Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 1954

Vol. 146 No. 9

Land Bill, 1954—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

This short Bill deals with one matter only, namely, the retiring age of lay commissioners of the Land Commission.

As Deputies probably know, the Land Commission consists of a Judicial Commissioner, who is a judge of the High Court, and four lay commissioners. Until the passing of the Land Act, 1950, lay commissioners had lifetenure. By Section 15 of the 1950 Act, it was enacted that lay commissioners subsequently appointed would cease to hold office at the age of 65 years. By Section 16 of the 1950 Act, the retiring age of the lay commissioners who were then serving and who enjoyed life-tenure was fixed at the age of 72. Two lay commissioners have been appointed since the 1950 Act was passed. Neither of them has yet retired.

Section 1 of the present Bill proposes to amend Section 15 of the Land Act, 1950, by permitting lay commissioners appointed after the passing of the 1950 Act to continue in office until they reach the age of 67 years, that is, for an additional period of two years beyond the age-limit of 65 prescribed by the 1950 Act.

Under the Land Acts, the lay commissioners are charged with important functions affecting the ownership, user, acquisition and resumption of agricultural land throughout the State. Over a wide range of matters within the field of land tenure, the jurisdiction of lay commissioners is independent and final, subject only to the right of appeal to the Appeal Tribunal and the Supreme Court, mainly on questions of law and price. The office of lay commissioner is thus a very important one. It is analogous in some respects to the judicial office and calls for similar qualities—in particular, ripe experience and sound judgment.

When the 1950 Act was being debated, different views were expressed on the wisdom of imposing a rigid age-limit of 65 years on future lay commissioners. As a possible alternative some Deputies suggested that lay commissioners should continue in office until the age of 70. It was suggested by other Deputies that future lay commissioners ought to be permitted to continue in office from year to year, between the ages of 65 and 70, subject to the Minister being satisfied on the question of their fitness and suitability.

I feel certain that a system of annual extensions from the age of 65 onwards, would prove inadvisable and unsatisfactory, as it would tend to undermine the independence of the lay commissioners, which, on account of its fundamental importance, the statutes have gone to great pains to establish. On the other hand, there was clear need in 1950 to get away from the unsatisfactory position of life-tenure which had prevailed up to then.

It seemed appropriate in 1950 to apply the normal Civil Service retiring age of 65 to lay commissioners, but in the light of further experience, it is now considered that the best solution would be a midway point between the ages of 65 and 70 years. Hence the proposed new age-limit of 67 set out in Section 1 of the Bill.

The remaining section of the Bill contains the usual legal provisions to be found in every Land Act.

I feel that this short Bill should give general satisfaction and I commend it to the House and as the enactment of this Bill is a matter of urgency I would ask the House to be good enough to give me all stages of the Bill to-day.

Mr. Derrig

In general, the view of the Fianna Fáil Party is that when legislation is passed by this House and the Oireachtas fixing age limits for important public offices like those of the lay commissioners in the Land Commission, the principle of the legislation should not be departed from, nor should it be amended without exceptional cause, and many would consider that grave reasons should really be given before an amendment is sought. An obvious reason for that is that there are so many officers in the public service who feel that in some way or another this matter of fixing age limits even for exceptional cases has reactions upon their positions and perhaps awakens hopes which unfortunately are not fulfilled. As the Minister has pointed out the legislation which is now proposed amends the 1950 Land Act. There has been, as he suggests, a certain amount of experience in the meantime but I do not think sufficient to overcome the feeling that Deputies may naturally have that there is a lack of consistency and a failure to adhere to what seemed to be a definite principle established in that Act. When the Act in question was before the Dáil it was argued from this side of the House that it would be more appropriate that the age limit for retirement of lay commissioners should be fixed at 70 rather than 65. It was pointed out, exactly as the Minister has mentioned in his statement on the Second Reading of this amending Bill, that the lay commissioners discharge judicial functions of a special type and they have very serious and wide responsibilities entrusted to them under the Land Acts. As he also mentioned, their tenure and status have been recognised up to the 1950 Act at any rate, as analogous to those of the judiciary itself, and I think that is mainly the position still, that the special position of the lay commissioners and the fact that that position is recognised and stated in the statutes entitles them to a certain amount of special consideration.

