hold up paragraph (f) as a protection for the whole country against the powers he proposes to take under paragraphs (d) and (e) He knew well that that paragraph applied only to holdings acquired or resumed. How is that going to limit the powers reserved by the Minister under paragraphs (d) and (e), and particularly if you look at sub-section (2), which says:—

"Any power or duty for the time being vested by law (including this Act) in the Land Commission or the lay commissioners may, save in relation to excepted matters, be exercised or performed by—

(a) the Minister...

The Minister takes the power under this sub-section of allotment and he knows—nobody knows better—that he is taking power to dish out the parcels of land necessary to be dished out in a congested area in order to get the tenants to agree to a scheme. He knows that different threats have been, and I suppose still will be used by the Land Commission inspectors in order to get tenants to agree to a scheme.

Mr. Blowick

The Land Commissioners do not now—I cannot answer for the past—use threats and I cannot allow that slander to be put on officials who are not here to protect themselves. I cannot allow it to pass unchallenged. Such is not the case. Might I add that such will bring no good results?

Mr. Moran

Will you deny that in the village of Treem, Turlough, the people have been refused employment by the Land Commission inspectors unless——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will not allow questions of administration to be brought into the discussion. I suggest Deputy Moran should not say anything in respect of officials who are not here to look after themselves. He has not named them, but he referred to a class of officials.

Mr. Moran

I was referring to practice. Am I not entitled to refer to the practice that must come into operation under this section?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will find himself in conflict with the Chair if he continues along that line. If he refers to these things he will inevitably proceed to discuss administration and the Chair will not allow that.

Mr. Moran

I will point out what may happen under paragraphs (d) and (e). If Section 10 is passed by the House I suggest what will happen is that these inducements will have to be held out in order to get settlement of a rearrangement scheme and the Minister is the man who will have the controlling strings on any land to be divided under paragraphs (d) and (e). He will be in a position to dish out to his own friends any lands that may be available in a particular place in order to settle the rearrangement of an estate and the tenants cannot be free agents in this matter. I cannot see why the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendments suggested. Far from what he said in connection with this sub-section, and particularly what he said in County Roscommon over the week-end——

Mr. Blowick

I was not in County Roscommon.

Mr. Moran

The Minister denied last night that he was in Donamon.

Mr. Blowick

I did, and I deny it still.

Mr. Moran

Is it true or is it not true that during the week-end he stated in the County Roscommon——

Mr. Blowick

No, not in County Roscommon.

Mr. Moran

——that Seán MacBride had fixed Noel Hartnett and Mrs. MacNeill and he was going to fix a few of his friends?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What has this to do with the Bill? If Deputy Moran persists in this method of dealing with the Bill I will have to ask him to resume his seat. I am warning him. What the Minister said in respect of another Minister, another member of the Government, has no relevancy.

Mr. Blowick

Will the Deputy quote me?

Mr. Moran

I will if I am allowed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this measure.

Mr. Moran

If sub-section (2) of Section 10 was not in the Bill there would be some hope for the Minister's political opponents. If he will accept any of the Opposition amendments I am sure Section 10 would certainly get the blessing of the Opposition and of the House generally. How can we hand over this political power which, as has been pointed out, can be used to such effect? I am not allowed by the Chair to refer to matters that happened in the past. How can we hand over this political power into the Minister's hands when there is no need or reason for it, when it has not been justified by the Minister or anybody else on that side of the House? Will the Minister give the House, before we finish with these amendments, even one instance as to how this can increase the pace of rearrangement, how it will help the congestion problem or do anything except the one thing, and that is, on the plain interpretation of the words of the section, leave it open for the Minister to help his own friends so far as the allocation of land is concerned in the congested areas? That is the main thing that is worrying Deputies on this side of the House. If the Minister has a reasonable explanation to give, I invite him to give it.

Mr. Cogan

There used to be a saying that you must not say "must" to a Tipperary man. I am beginning to think it is clear now that you cannot say "nay" to a Mayo man, and when it comes to dealing with questions of land, the people of that county seem to have the idea that they and they alone can interpret the law.

Mr. Moylan

Or enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Mr. Cogan

This is the national Parliament representing the whole nation and, while we may not have the same intimate knowledge of Mayo problems as Deputy Moran or the Minister, we still have a fairly good idea of what the problem is and we know that the same problem exists, perhaps not to the same extent, in other counties. I do not think there is a Deputy here who is not solidly behind the Minister in urging that the problem of congestion, and particularly the problem that arises from the rundale system, should be solved as speedily as possible.

