Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 1950

Vol. 120 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Land Bill, 1949—Report Stage.

Mr. Moylan

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, line 35, to delete the word "value" and substitute the word "price".

I think it would be wise if we introduced some sense of reality into State transactions in land. I find it difficult to see exactly what the Minister's opinions are in regard to land acquisition and the price to be paid for land. In Volume 118, column 897 of Dáil Debates of 19th November, 1948, the Minister said:—

"Indeed only a very small number of cases of serious dissatisfaction with prices fixed by the Land Commission has arisen during the entire period since 1923."

Then in Volume 119, column 896 of Dáil Debates of 28th February, 1950, having said there has been no serious dissatisfaction with price, the Minister says that he "does not want the system of robbery or confiscation that has obtained up to the present time." I find it difficult to relate the two statements. At column 902 on the same date, the Minister said:—

"I wonder will the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputies on the other side of the House stand over some of the open robbery that was carried on",

despite the fact that just previously he had said there was no serious dissatisfaction with the price. Again in Volume 119 at column 907, the Minister says:—

"The Deputy knows quite well that the method of paying for acquired land was a scandal to a civilised country."

I would like to get some idea of what the Minister's exact opinions are in relation to the price of land. Are we to take it as his expressed view that there has been no serious dissatisfaction with the price of land since 1923? Are we to take it that there has been open confiscation and robbery? One cannot combine the two.

In relation to land, injustice begets injustice. Because the land of Ireland was confiscated many of our own people held the view that the only possible way of undoing that confiscation by a foreigner was a further confiscation by our own people. It is only with the inevitability of gradualness that the Irish people have been weaned from that point of view. The Minister has now decided to pay market value. He has various mental reservations as to what market value should mean. He refuses to recognise market price as market value. Market price may not really be the intrinsic value of land, but it is the nearest way in which one can get to a conception of what the market value of land is.

In my opinion the Minister's proposal makes no change in what was the accepted custom under the 1923 Act. Then the term applied to land values was "fair to the Land Commission and fair to the owner." Because the Minister refuses to define what exactly he means the position he is now creating is no better than the position that existed under the 1923 Act. In my opinion he is, of course, leaving the matter exactly as it has stood up to the present so far as definitions are concerned. It is clear that he has in mind an idea of being more generous in the efforts he proposed to make; but since he has not defined in any particular way the price he proposes to give I can see no real change from the existing position.

Deputy Sweetman in Volume 118, column 1222 of Dáil Debates of 23rd November, 1949, said that the Minister had courageously decided that in justice the community will in future pay the true market value for the property. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Minister. I take it the Minister is desirous of avoiding a definition because he is a party to the making of a bargain and he declines to show his hand. Now I am reasonable. I am sympathetic with the Minister's viewpoint and with what he desires to secure, but on one particular point it is wholly desirable that the Minister should be specific. If the Land Commission goes out in the ordinary way of its transactions in land, a bargain has to be struck somewhere and perhaps it would be asking too much of the Minister to define in these cases what exactly he means by "market value." But, in relation to the purchase of land in the open market, he must be specific and he must define his intention.

When a man puts up his land for public sale and when the Minister intervenes or proposes to take part, personally or through an agent, in the purchase of that land at a public auction or a public sale, the only true definition of "market value" is the price at which that land would sell if the Minister did not intervene. I will give the Minister all the leeway possible and necessary, knowing his difficulty in regard to the general transactions of the Land Commission, believing that certain injustices have been done and that he wishes for a freer hand in the payment of the price. Maybe there is reason in being indefinite in these particular cases but certainly, in regard to the price of land offered for public auction and purchased by the Minister, there is not a reason in the world why he should not define in the Bill his purpose of paying "market price" for that land.

Deputy Fagan, a Government Deputy, mentioned a particular case—the Minister will find a reference to it in the Dáil Debates. If there is any truth in the statement made by Deputy Fagan it would appear that a very grave injustice was done to a particular land owner and a particular family who were well off before the intervention of the Land Commission and have now been reduced to poverty. While I cannot relate the Minister's statement that there was no serious dissatisfaction with his statement that there was robbery and confiscation, I know that there are difficulties in relation to land acquisition that a single rule that must be operated must somehow now and again operate to the detriment of somebody. Apparently, in this case which was raised by Deputy Fagan, a grave injury was done to a particular family. If there are a few such outstanding cases where the price that should have been paid was not paid, where people had been reduced from affluence to poverty by the Land Commission, everybody on this side of the House will be glad to co-operate with the Minister in bringing in a Bill or a section of a Bill or in taking any action that may seem open to him for the remedy of these difficulties and injustices.

Mr. Moran

My main objection to this section as it stands and my main support for the amendment now before the House is that I object to the House's writing into legislation an expression, the meaning of which neither the House nor anybody outside the House understands. The expression is "market value" as it appears in the section and the Minister has told us on the Committee Stage of this Bill that he would not define it, that he just put it there in this particular section and that he would let it be interpreted however it may be interpreted outside this House. It is the first time in my experience in this House where the House deliberately let an expression go in a Bill that nobody understood what was meant by it. We should be particularly suspicious of this expression being left in the air in view of some of the provisions in this Bill and in view of the fact that the Minister has taken power under Section 3 of the Bill whereby the Minister for Finance may make regulations—and whatever regulations the Minister for Finance may make may completely upset whatever the Minister has in his mind as far as market value is concerned. It is interesting also to note that no provision is made to lay these regulations on the Table of this House.

The Minister for Finance may make rules and regulations in connection with land purchase finance under this Bill and under previous legislation. If the Minister for Finance, whatever the Minister for Lands may think or whatever intention the Minister for Lands may have in connection with market value, makes regulations to deal with market value in a specific way that would suit the Department of Finance, neither the Land Commission nor the Minister for Lands, under this Bill, would be empowered to question these regulations. These regulations will be statutory regulations and they will have statutory effect. They will be able to override any principle laid down in this Bill. We are, therefore, under Section 5 of this Bill letting this expression through—an expression that may be watered down by regulations made by the Department of Finance at any particular time in the future.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

It is not correct to say that regulations made under a Bill can violate the principles in that Bill.

Mr. Moran

Statutory regulations made under a particular Bill can override and it has been so decided that they have overridden even Acts of Parliament and previous Acts of Parliament. Actually you have regulations and statutory rules made which specifically repeal Acts of Parliament. If the Minister wants any instances of that, I can quote them to him ad libitum. The Minister has only just to give one reference to the matter. His advisers will tell him that the recent District Court rules override several Acts of Parliament and they are expressed to repeal Acts of Parliament and to repeal Courts of Justice Acts wherever these rules are in conflict with the Acts. The Minister is taking these powers under this Bill. He is leaving the expression “market value” in the air. Whatever may be decided at a future date, whenever these regulations are made by the Minister for Finance, may completely upset the ideas that have been held in this House as to what may happen under this section. In addition, the expression “market value” has already been defined in different types of legislation. It has been defined in the Finance Acts. It has been defined for the purpose of income-tax. It has been defined for the purpose of estate duty, as to what the market value of lands may be. The Minister must realise now that if he lets this section through and does not accept this amendment, the expression “market value” will be open to all these interpretations. How, if that will be the position, is any court going to interpret what the Minister may have in mind by this airy expression “market value”? In view of the dangers that may come about by the Department of Finance closing down under rules to be made under this Bill and completely upsetting the intention of this Bill, and in view of the confusion that will undoubtedly arise without any further definition of that expression by the Minister, I would appeal to him to accept the amendment which was tabled by Deputy Moylan.

