Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Mar 1950

Vol. 120 No. 2

Land Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Amendment No. 37 was being dealt with when progress was reported last night. The amendment proposes to delete certain words. I am putting the question:—"That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."

Question put and declared carried.

I move amendment No. 38:—

In sub-section (4) page 7, line 34, to delete "word" and substitute "words."

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.

I move amendment No. 40:—

In paragraph (a) line 24, to delete the words "sixty-five" and substitute the word "seventy."

The office of commissioner is a most important one, and to stress its significance the age limit of Circuit Court judges was given as the retiring limit for commissioners. I agree there is a change needed in the position that exists, because I understand that if members of the Appeal Tribunal cease to be members of it they can still continue for ever as ordinary commissioners. Therefore, it is desirable that there should be some limit put on the retiring age. I suggest that 70 is a reasonable retiring age. There should be some significance given to the position of commissioner to indicate its importance, and the fact that civil servants are not in the same position or grade as commissioners. I think it is wisdom to utilise, as far as possible, the garnered experience of years. You will have men who have had years of experience in the Land Commission, and who at their retiring age of 65 might as a result of that experience be most valuable as commissioners. I do not think it is wise to cut the age down to 65. I want to stress in some fashion the judicial significance of the post of commissioner, and I would appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment.

I find that I have reached the same point of view as Deputy Moylan. Whether we like it or not, there is a distinction between the ordinary civil servant and the lay commissioner. I am not in favour of the age of 72, as might be suggested, because it is the retiring age of some judges. This is not the time to comment on that. Perhaps the Minister would address his mind to this point, that 65 might be too young, and there might be an intermediate stage between 65 and 70, so that there might be some way in which he could exercise the power if necessary to retain people of an age that would be in excess of 65 if that were found to be in the interests of the service and of speeding up the work of the Land Commission.

I would like the Minister to look into the matter as to whether or not he is not in a way seeking to defeat his own purpose. The lay commissioners are slow enough, and if he has to be constantly trying to train up new lay commissioners, he will only slow up the job which is an involved one. It has taken the lay commissioners years to acquire the knowledge that they have acquired. Whether they have acquired a masterly knowledge of it yet is problematical. I would suggest to the Minister that possibly he might consider putting those people in a slightly different category from that of the ordinary civil servant. I think there is a good deal of merit in Deputy Moylan's suggestion, that what is proposed would make the office more significant than that of the ordinary civil servant who does not carry quite the same autonomous powers or the same semi-judicial functions as lay commissioners.

Let me say that 65 came into my mind because it is the retiring age for civil servants and for commissioners in other Departments— for example, the Revenue Commissioners and the Board of Works. I want to say that I am not tied to the age of 65. The one consideration that did enter into it was that the commissioners, in the matter of the acquisition or resumption of land, are the only body in this or any other country that have the right to take a man's property from him. They are one of the most important bodies in the State. I do not know that there is in any other country any similar body with as wide powers as they have. For that reason, it occurred to me that it might not be fair to those from whom their property is being taken to leave that power in the hands of men in whom the natural process of——

No, but of the old age that will overtake all of us was setting in. It must impair their powers somewhat. Civil servants retire at the age of 65.

The Chief Justice does not retire until the age of 72, and his responsibilities must be infinitely greater.

This is not the time to give one's views on that. I would ask Deputy Moylan to withdraw the amendment and I will see what I can do before the Report Stage. I am not giving a guarantee that I will make it 70. I can see the point of Deputy Collins and Deputy Moylan that it is wasteful, so to speak, to lose at the age of 65 all the experience that has been acquired during the years up to that. I fully realise that the commissioners have acquired a great knowledge of the land laws, and that that cannot be got overnight. In the case of the appointment of new commissioners from the ranks of the higher officials in the Land Commission, those officials will undoubtedly have a good deal of previous experience. I will consider the matter.

I would urge on the Minister that, whatever about the new commissioners who may be appointed or the age that might be fixed for their retirement, he would not in a precipitous way cut off the expectant life of the commissioners who are at present serving.

This is a very important matter from the general point of view and it is desirable that in the consideration of it the Minister should have all the assistance that can be given to him. There are two points of view. One is that where you have a man of experience in what one might term a difficult and complicated position such as this his services should be retained as long as possible, that, in fact, this is one of the cases where age is a help. The other aspect is that in a matter of this importance it is essential that there should be a new and virile outlook and that as often as possible new blood and a virile mentality should be introduced into the operations of the Land Commission. There was some reference yesterday to fossilisation and that one of the dangers with men in that particular position is—it is a strange thing that it is only men we seem to think about; no one has thought of a woman yet, why, I do not know——

As a commissioner?

As a commissioner. We have been talking about men, and one of the dangers that I can see is that men may be enmeshed in the routine of the job and be more concerned with the routine than with achievement. That is one of the problems which we have to face up to in a general way and very soon. Arbitrary retirement at 65 years of age, as in the Civil Service and in a great number of commissions, may have been at one time considered a proper thing.

The general question does not arise on this amendment.

I do not want to raise it. Naturally, I must relate it in this way. When they retire, they retire on a pension. I take it that the Land Commissioners when they retire will retire on substantial pensions.

The strange thing is that there is no provision for pensions for the commissioners until this Bill goes through.

Anyway, they will retire on pensions. It has to be considered from the general point of view of the State whether, when a person is fully alert and alive to his responsibility, he should not be actively working for the State rather than sitting at home drawing a pension.

There is a good deal in that.

That aspect of it has to be considered. There ought to be a proviso that if the age limit is extended it should depend on capacity, both physical and mental, to do the work. We do not want to have the position with which some of us are familiar, of a person physically unfit to do his job filling the job. I would not like to think that a land commissioner should be carried into his office and hoisted up on a chair by two or three officials.

The Deputy is referring to a land commissioner?

Yes. I am saying that I would not like to see a land commissioner in a position where he would have to be carted round and placed up on his chair and insist on remaining there whether he was doing the work or not. That is why I thought it necessary to submit my observation in regard to that. I do think that a vital principle of importance is involved and that when the Minister, and I presume the Government, come to consider this matter it is right that they should have the assistance of Deputies. If there is any extension of the age limit, that must be subject to physical and mental efficiency. As has been said, there may be fossilisation, but we ought to avoid that if we can. I am quite sure it would be the Minister's idea and the idea of Deputy Moylan, and certainly of every person in the country concerned with the work of the Land Commission, that these persons should be capable of doing their work efficiently. If that is accepted there should be no objection to the extension of the age limit, because to reduce the age too much may mean that the State would lose the services of very valuable personnel.