When I put down this amendment it was mainly with the intention of clarifying the position, safeguarding the position. I felt there was a danger embodied in this new departure, a danger not only to the people in the particular districts affected, but to every farmer in the country.

Mr. Blowick

It is merely a readoption of the Congested Districts Board principle which did such excellent work in the past-no more and no less.

Mr. Cogan

I can understand that, but the circumstances are entirely different. The Congested Districts Board was a board over which the Irish people, I think, had very little control as far as appointment or nomination was concerned.

Mr. S. Collins

You are not suggesting that we have much control over the Land Commission either?

Mr. Cogan

That is the point, but we have a terrible lot of control over the Minister. The people who live in the county which the Minister represents can exercise a considerable amount of control over him. Because of that there is no analogy whatever between the old Congested Districts Board and the Minister. The Minister, we must remember, is a Deputy elected on a democratic franchise in a county where this scheme is to operate.

Mr. Blowick

There are eight other counties.

Mr. Cogan

But this is one county where it is to be operated. There is no use in comparing the position of the old Congested Districts Board with what the position will be under this Bill. The old Congested Districts Board was, to a great extent, as independent of popular pressure as the Land Commission is to-day or perhaps even more so. The Minister made what I thought was a rather good point to-day when he said that we were urging the Land Commission to speed up while their two feet were tied together, and he more or less implied that the purpose of this section was to untie the feet of the Land Commission. But that is not the position. The purpose of this section is to take administration in this respect out of the hands of the Land Commission altogether. In other words, instead of untying the feet of the Land Commission we are putting them out of the race altogether and putting in another athlete, the Minister himself.

Mr. Blowick

A senior inspector is named specificially in the Bill.

Mr. Cogan

The only difference between a senior inspector and the Land Commission is that the former is subject to direct instructions from the Minister and is under his authority. The Land Commission is an independent body. That is the fundamental difference. As long as you have the allocation of land administered by a senior inspector acting under the authority of the Minister, it is exactly the same as if the Minister himself were allocating the land.

I think that sub-section (2) of the section makes that very clear. It says that "any power or duty...being vested by law (including this Act) in the Land Commission or the lay commissioners may, save in relation to excepted matters, be exercised or performed by the Minister or any officer of the Minister or the Land Commission." Therefore, the Minister is the officer who administers this particular section which is excluded from the power of the Land Commission.

Mr. S. Collins

These are excepted matters. I think the Deputy is getting confused.

Mr. Cogan

The purpose of our amendment is to remove from the excepted matters certain particular matters dealing with the allocation of land under a rearrangement scheme.

Mr. Blowick

That system did not work for 20 years. It refused to work.

Mr. S. Collins

I thought the Deputy was complaining that the Minister was the executive head of the Land Commission.

Mr. Cogan

No. I think we are all agreed, or ought to be agreed, that nothing is more essential than that each individual farmer should feel a sense of security in the occupation and ownership of his farm, and that nothing should be done to weaken that sense of security. It is strengthened by reason of the fact that two powers are vested in the Land Commission and not in the Minister, first, the power to decide what particular land is to be acquired, and, secondly, the power to decide to whom the land is to be given. These are the two great pillars on which a farmer's security rests, because if any political party had the power to decide whose farm was to be taken or to whom it was to be given, then every farmer would become a tenant at will. But, because the Land Commission is there and has security of tenure itself, and because its officials cannot be removed, by reason of their determination as to what land is to be acquired and to whom it is to be given, farmers have a certain sense of security. Now, for the first time in a number of years, that power is being weakened to a considerable extent.

Mr. Blowick

No, that is not correct.

Mr. Cogan

Well, we are taking from the Land Commission the power to deal with certain problems of land allocation which they formerly dealt with, and we are putting it into the hands of the Minister. Nothing could be clearer than that in the Bill. A question may arise as to the extent of the power that we are taking from the Land Commission and transferring to the Minister. We are taking the power to deal with all those congested districts in which rearrangement is required. Everybody who knows anything about the congested districts and who has taken part in the debate, has pointed out that in almost all those congested districts the holdings are intermixed and require rearrangement. Therefore, the amount of rearrangement that will require to be done will be very considerable. The Minister has pointed out that there are seven or eight counties in which this problem arises in an acute form. Therefore, it is clear that a considerable amount of the work of the Land Commission is being transferred to the Minister. We have to realise what that means. It means that a Deputy can come into this House and ask the Minister why he gave a patch of the land on John Murphy's holding to Deputy Moran's friend, John Brown.

