Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Mar 1950

Vol. 120 No. 3

Land Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 23 as amended stand part of the Bill."

In his statement on this section the Minister has made it perfectly clear—he has spoken in no ambiguous way—what the policy of the present Government, the State policy, is in relation to land purchased under this section and under other sections under which land is acquired by the Land Commission. He has stated that land so purchased shall be used almost exclusively for the relief of congestion.

Under this section?

Under this section, Section 10 and every other section under which land is acquired.

This section is tied down to migrants.

Yes, but the Minister has made it abundantly clear that persons who have not already land in their possession will have very little hope and that there will be very little use in their applying to the Land Commission for holdings. So far as the members of this Party are concerned, it seems that we stand here in this House to be lectured by Deputies on the other side as to our interest and actions in those matters. I want to point out that so far as some of the Deputies on the Opposition side are concerned, they are not too happy about this section and as to how it is going to operate in the provision of lands for migrants. Deputy Dunne speaking in Meath last week, is reported as having told his audience that in the past the claims of local people had been unreasonably ignored and that in Dáil Éireann he had questioned the Minister for Lands as to his policy. The report goes on to state: "It is in the records of Dáil Éireann that the Minister had stated that it was not his policy to bring migrants to Meath."

How does this arise under Section 23?

This section I hold gives the Land Commission power to purchase land for migrants and to bring them to Meath.

To purchase land offered for sale.

For migrants. The report goes on: "Local claims would be satisfied whenever sufficient land existed." That would, of course, be never. "He hoped to see evidence that such a policy was adopted. There could, however, be no guarantee that the Government was, of its own accord, going to carry out such a policy. They should maintain sufficient pressure to convince the Government that any other policy would be unwise and unpopular." That was the statement made by Deputy Dunne. He also told his audience that his trade union organisation of 3,000 members would be used to see that the policy now advocated by the Minister would not be carried out. The Minister himself has been in the habit of receiving deputations in this matter over the past two years from organisations in Meath.

This section does not deal with the policy of migration but gives the Land Commission the right to purchase land offered for sale.

I bow to your ruling. I suppose the Chair is always right. When the Land Commission proceeds to purchase land under this section it lays down three principles under which the land can be purchased—where (a) any interest in land is offered for sale and (b) the interest carries the right to vacant possession of the land and (c) the Land Commission require the land for granting new holdings to migrants. I want to make the third condition perfectly clear to the people I represent in Meath. I should also like to have an interpretation of the "the interest carries the right to vacant possession of the land". I am not a lawyer and I want to know what is meant by this term "vacant possession". Say that an owner of a farm writes to the Land Commission or communicates to them in some other way, that he wishes to sell his land under Section 23, that he has a house on the land and that the farm contains a certain number of acres. It is immaterial what the acreage is but if he has on the land, say, a house, a gate house, and another house in which workmen live, and he says that he is prepared to give the Land Commission vacant possession of the land and the house he lives in himself, does it follow that he must, if he wishes to proceed with the sale, evict the other families who live in the other houses on the land or will the Land Commission purchase a farm offered for sale in such circumstances? I am only asking for information. I am not suggesting for one moment that that is intended.

Another aspect of this section which agitates my mind is that when a farm such as in County Meath or the Midlands generally is put up for sale and some other farmer purchases that farm, he usually re-employs the men, if any, who were working on that farm previously. Under this section if the Land Commission purchases the farm to secure the holding for migrants the people formerly employed there will naturally lose their employment. In an area which is so denuded of its population as some of the rural portions of County Meath have been, it is almost an impossibility for those who lose their employment in such circumstances to obtain other employment. I wonder will the Land Commission take such questions into consideration before deciding to purchase land offered for sale in these circumstances. On the Second Reading of the Bill, I raised the question generally as to the compensation people would get under this and other sections. The Minister seemed to think that that question did not count for so much but the fact is that it counts a good deal. We are now faced with the position that in counties such as Meath, if local people wish to purchase a holding, they have the Land Commission as a competitor. I do not think it fair to people in the Midlands generally if this section will deprive them of their right to secure portion of the land offered for sale in these counties. It is all very well for Deputies who live in areas in which congestion exists to press for a solution of that problem.

The Minister told us in 1948 that the Land Commission was forging ahead. It has been two years forging ahead and now he is asking for additional power here to take the strings off the athletes' legs, as he said himself, so as to speed up land acquisition and division. This is the section under which he hopes to get an extra amount of land that would not otherwise come into the possession of the Land Commission for the purpose of giving it to migrants so that their holdings can be used in the areas from which they come to relieve congestion there. The Minister said he hoped to secure by this method at least 50 farms a year of a certain size. He has not told us what size of holding he intends to buy, but if we assume that the 50 farms will be occupied after they are purchased, in whatever manner they will be purchased, by 50 families, and if we assume that each family had before they came to the new holding about 20 acres each, then this section will place in the hands of the Land Commission about 1,200 acres a year and in 12 years it will give them 12 times that amount of land for this purpose. The Minister, Deputy Commons and other Deputies seem to think that this section will work wonders——

——and that it will give to the Land Commission a special method whereby they can speed up the solution of this problem of relieving congestion.

Will it not be quicker than the compulsory method in certain cases?

I am not here to be questioned by the Minister; it is my business to question him.

I will take you at your word. If you want to stick out your nose, I can, too. I never knew a game yet at which two could not play.

I would like to know by what method the Land Commission propose to purchase holdings. The Land Commission have a reserved function to decide what price they will pay for each holding. Will they send an inspector down to a public auction, or do they intend to notify the auctioneer who has charge of the sale what amount they are prepared to pay for the land, or will some particular auctioneer be told off to purchase the land, such as happened when the Minister for Agriculture purchased a farm in County Meath? Will the same firm of auctioneers be sent on this job of purchasing farms up and down the country?

The Minister seems to think that because of the fact that we have no knowledge of rearrangement schemes, people like myself, who come from an area like County Meath, should not speak on this Bill. The problem was solved for the people in Meath between 1841 and 1891 when the population of the county fell from 183,828 persons to 76,987 persons and it continued to fall until 1926, when it stood at 62,969. There is no necessity to point out why the population fell during those years. The repeal of the Corn Laws and that type of business——

That is very far away from this stage.

Those are the things that helped to leave these farms available to be purchased in County Meath. That was the type of tyranny forced on us and our people.

The Deputy might easily go back to the Conquest.

It left the people of County Meath without their land, and that land is available now for the relief of congestion, where it can be purchased in the open market for migrants. I want it to be made perfectly clear that, if the Minister proposes to purchase 50 farms a year, he will be a long time solving the question which is uppermost in the minds of most Deputies—that is, the relief of congestion.

It is rather difficult for one to make up one's mind as to what the Fianna Fáil Party really want. I think most Deputies will agree that it is desirable to secure land to relieve congestion—that is, to provide an additional parcel for uneconomic holders, or alternatively, a transfer of an uneconomic holding from one person to another, and provide a new holding for the person so deprived. That is the main object of the Land Commission, and the question arises as to what way they should acquire the land for this purpose. There are two ways open.

The one in question here is land offered for sale.

That is what I am coming to. We have two alternatives, to acquire land compulsorily or to acquire it by agreement in the open market from people anxious to sell. It seems to me that of the two alternatives, the one provided in the section is the more desirable. It is not any pleasure to the Land Commission or anybody else to go down the country, take people by the back of the neck, throw them out of their holdings and acquire their land compulsorily. It is much better to meet people, who offer their land for sale, in a fair and open way and purchase that land from them by agreement.

I would be absolutely false to everything I have advocated in this House if I were to oppose the principle of this section because on every occasion when the Estimate for the Department came before the House I have advocated that the Land Commission should purchase land in the same way that any purchaser does, that is by agreement, or in the open market for cash and so eliminate as far as possible all unnecessary delays. I think everyone will agree that anyone who offers land for sale wants to realise his property as quickly as possible, and to get his money. As far as this section meets that necessary requirement I think it is serving a very useful purpose.

I do not disguise the fact that this laudable purpose provided for in this section may carry with it certain dangers, but it is absolutely impossible to carry into effect any legislative reform without running some risks. The risks involved in this section are that the Land Commission, if uncontrolled in their operations in regard to the price which they pay, may unduly inflate the price of land in a particular area. That is a danger to be guarded against. The main safeguard in that connection lies in the definite statement of the Minister that the land will be valued in advance, and that the price will be determined before the actual purchase is carried into effect. I think it is important that some experienced valuer should estimate the value of the land to be acquired. His estimate should be a written one, and should be recorded for scrutiny by the Department of Finance or by whoever may find it necessary to investigate the matter afterwards. I think that such a provision would guard against any unnecessary inflation in the price of land through the activities of the Land Commission.

I mention this because I think some Deputies in their zeal for the acquisition of land, and for the prevention of its acquisition by aliens, have stressed the fact that this section might tend to keep out aliens. I do not think the Land Commission should enter into competition with people who, perhaps, have unlimited money and do not know the value of land. If the Land Commission were to act on the principle of out-bidding any particular type of bidder, they would certainly run up the price of land and incur unnecessary expense, and would perhaps be doing a very grave injustice to ordinary people in the district who might require land at a reasonable price.

I think, therefore, that if the Minister, in considering this section at a later stage, would ensure that the price would be determined before the purchase is made, there would be no reason to fear the evils which the Opposition Party seem to anticipate. What I expect will happen is that the Land Commission will send a purchaser to many sales and will enter into negotiations for the purchase of many farms which ultimately they may find themselves unable to purchase because somebody else has outbid them. I think there is no harm in that. They will, on the other hand, acquire quite a number of farms which will be very useful to them in carrying out their lawful purpose of relieving congestion and in providing additional parcels of land for uneconomic holders.

I think it would be desirable that the fact that the Land Commission were interested in a particular holding was not generally known because there might be the danger that their intervention might frighten off other would-be purchasers in the district. I think that danger, if it existed could be avoided if it was made perfectly clear that the Land Commission, when they failed to purchase a farm because they had been outbid by somebody who placed a higher value on it, would not resort to their compulsory powers later to acquire that same farm. There is that danger in regard to the Land Commission that they have a double-edged weapon: that is to say, that if they fail in their attempt to purchase a farm by agreement they could acquire it afterwards under their compulsory powers.

If they had been outbid for the farm it would be a very cowardly proceeding on their part to come in afterwards.

But that will be the law under this section.

There are many things that can be done that we do not do.

There is one point in the section which I think requires explanation and perhaps some amendment— that is, the provision of new holdings for migrants or to facilitate the rearrangement of land held under rundale or intermixed plots. Now I do not think that should be the only purpose for which land acquired under this section should be used. I think the Land Commission should be free to use land acquired under this section for the relief of congestion in the district where the land has been acquired. The Land Commission may acquire a holding on which there is no residence. There are many such through our country. If the Land Commission acquire such a holding, I do not see why they should not have power to sub-divide it amongst uneconomic holders in the vicinity of that holding.

I am bringing in an amendment to that effect.

The inclusion of this section appears very desirable as far as the congested areas are concerned, but everything that is desirable is not sound or good. This section represents a very big departure from custom. Deputy Cogan said that he does not know what the Opposition wants. I think that we understand what we want as well as he, seemingly, does himself.

He was always a great advocate of free sale. I hold that this section is a departure from free sale no matter what the Minister may say about giving market value, when he qualifies that by stating that when he says "market value" he does not mean market price.

As was pointed out, land resettlement is one of the many problems left to us as a legacy. I do not think that even the most advanced advocates of land resettlement, even Fianna Fáil, ever envisaged that it should go on indefinitely; that State intervention for the transfer of land from one individual to another should go on indefinitely, and that is what this section means. Under this section, the acquisition and resales branch of the Land Commission will never end. That is one very big objection, as well as the fact that this is interfering with free sale. I think the intention of all previous Land Acts and those who sponsored them was to take over the estates of this country; in other words, the land which was confiscated from the forebears of the people whom it was proposed to resettle on them. But I think they certainly envisaged that when a certain stage was reached, State intervention should no longer obtain. Of course, we have not reached that stage yet. So far as completely relieving congestion by land division is concerned, I think it is not ever likely to be completed.