There is no doubt but that the functions they discharge as well as being very important are of a judicial character. If the Minister now desires to amend the 1950 Act for reasons which seem to him to be sound and sufficient and to extend the age limit, one is naturally tempted to ask whether it is really worth while introducing an amendment of the Act merely for the purpose of adding another two years to the present retiral age of 65 making it 67. The Minister says in his statement that it is in the light of further experience that it is now considered that the best solution would be a midway point between the ages of 65 and 70 and hence the proposed new age of 67. Perhaps 68 would be equally a midway point if we do not want to have this period of five years mathematically halved. But it is a new principle. One can understand, as was stated on the 1950 Act, those who believe and put forward the case that lay commissioners should retire at 65 like civil servants. One can understand also— and it is the position I would take up —that lay commissioners have duties and responsibilities analogous to the judiciary and, therefore, the argument about civil servants retiring at 65 should not apply. Rather, if judges are kept on until 72, and if up to 1950 in fact all those commissioners had the same tenure and status as Circuit Court judges, it could be argued—I think reasonably—that if we were altering the 65 age limit we might as well bring it to 70, if the commissioners are able to carry out their duties satisfactorily. I think there would certainly be a case for leaving them in their posts until 70. It is true there is an objection to keeping them on from year to year by the consent of the Minister but it should be possible, I think, where the officers in question are able to carry out their duties satisfactorily and where they have done so in the past.

In my experience the three commissioners who were there during my period of office and who carried on the work which would normally be done by four commissioners are entitled to the thanks of the country for having worked so harmoniously as a team and given such good results. I think that it is certainly to the advantage of the nation, and for the betterment of the work of the commission, that when you have a team that are giving satisfaction and carrying out their work, as far as I know in a way that has evoked more or less general approval, they should be kept on and the benefit of that experience and special knowledge to which the Minister has referred be taken advantage of, in the national interest.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Deputy Derring mentioned that the work of the commissioners has always met with general approval. That is not the opinion I have formed nor is that the general impression amongst people throughout the country. Instead of the Minister bringing in a measure regarding the age limit of these gentlemen, I would much prefer to see him bringing in a measure curtailing their powers. If the Minister were asked a question in this House dealing with the work of these commissioners, he would tell the House that he has no function, that these people are an independent body, somewhat similar to the judiciary and thus he is able to disown any responsibility for their activities. It may be said that they can be classified as judges but we must bear in mind the fact that these commissioners are not appointed for their integrity nor for their capabilities in any way other than in one direction. The main qualification you must have in this country to be appointed a lay commissioner by the Department of Lands and the Government is a political qualification. I maintain and I believe I can do so without fear of contradiction although I dislike commenting adversely on any of our higher officials, that every commissioner has been appointed as a result of such qualifications.

An Ceann Comhairle

The method of appointment of the commissioners does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am only availing of this opportunity to express that view.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can only avail of the opportunity to express views relevant to the Bill before the House and the alleged method by which commissioners are appointed is not relevant.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

With all due respect to you, Sir, I am relating my views to the measure before the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am the judge in that matter, and I am advising the Deputy he is not.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am commenting on statements made by Deputy Derrig which, apparently, were entirely in order. Deputy Derrig stated that the work of these gentlemen met with the general approval of the people of the country. I say that they should be regarded as a body of dictators who already have too much power, and that their functions should be curtailed.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has already said that.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The reason I have to repeat it is to answer your objections.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will keep within the four corners of the measure. He may not criticise the activities of the commissioners in respect to their duties. He may criticise them in respect to the measure before the House, that is, in respect to the proposal to extend the age of retirement.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

While I know that the scope of the measure is very narrow, I am not perturbed about the ages of these people. What I am perturbed about, and what I believe I am entitled to express, is the view that these commissioners are not giving the satisfaction they should to the people. Is there any Deputy in this House who ever had occasion to seek information from the Department of Lands or the Land Commission who was able to get it? I believe there is not. Less satisfaction is given by the Land Commission in that regard than by any other Department in this country. In making that statement, I must express my appreciation of the help and assistance given to all Deputies by every other Department. No matter what Department a Deputy rings up, he usually gets whatever information he requires with very little difficulty. These other Departments are most helpful but so far as the Land Commission and the lay commissioners are concerned, there is no hope of getting information, mainly due to the fact that these lay commissioners tell the office boys: "Give these Deputies or the people generally no information."

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will come——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I have concluded.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister concluded his statement by saying that this is a matter of some urgency. I am sure that the people of Mayo and the congested areas in the West will be glad to note the feeling of urgency that the Minister entertains towards improving the conditions of civil servants and I am sure that they will expect that equal haste will be shown in improving the conditions under which they are expected to live at the present time. This, to my mind, is a piece of thoughtless and haphazard legislation. Why the age of 67 was selected is beyond me. On the one hand, we have the statement that the function carried out by the lay commissioners is similar to that carried out by Circuit Court judges. If that is the case why are they not given the same age limit as Circuit Court judges? If, on the other hand, we can describe their duties as similar to those of higher civil servants, why not appoint the same age limit for retiral purposes as that of higher civil servants?

