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. 55 put and negatived.

I move amendment No. 56:—

In sub-section (1), page 12, lines 5 and 6, to delete "granting new holdings to migrants" and substitute "the provision of new holdings for migrants or to facilitate rearrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots.

The purpose of this amendment must be obvious. It proposes to give power to the Land Commission to purchase holdings which may be non-residential or unoccupied in villages, townlands or areas about to be rearranged. At the present time, we are aware that many owners of such holdings are willing to sell but we have to go through a slow, cumbrous procedure of acquisition or resumption. I think that the amendment covers the following amendments Nos. 57 and 58.

Will the Minister say whether the object of this section is to purchase holdings in any part of the country or in the vicinity of rundale holdings?

In the vicinity of rundale townlands about to be rearranged. That is the intention under the whole section.

I think the Minister's amendment proposes to insert the words "the provision of new holdings for migrants".

"Or to facilitate rearrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots."

We should take it in parts. There is, first, the question of the provision of new holdings for migrants. I take it that a migrant is a person sent from Galway or Mayo to Kildare and the object would be to purchase at a public sale or otherwise holdings in any part of the country.

What is wrong with that?

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with it, but the Minister said, in the first instance, that the object was to purchase holdings only in the vicinity of rundale holdings.

We are speaking now on the amendment, not on the section.

The amendment has to do with the section. The Minister gave us to understand that he was looking for power only to purchase, by private sale or public sale, holdings in the vicinity of rundale lands. Now it appears he is going to do it generally over the whole country.

The general intention in the section is to purchase holdings that may be suitable for migrants in any part of the country. The intention under the amendment is to purchase, as I described, vacant holdings which may be useful or necessary in facilitating rearrangement in townlands or areas where rearrangement is necessary, or is being undertaken by the Land Commission.

On the amendment, Deputy Commons and myself seem to be as two hearts that beat as one. The Minister omitted from the Bill certain powers which we thought should be in it. While I disapprove entirely of the section, I thought it was necessary if the section did go through, that it should contain these powers and that it should be directed towards its full use for the facilitation of the relief of congestion. As the section stood, it was not sufficiently specific in relation to the question of rearrangement of holdings. That was the reason that I put down my amendment, and I think it was for the same reason Deputy Commons put down his. The Minister's amendment seems to cover both, and I am quite willing to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.

I move amendment No. 59:—

In sub-section (1), line 7, after the word "purchase" to insert the words "by private treaty".

I move this amendment for the purpose of getting the Minister to give a better explanation to the House of how he proposes to acquire land at a public sale. As I said on the Second Stage, I think it is a dangerous method of acquiring land and it is a power that will lead to all kinds of trouble in the future. That is why I suggest that the Land Commission should acquire land by private treaty and not by public sale. Having officials of the State attending public sales all over the country will lead to other problems which the Minister cannot foresee now. You will probably get public opinion up against the State and against officers of the Land Commission in different parts of the country. You will have small farmers and farmers' sons who want to acquire land and who believe they have as good a right as the State to purchase a farm in any part of the country when it is put up for sale, but the general feeling will be that if the Land Commission want to purchase that farm there is no use in a private individual standing up against it. For one thing. they will not have to pay the 5 per cent. stamp duty which a private individual will have to pay.

That is no reason.

It is a reason.

If you have plenty of salt that is no reason why you should spoil your dinner with it.

I believe the Minister should confine the activities of his Department in purchasing land to making offers privately. That should be sufficient without entering into competition with small farmers and farmers' sons and other types of people who purchase land at public sales. I believe myself it will lead to all sorts of abuse. The Minister is unwise in putting his public officials all over the country to purchase land in that way, and that is why I move the amendment.

So that Deputies should know exactly what is intended by the section, it is only fair that I would expand a little bit over what I said on the Second Reading. First of all, this is a new departure, and, secondly, it is purely exploratory. The section starts off by saying that the Land Commission may purchase for cash. At any time, if any evils or malpractices develop, the Minister can at once prohibit the Land Commission from purchasing land under this section. The whole section is framed so that should evils arise, should some circumstances in connection with the purchase in the open market for cash arise, let it be inflation, deflation or any other evil or serious malpractice, the Minister can at once prohibit the Land Commission from proceeding further.

Where are the Minister's powers?

In Section 10 (2). They are there set out very clearly. I have examined this whole question. First of all, the Land Commission will not need one-tenth of the total amount of land which is on the market each year. A vast quantity of the land that is offered for sale may not be suitable for their purpose. Every day questions are tabled asking if the Land Commission will acquire such-and-such a farm. Already they may have examined such a farm and refused to proceed further, for the simple reason that the land does not suit their purpose. On the other hand, there is land available, land that they would not be interested in. If we want to settle the land question, it is the best land that should be taken, naturally enough. If anything serious does arise, the whole thing can be dropped there and then.

As regards the compulsory powers the Land Commission have, they are very slow and many suitable farms go on the market that the Land Commission want but, because of the Land Acts, those farms are sold and the new owners are installed; they live on them and work them and are, therefore, protected under the 1939 Act. That type of land is lost to the Land Commission.

Deputy Allen has raised a question which I thought of too, and that is, the Land Commission going into competition at a sale with a farmer's son or any other person. In a congested area that needs resettlement the Land Commission have power to acquire land by compulsory methods. If it is wrong for them to go into competition at an open sale with someone who wants to buy a holding, it is equally wrong to acquire a farm because somebody else wants it and might buy it. That argument will not hold water. Take a farmer's son who goes to a sale. Perhaps he might outbid the Land Commission. It cuts both ways, because the price to which the Land Commission bidder will go is predetermined by the commissioners. Again, a holding that may be acquired may relieve three or four congests; it might relieve seven, eight, ten or 12 congests. It is a case of whose need is the greatest. Is the need of the seven, eight, ten or 12 congests greater than the need of the man who would buy? If the problem of the relief of congestion is to be properly tackled, as I hope it will be under this measure——

Is there land enough to solve all the congestion?

Is there not land constantly coming on to the market, being offered for sale by people who no longer need it? I presume if a man offers land for sale he no longer needs it. Can anyone say that that resale of land will suddenly terminate?

Free sale will come to an end under this section.

If every farmer lives on the land and works it and produces a reasonable amount of food and gives reasonable employment, the Land Commission machine must come to a full stop until a certain section of the 1939 Act is repealed.

The Chair is wondering what this has to do with private treaty.

It is very interesting.

It may be interesting, but it is scarcely relevant.

It is an alternative method by which the Land Commission can come into possession of land. I think, for the information of Deputies who may not be fully aware of it, that it is necessary to explain why I am asking this power under Section 23. It was for that reason I transgressed and wandered off into the present powers of acquisition. I think there is no danger so long as the Minister can at any time stop the Land Commission from proceeding further with the rest of this section, and while that power is there Deputies need have no fear.

It was stated that exorbitant prices may be paid. They will not. The Land Commission predetermines the price a farm is worth and every precaution will be taken to see no abuses arise. Surely it is within our competence to see that abuses will be avoided as much as possible. If they are insurmountable, we can only stop the Land Commission in this method of acquiring land.

I cannot entirely share the fears expressed by Deputy Allen in regard to the working out of this section. I can see a considerable amount of advantage in the Land Commission having power to short-circuit all the routine there is in regard to acquiring land under the present system by going out in the ordinary way and purchasing land offered for sale. Deputy Allen's fear is that no ordinary citizen could compete with the Land Commission in the purchase of land put up for sale. That would be absolutely true if there was not a governing consideration on the part of the Land Commission that the price of the land will be predetermined as the Minister says. The land will first be valued and a definite decision taken with regard to price, and that decision will be adhered to.

Market value.

There is always a danger, however, as we all know, that such a decision might be overstepped.

Many a farmer, for example, goes to an auction with the intention of paying a certain price for land, but in the competition that takes place for it and with, perhaps, the encouragement of people like Deputy Allen, he exceeds the figure which he had in mind originally. I think the Minister should take adequate precautions to see that the Land Commission, in their desire to get a holding and in their bidding against other competitors, will not pay a price that would exceed its market value. The Land Commission will have the backing of the finances of the State and there is always that danger in their case. I wonder if the Minister could meet Deputy Allen by putting a safeguard into the section to ensure that the price which the Land Commission will pay will have to be predetermined and so will be on record and cannot be overstepped. I do not think Deputy Allen's amendment is any safeguard because even in the case of a sale by private treaty——

There could be more pressure used there.

The open market where you can see your opponent is the better way.

I think the Minister should be able to pick out some additional safeguard that would protect the ordinary competitor. His position must be taken into consideration—the ordinary person who competes against the Land Commission for the acquisition of land. Such people have rights, too. They may be people who are urgently in need of an additional holding, people such as the second or third sons of ordinary farmers. We have got to be fair to everybody.