There is one thing worrying me and I want to impress it on the Minister. I feel that we might be a party to grave injustice if the potential life that a lay commissioner should have expected as a commissioner was by this Bill arbitrarily taken away. I urge upon the Minister between this and the Report Stage, whatever he may consider about the possible extension of the age limit, to ensure that those who are at present lay commissioners will not suffer from a sudden axing of their potential life as lay commissioners.

One thing that I am sure every Deputy would like to see protected is the complete independence of the commissioners as a judicial body. If we do anything to undermine their independence, they will cease to be a judicial body, will lose their independence, and become little less than a joke. If the Minister could by any means dictate to them or get them into his power, or any other body, the moment they lose their freedom and independence we should not have them at all. That is where I foresee the difficulty which Deputy Cowan has pointed out. We shall fix the age at either 65 or 70, but there must be no handles to it.

Make it 70.

There must not be any handles to it. Deputy Cowan would not like to see a commissioner carried in and hoisted into his chair. I am afraid we cannot submit them to an efficiency test or a medical test in the same way as we would civil servants. The Deputy has a keen knowledge and experience of the law courts and I am sure he would not like to see that happening in the case of the judiciary.

It is because I have experience there that I raise this particular point.

We will leave the judiciary out of it. It does not arise.

Under the new Courts of Justice Bill there is a provision under which the Chief Justice and someone else can make a recommendation.

And that is the answer to Deputy Cowan's allegation.

I am not making allegations. People are very thin-skinned.

The Minister is in possession.

I have no objection whatever to fixing the age at 70. I think there is a good deal in Deputy Cowan's point that the five years between 65 and 70 are five years during which good service can be given, and if the age is fixed at 65 that service and experience would be lost to the State. The only danger is that health and efficiency might be impaired. I shall have the matter examined between this and the Report Stage to see what can be done.

I do not think the Minister can leave it as bald as that.

That is provided their independence is not undermined.

Their independence will not be impaired in any way, but the position might arise of a commissioner being unable to attend to his business.

Has not the Deputy said all that before?

Yes, but I do not think it made the impression I hoped it would make.

We are all in the same boat.

Whether the age is fixed at 65 or 70 a person ought to be fit to do his work. I do not think there is any interference with the independence of the Land Commissioners in insisting that they should be capable of doing their work. If the Minister does not make provision now in that respect we may run into headwinds later on. We should avoid that. I do not think it could be considered interference with independence to have a provision that a person must be physically and mentally fit. I am not so worried about the physical aspect of it as I am about the mental aspect. When the Minister is reconsidering this matter he ought to consider it particularly from the point of view of the capability of the individual in question.

I shall do that.

I would like to press upon the Minister that he should stick to either age 65 or 70. I hope there will be no latitude and no extension. Once extensions are made the power of the commissioners must inevitably be weakened.

I would not agree to that at all. That would be most undesirable.

I think it should be 65. I do not think we can compare the commissioners with the judiciary. The law is a permanent institution and I see no reason why a lawyer would be impaired between 65 and 70. In fact, his experience in those years might be most advantageous. In the Land Commission a certain job of work has to be done in a certain time. In order to get that work done we need an energetic and virile approach. No one will deny that the younger a man is the more inclined he is to go ahead with the job. For that reason, I prefer 65 to 70.

I would like to urge my point of view upon the Minister once more. The Minister proposes in this section to make a very significant change. He has admitted that he is not, as it were, married to the proposal. I think a middle course would be the best solution. Instead of changing from a life tenure to a retiring age of 65 he might reasonably leave the retiring age at 70. Of course, if we introduce the two factors of virility and feminity into the Land Commission, as suggested by Deputy Collins, we might have a mess that even the Deputy has not anticipated. I think it would be wise if the Minister accepted the suggestion of 70.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.

I move amendment No. 41:—

In sub-section (2), page 8, line 40, to delete "on" and substitute "at the end of".

This is purely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.

I move amendment No. 42:—

In line 6 to delete the word "four" and substitute the word "five".

The commissioners must discuss the very intricate business of the Land Commission and make decisions thereon, and I think it would be unwise to have a number which might not, in the case of disagreement, result in a majority one way or the other. I think four is an inadequate number for the reason that the Land Commission, in spite of what the Minister said when introducing the Bill, have a good deal more work to do than the Minister has actually agreed they do. In the report of the Land Commission for last year ending 31st March, 1949, there came before the Land Commissioners 226 applications, objections and petitions. Now these various petitions, objections and applications cover a rather wide field. There were objections to the acquisition of untenanted land; petitions against resumption; applications under Section 44 of the Land Act, under Section 14 of the same Act of 1931, and under Section 53 of the Land Act, 1939; objections to vesting orders and 17 miscellaneous matters other than these. All these are specialised matters, and all of them are difficult and intricate. A court that handles 226 cases during a particular year seems to me to be a court that, instead of needing a diminution of its members, would really need a strengthening. As far as I know, all the courts in the country—for instance, district courts and circuit courts—have been strengthened in their personnel, and this is one of the busiest courts in the country. I would suggest that, instead of a diminution of the number of people acting on it, it should be strengthened. Apart from that, I would particularly like an odd number of members, so that we might have a majority on one side or the other.

I should like to direct the attention of Deputies to what the House has passed under Section 11 of this Bill, and in particular under Section 11 (4) which reads as follows:—

"Where a decision is made or given by a majority of the lay commissioners concerned therein, the dissenting minority of such lay commissioners shall be deemed, for the purposes of the foregoing subsections of this section to concur in such decision, and the word ‘concur' and ‘concurrence' shall in those sub-sections of this section be construed accordingly."

If you have four lay commissioners— two of them one way and two of them the other way—who is going to concur with which? Which two are going to concur with the other two? The minority will be required by law, under Section 11, if they disagree, to concur with the majority. In this measure the maximum number is four. Presumably, four is the number the Minister has in mind. That is what he has in the section. If the situation arises that two vote one way and two vote the other way, which two are going to prevail? Whose decision is going to be upheld? I suggest that the Minister take the figure of three or five. If he leaves the matter as it is, I can foresee various difficulties arising in the work of the commissioners.

I think it is possible that we are at cross purposes on this amendment. I think all that Section 15 lays down is that the number of commissioners shall not exceed four. I think there will be no difficulty about the Minister's fixing the question of a quorum for a court as being three. I think that possibly we are at variance without really being at variance. We are confusing what, actually, the number of commissioners will be as distinct from what might constitute a court of lay commissioners. I do not know the Minister's attitude in this regard. However, I think that certainly Deputy Moran's argument on the issue of four people sitting as a court is a valid one. We have already had experience in this country of the complete lack of cohesion that exists when four people sit on a board, constitute a court, and divide equally. I would urge the Minister, between this and the Report Stage, if only to meet the wishes of the Opposition, to extend that section to say that the maximum number of commissioners shall be four and that three of them shall constitute a court for the purpose of carrying out the work.

