Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1963

Vol. 206 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Land Bill, 1963—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed : "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

When I moved the adjournment of the debate, I was dealing with certain aspects of the discussion on this Bill. In the main, Deputies coming from the west of Ireland, and irrespective of Party, and who understood the problem involved here, have welcomed the Bill and welcomed the approach made to the problem in this Bill. We should go ahead with the new schemes now proposed and see how they work. Although some Deputies have suggested that other measures might be taken, we do not want a whole flood of new schemes which possibly would interfere with one another and perhaps upset the market for land.

There are some matters about which Deputies expressed misgivings— the definition of congested areas, the new powers for senior inspectors, rural houses, non-nationals' purchases, and the making of any limit on the size of the holdings. I will now deal with items which cause difficulty in the sequence in which they occur in the Bill and thereafter I will deal with those items which Deputies complained should be in the Bill and are not in the Bill. From the discussions on the Bill, there appears to me to be a considerable amount of misunderstanding amongst Deputies generally as to what the land law is and what my powers are, as Minister, in directing policy. There are many matters which can be achieved by a policy directive without legislation and under the existing law. Indeed, some 12 months ago I did direct as a matter of policy that the Land Commission should take the new family-sized holding of 40 to 45 acres as the aim they should try to achieve. In schemes awaiting division and where people were waiting allotments of land, if these had not been finalised by the Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission before that directive, the inspectorate were ordered to resubmit these schemes to conform with the new concept laid down by me of the family holding of 40 to 45 acres.

I am giving that as an instance of what can be done by policy directive without coming to this House. I also ordered as a policy directive that the inspectorate should start to establish a register of lands throughout the length and breadth of the country which had been let for a period of five years. The idea was that where these lands had been let and where the owners were absent, they would get notice from the Land Commission, once these holdings were on the register, and the Land Commission would offer to purchase these lands and find out the intention of these people, whether they were going to come back and reside on the lands and work them, and if not, the powers that now exist for the compulsory acquisition of these vacant holdings would be used by the Land Commission.

These directives were put into force over the past year as a matter of policy. Matters such as the type of Land Commission house can be prescribed as a matter of policy. In cases where it was not necessary to wait for this Bill, we went ahead with the new concept of a family farm which we are endeavouring to achieve and which we are laying down as what should be in the minds of the Land Commission inspectorate for ultimate achievement in the resettlement of our land pattern.

Some complaints were made by some Deputies that people had "jumped the gun" and that I had been unwise in publicising my intentions in connection with the Bill some 18 months or two years ago. Let me say that I did that very deliberately. Some Deputies were complaining about what are alleged to be revolutionary provisions in this Bill. I thought it was fair to give due notice of what was the intention as far as policy is concerned and in addition, I wanted to let the people throughout the country and in rural organisations know what I intended. Indeed I recollect on one occasion appealing to Deputies to have the fullest discussions on these proposals which I intended to introduce.

I realise that I am adopting a very serious change in the Land Commission's approach to this national problem and asking for very definite powers to try to make some impact on this problem in this day and age and to provide a modern machine for the Land Commission for the intake of land that will meet present requirements. I felt that it was necessary that these proposed powers should be widely discussed if our people were to understand them and if Deputies in rural organisations were to understand them. I realised, too, that it would be necessary, also, to have widespread co-operation with the aims of the proposed legislation which it was my intention to introduce. Let me say that I believe that, in the main, in so far as lands were transferred because of my statements, it was a good thing nationally. In a number of these cases, people who had gone away from this country for many years, who were in America, Canada or England, and who had no intention of returning, transferred land to relatives and the lands are now in production. It is true, as a number of Deputies have said, that a number of people did jump the gun in anticipation of this Bill but let me assure the House that with the new powers I am seeking, it will be possible for the Land Commission, where the case justifies it, to move in and acquire many of the lands so transferred in order to defeat the intentions expressed in this Bill.

There has been, I am very gratified to hear, over the past fortnight intense interest in the provisions of this Bill as expressed by practically every Deputy who spoke. Indeed, as long as I have been a member of this House I do not recollect any Bill that seemed to arouse more interest amongst such a large number of Deputies. I welcome that; that is what I desire. I hope that before Committee Stage and indeed by tonight, all the Deputies who expressed genuine fears through misunderstanding or otherwise of the provisions of this Bill will have them allayed by me and I will point out the necessity for having the powers which I propose to take here. I am not, as those who have known me over many years will agree, without a knowledge of these matters in the west of Ireland, indeed for half my lifetime which I have spent in this House.

I am quite satisfied that the powers sought here are not only necessary but are absolutely essential if we are to make any impression on holding our population in rural Ireland: otherwise, we can let emigration and the other forces depopulate our country. I shall come to these aspects of the arguments made by some Deputies on a later stage of the provisions of this Bill.

Some Deputies taunt me cynically with being a westerner bringing in a western Bill for the sole benefit of the west of Ireland. I think there was such comment by Deputy Rooney in particular, Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary) and others who have not a clue about this problem. Let me refer to the Schedule to this Bill which is taken from the definition of "congested area" in the Land Act, 1909. It refers to Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, portion of County Clare comprising the former rural districts of Ballyvaughan, Ennistymon, Kilrush, Scariff, Tulla and Kildysart and the portion of West Cork comprising the former rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull and Skibbereen. That was the definition of "congested area" as set out in the Land Act, 1909. The authors of that Act could no doubt be accused by the Deputies Rooney and P. Hogan (South Tipperary) and others of that day of acting solely out of self-interest.

Let me point out that the old Congested Districts Board was set up and provided with funds to deal with the counties I have included in this Bill— the congested areas. Furthermore, the first duty of the Irish Land Commission in its charter is to deal with congested areas, the national congestion problem—and that problem exists in those counties. It is quite true for Deputies to say that there is an historical background to all this.