While I think Deputy Allen in moving this amendment was inspired by a genuine desire, it does not, in my opinion, meet the purpose he had in mind. I think that from his professional experience he should appreciate the fact that if we were to confine purchases to purchases by private treaty we might get into a type of country where it would be impossible to exercise control. There, surely, would be infinitely more room for abuse there than there would be in the case of sales on the public market.

I am afraid Deputy Cogan suffers from a slight degree of over-optimistic colouring. He, apparently, thinks that the Land Commission are suddenly going to lose all common sense and reason in their desire to bid up the price of land. In my opinion what the Land Commission really suffers from is a high degree of conservatism. I do not think Deputy Cogan was in earnest in suggesting that the Land Commission would bid above the market value. I think that at times he is rather keen on listening to himself pontificating. Deputy Allen has raised something that seems to him to be of real danger. I think that if the Deputy was to accept the Minister's statement, that the Land Commission in going into the open market, would be subject to a predetermined price beyond which it would not go, then my opinion is that the Land Commission will very often find itself defeated bidder. That may be a healthy thing. It may stir up the Land Commission in its ideas with regard to the value of land. Some of their computations in that regard leave much to be desired.

It has been suggested, I understand, that an official of the Land Commission, before going to a sale of land, will have his instructions as to the final figure to which he can go.

The commissioners fix the price.

Whoever fixes the price, presumably the agent who attends the sale, will have instructions from somebody in the Land Commission as to what he is prepared to pay. An aspect of this matter which must occur to anybody who has had any dealings in land, particularly in a congested area, is this: that once an official of the Land Commission appears at a sale by public auction, he is going to frighten off all potential purchasers. They will say to themselves: "The Land Commission are interested in this farm, they are going to take it under the powers vested in them; if they do not take it one way, they will take it in another." That means that the vendor's market in his holding is destroyed. He will have to accept whatever the offer is that is made by the gentleman from the Land Commission or else he can sit back and wait for a notice to be published in Iris Oifigiúil declaring that his farm is needed for the relief of congestion.

If, before a holding is put up at public auction, a Land Commission official, as Deputy Allen has suggested, goes to a vendor, makes an offer and endeavours to buy the holding by private treaty, no harm will be done. If they come to an agreement, well and good. But once an official of the Land Commission appears at a public auction, particularly in a congested area, he is going to frighten off intending purchasers. Many people can speak from experience on this. They purchased land and the Land Commission stepped in and served notice to take it over. The obiter dictum has been expressed by a judicial commissioner that anyone purchasing land in a congested area should have known, before doing so, that it was a congested area. That means that an individual would not be safe in purchasing a farm of land in County Mayo in view of the fact that the Land Commission have the power to take over that farm from him for the relief of congestion. There is, certainly, this fear for the individual who is going to sell his farm, of the Land Commission coming into the open market and frightening everybody else away. For that reason and from the point of view of doing the job the way it should be done, I do not see why the Minister, in order to safeguard both the Land Commission and the vendor, should not accept this idea that the individuals should be approached privately by the Land Commission in order to try to make a deal with them.

What is to stop them from doing that?

The purpose of the amendment is that the sale should be by private treaty. Then you would not have Land Commission officials bidding at a public auction.

Would not the Deputy agree that the section gives them the power to do all the negotiating they want by private treaty?

It is a question of the procedure which the Land Commission will adopt. Under the section as it stands, and I understand it is the intention expressed here, the Land Commission will go into the public market. I understood the Minister to say that that was the fairest method and that they are going to bid at public auctions. That is the intention as expressed by the Minister here.

There is nothing to stop them doing it by private treaty.

It has been stated by Deputy Commons and by the Minister that that is the intention. I am pointing out what the effect will be if their intention is carried out. I have no doubt that it will destroy the sale of a particular farm in the public market.

If that happens, the Land Commission will be stopped at once from proceeding with that method of getting land.

It is news to me that the Minister has responsibility for the acquisition of any particular farm.

Not for any particular one.

If the Minister's minions go into a public auction and fail to get a particular farm at their own price, they can go back to the Land Commission and say, "This farm is required for the relief of congestion," and the land will be acquired compulsorily if they do not get it at their own price. It puts the Land Commission in the position of getting it either way.

That is very farfetched.

What is sub-section (5) for?

I have listened to this debate for a long time and it strikes me that we are more frightened of our own people than we are of people from other countries who are buying land in this country. Is there anything wrong in a Minister's buying land for congests even if he is only paying a certain price? How many farms of land have been purchased by outsiders in the last few years by private treaty? I have not heard any protest from anybody in this House about such sales taking place. But, because our own Minister on behalf of the Land Commission is to go in and buy certain farms for the relief of congestion, we are all perturbed about it, while no notice is taken of outsiders buying land in this country by private treaty, and they are buying the best of the land.

If the Minister and the Land Commission are really serious about this section they can do a tremendous amount for the relief of congestion. I think I heard some Deputies opposite some time ago saying that the problem of congestion would never be solved, that there was not enough land to go around. I am a very young Deputy, and the only experience of the Land Commission I have is what I got in the hard school of experience in the short time I am here. But I have made it my business to devote a good number of hours, whenever I got the chance, to the study of a number of Land Acts and I find that the more I look at them the more I am puzzled. It is a slur on the intelligence of this House, and it is not fair to Deputies who are expected to make laws, that we should be faced with some of the sections in a Bill like this. We have to do research work, we would nearly have to employ a firm of solicitors, to find out something in connection with certain Land Acts. On this particular section, I maintain that the problem of congestion——

This is a particular amendment.

I am opposing the amendment.

The amendment has reference to purchase by private treaty. Probably the Deputy could say what he wants to say on the section, but he is very limited on the amendment.

I merely followed on the comments made by the Minister on this amendment.

The Deputy will remember that I intervened also when the Minister was speaking.

I consider that the purpose of this section will be negatived if the amendment is accepted. This section as it stands, without the amendment being embodied in it, means that the Land Commission have an opportunity of practically creating a further pool of land for the relief of congestion. What is wrong with the Land Commission bidding in the open market for a farm of land? What is wrong with putting a good, hard-working congest on that farm? People here say that it is dangerous, that a farmer's son, who, of course, is entitled to a farm of land as well, is not going to get a fair chance if the Land Commission go into the public market for land; that as soon as the Land Commission official is seen at that public sale other buyers will be frightened away. If there is actual need for that land for the relief of congestion, it is no harm that the Land Commission should obtain it in the public market.

We all seem to forget that we are trying to solve a big problem and that, in the solving of any big problem, quite a number of people will have their toes trod on. We cannot expect to have legislation to suit everybody. If this legislation is passed, and enacted even for a limited period, within that period a certain number of congests will be fixed up satisfactorily. Is not that an achievement in itself? There is nothing to stop a man who wants to sell a farm of land approaching the Land Commission and telling them they can buy the farm by private treaty. In these circumstances, there is no necessity for this amendment. If he does not feel like doing it by private treaty or by approaching the Land Commission, I do not see why the Land Commission cannot step into the open market and purchase the land. The main thing to remember is that the really important problem is congestion. The longer we sit here discussing it the more inclined we are to forget the real purpose of the Bill. If I did not believe this Bill will help towards ending congestion, I would not support it. I have no great love for the Bill as a whole, but I think it will help to solve that problem and for that reason I do support it.

I hope we shall not reach the stage in our time at any rate, where all the land will be socialised.

That statement is pure humbug. Nobody is talking about socialising the land.

We hope we shall not live to see it anyhow.

That is the kind of jargon always used to impede progress.

There is great progress in other countries.

It is difficult to make progress when statements like that are made.

Let us make progress with the amendment now.

We are all growing horns on this side of the House.

I hope this section will not be used too widely. It is a dangerous section. My amendment is directed towards eliminating some of the danger. I do not object to the Land Commission paying cash in order to short-circuit the tortuous procedure that existed in the past in acquiring land. I do not think the principle is a bad one. What I do seek is to prevent officers of the State competing against individual small farmers. The small farmer, with four or five sons, and with ten or 20 acres of land, is just as much a congest as are the congests in other areas. I often wonder how congestion will end. I often wonder will it ever end. I would ask Deputy Commons how it is that the economic laws have never operated against congests.

Have you ever read the history of Ireland?

This is all very academic. Let us get back to the amendment.

What exactly does the Deputy mean?

Under the pressure that exists, how long can human beings go on and-how long can people continue to exist?

What relation has that to the purchase of land?

I am trying to get information on congestion.

The Deputy might find a more suitable time.

I want to show the House that the proposals I am seeking to amend are dangerous proposals. It is dangerous to have State officials going out to public auctions with a purse of money to bid against small farmers. The free sale of land has been embodied in the land code.

What about the people coming from England with purses full of money bidding against the very people about whom you are talking now?

Under this section, as it stands, the free sale of land will come to an end. Is not the purpose of sub-section (5) to frighten the people in cases where the Land Commission are interested? In effect, does it not mean that the Land Commission will use its compulsory powers?

I did not catch what the Deputy said about sub-section (5).