Mr. Blowick

The gentleman you have mentioned, John Brown, did not cover himself with glory during the economic war.

Mr. Cogan

Deputies may question the Minister in regard to the manner in which land is distributed and even in regard to the grievances of people who think that they did not get the good piece of land which they expected. There is, of course, the other aspect of it also. As to the position of persons who are taken out of these congested areas and given holdings in order to carry out a rearrangement scheme, the Minister says he has not power to deal with them.

Mr. Blowick

That is safeguarded under paragraph (f).

Mr. Cogan

Paragraph (f) states—

"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".

Mr. Blowick

That covers the surrender.

Mr. Cogan

In this particular case we are dealing with holdings which have been acquired, not by the Land Commission, but by the Minister.

Mr. Blowick

No. A question arises in practically every rearrangement scheme of migrating a tenant or a number of tenants out of a congested village to a new holding. It is not the Minister who moves them. That is still part of the Land Commission's work, because the question of supplying them with a new holding is, under paragraph (f), one for the commissioners, and the problem of resuming or acquiring the holding which they have left behind by virtue of a deed of surrender is also part of the Land Commission's work. It is a bit involved, but that is quite clear.

Mr. Cogan

I think this section as it stands would give the Minister power to allocate a holding to a person who was transferred by reason of a rearrangement scheme in order to facilitate that scheme.

Mr. Blowick

No. Paragraph (f) is the stumbling block there.

Major de Valera

Paragraph (f) does not cover it, as I have pointed out.

Mr. Cogan

I am sure the Minister's intention is to leave that power in the hands of the Land Commission.

Mr. Blowick

I would not take that power with a salary of £20,000 a year.

Mr. Cogan

I am anxious that this should be settled by agreement, if possible. I think the Minister indicated on several occasions that he contemplated bringing in further amendments on the Report Stage. I appeal to him to accept the two amendments, with the reservation that he will put down a further amendment on the Report Stage. Certainly I am anxious to help the Minister to deal with this problem. I am satisfied that he is taking an unwise step in withdrawing from the Land Commission this particular power. He ought to leave the Land Commission with the powers they have. If, for some reason, the Land Commission are not acting efficiently, then we can provide machinery at a later stage to speed up their operations. On occasions, it is stated that the courts are not able to deal with all the cases which come before them speedily enough. I am sure, however, that there would be an uproar on all sides of the House if the Minister for Justice were to come in here and demand that certain of the cases which come before the courts should be handed over to the local superintendent or to the Minister to be dealt with by officers of his Department. The Minister is taking a somewhat similar step.

Mr. Blowick

There is no similarity.

Mr. Cogan

In dealing with the administration of justice, the matter could be rectified by appointing an additional district justice or two. If the Minister thinks the Land Commission are not sufficiently strong to deal with this matter, it should be possible to appoint junior commissioners to deal with it. They would deal with it as effectively as any senior inspector. They would have the advantage of not being subject to political control and that is the thing we want to avoid. We do not want to have a position in which any Minister can be accused of allocating a piece of land to his friends and excluding his political opponents. We do not want to have a position in which rearrangement schemes and the allocation of land will perhaps become the subject of heated discussions at meetings of local political clubs. At present there is some protection provided as between the Minister and those who are claiming land that they are not perhaps entitled to. We have a judicial body with security of tenure to deal with this problem and I think the Minister would be right to leave this whole matter in their hands and, on the Report Stage, to make provision for the speeding up of their operations.

Mr. Blowick

So far as the officers of my Department and myself could get words to safeguard what the Deputy has in mind, we have done so. What I said was that between this and the Report Stage I shall ask the officers of my Department to scrutinise this again. I threw down a challenge to Deputy Moylan, but he did not seem to take it up. As he has not taken it up, I will have this re-examined to see if there is any means of tightening it up or making it more certain. I think I should state for the information of Deputies who are not familiar with the working of the Land Commission that there are two schemes, one which is mentioned in the Bill and one which is not. There is the rearrangement scheme, which is mentioned, and there is the migration scheme, which is also in operation. The two go side by side and are complementary to each other. The Minister is not having anything to do with the migration scheme and, as I said, I shall take good care that I will not. The rearrangement scheme is not a matter for the Minister either.