Mr. Blowick

The amendment tabled by Deputy Moylan left me under the impression that he was anxious to substitute the word "price" wherever the word "value" appeared in the section. No case has been made for that, I notice. The debate has rambled off into quite a different field altogether. I am quite satisfied that this section will be workable and that it is going to produce the result we want, that is to give a fair price for land.

Mr. Moylan

"Fair to the Land Commission and fair to the owner."

Mr. Blowick

That has not worked out so well in the past. Deputy Moran has made, what appears to a layman like me at least, the rather astounding statement that regulations made under this Bill can override the principles of the Bill and can actually repeal previous legislation. I never had a legal training but that statement appears to me to mean that because Section 3 of this Bill gives power to certain persons to make rules, they can actually undo the work of the two Houses of the Oireachtas and substitute something they like themselves. I have no previous experience of this but surely that cannot be so. I can imagine rules or regulations perhaps by-passing obsolete sections in previous Acts, but certainly none of the regulations or rules will be necessary to govern the conduct of the commissioners in fixing the market value as the price for land because the statute tells them what to do. Heretofore they were expected under the 1923 Act to fix a price which was fair to themselves and fair to the owner. That has worked out in some cases to be little short of confiscation or at least it resulted in doing serious damage to the person from whom land was being taken. In the 1939 Act it was definitely specified that the market value should be given for unvested land which, without going into the question of the merits of the particular section, is all wrong because in the case of unvested land it is not the land that is being taken; it is the tenancy and it is the right to live on the land that is being compensated for. Market value was not defined in that Act but no complaints have arisen and very few appeals on resumption have come before the Appeal Tribunal.

The Land Commission in future will determine the price of acquired land and knowing that they are expected to pay the market value for it, I think this provision will work satisfactorily in the case of acquired land as it has worked since the passing of the 1939 Act in compensating the tenant for resumption. I can assure the House that it is going to prove as satisfactory in the case of the purchase of vested land as it has in the case of unvested land. It is a pretty big change but in my opinion the 1939 Act should have brought the two types of land into the same field straight away.

Mr. Moylan

The Minister has spoken of the price of vested land. What is his attitude towards land to be purchased in the open market?

Mr. Blowick

Market value—what else?

Mr. Moylan

Land purchased at an auction or otherwise—market value? Is is not a distinct problem?

Mr. Blowick

It is. It is a distinct method of purchasing if you like, because in one case the land is acquired compulsorily. Whether the owner likes it or not it is going to be taken from him and the question of fixation of price arises. In the case of purchase in the open market, the Land Commission will determine the price they are going to pay and if it goes more than that, it will withdraw. The same would happen any person who goes to buy land at a price which he had fixed beforehand.

Mr. Moylan

There can be no forced sale?

Mr. Blowick

The Land Commission will say: "That land is worth so much and we are prepared to pay so much." If they buy it at that price good and well. If not, they can withdraw.

Mr. Moylan

There is a point there that I shall take up again on another section.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Mr. Moylan

Have I the right to speak again by way of explanation?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may.

Mr. Moylan

There is one particular danger in relation to the purchase in the open market by the Land Commission. I have a further amendment down, No. 13. All I have to say can be said in very few words and I think it will be more relevant to that amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blowick

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 6, line 13, to insert "resume or" before "acquire".

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moylan

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 6, between lines 40 and 41, to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

(o) the determination of the farm to be allotted to a migrant from a rearranged rundale estate.

Mr. Blowick

Does my amendment No. 5 not meet the Deputy's wishes in that?

Mr. Moylan

The point is that while the amendment of the Minister does go a little way to meeting the difficulty, yet that does not limit the Minister to a particular area for the purchase of land at a public auction. It does not limit the Minister's power to buy land within three miles of a rundale holding.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister does not buy land in any circumstances.

Mr. Moylan

Let us not be too smart. The Land Commission can purchase land, to be strictly accurate. This particular amendment of the Minister's does not preclude the Land Commission from purchasing land anywhere even by public auction.

Mr. Blowick

It is not intended to.

Mr. Moylan

Therefore the Minister has not met my point. I want to ensure that where the Land Commission purchases a holding in the open market for cash, the assignment of an allottee to that particular farm shall be a function of the commissioners which is quite reasonable. In Volume 189, column 1123, we have the following statement by Deputy Sweetman:—

"I entirely agree with the Minister that it would be most irregular, most improper and most unwise for him to interfere in matters therein set out as being excepted matters."

In the same Volume and number, column 1300, we have the Minister stating:—

"The security of tenure of every farmer in the country depends on the fact that the lay commissioners hold these powers in excepted matters."

Again in column 1301 we have the Minister stating:—

"It would be most undesirable that the Minister should have power to acquire or allot land. I would be the first to oppose it."

There is no reason in the world why the Minister should have power to appoint an allottee to any of these farms purchased for cash. That should be specifically an excepted matter, all the more because of the statement of the Minister that I have quoted.

I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. It does not curb his style in any fashion and it gives confidence to people that justice and right will be done and that political influence will not count. I will shorten the matter here for the Minister, if I may, by taking the next amendment— coupling it with the other.

Mr. Blowick

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4?

Mr. Moylan

Amendment No. 4 says:—

"(o) the determination of the actual lands to be purchased for cash for the rearrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots by way of the provision of migrant holdings."

I admit that the Minister has come some way in No. 5 to meet my point of view. I am very much concerned with the question of farms purchased in the open market anywhere throughout the country. The determination of the lands to be purchased shall be an excepted matter under the control of the commissioners. In view of what the Minister has said during the debate he himself sees how desirable it is to have these excepted matters specifically designated. I will not say anything further except to urge on the Minister the advisability of accepting these two amendments and including their proposals as excepted matters.

Mr. Blowick

Let me take amendment No. 4. The Minister will not have anything to do with the purchase or the acquisition of any land either by the compulsory powers that the commissioners have held and now hold, or by the new departure proposed in the Bill to purchase land in the open market. The purchase of land in the open market is definitely safeguarded in Section 11 (m) which says:—

"The determination of the highest offer to be made by the Land Commission in the case of a proposed purchase under Section 25 of this Act."

That means that the commissioners still purchase the land. The Minister has nothing whatever to do with the purchase of any land. I hope that is clear.

Mr. Moylan

I am concerned with one particular type of farm which the Minister knows and I desire to have that excepted from the exception made by the Minister to the first exception in (d) and (e) of Section 11. First of all, we have an exception under the 1933 Act which was right and proper. The Minister, for his own purpose, made an exception to that. I want him to make a further exception in order to minimise the difficulty he created.

Mr. Blowick

Paragraph (d) is the determination of the persons to be selected as allottees of any lands other than those being rearranged, and paragraph (e) is the determination of the price at which land is to be sold to any allottee, again with the exception of those to be rearranged. The Deputy is not satisfied with my amendment, No. 5, which amends the definition to "such other lands being either adjoining any of the lands held in rundale or intermixed plots or not more distant than three miles from any of such rundale lands or intermixed plots".

Mr. Moylan

That is what might be called a bona fide objection—the three mile limit.

Mr. Blowick

There ought to be a limit of some kind.

Mr. Moylan

What about farms outside that area, the three mile limit?

Mr. Blowick

They are not touched: we do not want to touch them.

Mr. Moylan

What about the exceptions?