I know the difficulties I am facing as Minister for Lands in introducing this legislation but in so far as I am privileged, and the other Deputies serving in this House at this time, to undo the work of Cromwell we shall endeavour to make the best job of it we can and that is the purpose of this Bill.

Mr. Donnellan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Moran

This nation has inherited these intensely congested areas for the historical reasons already referred to by other Deputies. This Schedule is not invented by me, as a Mayo Minister for Lands. It is a Schedule which was laid down in the Land Acts all over these years and it was taken directly from the definition of "congested area" in the 1909 Land Act.

Several Deputies have complained that congested areas other than those areas on the western seaboard have been omitted from the Schedule. Of course, that is true. Some Deputies have failed to appreciate the first implications of section 4 (1) (b) and my earlier explanation. Wherever, in the north, south, east or west there is an area in which the existing conditions are comparable to the conditions found in a western congested area I shall be seriously prepared to consider making an order which will have the effect of putting the congests in that area on an equal footing with those already covered in the Schedule to this Bill.

It will readily be acknowledged that the western seaboard is the principal centre of congestion. There it is more pronounced. There it originated owing to our history. There is the chief drain of emigration. There is the chief area in the country of depopulation of the land. We must have national priorities in this field as well as in every other field.

We have adopted the traditional congested districts merely as a starting point and as rapidly as possible other congested areas will be brought within the scope of this Bill. We are taking power here for the Minister to schedule any pocket of congestion where he finds it in any county as a congested area. It naturally follows that where an area outside the areas scheduled in this Bill and taken from the 1909 Act is scheduled under the regulation that would be made under that particular section then that is a congested area and will be entitled to all the benefits provided for in this Bill, including the half-annuity benefit. This, of course, will take time. What is proposed to be done and what I must have done is to get my outdoor staff in the different counties to report on pockets of congestion that would be comparable with the conditions in the western areas and these then can be scheduled under the Bill as congested areas entitled to be dealt with in the same way as these counties and areas I have referred to and which are included in the Schedule to this Bill.

All kinds of figures have been thrown around this House in the form of statistics. I should like to warn Deputies to be cautious about the conclusions they draw from statistics about the number of uneconomic holdings in the State. That is true whether these statistics come from publications of farming organisations or from State agencies themselves. Not all Deputies were quite as modest as Deputy Donnellan who was not prepared to give the source of his statistics. Some Deputies purported to quote from different documents here tonight but the figures of smallholdings from the Statistical Abstract, for example, do not reflect the number of congests because they include the holdings of those who hold land as a sideline.

Rural Deputies familiar with the problems of congested areas will know that in many cases some farmers have three, four or five rent receipts or three, four or five demand notes for rates. Some Deputy said he knew one small farmer who had 25 different receivable orders in respect of 25 different patches. Therefore, taking these statistics, if you quote—as many Deputies have quoted—valuations of £1 to £3, £1 to £5, and so on, in many cases these would be just houses——

Mr. Donnellan

No. It is on land I quoted and it is from the Statistical Abstract, 1960.

Mr. Moran

Is the Deputy, even now, prepared to give the source of his quotations?

Mr. Donnellan

Statistical Abstract, 1960—your own publication.

Mr. Moran

Why was the Deputy so modest about it when speaking before?

Mr. Donnellan

I did not want to hurt the Minister too much.

Mr. Moran

I appreciate the Deputy's kindness in saving me from any injury.

Now, when I was endeavouring—I have been studying this problem since I went into the Department—to try to get a true picture, not alone of the number of congests but also the number of what I call genuine farmers, I found it quite impossible to get that information from existing statistics. Before the last census, therefore, at my instance, special questions were put in the forms designed to get the correct information so that we would for the future be in a position to quote accurate statistics and not figures which purported to represent, but did not in fact, represent, a true picture of the number of people deriving a livelihood solely or mainly from the land or the number of congests on the land. As a result of the 1961 census, I have now got a new set of figures related to land held by persons whose main occupation is farming. These statistics —they exclude non-farmers—indicate that there are only a little over 200,000 true farm holdings in the country. When I say 200,000 true farm holdings, I mean there are only 200,000 people approximately who are solely or mainly dependent on farming as an occupation.

Those 200,000 holdings must be, of course, broken down as between the different categories of farmers, big and small, and in that 200,000, we shall endeavour to find the number of congested holdings or non-viable holdings, or, as I prefer to describe them, the number of holdings that are not up to the standard of the family farm I am endeavouring to achieve under this Bill. All kinds of wild figures have been quoted here during this debate— 320,000 farmers, 270,000 farmers, and so on. It is obvious from the figures I have just quoted that these statistics are haywire. The people with whom we should be concerned here, the people who live on and deal in the land of Ireland, are the 200,000 to whom I have referred.

A great deal has been said in the course of the debate about things that are not in the Bill and it is, therefore, necessary for me now to answer some of the points. I told the House that migrants, even during the past year, have been placed on the family farm of 40 to 45 acres. From all the evidence I have—I know many of these migrants and I have had reports from agricultural instructors in relation to some colonies—the vast majority of these migrants have been an outstanding success. In the early days of the history of this State, the Land Commission took migrants who were partly fishermen and partly farmers, or cottiers, and some of these admittedly were not successful, but for a number of years back now, the migrants from the western seaboard have not alone proved an outstanding success but have been an example of thriftiness and hard work in their new neighbourhood. I would invite any Deputy who may pass through the town of Kilcock to inquire from any trader; he will be very quickly told what has been achieved by these migrants from the west. In every field of human endeavour, of course, there are the odd failures as well as the successes. Many of these migrants, however, have progressed from the initial comparatively small holdings to quite substantial holdings acquired through their own hard work and thrift. Many years back, there was strong feeling in some counties about migrants. I thought that day had gone.