Mr. Cogan

Why not put in the words "arising out of a rearrangement scheme"?

Mr. Blowick

Perhaps the Deputy might be able to help me out with an amendment between this and the Report Stage? The rearrangement scheme is not mine; it is not Deputy Moran's or Deputy Cogan's scheme. It is not the Land Commission inspector's scheme. It is the scheme that the tenants themselves will agree upon. As to what happened in the past, there was one case where a rearrangement scheme was attempted 21 years ago and it has failed all down the years since. Agreement had been reached amongst the tenants 11 times. Deputies can imagine the amount of time that was spent and the amount of paper that was used in connection with that case. If there was somebody with authority to say: "Go ahead, as the tenants are all in agreement", the thing would have been done long ago. Eleven different inspectors were sent down there during a period of 21 years and it is only a few weeks ago that the case was finally settled.

Mr. Cogan

Surely the inspector has power to hold them to the agreement?

Mr. Blowick

Suppose you had tried to hold them to the agreement and one man has a piece of land the size of the carpet here and another has a piece elsewhere. How are you going to compel one of these men to surrender a piece of land? It cannot be done. You cannot compel a man to move out of his own dwelling-house and build a new one, although the Land Commission might be providing almost the full cost of building the new house on another plot, unless you get the full co-operation and goodwill of all the tenants concerned and unless they know what they are getting. They study these schemes under a microscope and by the time one has the agreement of all the tenants in a rundale village, one can sanction that scheme straightaway with complete confidence that it is a good scheme because not one of those tenants would allow a neighbour to get as much extra land over and above himself as he could cover with his two feet.

Mr. Killilea

But do you think you will ever get them to agree?

Mr. Blowick

Even with all the hampering restrictions on rearrangement imposed by the 1933 Act, I am glad of the speed with which rearrangement schemes are going through. The only difficulty is that a number of them cannot yet be sanctioned, and I walk daily in terror that some of these schemes on which agreement has been reached may fall through by the time the tortuous channel of legal formalities is completed. It is a waste of taxpayers' money to ask inspectors to go out day after day, time and time again to these places, as they have been requested to do in the past by Deputies and others. Scheme after scheme falls through simply because there is no one on the spot to say: "Go ahead with the scheme; it must be a good one if all the tenants are agreed".

Major de Valera

Why does it have to be the Minister, and not an officer of the Land Commission?

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

A Leas Chinn Chomhairle; ag díospóireacht ar an mBille seo, agus ar an alt seo, agus ar leasú a dó dhéag a bhaineas le halt a deich, is cóir agus is ceart go labhródh mé as Gaeilge, go mór mór ó bhaineann an Bille seo leis an nGaeltacht agus go bhfuil seachtain na Gaeilge againn, an tseachtain seo. Baineann an Bille seo le "migration" agus is iona liom cad iad na smaointe atá in intinn an Teachta Giles as Condae na Midhe. An fhaid is a bhí Fianna Fáil i réim bhí sé ag screadach agus ag béicigh in aghaidh na ndaoine uasal macánta a tháinig as Condae Mhuigheo agus as Gaillimh fá scéimeanna a bhí ag an Rialtas deireannach. Do réir an Teachta ní raibh cead acu aon ghabháltas d'fháil i lár na hÉireann. Cad atá aige le rá anocht?

Dúirt an tAire go bhfuilmid ag cur moille leis an mBille seo. Cuirim in iúl don Aire agus don Teach nuair a bhí an Bille deireannach ar siúl tríd an Dáil gur choimeád an Freasúra an díospóireacht dá phlé ar feadh trí mhí go leith mar bhí an iomad leasuithe acu. Ach bhí an ceart acu mar atá againn inniu mar baineann an Bille seo leis an rud is mó tábhacht in Éirinn. Sin é talamh na tíre. Níl mianraigh ná mianaigh againn agus, dá bhrí sin, tá an talamh ar an rud is saidhbhre agus is mó againn.

Táimid ag iarraidh ar an Aire an leasú seo, sin é leasú a 12 a ghlacadh mar táimid i dtaithí an scéil ar an taobh seo den Tigh. Bhí fuadar faoin Aire aréir nuair adúramar an méad atá ráite ag na Teachtaí ar an taobh seo inniu i dtaobh brú poilitíochta faoin alt seo má théann sé tríd an Dáil sa bhfoirm ina bhfuil sé anois. Níl an tAire chomh simplí is a fhéachann sé. Eist leis an bpíosa seo as an Connacht Tribune den 4ú Márta, 1950.