Mr. Blowick

Some Deputies on that side of the House were under the impression that the Minister could have a say in the determination of holdings or farms to be given to migrants two or three counties away or 100 miles away. Possibly under the old wording the Minister could argue with the commissioners that he had such power, even though that was not my intention. My amendment, No. 5, means that. It prescribes the Minister's power and the divisional inspector's power. It prescribes it to a three mile circle around that area and the reason three miles is fixed is that in some cases of rearrangement in the past some tenants in rundale or intermixed villages or townlands got a holding almost that distance away which, for the purpose of rearrangement, they might be asked to surrender.

When I speak of a new holding now it is construed to mean two things. One is that a new rearranged holding can be called a holding. I choose to call that a rearranged holding. The new holding I refer to, while it has never been defined, like market value or market price, is the average migrant's holding, which is part of a larger farm or land on which the Land Commission have built a new house and out-offices and have fitted up as a migrant's holding.

I want to assure Deputies that this amendment of mine now tightens up the thing completely; the laxity that may be possible under the first drafting of the Bill is now definitely removed and the principles that Deputies on the other side want to see installed are amply safeguarded by this amendment.

Amendment No. 3, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Mr. Blowick

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 6, line 45, to add ", such other lands being either adjoining any of the lands held in rundale or intermixed plots or not more distant than three miles from any of such rundale lands or such intermixed plots", after "rearrangement".

Mr. Moylan

Is this merely a drafting amendment?

Mr. Blowick

It adds the words to which I have already referred.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moylan

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 6 to delete lines 51 to 54 and substitute the following:—

(b) any officer of the Land Commission of not less rank than that of principal officer.

This amendment is directed towards retaining public confidence. The Minister has certain authority under this Bill to delegate powers to officers of the Land Commission. In my opinion the drafting is too loose and faulty, and permits the Minister to give to any officer of the Land Commission directly, without the intervention of a senior officer, authority to do certain things as his agent.

The Minister has very wide powers under this Bill, wider and more extensive than were given in any other Bill. The officer of the Land Commission is the Minister's agent to do his bidding. It would be very unwise for the Minister to delegate powers to an officer other than a senior officer of experience and responsibility. It is essential that some permanent official can be made responsible for any act that he carries out as agent for the Minister. It would be unfair to saddle junior officers in the Department with certain types of responsibility. I suggest to the Minister, in order that the Department may retain public confidence, that he should accept the amendment so that when delegating his power or authority under the Bill it should be delegated to an officer whose rank is not less than that of principal officer in the Department.

Mr. Moran

I support the amendment. I do not know how far it is the Minister's intention to delegate those powers. We tried, in so far as we could on the Committee Stage, to cut out paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) altogether, which gives the Minister these powers. We pointed out to the Minister what this might lead to and what it might leave the public open to if the Minister or any future Minister were prevailed upon by political friends in connection with any dealings in land. If the Minister were to delegate these powers, especially those in connection with a rearrangement scheme, to a junior officer in the Land Commission, he should be well able to appreciate what that may lead to. If that officer is not a very experienced man such delegation of authority may lead to all kinds of trouble and hardship. The Minister must be well aware that one of the greatest difficulties of the Land Commission has been to get experienced staff, particularly in regard to rearrangement schemes.

Suppose a young engineer or a young man in the employment of the Land Commission for a short time had this authority delegated to him, he would be absolutely hopeless on the job. I suggest that it would take such a man a considerable time to acquire what I shall call the necessary psychology to enable him to get the people to agree to the swopping of bits of land in order to reach an agreed rearrangement scheme. If the Minister were to delegate his powers to some inexperienced officer of that kind irreparable damage might be done without the Minister knowing it so that ultimately more harm than good might be done by the scheme. The result might be that it would be impossible for years to get people to agree on such scheme. What Deputy Moylan is asking is that the Minister would be required, from the point of view of efficiency, to delegate his powers to a principal officer. I think the Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment.

Mr. Blowick

All this was discussed on the Second Reading and Committee Stages of the Bill. I thought that I had assured the House on both stages that there is positively no danger of abuse arising from the proposed powers being given to divisional and other inspectors in the case of these schemes. Under the amendment which was passed a moment ago, only the commissioners will now have the alloting of the new holdings, as I described them. They will also have the allotting of additions or enlargements, as they are more correctly termed, to uneconomic holdings. These two things will be the commissioners' job. They are safeguarded by the amendment already passed. In the case of a rearrangement scheme, I can assure Deputies that it will not be the Minister's scheme or the inspectors' scheme, but will be the tenants' own scheme. Let us suppose that a rearrangement job has to be done in a townland or in an area comprising a group of townlands which have been badly messed up since the landlords' days. The inspector goes down there. He has a very troublesome piece of work to do, and that is to get all the people within that area to agree to the proposed striping, the moving back and the moving forward, until finally the inspector gets agreement from the lot. It is not his scheme but rather the scheme which the tenants themselves agree on.

I can assure Deputies that an inspector who goes out on a rearrangement scheme is only too delighted when he finds that there is complete agreement between those concerned. The reason why I am seeking these powers is because it has been a heartbreaking job for the inspectors to get agreement from all the tenants concerned under the old system which obtains even at the present time. Under it a scheme which was prepared by a grade two or three inspector had to be sanctioned by the inspector in charge. Then it went to the divisional inspector, and from him to the chief inspector in Dublin. It then went to the special branch in the Department where boundaries and every detail of expense had to be checked up. Finally, it had to go to the commissioners. In most cases delay occurred, due to all this travelling. By the time the scheme was returned to the country again, it frequently happened that there were radical changes in the personnel of those who had originally agreed to it. Perhaps some people had changed their minds. In some cases one or two years and sometimes ten and 11 years elapsed before it was possible again to get agreement.

What I am seeking to do under this is to give the divisional inspector power and authority—to give him the commissioners' authority if you like— to sanction the scheme when it is prepared. There is no question of the Minister or of the Minister's friends or of any member of the Opposition, or anyone else, interfering. As a matter of fact political interference is bad in most cases. It only gives tenants in a village a perfectly wrong idea that with it they have a better chance of getting a bigger slice of the loaf than they are entitled to. The powers sought here are intended to bring about a quicker settlement of rundale and intermixed problems all over the country, and there is no danger whatever of any abuses arising, because, instead of the commissioners having the sanction of these schemes, the fact is that every single tenant in the village or villages to be rearranged, will be a commissioner in himself. You can be quite sure that every man will have an eagle eye to see that none of his neighbours gets away with something that he thinks he himself is entitled to.

Mr. Commons

This amendment has been thrashed out already pretty thoroughly. I think the officials of the Land Commission would agree with me that when a rearrangement scheme is being prepared it would be impossible for the divisional inspector or the senior inspector to go into each rundale area to prepare such a scheme. In 99 per cent. of cases they act on the schemes submitted by the junior inspector. I think that is not any great departure from the old policy which was carried out since land division first started. I think Deputy Moylan need have no fear and I have no fear with regard to this proposal. It means that a junior official who is in charge of part of a county makes his report. He goes on to every bit of land and tries to get agreement between the people concerned and reports back to his senior and the matter is "okayed" in the shortest space of time. That is what we have been wanting for quite a long time. I find myself in disagreement with the statement that the schemes are the schemes of the people concerned. We know perfectly well that without some encouragement or lead, in many cases perhaps a little threat on the quiet by the official, the people concerned would never agree amongst themselves.

Mr. Blowick

I will not admit that.

Mr. Moran

The Minister is well aware of it.

Mr. Blowick

Officially, I am not.

Mr. Commons

From the knowledge I have, I certainly agree that is so. I only rose to try to convince Deputy Moylan that these schemes will be prepared as schemes have been prepared for 50 years and will be submitted in almost the same way, except that there will not be delay in connection with the commissioners' sanction. In nine cases out of ten they will be in agreement with the senior and junior inspector.