Mr. Donnellan

There is a little of it yet.

Mr. Moran

Deputies, irrespective of which side they sit, should resolutely set their faces against what I describe as segregationists; the people who try to foster narrow, local prejudices for their own selfish reasons. These segregationists are actuated by the same selfish prejudices as actuated Governor Faubus in Little Rock or the white extremists in Dallas, Texas. Parish pump politics should finish for all time in this country. We ought to realise that the country is small enough and we have enough borders without trying to raise more borders for selfish political motives.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I do not think that kind of thing really exists.

Mr. Moran

I am glad to hear the Deputy say so. If there is any trace of it left, it certainly will not be tolerated. In the interests of the nation, it cannot be tolerated.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Any migrants who have come to my part of the country are a credit to it.

Mr. Donnellan

Decent, hardworking people.

Mr. Moran

It is gratifying to know that the section dealing with loans for migrants has been welcomed by practically every Deputy. Deputy O. J. Flanagan expressed the view that there should be interest-free loans and that the section should be drafted accordingly. I should like to point out here that he misquoted the Taoiseach; his suggestion was that these loans might be free of interest in the early years. Under subsection (1) advances are authorised in connection with the purchase of land and the definition is wide enough to provide loans, when regulations are made, for any purpose in connection with land.

Some speakers suggested that certain functions of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government should be taken over by the Land Commission. There are other agencies, such as the Agricultural Credit Corporation, which come into the picture, whose administration has been geared to deal with many of the matters mentioned in the debate.

Deputy Dillon suggested, in relation to life annuities, that these pensions might be made available to middle-aged persons who were unable to work the land or who were prepared to get out of farming. My first reaction is that I do not see any objection in principle. If any person, young or old, is dissatisfied with farming, then the best interests of the nation would be served by encouraging him to get off the land so that it may be put in more competent hands. I am quite prepared to broaden the scope of the section in that respect if, on closer study, no serious difficulties present themselves. The House will appreciate, however, that I shall have to give further consideration to the matter. At present the only difficulties I see is that a middle-aged person might get a relatively small annuity and might not be tempted by it. On the other hand, if he had a large farm, the annuity would be substantial, even with the long life expectation.

Some Deputies asked for an elaboration of the scheme but they will have to wait for that until the emergence of the regulations to be made under section 4. Other Deputies asked for more particulars about the completion of the cash purchase scheme but I shall be dealing with that in more detail later on. The Land Commission can take steps to purchase from incapacitated people either by way of cash purchase or by way of life annuity, or partly by one and partly by the other. It is my intention to provide for these life annuities and cash purchases in order to induce the incapacitated people to part with their land in any way they can. The transfer order to which I have referred will operate to give the Land Commission a good statutory title to the land. We are taking power to do other title cleaning up work in other sections of this Bill which I will deal with when I refer to some of the points made by Deputy Seán Flanagan.

The life annuity will be calculated actuarially, taking into account the normal expectation of life of the person and it will be calculated, I will say, as generously as possible. Some Deputies seem to think that this was a compulsory matter and that these people could be compelled to part with their land. That is not so. These life annuities which will be given to old people or to people who are incapacitated can only be used by way of inducement. They will get their choice either to take cash for their lands, or part cash and part annuity, or part of each and can also retain possession of the dwellinghouse and possibly a couple of gardens for their lifetime. The scheme will be made as flexible as possible and it is very necessary that this should be so.

It is also a fact that life annuities up to £3 a week will not be taken into account under the means test for old age pension purposes. The main use that can be made of this particular section is in dealing with the hard core of congestion left and that is in the rundale estates. There are approximately 7,000 unvested holdings and they represent in the main the hard core of congestion in this country. The cream is gone off the milk as far as the acquisition of large estates in the west of Ireland is concerned. Practically every one of them that I know of has been acquired and where you have these pockets of rundale they are there because nothing that the Land Commission could do down through the years could solve the problem in any way.

This may explain some of the complaints made by Deputies about long lettings made by the Land Commission. In order to divide these rundale estates it is necessary to get the agreement of every individual on that estate. On these estates these little holdings are fragmented up to 20 or 21 different patches and it means the selection of different fields to be joined together and the owners having to agree as to what they will take in order to provide a practical unit. There must be co-operation on the part of all and in many cases it is difficult to achieve that. It is difficult in rural Ireland to get ten or 20 people prepared to move their fields and lands which they were used to. In many cases you may have jealousy over one person or another getting a certain piece of land. If one individual refuses to co-operate the Land Commission's plans for the estate may be hamstrung and even though they may have on hands one, two or three holdings there is nothing they can do with them. All they can do is wait for the old person to die off and hope that he will be succeeded by some more progressive individual and that in that way they will ultimately achieve agreement.

I should like to emphasise that the cases that are left are those that have proved insoluble up to this time. It is in cases like these I consider that the power of pensioning off aged and incapacitated owners will be of tremendous help to the Land Commission in trying to achieve their objective through a rearrangement scheme in these areas.

Deputies have complained that section 7 involves discrimination between holders of different types in different parts of the country. I explained in my opening statement that the State is putting a great deal of work, money and effort into the solving of this problem and that there must be some limit to subsidisation by the taxpayer. In the least congested parts of the country it should not be necessary to have the Exchequer foot too many of the bills. I have been assured that applicants in the least congested counties would be happy to pay for any land they got. At present they are paying high conacre rents without any prospect of ever owning the lands they work.