Under this section, a holding of land, either medium-sized or large, can be purchased in the open market for a migrant or for the purpose of rearrangement. In the congested areas, it might be a laudable thing to purchase it for rearrangement; but, when that applies to the whole country, I do not think that it is a proper method. The Minister has not explained that when a vested holding is purchased there is not going to be any reduction in respect of the unrepaid portion of the purchase money.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

The point I was making is that, when the Land Commission purchase a holding in the open market for a migrant and it is made over to him, that migrant has a right to get priority in becoming a vested tenant of the Land Commission at a very early stage. In that event, in three, four or five years after he has been allotted the holding, is it not possible for him to offer that holding for sale and, under this section, is it not also possible for the Land Commission again to step in and acquire it for another migrant and pay the tenant the full value without any deduction, using State funds to finance the transaction? Cannot that be carried on indefinitely?

Deputy Commons said on more than one occasion in this House that if the Land Commission did their work as he expected them to do it there would be no need for a section of this kind. I agree with that up to the point that it is conditional on their confining their activities to holdings of a certain size.

The Minister in this Bill has not been very helpful to the Land Commission in carrying out that work in the ordinary way when he has inserted a section reducing the number of commissioners. I just compare the practice that, in my opinion, should be followed with this new departure. I think the Minister should have made it nine and let them work as three elements.

That was debated on Section 15. The number is fixed.

I am in agreement with Deputy Commons on this matter in regard to the proper carrying out of the work by the Land Commission and the speed necessary in order to relieve congestion.

Surely the whole problem of congestion does not arise on this section which deals with purchase at auctions.

In my opinion a great deal hangs on it and it can be fairly well related to it. However, if you say that is the position ——

I am merely saying that the whole principle of land division and the settlement of congestion does not arise under it.

I shall not pursue the matter. I believe the ordinary methods used for the acquisition of land, provided the staff was increased, would eliminate altogether the necessity for this particular section. It would be very hard for either the present Minister or any past Minister to convince me at this stage that land acquisition could not have been completed within a three-year period.

Hear, hear.

I think that would be most desirable, even if we had to hold up land division altogether merely in order to acquire land. I think if that were done a better scheme of migration could be prepared. That may appear ludicrous to a number of Deputies but I think it would be better to do it in the fashion to which we are accustomed and not to do it in this fashion. I hold it is unfair to the owners of land. They are served with a provisional notice in the year 1940.

Not under this section, surely?

And in 1952 a decision will be given perhaps. I do not think that is fair.

That is not done under this section.

The section is remedying that.

It may not be on the section, but it was mentioned by other speakers and I am merely expressing my concern. The Minister said that if Fianna Fáil had used all the land they acquired for the sole purpose of relieving congestion the problem would now be a very small one.

So it would.

I do not agree with that at all. Of the 647,000 acres acquired during their period in office a very small proportion of it was given to people other than uneconomic holders and Fianna Fáil should not be blamed for that. That has gone on from the very first occasion on which a Land Act was introduced for the relief of congestion. If the British Government was sincere in relieving congestion they would never have set up a double institution, the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commission.

And the Land Commission.

The Congested Districts Board dealt with the problem of congestion and the Estates Commission dealt with the problem of local congestion adjoining estates. We know that in nearly every instance the major portion of the estate was given to landless men both in Mayo and Galway by the Estates Commission. That continued under the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and, if Fianna Fáil digressed, they are not to blame for that condition of affairs.

No one is blaming anyone.

It has never been made clear yet whether land purchase by the Land Commission and land division are to be confined solely to the relief of congestion, either by migration or by relief in the immediate neighbourhood. The carrot is still being dangled before the eyes of the landless men. I am very interested in the relief of congestion, and I honestly believe that that could be achieved without the introduction of this particular section in this particular Bill. I hold that, if the Land Commission acted as we would expect them to act, with the ordinary powers they now have, they would be quite capable of achieving the objective it is claimed this section will achieve. I think this departure constitutes a very bad principle since it is a departure from the fundamentals of land tenure and economics as we know them.

This section takes away the right of free sale from the small farmer and proposes to carry on indefinitely State intervention in the transfer of parcels of land from one individual to another. I think that is a wrong principle. I think it is a bad principle. I think it is a most undesirable principle. While I believe that we should aim at taking over, either compulsorily or by agreement, large tracts of land, at the same time we should preserve the element of free sale or the transfer of holdings through the ordinary channels.

I did not intend to intervene in this debate until I heard Deputy Beegan speak. I rise now to express the hope that Deputy Moran, Deputy Aiken, or some front-bench member of the Opposition will utterly repudiate the nonsense to which we have just listened from Deputy Beegan. I do not represent a rural constituency and I have not the same direct personal interest in this problem as other Deputies have. Deputy Beegan spent a considerable length of time in apportioning blame for the delays of the Land Commission, in suggesting that Fianna Fáil, perhaps, had not gone far enough to eliminate that delay but that, at any rate, they may have done something and we should not blame them. Someone else was to blame. In the next breath he tells us that he deplores this departure and that the Land Commission would have got on quite all right if we had left the matter as it was before.

I did not say that.

In the next breath he tells us that we are taking away the right of free sale.

The Deputy is twisting what I said.

What he said in the first breath, in the second breath and in the third breath were all equally nonsensical. If there was delay, surely this is one method of getting rid of or round some of the delay. How is their right of free sale interfered with? Was is not the position up to this that if the Land Commission wanted land, there was nothing to prevent them from acquiring it and acquiring it at what were described here last night as confiscation prices. This puts them into the position of being able to go into the open market and to make their bid there and to pay their price just as anyone else can do so. Surely this is giving some protection to the owners of land, to which Deputy Cogan referred a few minutes ago. I hope that Deputy Moran, when he speaks again, will repudiate utterly the sentiments expressed by Deputy Beegan.

The Minister describes this particular section as an experiment. I think it is a very dangerous experiment. If the Government insist on going ahead with it, I should certainly like to see it limited in legislation to operation for as short a time as possible. A number of Acts of Parliament have been passed here since 1923 and previous to that in the British Parliament, all designed for the purpose of making farmers secure in the land which they work and all endeavouring to relieve, as far as the pool of land would go, congestion and to bring uneconomic farms as far as possible to an economic standard. Up to 1923 there was no safeguard for certain sections of farmers. There was no protection against the operations of the Land Commission if they wanted to take the land compulsorily for the relief of congestion. After a long debate in this House, the 1933 Act gave all farmers who work their land the right to hold on to it, with certain limitations, if they were working it properly and producing a sufficient amount of food and giving a certain amount of employment, having regard to the necessities of the situation. While giving protection to farmers who work their land properly in their own and in the national interest, it took from farmers, whatever their tenure, an unwarranted protection to do what they liked with their own, as it was called.

We are setting out in this particular Bill on a new experiment. We know, from a social point of view, how the operations of the Land Acts since 1923 and 1933 worked. The Land Commission was able to get out after the person who did not work his land and give it to those whom the Land Commission thought were in a position to work it and who were willing to work it. We start off on this new experiment and we do not know what its results will be. The Minister gave no indication to the Dáil as to how he thought it would work out. He indicated that there are about 250,000 acres of land changing hands every year. That land, heretofore, has been bought as small farms by other farmers in the locality to relieve what Deputy Allen called their own congestion on the farm. It was the most desirable type of farmer who was able to purchase another small farm for some of the sons he reared who were prepared to stay on the land and work the land. We know from statistics that the vast majority, nearly all, of the land of this country is divided into 30- to 40-acre farms or under. The small 30-acre farmer who had worked hard and saved was able to purchase another farm for one of his sons when it was offered in the locality. The competition he had to meet was the competition of a similar type of farmer. From a social point of view, it did not matter whether one hard-working farmer or his neighbour got the land. They were both prepared to work it equally well for themselves and their family and the natural consequence was that national production on the land could be kept up. Here we have the Minister going to put an end to all that. He says he is not doing so. However, we know perfectly well that up to the present time, whenever a large farm was advertised for sale in the papers, the local congests got in touch with the local Deputy and asked him to approach the Land Commission to take over that land. That was natural. The Land Commission sometimes went in and said that even though this large tract of land changed hands it was not going in any way to derogate from their right to take it over and to use it for the relief of congestion. But the situation we are going to have after this is that, through time, a small farm of ten or 20 acres in any part of the country will no sooner be offered for sale than, on the appearance of notice to that effect in the papers, it will be followed by questions in this House to the Minister as to whether he is going to make a bid.

There were a good few questions on the Order Paper to-day.

There were 29 questions addressed to the Minister for Lands on the Order Paper to-day as to why the Land Commission did not take land compulsorily. A lot of the Minister's answers, if they had been fuller, particularly when he said that the Land Commission had decided not to acquire the land, would have shown that in the opinion of the Land Commissioners the land was being properly worked. But what is going to happen? It will not be 29 questions from one Deputy that will be put to the Minister for Lands hereafter. It will be 29 questions from every Deputy relating to a couple of thousand acres.

You know something about them yourself. You were a Minister.

The Deputy will have an opportunity of speaking later. It is not 29 questions that are going to be asked of the Minister by one Deputy but 29 questions every day by every Deputy if we are going to cover the 250,000 acres offered for sale.

You have an elastic imagination.

Deputy Davin can make his own speech and say whether it is imagination or not. As the Minister says, we are starting off on an experiment. I think it is a very dangerous social experiment. I would be prepared to support the Minister if he found that there were any flaws in the compulsory acquisition of lands which are badly worked and which should be transferred for the relief of congestion. I am certainly not going to support or to acquiesce blindly in this particular social experiment. If Deputy Davin wants to do it, he can. We know that one result after the Bill has been in operation for some time will be that Deputy Commons will be asking his 39 or 40 questions a day.

Please God.

The Deputy has suggested already that there will be 5,200 questions a day asked.

Did I say that?

You said that there would be 39 questions by every Deputy in the House.

There is no reason why there should not be.

That is opposed to the Deputy's arguments.

There is no reason that I can see from the point of view of order why Deputy Commons cannot ask a question about the same farm at least once a week.

All I do is to ask one once a year.

Deputy Commons does a little better than that. We have often heard the Minister tell him that he has nothing to add to what he said last month about a particular farm. Deputy Commons' questions hereafter will take the form of embarrassing the Minister as much as he can. Between the Minister and himself they did for poor ex-Deputy Cafferky and Deputy Commons is quite determined that he is going to be the surviving member, if there is a survivor of any kind in Clann na Talmhan after the election.

We also did for you.

Deputy Commons' question is going to take this form: To ask the Minister whether he is aware that there is a certain farm for sale and whether he is going to make an offer. The Minister may answer "yes" or "no". Next week the Deputy's question will be to the effect that the farm has been sold to some private individual and he will ask what did the Minister offer. The Minister will name a figure and Deputy Commons will then come back and ask: "Why did the Minister not offer a bit more and get the land for the relief of congestion?" The result will be that the Minister will be urged to bid higher and higher for these farms that are for sale, and the tendency will be to crowd out the private person, the farmer who is offering to pay his own money for the farm on offer. If a small farmer buys a farm at present he pays for it with his own money.