This sub-section is there merely to indicate to all and sundry that if the Land Commission cannot buy by public auction, they will use their compulsory powers.

That can be raised on the section.

It is relevant to the amendment.

It can be raised on the section. The Deputy will deal with the specific amendment.

The Minister has told us that if anything goes wrong, he will step in and stop the Land Commission going any further. That is not good enough.

What would be good enough?

No Minister of State, no matter who he is, can prevent irregularities if we provide for them.

Why should a Minister not step in if something does go wrong? The Minister may have introduced some particular provision with the best intentions in the world. Why, if those provisions do not work out as they should work out, should a Minister not then step in?

The Minister may have no power to do so.

The Deputy made a strong speech on the wide and sweeping powers the Minister is taking under sub-section (2) of Section 10. The Minister can direct the Land Commission to follow a certain broad line. He can direct them to get all the land they want, not by Section 24, but by the compulsory powers they have under previous Acts. Would the Chair allow me to reply now to Deputy Allen?

I would prefer if all that was left for the section. This is a very specific amendment.

I think Deputy Allen is frightened of shadows.

Amendment put and negatived.

I take it amendment No. 64 is cognate to amendment No. 60.

Are we taking both amendments together?

Yes. They are the same amendment.

I move amendment No. 60:—

To delete sub-section (4).

I propose here that if the Land Commission buy land in the open market, they should pay the State the same stamp duty as the private individual is compelled to pay. I do that from two points of view. The first, which is the minor, and I suppose I may as well get rid of it first, is that if the State is going to go into this new business of purchasing land on the open market, the people should know exactly how much it is costing the Exchequer. Some people may not be very anxious about the state of the Exchequer—Coalition Deputies may not be very anxious about it. They are now in the hundred-millionaire class—they have gone over £100,000,000. At least, if we are going to spend another few millions on this game we should know that we are spending it and we should not be giving a concealed subsidy to the Land Commission.

This is not a game, Deputy. It is a very serious job of work.

The Minister said it was an experiment.

Oh, well.

He could give us no idea of what the effect of it was going to be. But whatever the effect of it is going to be on the social life of the community, at least we should know what it is going to cost the taxpayer. That is reasonable. If we are going to prevent land from changing hands normally—small farms from changing hands normally from one individual to another—we should know to the last penny what that is going to cost the State and we should not have a concealed subsidy of 5 per cent., because a private individual would have to pay 5 per cent. stamp duty over and above what he would pay in the open market——

And 4 per cent. to the lawyer.

Five per cent. to the auctioneers.

——apart altogether from incidental expenses. The Land Commission, if they are going to go into competition with the private individual, should be subject to the same liability to stamp duty.

The second is how far we are going to go with this business of the State interfering with the normal exchange of holdings throughout the country. One Deputy said that the Minister was going to create a pool of land for the relief of congestion. I am afraid he is going to create a whirlpool of land. There is no stop to this. The Minister must know as every other Deputy in this House knows that there is always pressure on the Minister for Lands, when a farm goes up for sale, asking him to get the Land Commission to step in and to take that land.

If that continues and if it is in any way successful, you are going to reach the point where the method of relief of congestion to which Deputy Allen referred, the congestion on the small farm—a farmer who has several sons cannot make economic farmers of them all and he therefore tries to relieve the congestion on his own farm by buying a neighbour's small farm when it comes up for sale —is going to be killed. The small farmer who, by his own industry and by that of his family, often the unpaid labour of his family, who has acquired a few hundred or a couple of thousand pounds, normally relieves the congestion on his own farm by buying a neighbour's farm.

How is this related to the amendment? That refers to stamp duty.

It is in relation to the competition between the small farmer and the Minister.

Stamp duty is paid on transfer.

Yes, but it is payable by the individual who is in competition with the Minister or the Land Commission. That is what I object to. I object to the Minister killing that competition or putting a 5 per cent. disability on the small farmer who is trying to relieve his own congestion by his own money. The tendency will be, if this goes on, to sit back and wait until the Minister and the Land Commission come in and spend State money to relieve congestion. When the small farmer does it himself he does it at his own expense. When the Minister relieves congestion he relieves it at the taxpayer's expense. The small farmer has to pay the full amount plus the stamp duty for relieving his own congestion.

The Minister, when he relieves congestion, will pay no stamp duty and he will also give the incoming tenant the land at half the price. It will be much less than half the price because not only will the price to be fixed to the incoming tenant be the same as the old price, I take it, but the incoming tenant will have to pay somewhat less than half the price which the Minister will pay under this. I think it is a bad business deed from the State point of view and I think this experiment, as the Minister calls it, will have very bad social consequences. Whatever consequences it has, I think we should know what these financial consequences are and I think we should insist that the Minister would pay the 5 per cent. just as his competitor, the small farmer, would have to pay it.

I think Deputy Aiken has very successfully cut a very large stick with which to beat himself. He stands up and says that the taxpayer has to meet the debt that is going to be incurred by the Land Commission in acquiring these farms. In one breath he is olagón and in the next breath he wants the taxpayer to suffer a further impost of 5 per cent. for the State's activities. Deputy Aiken has had considerable responsibility and considerable experience as Minister in the management of certain Departments in this country. One of these Departments was the Department of Finance. Surely he is not seriously suggesting, as an ex-Minister for Finance, that he wants the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Finance to go through the book-keeping transaction of paying tax to each other? That is what it amounts to. The tax ultimately falls back on the person who has to carry the complete burden—the taxpayer.

Deputy Aiken is envisaging a competition that is unreal. A tax does not become leviable until the purchase price is determined. Deputy Aiken is suggesting something which, of course, he knows to be absolutely unreal—that all normal transfer of holdings is going to cease because the Land Commission is going to go into the market. He knows, as well as I do, that the Land Commission is not going to stop the type of relief of congestion that is brought about by the thrifty farmer who buys further farms for his sons. That is not the particular type of land that would be attractive to the Land Commission for the purpose of relieving congestion in the normal way.

I do not believe that Deputy Aiken is in earnest; I do not believe that the amendment in his name is worthy of earnest thought—that the Department should levy on itself and pay another Department, stamp duty. It would be only what would be at best a book-keeping transaction. It would put a further impost on the taxpayer in general, if the Minister for Lands had to give back to what has already been described by the Opposition as a too stringent Minister for Finance, 5 per cent. of the amount which he had advanced to them for the purchase of land like this. Deputy Aiken will have to make up his mind whether or not it is the taxpayer will ultimately meet the bill. In one breath he says it is and in the next breath he says it is not the taxpayer who will have to pay this further impost. Is it rational or reasonable that, once the purchase price is fixed, the Department should be asked to go through the fiction, the farce and the complete codology of taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another, transferring it from one Department to another when we want— and I think it is the unanimous wish of the House as I am sure it is the genuine wish of Deputy Aiken himself— the Minister to get as quickly as possible suitable lands to help to relieve this appalling and recurring festering sore of congestion. I think it is our ambition to put as few impediments as possible in his way. To impose on the Minister the necessity to pay stamp duty would be to put the brakes on the operation of a Bill that, imperfect as it is, it is hoped will serve as an impetus to the ultimate solution to the congestion problem.

I should just like the House to examine what has been described by Deputy Collins as a codology proposal. If this is a codology proposal, it was a codology proposal to increase the stamp duty to 25 per cent. in order to stop certain persons purchasing land. The net effect of this sub-section is going to be that not alone will the Land Commission be favoured by 5 per cent. but they will be favoured by about 10 to 15 per cent.

How do you make that out?

If the Land Commission are bidding in the open market with Pat Murphy, who wants to buy a farm, Pat Murphy knows that perhaps he has £1,000 available to buy that farm but that it is going to cost him 5 per cent. additional in stamp duty, 3 per cent. for legal fees and possibly more if there are searches. Furthermore, if it is registered land, he has got to pay the Land Registry fees, which are extremely heavy. Therefore his additional outlay is not 5 per cent. but it is more likely to be from 10 to 15 per cent. In this Bill the Land Commission have abolished any fees which may be payable by them to the Land Registry.

The Minister has already done that.

We have not passed that yet.

Oh, indeed, we have. The Minister has already taken power to abolish any fees payable by the Land Commission to the Land Registry so that when he finally comes along to buy a farm he is in the position that he has 15 per cent. less to pay than his competitors. In other words, where it would cost an ordinary country man interested in purchasing a farm a certain price, the Land Commission are in a position to outbid him by 15 per cent. By taking these powers the Minister is putting himself in a completely unfair position as against his opponents.

The Deputy said two minutes ago that he would have no opposition.

I give my view of what is the effect of the Minister's going into the open market. The Land Commission are starting off with the advantage that in determining the price they can always say that, given the market value of a particular farm, it will cost any other man 15 per cent. more to buy it. That is the main objection outside the objection from the taxpayer's point of view mentioned by Deputy Aiken. It should also be remembered that they have their own legal department and they will have no legal fees to pay. They are providing, furthermore, that no land registry fees will be payable. They put themselves in a very special position, to the extent of 15 per cent., vis-a-vis the ordinary country farmers.