It is true that in many of these cases they are paying up to £25 an acre for the letting of land. I distinctly recollect meeting a large deputation that came to see me before the Oaklands Estate in Carlow was acquired. They pointed out that they were paying from £25 to £30 an acre for the letting of those lands. They added that if the Land Commission would move in they would be delighted to pay back the full cost of the land to the Exchequer by way of annuity. They said that if they could get the land for up to £10 an acre it would appear that they were getting it for nothing in comparison with what they were paying.

Deputy P. Brennan stated tonight that he knew a man who paid £800 for conacre last year. There has to be a system of national priorities and I put it fairly to the House that if a man is able to pay £800 for conacre in one year and still make a living would it be fair to the Exchequer and to the people in intensely congested areas to limit the amount of land available to solve the congestion problem by halving that man's annuity or subsidising him to the extent of 50 per cent for the land he is getting? Incidentally, I think it is fair comment on those who say that farming does not pay that a man can pay £800 for conacre and still make a living afterwards.

This is a question of priorities; first things must come first. The real answer to the Deputies who are concerned with this matter is that under this Bill, I am taking power to schedule any pocket of congestion in any county. Where any such pocket is so scheduled, the people there will be entitled to the full benefits that congests are entitled to under the Bill.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Before the Minister leaves the question of conacre, would he assure the House that this Bill does not refer to the ordinary 11-months conacre?

Mr. Moran

The 11-months system has been defined as not being a letting of land and this does not refer to conacre lettings at all.

Deputy Jones and others seem to be apprehensive that somewhere in section 9 might be found means to compel local authorities to pay for Land Commission work. They can rest assured that the section is not capable of such interpretation and I have no such idea in mind. The essential point is to allow local authorities voluntarily to co-operate with the Land Commission by helping to pay for work which will be for the benefit of the local authority. Perhaps some purists might say there is no statutory authority for paying out the taxpayers' money in such instances by the Land Commission. It is desirable, therefore, to provide clear-cut statutory authority. If the councils do not see fit to exercise it in any particular case, well and good; they need not do so. The local authorities are in full charge of their own business. But if they do, if they want the Land Commission to be free to co-operate with them or if they want to pay something for the Land Commission, after this section is passed, they will not be questioned by the Local Government auditor. This is a clearing up procedure. It would be purely voluntary for the local authority to co-operate with the Land Commission.

Section 10 is a rather technical section, and I shall go into it fully on Committee Stage. It does not transfer any liability from the Land Commission to the local authority. Its purpose is to set out clearly the liability of my Department in relation to improvement works after the Land Commission have parted with possession of the lands. Ministers of various Governments have always taken the view that the Land Commission are not a road maintenance authority or a drainage maintenance authority. The Land Commission never had permanent maintenance organisations in the different local authority areas, unlike, for instance, the Board of Works.

Under section 10, the Department will be legally liable for the period during which the Land Commission are in sole and exclusive occupation of the lands. The Department will also be liable where there is a question of negligence and where the injury is not a matter of expressed contract. Where the Department are not legally liable, it will still be possible to give grants in appropriate cases and, if necessary, to carry out the work on an ex gratia basis. Indeed, as Deputies know, that practice is adopted in many cases at present.

Some years ago, there was an action about some allegedly implied liability at law and the matter was raised at the Committee of Public Accounts. It was as a result of that that this was inserted here. This section would not affect cases where there was an expressed liability about embankments assumed by the Land Commission on the purchase of old estates. Without any liability at all, in suitable cases the Land Commission have done some of these embankments. They do them by way of ex gratia grant. This section is not, as some Deputies seem to think, for the purpose of unloading expressed liability on to the local authority. It is necessary. If Deputies give me specific instances about which they are worried, I shall deal with them more fully on Committee Stage.

Section 13 was fully understood and appreciated by some Deputies, but completely misunderstood, and, I think, in some cases, deliberately misconstrued, by others. Many of the Deputies who spoke about this section were completely unrealistic and illogical. On one hand, they call for speedier action by the Land Commission in purchasing places bought by foreigners and other undesirable owners. They give instances of what they allege to be delay and procrastination on the part of the Land Commission in dealing with these cases. But they completely overlook the fact it is because of the restricted powers of the Land Commission that they cannot deal with the cases referred to. Any Deputy from rural Ireland knows that the existing procedure, with all the red tape it involves, is regularly defeating the purposes of the Land Commission across the length and breadth of this land.

I know how this section can be misinterpreted, and I was therefore very glad to see that Deputy Dillon realised that it was necessary. He stated it was not unreasonable. Later, I shall deal with Deputy Dillon's fears of tying in this section with section 27. With Deputy Dillon as leader realising the necessity for this section, it was rather amusing to hear Deputy T. F. O'Higgins, who either did not read this Bill at all or who has no idea of the provisions of the Land Acts, describe this section as an atrocious one and deploring its inclusion in this Bill. We also had the threat from him that this section was completely unconstitutional, but I propose to deal with that at a later stage.

I think it is a fair interpretation of the debate to say there was no serious objection to this standstill until the point was made that section 27 would, in effect, permit senior inspectors to impose a standstill. Some Deputies seemed to misunderstand that. I shall deal with the question of senior inspectors when I come to deal with the other section. For the moment, let us assume the standstill to be acceptable if it were imposed solely by decision of the Commissioners themselves. If Deputies have any lingering doubts about the matter, I should like to remind them that, when these compulsory notices are issued by the Land Commission, the Commission normally have some reason for believing that the lands against which they are moving are owned by an absentee, by a bad farmer or by a person who is selling out. Deputy Jones need not fear that this standstill will have the effect of shutting out other purchasers. The compulsory acquisition machine does not dominate the market to that extent.

