Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Mar 1950

Vol. 120 No. 1

Land Bill, 1949—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 21.

I was urging on the Minister the complete undesirability of his intrusion on work that has heretofore been in the complete control of the Land Commission. While I feel that dealing with rundale farms directly, and not through the Land Commission is undesirable, I feel that his dealing with other lands is a contradiction to the terms of paragraph (b), of sub-section (1) of Section 10. If one stands, the other falls and, therefore, I think that the Minister ought to agree either to mend his hand here or completely delete the words I suggest.

The Deputy said I was getting into a very nice mood a moment ago.

You are in a good mood.

Then let me say for the Deputy's benefit that, on the very question he has raised, I intend to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage. The amendment, I think, should largely take the shape of an amendment to the definition that the Deputy was trying to wipe off the map a while ago.

I should like to point out that I think the Minister's leaving in these words does not make any sense seeing that we have accepted amendment No. 20 and cut out the words "framed or". I was one of the Deputies who, like Deputy Commons, felt that the Minister was taking power to speed up the rearrangement of holdings and that, with the elimination of these words, "framed or", the Minister has left himself the power to approve. He has told us that the scheme is to be a scheme really drawn up by the tenants of these intermixed holdings.

No, not drawn up by the tenants. It can be drawn up by anybody, including the tenants, but the tenants must agree. The Deputy knows what I mean.

Although the Minister has pointed out that he and his advisers have an objection to the removal of the words "framed or"——

Is that not amendment No. 20?

I am pointing out that, in my view, the removal of the words "framed or" leaves no alternative to the Minister but the acceptance of the amendment proposed by Deputy Moylan in amendment No. 21. I wish to make the point to the Minister that, having himself suggested the removal of the words to which I have referred, Deputy Commons and myself believed that the Minister was taking power to do something in relation to the matter of speeding up rearrangements, but now he leaves himself with the approval of work done by somebody else.

That is amendment No. 20.

Amendment No. 21 proposes to delete the words,

"whether with or without the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said rearrangement."

I take it that it is agreed on all sides that the difficulty in relation to the rearrangement of intermixed holdings is not nearly so great as the difficulty these tenants would have if they had to rearrange their own holdings in conjunction with other lands. I think that would be quite impossible altogether. I am one of those who, while objecting to the Minister's taking power to name the allottees, would much more readily give him the right to do something positive in the creation of acceptable rearrangement schemes but I take it that he has already shed that power and, therefore, he is putting an impossible task on the people who own these intermixed holdings if he asks them not alone to rearrange their intermixed holdings but to do that in conjunction with the division of other lands. I do not see how it is possible to get people to draw up a scheme which takes in lands other than those they already hold.

It was never intended that the Minister should have the allotting of new holdings, even where they would be taken out of congested holdings.

Would the Minister give us a better explanation of the amendment he proposes to bring in, in order to clarify this matter because after all there is no great point in trying to have a rearrangement scheme carried out, if it is to be mixed up with outside lands? Undoubtedly rearrangement would be a matter for the people themselves to agree upon but this question of outside lands certainly gives the Minister power over all lands, no matter what they are taken for, because you can relate a rearrangement scheme anywhere to untenanted land that has been taken over, no matter in what part of the country.

I take it the Minister is not accepting Deputy Moylan's amendment?

I am not accepting the amendment. The whole thing arises out of this, that Deputies on that side of the House thought the Minister would have the allotting of new holdings.

Under this Bill, as it is.

That is very doubtful.

Not a bit doubtful.

I do not intend that, and, in case that would be thought, I intend to bring in an amendment to clear it up. In the case of the allotting of land, of derelict holdings which have been acquired in a townland that is being rearranged, or surrendered by virtue of migration that is absolutely necessary to complete a rearrangement scheme in a particular townland, I will ask the Dáil to give me power; but if it implies that the Minister would have the allotting of holdings to migrants whom it is necessary to take out of a village, I will give a promise to the Deputy that I will try to make that as watertight as I can.