That is a very poor way of arriving at the market value of a place offered for sale which the Land Commission proposes to purchase. Admittedly the Land Commission will not have to pay the stamp duty which the ordinary purchaser will have to pay. They will not have to pay legal expenses but the ordinary man in the street does not keep a private solicitor in his house for conducting his legal affairs. We have to do that. I do not see why we should not have the benefit of the arrangements whereby we have to keep solicitors permanently employed to conduct our legal business. Deputy Moran's argument therefore that we could purchase with the advantage of 15 per cent. over the ordinary purchaser does not hold. I told Deputy Allen already that the fact that one has plenty of salt is no reason why one should spoil one's dinner. The predetermination of the price or of the market value of the holding will have nothing to do with the fact that stamp duty or other legal expenses will not be payable by the Land Commission. I should like to hear the Deputy's remarks if the Land Commission should try any such tactics.

In conclusion, I should like to ask Deputy Aiken, who was Minister for Finance, did he really put down this amendment or did somebody put it down in his name as a joke? Does he mean calmly to suggest to me or to the Land Commission that the Land Commission would ask the Minister for Finance for £500 or £1,000 as the case might be, plus stamp duty, and that later, after he had given that money to the Land Commission, the Minister for Finance would ask them to hand back to him the stamp duty on the farm? I think if such a joke were perpetrated in any Government Department it would be high time to expose it and kill it.

It is no joke on the people throughout the country who want to relieve congestion on their small farms, even by their own efforts, that the Minister for Lands should ask this Dáil to put himself in the position to kill any possibility of their doing so.

The very same can be said of compulsory acquisition.

It cannot. Compulsory acquisition is related to the powers in the 1933 Act, and it is very limited. There is no limitation in this, either in time or in quantity; this can go on for ever.

Did the Deputy read Section 42?

I read all the sections.

We are dealing with stamp duty at present.

The Minister said it would be a joke for him to ask the Minister for Finance for money one day and then pay it back in stamp duty, but by that process public accounting would be honest, because the public would know exactly how much the Land Commission are costing the taxpayers.

The Land Commission are obliged by law to furnish a yearly report of their actions.

They are obliged to give a yearly report, but what I want, when the Dáil is debating the Land Commission Estimate each year, is to have set out for the taxpayers and the Dáil exactly how much the activities of the Land Commission, under this section are costing the country.

The Minister argued here that he was not going to be in a position to give 15 per cent. more, as Deputy Moran suggested, than the ordinary person; that he was not going to be at a 15 per cent. advantage. If the Minister's bid does not give him a 15 per cent. advantage, he would get no land. If the Minister does not bid as much, plus a pound or two, as Pat Murphy is prepared to bid for the land, plus the expenses, he is not going to get that land.

All right, if the Land Commission are outbid, good and well.

The Minister argued with Deputy Moran that he was not going to be at a 15 per cent. advantage. If he is not, he will get no land. He cannot have it both ways, he is either at a 15 per cent. advantage or he gets no land. The 15 per cent. is made up of the 5 per cent. stamp duty.

That is the one we are dealing with.

I am merely replying to the Minister's argument, the argument he went to such lengths about.

I was listening to the Minister replying to Deputy Moran.

And I am replying to the Minister.

The fact that Deputy Moran raised it does not say it is absolutely in order. We are on stamp duty, whatever percentage it is.

The stamp duty is 5 per cent. The Minister, in relation to stamp duty, will be in a position to bid and get the lands, including the cost of the stamp duty, at 5 per cent. less than the ordinary farmer would get it. Does the Minister want to kill the exchange of holdings that goes on in most parts of the country? This might be news to some Deputies from Mayo and other parts of the West. They do not know what the Land Commission is beyond that it is an organisation that sends out a bill for the land annuities. There is a natural economy going on. The stage is reached when we would like to see if by some means we could extend our area of land where there would be enough land for sale to satisfy local demands. The activities under this section will make every parish Land Commission conscious, not only in relation to its land annuities but in relation to the powers under Section 23—that it can buy land at a public auction and it will keep going because there is no limitation, and the land can come into the Land Commission's hands through this process and can be sold to a new tenant, a new allottee. This can go on for ever.

What has that to do with stamp duty?

The stamp duty will come as an extra subsidy to the Land Commission of 5 per cent. as against the normal citizen. The Land Commission will be at a 5 per cent. advantage each time.

More power to them. I hope they will.

If the Minister wants that, we do not agree with him.

What the Deputy is saying is pure nonsense.

It is foolish policy to have one Government Department asking money to solve the congested problem and then refunding to the same Department a section of the money that has already been allocated to it. It is a sort of book-keeping transaction which is merely a waste of time and means delaying tactics as far as the Land Commission is concerned.

I have listened to Deputy Aiken on the subject of relieving small farmers. I agree that there are plenty of farmers who, ever since the Land Commission set out to relieve congestion, have endeavoured through their own good efforts to relieve their own congestion by purchasing a piece of land beside their own holding or in the locality. But human nature is human nature, and if it comes to the notice of those people who are entitled to land from the State free, gratis and for nothing, as part of land resettlement, that a certain holding is being put up for sale in a congested area, and if it is known that the Land Commission is interested in that farm, then Deputy Aiken need have no fear—certainly I have not— that any farmer will go out to buy something out of his hard-earned cash that he will get in six months' or a year's time from the Land Commission as part of a resettlement scheme. That is the way I look at it.

In regard to stamp duty, I think the transferring of money from one Government Department to another would be a very foolish policy and I am in full agreement that the Minister should not accept Deputy Aiken's amendment. There may be some argument for Deputy Aiken's suggestion that a person with a holding having, say, a valuation of £10, who adds a little more to his fairly small acreage, might be penalised. He might be penalised a bit, but we have to consider the very great number of people who still have to exist on less than £10 worth of land. We would be only delighted and so, I think, would the Minister, if we could scrap the Land Commission altogether and let people who had money buy all the land that would be on offer—that is, if there was sufficient land to go around. We know there is not. Therefore, we have to be very guarded as to what is the best way of handling it. I think that, as regards the payment of the stamp duty, care should be taken that when the money is in one Government Department it should be kept there and utilised to the best value.

I will read for the House Section 11 of the Finance Act of 1948:—

"No stamp duty shall be chargeable or payable on any agreement, conveyance, lease, assignment, memorial or other instrument (including an instrument executed but not stamped before the passing of this Act) made for the purposes of or in connection with the acquisition of land or any interest in, or right to or over, land by a Minister of State."

Surely to goodness that has nothing to do with the ordinary processes of the Land Commission and the arrangements that are made about stamp duty in relation to this Bill. The Finance Act referred to by the Minister was intended to put the citizens of this State in a good position to compete with the foreigners that the Deputies over there now talk about. We got very little sympathy, when we set out to do that, from the Minister or from the Deputies who sit behind him.

That has nothing to do with this.

The Minister quoted the Finance Act. I proposed at that time 25 per cent. and I put it there in spite of a lot of the Deputies who are now Ministers on the Front Bench.

The Deputy is in error when he says that.

If the Minister contests that, then I can quote for him, on the section, the present Minister for Agriculture who said that the 25 per cent. stamp duty was a great bit of robbery and corruption on everyone in the country.

I do not see how that arises.

The Minister contests it.

The Minister quoted the Act but did not make any argument.

He also denied that Deputy Dillon or any of them were against it. We will see. This is a completely new business. The principal point that I stressed was that it was putting the Minister and the Land Commission into a position to compete with the ordinary citizen to the latter's disadvantage.

The amendment by Deputy Aiken is an indication to the Minister and bears out what has already been said, that when the Minister's officer goes into the open market for land he has to pay no stamp duty, and so will have an unfair advantage against the small farmer or the labourer who wants a bit of land.

I have already said that is not so.

It is so. It is sticking out 100 miles. Any man who goes out to a public sale, or privately or otherwise, to purchase a piece of property will ask what will the costs be. Now, there is a 5 per cent. stamp duty which the Minister proposes to wipe out here. But there is more than that on the purchase price if the land is subject to an annuity. What I want to point to is the stamp duty payable on the redemption value of the annuity that is outstanding, as well as on the price of the holding. If a holding costs £1,000, and there is still £1,000 outstanding, then the stamp duty charged on the redemption price may be 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. It is never under 7 per cent. and goes up as far as 9 and 10 per cent. If they are 1923 Land Act cases, the stamp duty on the purchase price and on the redemption value of the annuity outstanding are added and are charged by the Revenue Commissioners. That has to be remembered.

When it is said here that the Minister's officer has an advantage of at least 15 per cent. it is no exaggeration. It may go higher than that. I want to put that to Deputies who sit behind the Minister, such as Deputy Fagan and Deputy Madden, who understand this. Are they satisfied that when the Minister sends out his officer, he has a 15 per cent. advantage at least in the stamp duty to compete against the ordinary small farmer or against any other type of person who wants to acquire a holding? There is one thing certain and it is this, that free sale of land and all the rest do not operate any longer. This is socialising the whole question of land.