In future if this section goes through and the farmers follow the advice given them by Deputy Corish, the Parliamentary Secretary, they will wait for the Land Commission. The Parliamentary Secretary said it would be a good thing if private individuals did not buy land but waited for the Land Commission to do it for them. He also said that the Land Commission should have an advantage over the private individual. What is the result of that? The private individual, the Minister having an advantage of 50 per cent. on him, will fail to get the land in many cases. Instead of congestion being relieved by the operation of the private individual and his own money, the land will be purchased by the Land Commission at the public expense. That is at the expense of the general taxpayer. Then the Minister will cut the land annuity in half after having declared a loss on the resale. We may have a situation arising where there will be very little difference between individuals who would normally buy land under the present conditions and those who would get it through the operations of the Land Commission under this section. The result will be that the State will have to bear this burden.

I know that Government Deputies in recent times have become great spenders. They have all since they topped the £100,000,000 mark and cheered the Minister for Finance on having reached the £100,000,000 mark, got the 100 millionaire mentality. However as the Minister for Agriculture warned us to-day agricultural prices may not always be so high and it might be slightly more difficult for the ordinary farmer and taxpayer to pay this £100,000,000. So that if the Minister declared a loss of a million or two on resale the halving of the land annuities to the new allottees might mean a considerable burden on the community.

Especially if they had to pay for your white elephant.

The Coalition Government since they came into office have created white elephants in what would normally be productive unit. I can congratulate them on the result of their efforts to do that from the point of view of the old Fine Gael mentality. They have all been converted to that.

White elephants are not in order on this section.

Deputy Cogan said that the operations under this section should be extended to cover the purchase of land in the open market for all the purposes of the Land Commission, including the relief of congestion in the locality, and the Minister promised that he would introduce an amendment to that effect. Actually this Bill contains these powers. You have them in Section 24, sub-section (11).

We have not come to that yet, unfortunately.

In Section 23 we are setting out to purchase land offered for sale. I want to inform Deputy Cogan that under Section 24 the Minister has power to do what the Deputy suggested he should do.

Could we not wait until we come to that section?

We could, but it is no harm for a moment to advert to the fact that it is not only for the purposes set out in this particular section, as amended by the Minister's amendment, that land is being purchased, but also for the purposes set out in Section 24, sub-section (11), which says: "Where any land becomes not required by the Land Commission for granting new holdings to migrants, such land may be disposed of by the Land Commission to any of the persons or bodies mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, as extended by this Act." That is, where land becomes not required by the Land Commission under Section 23 for the granting of new holdings to migrants, so that we have the situation that the Minister, having sold this particular section to the country, for the purpose of providing land for migrants, can, if he wishes, use it for the purpose of acquiring land for all other types of persons to whom land may be given under the Land Acts. I take it Deputy Cogan has thought a little bit about this particular section; I can take it from his speech also that he wants to do a little bit more thinking about it, if he wants to get some idea of its full consequences.

Why does the Deputy not take a headline from him?

We would like to see the Minister, if he proposes to continue with this—and I certainly would like to see him—limiting this legislation to one year because, if this system gets going, it will be very hard to stop it. If the powers fell automatically at the end of a year the Dáil would have a new look-out; it could look at this matter again and see if it was in the interests of our people that it should be renewed for a longer period. It is a very dangerous social experiment, in my opinion.

Deputy McQuillan said it was going to provide a pool of land. I remarked on that that it was going to create a whirlpool of land. There is nothing in the section which would limit the operations of the Land Commission. They can go into the open market, outbid local people and give land to migrants from Mayo or some other place or, under Section 24, give it to somebody for the relief of local congestion. If the land comes into the market again in a short time they can rebuy and resell it. If Deputies are pressed by their constituents and, in turn, bring pressure to bear on the Minister and the Land Commission, they can go along gaily spending public money purchasing the 250,000 acres that normally are for sale within the year. At that rate it will not be many years before we have bought and resold a quantity of land equal to the total amount of land in the Twenty-Six Counties.

We are going into it with a great swing!

There is nothing to stop it, because the Minister is taking power to do it.

Last night I drew the Deputy's attention to Section 4, but he does not seem to know that it exists.

I have seen Sections 4 and 10 and I know what the Minister has in view under Section 10.

Is there any chance of buying up the Six Counties under this section?

If we could operate in the Six Counties no doubt it would be all right, but I would like to operate it in some country other than the Six Counties because this sort of social experiment is something you would like to try out on your enemies, not on your friends.

The Minister said last night that it was intended under this section to tap an untapped stream of land for the purpose of relieving congestion. I certainly would not quarrel with that, but if we are going to tap some untapped stream, let us tap it in the right way. The provisions in this section are unworkable. The section pretends to set out to do something that cannot possibly be done for the purpose of relieving congestion. The powers conferred under it will be useless from the point of view of making headway with the problem of relieving congestion.

I was interested to hear Deputy Cogan to-night advocating that the House should accept this section. The mere fact of Deputy Cogan asking that should be sufficient warning to everybody interested in the relief of congestion to vote against it, because Deputy Cogan regards himself here, and has always done so, as the ranchers' advocate. If Deputy Cogan thought for a moment that under this section there was a possibility of acquiring land in Wicklow or Limerick or where large tracts are, he would be up in arms against it. He is supporting the section because he knows it is a fraud from the point of view of acquiring land to relieve congestion.

It has been suggested that we on this side of the House have different views on the section. It was amusing to hear the Minister asking Deputy Moylan last night if he was reflecting the opinions of the Fianna Fáil Party. Of course the acquisition of land differs in every county, as the Minister is well aware, and the problem of congestion differs in every county where it exists. It differs just as much as the price of land differs from county to county. The Minister was very careful to avoid giving a definition on that aspect. The Minister and, I think, Deputy Cogan, suggested that on this side of the House we have different views on this matter. That type of suggestion comes very well from a member of a Government no two members of which express the same view whenever they open their mouths, and they are contradicting each other from week to week—every single member of the Cabinet.

Mr. Murphy

That is not so, but probably that is the way you would like to see it.

We have only to listen to the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Finance on the question of finance.

That does not arise.

I want to show how this section is unworkable. It is unworkable, firstly, from the point of view of getting land.

That is a bit of wishful thinking.

The Minister told us that the price to be paid for land will be fixed by the commissioners. A holding that would be suitable for the Minister's purpose is advertised, let it be in Limerick or Clare or Mayo. It is land suitable for the purpose of this section. The advertisement usually appears two weeks before the sale. Does the Minister suggest that a Land Commission inspector must go down to that area, make a report on the holding, send that report to the Department in Dublin, let the matter come before the commission and then let them decide? If that has to be done, does the Minister really think that the holding will still be on the market after all that time has elapsed?

That was the system, but that is not going to be the system.

The Minister informed us that the price was going to be predetermined by the lay commissioners who operate in Merrion Street. Suppose a holding is advertised for sale in two weeks' time in Mayo, Cork or Limerick, will the lay commissioners be able to have one of these holdings inspected and valued and the predetermined price decided on within a period of two weeks?

We could farm out commissioners through the country.

If the number of lay commissioners is going to be four, and that no less than three must be present at a court sitting, and if, in addition, they have to determine the question of price for any land that may be available in the Twenty-Six Counties, we can see how much land is going to be acquired under this section.

There will be no harm done.

The harm that is being done is that it is being pretended that a big attack is to be made on the problem of congestion, and that a big pool of land is going to be acquired under this section. I am pointing out that that cannot be so. In spite of all the powers vested in the Land Commission for the compulsory acquisition of any type of land, and with their full staff back in the offices, the total amount of land that the Land Commission succeeded in acquiring in the year ended 31st March, 1949, was 8,196 acres. That is the information that is given in the Report of the Land Commission.

I will have a word to say on that when the Estimate for the Department comes before the Dáil.

That is the position, that the Land Commission with their full powers and with their full staff operating under normal conditions only succeeded in acquiring 8,196 acres in the last year for which figures are available. I suppose it would be correct to say that, when allowance is made for water, scrub, bog and so forth, not more than 5,000 acres of that total of 8,000 acres odd would be available for the relief of congestion. If that is all the Land Commission was able to do in one year, I wonder what can they do under this section in the way of creating a pool of land for the relief of congestion?

The Minister refused to accept an amendment which was moved from this side with regard to sales of land by private treaty. Evidently he takes the line that under this section he is going to send a representative to sales for the purpose of acquiring land. So far, the Minister has not informed the House as to what type of land he intends to get. He did not say whether he was going to get after the large ranches or after small farms or what particular type of land he has in mind.

That is a lie. The Minister said that he was going to try and buy holdings suitable for migrants.

Deputy Collins will have to withdraw the word "lie."

I withdraw.

The Minister did say that he was taking power to purchase land for the relief of congestion, but he was careful not to state what type of land. In connection with the migrants, it was pointed out by some Deputies that, in some cases, they evidently are not very welcome in some areas to which they have been sent. I thought it was a fundamental practice with the Land Commission, when carrying out a migration scheme, to send five, six, eight or ten migrants to the same area because it was found in practice that where they acquired land in an outside county for their accommodation, a local agitation was carried on principally by landless men. Speaking of landless men, I would like if the Minister or somebody would at some time tell those people who have been looking forward for years to getting land what their position is going to be. They have been expecting for years to get land.

I do not see how that arises under this section.

With respect, I think it does, because the Minister is taking power under the section to acquire land for the granting of new holdings to migrants. I have been pointing out that very often local agitations are carried on by landless men in the areas to which migrants are taken. Can we take it from the Minister that there is no intention of ever providing land for landless men in the future, and that the intention of this Bill is to concentrate on the relief of congestion—to get migrants out of congested areas and so get those areas resettled?

That does not exclude the landless men for all time.

I should like to get a definite answer from the Minister so far as these landless men are concerned. Am I to understand from him now that he contemplates considering the position of landless men? At any rate, those unfortunate people who seem to have been forgotton should not be misled. Evidently, the Minister wants to ride both horses crossing the stream.

There is another matter that the Minister has not adverted to under this section. There are a number of cases pending before the Land Commission courts in regard to acquisition. There is a suggestion that the Land Commission can purchase these lands for cash. I should like to know what will be the position of these people now. I understand this Bill is to be retrospective to cover cases where the Land Commission did not get possession before the beginning of this year.

That is the market value.

There are a number of cases before the court and, under this section, the Minister is taking power to take land that is offered for sale. Certain prices are in the course of being fixed before the court in these pending cases.

Not under this section.

This is the particular section under which the Minister takes power to pay cash for land. The cash which the Minister proposes to pay for land is fixed under the market value section which we passed earlier.

And which was amended to include land, the possession of which was taken on or after 1st December last; in other words, in connection with land which was in the Land Commission machine but which was taken possession of after 1st December last, if the price has been fixed, the owners can apply within six months after the passage of this Bill to have the price redetermined so as to get the benefit of this Bill.

I accept the assurance of the Minister. In this section the Land Commission take power to pay cash for land and I am wondering what is the position of these cases. The question of the acquisition of land varies from county to county. Deputies from different parts of the country have pointed out that under this section large farms might be acquired or bought. In the West of Ireland I think that the contrary will be the case. Instead of enhancing the prices paid for the land, the mere fact of a Land Commission official appearing at the sale will finish the sale so far as the vendor is concerned. In connection with every farm purchased in the West of Ireland one of the first requisitions of title is, "have the lands been inspected by the Land Commission?" and where a Land Commission inspector has appeared on the holding no purchaser will touch that land. Under this section, if the Minister's representative goes to a public auction and makes a bid that will finish the sale and will finish the vendor so far as the sale of the land is concerned, because the Minister, under sub-section (5) of this section, preserves the power that, if he does not get the land one way, he will get it the other way.

That is not correct.

Then I do not know the meaning of plain English. Sub-section (5) reads:—

"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."

That is purely a safeguard against any legal argument later on that the Land Commission were committed to purchase land only for cash in the open market or by private treaty. That is merely a legal safeguard for their existing powers.

There was an amendment to this section to try to get the land by private treaty and the Minister refused to accept it.