We have the very same position to-day. We have six commissioners—two appeal tribunal and four lay. My private opinion is that four are too many.

Hear, hear.

The usual court work will be performed by three commissioners. Even in the case of a tie, the senior commissioner has a casting vote. There is not the remotest possibility of a deadlock being reached and of something having to be allowed to flop because of failure to reach agreement.

The Minister has revealed something that is even worse. I completely disagree with a commissioner having a casting vote as well as an individual vote.

It is never used.

I would like the Minister to assure us that it would not be used——

——by making it compulsory that an uneven number of commissioners sit.

I look on the commissioners as a kind of committee that meet and do the work. I agree with the Minister's observation that four of them are, in fact, too many. Somebody once said that if you want to get work done on a committee the ideal number is three, with two always absent.

That was tried in Germany.

They did not get too far.

That is the ideal committee. That is what gets the work done.

What kind of work? What is the general result? Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini tried that themselves.

Excellent work. I venture to say that if he got an opportunity of dealing with the problems of the Land Commission he would solve them much quicker than the four commissioners. However, that is not the point which we are considering now. When I saw this amendment I had some doubts as to whether it was in order, because it seemed to be imposing a charge on public funds; but apparently it is in order. There are, apparently, six commissioners. This Bill deals with four. Apparently the court consists of three and I understand that the court can consist of two —the Minister will put me right on that.

Two can be a quorum, but it is unlikely. The Minister makes a sealed order governing the quorum and various other things connected with the commissioners. The usual quorum consists of three. I am asking the House for four commissioners in case there might be an epidemic and two commissioners might be down at the same time.

The Minister is providing a safety valve.

Deputy Moylan wants to provide two safety valves in case they blow off too much steam at the same time. That is as it seems to me to be. Most of us would like to see the necessity for the two safety valves. I do not think there will be that much steam blown off at all. If the amendment were accepted it would mean that we would have to have an extra commissioner. An extra commissioner is going to cost extra money; he will mean extra liability to the State in pay and in pension. With the cost of administration as high as it is at the moment, there is no justification for adding an additional penny to it. Therefore, I oppose Deputy Moylan's amendment.

This—from the point of view of the relief of congestion that everybody in this House has been talking about—is one of the most important matters of all here, namely, the availability of machinery for the purpose of dealing with these cases. These are the commissioners who sit in the courts down throughout different parts of the country to hear objections against acquisitions and so forth. It is most important that you have proper machinery for that work. Everybody who is concerned with that particular branch of work in the Land Commission is aware that there have been and are tremendous delays for the very reason that we have not had a court capable of functioning often enough, and that they were not able to deal with the business in as expeditious a manner as should have been the case. I do not mind whether the Minister appoints three or five. I understood that the Minister had in mind four, but the position I have in mind as arising in the case of two commissioners, would just as well arise in the case of four. In particular, I want to point out that there is a specific direction already given in sub-section (4) of Section 11 of this Bill whereby a dissenting minority must concur with the decision of the majority of the lay commissioners, if there is a majority decision. What will be the position under Section 11 of the Bill if you have four commissioners and they are divided evenly in regard to any matter? That is a matter that I think the Minister would be well advised to think over between now and the Report Stage.

We have had four lay commissioners for years and we shall have four for the future. Does that not answer the Deputy's whole point? There were two Appeal Tribunal Commissioners and they could not touch ordinary work if there was a danger of anything appealable in a case.

Are you not wiping out that difficulty under this Bill?

There are four lay commissioners there at the moment and there will be four there after this Bill has passed.

The two Appeal Commissioners relieved the other commissioners of a good deal of work. They relieved the Judicial Commissioner of a good deal of work, because they prepared all the cases and went through them before the Judicial Commissioner ever saw them. Otherwise, he could not have got through the work. You are not having four commissioners sitting in Dublin waiting to deal with particular cases. Last year they held courts in Galway, Castlebar, Cork, Tralee, Limerick, Ballina, Sligo and Letterkenny. All that entailed work. I think that it is definitely necessary to have the extra personnel. The question of economy does not arise, because the amount of money paid in commissioners' salaries, as compared with the total expenditure of the Land Commission, would be infinitesimal.

Then, again, the Minister should not prevent the Land Commission and himself from getting through the work that he is so anxious to expedite. I do not think he is wise in refusing this amendment. For instance, if we are thinking of economy, how many commissioners have been appointed to the new Industrial Development Authority and how many commissioners are on the News Agency? Personally, I am not concerned one way or another as to what the Minister will do, but I am trying to advise him and I think he should accept the amendment.

Adding one commissioner to four will not make things any easier. As I understand the Deputy, he thinks that the work may become too heavy for the four commissioners. The only way to deal with that difficulty would be to have a sufficient number of commissioners to establish two courts and have the two courts running simultaneously.

Take the question of holidays, staggered holidays or illness.

My advisers tell me that four is a safer number than three. My own opinion was that three would be sufficient, but then the question of holidays and illness may crop up.

The Minister is getting better advice now and he should take it.

That is a matter of opinion. The Appeal Tribunal Commissioners take a certain amount of non-appealable work from the lay commissioners. This Bill has lopped off a great deal of small matters from the commissioners' work, matters that will be handled by the upper grades of the staff, and it will not be a worry to them any more. I think that that will be a greater help to the commissioners than the work that the Appeal Tribunal could do. I am quite satisfied that four commissioners are ample.

Deputy Moylan mentioned, and I accept his figures, that last year the commissioners dealt with 226 cases. If that is a correct figure, it certainly has no relation whatsoever to the work done by the judiciary. I know one district justice who deals with more cases than that in a morning.

There is no analogy between the cases.

I admit that there is not, but nevertheless 226 is a very small number of cases. I am very disappointed if that is the measure of their activity. A team of four commissioners makes provision for one reserve. In other words, the team is three with one reserve to come in in case of injury. I think that is reasonable. The volume of work to do is very small, and a team of three gives room for a majority decision. The reserve can step into the gap in the case of an emergency. That being so, I think the advice the Minister got is sound. In view of the state of the public finances, and the heavy Estimates we are facing now, I think that there would be no justification for increasing the number and thus increasing the expenditure on the administration of the Land Commission.

I wonder would the Minister indicate to Deputy Cowan the difference there is between a case heard by the Land Commission and an ordinary "drunk" case which comes before the District Court? For the general benefit of Deputies present, would the Minister indicate, particularly to Deputy Cowan, the type of case the Land Commission have to hear, the intricacies of that case, and the length of time it is likely to take?