Mr. Moylan

The Minister seems to me completely to misinterpret what I am trying to get at. It seems to me that the Minister has already determined the question of authority to the senior inspector. The senior inspector, I contend, is attached to a field force. There is also an office force. I am trying to get the Minister to delegate authority inside the Land Commission, which he must do sometimes, to an officer of the same rank in the office force as he does in the field force. It is easy to do it. "Any officer of the Minister or the Land Commission for the time being authorised whether specifically or by reference to a class of such officers"— surely the Minister had in mind when he spoke of reference to "a class of such officers" that he should delegate authority or power as his agent to a senior inspector experienced and responsible. As the matter stands, it is too loose and authority inside the Land Commission might be delegated to a typist. The Minister ought to answer that part of it.

Mr. Blowick

Surely not, when you make such a ridiculous case as that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 8 could not be moved at this stage. I understand, however, that the Minister has acceded to a request from the Opposition to recommit Section 13.

Mr. Blowick

Yes, but personally I do not see the point in recommitting it.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

Section 13 recommitted.

Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Moylan

I must express thanks to the Minister for conveniencing the Opposition. I think the Minister is making a change in this section which is not by any means desirable. I think he is taking an action with regard to Government appointees which is a derogation of their status and is creating a precedent which is not desirable. When a Government selects a man to hold a high office, I think that appointment should be recognised by the succeeding Government except the appointee has been derelict in his duties. I think that derogation of status is a grave wrong to any man. Apart from that, while the Appeal Court of the Land Commission is not constituted along the lines of an ordinary court of justice in which a jury examines the facts and the judge applies the law, broadly speaking the lay commissioners bring a very wide and considerable experience to bear on the facts and as such they take the place of 12 good men and true. On the other hand, they combine and cooperate with the judge in applying the law to the facts of which they have experience and which they closely examine. A legal expert is likely to give a reasoned and intelligent judgment on facts if he is familiar with the problem in which they are embodied. But the facts of Land Commission problems are so intricate and involved that only a man of daily and long experience is in a position to unravel them. I do not think that a single judge is able to handle the work of the judicial tribunal.

The Appeal Tribunal was set up, not as a whim but as a result of repeated demands made by the public because of the expressed distrust of the public. I pointed out here before that when a native Government comes to power in a hitherto unfree nation, the officers of the former foreign Government, no matter how loyally they serve the incoming Government, are always the objects of suspicion by many people; and it is not quite wise to say that they are completely just in their dealings. It is much wiser to ensure that they appear just as well as being just in such dealings. It was to obviate any sense of injustice, even where there was no foundation for it, that the Appeal Tribunal was set up in the manner in which it was set up. The Minister gave us some figures in relation to appeals and he pointed out that the work of the commissioners would not be unduly heavy in the future since much of it would be allocated to inspectors. You cannot allocate the real work of the commissioners to inspectors. With figures, of course, it is possible to prove anything. By slightly reversing the figures, I get a different result from that achieved by the Minister.

Last year there were five times as many appeals heard as were heard during the war years according to the figures given by the Minister. Yet only 8,100 odd acres of land were acquired. If you have five times more appeals during one year after the war than you had during all the war years, even with the acquisition of only 8,100 odd acres, surely one can expect an excessive number of appeals if the Minister is successful in acquiring all the land he desires under the terms of this Bill. I might add that I have taken those figures from the Land Commission Report at page five.

The Minister declined to make a clear definition of price and I believe, as a matter of fact, that because of that, there will be a plethora of appeals and I think it will be quite beyond the ability of one judge working alone, very often possibly not quite familiar with the facts of the case before him without long and arduous inquiry, to get through the work satisfactorily. Deputy Cowan mentioned here the number of cases heard by a district justice in Dublin in one day, and compared that with the number of cases possible of hearing by the Land Commission. It is quite easy to say "One bob, or a week" to all the drunks that appear in the District Court; but they will not be drunk coming into the Land Commission. They will be stone cold sober and tough and, believe me, some of the most intricate cases and some of the toughest men from Mayo will come into the Land Commission to fight it out there. I suggest to the Minister that he should leave the system that worked so well alone in regard to the judgeship of the Land Commission.

Mr. Derrig.

I should like to support Deputy Moylan's plea that the Minister reconsider the provisions of Section 13. I thank him for affording us an opportunity of stating our point of view with regard to these proposals. As Deputy Moylan has pointed out, when the 1933 Act was introduced, with its provisions described by the then Opposition, now the chief element in the Government, as being of such a drastic nature that they amounted to confiscation of the land of this country from its owners by the Land Commission, there was considerable debate here in relation to the additional powers being conferred upon the Land Commission. It was suggested that there was a danger in the situation that civil servants appointed by the Minister or persons not of a judicial character, having functions in regard to appeals on the question of the price of land and the acquisition of land, would afford opportunities for political interference and it was stated quite specifically that the functions of the Land Commission ought to be exercised in such a way that there could never be any doubt but that the people exercising them were completely removed from all suspicion of interference by the Minister, by the political Party to which he was attached, or by his political followers.

The Minister for Lands dealing with the Bill at that time introduced provisions to make it quite clear that the Appeal Tribunal would be completely independent and, to guarantee that position, he gave the members of the tribunal the same status as judges of the Circuit Court. As the House knows, a judge cannot be removed from office except for misdemeanour or misbehaviour and, in addition to that, the misdemeanour or misbehaviour has to be so adjudged by resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

It is quite definite that the members of the tribunal had that special position. Under Section 6, sub-section (4), of the 1933 Act, it is stated:—

"Nothing in this section shall apply to the Judicial Commissioner or to the Appeal Tribunal or operate to give the Minister any power or control of any kind over or in relation to the exercise of his functions by the Judicial Commissioner or their functions by the Appeal Tribunal."

Section 7, sub-section (2), of that Act states:—

"Every lay commissioner appointed to be a member of the Appeal Tribunal shall hold his office as such member by the same tenure as a judge of the Circuit Court holds his office as such judge."

Here we have provisions that the Minister is to have no authority to interfere with the members of the tribunal.

Mr. Blowick

With their duties as members of the tribunal.

Mr. Derrig

When I recollect that it was the present Taoiseach and the present Minister for Agriculture who were so anxious that the members of the tribunal would be preserved from all danger of having any stigma attached to them that they were in any way subordinated to the Minister or could in any way be interfered with by him, I think it is an extraordinary revolution that now, 17 years afterwards, a Government of which these two gentlemen are members—one the head of the Government and the other occupying an important Cabinet post—should now give its sanction to a provision under which the Minister can arbitrarily remove from office members of the Judicial Tribunal.

There is no doubt but that that is the intention, according to the White Paper issued by the Minister on the Bill. He describes it as the withdrawal of two lay commissioners from appeal work. If these members of the tribunal have had the tenure to which I have called attention and if that has been solemnly guaranteed by statute and if, under the Constitution, a judge of the High Court cannot be removed from office except for misdemeanour and by virtue of resolutions subsequently passed by the Oireachtas, both Houses finding him guilty of such, how in the name of goodness can the Minister claim that he is entitled to interfere in the way he has done? Let the House note that although the Minister takes care to avoid the phraseology which would indicate directly to an ordinary lay person what he is doing, he does not profess clearly in black and white to be in fact removing these persons from the functions or to be taking upon himself authority to do so, and to be depriving them of the status the House had conferred upon them. He goes a roundabout way in the matter. It is quite definite that the intention is that the Appeal Tribunal should be reduced from three members —which is its present size, and the number of its personnel under existing law—to one individual, the Judicial Commissioner. The fact that it is still to be called the Appeal Tribunal cannot conceal that that is the intention. The Minister gave us no explanation. I think that before this very serious step is taken he ought to acquaint the House with the justification from the legal and constitutional point of view for the action he is now proposing to take. I do not believe that that can be justified. I think that if this question were referred to the courts by the members of the tribunal it would be found that the Minister, in violation of the law and the Constitution, is arbitrarily interfering with their status and tenure and functions. The House should be given an explanation for this very extraordinary departure from normal constitutional practice and from accepting the principle which a democratic Government must accept that persons carrying out judicial functions or persons upon whom such a status is conferred must be absolutely preserved in their right.