I knew you would bring in dear Joe Stalin before you stopped.

There is a Joe in this too.

Two important considerations arise in regard to this amendment. The first is that we should have the right to know exactly what price the Minister will be paying for land. That should be recorded. If it is not the Minister's intention to accept the amendment, and personally I cannot see much point in transferring money from one Department to another, I certainly think that the saving to the Land Commission in not having to pay stamp duty should be recorded for book-keeping purposes. In the case of rates, under local authorities, the amount is always set down in regard to property owned by the county council. That is necessary for accurate book-keeping. I think the same should apply here.

The second point is this question of unfair competition between the State and the private individual who may be seeking to buy land. I think that could be solved by a fair estimation of the price that the Land Commission are prepared to pay.

The discussion at present is confined to stamp duty.

I am suggesting that the Minister should assure the House that he would meet Deputy Allen on these two points, first of all that the saving resulting from the non-payment of the stamp duty should be recorded and, secondly, that the fact of the non-payment of the stamp duty should be taken into consideration in fixing the price.

The saving will be recorded. Is not Question Time in the Dáil one of the most powerful weapons that Deputies have for keeping in day-to-day touch with the affairs of any Government Department? There is no question of concealing anything. With regard to Deputy Allen's statement that the Land Commission will enter into competition with private bidders with a 15 per cent. advantage on their side, I want to ask him this: if he were Minister for Lands, would he operate the Land Commission or allow it to operate in that way? I would like to have a "yes" or "no" answer to that. If he were Minister for Lands and if he were to answer "yes," then I want to tell him that he would not be fit to be Minister for Lands for five minutes. It all boils down to this, that if the Land Commission buys land and saves 5 per cent. stamp duty, there is a saving to the State in that way. If a private individual buys it, he has to pay the stamp duty and the State gets it anyhow. What is the difference?

It seems to me that there is an extraordinary difference on the question of accounts as between one Department and another. Deputies who scout the idea as being nonsense that one Department should pay money to another even though there is a counter account should take up the Book of Estimates and they will find it running through a great many of the different Estimates.

Is it Appropriations-in-Aid?

Not at all. Take, for instance, the Post Office. In the Book of Estimates you will find that the Post Office charges certain matters against all the Departments. In fact, the Post Office would not pay if it were not for the charges made against other Departments. I can hardly believe that Deputies would put forward the argument that it is foolish to say there should be counter charges between Departments. I think that argument does not hold.

Certainly the argument with regard to the Post Office does not hold as an ordinary business proposition. I presume the Deputy is referring to telephone and other services for Government Departments.

Not at all—counter accounts that occur in the Book of Estimates where one Department actually is charged by another Department, even though that Department may itself be earning money. I merely got up to remove an impression that might be misleading Deputies. It is not nonsense to talk about having charges and counter charges between Departments.

There is no similarity.

I come from a constituency where we have not a lot of dealings with the Land Commission. But I have been listening for about two hours to this discussion, especially on Deputy Aiken's amendment. I am one of those people who are prepared to stand behind the Minister in his endeavour to retain this sub-section. I believe that the Land Commission should have an advantage in the purchase of land for the relief of congestion.

Some Opposition Deputies protested that this advantage, as they described it, is an advantage over small landowners who themselves would be desirous of acquiring land to enlarge their own holdings. I rather assume that the Land Commission will interfere, if one likes to use that word, in sales in districts where there is congestion and that, rather than reacting unfavourably on congests, the interference of the Land Commission will be to the advantage of these congests, because the land will be purchased by the Land Commission for these people and, I imagine, will be distributed amongst them. If the Land Commission has this advantage in respect of the duty chargeable, it is an advantage that they should have, not as has been stated over congests, but over other people who have sufficient land.

Congestion in the west and in other areas has been a problem for a long time. Surely the State must have an advantage to try to relieve the congestion in places like the west. Deputy Little gave an example where a State Department takes money from another Department. I think there is a difference. He quoted the example of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs sending a bill to all the other Department and collecting a certain amount of money. I agree that that is the practice. There is this difference, however, that that is income for one Department, and the amendment proposes that there should be a tax on another Department. There is a difference between a tax and an income in the case of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

It is a distinction without a difference.

The Parliamentary Secretary says quite openly that the State should have an advantage over the smallholder.

Not over the smallholder.

Over the smallholder or anybody else—that the State should have an advantage in the public market.

To relieve congestion.

As against the small farmer who is trying to relieve his own congestion.

He is the congest.

It is to his rescue we are coming with this section.

He may not be a congest. A congest is a person whose valuation is under £25. If his valuation is £24 19s. he is a congest. If his valuation is £25 1s. he is not a congest. The fact is that the only person who can get land is a congest. If a man's valuation is £25 1s., even though he has ten sons who are growing up and he wants some land for them, he cannot get it from the Land Commission; he must get it himself.

In the west, the Land Commission will not give land to anybody with a valuation over £10.

If they did, there would be murder.

I do not want to go down to £10 valuation. The fact is that, where there is acute congestion, what the Land Commission do in certain cases is to bring a man's valuation up from £2 to £5 or £6.

Will the Deputy come to the stamp duty?

I am on the stamp duty as closely as I can stick to it in view of the argument of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary argues that the State should have an advantage over the £10 or £11 farmer, as Deputy Commons points out. I do not believe the State should. On the other hand, the Minister says that the State has no advantage. He told Deputy Allen that he would not be fit to occupy his position if he acted in such a way that the Land Commission would have an advantage over the £10 or the £11 or the £25 1s. man who is trying to relieve congestion in his own family. The fact is that, under the proposals in this Bill, the Land Commission cannot help having at least a 15 per cent. advantage.

The Deputy dealt with that twice before.

In reply to Deputy Allen, the Minister repeated his statement, which is absolutely untrue and without foundation and I want to contradict it again.

On a point of order. What action does the Chair take in a case like that?

I do not see the point of order.

I made a statement and Deputy Aiken flatly contradicts it and says it is untrue.

He did not accuse anyone of untruth. The Deputy disagreed with the statement. He is entitled to do that. It is a daily occurrence.

I said the Minister made a statement that the State would not be at an advantage of 15 per cent.

And I reaffirmed that statement.

I say it is absolutely untrue and without the slightest shadow of foundation, because the Land Commission inevitably must be at the advantage of the 5 per cent. we are discussing. When you put that 5 per cent.——

The Deputy is repeating himself.

I have not made this particular statement before.

About the 5 per cent. and the 15 per cent.

It is not only on the market price of the land, but it is on the market price of the land plus the redemption of the land annuity. That is much more than 5 per cent. on the market price. Why not talk about legal and other expenses?

Which are not in the stamp duty.

But they are in the 15 per cent. of which the Minister claims he has not the advantage.

It is Deputy Moran who claims that.

The Minister claims he has not and the Parliamentary Secretary says he should have it.

May I say that, having listened to Deputy Aiken, there appears to be no need for this Bill, if the congests in the West of Ireland have a valuation of £25. If they have a valuation of £12 or £14 there is no need for the Land Commission at all because the problem of congestion has been solved long ago.

If any Minister of State goes to court against an individual citizen has not the Minister and his Department the advantage of legal advice that the private individual has not?

The Department does not pay income-tax.

In reply to the Parliamentary Secretary, he has that advice but he is defending the State's interests.

There is no precedent for this particular power and there is no justification for it in view of the powers the Minister takes under Section 2.

They do not arise, as the Deputy was told the last time he was on his feet.

What I am saying is in reference to the stamp duty.

And stamp duty only.

There is no precedent for a Minister having this particular privilege in connection with land acquired under this section. When the Electricity Supply Board purchase land they pay stamp duty and all the other charges incidental to a sale to them.

But they are not a Department of State.

The Minister has stated that the lands purchased under this particular section will be purchased openly and if the Land Commission is outbid, well and good. But the Minister knows quite well that that position cannot obtain when the Minister is at this 15 per cent. advantage.

That is the identical argument the Deputy advanced the last time he arose.

It has been suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Land Commission are intentionally at an advantage under this section. The Minister says that is not so. If the Minister states openly that the Land Commission has this advantage, that it is entitled to it and that it must have it we shall know where we are and I shall be quite prepared to accept what he says. If, on the other hand, he is trying to put it over that this will be a free and open sale and that there is no advantage, then it is up to me and other Deputies to point out this 15 per cent. advantage and I challenge the Minister to deny it.

My interpretation of the amendment is that it is merely a matter of asking the House to rob Peter to pay Paul. We are asking one Department to cough up certain sums to the credit of another Department. We are creating superfluous work for the civil servants and we have a precedent inasmuch as State Departments do not pay income-tax.

Nobody is asking anybody to pass money. If Deputy O'Donnell takes up the Book of Estimates he will find that the Department of Lands and the Department of Finance show clearly how much is due to the Post Office on foot of telegrams, telephones and so on.