In dealing with this section and the need for it, I should like Deputies to realise what the position is at present. If a Deputy or a deputation of local farmers comes into the local Land Commission office and tells them that John So-and-So's farm is up for sale and is needed for the relief of local congestion or that this farm has been let for the past 20 years and that it is needed or, possibly, that there is a local rumour that John is selling out to a foreigner, the local Land Commission inspector takes particulars of the complaint and the allegations. That has to be passed on by him under the present procedure to a senior inspector and that senior inspector reports to the acquisition section of the Land Commission in Dublin and, in that acquisition section, that report has to go through the gamut of three different officers, and from that acquisition section ultimately the matter is submitted for a ruling by two of the Commissioners. Now, we have the Commissioners' ruling on this, and if the Commissioners approve, the acquisition section serves the inspection notice and the next step is that the inspection is made. The whole purpose of this inspection is to find out whether these lands are suitable or not suitable for Land Commission purposes.

With all this red tape on the line up from the local office to the acquisition section and from there to two Lay Commissioners whose sole function it is to authorise this notice to be served, it takes all that time to go through all those people. What is actually in the notice when it is served? This notice has no effect other than that the owner of the land concerned is notified that at a certain date a Land Commission inspector will call on him to inspect that land to see whether it is or is not suitable for the relief of congestion.

The Commissioners are busy men. These officials are busy men. This is purely a rubber stamp procedure for the purpose of notifying the owner that on a certain date a Land Commission inspector will call to see whether the lands are suitable for the relief of congestion or not and it takes under the present procedure in many cases from 18 months to two years from the time the local deputation comes in to go through this gamut before this rubber stamp notice comes down to enable the local Land Commission inspector to give notice that he will call to see whether the land is suitable or not.

What happens in nine out of ten cases is that the individual concerned brings the nephew home from England or he sells the land to a foreigner or sells it to anybody but the Land Commission in order to defeat the Land Commission's purpose.

Mr. Donnellan

And you allow him.

Mr. Moran

The result is the local people are defeated, the Land Commission are defeated and, furthermore, if the Land Commission go to bring compulsory acquisition proceedings in that case, by the time they have the notice as a result of the inspection published under the present law in Iris Oifigiúil and if the case ultimately comes to court, it is another two years before the case does come to court and then what the court must consider is the user of the land when the case comes before it. So that the person who has let the land for years can go ahead and rehabilitate it and bring in people to till it and in court will be in a position to say: “I have stocked the land. I have tilled it. I have changed my way of life,” and in that way he or whoever succeeds him can succeed before the Land Commission Court.

In this procedure we are providing here, in the first place, to deal with the divisional inspector signing this notice, he is not signing a notice that will have the effect of taking the man's land. The sole purpose of his notice is to enable one of his inspectors, in the case in which there is a complaint about a farm and where he is satisfied it should be investigated, to come in and make the report to which I have referred, to say whether these lands should be acquired, whether they are suitable for Land Commission purposes or whether the adequates are being provided, that is, whether the owner is providing sufficient employment and obtaining sufficient production and, of course, there is another provision coming in with this Bill—this is a new power—that he must be resident on or in the immediate vicinity of the land.

Under this procedure, that report is sent on to the Commissioners as formerly and it is the Commissioners who decide on that report whether these lands should be acquired or not. So that the power of the acquisition of land is still a reserved matter in the hands of the Commissioners and it is they and they only who have the right to decide, on this report, whether the lands in any particular instance should be acquired for the relief of congestion.

I want to ask Deputies here which do they want. Do they want to do away with this section that will enable the Land Commission to act expeditiously and quickly or do they want the old red-tape, this run-around for two or three years, to defeat the purposes of the Land Commission in the acquisition of land for the relief of congestion? Let us clear our minds on this matter and let us not blow hot and cold in connection with it.

I agree that the Leader of the Opposition has seen the necessity for this section and, as Deputy Collins and some other Deputies said, if you take this and a couple of other sections out of the Bill, you might as well forget about any Government in this day and age making any impact whatsoever on this colossal problem that confronts us.

As to the powers of these people to deal with these matters, there would also appear to be a vast amount of misunderstanding amongst Deputies as to what the legal position is. In taking this power away from the Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission in order to speed up the work of the Land Commission, I was accused by Deputy Blowick of inflicting some terrible unconstitutional act on the landowners of Ireland. It was alleged by Deputy Blowick that this was a thumbscrew. He described this Bill as a poisoned bar of chocolate and that this section 13 was part of the poisonous measure. Deputy Blowick sat over there like an indolent predator pike in the rushes. He was willing to wound but afraid to strike because he knows quite well what his constituents would do to him if he tried to defeat the purposes of the Bill in this House.

Let me point out to the House that Deputy Blowick himself in the 1950 Land Act, for the first time since the passing of the 1923 Land Act, deprived the Land Commissioners of their power to exercise certain of their reserved functions which until then were reserved to them by law. I would refer the House to section 12 (8) of that Act which says:

The following provisions shall have effect in relation to schemes for the re-arrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots whether with or without the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said re-arrangement:—

(a) no such scheme shall be approved by virtue of subsection (2) of this section save by an officer;

(b) the Minister shall not authorise pursuant to that subsection an officer to approve any such scheme unless the officer is an officer of the Land Commission and not below the rank of Senior Inspector.

Subsection (9) of the same section reads:

Where—

(a) a power or duty is exercised or performed by virtue of subsection (2) of this section by the Minister or an officer, and

(b) in exercising or performing the power or duty, it becomes requisite that any document should be sealed with the common seal of the Land Commission.

the Minister or such officer (as the case may be) may cause the document to be sealed as aforesaid.