It is an extraordinary thing that in this democratic age, in dealing with such an important matter as the land of the country, the Minister can step in in this way. If we admit the right of the Minister to put provisions of this kind through the Oireachtas, interfering in this way with the membership and personnel of the tribunal, there would, I suggest, be nothing to stop a future Minister from taking up the same attitude with regard to other personnel performing other judicial functions. What would our position be if members of the Government were permitted to come along to justices or other judicial persons and inform them that for reasons of economy or because of certain changes in the courts, or because they had decided that the work could be done better in another way, they proposed to terminate their appointments and to reduce their status to a lower level? There is not the slightest doubt but that that step would be declared unconstitutional. I do not know how the Minister has got the law officers of the Government to agree that he could possibly get these proposals through the Oireachtas without experiencing severe criticism and the strongest possible opposition.

I should like the Minister to explain to us the exact position of the persons who are exclusive of the Judicial Commissioner. Are they, when this Bill if it becomes law in its present form is an Act, going to be in the position that they are still members of the tribunal but that they have had their functions removed from them and, if that is so, how can we reconcile it with the provisions of the Constitution and with the terms of the 1933 Act? Or is it that they will be incapable of performing the functions under the Bill—that they will be incapable of performing the functions that have hitherto been theirs? If it is suggested that there is a case—and I suppose the Minister is going to make the case that the new arrangement will be more economic and more effective and point to the fact that in the past the work performed by the Appeal Tribunal since 1933 was carried out by a single individual, the Judicial Commissioner —I should like to point out that there will be, presumably, three commissioners sitting upon the court which will determine questions and give decisions in the first instance which may later be raised on appeal to the tribunal. Is it not reasonable to suggest that it is better, in the interests of the State and in the interests of the national work which the Land Commission is performing, that the Appeal Tribunal should be as strong as it has been in the past? Is it not reasonable to suggest that the judge, who may have a certain experience, undoubtedly, of the work but who is strictly a legal person who will regard the issues that come before him on land from the legal point of view, should have the benefit of the advice of the two lay commissioners of appeal who would have the advantage of being acquainted with the Land Commission work from inside?

These commissioners have had the advantage that, as well as sitting on the Appeal Tribunal, they have from day to day been dealing with the questions of land acquisition. There is no suggestion, of course, that we are dealing with matters that it was arranged would come before them on appeal. The work was arranged so that they would be given a certain amount of the ordinary work of the Land Commission—and they were daily engaged upon that work as well as performing the work of the judicial tribunal. These men had, therefore, a wide knowledge and experience of the Land Commission and its activity and of the general objectives of the Government and the national policy for which all Parties in the country, I think, stand with regard to placing as large a number of families of Irish people on the land as possible.

They could envisage, therefore, the problems before them and, in coming to a decision, they would have in mind not merely the legal issues, important and all as they might be. They should depend upon the Judicial Commissioner, who has special knowledge and experience, paying particular attention to that side of the work and they would see the other issues, such as the problem of the relief of congestion, the burden that would be cast upon the State, the employment likely to be given and the general advantage in other ways to the State of the policy they were pursuing. It would be their duty, I think, while preserving their impartiality as judges in particular cases, to see that that general policy was made effective. Is it suggested that it would not be to the advantage of the Land Commission and its work, to have a tribunal of that character on which you would have members specially qualified, having special experience and special knowledge of all sides of the activities of the Land Commission, to enable them to see what a particular decision or a particular precedent is going to mean perhaps in years to come, upon the work of that body? I suggest that under this Bill it is very likely that very important questions will come before that tribunal. This question of the market price of land is certainly going to mean one thing, whether it be market price or market value. It is well known from past experience that by securing able advocates, a coach-and-four can be driven even through the most carefully drafted land measure. I am quite certain the result of this legislation will be that every owner who thinks he has the slightest grievance and that he is not getting what he considers to be the top market value for his land will appeal. There is a great danger that there will be a regular glut of such appeals if the Government mean to take up land on that basis as the Minister has given us to understand. In the first place it is necessary that the very best possible tribunal should be there to give decisions. It is not merely that there will be plenty of work to be done but that the decisions that will be given and the precedents set up in the initial stages with regard to what is market value will, of course, determine the price that is to be paid in all future transactions.

An Ceann Comhairle

That arose on amendment No. 1.

Mr. Derrig

I am stressing the importance of the Appeals Tribunal and of having a strong tribunal with the best possible personnel so that when these new issues will arise they will not be determined on any strictly narrow legal basis but will be discussed with a full knowledge of what their implications are going to be. We are embarking upon a new orientation in this matter. Even the Minister himself can give no guarantee that it is going to be completely successful. We all hope it will and that it will secure the ends he has in mind, but I suggest that if he is going to ensure that the best results will be obtained from his point of view, he should leave the tribunal as it is.

Mr. Moran

I should like to point out, in support of what Deputy Derrig has stated, that the Judicial Commissioner is only a part-time operator in the court of the Irish Land Commission and the Appeals Tribunal.

Mr. Blowick

The Judicial Commissioner?

Mr. Moran

That is Mr. Justice Maguire. He has to sit practically the whole of his time in the Four Courts. It is proposed under this section to have the Judicial Commissioner alone sitting on those cases and to deprive him of the help he formerly got, and would get if he had two commissioners sitting with him, who were in a position, before the Judicial Commissioner sat at all, to have a knowledge from the court below of the case or cases to be tried by the Judicial Commissioner and in a position to have studied the files and the notes of the evidence given in the court below. I believe that in that way they would save a lot of time because they would be in a position to advise the Judicial Commissioner with whom they sat, as to the net points and the facts of the particular case.

There is another matter which I think should be considered by the House before doing away with this tribunal, as it formerly operated. This is one of the most important, if not the most important, tribunal in this country dealing with the question of land. When an appeal is taken from the lay commissioners who hear these land cases throughout the country, to the Appeals Tribunal over which the Judicial Commissioner presides, there is no further appeal, except on a question of law to the Supreme Court. No matter what grievance a person may have he has no right to go any further than this particular court except there is a net question of law involved. That is a point which the Minister should consider very carefully before he continues on this course. There are questions arising in connection with land, irrespective of how we discuss the matter from the point of view of the relief of congestion, that are very important to landholders. There are, as the House is aware, cases coming before this particular court, day in day out, in which the issue is whether a man is to be left his farm or not, whether the land which he needs to make a livelihood is going to be taken from him or not.

Mr. Blowick

That is not touched by the Appeals Tribunal at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

It has nothing to do with the Appeals Tribunal.

Mr. Moran

With great respect it has. If a case comes before the lay commissioners at a court down the country on the question of the acquisition by the Land Commission and the matter is decided in favour of the Land Commission, if the lay commissioners do anything wrong there is an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal.

Mr. Blowick

There is not. There can be an appeal from the Land Commission Court only on a question of law.