This allows us to buy by private treaty.

This sub-section preserves all the compulsory acquisition powers of the Land Commission in any case covered by the section. Therefore the Minister or his officials cannot deny that, if the Land Commission bid for any holding and they do not get it, there is nothing to stop them from putting a notice in Iris Oifigiúil the following week and acquiring the holding compulsorily. Is that the law or is it not?

If the Land Commission did such a thing, I should like to hear what the Deputy would say in this House the following week.

The Deputy would have no business opening his mouth in the House the following week, because we are putting in a section giving the Land Commission this power. In the West of Ireland at present, if there is a rumour that the Land Commission are going to touch a holding, you cannot sell it in the open market. It has been decided by the Judicial Commissioner that anybody purchasing land in Mayo should be aware that congestion exists and therefore should know that he is running the risk of the land being taken from him.

That was the Judicial Commissioner, not this House.

It happens to be the law of the land. The matter has not been appealed to the Supreme Court, so far as I know. This may not apply in other areas, but the fact of a Minister's representative going to a sale in the West of Ireland will prevent the vendor from getting the market value of his land.

Would it surprise the Deputy to know that several owners have already offered us land believing that the Bill had been passed?

I can assure the Minister that I have about 40 "white elephants" which I can offer to him. The Minister will get any amount of "snipe" land and places that nobody will buy. I am sure he has been offered those already. That is the danger of the powers conferred on the Minister by this section. Political pressure can be brought to bear on anyone holding the Minister's office or even the Minister for the purpose of getting some farm acquired by the State that could not be sold on the open market.

The commissioners, not the Minister.

I am pointing the different dangers arising from this section and that the section will be unworkable from a practical point of view. If there was any hope offered in this section of relieving congestion, certainly all the western Deputies would be more than interested in accepting it. There was a suggestion made that the Minister should concentrate one section of the Department, if he is getting land under this Bill, on acquiring lands in the Midlands, in County Limerick and other such counties, and another section of the Land Commission on the congested areas, getting suitable migrants and creating a pool of land and having it ready instead of trying to do it in bits and pieces. I think the Minister would be well advised to listen to that suggestion. From the point of view of relieving congestion and from the point of view of this section stopping people like the Aga Khan or the Aly Khan acquiring land here, this section is so much eyewash. The Minister knows that quite well. If the Minister wants to take land off any Aga Khan or Aly Khan or any other Khan in order to relieve congestion he can do that under the compulsory powers vested in him at the moment. But he will not do it under this particular section. There is a law operating against these people to the extent of a 25 per cent. stamp duty. If the Minister is anxious to get shut of the Aly Khans and the Aga Khans and all the other Khans coming into the country he has power to do that and to take their lands from them in order to relieve congestion. It is no answer to the Opposition to say that this section will stop the Agas or the Alys or the Begums coming into this country and buying land.

I have tried to show that this section will not relieve congestion. It is open to every type of abuse. From the taxpayer's point of view it will create the extraordinary situation where the Land Commission will buy a holding for Pat Murphy; Pat Murphy wants to better himself so he buys a better holding and he sells his old holding back to the Land Commission and they give it to another Pat Murphy at State expense. In addition to that, it will interfere with the most sacred right of the Irish tenant farmer, the right of free sale. I see no good reason why this section should be passed in its present form and I ask the House to reject it.

This is a new departure. I take it the Minister thinks that this will be a short cut in the acquisition of land. If the Minister improved the present machinery for acquiring land by appointing more commissioners he would get all the land he wants much quicker and more easily. Short cuts are very often the longest roads in the end. I can see this system laid open to the gravest abuses. I can see people organising to ensure that they will get enough money or enough land. The Land Commission never had the name of paying too much for land. I do not believe that the price will be forced down under this. I think it will have the opposite effect. I think every effort will be made to see that the Minister's representatives or the Land Commission pay enough for land. Land will continue at its present high rate for some time to come because there are many competitors. We have complaints here of people coming in with money and buying land without let or hindrance. It is said that there is a handicap, but the handicap does not stop them from purchasing land. I think any sensible person whose lands comply with the regulations will do his utmost to get all the money he can for it. I think the Minister would have been wiser if he had left the situation as it was and increased the staff, particularly that section of the staff that deals with legal points which arise. As soon as the Minister decides to purchase there will be a shoal of letters and applications forcing his hand.

The Minister will not purchase any land.

His representatives will.

His representatives will not.

Is it not the Land Commission that will purchase the land?

It is the lay comsioners.

It is the same thing.

It is not. What is Section 10 there for?

The Minister will be forced to compel the commissioners to take action.

The commissioners cannot be forced to take action.

The Deputy is obstructing now. He does not know what he is talking about.

Deputy O'Reilly must be allowed to speak.

I think the Minister does not know where he is going. I do not think the State should purchase land in that way. There is machinery for the purchase of land and that machinery should be maintained. I do not think it is wise to make changes merely for the sake of change.

I had no intention of intervening in this debate but, like all western Deputies, I am anxious about the problem of congestion. I do not wish to say anything which might be construed as hampering either the Minister or the Land Commission in solving the problem.

Then why say anything?

In the early stages of this Bill I hoped some good might come of it. Having listened to the Minister yesterday evening, my hopes are dashed. He stated that all the forces of the Land Commission would be diverted into one channel. Does that mean that all the other work will cease and the forces of the Land Commission will be thrown into the congested areas to start the congests fighting amongst themselves?

But why should they do that?

I wondered why those behind the Minister on the Government Benches remained so silent. Now I understand. The ranchers will get a breathing space while all the forces of the Land Commission will tinker with the problem of congestion amongst the congests themselves.

The people in the West will not be very flattered.

Do not publish that in the local papers when you go home.

I believe I am right in saying that. I have here a letter I received to-day.

Does it refer to the section?

It is about a farm that is being offered for sale. Portion of the farm is evicted land. It is on the verge of a congested area. It is being sold privately. What steps can the Minister take when that farm is sold? Once it is sold, he can do nothing about it.

If you let this Bill through he may be able to buy it before it is sold.

He will not be able to buy it because it is being sold privately. When he was speaking on his own amendment last night, Deputy Commons said:—

"Over the last ten or 12 years, when the Land Commission wished to acquire land the owner immediately put it up for sale. While the Land Commission had power to follow up the new owner they only succeeded in one out of 50 cases."

That is why I wanted the Minister to get it.

It has gone off the market. No man would put it on the market. He would sell it privately— maybe to the Aga Khan or to the Aly Khan, as Deputy Moran has pointed out.

Let the Bill through and give the Minister a chance.

I suggest that the Deputy is entitled to fair play. He is not in the habit of interrupting and he should be allowed to make his speech without interruptions.

I only gave an explanation.

I do not mind interruptions at all. In my opinion neither this section nor this Bill will solve congestion. At the present time the Land Commission and other people are tinkering with small places in the West of Ireland. We have the position there that people on small farms of eight and ten acres had to go to America or to England in order to earn a living and hoping, at the same time, that they would be able to return and settle down on these farms. Their neighbours are now writing to the Land Commission asking it to acquire these farms and the ranchers are laughing at the whole thing. That is what this Bill will do. The only way to get land is to acquire it compulsorily. I heard it shouted by Deputies on the Government Benches that that was confiscation. Even if it should be confiscation, I ask you how was it got in the first place. It was got through confiscation. I do not stand for confiscation. I stand for fair play. I am very much afraid that this Bill will do great harm and that it will give the ranchers a new lease of life.

In the case of a holding offered for sale, seeing that the market value is now guaranteed under Section 5, would the Minister say what the seller of the land gains by going to the trouble of having an auction? On the other hand, if the Land Commission takes the land compulsorily and gives the owner the market value, what does the owner lose in the transaction? Would it not be as well to go to the logical limit in this matter and, where land is offered for sale, the Land Commission take that land when it is obviously needed for the relief of congestion? Under Section 5, no loss will accrue to the owner of the land.

There is a type of problem with which the Minister must be well acquainted and I am doubtful as to whether it can be solved under this section or not. If I thought that it could, it would make me look a little more kindly on it. I have in mind an exchange that is desired between two neighbours. A neighbour would sell the land if he were guaranteed two conditions—(1) market value, which he is now guaranteed and (2) that a particular neighbour living on land adjoining the farm to be sold would get it. The Land Commission will not give any such promise to any man who sells such land.

Nor will they. Why would they?

Could the Minister utilise this section to cover a type of case which is common, namely, a farm which was originally part of other lands—where it is, say, just a half of what was originally one holding with adjoining land—and where the owner now wishes to sell it and to have it incorporated in what was the original holding so that his neighbour can get it? The Land Commission in such a case will not give the seller a guarantee that they will resell the land to the neighbour who wants to reincorporate it in the original holding. It seems to me that the Land Commission could go a bit further, seeing that they are taking certain new powers under this section, to sanction a private arrangement between two neighbours in a situation of that kind—in other words, to guarantee the loan of the money to the buyer for the purchase of the land from the neighbour. That would bring about work which the Land Commission wishes to do and it would be done in a great many cases far more quickly and effectively than is now the case and also more speedily than will be the case under this section.

But in that case seller would act as the commissioners. He would be allotting the land.

It is all the same, I take it, in regard to this work of re-settlement——

——if a good job of work is done. I am not putting up a case that the Land Commission would not come in first and get the proposition and approve or disapprove, as the case may be, but if they approve I think it would be well if they would then sanction the loan of the money required by a nominated buyer.

That type of problem arises very much in Connemara. I have often been asked if the Land Commission would make a loan to a prospective buyer and I have always had to say that the Land Commission never does that. What happens in this case is that when the land is put up for auction somebody else steps in and spoils the type of settlement which the Land Commission is engaged on.

Would the Deputy suggest how to get around that problem?

I suggest that the Minister should still further examine this proposal under Section 23 and see if he could not fit in under it some type of a solution to the problem.

That has nothing to do with Section 23.

If the market value is now genuinely being incorporated in this Bill and if a seller gets the market value for land which he puts up for auction, what is the point in having an auction and why does the Land Commission step in and take the land and apply it for the purposes of the relief of congestion?

Tá mé i gcoinne an ailt seo mar tá mé den tuairim go ndéanfaidh sé dochar mór. Tá an fhios sin ag gach aoinne san tír.

When the 1936 Land Act was going through this House I heard the people who are now sitting on the Government side of the House talking about fixity of tenure, free sale, and so forth. This will upset everything and it will not settle anything. Rural Deputies will agree with me when I say that in all probability they have never gone into a locality since they became Deputies but representations were made to them about land division to the extent that, where there was a farm of four, five or six acres and the valuation might be only £15, it was put up to them that the land should be taken over and divided and handed over to somebody else. You are going to open this flood-gate. You are not going to solve the land problem in Meath or in the Midlands or anywhere else. It is a very dangerous section in this Bill.

I suggest, as has already been suggested from this side of the House, that the experiment be tried for not more than one year. There are big estates which can be divided and settled in a proper way. I heard the late Mr. Patrick Hogan, who was Minister for Agriculture, state in this House: "Beware of the day you do away with or try to do away with the middle-class farmer. He is the support and the prop of society." You are now opening a flood-gate and you will need to be very careful where you tread.

I should like the Minister to give me information on the following matter. I have in mind a problem that arises in every constituency and that arises very often in my constituency of County Wicklow. There is a type of farm which may be 50 per cent. suitable for agriculture, 25 per cent. or even the other 50 per cent. suitable for forestry and which the Forestry Department require. Can the Minister under this section acquire that particular farm? It would be desirable if he could, because I know that both the Land Commission and the forestry section have fallen down in the matter of the purchase of farms under existing legislation. If this section would enable the Minister to purchase farms of that kind and if he could use portion for the relief of congestion and hand over the other portion to the Forestry Department, it would be a great help.