I do not know whether Deputy Moylan has ever been at a Land Commission court. I presume he has. Certainly if he did take time to attend a sitting of the commissioners, he would realise how very short it takes them to deal with the case. They break off suddenly in the midst of evidence, to consult one another and give a decision.

The argument for appointing them up to the age of 70 was that they were men of experience who could do that.

I am only pointing out that there is no need to worry at all. They will not be overburdened. The length of time they take to decide a case is nothing like the length of time taken to decide a case in the ordinary Circuit Court. There is no summing-up of evidence or no statement by the commissioners, as in the case of a judge, and there is no jury to be lectured on what or what not to do. The procedure in the courts has been extremely short, so far as I can understand it.

The Minister is right—four of them are more than sufficient, so far as I understand the whole business, but the trouble is that without some hard and fast rule as to the number of a quorum, there may be some difficulty. If three are to form the quorum, then let it be three. If you have two concurring with two, who is to be the decider? The Minister can lay out the number of commissioners who are to act. Three could do the circuit and hold the court —I think that would be sufficient. Then we will have more work taken off the hands of the others. The commissioners will have the final sanction of schemes for the rundale and congested areas. That will leave them with much less work to do here and they will have more time for semi-judicial work. That is how I see it.

Last year was not by any means a normal year. I think the amount of land divided last year was something like 8,000 acres.

From what is the Deputy quoting?

The Land Commission report of 1949. Anyhow, the Minister knows that the area of land divided was roughly 8,000 or 9,000 acres.

You are talking about one type of land?

I will accept the Minister's word on the area divided, but last year was an abnormal year in that the amount of land divided was abnormally low.

Yes, all right.

Therefore, if the Minister, with this magnificent machine of the 1950 Act at his disposal, is going to go full steam ahead, having all the power he requires, surely the amount of arguments before the Land Commission will be intensified? Last year you had 226 applications. Deputy Commons has stated that the commissioners get up in the middle of evidence and have a consultation and decide. They are able to judge a case much more swiftly than an inexperienced man will.

There were 226 cases last year in a most abnormal year, when the amount of land acquired was small. Next year, with this magnificent machine devised by the Minister for the completion of land division in Ireland, we will have maybe 5,000 cases. Why should we not have an adequate judicial tribunal or group of commissioners to handle the objections? We have a machine that will keep pace with the Minister's speed. I see he has spiked shoes now and I expect him to sprint for 1951.

There will be less objections.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted, stand"—put and declared carried.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 43:—

Before Section 16, to insert a new section as follows:—

16.—Where the Government is satisfied that a lay commissioner is temporarily unable on account of illness, absence on vacation or other sufficient reason to discharge his duties as a lay commissioner, the Government may, notwithstanding Section 15 of this Act, appoint a person to act as a lay commissioner during such temporary inability.

This is merely a safeguard. It is a section that will never be called into action. A similar safeguard exists in the case of the appeal tribunal.

It is obvious that the Minister is not pinning great faith in his number four.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments No. 44, No. 45 and No. 46 not moved.

I move amendment No. 47:—

In sub-section (1), page 9, to delete "which" in line 7 and "is" in line 8.

This is merely a drafting amendment and its purpose is quite apparent.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 48:—

Before sub-section (3), page 9, to insert the following new sub-section:—

(3) No fee shall be payable in respect of any proceedings in the Land Registry under sub-section (2) of this section.

This amendment is self-explanatory. It is the usual procedure in several other Government Departments.

What exactly does the amendment mean?

It is really a safeguarding amendment and will come into action principally in connection with Section 24, which we have not yet reached. It is really to obviate the paying of fees by one Government Department to another, which would result in nothing except more book-keping.

This amendment, I take it, refers to Section 16 (2)?

Where you apply for an apportionment Order and you send it along to the Land Registry?

I will deal with this matter later.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 49:—

In sub-section (4), to insert "or deemed to be reserved" after "reserved" in line 41 and line 69, page 9 and line 3, page 10.

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 50:—

In sub-section (4) page 10, to add the following paragraph at the end of the sub-section:—

(e) any amount of the compounded arrears added as aforesaid shall be paid, out of the amount advanced, to the person who would have been entitled to receive the compounded arrears for his own use, but the income-tax, if any, due in respect of the holding shall be deducted from such added amount on the distribution of the amount advanced.

Will the Minister tell us what this means?

The whole of Section 16 relates to five cases in the County Limerick of fee farm grant which were not admitted to the benefits of the Purchase Acts, due to a technicality. All these amendments, and the whole section, deal with nothing else but these five cases that were, so to speak, outlawed through an oversight in previous legislation.

Is the purpose of the section to relieve those people from certain harsh treatment from which they are suffering?

The purpose of the section is to give to those people the benefits of the Purchase Acts which their bed-fellows, so to speak, have already got under previous legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 51:—

To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) An application may be made under Section 39 of the Land Act, 1923, by virtue of sub-section (1) of this section notwithstanding that, in the particular case in question, an application under the said Section 39 was made and refused before the passing of this Act.

The object of this amendment is to deal with the five cases that I have been speaking of. If any of them applied for admission under the Land Purchase Acts heretofore and were refused, this amendment will give them the right to re-apply. It prevents the danger of their being excluded because their previous application was entered and turned down.

Will the Minister say what is the reason for dealing with these five holdings in this Bill in view of the fact that similar types of holdings, held under a fee farm grant, could have been dealt with under Section 44 of the 1931 Act?

The section in the previous Act covered all such cases all over the country with the exception of these five. It was presumed that the farms to which they referred were the one farm, and that the fee farm grant was confined solely to a particular farm, and was not connected with an outlying farm or a different piece of land. That happened in these five cases. That error was discovered, with the result that these cases were excluded. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 refers to a holding which has at any time been vested in a purchaser under the Land Purchase Acts, and is subject, in conjunction with any other land or any incorporeal hereditament to a superior interest or charge. These are the words that count in the whole section. The remainder of the section is just tying up loose ends to ensure that these five will be included, and will not be out in the cold any longer.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 52 not moved.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Would the Minister tell us what this section proposes to do?

This deals with applications for tenancies. It proposes to give the commissioners wider powers than they have had heretofore.

Here we seem to have a type of legislation to which we have been committing ourselves from time to time. Under sub-section (2), we are told that Section 47 of the Land Act, 1939, is hereby amended by the deletion in paragraph (b) of the words there set out under (I), (II) and (III). That is the way in which, in a Land Bill in 1950, we are dealing with Section 47 of the Land Act of 1939. That section itself was an amending section. It amended Section 44 of the Land Act of 1931. I suggest that legislation of this kind makes the land code a complete jig-saw puzzle.

Will the Deputy not agree that it was a pretty jig-saw puzzle before this Bill was introduced?