"On the invitation of Mr. James McQuillan, T.D., Mr. Blowick, Minister for Lands, visited various parts of Co. Roscommon last week, and expressed to the Deputy his astonishment that such appalling conditions as he had witnessed should be allowed to exist for so long. He promised the Deputy the assistance of his Department in remedying this state of affairs at the earliest opportunity."

Mr. Killilea

The Minister said he was not in Roscommon.

Mr. Blowick

Might I ask the Deputy is it a crime for the Minister to see conditions with his own eyes?

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

Tabharfaidh mé an freagra don Aire: tá cead a chos aige imeacht mór thimpeall na tíre agus labhairt pé áit is mian leis. Ach nuair a théann sé go dtí baile beag cosúil le Baile Mhic Cathail i bparóiste Dísirt i Roscomáin agus nuair a théann sé isteach i mbotháin na bfeirmeoirí beaga agus nuair a thógann sé a pheann luaidhe nó a pheann amach agus a leabhar nótaí agus nuair a fhiafraíonn sé den fheirmeoir a ainm agus an méad acra talún atá aige, agus nuair a gheallainn sé feirm mhór agus dathad acra ann agus teach mór agus stablaí breagh i gCondae na hIar Mhídhe agus nuair a ghoileann sé ar a ghuaille ag rá: "A chréatuirín bhoicht, tá tú i gcruadh-chás" is mithid duinn ár súile a oscailt.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Conas a bhaineann sé seo leis an leasú atá anois os ár gcomhair?

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

Bheul, a LeasChinn Chomhairle, ar an taobh eile den tSionnain tá sluaite Chlann na Poblachta i gCondae na hIar-Mhidhe ag bailiú ainmneacha freísin agus ag geallúint feirmeacha móra saidhbhire fairsinge dá lucht leanúna. Iarraim ar an Teach conas is féidir "Comhthrom na Féinne" a dhéanamh agus na cleasanna mí-mhacánta atá ar siúl? Larraim arís ar an Aire an leasú seo a ghlacadh nó déanfaidh sé scrios air féin is ar a Pháirtí, mar nuair a bheas an scéim criochnaithe tá deire leis, agus tá scrios déanta ar ár dtír.

Seán Ó Tiománuidhe

Sé an tuairim atá agam go bhfuilmid go léir ar aon aigne go bhfuil an cheist seo práinneach agus admhaíonn gach duine anseo go bhfuil Coimisiún na Talún ró-mhall. Ar an abhar sin tá sé riachtanach rud éigin a dhéanamh chun leigheas d'fháil. Ní fheicim slí is fearr chun é sin a dhéanamh ná an cumhacht atá an tAire ag iarraidh d'fháil ins an mBille seo a thabhairt dó agus é a thabhairt gan a thuille moille.

Vivion de Valera

Ar mhaith leat an cumhacht iomlán a thabhairt dó?

Seán Ó Tiománaigh

Béidir narbb olc an rud é sin a dhéanamh. Fuair an tAire locht mór ar an méid a dúirt an Teachta Vivion de Valera. 'Sé mo thuairim nár thuig an tAire an cás a bhí á dhéanamh ag an Teachta. Sílim nach raibh an ceart ag an Aire bheith á lochtú mar cheapas gur thug an Teachta, mar dhlíodóir, óráid chiallmhar, eolasach dúinn agus ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil mé den tuairim go raibh an ceart aige. Do bé a thuairim go raibh an tAire an fáil níos mó cumhacht ná an méid a admhaíonn sé go bhfuil sé ag fáil. Do cheap an Teachta Vivion de Valera gurb droch rud é sin. Do b'in é a thuairim ach ní aontaím leis an Teachta ins an tuairim sin. Tá iontaoibh againn go léir as an Aire. Má dhéanann sé rud ar bith as an tslí tá sé freagarthach don Teach seo agus tá leigheas ag na daoine ar an taobh thall den Teach, agus ar an taobh seo den Teach freisin, má dhéanann an tAire rud ar bith as an tslí. Lenár nguthanna is féidir linn stop a chur le rud ar bith mar sin. Ní ceart go mbeadh eagla orainn an cumhacht sin a thabhairt. 'Sé mo thuairim gur duine macánta é an tAire agus, fé mar a dúirt mé, tá sé féin, nó aon duine eile in a áit, freagarthach don Teach seo. Mar sin tá sé de dhualgas air féin agus ar aon duine eile a bheadh ina áit an rud ceart a dhéanamh i gcónaí.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Ní fheadar a gcuala an Teachta riamh an seanfhocal Gaeilge: "Ag dúnadh an dorais tar éis na foghla." Má tá an dochar déanta tá sé fuar againn sa Teach seo iarracht a dhéanamh ar é a leigheas.