That was taking away from the Lay Commissioners the power of dealing with rearrangement schemes and putting it under the wing of Deputy Blowick. This is the Deputy who suggests I was driving a coach and four through the reserved powers of the Lay Commissioners for the first time in the history of the State. That will give an indication to Deputies as to how sincere Deputy Blowick was in representing what he alleged was the position under this Bill.

Deputy Dillon and, I think, Deputy Flanagan and others have indicated their opposition to section 27 on the ground that power to inspect lands thereunder is open to abuse by the political head of the Department of Lands, that is, by me. On the other hand, Deputies like Deputy Tully welcomed this provision and expressed confidence, having regard to the high standard of public life in the country, that the section would not be used for political purposes.

I want to assure the House that this section was drafted with only one purpose in mind, that is, to expedite inspection of lands and, in conjunction with section 13, to eliminate the possibility of an indifferent owner effecting a quick sale to frustrate the land settlement plans of the Land Commission for a locality. I have been a long time in this House hearing about the slowness to which I referred a while ago. Under this section, senior inspectors in provincial headquarters will be empowered to determine the lands to be inspected and all that time will be saved, as I have already explained to the House.

Some Deputies, including the Leader of the main Opposition, in some queer way, tried to the tie up the recent appointment of the Secretary of the Department of Lands to the position of Lay Commissioner with this Bill and to suggest there would be public misgivings because of that appointment. I cannot see that point. The Lay Commissioners are, in fact, just as is the Secretary under section 2 of the Land Act of 1933 and equally with the Secretary, subject to the responsible Minister in non-excepted matters. In the interest of prompt despatch of work, I am making this inspection to which I have referred a non-excepted matter. I could argue that I cannot find anything specifically in the Land Acts to say that this notice should be signed by the Lay Commissioners but I am removing doubt in order to get this expedition which I am sure every Deputy desires in relation to the Land Commission powers.

Deputies will appreciate that the inspection by itself decides nothing. It is important to emphasise that the information gathered is not submitted to me as Minister at all. The information on such an inspection passes and will continue to pass to the Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission and it will then be for them to decide on the report whether these lands should be acquired or not. I, as Minister or political head, have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Could the Minister say is it the Secretary of the Department of Lands who will sign the notice?

Mr. Moran

Let me recapitulate for the Deputy in regard to the inspection notice to which I have referred. All the inspection notice does is to notify a landowner that an inspector will call at a certain date for the purpose of inspecting his land. It is proposed under the new scheme of things to give power to the divisional inspector of each province to sign that notice and that notice then goes out, without all this delay and frustration. The local inspector inspects and reports not to me but to the Lay Commissioners. They decide that as an excepted matter which is the position under law.

Mr. Donnellan

Do I take it from the Minister that the order goes out from the divisional inspector?

Mr. Moran

To inspect only.

Mr. Donnellan

That is a good job.

Mr. Moran

I want to put this on the records of the House because my recent appointment of the Secretary of my Department as a Lay Commissioner has been criticised. It was not so much a matter of criticism as of doubts being expressed as to why it should be so. The sole reason for my taking that action is the promotion of further efficiency. On those lines, may I quote for the House a letter left behind by a former Secretary of the Land Commission who became a Commissioner. What I have done is nothing new but Commissioner Deegan, when going out in 1951, wrote this letter to the then Minister:

Before leaving the Department, I want to place on record my most definite view that the Secretary of the Land Commission cannot do his work as satisfactorily as he would wish to do it or as he should do it, unless he is at the same time a Commissioner. From my administrative experience in other Departments and from outside knowledge of the Land Commission, I held that view when I came here as Secretary in 1930; my years as Secretary and Commissioner from 1930 confirmed it; the past couple of years when I have been Commissioner without administrative responsibility have doubly confirmed it for me. It is, or should be, an axiom that the Permanent Head and Accounting Officer of a Department should be effectively aware of everything that is happening in his Department and should be in a position to ensure administrative and financial efficiency and correctness. Here in the Land Commission a Secretary who is not a Commissioner does not come in contact with large blocks of most important work until something goes wrong: the most troublesome and danger-holding items of our business (those matters related to the acquisition and distribution of land) are routed direct to Commissioners and unless the Secretary is himself a Commissioner "anything may happen" without his knowledge, and, though Permanent Head of the Department, he has not the opportunity which he should have of controlling in good time, in the interests of efficiency, economy and financial correctness, the administration for which he is responsible. It is definitely wrong that there should be work in progress in any Department in regard to which the Permanent Head and Accounting Officer has no effective say: and, as regards the Land Commission, I wish to state to you, with the certainty born of long experience inside and outside the Land Commission, that that position can be avoided only if the posts of Secretary and Commissioner are combined, and to emphasise once more my very definite view that the Secretary here should always be a Commissioner. The fact that I held the two posts for so many years and during periods of exceptional stress shows that there is nothing impossible in the proposition—indeed each post makes the operation of the other easier for the holder.

That is what has been left by a Secretary of the Department and a Commissioner with over 20 years' experience.

Mr. Donnellan

What date was that?

Mr. Moran

13th October, 1951. This man was going out and he wrote the then Minister to that effect to give the Minister the benefit of his experience of the working of that Department.

Mr. Donnellan

Which was a very long experience.

Mr. Moran

It was. I have to deal not alone with the day-to-day running of my Department, but I am responsible to the House and the taxpayers for the smooth and efficient running of that Department. While the Lay Commissioners have their job to do by way of dealing with excepted matters and in deciding cases when they sit on the Bench, I have also my job to do. It is my job to ensure that they carry on the work of the Land Commission, that they hold courts in the different parts of the country to enable the acquisition machine to go on.