Mr. Moran

What I am saying is that there is an appeal from the lay commissioners to the Appeals Tribunal, which is at present composed of the Judicial Commissioners plus these two commissioners who are being removed under this section. There is no further appeal, as I have stated, in cases of that kind except to the Supreme Court when the appeal can be solely on a question of law. There are many matters connected with the acquisition of land for the purpose of relief of congestion, outside the question of price altogether, that come before this court. To my knowledge there is at least one case from the Minister's own constituency on that very issue pending before that court at the present time. What the Minister is now doing under this section is this. He is weakening that court by removing the two lay commissioners who sat with the Judicial Commissioner and who were in the position, from their experience, of being able to advise the Judicial Commissioner on the matters set out here by Deputy Derrig and the other considerations outside strict questions of law that might affect the people concerned.

Mr. Blowick

That is not so. The Judicial Commissioner is supreme and need not seek the advice of the lay commissioners on a question of law— on price only.

Mr. Moran

They are sitting with him and I would like to know what they are sitting with him for? They are sitting with him under the law as judges and with the status of Circuit Court judges.

Mr. Blowick

But without any voice.

Mr. Moran

They are sitting in an advisory capacity to the Judicial Commissioner.

Mr. Blowick

He need not seek their advice.

Mr. Moran

One must take into consideration the very onerous type of work that is carried out by the lay commissioners and the serious results that decisions of the court may have on the people who seek justice there. Apart from all that, there is the point urged by Deputy Derrig. These men, who have the status of Circuit Court judges under the 1933 Act, are now being removed from the bench because that is, in effect, what this legislation is doing. I believe under this Bill, if the Minister is going to make any drive to acquire land, the work of this particular court will be increased to a very large extent.

If the Minister has not already considered the matter, he should consider this, that the time of the Judicial Commissioner is taken up elsewhere and if he is satisfied that these two men gave good service in that court and would be able to shorten the work of the Judicial Commissioner and put him in a position to arrive at decisions in a more expeditious manner, it would be the height of folly to remove them now. It would mean that the work the Minister suggests will be done under this Bill will be delayed. That aspect must be considered, outside altogether of the question of interfering with these men, who are guaranteed by law the status of Circuit Court judges.

I think this section was drafted too hastily without being duly considered by the Minister's advisers. If the Minister insists on putting this through he will find he will have to come back to the House shortly to change the type of tribunal that he visualises under Section 13.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Derrig sought to give the House the impression that this section will remove the independence that the two tribunal commissioners have held up to this. I gathered that from the Deputy, but perhaps I misunderstood him. Anyway, such is not the case. All this section is doing is that it is merely giving a different type of duty to the commissioners for the future, duty which in my opinion is of a much higher and responsible nature than what they were doing up to this. There is no reduction in status, no reduction in tenure, no reduction in salaries; it is merely giving them freedom to perform a different type of duty from what they were free to do up to this.

The reason this change is being made is that I have full confidence that in the future the Judicial Commissioner will be quite well able—I should say easily able—to handle all the work that will come to the Appeal Tribunal. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that with the change in the method of price fixation for vested land the number of appeals will be remarkably few. I should take this opportunity of saying that I have every confidence in the complete fairness, justice and impartiality of the Judicial Commissioner in the exercise of his functions on the Appeal Tribunal

Section 13 (3) protects and preserves the status and tenure that these commissioners held heretofore. I am afraid Deputy Moran is all mixed up about the different duties. The two appeal tribunal commissioners dare not open a file which may have appealable matter in it. They do not see it and they have no pre-knowledge of the case. I have no doubt that they have lived up to the expectations of their office in not even discussing a case with their colleagues who may have a knowledge of it.

Mr. Moran

I did not suggest any such thing. I know that as regards the matters dealt with by these commissioners they cannot sit on appeal on them. I said that the files in respect of cases coming up from the court below come to them—cases on which they have not sat—and they are entitled to look at them and do look at them in order to know the points made for the purpose of shortening the procedure when they sit.

Mr. Blowick

That is not so.

Mr. Moran

The Minister ought to ask his advisers; obviously he does not know.

Mr. Blowick

That means that they go to the court with a pre-knowledge of the case, a thing which is denied to District Justices, Circuit Court judges, judges of the High Court and of the Supreme Court. Such is not the case. Unless on an appeal on price the two lay commissioners on the appeal tribuanl have no function that I can understand, and I have examined the matter. I will say I have examined it only from the layman's point of view. On all questions outside of price the judicial commissioner is responsible for the decision. In no section or sub-section is the Judicial Commissioner obliged even to seek advice. He may do so for all I know, but I cannot find where he is obliged to seek the advice of the other two commissioners.

The Appeal Tribunal commissioners will be taking part in a much more serious kind of work—that will be the work of the lay commissioners for the future—which is the acquisition of a man's property. That is a very serious matter in itself.

Deputy Moylan was afraid that there was a derogation of status in this section. That is not so. He also mentioned that this tribunal was set up under the 1933 Act. Surely, it is not contended that, when the need for alteration in a particular body occurs, this House cannot undo something that it did before. The salary of the commissioners is untouched and their status is preserved under sub-section (3) of Section 13. Their tenure is not disturbed. It is merely a case of allocating to them a different type of duty, but I would say a more responsible type of duty than they had been carrying out so far. There is nothing to substantiate the arguments of the three Deputies who have spoken in favour of leaving the situation as it is.

My advice to the House is that the Appeal Tribunal, consisting of the Judicial Commissioner, will function perfectly. We anticipate that the number of appeals will become fewer on questions of price. As regards appeals on law, no one can tell what the future may hold. Deputy Moran, I think, said that the position should be left as it is, and made the prophecy that either I or some other Minister might have to come back to the House to reinstate the commissioners. It is quite true that nearly all things are possible, but for the present I am recommending this as the wisest course to the House. I would not be a party to, and would not allow myself to be a party to, casting a slight on honourable men, men who have performed a really good job of work and men who, I want to say, will have a tough job of work to do in a new sphere when this Bill is passed.

Mr. Derrig

I cannot understand how the Minister can contend that there is not a derogation of status and interference with functions when a person who has been given the status and tenure of a judicial personage by Act of Parliament is taken from a superior court of appeal and placed in a lower court. Suppose the Minister were to bring forward a provision whereby a Circuit Court judge was to sit in future in the District Court, even though there was no objection made, and provided he continued to receive his old salary, I wonder what the courts would think about it? Surely, there must be a derogation in status and an interference with the functions of the tribunal if the Minister can remove a judicial personage from a superior court to a lower court. It is contrary to what was laid down in the Act of 1933, and is against the spirit of the Article in the Constitution. There is no suggestion that the Judicial Commissioner will not perform his functions with efficiency, with judgment and in a proper manner. The suggestion is that this proposal is a weakening of the tribunal. Up to this we had three persons on it. One was specially qualified in law, and the other two were specially qualified to determine the ordinary issues that come before a land court from the point of view of national land policy in particular. Deputy Moran has suggested that the judge, before coming to a decision which may have implications for the whole future of land division policy in this country would, if the present system were continued, have the benefit of the advice of two experienced companions sitting with him.

I understand that the Land Commission has not been in the habit of giving evidence when the issue of price comes before the court. Unless the Minister is going to commit himself in the future to paying the full market value in every case to persons from whom land is acquired, I cannot see that there are going to be less appeals than there have been in the past. It is possible that may be the case, but it is also possible that there may be a spate of appeals in the case of persons who feel aggrieved. They may think that they may succeed with their appeals if they get the most competent legal advice and the best assessors, and if they use up the general resistance which seems to have been developing for years past against the operations of the Land Commission and in a general effort to try and curb its work. I think the Minister should reconsider his decision even at this stage.