I am afraid this section does not meet it.

Could the Minister consider it between now and Report Stage?

I shall consider it anyhow.

Question put.
The Committee divided :—Tá, 70; 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.
  • Esmonde, Sir John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • 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.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, William J.
  • 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.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, 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.
  • O 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.
  • Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 24.
Amendment No. 61 not moved.

I move amendment No. 62:—

In sub-section (2), pages 12 and 13, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following paragraph:—

(b) the Order shall be expressed and shall operate to vest the land in the Land Commission for an estate in fee simple in possession subject—

(i) in case the land is subject to a State annuity, to that State annuity, and

(ii) in case provision is made in the Order in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section for the continuance or creation of an easement, to that easement, but save as aforesaid free from all public rights (if any) and from the claims of all persons who are interested in the land, whether in respect of incumbrances or interests therein or otherwise howsoever,.

This amendment is a tidying up of two paragraphs in the Bill as introduced. It is deleting these and substituting one to bring about the same effect.

This a very long and involved section and it is difficult to understand. There are 14 sub-sections and these are again divided into paragraphs and there are so many that they absorb the alphabet several times. Anything I do not understand I am inclined to distrust.

This section purports to do away with certain rights of way and certain easements and we would want to be very careful as to the destruction of any particular rights that people have. There are certain rights the preservation of which is wholly desirable and necessary. I have seen rights extinguished by allottees, even though the Land Commission took certain precautions to preserve them, and I would like to be assured that where the Land Commission does recognise these rights they will make the allottees who benefit from land division also recognise them.

There may be certain rights of way along a river bank, ancient rights which are of benefit to anglers and others. The Aga Khan, Deputy Hickey's friend, and other people who are not truly Gaelic, have certain river banks, and no further rights of that nature should be wiped out by any action taken by the Land Commission.

Then again, I want to know if this section applies, not to future transactions, but where injustices were done in the past. There are many public paths which it is right to preserve. There are certain rights of way which no longer should exist as rights of way. They existed before proper roadways were provided in the country, and now, when those roadways have been made through districts where rights of way existed over land before, many people insist on using the ancient right of way, even though they have got a new road. That is the cause of a good deal of trouble and a good deal of litigation. Every farmer objects to trespass—and rightly so.

Many of the rights of way that are still being used are being used unjustly, causing a good deal of difficulty to the man who owns the farm. I would like to know if this section will operate to relieve farmers of such trespass. Could we eliminate rights of way that were originally justifiable but now, in view of the multiplicity of roads created, are no longer justifiable? Will this section operate to give a farmer a chance of appealing to the Land Commission to destroy such rights?

There is another aspect of easement which it is very difficult to interfere with, and that is the question of water. This purchase of land purports to eliminate certain rights of way and certain easements. One of the most valuable easements people have is the right of water. You may destroy the value of a farm and put the farmer to a tremendous amount of inconvenience, and I do not know of any monetary compensation that will be sufficient for the farmer for the removal of an easement which he has to water.

I would like to be assured by the Minister in specific fashion as to what exactly are the powers taken by the Land Commission in this case and if the section, when passed, will operate to relieve certain farmers of disabilities from which they suffer now, as well as the Land Commission. The Land Commission want to provide for the elimination of disabilities on farms which they will create. If these disabilities existed on existing farms will the farmer have the right to appeal to the Land Commission for authority to destroy an easement which is no longer justified?

This section will deal, first of all, with land purchased under the preceding section—that is, land purchased for cash in the open market or by private treaty. Secondly, in the case of a private purchaser—for instance, if myself or Deputy Moylan goes out to buy a holding—there are certain things attaching to it. We do not mind that, but in the case of the Land Commission they must hand absolutely clean, sound title to the allottee. For that reason power is being taken under the section to get land absolutely clean and free. We are dealing now, I presume, with the amendment. There are ample safeguards in the section giving the Land Commission power to give alternative rights away, to give rights to water and so on. I think that should put Deputy Moylan's mind at rest.

I think this is an extraordinary proposition that is made on behalf of the Land Commission. Here the State are going to purchase land at the public expense. If there are rights or easements attaching to that land, the Land Commission are taking power to wipe them out, while a purchaser in the open market would have to buy that land subject to those rights and easements.

They already have similar powers.

I would like the Minister to tell us where the Land Commission have the power to wipe out a public way over land purchased by them.

They have that power since the 1923 Land Act was passed, and I think even before it.

I would like to have chapter and verse for that because I do not accept it. Under this amendment the Land Commission are proposing to take power to wipe out any of the existing easements that may be an appurtenant to a holding which they purchase.

May I read for the Deputy sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the 1939 Land Act:

"Where the Land Commission have, either before or after the passing of this Act, acquired or purchased any untenanted land or acquired any holding by way of exchange or resumed any holding and such land or holding is subject to any easement or to any grazing, turbary, or other right or to a tenancy of such a nature that it does not constitute an interest entitling the occupier to purchase under the Land Purchase Acts, the Land Commission may by order extinguish such easement, right or tenancy subject to payment by the Land Commission of such compensation as shall be fixed by the Land Commission by their said order."

We are merely giving the Land Commission the same power where they purchase under this section and there are similar safeguards as regards compensation.

Where are there similar safeguards under this amendment in the matter of compensation for easements?

Sub-section (9) provides:

"Where a transfer order is made in respect of any land, the Land Commission shall be liable to pay compensation in respect of every interest (other than an easement continued by the order or an easement in lieu whereof a new easement has been created by the order) subsisting therein immediately before the operative date, but no claim for compensation shall be made after the expiration of six years from that date."

If that is not a safeguard enough, I will make an amendment on the subject.

That mentions the word "interest" and, presumably, interest in this section means an interest within the meaning of the Land Acts?

It includes an easement.

The Minister must know that there are many different rights that would not be termed easements within the meaning of the Land Acts. There are many different rights attaching to farms, rights in regard to Mass paths, rights to water and perhaps to a well on a farm. It may be the only well that people for miles around can get water from. In regard to holdings near the sea, there may be rights in regard to the taking of seaweed. All these rights may be wiped out by the Land Commission under this amendment.

I want to remind the House that all these rights on particular holdings have been jealously guarded and defended by the people concerned, and particularly in the congested areas. The people have jealously guarded and protected their rights in the courts of the country for many years. All these easements and rights of way are of very grave importance to the people concerned. The exercise of them makes all the difference between running small farms economically or otherwise. I want to tell the Minister that unless adequate provision is made to secure every conceivable type of easement which the Land Commission would propose to wipe out under this amendment, the Land Commission may find themselves up against a big constitutional issue. The individual's rights to property are protected under the Constitution and the Land Commission are not entitled to take them away. I can visualise all kinds of hardship arising in the case of individuals who for a long time have enjoyed certain rights over a farm that may be purchased by the Land Commission. The Land Commission may ignore their rights completely. It is a large body and is inclined to terrorise people.

That is not correct.

If the Land Commission are going to wipe out rights which people have enjoyed from time immemorial, then they are going to create a very serious difficulty. I have already pointed out that if a private individual went into the open market and purchased a farm over which there were certain rights and easements, he had to do so subject to these rights and easements. But the Land Commission are going to wipe out all such rights and easements where they purchase a holding. I submit that they have no right to do that. The Minister stated, on Section 23, that the Land Commission would go into competition against the ordinary purchaser in the open market where land was offered for sale. We now find that that is not so, and that the Land Commission will have at least a 15 per cent. advantage over the ordinary purchaser.

Have you read the whole section?

I am dealing with the power which the Land Commission is proposing to take under the amendment. I do not see any reason for the taking of those powers. If it was a question of the rearrangement of a holding or of dealing with rundale, where you had criss-cross by-paths, I could understand a power like this being taken by the Land Commission. The same powers were taken under the 1939 Act but, if they were taken, there was provision made for compensation. I presume that this provision is confined to purchases under Section 23. I see no reason why the Minister should get those powers and should be given this advantage over and above any other purchaser who may be in competition with his officials in the purchase of such a farm. If this amendment is inserted in its present form and a farm is purchased with certain rights over it, it will come as a shock to the adjoining people to know that the rights which they have been enjoying are wiped out and they have no redress. I ask the Minister to withdraw the amendment or reconsider the matter before the Report Stage.

No, I will not, because the amendment is a definite improvement on the original drafting of the Bill. I asked Deputy Moran if he had read the whole section because it is a very long section. Sub-section (9) states:—

"Where a transfer order is made in respect of any land, the Land Commission shall be liable to pay compensation in respect of every interest (other than an easement continued by the order or an easement in lieu whereof a new easement has been created by the order) subsisting therein immediately before the operative date, but no claim for compensation shall be made after the expiration of six years from that date."

That depends on what the interest covers. If you turn to sub-section (14), paragraph (d), you will find that the word "interest" there in relation to land is defined as "an easement or an annual payment". In between lines 5 and 10 you have this: "The word ‘easement' includes any profit-a-prendre or other right (including all sporting rights, within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts) in or over land, and also any fisheries appurtenant to land within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts.” In other words, it includes practically every conceivable kind of right for which the Land Commission must pay compensation to the owner. What greater safeguard can you have than that?

The point is that a water right is invaluable and no amount of compensation is adequate for it. Is it proposed under this section to destroy water rights which are the cause of constant litigation throughout the country?

Not at all. A good deal of the Land Commission time is taken up acquiring rights of way in the case of vested land. In the course of their ordinary land resettlement, it is the duty of the Land Commission to provide rights of way to water if none exist or if there is trouble in connection with them. I have known cases where there was litigation because rights of way were not clearly defined and the Land Commission had to get the necessary land for the rights of way. It is inconceivable that they would do what is suggested. On the other hand, as in the case of forestry, it is necessary for them in case they would meet a person——

That is different.

It is not. The Land Commission must give clear title to the allottee. It is not in their own interests they are working. When they go to purchase land it is not for themselves they are purchasing it, but for some future allottee. They want to give that allottee a clear title. If no right of way exists, they will not hesitate to strike out a new right of way.

Will the Minister preserve the easement of water?

Definitely. If there is not an easement of water, it would be their duty to provide it.

Will the Minister provide for an amendment to settle the question of easement so far as water is concerned?

It is provided for.

Are you quite sure?

Quite sure. If the Deputy has any doubt about it——

I am worried about it.

It is provided for. We have taken great pains to see that it is. As a matter of fact, I set more store on a right of way for foot passengers. It is the biggest bone of contention in my part of the country.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 63:—

In sub-section (5), page 13, line 42, to delete "in".

That is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 64 not moved.

I move amendment No. 65:—

Before sub-section (10), page 14, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(10) Where a transfer order is made in respect of any land and the interest therein purchased by the Land Commission was, immediately before the operative date, subject to a mortgage—

(a) the reference in sub-section (9) of this section to every interest subsisting in the land immediately before the operative date shall include a reference to the interest purchased by the Land Commission, and

(b) the fixing of compensation in respect of the interest purchased by the Land Commission, and the allocation of such compensation as between the Land Commission and the mortgagee, shall be carried out in accordance with the rules made for the purposes of this section.

This amendment is being moved to meet the wishes of the Incorporated Law Society. It seeks to clarify the position in relation to the payment of compensation to mortgagees whose interests may be extinguished under a Transfer Order. As a general rule, mortgages against a vendor's interest will be discharged in the process of completing the purchase under Section 23 of the Bill. It is only in a very rare case that such a mortgage will be affected by and compensatable under the Transfer Order procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

On behalf of Deputy Aiken I move amendment No. 66:—

To delete sub-section (11).