Seán Ó Tiománuidhe

Do chuala go minic é. Do bheadh eagla air é a dhéanamh.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin

Is dócha go mba chóir dhom an déa-shompla a leanúint agus cuid dem óráid a dhéanamh i Gaeilge. Tá sé soléir ón méid atá ráite ag an Aire nach bhfuil sé ag éileamh cumhacht anseo chun scéim a chumadh ach go bhfuil sé ag éileamh cumhacht chun seéim a cheadú é féin nó cigire ar a shon. Níl sé ráite annseo go bhfuil an cumhacht aige fhéin chun scéim a cheadú. Ar aon chuma, ba mhaith liom a rá go mbeadh duine ar bith as mo cheantar féin díograsach chun cabhair a thabhairt don Aire in a chuid oibre.

I am all at one with the Minister when he says that his objective is speed. A few moments ago he disclaimed any desire to take any powers to frame the scheme. As a matter of fact he has an amendment down to delete the word "framed" from sub-section (1). Therefore, all the Minister on his own showing is claiming is power to approve a scheme either on his own initiative or through a senior inspector. Heretofore inspectors of the Land Commission who went around rearranging rundale estates have had to seek the permission of the tenants before they drew up any sort of a scheme. I take it that the bones of the scheme had to be indicated to the tenants before he was able to make even tentative proposals, and that when he got consent to the scheme it was sent on to Dublin. The Minister's complaint is that in the interval the consents were very often withdrawn by the tenants. What guarantee has he or what assurance can he give us, that if his senior inspector now approves of a scheme—which, the Minister says, will not be framed by the inspector but by the tenants themselves—which has been drawn up by the tenants themselves they will not even now under this Bill withdraw the consent again before it has been carried out.

Mr. Blowick

It is possible that they may. However, it is very unlikley that if consent is forthcoming, say, inside a week or ten days that the change the Deputy is afraid of would materialise.

Mr. Bartley

My experience is this. An inspector went to a place and, whether it was rundale or rigdale or whatever other mixture the tenants were afflicted with, he indicated to the people who owned those plots what he proposed to do. He could not draw up the most tentative scheme without an indication of what he proposed to do.

He got some sort of provisional consent from them. The Minister knows that very often these provisional consents were withdrawn before the plans were implemented.

Mr. Blowick

I would be interested only when full agreement amongst all the tenants had been reached. I think it is very bad when a year or more elapses before sanction is given during which time conditions in villages change, which might cause the whole thing to go up in smoke.

Mr. Bartley

If the scheme was good and if the people want it—if each one of the people wants to have his plots in one compact holding—it does not matter what the delay was. In my opinion if the scheme was originally good they would not have changed their minds. Even this question of approval of a scheme is not definitely given to the Minister in this section.

Mr. Blowick

Why?

Mr. Bartley

All the Minister has taken that there is no doubt about is the naming of the allottees for the rearranged portions of the townland. That is all that is beyond doubt in this section.

Mr. Blowick

Not at all.

Mr. Bartley

There is no positive statement in either sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) that the Minister or an officer on his behalf has the unquestioned right of approval. The Minister has the support of members of his own side of the House for this section because they believe he has taken the right to initiate rearrangements proposals, not alone to approve of them. They are swallowing the right to name allottees. I strongly object to that.

Mr. Blowick

Does the Deputy have the cheek to say that when you give a man back his own land you are calling him an allottee? Do not try to confuse the Deputies who are not familiar with the problem.

Mr. Bartley

I did not frame this Bill. I am taking the words as they appear. The Minister has put me a question. I shall answer it by asking him another one. What is gained by (d) (1)—"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"? Is there not a clear suggestion there that, in the giving of the rearranged portions of a townland to persons, the persons who receive them are, under this section, being called allottees?

Mr. Blowick

No. The part inside the brackets refers to rearranged tenants. The part outside the bracket is an excepted matter for the commissioners. The Deputy has had legal training and he should not ask a layman to tell him to open his eyes and to look at brackets.