The one effective way of keeping administrative control as far as their work is concerned is, in my view, to have the Secretary of the Department, the chief officer, a Commissioner so that I can keep track of the Lay Commissioners' work, to co-relate their work and set the Land Commission machine running smoothly in all its facets. Let me say one of the most important parts of the Land Commission machine is the functions carried out by these Lay Commissioners. While they have these reserved powers, they are at law officials of the Land Commission and, if you like, officials of the Minister for Lands for the purpose of their other functions in the Land Commission.

Deputy Dillon is under a misapprehension when he thinks they are a body of men going about in outer space, with no responsibility to anybody. They are in fact at law servants of mine in the same relative way as the Secretary of the Department is. They are not a judicial body, exercising judicial powers and for those who are interested in that aspect of the matter, I shall refer to the dictum in Lynam and Butler, a very old case referred to by the late Chief Justice Hugh Kennedy:

The Land Commissioners (other than the Judicial Commissioner) are, then, an administrative body of civil servants who are not Judges within the meaning of the Constitution and do not constitute a Court of Justice strictly so-called but who, in the performance of some of their duties, must act judicially and who are always subject, in respect of any justifiable controversy arising in the course of their business, to the exercise of the Judicial Power of the State for the determination of such controversy by one of the Judges of the High Court of the State assigned to act as Judicial Commissioner for the purpose.

The present man occupying that position is Mr. Justice Teevan.

I may state in a very short way the fallacy, as I see it, in much of the discussion which has been directed to Articles 2 and 64 of the Constitution. The word "Power" in the term "Judicial Power" is commonly ignored or does not receive its true significance. In consequence, "acting judicially" is commonly confused with "exercising the Judicial Power". I have tried to make the distinction clear.

The legal position of the Lay Commissioners is clearly set out there. They are a quasi-judicial body. The assertion that they are a judicial body, which was made here, is completely wide of the mark and has in fact no foundation.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister will agree that on the passing of this Bill conditions will not be the same as in Mr. Deegan's time when the senior inspector had not the powers, or the Minister had not the powers, given in this Bill?

Mr. Moran

In Mr. Deegan's time, the Minister had not the right to rearrange the lands of Ireland or to take lands beside them either, which was done by the Deputy's Party when they were supporting Deputy Blowick in the Coalition years. I have explained that the only reason for having this section there is to provide the remedy for which Deputies on all sides of the House have been crying out, day in day out. They have been asking for the speeding up of the work of the Land Commission and I have time and again pointed out to Deputies that in many of these cases the Land Commission were hamstrung by the archaic machinery under which they were operating. When Deputies appreciate that, when they realise the aim of this section, they will appreciate that the inspection notice, about which so many fears were expressed, is issued without any reference to the political head of the Department and that the result obtained does not come near the political head. That should be a sufficient answer to those who have expressed a genuine anxiety about the provisions of this section.

Mr. Donnellan

Does the Minister not want to point out that the cooption of the Secretary as a Commissioner is going to speed up all this?

Mr. Moran

I do, of course. That is my sole purpose in putting the Secretary of my Department there.

Mr. Donnellan

God speed the work.

Mr. Moran

Deputy Seán Flanagan referred to Section 37, which reduces from seven to two years the period during which a newly vested holding is immune from compulsory acquisition. Far from opposing this reduction of time, I think the House should be in favour of further shortening it. Deputy Flanagan suggested that where there was neglect, the holding should be taken over quickly, whether vested or not. I was tempted to go the whole way and completely abolish this immunity, for which I see no necessity nowadays, but I am advised when lands are vested, there should be some period of immunity. Deputy Donnellan has taken the view that two years was a little too short.

Let me explain why I want to chop down this safe period, as I may call it, from seven years to two. Even in the best regulated machinery, things may break down. There may well be people who migrate and then somebody dies or he wants to sell or, for some other reason, wants to get rid of the land or is not properly working the land. The cost of a new family farm, the new migrant's holding, would be very substantial when the new Land Commission house, which was on inspection here some time ago and to which some Deputies referred, is provided and when it is equipped with the services of a modern house for a migrant—and migrants are only one aspect of this question. It will cost the Exchequer from £6,000 to £8,000 which is substantial even in these days for a family farm. Is it not right that if something goes wrong and if some family circumstances arise in which these people want to sell the land, the Land Commission should have the power to move in as quickly as possible and make the holding available for another migrant?

Where holdings are rearranged, it entails a substantial amount of money nowadays in expenditure on improvements, because, as Deputies in congested areas know, where a rearrangement scheme takes place, first, in most cases very heavy grants are given for building of houses, building outoffices and in many cases also there is heavy expenditure on drainage and roadmaking and servicing the houses. These people, having got all these amenities and an addition of land as well, in some cases—they are a few where the holding may have been the wrong size or something like that— have turned the key in the door and let the holdings. After all this expenditure, do Deputies think it reasonable that we in the Land Commission should sit back and let that misuse of public money continue?

It is for these reasons I want to change the law and that is why I suggest cutting down from seven to two years. Some Deputies have suggested it should be further cut down and I shall give consideration to that between now and Committee Stage. Deputies might also consider this question but I certainly feel that with what is involved here the old period of seven years should go and that the Land Commission should be able to move in quickly in cases where for some reason holdings are not used as they should be used, or are being let, or—worst of all—where there is an attempt made to sell them during that seven year period.

The question of non-nationals has been mentioned and it appears that all Deputies who spoke on this issue did not appreciate the new powers in the Bill that can be used so effectively against non-nationals, just as they may be used against nationals who are not making proper use of the land or who are absentees. When the Bill becomes law, it will mean that, in addition to the former defence of the "adequates"—adequate production and adequate employment—there will be a provision that such landowner will lose that defence in law if the Land Commission try to take his land, unless he is resident on those lands or in the immediate vicinity.