I do not like this sub-section for the reason that it seems to me that, in going out to purchase farms as going concerns, the Land Commission and the Minister should be very careful and should not purchase them speculatively; I mean in the sense that they have not a settled plan of use immediately. It would seem to me that that plan is not clear in the Minister's mind. If the Minister is purchasing a farm, it ought to be purchased with a specific purpose and design and not with a speculation as to what might happen later. The verbiage of this is peculiar, "becomes not required by the Land Commission." If there is any likelihood that the Land Commission will not require it, they should not purchase it. There ought to be some specific plan in their minds for dealing with the going-concern farm immediately and not having it on their hands and having Deputy Commons asking why it has been in the hands of the Land Commission for the last 20 years, as he might conceivably ask.

Then, if the Minister will look at Section 25 of the Bill and at Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, if we have to have this Bill, I have no objection to a person who is the tenant of a holding which, in the opinion of the Land Commission is not an economic holding, getting one of these farms. I have no objection to a person who has entered into an agreement with the Land Commission for the exchange of his holding getting one of these farms.

What is the Deputy quoting from?

I thought the Minister was familiar with the Land Act of 1923.

What section?

Section 31, which is quoted in the section the Minister is defending. You may take my word for it anyhow.

It is the section under which Deputy Moran thinks I have a lot of power.

Romance came up on the 9.15. I wonder if the Minister got his 9.10.

"(3) A person who within 25 years before the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Purchase Acts apply and who was evicted from that holding in consequence of proceedings taken by or on behalf of his landlord or, in case such person is dead, a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative."

I have no objection to that person, but Section 25 of the Minister's own Bill says:—

"Where a person is displaced from employment on land by reason of the acquisition, resumption or purchase of that land by the Land Commission, the Land Commission may, if in their discretion they so think proper, pay to him such gratuity as they consider reasonable in respect of his displacement from employment."

That is a section of which I approve. But then sub-paragraph (d) of Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, says:—

"A person being a labourer who by reason of the sale of any lands under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts has been deprived of his employment on the said lands."

If you intend to purchase a going-concern farm for a man who is displaced from his employment because of the acquisition of an estate, I think that is wrong and I think that section needs amendment. I do not know if I have any objection to trustees for the purposes mentioned in Section 4 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as extended by this Act. We got our education in various ways. Portion of mine came from the present chairman in regard to legislation by reference. It had escaped my notice up to then but, since then, I have become very keen on it. Anyone can dig up all the Land Acts which affect this particular Bill. They go back as far as the Deasy Act and at least to 1883. It is important for me to know whether or not I object to these trustees. I think I have an objection to the people under (f). The Minister includes all these people mentioned in the section of the Act of 1923:—

"(f) Any person or body to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission an advance ought to be made.

In selecting persons under this paragraph the Land Commission may have regard to the cases of persons who, or whose predecessors have been evicted from their holdings in consequence of proceedings taken by or on behalf of the landlord, and who are not included in paragraph (c) above."

If you include all these I shall be accepting at least four farms because there are a number of farms in which my forebears lived and from which they were evicted. Another peculiar thing is "any other person or body to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission an advance ought to be made." If you go back to Section 10, sub-section (1) (d) and (e) the opinion of the Land Commission gives way to the opinion of the Minister because we have in brackets:—

"(other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme.)"

That gives the Minister full control in the case of price and allotting. If we include (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Land Act, 1933, as mentioned in the Bill at Section 24, I am afraid that I would not like to confer all that authority on the Minister. I think he ought to make some change in sub-section (11) in order to narrow the number of types to whom this land will be given.

First of all, these going-concern farms should be bought for a specific purpose, the purpose being the relief of congestion. I have no objection to a true representative of an evicted tenant, even at this late hour, getting land. But the problem of the existing congestion is much more important and its solution should override all other problems.

Deputy Moylan has not made himself clear as to what he fears in sub-section (11).

I am afraid that on four counts I get a farm, and there are a lot of people like me.

I never knew the Land Commissioners to be so liberal as to give four farms to one person. It is possible that from time to time a holding or farm may be purchased for a particular migrant. The standard holding at the present time is about 33 statute acres and it is possible that the holdings purchased may comprise 50 acres. A standard holding would, therefore, leave a balance on hands and that balance might be added to an adjoining small-holding in order to make it economic. That would be allotted by the commissioners and not by the Minister since it would have to form part of a rearrangement scheme before the Minister would come into it.

That would be dreadful.

It would not.

The whole purpose of buying these going-concern farms on the Minister's own case and on our understanding of it is to have a farm in one's hands as quickly as possible in order to relieve congestion by migration. If the Minister intends to cut up what is really an economic holding for the purpose of giving portion of it to a migrant and the remainder to someone else, the whole thing is ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous.

It is done every day by the Land Commission. They may take over 400 acres and allot 180 acres to a big migrant and turn the rest into standard holdings. What is wrong with that?

If we take over a 400-acre farm we should take it over under the ordinary process of the Land Commission. I think the Minister is becoming involved.

I think it is the Deputy who is becoming involved. I do not like the idea of the utilisation of this method. I think the ordinary method of the Land Commission should be utilised in that matter. The Minister was quite clear all the time that what he wanted was a small farm of medium size to put a migrant into.

If he starts chopping and changing these little farms he will ruin them. In order to have the fullest benefit we can get from this proposal, let us confine it to a very few types of grades of people. With (a), (b) and (c) of Section 31 of the Land Act of 1923 I would agree. In regard to the other three categories (f) widens the whole thing completely and will defeat the Minister's purpose. The Minister must not shake his head. Apparently he has not got the point. I think he ought to go back and take time and look over it during the Recess and come back with a proper explanation or a changed idea. Certainly, Section 25 of the present Bill cuts out (d) of Section 31 of the Land Act of 1923. It should cut out (f) as well. Will the Minister look into it?

I shall. However, I want to say that that has been fully examined from every angle. I shall certainly look into it again.

As I have not Section 31 of the Land Act of 1923 before me, would the Minister tell me if this particular section covers the case I mention?

We are on the amendment at the moment.

Does this particular sub-section cover the point which I raised—the case of a farm of which portion may be suitable for forestry? I think it would be very desirable that this particular sub-section should enable the Minister to transfer portion of that holding to the Forestry Department.

It will. Sub-section 11 covers that.

I take it that Section 31 of the Land Act of 1933 covers it. If that is so, I am satisfied.

Amendment No. 66 withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 67:—

In sub-section (11), page 14, line 24, to delete "granting new holdings to migrants" and substitute "(as the case may be) the provision of new holdings for migrants or to facilitate rearrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots".

This amendment is similar to and consequential on amendment No. 56.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 68:—

In sub-section (11), page 14, line 27, to insert "sub-section (6) of Section 26 of" before "this Act".

It is just a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 69:—

In sub-section (12), page 14, to add at the end of the sub-section the following words: "and any such rules may be expressed to confer any powers appropriate to the purposes for which the rules are made and shall have effect accordingly."

I am informed that this amendment is necessary to forestall legal objections under the rules to be made under Section 4.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 70:—

In sub-section (14), page 15, to delete paragraph (4) in the definition of "State annuity" and substitute the following paragraph:—

(a) any land purchase annuity, funding annuity or annual sum, within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts, payable to the Land Commission.

This amendment is to add to a funding annuity which was omitted by an oversight on the original drafting.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.

I move amendment No. 71:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where any such person is employed on agricultural work for wage or payment in kind on the estate, he shall be entitled to a holding on satisfactory proof that he has sufficient stock, equipment or capital to enable him to undertake the successful working of the holding.

I think this amendment is very desirable. It is true that, in the past, first preference was given to employees. That did not work out satisfactorily. Of course, I can see that the Minister can defend his section on the grounds that a number of those who were given holdings of land did not prove capable of working them. It also affords protection to other employees. Despite the fact that the regulations, I believe, stated that employees did get first preference, that was not always put into practice. In very recent years an estate in my constituency was divided. There was a large number of employees and there were two or three what you might call old retainers who were physically unfit for land and the Land Commission passed them over and they got no compensation at all. Some of those men are as a charge on the rates at the moment as a result of this provision not being there. A number of others got holdings and within the past year they have been given permission by the Land Commission to sell them. Consequently, on that score, I do not find any fault with the section. At the same time, it is very sweeping. It leaves full discretionary powers with the Land Commission to deny anybody or any employee a holding of land and give them, in lieu, cash compensation. That is why I would wish that there would be a safeguard as far as persons who worked on estates and who were, perhaps, living on them are concerned. I know that the Minister will say he has already given an assurance on the Second Reading that such types of persons are going to be treated fairly. The Minister's assurance is all right but what is in the Bill is different.

No assurance of that kind is given to anybody. It refers to employees, all and sundry, and the Land Commission can, in their absolute discretion, take exception in any particular case. If a Land Commission inspector prepares a scheme, the Land Commission, on his recommendation or report, allocates a holding to some particular individual who, in the opinion of the inspector who prepared the scheme, was a suitable person. If, after a while, it becomes apparent that the allottee did not use that land and made application for permission to sell, naturally enough, the inspector would become very irritated. If he came along and found a person on an estate, such as, say, the head of a household who, although perhaps a good and a satisfactory employee so far as his employer was concerned, was not a very thrifty person as far as his family was concerned, the Land Commission inspector might very probably take the line of action of saying: "Well, it is better to compensate this man than to give him a holding." In that case, it is not the individual concerned who would really be penalised but his family. After all, if some brake is put on the discretionary powers of the Land Commission in that way to ensure that a holding would come to the family—and it need not be vested for quite a long number of years—it would be a very great safeguard. Despite the fact that that individual, who, as I said, may have been a very satisfactory employee in carrying out another person's business but not very careful or thrifty as far as his own family was concerned, would receive monetary compensation, I am afraid that if it was handed over to him it would pass away very quickly. There would be a definite form of security if the amendment that was tabled here were inserted, and still it need not deny the Land Commission inspectors their discretionary powers in numerous cases. At the same time it would safeguard the others. Of course, the condition is here in this amendment that where any such person is employed on agricultural work for wage or payment in kind on the estate, he shall be entitled to a holding on satisfactory proof that he has sufficient stock, equipment or capital to enable him to undertake the successful working of the holding.

I think that is a very big safeguard so far as the Land Commission is concerned. If the Land Commission are to be provided with protection and given these discretionary powers to ensure that no unsuitable person will be allocated a holding, I think that on the other hand an employee of the type we have mentioned here should also be entitled to greater security. If the Minister is not accepting the amendment in this form, I expect that on the Report Stage he will be able to bring in some form of amendment to provide that security.

In paragraph (a), sub-section (1), of Section 31, of the Land Act of 1923, the Land Commission were empowered to give, if they saw fit, to an employee a holding of land on the estate taken over by them because, by the acquisition of that estate, the employee had lost his employment. I thought I was doing very well when I was providing for the type of employee who might have been a very short period working on an estate, who lost his employment and who, perhaps, would not be in a position to get similar employment elsewhere. That was one type of employee. Then there was the type of employee who lost his employment on an estate but to whom a holding did not offer a suitable type of alternative livelihood. It did not happen very often but it did occur on some occasions that disturbance, inconvenience and perhaps actual loss were caused to such employees when an estate was taken over. That is the reason Section 25 was introduced and I think the Deputy will agree that it is an improvement on Section 31 of the 1923 Act. It has been left to the discretion of the commissioners but I have never heard a case in which it was seriously charged against them that they treated some person who lost his employment in circumstances of this character in any harsh manner. I could not accept the amendment in the terms in which the Deputy put it forward.

I am not asking you to do that.

I shall have it examined to see what can be done.

We all welcome the amendment of the section. Deputy Beegan is quite right in saying that there has been a certain inequity in the way of compensation. I should like to ensure that everybody who worked for a reasonable time on an estate should get adequate compensation and I should like that in assessing compensation, payment in kind might also be regarded as an emolument to be compensated for. It was the practice of the Land Commission to compensate employees on an estate by giving land to them.