Mr. Bartley

The Minister is quibbling.

Mr. Blowick

I am not. It is there in black and white.

Mr. Bartley

I think I can demonstrate it.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy cannot convince me that white is black. I will not believe it.

Mr. Bartley

Let us assume there are seven tenants in a townland which is being rearranged. Let us say that the Minister sends down an inspector to rearrange this townland and to make compact holdings. After all, remember there is going to be only the same amount of land in the seven holdings when they are rearranged.

Mr. Blowick

How does the Deputy know?

Mr. Bartley

I am taking a case where rearrangement has been carried out without the addition of any new land. Has the Minister got that much?

Mr. Blowick

Yes.

Mr. Bartley

We are going to have seven new holdings. They will not be the seven same holdings after rearrangement as they were before rearrangement. The Minister then comes along under this sub-section and he names A, B, C, D and F for the seven holdings. I make a present of this point to the Minister——

Mr. Blowick

A, B, C, D and F will name themselves for the holdings, and I am trying to enable them to do that. You should know what the conditions are like coming from a congested constituency.

Mr. Killilea

They will never agree.

Mr. Bartley

That makes the position far worse then. The Minister has made an admission to me that, not alone does he not take power himself to frame the scheme, but he is actually leaving the initiation of these schemes to the unfortunate tenants themselves. Does the Minister not know that they would have carried out the rearrangement themselves if it were possible for them to do so heretofore? If what the Minister says is the real interpretation of the section he is making no change——

Mr. Blowick

That is what Fianna Fáil wanted.

Mr. Bartley

All I can do is to let the Minister find out the mess he is creating. Let him find out in actual practice the sort of mess he is making of the problem.

Mr. Blowick

When the present Minister knows he is right he does not mind what the Deputy may say.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I suggest that Deputy Bartley be allowed to make his own speech and we shall get along more quickly.

Mr. Bartley

The Minister, in one of the additional amendments of which he has given notice, proposes to cut out the word "frame", which would seem to indicate he was taking some powers to start a scheme. All I can say is that I object in the strongest possible manner to his naming the allottees. I believe it is a new principle and it is an entirely wrong one. It is being accepted by his own supporters because they think he is taking powers to speed up rearrangement, which he is not. If he took these powers it would sugar-coat the pill to some extent but he is not taking the powers.

Major de Valera

The Minister has been referring to two things. He is talking about amending the section so as to meet the point of view that he was not taking these powers. He has referred to paragraph (f) of the sub-section. I ask the Minister has he appreciated that paragraph (f) does not qualify of necessity the operation of paragraph (d), having relation to the remaining words at the end of the section? In addition to that, there is material upon which paragraph (f) can operate—namely, it operates on land acquired or resumed simpliciter quite apart from a rearrangement scheme. The point is that where you have two paragraphs in a Bill, when it comes to interpretation, the court will try to give them a separate and distinct meaning and not regard them as redundant or repetitive. Therefore if as a matter of fact paragraph (f) can operate without any arrangement, paragraph (f) does not come into the picture at all. If paragraph (d) then, taken with the rest of the section stands and the section is passed in its present form, the Minister will, willy nilly have in his hand power by himself to deal, so to speak, privately as Minister both with the allocation and the price of land in the congested districts. What is more he can do that apparently in the name of the Land Commission if he wants to. The point I want to put to the Minister now to appreciate is that this paragraph (f) does not amend it at all. If he wants to take these powers I suggest that he take them openly but if he does not want to take them then the obvious thing is to accept the amendment.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I have been wondering, after listening to the various arguments, why the Minister cannot accept the amendment. He has challenged the House to frame an amendment to meet the problem in a better way than he proposes to meet it. Has the Land Commission failed in its job seeing that the Minister now wants to take it over? The Minister is slighting the Land Commission as a responsible body of officials.

Mr. Blowick

I am—what?

Mr. Burke

You are slighting the Land Commission because you are alleging they are not able to do their job and you are going to appoint a senior——

Mr. Blowick

I am not alleging anything and I am not going to appoint anybody.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Minister can appoint an inspector. Why cannot the Land Commission have the same powers or are we to have this dictatorial attitude of the Minister in bringing in this section to nominate his own inspector? I object to the principle because I regard this as a definitely partisan attitude on the part of the Minister. He may not intend to abuse this power but some other Minister may come along and abuse it. If this principle is adopted by other Ministers then we are going to have partisan legislation. I put it to the Minister that, if the Minister for Local Government wants to appoint an inspector to allocate houses, it amounts to the same thing. If the Minister for Defence wants to do a job, he can do the same. The Minister for Health can appoint doctors and do away with the Local Appointments Commission. The Minister for Agriculture can instruct his inspectors whose land is to be taken.