We have now a new breed established that is neither Civil Service nor judiciary. A new type of legislation is brought in here that suggests that the man who is dealing with one of the most important aspects of our community and our welfare, namely, the land, should retire at the age of 67. I do not propose to follow on the lines adopted by Deputy Murphy. I merely wish to say this. I am casting no aspersions whatever on individual lay commissioners. These men carry out Government policy, and it is no mystery to me why we have at the present time so much dissatisfaction amongst the people in the rural areas, with special reference to the West of Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle

This measure does not afford an opportunity to criticise the merits or otherwise of commissioners. It contains only one proposal, that is, to extend the retiring age.

Mr. McQuillan

Am I not entitled to give my reasons as to why I do not believe the age limit should be extended?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, but the Deputy is proceeding to discuss also the activities of the commissioners.

Mr. McQuillan

I have to give the reasons as to why I think the present commissioners' lifetime should not be extended.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is endeavouring to secure an opportunity to discuss the alleged irregularities and activities of the Land Commission. That cannot be discussed on this measure. There is only one question before the House—whether the retiring age should be extended.

Mr. McQuillan

I know that the Minister is going to shelter behind this. If we are going to extend the age limit of the lay commissioners, surely I am entitled, as a Deputy, to express my reasons on behalf of the people who sent me here as to why I think the age limit should not be extended.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not limiting the Deputy, but I am limiting the debate to what is in the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

The present Minister when he was elected gave me the impression at any rate that he was going to come into this House straight away like a rip-roaring revolutionary and that one of his first acts in this House would be to put an end to the activities of these lay commissioners or else galvanise them into action.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise. The Deputy will come to the measure or resume his seat. The Deputy is endeavouring by every artifice to discuss the activities or inactivities of the commissioners and the Chair will not allow that on this measure.

Mr. McQuillan

I merely wish to state that I am surprised that the first measure which comes before the House from the Minister is one that deals with the officials of his Department and not one that deals with the very important problem for which he has been selected as Minister, namely, the relief of congestion and the methods by which that most deplorable state of affairs can be remedied. I am not going to cross swords with you on your ruling, Sir, but I want to say that I am not satisfied that this is good legislation, apart altogether from my views on the policy or the powers of the commissioners.

I think the Minister has not satisfied the House by the reasons he has given that 67 should be the age decided upon. How do we know whether in 12 or 18 months' time we will not be confronted again with more urgent legislation on similar lines? Where are we to take a stand on the question of age? I have heard members of the Labour Party and read speeches of members outside advocating early retirement, and one of the first acts of this Government is to prolong the retiring age of a section of civil servants. We must stand on our two feet on the issue. If Deputy Murphy and other Deputies feel inclined to support me in this, I suggest that we should not allow this Bill to pass the Second Reading.

Mr. Blowick

There has not been any real argument raised against the proposals contained in this Bill. Deputies should bear in mind that the lay commissioners are in a different position from civil servants. In the case of civil servants, the Government can extend the age of retirement either because they do not wish to lose the experience of a particularly good civil servant in a particular Department or on compassionate grounds. That is done sometimes, but it does not occur very often. The commissioners are not in that category and the purpose of the Bill is to extend the retiring age a little bit. Up to the time I introduced the 1950 Bill, the commissioners had the same tenure as High Court judges, namely, for life. It was felt that they should not have a life tenure.

Mr. J. Lynch

They have not a life tenure.

Mr. Blowick

Up to some time back they had; they have not now. The age of 70 was fixed for judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Circuit Court, but that was due to fairly recent legislation. It is felt that we would be losing valuable experience by adhering to the terms of the 1950 Act, namely, 65 years. Deputy McQuillan suggests that the House should take a firm stand somewhere in regard to this. That is what the House is for. If previous legislation has been found to be faulty or if it is felt that it needs amendment, what we are here for is to amend such legislation. That is what I am doing.

While a life tenure, which was the case before the 1950 Act, was felt to be too long, the 1950 Act has been felt to go too far in the other direction. All I am asking is that the retiring age for the lay commissioners should now be fixed at 67. That is not saying that some future Minister may not come in here and say that the age of 70 or 75 should be the age in future, or put it back to 60. If, in the opinion of the Government, that would be a wise step to take, let the Minister come in and give his reasons, as I have done to-day. I want to assure Deputies who may have any qualms of conscience on the subject that this is a necessary step.

Mr. de Valera

Is the Minister fixed definitely on the figure of 67, which is apparently a compromise suggested? It was suggested that the age should be assimilated to that of judges.

Mr. Blowick

I should like to consider that. At the moment I am suggesting 67.

Mr. de Valera

Could we have it considered on the Committee Stage?