Mr. Aiken

I do not know whether the Minister has ever studied the genesis of the clause in the 1933 Act which set up an Appeal Tribunal consisting of a Judicial Commissioner and of two lay commissioners to be associated with him. There was a very long debate on that in the Dáil.

There had been for years, particularly in the West of Ireland, grave dissatisfaction regarding the price fixed by the single Judicial Commissioner. Grave criticism was given voice to in the Dáil that lands which should have been taken by the Land Commission were not being taken and that the prices fixed for certain land by the Judicial Commissioner, prior to 1933, were altogether excessive. We all know that the price which the Land Commission had to pay for land was reflected in the past in the rent which the incoming tenant had to pay. I take it that it will be so in the future. No matter what subsidy the State may pay, there will have to be some sort of a relationship between the price which the Land Commission pays and the annuity charged to the allottee. This is an extremely grave matter. If the price to be paid for land by the Land Commission is fixed so high that they cannot afford to take land and redistribute it, that will put an end to all land division, even in proper cases.

I think that the Dáil and the Minister should consider this matter very gravely before they set up a single individual, no matter who he may be, as the sole judge of what the price to be paid for land will be. In 1933 we arrived at this system that we would have a Judicial Commissioner, a judge familiar with the conduct of courts, and that we would associate with him two lay men who would take into consideration not only narrow legalistic considerations but the general policy in regard to the acquisition and distribution of land. Those two men would have a good knowledge of the difficulties under which the Land Commission operate. Not only would they have a good knowledge, but they would have an interest in seeing that the work for which the Land Commission is being maintained would proceed as rapidly as possible. I think it is fair to say that since 1933 the system has worked well. Now the Minister proposes to abolish a system that worked well and to reintroduce a single judge as the arbiter between the Land Commission and the new allottees on the one hand and the owners of the land on the other. I doubt that it will give satisfaction.

We know how the Appeal Tribunal operates. If there is an appeal on the question of price, only the owner whose land is being acquired or resumed and his valuers are heard by the court. That was all very well as long as there were associated with the Judicial Commissioner two lay commissioners who, from their knowledge of the work, had a good idea of the value of land, its value to the Land Commission and to the incoming tenants. The two lay members of the Appeal Tribunal, although they could not handle Land Commission files dealing with cases which were likely to go for appeal beforehand, did handle those files afterwards and were able to see the result of the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, how it worked out with regard to the incoming tenants and how it affected the work of the Land Commission. They acquired knowledge of the work over a number of years. If a new man was appointed he would not be very long handling the ordinary work of the lay commissioners before becoming an expert on this particular question. If we set up again the system of a single Judicial Commissioner, which was subject to such criticism in the past, it must necessarily, I think, be followed by a complete new procedure in the court of the Judicial Commissioner which is still going to be called an Appeal Tribunal although composed of only a single person.

The Land Commission cannot possibly allow a question as to the price of land to be decided by a Judicial Commissioner who is not familiar with the inside working of the Land Commission purely on the evidence given by the person from whom the land is being taken and his valuers. The Land Commission will have to bring up their own field people to give evidence as to their idea of the value of the land as against the value placed on it by the owner. If they do not, the Judicial Commissioner will naturally be very much swayed by the evidence put forward by the owner of the land. We do not object to an owner thinking that his land is very valuable, but, certainly, if we are to give the market value of the land on the owner's valuation, it will be a fairly high price. The Land Commission cannot possibly allow the owner's valuation to be put forward without giving their idea as to what the value of the land to be acquired is. That is going to take a long time and, instead of speeding up the work of the Land Commission, it will add very considerably to the delay in the process of acquiring land.

Mr. Sweetman

On the contrary, because if you get the chance of hearing the other side's case in open court, you only have to deal with essentials yourself and have not to deal with problematical facts as you have at present.

Mr. de Valera

I think they would have done that already, if that was so.

Mr. Sweetman

No.

Mr. de Valera

Why?

Mr. Sweetman

Because the Deputy when Leader of the Government would not allow the Land Commission to put their cards on the table.

Mr. de Valera

We had nothing to do with that.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Moylan and I argued this before in the Seanad.

Mr. Aiken

It is to be hoped that we shall hear Deputy Sweetman's words of wisdom on this matter. It certainly seems to me, however, that it will delay matters very considerably. If the Land Commission are compelled, because of the absence of any knowledge on the part of the tribunal as to the inside working of the Land Commission or how the price of land affects their operation, to give evidence before the Judicial Commissioner it will take very much longer. I appeal to the Minister to drop this particular part of the Bill. The system which we have of a Judicial Commissioner associated with two lay commissioners has given satisfaction to the people of the country as a whole. There were, of course, certain people who were not pleased with the price they got, but I think that the people living near a farm which was not being properly worked were reasonably satisfied with the price at which the land was offered to them when taken over by the Land Commission. No matter what judge we get to operate this price fixing function, I do not believe he will give satisfaction either to the people from whom the land is being taken or the people to whom the land is being given. It is of the utmost importance that the Land Commission, in carrying out their work, should have the confidence of the people. A very important function has been given to the Land Commission. We want to see them, in proper cases, proceed to take land which is not being properly worked and give it to people who will work it. If that is to be done satisfactorily, it must have the support of the people and, in order to have that support, it is necessary that the Appeal Tribunal should be one that will give general satisfaction and one in which the people as a whole will have confidence.

Mr. Kissane

The Minister has stated that Section 13 is not an interference with the status or tenure of the two lay commissioners; he says further that it is not an interference with their conditions of appointment. If that is so where then is the necessity for this section at all? Can the Minister answer that?

Mr. Blowick

That cock will not fight.

Mr. Sweetman

We are not as simple as all that.

Mr. Kissane

The Minister has brought in a section to deal with the two lay commissioners. It is hardly likely that the draftsman was asked to insert that section into the Bill without having any reason behind it or unless it was designed to interfere with the status of these two lay commissioners.

Mr. Blowick

If that is so, why, then, have sub-section (3) of Section 13?

Mr. Kissane

No matter what the Minister says it is quite clear to me that a definite step is being taken to reduce the status of the two lay commissioners. For what purpose I am not in a position to say.

Mr. Blowick

Perhaps the Deputy would tell us how it is being reduced?

Mr. Kissane

I think this is definitely a retrograde step and it is one which should not be taken by the Minister. The Minister has been asked to withdraw the section and I think he would be well advised in doing so. He has stated that the Judicial Commissioner need not take any advice from the lay commissioners. I think that is a meaningless statement. He might as well say that anybody acting in authority need not take advice from anybody else. These two lay commissioners are men of experience, apart altogether from their qualifications, and I do not think it will serve any useful purpose to take them away from the duties they have been performing for a number of years. If the Minister is such a firm believer in the administration of one judicial person, then the same theory could be extended to the Supreme Court, where there are actually five judges.

Mr. Blowick

You are going very far afield now.

Mr. Kissane

It is the same principle. I hold that dealings with land and the acquisition of land is as important, if not more important, than cases that might come before the Supreme Court. People who own land and from whom land may be acquired would like to have every assurance possible that their land will not be lightly taken from them or taken without having all the surrounding circumstances fully examined.

Mr. Blowick

That is fair. That is what I have always said.