I am objecting on principle to taking power from the Land Commission because the division of land is a national problem and should be left in the hands of the Land Commission or some independent body. No Minister of State should have the allotting of land left in his hands. Here the Minister is definitely taking over from the Land Commission a job that was theirs before he took office. As Deputy Beegan said, when the Fianna Fáil Government came into office and passed the 1933 Land Act they did not take such power.

Mr. Blowick

Because they did not know how.

Mr. P.J. Burke

They well knew how to take it, but Mr. Eamon de Valera, their leader, realised that land division was a national problem.

Mr. Blowick

And a nice mess he made of it.

Mr. P.J. Burke

He realised it should not be given to partisan people. So far as I can see, the trend is towards dictatorial legislation. If the lay commissioners are not able to rearrange holdings they should not be there at all. This rearrangement should be left to the Land Commission. If, as other Deputies have said here, the Minister tries to get in that backdoor legislation and tells us that he is not taking power from the Land Commission, then he must think we are very dull people. Surely Deputies on this side of the House should have some say? We are anxious to see that the Minister will not have power to rearrange allotments in favour of his own friends. We want to see the land divided by an independent body in the national interest, irrespective of what people's political views are. We did not take such power during our period of office.

Mr. Blowick

You should have, but you did not know how.

Mr. P.J. Burke

We realised that it was dangerous legislation. I do not think the Minister is fair to himself when he takes this power. The people will look peculiarly on this section and they will think the Minister is taking the power to give land to his friends. However, that will be the Minister's own funeral. I ask the Minister to accept this very judicious amendment, which was put down not alone for the good of the Bill, but in the interests of posterity, because any other unscrupulous Minister can dish out land to his supporters.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Burke will not be allowed to continue along that line. He has been traversing the same ground over and over. He will have to cease repeating himself. I must ask the Deputy to sit down.

Mr. Moylan rose.

Mr. Blowick

Might I pass this remark before Deputy Moylan speaks? It is evident that Fianna Fáil Deputies must be out of town and those who are in the House are delaying the House until other Deputies come in.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not concerned with where Fianna Fáil Deputies are.

Mr. Blowick

I suspect they are not in the House at the moment.

Mr. Moylan

I am more than surprised at the Minister suggesting that I get up to discuss the amendment, having moved it, for the purpose of further obstruction, as he calls it. The Minister said that there has been deliberate misrepresentation. There has been no deliberate misrepresentation.

Mr. Blowick

Indeed there has been, and you know it.

Mr. Moylan

The facts are quite clear from the words contained in the section. The Minister, living in looking glass land, like Humpty Dumpty, suggests that no matter what Deputies are going to say they mean exactly what he makes them mean and nothing else. I say one objective we might turn our minds to in the discussion of this Bill is to try to get into the minds of the people in the congested districts that no matter how hard we work, no matter how good our intentions, no matter how much land we acquire, resume or divide, we cannot deal with one-tenth of the problem in the congested districts.

Mr. Blowick

I do not subscribe to that fatalistic theory at all.

Mr. Moylan

The Minister spoke about the 1946 Act, about Fianna Fáil having had to bring in that Act because of certain things that happened in the way of land division. These things cannot be avoided, no matter how honestly any Minister works. It would be better nationally for all of us if we could take merely one subject into consideration—that is, the relief of congestion. If we could deal merely with the relief of congestion we would be doing far better national work than if we were dealing with any other problem, but unfortunately, human nature being as it is, we cannot bring people from Mayo, Donegal, Galway, Cork and Kerry into County Meath, County Tipperary or any other county without taking into consideration the outlook and the desires and the opposition of the people who live in these particular districts. Deputy McQuillan will find that even in County Roscommon there will be definite opposition to the bringing in of men from an outside county while landless men are making demands in Roscommon.

The argument against the 1946 Act is based on a completely wrong conception. It was because so much was done that the 1946 Act had to be brought in. Human nature being what it is, we have to provide a sanitary cordon in County Meath and elsewhere around the people from the West. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again later.