I agree to a certain extent, but I do not see why we should make confusion more confounded. I think we have the high light of that in sub-section (2) of this Bill amending a section of the Act of 1939 which, in turn itself, was an amendment to a section of the 1931 Act. I think it is a wrong system of legislation. Surely it should not be beyond the powers of the drafting authority to draft a new section that would cover all these matters, and have it inserted in the Bill instead of what we have before us.

What is really wanted is a codification of the whole lot.

We did speak of codification earlier in this debate. I do not want to refer to it again, but I think it is really necessary. I do not think that you have half a dozen lawyers in Ireland who understand all these Land Acts.

You think that they have all died out?

I welcome the section otherwise, because I think it is wise that people, including lawyers, who live in the suburbs and who have little holdings, could hope to get the benefit of the Land Acts.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."

What is the intention of this section?

It is really a similar section to the previous one.

Section 17 deals with fee farm grant cases and this deals with tenancies. Both are tenancies of a kind.

This deals with a very important matter, with tenancies, sublettings and so forth. It deals with tenancies created after the passing of the 1923 Land Act and before the passing of the 1933 Land Act. You have the case of people who went to America. They let a portion of their holdings between 1923 and 1933, and so we have tenants paying rents to those absent people. Many of them do not intend to return. There was a procedure before this section was introduced whereby one could apply and get a particular sub-tenant declared by the Land Commission to be a tenant of his own particular portion of land. It had been sub-let to him. He then became a tenant direct to the Land Commission and so the middleman or the absentee man was cut out.

I want to know what is the intention of the Land Commission behind this? What is puzzling me is this: If the procedure that I have referred to is not to continue, how is an individual who is paying rent for two fields to John Brown, who is in America, going to get title to these two fields when there was a letting prior to the passing of the 1933 Land Act? He is still paying this rent, and has not yet got an application through under that particular section?

This does not exclude him. It does not minimise or injure his claim, if he has any.

Will the Minister state what is the intention of this section? What is it proposed to do under it in connection with applications? I should like to know what is the intention of the Land Commission in connection with these applications, because these applications affect the part of the country which the Minister and myself come from. In practice, there are very many of them. I should not like to see them curtailed in any way. What is the idea of introducing this section?

The purpose of the section is merely to give power to refuse if it is in the best interest of the country to do so, no more and no less.

This expression in the first part of the section:

"it is found that, having regard to the character or user of the parcel of untenanted land and to all the circumstances of the case, it would not be in the interest of the country to grant the application, the application shall be refused,"

is shoved in here as something new in connection with these applications. I should like to know what is meant by "the interest of the country". Let us say John Brown sublet a farm in 1925 and went to America and there is somebody working that farm. Under the law as it stands, that man could apply to the Land Commission to become the tenant direct of that portion of land. The object of sub-section (1) of this section is to limit the procedure under the law as it exists by setting out that, if it is in the interest of the country, the application shall be refused. If the application is refused, the position would be this. The original owner of the land is still in America and the man to whom it is sublet is still paying him rent. If the interest of the country does come into this, surely it would be to see that the man on the spot is either put out of or into the farm, or for the Land Commission to take it over. But you leave the matter high and dry here. I do not know in what circumstances it would be in the interest of the country to refuse the application where you have a subletting existing prior to the passing of the 1933 Act. It is certainly some kind of narrowing down of the original power.

It might be in the best interest of the country that the Land Commission should take up the land for the relief of congestion in the locality, and this is merely giving them power to refuse such an application. At the very worst, that would leave things as they were. It is merely giving power to refuse such an application if the commissioners think that, in the best interests of the country, the application should be refused. In some cases, such an application might mean a most undesirable sub-division. The commissioners may want the land for the relief of congestion or clearing up a bad spot of rundale. This is merely giving them power to refuse the application, or giving them a wider discretion. If the Deputy looks at Section 40 of the 1939 Act, he will find a similar section dealing with other cases.

This special type of application was most useful in the west. Hundreds of people were making such an application to try to eliminate the man to whom they were paying rent under the section of the 1936 Act. It was a matter of getting title to these particular portions of land. What I have in mind is that possibly in most of these cases now when an application is made under that particular section, the Land Commission will say to the lay commissioners, "We might possibly acquire these lands at some time for the relief of congestion," and the application would be flung out and the Land Commission might come along in 100 years' time to deal with these three, four or five acres. It is unwise to limit the working of that section of the previous Act in the way now attempted.

It is not a limitation.

It is an increase of power.

It is an increase of power.

Where a person is in America and somebody pays to that absentee landlord, if you like, a grazing rent, I think it is unfair that that person should be allowed to become the tenant of the two, or three, or four, or ten acres. I am in agreement with the relieving of congestion and I think the proper thing would be for the Land Commission to take possession of that land and divide it up amongst a group of tenants. It is human nature for a person who has been paying grazing rent to try to get the land. Why should such an individual who makes an application get title to that land? I think it should not be allowed. It will be creating another congest within a group of congests. I am not quite clear as to the procedure which governs the matter, but I think the commissioners, or whoever has charge of this, should move very cautiously. If some such individual applies for title to a small portion of land, it should be refused definitely until the locality is examined. In 99 per cent. of these cases it will be found that the land would be more useful to the Land Commission for the relief of congestion than to anybody else. I think the Land Commission should be very cautious, no matter what claim is put forward.

I should like to support the last Deputy in what he said. If the economic system of the country drove a tenant to abandon his holding and emigrate, surely it is very unfair that some person who found himself in better circumstances should, after a certain term, acquire the land which this unfortunate tenant had to abandon owing to the economic system existing at the time he emigrated. As Deputy Commons said, if any person is to acquire these lands, who has a better right to do it than the Land Commission for the relief of congestion in the area?

Relating this section to Section 37 of the 1936 Act, surely this is an amendment by way of extension of the power rather than by limitation of the power.

Deputy Moran may be genuinely misconstruing it. If he reads it in conjunction with Section 37 of the 1936 Act, he will find that it is not a limitation but an extension of the power.

All I have to say in reply to Deputy Collins and the Minister is that the introduction of this sub-section will stop a number of these applications being granted. I would also like Deputies to remember that we are dealing with cases which occurred prior to 1933 where, for many long years, there may have been lettings in existence. We are dealing generally with cases where the owners of these lands were absent. In most cases this would only arise in the congested areas, and applications in the main were granted because it was an addition to the applicant's particular holding.

It does not amount to more than half a dozen such applications and they are getting fewer every year.

That is true, but I came across ten or 12 last year.