Mr. Kissane

The Minister has stated he does not anticipate there will be many appeals after the passage of this Bill. I do not know on what the Minister bases his expectations in that regard. It is quite possible that there will be more appeals. If, as the Minister says, he is setting out to acquire land quickly for the relief of congestion is it not natural to expect that there will be even more appeals and more work for the Appeal Tribunal?

Mr. Blowick

Not when a fair price is being given.

Mr. Kissane

But who is to be the judge? The Minister speaks about a fair price. Who is to be the judge of that fair price in the long run? Must not the Appeal Tribunal be the judges of a fair price in the end?

Mr. Blowick

Only in case of dispute.

Mr. Kissane

If there was no dispute there would be nothing more to be said about it. Everything would be grand. But I can assure the Minister that any transactions in connection with land are more than likely to give rise to dispute. I would ask the Minister to answer my question. If there is to be no derogation of the status of these two lay commissioners and no interference with their tenure of office why is the section there at all? I think the Minister should listen to the advice given to him and let well alone. He should permit the machine that has worked well over a number of years to continue to do the job.

Mr. Moran

Evidently the Minister misunderstood what I said. I am sure he is not as familiar as I am with the workings of the Appeal Tribunal. What I stated earlier here is quite true. The Appeal Tribunal does in certain cases determine whether or not a man's land will be taken from him. In the ordinary course of events the Land Commission furnish a notice in Iris Oifigiúil. Notice is also served on the owner and the petition presented by him comes in the ordinary course of events before the lay commissioners. If the lay commissioners decide against him he may on a question of law, apart altogether from the question of price, appeal to the Appeal Tribunal and that tribunal is the body which will ultimately decide whether that man is to be put out of his farm or whether he will remain in it. It is after that decision has been taken that the question of compensation arises. The Minister may say with a certain amount of justification that questions of law are determined solely by the Judicial Commissioners. That is so, but the Judicial Commissioners can only determine questions of law on facts.

Mr. Blowick

Surely the Judicial Commissioner is well able to extract those for himself?

Mr. Moran

It is for the Judicial Commissioner to decide the question of law, but he cannot do that until the facts are ascertained and in order to get the facts he needs the assistance of the two lay commissioners.

Mr. Blowick

Surely he can ascertain the facts just as well as the lay commissioners.

Mr. Moran

I am not suggesting that he cannot or that he will not be able to ascertain the facts. What I do suggest is that the lay commissioners are experienced and their advice as to conditions prevailing in particular districts may be of considerable assistance to the Judicial Commissioner. I suggest that they have been, are and will be of immense value and assistance to the Judicial Commissioner. It might be suggested that the question of price will always be a question of law, and presumably the question of price will be a question of law under this Bill. The Minister himself admitted earlier that the question of price will vary from area to area, from county to county and, in many cases, from parish to parish. When the question of price comes before the Appeal Tribunal the Judicial Commissioner has the assistance of these lay commissioners who would be and have been, I am sure, very familiar with the different parts of the country. Their assistance on these matters would also be very useful to the Judicial Commissioner before making up his mind as to what the expression "market value" might mean and which this House has refused to define. I would again impress on the Minister that this is the last court for the farmer whose land is being taken from him. I want to get into the Minister's head the point that, irrespective of the question of getting the land, there is the question of the individual from whom the land is being taken—and this is his last court. He is finished when he comes before the Appeal Tribunal as it is at present constituted, except on a very net point of law. That being so, I think the Minister should consider this court, with its grave responsibilities, as carrying out as important a function or possibly a more important function in respect of the vital issues involved— the vital property rights involved—than any other court in the land. For these reasons I think the Minister should reconsider the suggestions put up to him by this side of the House.

Mr. Commons

I think that the Minister, in having this section in the Bill, is basing his whole argument in having it inserted on the fact that because the Land Commission will decide in the future to give a better price for land there will be less dissatisfaction amongst landowners from whom land will be taken and therefore less work to be done by commissioners of any kind. When a person's land is being acquired because it has not been properly worked, and is going to be given to somebody who will work it, the person in question has, first, the concession of having the annuity redeemed for him that he had not before, thereby putting more money in his pocket and, secondly, he gets the market value of the land, that is, a reasonable price for land sold in the locality. Such landowners will in many cases be quite satisfied with this procedure and consequently there will be less appeals to the Appeal Tribunal and less cases to be decided by that body. Therefore I think the Minister, in having this section inserted, is doing something which will speed up rather than retard the progress of the Land Commission.

Everybody in this House is acquainted with the views which I hold in regard to the system of acquisition and division of land and in regard to the slowness with which that is at present carried out. Members of this House must be aware that I blame, and have blamed time and time again, the commissioners of the Land Commission, both lay and judicial, because of that slowness and because they will not come to a decision. I feel they have failed in their duty in that respect and that a period of from 20 to 25 years without coming to a decision is much too long for any group of men in Government employment or for any group of men put there by a democratic Government.

Mr. de Valera

Can the Deputy substantiate these statements?

Mr. Commons

I can prove that an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal which was lodged in 1931 is still undecided.

Mr. de Valera

By the Appeal Tribunal? I should like to see it.

Mr. Commons

The Deputy can have the particulars. The Minister is aware of the case. These are the matters the Minister wishes to speed up and these are the matters that can be speeded up, not by removing the two lay commissioners from the Appeal Tribunal, but by giving a better and a more satisfactory price for the land. In that way you will satisfy the people. Of course, there will be a certain number of appeals to the Appeal Tribunal and I agree with Deputy Moran that such appeals will be brought where landowners will, on a question of law, appeal against having their land taken over by the Land Commission. That has happened before. It is happening at the moment and I suppose it may happen in the future. There are so many loopholes in land legislation that it will be possible to delay a case by bringing it before the Appeal Tribunal.

The question now arises in relation to the Judicial Commissioner, who is a judge of the courts, as to whether he is able on his own to settle those appeals without the help of the lay commissioners. Different arguments can be adduced with regard to that matter. It might be wise to have lay commissioners, who have tried the case in their own tribunal down the country, there to advise him. On the other hand, it might be wise not to have the advice of the lay commissioners or to have them there at all. But the Judicial Commissioner in this case has to act for the Land Commission; and the officials of the Land Commission will be there giving evidence as to why the land is being taken and as to why such and such a price is sufficient. On the other hand, the owner, in the first instance, will appeal against the land being taken over and, secondly, that the price is not sufficient. I think the Judicial Commissioner should be well able to give a decision.

Personally, I believe that any senior official of the Land Commission—the secretary, the chief inspector or any of the senior officials—could give a decision just as satisfactorily and just as well as a Judicial Commissioner. But that, seemingly, does not satisfy the people and does not satisfy the members of this House, who have decided that they will support the Government and the Parties who have introduced this legislation here to appoint an Appeal Tribunal. It is, perhaps, just and equitable to have an Appeal Tribunal but I must say that I believe that where you will have less appeals, because of a more satisfactory price, you will have less work for commissioners of any kind and it should be quite within the powers of any single commissioner to do it.

Deputy Moylan pointed out that last year there were five times the number of appeals and yet only 8,000 acres of land were acquired. The reason for that is quite simple. It is because the Land Commission decided that the five, six or three and four acres in a congested area deserved more immediate attention than the 500, 600 and 700 acres in other counties. That is the reason why there were five times the number of appeals and very little land taken over.

I have been through an ordinary Land Commission court where, I think, there were 26 appeals against the resumption or acquisition of approximately 108 acres of land—whereas, with one single appeal five times that amount could be taken over. However, that is beside the point. That argument is no point as to why the Land Commission and the Appeal Tribunal had so many appeals last year and so little land taken over.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again.