That is income.

But no money passes. It is proper Government accounting. The public then knows how much the Post Office is making and how much the Department of Lands is costing. There must be a proper system of State accounting. I do not want money to pass, but I do want proper accountancy.

The Department of Posts and Telegraphs does not pay income-tax.

We are not talking about income-tax. How could anyone assess income-tax on the Department of Posts and Telegraphs?

By reason of their income.

We are discussing what this proposal of the Minister will cost the private individual in his capacity as a buyer of land and in his capacity as a taxpayer. Apart altogether from putting him at a disadvantage in relieving his own congestion for his own family by his own efforts, it is very bad public accountancy.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 56.

  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Connolly, Roderick J.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Davin, William.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Esmonde, Sir John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheehan, Michael.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Timoney, John J.
  • Tully, John.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Bourke, Patrick.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Patrick J.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 23, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I have a good deal of sympathy with Deputies McQuillan and Commons in this particular matter. The Minister hoisted the flag. He had a cutlass in his hands. He had a knife between his teeth, but his teeth were chattering. He is a very timid revolutionary. He seems to be afraid now that there will be no success in the working of this particular section because he will be outbid by any farmer who has a few pounds. If the Minister were Deputy Commons, or if Deputy Commons's form could be exhibited in a ministerial capacity, we would have a far better idea where we are. If Deputy Commons did not suffer some change in taking office, he would at least be quite clear in regard to what he would purport to do and he would leave us in no doubt as to what he would purport to do.

In regard to the acquisition of land under Section 5, actually the Minister has given himself certain powers under Section 10. When he starts acquiring land under Section 5 for the relief of congestion and the rearrangement of holdings he will be able to nominate those who get the farms. He will be able to say what is the amount at which these farms will be sold. He starts to pretend that he has not taken these powers and now he tells us that he fears that he will not be able to acquire any land because there will be competition.

I see no success that will attend the operation of this section for this reason. Deputy Commons and Deputy McQuillan, according to what they say, did believe that the relief of congestion was so necessary and so urgent that they would, under the terms of the Bill, go out and get land at any cost. Even though to help them in his efforts to solve congestion the Minister has secured authority to pay the market value, yet he hedges here and says that market value is not market price. If the Minister is not prepared to pay market price and hedges in any way in regard to the difference between market value and market price, he certainly is not going to get any land. I wonder if Deputy Commons and Deputy McQuillan are themselves wondering if the Minister is quite serious, and if they do not see some shadow of the white flag being raised in regard to this particular Bill?

In the discussion on this Bill I have listened all the time with a good deal of interest to Deputy Collins. He has been surprisingly reasonable and has tried to make the Minister show reason but he has great difficulty in doing that. When he talks about his knowledge of land and the Land Commission from his second-hand experience, I begin to envy his father's happy home here in Dublin wherever it is, when, like the rest of the inspectors of the Land Commission, he goes home in the evening to discuss all the accumulated wisdom that is to be found in Merrion Street with his son. I do believe what I am told and do what I am told here in the Fianna Fáil Party and, if I have any shadow of hope, it is that my constituents will do the same. I do not think that Deputy Collins is quite as familiar with Land Commission procedure as he would lead us to believe, because when he is supporting the Minister in this particular section, I think that he has not grasped the difficulties that will be raised by the section.

Deputy McQuillan speaking on the section made a plea for codification. We discussed that particular feature of the Bill before and I am glad that Deputy McQuillan has again referred to the great need there is now for it. One particular item of information slipped from Deputy McQuillan. He talked about farmers' sons getting land. I want the Minister to be assured that we on this side of the House are not anxious to see farmers' sons getting land under the terms of this Bill. We are anxious to see land rearranged and congestion dealt with but not the giving of land to landless men because that is not going to bring about the cure of congestion. If that is in Deputy McQuillan's mind, as apparently it is, I think it is quite unwise.

I spoke before on this section and vehemently opposed it. I think it is an innovation that we cannot really afford and one that creates very definite and distasteful interference with ordinary land economics. I do realise that the powers in the Bill are highly desirable in regard to one particular difficulty that was raised for the Land Commission or rather not for the Land Commission but for certain Deputies from Mayo. That was in connection with the cottage farm at Ballyhaunis. This was a farm, I admit, which the Land Commission might reasonably have purchased, but if the Land Commission did not acquire or resume that particular farm it really could hardly be described as the fault of the Land Commission. The position in relation to the farm was that the people in the locality were inclined to let very well alone. They were able to rent the farm for their purposes in conacre. It was not until the owner suddenly decided to sell the land that they woke up to the necessity for the Land Commission to acquire it. The Land Commission could not, and I hope will not ever, interfere with the free sale of land. I think Deputy Commons did introduce an amendment here which might conceivably be the logical outcome of the acceptance of this section by the Dáil. Deputy Commons I feel, like Gunga Din, is a brother man to the Minister.

"(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."

That is the logical development of this section which the Minister wants the Dáil to accept. The section certainly introduces a new method of land acquisition and it may, if it works, simplify the work of the relief of congestion.

The Minister and the Land Commission will have to remember that they are not dealing with land; they are dealing with human nature, and with human nature in its acquisitive mood. This fact will, I fear, nullify all the powers that the Minister is getting throughout the whole Bill, and particularly in this section, if the Minister proposes to acquire farms under this section. Having listened to him when he was introducing the Bill, we discovered that what was in his mind was the purchase of farms as going concerns. Conceivably, in view of his needs, what he wants to purchase is the small or the moderate sized farm as a going concern. This type of farm is the most highly sought after farm in the country by farmers who have made a success on their own, men who have sons and who want to make provision for them, men who have by hard work and thrift gathered a little money together and want to invest it for the benefit of their families. These people wish to be no burden on the State. They are prepared to stand on their own feet and spend their own money. I think it is wrong that with all the powers the Land Commission have for land acquisition they should go into competition with farmers such as these who, to my mind, are the backbone of the country.

Before the auction takes place, it is somewhere in Section 10 (1)—all these sections are as long as an answer to a Dáil question by the Minister for External Affairs—that there is a determination of the highest offer to be made by the Land Commission in the case of a proposed purchase under Section 23 of this Act. Let us say a farm in Limerick is put up for sale, and maybe Deputy Madden would be interested and would write to the Minister. Anyhow, there would be some acquisitive genius in West Limerick who would notify the Minister that such farm was for sale, even if his own inspector was not sufficiently alert to discover what was in the auctioneers' bills on the walls. The Minister, having been informed, would send his inspector down to County Limerick to have a look at the farm. He would come back to Dublin and make a report on the farm to the Minister and to the Land Commission. Then the commissioners would go into a huddle and argue up, down and across—the four of them; we will not have a majority on either side and the Minister will decide finally. They will decide what the market value of the farm is.

Of course, the Minister will not be so dumb as to send down one of his known land inspectors or any fellow with too highly polished boots. He will possibly send some local fellow to make a bid for the land. All that might lead, not to success, but to failure, because in the County Limerick people are clannish and it might lead to a good deal of intrigue and dishonesty. The local fellow might find insufficient the price that the commissioners fixed long before even the order came down from Dublin, but whatever he does the market value of that farm will be the price the County Limerick man is prepared to pay for it. If it is around Abbeyfeale or in South Limerick, we will have acquisitive gentlemen coming over the Border from Kerry with a good deal of money made one way or the other and they will make the Land Commission put up the dibs. Let the Minister take his courage in his hands if he wants to relieve congestion and let him pay the market price.

I take it I will be allowed to follow Deputy Moylan along that line?

The question of market price was discussed long ago.

It all has a definite bearing.

The Deputy is in order. The purchase of land offered for sale—that is exactly what the Deputy is discussing.

The Ceann Comhairle is always right. I wish the Minister were right sometimes.

Some of the Deputy's colleagues would not appear to agree with that statement.

It would be a very bad sign if everybody agreed with the Ceann Comhairle.

If there is to be any success at all in the acquisition of these very desirable farms, which the Kerry men and the Limerick men would make very interesting for the Land Commission, the commissioners and the Minister will have to alter their view in regard to market value. The result of all this will be a definite inflation of land values, making it much more difficult for people who would buy and work land and who have been hardworking and thrifty enough to collect money for the purchase of land. It will make it almost impossible for them to live. Not merely will their competition with the Land Commission increase the price, but their competition with one another, because this great pool of land that the Land Commission proposes to take up in this fashion is bound to create an inflationary tendency in the price of land.

Deputy Moran says there will be nobody at the auctions.

Different parts of the country have different rules.

This will be the case if everything is straightforward and honest, and if the pongo players of West Limerick in whom Deputy Madden is so much interested get in on the ground floor in this, there will be some interesting happenings. There will be a lot of the tough boys who will be able to boost the price and put it altogether beyond the reach of the Minister or anybody else.