Mr. Blowick

I should like to get all stages to-day.

Mr. de Valera

It is a bad thing to be introducing these intermediary stages.

Mr. Blowick

It is not the most desirable thing, but in the present circumstances it is reasonable.

Question put and declared carried, Deputy McQuillan dissenting.

An Ceann Comhairle

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

Mr. Blowick

I should like the House to give me the Committee Stage now.

Agreed to take the Committee and remaining Stages now.

SECTION 1.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. de Valera

Is there any chance that the Minister would consult his colleagues and see whether 67 is a compromise? It seems a bad compromise.

Mr. Blowick

I have given a good deal of consideration to that particular point and I would not like to agree to 70 at the moment. Perhaps in the light of a year's or two years' experience it might be considered. In the case of the lay commissioners, who have acquired the experience over the years that some commissioners have— all of them have at present with the exception of one—I would not like to lose that experience. It would be a definite loss to the Department. The Minister has not the power, nor would I like to see any Minister getting the power, of giving year to year extensions such as is applicable to civil servants, but in the course of time I will consider a further extension, provided I find that it is the best course to take.

Mr. de Valera

This matter came up for consideration by us and we decided not to change the decision that had been taken by this House after such a short period, that is to keep to the 65 age limit which is the limit for civil servants generally. If it is proposed to depart from that, it seems to us that the figure to take would be 70, which is the age for the retirement of judges. The lay commissioners are assimilated in their position to that of judges. It seems to me that if you are changing from 65, the obvious change to make would be to 70. It looks too much like passing legislation for individual cases and, if you start that, you will have a whole series of them. It would be very much better to have certain limits which are understood, such as 65 for civil servants. In this case the lay commissioners, being regarded as functioning as judges, should have the age fixed at 70. I am surprised that the Minister chose that sort of compromise.

Mr. Blowick

I want to assure the Deputy that it is not a compromise. My attitude could be more correctly described as stepping carefully in the matter, because it should be borne in mind that two of the existing commissioners can stay on until the age of 70 under the 1950 Act.

Mr. de Valera

They are not affected at all. At the moment there is only one individual affected.

Mr. McQuillan

On Section 1, if the Minister's argument that the duties of these commissioners are similar to the functions carried out by Circuit Court judges is pursued to its logical conclusion, are we not entitled to suggest that these commissioners deal solely with land problems whereas the duties that fall upon Circuit Court judges are wide and varied in character? From that point of view, there can be no argument that there is a similarity in functions. The lay commissioner is dealing with the same problems day after day and his field of activity is limited in comparison with that of a Circuit Court judge who has to deal with a tremendous number of different types of cases. The type of experience, therefore, necessary for a Circuit Court judge is very different from that necessary for a lay commissioner. I see no reason why 70 years should not be a suitable retiral age for a Circuit Court judge; but the same argument cannot be advanced in favour of the lay commissioners.

I understand that power lies with the Government to extend the period from 65 years in the case of higher civil servants, but the Minister is not anxious to take on similar power in relation to the lay commissioners. I think the Minister is right in that, but unless the Minister is himself anxious to facilitate certain individuals, I cannot follow his line of argument that we should pin down the age of 67 as a suitable retiring age at the present time. Why not take the age of 65 years and, at a later stage, possibly two years hence, let the whole matter be discussed generally here on the basis as to whether 65 or 70 is the suitable age?

The commissioners will now be put on the same basis as the higher civil servants or on the basis of the Circuit Court judges. The explanations given by the Minister appear to me to be very weak, indeed, in his endeavour to convince the House as to the urgency of this particular matter. If he intends to talk about urgency, he will have to give more concrete reasons for rushing this Bill through and asking the House for all stages of the Bill to-day.

I am sure the Minister is as anxious as every other Deputy here to get on with the problems facing his Department. I presume he wants to have at his disposal the services of particular individuals. If that is the case, why does he not say so? As far as I am concerned, I do not want to obstruct the Minister if his aim is to ensure that the services of men of wide experience will be at his disposal in the tremendous drive he intends to put under way for the relief of congestion and so forth.

I want to point out once more that the argument advanced, and I have heard it on both sides of this House, that the duties performed by the lay commissioners are comparable to the work and duties of Circuit Court judges does not hold water. If a commissioner is appointed to deal with the question of the acquisition of land, there is not a Deputy here who would have to think twice about the decision to be given. If a man has to be 30 years a lay commissioner before he is sufficiently experienced to know whether or not 5,000 acres of land belonging to Colonel So-and-so should be acquired for the relief of congestion, then I am not in favour of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 and the Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.

An Ceann Comhairle

Seanad Éireann will be notified accordingly.