If the Minister said that at an earlier stage he would have saved a lot of discussion.

I did, but it seemed there was nothing doing.

May we take it that the Minister proposes to bring in an amendment to this sub-section on the Report Stage—he proposes to amend Deputy Moylan's proposal?

I do not know whether that amendment would take the form of another excepted matter or what shape it would take—whether it would be in the form of an amendment to the finishing portion of the section—but it will settle the thing beyond any question of doubt.

Then we take it that it will be clear from what the Minister proposes to do that if, for instance, it is necessary to acquire a farm in Meath to accommodate rundale people, the Minister will not have the determination of the price of that farm in Meath?

That was never in the Bill.

It is in the Bill.

Deputy Vivion de Valera told you that, but you should never have believed it.

The Minister referred a moment ago to derelict holdings, or land that had been surrendered as a result of migration——

Or land acquired in a village where there is to be a rearrangement scheme.

Will the Minister go any further in his explanation as to what is proposed?

I will bring in an amendment on Report covering those matters.

I suggest amendment No. 21 be withdrawn now and retabled.

I dislike the Minister's interference altogether, even in rundale, in dealing with land personally or through his agent and as regards finance, but I presume the Minister is going to retain that, anyway. Is he going to bring in, in his amendment, a proposal that he or his agent will not deal with land which is other than rundale land? What exactly does he mean? We shall have to get some clarity as to what his proposed alteration of the section will be. Generally, does it mean that he will leave the acquisition or the resumption of land other than rundale land to the care of the Land Commission?

The acquisition of land, whether rundale, or otherwise, is and always will be a matter for the commissioners.

What do the words in the Bill mean, or how will judges interpret the statue?

The determination of the persons from whom the land will be acquired and the determination of the actual lands to be acquired or resumed. The two paragraphs causing the trouble are paragraphs (d) and (e). The determination of the persons to be selected as allottees other than any determination arising out of the rearrangement scheme and the price at which such land is to be resold. There is no question of the acquisition or resumption being taken from the excepted matters, good or bad.

I said the other evening that the Minister is living in looking-glass land. There is a character there who says: "Words will mean what I choose them to mean and not otherwise." The Minister is taking these words to mean one thing, while we believe they mean another thing.

I throw a challenge to the Deputy. Will the Deputy show me where the Minister or his officer has the power to acquire or resume any land for any purpose?

Let us see what we mean.

Is this related to amendment No. 21?

Unfortunately, I am afraid it is not.

If it is not, there will be no end to this debate; we will have a debate like this on every amendment.

What, roughly, is the Minister promising to do with the section?

I thought I made myself quite clear. In the case of allotting new holdings for any purpose whatever——

For migrants or otherwise?

For migrants whom it will be necessary to remove out of the congested townland. What I am asking the Dáil is to give the officers of my Department, other than the commissioners, power to rearrange a townland with other townlands in the immediate vicinity so as to make compact holdings. The Deputy knows quite well what I am at. The officials who will have the task of putting that into words that will please the lawyers and the House will have a very difficult task. I do not envy them the job.

Is the Minister asking for approval for the rearrangement of such lands? He said to me a few moments ago that the tenants are not being asked to draw up their own rearrangement scheme and the Minister is disclaiming all responsibility for it. Is this matter of formulating a rearrangement scheme still to continue a Land Commission matter and the Minister approves of it?

It will continue in the same way as always, except that it will not have to travel through devious and tortuous ways until it reaches the top, and possibly by the time it gets back again it will be broken through. If a certain amendment that I will move is carried, the divisional inspector will have the sanctioning of any rearrangement scheme in his area.

In view of the fact that the time taken on the Flax Bill was shorter than was anticipated, I suggest that the House might adjourn until 7 o'clock to give the Minister an opportunity of having his tea.

Agreed.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 6.20 p.m., and resumed at 7 p.m.
Top
Share