I regard this as an unwarranted interference with the ordinary law of economics. We used to talk about the digging out of the landlords, root and branch. Tom Kettle put it "brute and ranch". Now, if we can attack the brute and ranch, as has been the fashion up to now and for which there is plenty of scope, the Land Commission has plenty of authority to cease from any interference with the ordinary law of economics and from trying to create a condition of affairs which must make things increasingly difficult for the small farmer.

The Minister says that something like 250,000 acres of land change hands every year. That is not abnormal. That is the condition of things that makes way for a new generation, and it is a good thing that it so happens. It makes an opportunity for the coming generation. In my opinion, the supply of land never reaches the ordinary normal demand. I think that the Land Commission cannot usefully obtrude itself into this position. Its transactions will be costly and they will be ineffective. Instead of being a help to a migrant, they will place him in an intolerable position. If there is a small farm for sale around Holycross or Hollywood in Tipperary and the Land Commission goes down and succeeds in buying it against local farmers, it will be pretty tough on the Mayo men who go into Tipperary. I believe that this attempt to short-circuit the normal procedure will not bring the fulfilment of the Minister's hopes. I believe it will bring results that will be evil and that will create jealousies and difficulties. I think that the Minister is altogether ill-advised in pressing the acceptance of this section on the Dáil.

I do not share, and I thank God for it, the very gloomy outlook which Deputy Moylan, as the spokesman of his Party, has put forward on this section. I presume he has put that forward as the view and outlook of his Party on the whole question of land purchase. He has expressed great concern about the State interfering in the purchase of farms and holdings on the open market. I do not see that. The Government has taken its stand on this, that the land which the Land Commission requires for the relief of congestion should be paid for according to its market value. I do not see why there should be this desire to harp back to a system that was definitely unfair and unjust and that, to a certain extent, amounted to confiscation. We do not stand for that, good or bad. Great strides have been made towards the relief of congestion for the first time over a long number of years. The full activities of the Land Commission have been diverted into the one channel—the relief of congestion. Deputy Moylan agrees with me now, and I presume that the rest of the Fianna Fáil Party agrees too.

Mr. de Valera

That was agreed on before Fianna Fáil left office.

I will not make any contentious statement. All I am sorry for is that that was not agreed on by Fianna Fáil when they first came into public life and before they wasted a great deal of the substance of this country, and by substance I mean the land. As I say, I do not want to raise any contentious matters. I am only regretting something that cannot be undone now. I do not want to make any political capital out of this. I do ask the House—the Opposition and the Government, to turn their faces with me in the direction that the Land Commission is facing, and that is towards the relief of congestion.

That was always their job.

I say that a step forward has been taken in this Bill. The Deputies who support it have everything to congratulate themselves on— on taking the State out of the role of confiscator. There is no other word for it, because people in the past, from whom land had been acquired, did not receive a fair price for it. I have no regrets. I am proud of every section in the Bill. I think that the giving of authority to the Land Commission to go into the open market to tap a hitherto untapped pool of land—land which comes on to the open market— is a step in the right direction. I do not hold any gloomy views whatever about the future of it.

I have every hope that Section 23 will be the success I intend it to be. The Land Commission wants land. As I said on many previous occasions, they want it on a fairly big scale to relieve congestion and to bring about some finality to their own work. That is the whole aim and object of the Bill. I do not hold at all to the view which Deputy Moylan has expressed and which I take to be the view of this Party. I do not agree with these gloomy views at all or with the view that there is not enough land to go around. There is not, because there would not be any land for the Land Commission to acquire to-morrow if everyone who owns land in this country lived on and worked that land, produced a reasonable amount of food from it and gave a reasonable amount of employment. There would then be no land for compulsory acquisition.

All that this Bill does is to give additional powers to the Land Commission and to the Minister in some respects. It gives them a new method of getting land into their possession for certain purposes. I do not agree that any of the abuses that have been mentioned will arise. There will be a constant check. Deputy Moran spoke of devaluation in the price of land as one of the effects of this section. Deputy Moylan holds the opposite view and says it is going to cause inflation. It will be the duty of the Minister and of the commissioners, if it produces either of these two effects, not to allow such a serious state of affairs to arise.

There were great hopes held out by the Minister who introduced the 1933 Land Act. Certain sections of that Act achieved the purpose for which they were intended. Certain other sections of it were a complete failure. I am not guaranteeing that the various sections of this Bill are going to be a complete success. No Minister could do that, any more than I could foretell where I may be this day month or this day 12 months. We are doing our best. I have done my best. I know the land resettlement question since I was a foot high, and I am doing my best in this Bill to try and meet that problem. I have said before that the problem of congestion is one that no one living is responsible for. It is just an evil that this State found itself confronted with when it was set up. It is one that even a foreign Government had taken steps to try and do something about. I do say, however, that, after 30 years of self-Government, more should have been accomplished during that time had better steps been taken. I have no hesitation whatever in recommending Section 23 to the House. It will not, I believe, cause the evils we are told it will cause. If evils do arise, surely we can always depend on a Minister for Lands or a sane Government being there to check them. It will be the duty of any Minister in charge of the Department to do that, otherwise he will fail in his duty.

I could say a great deal on this but I will not say it. I certainly hold that this will achieve its purpose, namely, to tap a hitherto untapped pool of land for the Land Commission by a very speedy method. We have agreed in Section 5 to pay market value for acquired land and not to redeem the annuities out of the purchase money. Having agreed to pay market value for acquired land, I do not see why we should not pay market value for land which is being offered for sale and which in most cases, I believe, will come into the possession of the Land Commission within one month from the date of sale.

The Minister takes a lot for granted. I take it it is agreed on all sides that it is the duty of the Dáil in passing legislation to see that there is nothing in it which will give rise to any abuses. This section is definitely a dangerous section in some respects. The object of this section is to enable the Land Commission to purchase land for cash instead of for land bonds. I do not see any objection to that. Whether they pay in land bonds or in cash does not much matter. If it simplifies matters for the Land Commission to pay in cash rather than in land bonds, it is all the same so far as the cost to the State is concerned. That is a principle with which we can all agree. But, when we allow the Land Commission to attend public sales for the 3 or 4 per cent. of the land of the country that comes on the market every year, in addition to the potential purchasers already there, with all the resources of the State behind them——

No, they will not.

Of the 15,000,000 acres of land in the country, 3 or 4 per cent. of the total is all that comes on the market every year. In addition to the potential purchasers of that land, small farmers' sons, middle sized farmers' sons and landless men, we will have the Minister represented by his officers bidding for this 3 or 4 per cent. of land which is for sale every year. If that is not a dangerous principle, I do not know what is.

A Deputy

Would you prefer compensation?

That can cut both ways. Market price for land is provided for in this Bill. Who is going to determine the market price? The Minister's officers may determine it. It may be far beyond what any normal person would value it at or beyond what they are prepared to pay for it.

That is an unnecessary figure.

We do not know what may happen. The market value may be depressed because of sub-section (5) of this section.

Deputy Moylan says it will be inflated.

I could argue both ways.

Which leg are you standing on?

I am pointing out what can happen under this section. The Minister has not told the Dáil yet why sub-section (5) is in this section, why he considers it necessary to insert this provision: "The powers conferred by this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers which the Land Commission may have by law for the acquisition or purchase of land or resumption of holdings."

What is wrong about reaffirming something?

That is put into this section as a warning to would-be purchasers that they have no business coming in, that the Land Commission want the holding that is for sale and, if they do not get it at the public auction or by private treaty, they will acquire it under the compulsory powers they have.

Do not be displaying your stupidity.

Why was it necessary to bring that in? The 1923 Act provides power for the Land Commission to acquire land. It does not need this sub-section to make it plain that the Land Commission have power to acquire land by compulsory purchase. They have that power already.

It is only reaffirming something.

It is brought in for a deliberate purpose.

Is that section going to be read out at every auction which the Land Commission attends?

It is intended to frighten off would-be purchasers, such as farmers in the County Clare, County Limerick, County Tipperary or some other county, with three, four or five sons who have been working for wages for 20 years, who have gathered together the price of a farm. There is congestion in these places also. Congests are not confined to the West.

The Deputy is talking rubbish.

I am not.

You might as well tell us that some day the moon will fall.

Is it in order for the Minister and Deputy Collins to keep up a running commentary on every speech made from the Opposition Benches?

Interruptions are disorderly. The Chair has ruled that.

They have kept up a running commentary on every word the Deputy uttered.

I can point out other things which will happen under this section. We have had indications for many years and even quite recently of efforts being made to bring pressure to bear on the Land Commission to acquire this farm and that farm. When the Minister has this power, does anybody think that any farm will go up for sale by private treaty or by public auction without questions being put to the Minister for Lands and the matter being raised on the Adjournment urging the Minister to acquire the farm? Do we not know that wherever there is a farm for sale there will be local agitation to get the Land Commission to buy that farm? Every one of us knows that.