To make an advance to purchase land.

There had to be some system of selectivity. Many people who might have been a long time on an estate were found unsuitable to get land and therefore got no compensation whereas people who were only a short time on the estate and who were regarded by an inspector as suitable, got compensation away beyond their deserts. One evil was created by that. Many of those people had not the farming mentality. They had not the capital or equipment and in dealing with them the Land Commission recreated a condition which they set out to ameliorate. After a few years they gave those people, most of whom fell down on the job, permission to sell their lands. That was a most unwise proceeding and I am glad the Minister has changed it but I should like nevertheless that where possible, some provision might be made to give to a man who has real farming experience even though he may be only a part-time employee on the estate, who has equipment and who has stock, some consideration and not completely close the door on him because he may be a very valuable tenant of the Land Commission. Otherwise I welcome the section. I want to point out again that Section 25 as it stands amends Section 31 of the Land Act of 1923 which operates in regard to the former section and makes it necessary to recast the Minister's proposals in the previous section. Perhaps, the Minister would look into that.

I just want to point out that the land problem and the congestion problem vary from county to county and from place to place. One thing that strikes me in connection with this amendment is the position of men such as those working in the Lagan Valley in Donegal. They have been taking conacre for the last 200 years and they are real farmers. From time immemorial they have been taking plots of two and four acres and intensively cultivating them. If land is to be acquired there under Section 23, I think that some amendment of this kind should be provided because, owing to the way in which this section stands these people would of course be excluded. You are cutting out any temporary convenience lettings and presumbably that particular type of letting would be a temporary convenience letting. I do not regard the type of individual who worked these lettings as a landless man. We were talking about landless men to-day and in particular it was suggested that you could give a holding of land to some man who had no connection with a particular estate or farm at all, that you could make a present of it to somebody who was not connected with the land in that way. I invite the Minister to state now if he is prepared to take the line that we are to make up our minds once and for all to acquire land for the relief of congestion only. Are we going to say that for all time the landless man is cut out?

The Minister to-night gave two answers to that question. He stated that it was the intention to finish for all time this question of landless men, and he came along a few moments afterwards and said, not for all time, that they might come in at some later stage. The sooner the Minister, the Land Commission and the House make up their minds on this matter, the better. It is most unfair to these men who, in many instances, have been coming along to Deputies and pressing them in connection with division of estates.

It is not correct to state that harshness by the Land Commission does not occur sometimes when dividing estates, in not taking into account people working on the estates, who would have claims. We had a case of that type on the Dignam estate at Shrule, between Galway and Mayo. A man who worked there for years—the Minister, I am sure, is aware of the case—got no compensation when the estate was divided; he was not provided for. In cases like that some provision should be made. I do not include that type in the definition of landless men, as I would mean it in the ordinary sense. The Minister, before the Report Stage, should consider this matter and leave the door open to provide for special cases of that sort.

I think I know the case to which the Deputy refers. I made a very strong plea to the commissioners to consider his case, but because he had been six years out of employment before the Land Commission took over the estate, they refused to consider his claim.

The Minister can now delegate his powers to the commissioners and tell the commissioners what to do.

No, faith I cannot.

Under Section 10 of this Bill, which is now becoming law, the Minister takes unto himself very special and wide powers, and I think that is one of the matters that the Minister could deal with.

No, and even if I could, I would not.

Amendment No. 71, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.

I move amendment No. 72:—

In sub-section (7), page 16, line 24, to insert "as for the time being in force" before "all."

This is merely a drafting amendment. When the Bill becomes law the word "scheme" might be construed as having a very restricted meaning, which would be undesirable. Do Deputies understand what amendment No. 72 really means?

Perhaps the Minister will give us an explanation?

All the amendments to this section are my own. This is a section which is really retrospective, but it will operate for the future as well. In pre-1922 days the Lord Lieutenant had certain powers in cases where the Congested Districts Board or the Land Commission allotted fields and parks for certain purposes. He had certain powers to prescribe the type of scheme, and when I use the word "scheme" it is not to be confused with a Land Commission scheme for the allotment of land.. A scheme in this case was a document signed by the Lord Lieutenant and it set out the use to which the field could be put. The same document governed the conduct of the trustees. The Lord Lieutenant had power to appoint new trustees in certain cases, or authorise the trustees to dispose of the field if its normal use ceased.

That particular power was never transferred. It was an oversight that occurred in the change-over of Government from the British to our own people in 1921 or 1922. That oversight was not discovered until a court action brought it to light in 1939. This whole section legalises things done in the past by the Minister for Agriculture for a period, and various Ministers for Land since that time. It legalises these things and sets the matter right for the future. It is a long section and I must admit I do not understand the finer details of it—nobody but a solicitor would.

Are there any actions pending, or likelihood of actions at the present time, before the passing of this Bill?

No, there are none pending and there are none coming on that we are aware of.

None pending and none threatened?

None pending or none threatened.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 73:—

In sub-section (9), page 16, line 59, to insert "the scheme or by" before "or under" and to delete "both or either of".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 74:—

In sub-section (11), page 17, line 21, to insert " , funding annuity or annual sum" before "thereon".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 75:—

In sub-section (13), page 18, to delete paragraph (d).

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 76:—

To add the following sub-section at the end of the section:—

(16) In this section, any reference to disposal for public purposes includes disposal for purposes related to the education, entertainment or recreation of any group, association or class of persons.

Will the Minister tell us something about this amendment?

I am advised that it is desirable to add this definition of the expression "public purposes". Without it the words "public purposes" might be very narrowly construed and the section might not be regarded as allowing the Minister to authorise trustees to dispose of land except where it was required for State purposes or, at best, for, say, parks open to the public at large. It is obvious that the section will benefit the community very little unless it is wide enough to enable trustees to come to the rescue where land is needed for desirable purposes; for example, to provide education, entertainment or recreation facilities. Used in this way, the section could be a valuable contribution to the betterment of rural conditions. I am asking for the amendment on these grounds.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 77:—

To add at the end of the section the following new sub-section:—

(16) Sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Land Act, 1933, and paragraph (a) of sub-section (6) of Section 39 of the Land Act, 1939, are hereby amended by the deletion of the words "for the inhabitants of villages, towns, or cities or for schools".

The deletion of these words will allow the Land Commission to allot sports fields to people in rural districts where they could not do so before. They were confined to what was set out in the words which I propose now to delete. The Land Commission being a Department of State dealing principally with rural Ireland, it was doubtful if the giving of sports fields in certain cases would be valid for want of such an amendment as this.

I do not quite understand what the Minister has said, because I find that paragraph (a) of sub section (6) of the Land Act of 1939 provides:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the Land Commission shall not resume such holding or any part thereof for any purpose other than the relief of congestion in the locality in which such holding is situate, or the provision of sports fields, parks, pleasure grounds or playgrounds for the inhabitants of villages, towns or cities or for schools or the provision of gardens for schools."

Why is the Minister proposing to cut out the inhabitants of villages, towns and cities?

We have been informed by counsel that it was very doubtful whether a sports field could be allotted to a rural area. I do not want the Deputy to understand that we are depriving towns, cities or villages of any benefit that they enjoy at present. By the deletion of the words in the amendment they will still have the benefits which they have at present. The trouble is that the Land Commission could grant a sports field to a city like Dublin, but not to a rural district. The whole thing hinges on the definition of the word "village". By the deletion of the words proposed, the Land Commission will have the power to allot a sports field to any city, town or village or even to put it on the top of a mountain.

Does the Minister mean that, by the deletion of the words in the 1939 Act, he is enlarging the scope of this section? Is that the advice he has received?

Yes. The granting of a sports field to a rural district under the section as it stood was of doubtful validity. Perhaps the matter would never be questioned, but there was the odd chance that it might.

But surely, the Land Commission have been allotting land for parks in certain parts of the country.

They have, but their doing so has been of doubtful validity.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 78:—

To add at the end of the section the following new sub-section:—

(16) To avoid doubts and without prejudice to the Interpretation Act, 1937 (No. 38 of 1937), it is hereby enacted as follows:—

(a) any reference (whether specific or otherwise) in any provision made by or under any Act other than this Act to an amendment or extension by virtue of Section 33 of the Land Act, 1933, shall be construed as a reference to an amendment or extension by virtue of this section, and

(b) nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect any matter or proceeding related to any enactment mentioned in sub-section (1) of this section and pending at the passing of this Act or any certificate given in relation to the matter or proceeding before such passing.

The purpose of the amendment is to safeguard the Land Commission from legal difficulties in proceedings for the acquisition or resumption of land.

As far as I can see, this amendment proposes to confer further power on the Land Commission which they may wield against anybody. I do not think that I have ever seen a Bill go through this House with so many provisions as this one contains intended to ensure that no matter what the Land Commission may do, let it be right or wrong, nobody is going to have any redress against them. This Bill is remarkable for that. The Minister, in this Bill, is providing the finest type of insurance for the Land Commission that I have ever seen in a Bill. That is the position so far as this amendment and other sections in the Bill are concerned. No matter what goes wrong, no one will have any redress against the Land Commission. If poor Pat Murphy is adversely affected in any way by anything done by the Land Commission he is not going to have any redress against them.

This amendment is really aimed at a tightening up arising out of flaws discovered in previous legislation. Counsel have discovered flaws in previous legislation, and, after all we cannot be blamed for putting things right. We must act legally.

I assure the Minister that thousands of flaws will be discovered in this Bill after it is passed.

I suppose there will be some, but I would not say thousands.

I have never seen this House in the case of any other Bill, go to such lengths to ensure that nobody will have any right of redress against the Land Commission. Under one section it is provided that, whether the Land Commission are right or wrong, no action will lie against them. This amendment would seem to me to be a continuance of what I may call the building up of an iron curtain around the Land Commission. Surely, the Land Commission will make mistakes from time to time as everybody makes them. Therefore, they should be liable like other people for them, and should be prepared to take the consequences. On that general principle, I am against the amendment as I was against another section which provided buffers and safeguards for every single thing done by those inside the doors of the Land Commission from the office-boy up to the Minister himself.

I think the Deputy has exaggerated the effect of this amendment. When one bears in mind the history of land tenure in this country and the scope of the land code, one must admit, I think, that it would be impossible to visualise the framing of a perfect Land Act. There have been many Land Acts passed since the Deasy Act of 1860. The Deputy is right, I suppose, in thinking that counsel and solicitors will discover flaws in this Bill as they have discovered them in others. It would be foolish on my part to claim that this is a perfect measure. At the same time, I must point out that it is a very unpleasant thing for a Department of State to find, while they had been taking a certain line of action in perfect good faith over a long period in the belief that they had adequate powers under a statue to do so, that in fact, when a test case was brought to court, what they had been doing was illegal, although the illegality might not matter a row of pins. What we have been trying to do is to plug holes that have appeared in previous Acts passed in 1933, 1936 and 1939. I want to tell the House that there will be another Land Bill following on this. It will be made up practically of amendments to previous legislation.

I hope it will be drafted in a different manner from the way in which this has been drafted.

We are moving on to codification of the land laws.

I am against the amendment.

Amendment put and declared carried.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27.

I move amendment No. 79:—

In sub-section (2), page 18, line 59, to delete "in".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 80:—

In sub-section (2), page 19, line 3, to delete "intended" and substitute "proposed".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Would the Minister tell us what is the purpose behind this section?

One might say that Section 27 is complementary to the foregoing section. It relates to 30 plots which were given out in pre-1922 days. These plots were sold to trustees of former landlords on the advice and suggestion of the then Land Commission. These trustees have never come under the benefit of the Land Purchase Acts and this section is intended to give them the benefit and not to leave them outside the pale.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 28.

I move amendment No. 81:—

In sub-section (1), page 19, line 31, to insert "the Minister or" before "the Land Commission".