Do I understand the Minister to say that the effect of the section will be that in certain circumstances the Land Commission will refuse such an application? Take, for instance, where a person, through force of economic circumstances, leaves the country for the purpose of making money to enable him to come back later, stock his land and make improvements on it; suppose that man rents his holding to a neighbour during his absence, if that neighbour makes application does the section here give power to the Land Commission to refuse that application?

Yes, and they also have power to accept.

They have power to refuse unless it is in the interests of the country.

I think that is a desirable power and a necessary one, particularly in those areas where the people go abroad to work and subsequently come back and become very sound and useful citizens. It is not a question of taking over land for subdivision in the ordinary way, because the holdings are small holdings. They may have been in the hands of particular families for many generations, and each generation may have absented itself from the country for a number of years for the purpose of making good. If this section results in removing any danger of such a farm being acquired by a neighbour who was working it at a rent, I think it is a very useful section.

Can the Minister say what period of absence must take place before the Land Commission declares a holding derelict?

I do not think it is determined by a period of absence. I do not know what the procedure is in that case.

Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."

We are getting on so well now that we have time to have a little discussion on this particular section. This emphasises a point that I made before, a point on which Deputy Cowan, Deputy O'Donnell, Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Collins will all agree. This says:—

"Further amendment of Section 44 of Land Act, 1931 and Section 37 of Land Act, 1936."

It is not exactly the most desirable way to do it.

Section 44 of the Land Act, 1931, talks about a number of sections in other Acts to which we must refer if we are to understand it. That is bad enough, but then we have Section 37 of the Land Act, 1936. There you are referred to Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, to Section 42 of the Land Act, 1923, to Section 19 of the Land Act, 1923, to Section 28 of the Land Act, 1923, to Section 9 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, to Section 24 of the Land Act, 1923, to Section 14 of the Land Act, 1923, and to the Land Bond Act, 1934, No. 11 of 1934, to Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, to Section 23 of the Land Act, 1933; to Section 29 of the Land Act, 1933, to Section 32 of the Land Act, 1933, to Section 34 of the Land Act, 1933, to the Land Bond Act, 1933, and to the Land Bond Act, 1934.

Surely all these are not related.

Surely all these are related. I asked the Minister last night to explain a rather abstruse section and he told me it consisted of simple words. It consisted of words all right, but to hang them together and get a meaning from them passes my comprehension. Here are pages and pages of references to various Acts from 1891 to 1946. It looks very simple, of course, because this section only amends two sections; but in order to understand the two sections, one must plough through a whole volume of law. It would save a lot of time if we could get some condification of that. I do not think anybody could clarify it, but it does look as if the Minister gives power for vesting in the Land Commission.

Why do we have to make it retrospective from 1931 in one case and 1936 in another? Why not have it as from now? I think Deputy Collins should make a case for codification. Why has it to be retrospective? What justification is there for it? Retrospective legislation is not very wise.

It is not, but in certain cases it is necessary.

What was done wrong 20 years ago has to be put right now.

Not what was done wrong, but what might be done wrong is now safeguarded.

I think this particular method of amendment is a very clear indication of the necessity for codification. When one turns from the Act to the section it purports to amend, one finds that section has already amended a section of a previous Act, which section amends a section of a still more previous Act, and so on ad infinitum.

I think the time has come when we should, in a responsible way, put on the records of this House an urgent plea for some kind of a volume on the Land Acts to be produced whereby, in a clear, codified form, we will be able to get a ready reference that will be some way intelligible to all of us. I agree with Deputy Moylan that, with the best intentions in the world and with the most adroit effort in the world to get a grasp on the full significance of some of these sections, you find, in the course of the amending legislation, that there are conflicts of interest and conflicts of meaning, and you are left at the end with a doubt yourself as to what might be the full import or impact of the amendment. I should like the Minister to indicate in more than a general way the necessity for retrospection envisaged in this particular section—particularly in view of the fact that he can be so adamant in regard to other aspects of retrospection.

I am glad the Deputy sees it. Plastic rock.

Would the Minister explain the section before we go any further?

In connection with the vesting of certain types of land— particularly fee farm grant cases, long lease cases and tenancies established since 1923—the method of vesting was the same as that adopted for the tenanted land cases. We are advised that there may be a question of doubt as to the validity or legality of that. Therefore, that is the purpose of the amendment, and that is the cause of the retrospection. In other words, in respect of the post-1923 Act tenancies, long lease tenancies and fee farm grant tenancies which were vested in the ordinary way under the procedure of vesting tenanted land, a doubt is raised that that may not have been correct. We are setting what we have done in the past right, and this section, as well as being retrospective to cover the cases vested, and to set them right and to legalise the position, is giving us adequate machinery to cover this type of case.

Are we to take it that this is a protection against mistakes that may have been made by officials?

A question has been raised that the vesting of the three types of cases I have mentioned may have been illegal. None of them have been tried out. If they were, it would have been impossible to say whether they would have proved sound or not.

They would probably take 15 years for a court to decide upon.

I did not think we would reach this section to-day.

We were afraid we might not get by if we did not hurry up.

I am aware of a case that was before the Land Commission to-day and I am rather worried as to whether or not this retrospective clause may not deal with it. As far as this particular debate is concerned, I am a layman who pretends to no knowledge of the land code. There is a fundamental objection to retrospective legislation and retrospective legislation away back to the Land Act of 1936. If there are doubts in the matter and if those doubts have not been resolved by law——

They have not been resolved by law. There may be no substance in the doubts.

If that is so, I think this sub-section which makes it retrospective should not be permitted in the section at all. It has always been the practice here to oppose retrospective legislation and retrospective legislation which affects property and property rights is exceptionally dangerous. From that point of view and on the principle, I certainly would oppose the retrospective effect of this legislation. It may be that in a few hours' time I shall know whether my worries in connection with this particular section are correct or not. The person with whom I was discussing the matter to-day was of the opinion that the decision which was given to-day was entirely wrong. Unfortunately I did not have time to go into the matter with him. This particular section may be clearing the air and putting things right.

Hear, hear. It is a good idea.

The vesting of land in a particular person means the handing over of ownership to him. I think that if any question arises where that act of vesting has not been carried out legally, that man's title, so to speak, is or may be all up in the air. I think we cannot be blamed for setting it right and I think we could not be blamed for the retrospection either.

Oh, I would not quarrel on that account.

Apropos of Deputy Cowan's remarks I should like to say that if this section will do what he thinks it may do we would all be delighted to pass it. If it clarifies any doubts and prevents some people from having to go through all the courts to get their titles put right, or anything else of that sort, I am sure we would all be in favour of it. Someone once said to me that a calculation was made that the legal profession got £19,000,000 out of the land of this country from the time of the first Land Act.

They did nearly as well as the auctioneers.

We did not get a clear cut of 5 per cent.