In the Minister's own interest and in the Government's interest, I suggest that the provisions of this section are dangerous and bad and will do damage instead of achieving the purpose the Minister has in mind. There can be no doubt about that. Land hunger will be created in areas where it does not exist at the present time. It is a very easy matter to create land hunger here. In the last 25 years I have seen land hunger for a particular farm in areas where congestion is scarcely known. I have seen agitation to force the Land Commission to acquire a particular farm. I have seen that happen in the Leinster counties. I have had to resist that many times as a public representative. This section will create land hunger. Having the Land Commission coming in to purchase land in competition with the ordinary buyer will create bad feeling. The Minister should think twice before he forces this section through the House. As already pointed out, the Minister has a 15 per cent. advantage over the small holder or the person with a few hundreds or a thousand pounds with which he wishes to purchase a holding. The Minister will not pay stamp duty, the ordinary legal registration fees, a solicitor or anyone else. He has at least a 15 per cent. advantage in some cases and in some cases it will be even higher than that. That cannot be denied. There does not appear to be much use in appealing to the Minister in his present mood. He will charge bull-headed at this power and take it irrespective of the damage it may do to the fabric of the State. It is just another step towards socialising the land.

I made it perfectly clear on the Second Reading that I support this Bill in the hope that it will bring land more speedily into the hands of the Land Commission. I believe, as do most Deputies, that the Land Commission already has sufficient powers to solve the congestion problem. It has compulsory powers to acquire or resume land. The fact of the matter is that it is not using its present powers as rapidly as it should. That is what worries Deputies who represent the congested areas.

Deputy Ruttledge, a former Minister for Lands, said it was not Land Acts that were required but a reorganisation of the Land Commission. I think such a reorganisation would accomplish more than this section or any other section will accomplish. If we could only get a decision within a reasonable period of time we would know what the position was. Irrespective of whether the decision was advantageous or disadvantageous, the people in the congested areas would know the true position. If it was decided that a particular problem could not be solved by the acquisition of a particular farm in a particular area, the people would then know that they would have to look for relief somewhere else. That has never been the position up to this; there does not appear to be any reason why a delay of 20 years should take place before the Land Commission can give a decision.

If we carry on in the same old way I agree with other Deputies that congestion will never be solved. But the Minister has taken a new line in this measure. He proposes to tap a new source of supply in an endeavour to get more land into the pool. He is prepared to compete for the land put up for public auction. The land put up for public auction may be more than the Land Commission can buy or more than it intends to buy, working at its speediest. We have decided now that we will not lumber along under the old rotten system. We have decided that we must get hold of some of this land that is there to be purchased by anyone with enough money to buy it.

A good deal has been said about the raw deal the small farmer or his son will get under this Bill when the Land Commission goes into the open market to buy. We all know that 99 per cent. of the land purchased is not purchased by the small farmer or his son. Will anybody tell me how the ordinary small farmer with ten, 15 or 20 acres of land could amass enough money to purchase a reasonably sized holding for his son. Certainly he could not do it out of what he earns on his holding. It might be done if a particular member of the family emigrated and made sufficient to come home again and settle down here. We have, too, the gentleman who comes into the country and purchases 20, 25 or 50 acres of land in Co. Mayo and registers that holding as a stud farm and defies the Land Commission to take even a square yard of it. I merely mention these things to show that the present system is rotten.

When the Minister comes in here with a proposal which will bring more land into the hands of the Land Commission we should support him. I do feel, like some other speakers, that this system of open purchase on the open market may be abused. Deputy Moylan says the middle-class farmer is the backbone of the country, but Deputy Moylan did nothing during his term of office to put a little more backbone into the country. If one of these middle-class farms should come on the market, surely it should be possible for the Land Commission inspector on the spot to decide whether it would be a suitable farm for the Land Commission to buy. He can then report to his senior inspector and he, in turn, to the divisional inspector, and thence to the commissioners who will decide what the price should be. On the information they get from the man on the spot they can decide what the farm is worth and the nominee of the Land Commission can then go down to the public auction.

I claim that man goes into the auction under a great disadvantage. He may be allowed to offer only £2,000 for a farm which might be worth £2,300 or £2,500. Despite all the time wasted in travelling, in valuing, in officials' expenses, in the determination of market value here, there and everywhere else, the Land Commission official or the man who acts on behalf of the Minister at this sale may find that, after it all, he is not able to come within a shout of the local bidder or of the local purchaser. I think that when a Land Commission official is put to it or when somebody is put to do a job like this for the Land Commission, it is almost impossible to lay out a certain figure of money which he may spend. If the Land Commission official is told by his seniors in Dublin that he has at his command an unlimited supply of money and that the price he will pay for the farm is being left to his discretion, the individual who acts at the sale on behalf of the Land Commission may go beyond the limit and get flush with somebody else's money and pay a very handsome and inflated price. Therefore, I think that purchase in the open market is a double-edged weapon because it can cut both ways. It may stint the powers of the Land Commission to purchase the land or, if you allow them too much money, it may drive their hand too far and money may be wasted which might otherwise be used to very good purpose. If we decide—I assume that this section will be passed—that land is to be purchased in the open market we are, I admit, treading on very dangerous ground. We can only try this out as an experiment. It may be the worst Bill which has ever been introduced in this House and the most extravagant and we may find that out by this time next year but, on the other hand, we may find out that it is one of the best measures that could be introduced in this House.

Deputy Allen suggests that the Minister's hand will be forced by questions in this House when such and such a farm comes on the market. I have pointed out here, time and time again, that it is not and should not be the duty of Deputies to raise land questions in this House. It is the duty of the officials of the Land Commission. Their job is to relieve congestion and to pick up all the necessary land suitable for the relief of congestion. That is not our job. We are here to pass laws and legislation. The civil servants, who are well paid by the State, will operate these laws. But when you have such a series of red tape, of legal entanglements and so forth in land legislation, it is impossible for any group of men to carry on in the speedy manner in which we should like them to do so.

Deputy Moylan was in a very good mood—he generally is, and I admire him for it. He told us that if a farm is taken over in Limerick, Tipperary, Abbbeyfeale, Holycross and so forth, and is divided up, it is going to be pretty tough on the poor Mayo man who will be migrated there. Candidly, I do not believe it will. I will say that where there is congestion in any county or in any part of this State it will be looked on with a certain amount of dissatisfaction if a migrant is brought in from another county while local congestion exists. Anxious and all as I am to relieve congestion in Mayo, I feel that if there are congested areas in other counties, the people in the locality should get first preference. However, we know ourselves that the congestion which exists in counties other than the Western counties is very small indeed. The poor Mayo man who might be migrated to Meath, to Abbeyfeale, to Holycross and so forth should, I think, be as welcome as perhaps the Aga Khan, the Duke of Westminster or any of those people who can come in and purchase not 22 or 32 statute acres but 22,000 or 32,000 acres if the land is for sale on the open market. Therefore, Deputy Moylan's argument is no argument to put up against the progress of the Land Commission.

When Deputy Moylan stood for that principle he did not get much help, remember.

Deputy Moylan in a debate rarely omits to introduce the subject of the cottage farm in Mayo. If this Bill were an Act, the cottage farm would have got so much publicity that I have no doubt whatsoever that the congestion in that area would be solved in about 24 hours. The sale could be completed. You have, first, the owner willing to sell to the Land Commission. Secondly, you have the tenants, if they were willing to pay up the extra money. Agreement could be reached and 40 odd tenants who live on holdings of less than £10 valuation could be satisfied and the holdings brought up to reasonably economic holdings. I think it is the duty of this Government and of any Government and of the Land Commission to look after those people. After all, if we had no congested holders we would have no need for the Land Commission. If we had not small farms under £10 valuation we would have no need for the inspectors whose duty it is to relieve congestion or for the hordes of officials who are required in the Department. Therefore, in fairness to the present Minister and to the present Government, when they decide to go into the open market to purchase land, it is worth a trial anyhow. We have an assurance that the extra money to be paid will not be put on the back of the incoming tenant—that it will not be charged to him by means of increased valuation or by means of any of the dozen other ways in which he could be fleeced to pay the extra amount. Therefore, if we set out to acquire the land which is available for anybody who has the money to pay for it, we should not hesitate to give the matter a trial.

We have had experience of the system of compulsory powers. The Congested Districts Board had compulsory powers from the very outset within the congested areas. I have often said that more is the pity the Congested Districts Board did not extend their powers over the 32 Counties of Ireland, which was then not partitioned. There would have been no need for the Land Commission to be established at all and the Congested Districts Board, with its thorough knowledge of the problems, would have made a much better job of it because they carried on that work with about 12 to 15 less Land Acts than we now have at the present time. We know ourselves that over £8,000,000 worth of land passed through the hands of the Land Commission in the short space of seven years. We know that very little more than £8,000,000 worth of land has been purchased for the relief of congestion within the past 32 or 33 years. Therefore, we can realise that it is rather futile to be passing one Act of Parliament after another when we have no real foundation and no real solid principle to go on.

Finally, if the Minister decides to introduce this Bill as a new step, we should support him in every way we can.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again.
Top
Share