This amendment is necessary because trust instruments of this kind will in future provide for the appointment of trustees by the Minister. Unless the words "or the Minister" are inserted, as proposed in the amendment, the procedural facilities in Section 28 would not be available for use in the case of future trustees.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 82:—

After Section 28 to insert the following new section:—

Where a scheme of rearrangement or resettlement has been prepared and submitted by a Land Commission official such scheme shall be put into operation if a three-fourths majority of the people interested sign an agreement to accept such scheme.

The idea I have in my mind is to help to speed up rearrangement and avoid the usual trouble which arises in the congested areas. We know that when a scheme of rearrangement is prepared by a Land Commission inspector and submitted it is very hard to get the agreement of the parties concerned. As Deputy Moylan has often told us, it is very hard to satisfy all the people, particularly those who have been in such dire circumstances and so hard pressed for such a long time. When a reasonable rearrangement scheme has been submitted to tenants by a Land Commission official, it is wrong that any single individual should have the power unjustly to hold up such a scheme. I know of two or three areas in my constituency where there was sufficient land to bring practically all the congested holdings up to an economic size and practically all the tenants were in agreement with the scheme submitted by the Land Commission official, but, because some crank in the locality, because of jealousy that his neighbours were put on equal terms with him, refused to sign, the agreement fell through. When the best job possible has been done by a Land Commission inspector, if a majority of three-fourths of the people interested sign the agreement the scheme should be put through because, no matter what any Land Commission official or any Minister or Government will do, it will be impossible to satisfy everybody in connection with a rearrangement scheme. There will be people dissatisfied despite the best efforts of the inspector.

In order that resettlement may go ahead with a fair amount of progress, I suggest that this amendment should be accepted.

We have threshed out the whole question of rearrangement thoroughly on Section 10. This amendment raises it all over again. I was thinking along the same lines as those suggested by the Deputy in his amendment, but the truth of the matter is that there is no means, short of bringing out guns and bayonets, to compel a tenant to take a rearranged holding if he does not want to take it. Even if the amendment were inserted, it would never be of any use. Suggestions were made that the majority of the tenants should have power to bring objecting tenants into court to show cause why a good sound scheme should not be put into operation.

I have had the advice of the commissioners, the legal men and inspectors with excellent records and the general consensus of opinion was that any attempt at force in a matter of this kind is worse than useless. It would only cause embitterment amongst the tenants which would put off rearrangement for 20 years. The scheme must be left more or less to the tenants themselves. Even if the commissioners and the Minister and the whole of the Dáil went into a townland where 20 tenants were to be rearranged, until each of these 20 tenants is satisfied that he is getting a fair deal they will not agree. In other words, when an inspector proposes such a scheme, instead of having six commissioners, every one of the tenants will be a commissioner and much more severe and critical than any Land Commissioner. That is why we introduced a new departure by bringing in Section 10, because a rearrangement scheme is the tenants' own scheme. The whole secret of an inspector being able to put a scheme into effect is to give as even a division of the good land and bad land available as possible. When a man knows that his neighbour is not getting any more or any less than he is, then the scheme will go through. The amendment would not serve any useful purpose; neither would any other method that we can devise or think of. The whole thing depends on the goodwill of the people whose holdings are being rearranged. As a matter of fact, the less interference there is with them the better chance there is of success. No amount of pressure is any use. For that reason, I ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.

Surely the Minister knows that this principle has already been accepted in connection with other legislation, for instance, in the Local Authorities (Works) Act and I think in connection with rural improvement schemes. I would not put the number as low as Deputy Commons puts it, but if 90 per cent, of the people involved in a rundale area agree there should be some procedure whereby the scheme could go through at the instance of the Land Commission, subject to a simple appeal to the District Court by the 10 per cent. dissatisfied. Some rearrangement schemes which would have gone through were upset for other reasons. The Minister, when he was a Deputy, upset one down at Kiltarsaghaun by simply going out on the land and stopping the people signing. People will always be exploited in some direction. At the same time there should be some way of getting over the difficulty where in a particular rundale area nine out of ten tenants are agreeable to the rearrangement scheme and one black sheep holds out against it. In many cases the particular individual may not be responsible for his actions. I have known cases where that occurred and the whole scheme was held up for years. That has been one of the Land Commission headaches in dealing with rundale areas. Now that the Minister is putting this Bill through, I do not think he should confine himself to the 75 per cent. suggested in the amendment. Would the Minister consider a figure of 90 per cent?

No. That is no good.

He should take the power to deal with the crank who holds up the scheme and keeps the other unfortunate people from benefiting under it. It is unfair to the majority. I think this is a matter the Minister would be well advised to consider between this and the Report Stage.

I am sure Deputy Moran will sprout wings when he hears that Kiltarsaghaun has been rearranged to the complete satisfaction of the tenants.

The Minister would make a lovely cherub.

The Minister is now Minister for Lands.

Joking apart, let me say that was achieved by one man and one man only. The tenants and the inspector in charge got instruction that they were to deal with one another and that the matter lay entirely between themselves and the inspector. He drew up a very fair scheme and achieved success where all the others had failed for the past 21 years.

Better keep away from Mayo now.

I want to tell Deputy Moran and the other Deputies interested that there is only one secret in inducing agreement in relation to a rearrangement scheme. The first essential is fair play between all interested in the scheme. Secondly, the tenants know that the scheme will be in existence for a long time to come and it will be the last settlement for which they can hope. Very often the Land Commission is cramped for want of land, but where they can make a liberal settlement that is the best means of ensuring success. There is no other way of doing it. In most cases the tenants are reasonable. They recognise that there is not a lot of land at the disposal of the Land Commission and very often they accept settlement at a much lower valuation level than I would like to give them if I had the land at my disposal.

If that is the Minister's secret weapon he is very poorly armed.

I am in agreement with a good deal of what the Minister has said. I do not know whether the Minister has had as long an interest in this resettlement problem as some of us have. We know that all the tenants in a rearrangement scheme are not brought up to the same level. An effort is made to do that, but it is impossible to make all equal.

You cannot put them into a scales and weigh them.

That is so. Some scheme should be devised where when nine people agree the tenth will not be allowed to hold up rearrangement. There was a provision in the old days but I do not know whether it was ever enforced. If anyone refused to sign a scheme the valuation of his holding was raised to an economic standard and he had to do without any extra land.

That could not be enforced.

I am not asking the Land Commission to enforce any such provision now. What generally happens is that the Land Commission decides to rearrange and there is not sufficient land available. There is always a delay and during that time certain portions of the available land are let for grazing at a rent to those who will ultimately benefit. When the final settlement is reached these people expect to get the same portions they had for grazing. In that way trouble arises. Some provision is necessary under which the Land Commission could hurry up these rearrangement schemes. Certain powers have been taken in other legislation, such as the Local Authorities (Works) Act, where an obstructor is taken to court if necessary.

But that is affecting a man's land. It is not affecting the hearthstone on which he was reared.

It does affect something of benefit and value to the area, which is the same thing.

There is a sentimental value attaching to a house.

I do not want to press this, but I ask the Minister to examine it between this and the Report Stage and, if 75 per cent. agreement is too little, he can decide what the figure should be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 83, not moved.

I move amendment No. 84:—

After Section 28 to add a new section as follows:—

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Land Purchase Acts the Minister is hereby empowered to give directions to the trustees appointed under the said Acts in regard to the construction and repair of river and sea embankments and the trustees concerned shall comply with any such directions."

I put down this amendment in order to get clarification of a certain type of procedure. As far as I am aware the Land Commission has only an indirect control in relation to trustees on certain estates. I would like a statement from the Minister in the matter. This has become a subject of controversy in our area on various occasions where moneys for the repair of embankments are concerned. In one case a particular trustee stood to benefit from the trust moneys and he influenced the other trustees to allocate money for the repair of his own particular embankment. Naturally the tenants objected to the money being used in that way. I raised the matter some time ago with the Land Commission and I was told that it has no direct control over these trustees. If you like, they have control over them in regard to the principal of the money invested, but not altogether, as far as I am aware. I should be glad to hear a statement from the Minister as to whether he can clarify the position. If he could do so, I would be satisfied. I should like him also to go further and to accept this amendment which would meet the point made by me on behalf of the people whom I represent.

I should like the Deputy to understand that the entire question of embankments and trustees is very complicated. I realise that something should be done about the matter but how it will be done or what shape it will take, I do not know. However, I guarantee to the Deputy that between this and the Report Stage I shall give the problem he has in mind full consideration to see if his points can be met. I know a little about that problem although it does not affect my particular province. Therefore, I would ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

Thank you very much.

I should like to say something about this matter in relation to the county in which the Minister in interested. To our amazement we discovered a fortnight ago from a statement made by the Minister that if there is something in the nature of a sluice gate or an embankment keeping out the sea, and which was erected by the Land Commission, it disclaims liability once the land has been vested.

Do not say "liability." The liability up to the date of vesting is the landlord's liability to his tenant. After vesting, that liability passes to the landlord, who then becomes the tenant. The tenant is no longer the tenant—he is his own landlord.

I see the Minister's point but it is a distinction without a difference.

There is a big difference between the tenant of land and the owner of land.

Some years ago these embankments and causeways and sluice gates were erected by the Land Commission. In the meantime, their holdings happened to be vested under the Land Acts and when these embankments or causeways or sluice gates break down the Land Commission disclaim liability. They say that as the estates are vested they have no further interest in the matter.

If the Minister is going to reconsider this amendment I want him to reconsider this question also. You have in these coastal areas, and particularly along the West coast of Mayo round about Kilmeena Bay, a number of these embankments and so forth which were erected by the Land Commission 20 or 30 years ago. The lands have since been vested. These embankments and so forth have, in a great many cases, broken down. Hundreds of acres round the coast are, therefore, damaged and the sea floods the farmers out. These are big and costly jobs and they are sent from post to pillar. Apparently no Department of State accepts responsibility for them. I was amazed that the Land Commission had taken this line—perhaps it is their line all over the country—in accordance with the law, that once they vest the estates they have not the necessary power to act in the matter. But if they have not the necessary power I would urge the Minister, before the Report Stage, to consider seriously whether he should take the necessary power to deal with these matters. No Department, other than the Land Commission, should be responsible for these matters. It was responsible originally for erecting these piers, barriers, sluice gates and so forth and surely it should be responsible for their maintenance. Why they should get out on a legal quibble when the lands are vested, is beyond my comprehension. If County Kerry is to be considered I would point out to the Minister that charity begins at home and that he should not forget County Mayo.

Originally, the principal purpose of the Land Commission was to buy out the landlords of this country and to make the tenant farmers their own owners. That occurs in the act of vesting. Some of the rights won in the past from the landlords still apply to the Land Commission so long as unvested holdings lie on their hands. The tenants on these unvested holdings enjoy the same rights against the Land Commission today as they did against the landlord in the past. The act of vesting transfers the ownership that the Land Commission bought from the landlord and hands it over to the tenants.

While I should like to see these points met I should not, at the same time, like to see the Land Commission becoming a wagon with every kind of label and tag tacked on to it and that they would do a bit of work for the Department of Industry and Commerce, for the Department of Finance, for the Department of Defence, for the Department of Justice, for the Board of Works and so on. Their sole object was to purchase the land of Ireland from the landlords and to make the tenants the owners. The relief of congestion and land resettlement have been grafted on as part of their duties. I understand that the Board of Works is there for the type of work which Deputy Flynn and Deputy Moran have in mind. We assume responsibility from time to time. We have to get the sanction of the Department of Finance for the repair of embankments and the installation of sluices and so forth, in the case of vested lands. I would point out, however, that we do that because our engineers are more familiar with the problems than the engineers of any other Government Department—not because we have a responsibility or a liability in the matter. However, I shall look into the two points.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 28, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

The 18th April, provisionally.

Top
Share