I do not object about that, good, bad or indifferent. However, I would suggest that the Minister should have clarified those sections of this Bill much more clearly than he did in his White Paper. This House is supposed to be passing laws. From what I know, there may be one or two old officials in this country who understand all the land law. I would recommend the Minister to preserve those people.

In spirits?

Does the White Paper not make it clear?

It does not. Nothing in the world could make that clear. If anyone understands the land law in relation to this country—if there are one or two people left—the Minister should preserve them.

How? I would be interested to know how.

By giving them a dose of monkey gland. With regard to the retrospective part of this legislation, I am not yet satisfied with the assurances given by the Minister and I want a little more detail. First of all, I wonder if the Minister is approaching the matter in the right way. It may be that there is no substance in the doubt that his Department has raised for him and that compelled him to bring in this section. Surely, however, if there is any substance at all in the doubt, we are purporting in this section to pre-judge what the merits of that doubt may be. It may be, as the Minister suggests, in the main, something that is going to help a person who believes he has a title to have a good title. A case could possibly arise where it would be a hardship. I want an assurance from the Minister that, in so far as this restrospection applies, there is no danger of its operating as a hardship or a bar to whatever legitimate objection there may be to somebody's title and that it is not going to be used as a weapon to evade the result of what may have been unnecessary errors by possibly now defunct members of my profession, as well as now defunct officials, in the interpretation of the land code.

There is no danger.

Deputy Cowan said that possibly after a few hours' study of the Bill he would probably understand what it is all about, and he added that this section would probably clear the air. I think we are doing a very useful job this evening discussing this section, apart from any effects it might have on the Minister's proposals. To operate this section we should probably require no fewer than 12 commissioners, because any group of commissioners who would have presented to them a scheme under this particular section would have to plough at least through a dozen Land Acts, back to 1891. Then, as the Minister claimed during this debate that the law was not quite clarified by the actual statute but rather by what the Minister said during the debate, they would also have to plough back through the Reports of the Dáil Éireann Debates and of Hansard, back to 1891. I do not understand the section, because it involves so many Acts of Parliament which I have not even seen. It would take me ten years to understand them. It is too late for me to worry about this now, but I do put it to the Minister that one clear thing stands out. Retrospective legislation is bad. What is the justification for going back to 1931 and 1936?

I thought I explained all that—in case there is any doubt, to include all the cases that had been admitted by the 1931 Act. If any one case is doubtful, then they are all doubtful. I cannot see what is wrong in making the procedure for the future correct. If there is any doubt about cases handled since the passing of the 1931 Act, what is wrong in making them right so that the vesting will be legal? I referred particularly to fee farm grant cases, long leases and tenants under the 1933 Act.

Lest there might be any doubt in their cases, you want to clear it up now?

A question of doubt has been raised by certain legal men.

Would the Minister consider this aspect, that it would be better to say in the Bill what the Minister has said now? It would be better to say what it means rather than to say that something is deemed to have meant something which, in fact, it did not mean at the time. There are four Acts involved in two sections—the Land Act of 1931, the Land Act of 1933, the Land Act of 1935 and the Land Act of 1936. The Bill says that this section shall be deemed to come into operation on the passing of the Land Act, 1931. It did not come into operation on the passing of the Land Act of 1931, or there is some doubt as to whether it did or not. These doubts could be resolved by a section that would cover all that, rather than by saying, whether it came into operation under the Land Act of 1931, 1933, 1935 or 1936, it will be deemed now to have come into operation under these Acts.

I think Deputy Moylan is perfectly right in drawing attention to this matter. In two sections, Sections 19 and 20, we have four Acts referred to. In Section 19 (2) we have the statement:—

"Sub-section (1) of this section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the passing of the Land Act, 1931."

In another sub-section we have the statement:—

"Sub-section (3) shall be deemed to have come into operation on the passing of the Land Act, 1936."

Again in sub-section (2) of Section 20:—

"Sub-section (1) of this section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the passing of the Local Loans Fund Act, 1935."

and in sub-section (5) of the same section we have the statement:—

"Sub-section (4) of this section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the passing of the Land Act, 1933."

I think the Minister will agree that that is a most undesirable form of legislation. I would say, speaking for my own profession, that it is going to cause a tremendous lot of headaches, and it is going to make it more difficult for the ordinary person to receive the correct advice for which he pays. I think if the Minister were on any bench other than the bench on which he sits at the moment, there would be no stronger critic of this form of legislation than the Minister himself. I would ask the Minister to go into these sub-sections before the Report Stage, and to say precisely what he means in a comprehensive section that every person will understand.

I shall look into the matter.

Paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 says:—

"Every provision made by or under the Land Purchase Acts which is applicable to holdings included in such a list shall apply to the parcel in so far as such provision is not inconsistent or at variance with any particular provision which applies to the parcel."

If we set out to make a smokescreen in this House, I do not think we could make a better job out of it than the particular wording of that section. We have the same provision in paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) of the section. I do not know who drafted these and I do not know whether the Minister understands them. I do not believe there is anybody in the House who understands the implications of these two provisions or what is their significance. It would be completely impossible for anybody to know what is meant by them or to interpret them. I think that the Minister should reconsider the whole section, particularly having regard to the fact that we are dealing with retrospective legislation. The only justification the Minister gives to the House for the section is that there is some question of doubt in regard to registration in the Land Registry. I should like the Minister to state what is the question of doubt. What is the point that arises on registration under the Local Registration of Titles Acts, 1891 to 1942? What are the doubts? If there are doubts, let us hear what the doubts are, if there is a case to be made for this section. But merely telling us that there is a question of doubt in connection with registration as between the Land Commission and the Land Registry does not make a case for this very extraordinary and peculiar section.

The Minister has undertaken to have it re-examined.

If that is so, or if there is a particular gap to be closed up, I will be quite with the Minister in doing it, but here he is taking powers that might be used by many people who may have cases pending before the Land Commission and, if the members of this House knew the effect of them, they might not be prepared to give them to the Minister. On a section passed here last night, a saving section, which we opposed, the Minister went very far in protecting the action of the Land Commission, its officials and himself, with regard to anything conceivable.

Here we are giving certain powers and nobody seems to know what the purpose of them is. If there is a case to be made about these titles—fee farm grants or long leases and the question of registration—if there is a question raised on their validity, well and good, but is the question raised as between the Land Commission and the owners, or is this section put in at the instance of the Land Commission to be used against the interests of the owners of land?

These are reasons why the House should know what are the doubts that give rise to this section. If the Minister is prepared to re-examine the matter and give us a full statement on Report, perhaps we may agree, but otherwise we shall have to oppose it.

I was somewhat dissatisfied, just the same as Deputy Moran.

The Minister will examine this in the meantime and bring it forward again on the Report Stage?

On the Report Stage.

Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.

Perhaps the Minister will give us some explanation in respect of Section 20?

This deals with the writing-off of annuities in the case of submerged land—erosion and so on. The Local Loans Fund Act of 1935 inadvertently took away the powers that the Land Commission had under the 1933 Act. Section 20 is merely restoring those powers and hence the references to the 1933 Act.

This deals with submersion and erosion?

Yes. The Local Loans Fund Act of 1935, as I have said, inadvertently took away the powers the Land Commission had to write off annuities under the 1933 Act. This section is restoring them and increasing their scope.

Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Amendment No. 53 not moved.

What has the Minister to say on Section 21?

This section will be used mostly in cases relating to forestry. It gives power to sub-divide commonages. That was aimed at in 1949 but, because of faulty drafting, it became inoperative.

Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendment No. 54 not moved.

How is it that this amendment is not in order?

Section 22 deals with one specific case?

Yes, one specific case. It is almost similar to the five Limerick cases, except that the Limerick cases dealt with fee farm grants. This deals with a mortgage case, and it applies only to one ease in Westmeath, Roscommon or that part of the world.

Deputy Commons has mentioned amendment No. 54.

That is a matter for the person concerned, and the particular grievance he has in mind. It is not relevant to the Bill.

It is ruled out?

Yes, it is ruled out.

Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 55:—

Before Section 23 to insert a new section as follows:— 23. (1) Wherever any holding or parcel of land is offered for sale by public auction or private treaty the Land Commission shall be empowered to prohibit such sale or any transfer of title until an examination of such land is carried out and a report made as to the suitability of such land for the creation of migrants' holdings or the rearrangement of rundale or intermixed plots.

(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall apply to all land whether vested or unvested.

The reason I move this amendment, which may seem very wide in its scope, is for the purpose of helping out the Land Commission in their efforts to get more land into the land code. We have had in this country for a considerable time, particularly over the last ten or 12 years, the practice arising that when the Land Commission set out to institute proceedings for the acquisition of a certain holding, parcel or farm, the owner immediately puts the holding in question up for sale and this results in some buyer purchasing the land in question and snapping a very useful article from under the Land Commission's nose. The Land Commission reserve the right to institute proceedings and follow the new owner for this land, but in only one case out of 50 do they ever succeed because the new owner may farm the land, using proper methods of husbandry, thereby snapping his fingers in the face of the Land Commission.

This applies only to vested land. In regard to unvested land the Land Commission rarely allow a sale until they examine conditions in the locality and make sure whether the land should not come into their own hands to be used for the relief of congestion. Whatever else we may argue against an amendment such as this, we should give it some consideration.

Would this amendment, in fact, give the Land Commission any more powers than they have?

Yes, it would. Only in one case out of perhaps 100 do they do this. Where an owner decides to sell or transfer title he is willing and anxious to get shut of the land and put it on to somebody else. That is all very fine outside congested areas, but inside those areas in particular I think it would be very wise if the Land Commission put a stop to the sale of any title until they examine the local conditions.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the motives operating at the back of Deputy Commons's mind, but I do not think that his amendment will achieve his purpose, and I am not at all sure that it would be a desirable amendment.

The Land Commission has sufficient authority under its compulsory powers to deal with the situation which is envisaged here. I think the Deputy, as well as Deputy Moran and others who represent the areas where congestion is pretty severe, have this safeguard that people will not be able to do this kind of free selling of plots that might be immediately beneficial in the solution of congestion as easily as Deputy Commons thinks. I think that Deputy Commons and Deputy Moran would be like two Kerry Blue terriers after the Minister if a situation were to arise whereby a possible solution of congestion in any district with which they are familiar was interfered with in this way.

I suggest to Deputy Commons that this is an amendment which should not be pressed. He has made his point, which we appreciate. I do not think the giving of this power would make for the goodwill and co-operation which is necessary between the Land Commission and the congests, as well as the people who have any land in the area. That type of goodwill will not exist if you give the Land Commission wide powers of prohibition. I think this would be an unpleasant precedent and power to introduce into legislation. I agree that it is necessary to have a good deal of compulsory powers conferred on the Land Commission, but I do not think that what is proposed is a desirable extension of them. I do not think that the section itself would succeed in doing any practical good. I think that the Deputy has already a sufficient safeguard in his own vitality in this House with regard to the problem of congestion, as it presents itself in his constituency, aided by Deputy Moran, to make this amendment unnecessary.

I think Deputy Commons might have gone a little further. We have had it stated by the present Government and the previous Government that all the land available will not give us a satisfactory solution of the problem of congestion. Therefore, we can assume, in view of that statement, that any land offered for sale is land which must be necessary for the relief of congestion. In view of what the Bill establishes under Section 5—that is market value which is a new principle—what I want to put to Deputy Commons is, that any man from whom land is taken by the Land Commission gets market value for it. If he does, he has not any grievance even if the Land Commission were to prevent him from putting the land up for sale. If the Land Commission says to a man: "You are going to sell your land; we want it for the relief of congestion and we will give you market value," that man cannot make the case that he has lost anything.

Will you not agree that the Land Commission can do that at present?

If a man's land is vested at the present time he can sell it, but what I have said applies to unvested land.

It does not.

In any event, it does not apply to vested land. Will it not be agreed that if a man gets market value for the land he has no grievance on the score of what the land brings in? It is all the same to the man who sells whether the Land Commission or anyone else is the new owner.

I would like to hear the Minister's view on this amendment.

Suppose we hear the Deputy's view.

I am sure that if the Minister had spoken he would have characterised this as very far-reaching and revolutionary, something that no Government could stand over and that it would not be justified in putting on the Statute Book of Dáil Éireann, something which the Minister for Agriculture, if he were here, would shout and storm about. He would make the welkin ring and say that the people who stood for and died for the three F's. would turn in their graves if this were done. I am sure Deputy Commons will agree that this is a very far-reaching proposal. I doubt very much if it would help to solve the problem he has in mind. It would probably create a mild revolution in parts of the country if it were put into operation— the proposal that no farmer's son or neighbour could in the future buy a perch of land except through the Land Commission. That is what the proposal amounts to. It would apply to vested land as well as unvested land, and would hold up sales probably for years. It would stop completely a change in the holding of land except through the Land Commission.

It would be a bit hard on the auctioneers.

It certainly would be detrimental to their interests. Everyone knows how slow the Land Commission procedure is. In the case of every acre of land offered for sale, there would be long delays. The land could not be sold until the Land Commission had inspected and valued it, and had made up their minds whether it was suitable for them or not. The principle in the amendment is wrong. I am sure Deputy Commons understands that it is something which we do not want in the land law of the country. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again at 7.30 p.m.
Top
Share