There was a decision of the Supreme Court to the effect that where lands were let to others who were producing sufficient from them, even though the owner was not doing so and was away from these lands, it would enable him to claim the protection of these "adequate" provisions of the Land Acts. When this Bill becomes law, it will be necessary for such an owner to reside on or in the immediate vicinity of the land, in addition to fulfilling the "adequate" requirements. This will enable the Land Commission to move in where there is an absentee owner, whether he is a foreigner or a company. There is provision that no company gimmick of referring to its registered office will get them out of this because the main shareholders of such a company will be subject to this clause and they will have to be resident and working on it.

The power of quick action by the Land Commission in moving in, and these other powers to which I have referred, can all be used for this purpose. I am, and always have been, quite prepared to face squarely the position about the purchase of Irish land by non-nationals, but what I object to in dealing with this delicate question for our people is the exploitation of the people's fears about a situation which actually does not exist. I have always said and I say now—and I shall give the House some information about certain action that has been taken by my Department and others in this matter—that at any time if it appeared to the Government that further action should be taken, we would be quite prepared to take it and that we will keep the matter under continuous review.

Different views have been expressed in the debate. Deputy T. F. O'Higgins dealing last night with this problem said: "I know it has not yet become a problem but I feel the matter should be kept under review." Deputy Blowick said the same thing in different words —that there was not a problem but that there might be one. He suggested the matter should be kept under review. That is fair enough, so far as it goes.

What I think completely wrong is the scare raised by irresponsible organisations, by politicians and by people outside this House for their own purposes to exploit this very sensitive question and try to sell the idea to the land-hungry people of the congested areas that thousands and thousands of acres in other parts of the country are being taken over by foreigners and that these acres should be there for the relief of congestion. That is the kind of irresponsible approach to this question which I deplore.

Let me point out to the House on this question that this Government under one of its Finance Acts imposed a penal duty of 25 per cent on any non-national who purchased land in this country. It was felt at that time that that imposition, which is a very, very heavy one, should be sufficient to discourage these people from acquiring any unusual amount of land and, indeed, it has been pointed out abroad that purchasers of agricultural land are not welcome here. I should also like to point out and remind the House that when this Government was putting through this 25 per cent penal duty on foreign purchasers it was opposed strongly by Deputy Dillon, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, and by many of his colleagues.

I should like to point out, too, that although complaints are now expressed by Deputy Dillon and others that there are take-over bids by foreigners for business premises in this city that it was Deputy Sweetman under the 1956 Finance Act who made that possible. Prior to Deputy Sweetman's Act of 1956 these dealings were also liable to the 25 per cent penal duty and he removed it in the case of purchases by foreigners including five acres of land or less. I should put that on record for the benefit of the people who now express such concern at these professed take-over bids by foreigners of our land.

The 1961 Finance Act established for the first time that the Land Commission should keep a statutory register of all land purchased by non-nationals. Under the provisions of this Act the Revenue Commissioners must indicate to the Land Commission from every deed coming before them the amount of land concerned and those involved in the transaction. This must be entered in the register so that we have a record of every square foot of agricultural land sold to non-nationals and in respect of which the 25 per cent duty was paid. I have given the House figures from time to time and the pattern is running very much the same as when Deputy Blowick occupied my present position as Minister for Lands in this House.

There have been allegations, wild allegations, that there is evasion of the law in some instances. The Land Commission have this register as I pointed out and it is their statutory duty to keep it in an effort to ensure that the law is being obeyed and not evaded. I directed my inspectors some time ago to check up with the co-operation of the Guards on any local purchases they knew of in any part of the country so that we could compare their record on the spot with the record coming from the Revenue Commissioners as a cross check to see if the law were being evaded.

It may be that lawyers in time will find a legal way of getting round the existing law. If so—we have not so far discovered it—I can assure the House that it will be very quickly dealt with. It may be that there are frauds, that some of these people have evaded the law, evaded the 25 per cent duty. You can evade any law by fraud if false declarations are made but if anyone is caught out in any such fraud, if it can be proved, the law provides for long terms of imprisonment as well as very heavy monetary penalties.

I have got some information as a result of this cross check we have been making. During the past week there has been one suspicious case. I am having that fully investigated and any facts we can get which may lead to a prosecution will be immediately placed in the hands of the Attorney General. I have invited Deputies before, when dealing with this question, to send me personally or to send the Land Commission any information on any case where they even suspect that the law is being evaded and I and the Land Commission would be very happy to have that matter fully investigated. I cannot say tonight what ultimate results the investigation will produce, but I want to give this information to the House so as to assure them that we are very carefully watching the situation. So far as we can check the register against local information from inspectors and guards we are endeavouring to get any of these people who have evaded the law.

I can also assure the House that if we find that the law is being evaded or that a way has been found of legally getting round the provisions of existing law, that will be very quickly dealt with by the Government and that is all I can usefully say on this issue. I have always been, we have always been, quite prepared to face this issue if there is an issue to be faced but the figures available to me over the past year do not indicate that there is any national danger in this matter. If the position turns out to be otherwise the Government and I are quite prepared to take action on the matter.

Mr. Donnellan

The Minister would not give us figures.

Mr. Moran

I have given them, I think, during the past fortnight. I have not got them readily available now but if the Deputy puts down a question now I will give them on the first day next week.

Mr. Donnellan

I will do that.

Mr. Moran

Deputy Treacy and some others spoke of the depopulation of the countryside and others have mentioned declining numbers in churches and schools. There are two answers to this problem as far as the Land Commission is involved. One is the provision of viable farm units and the other the provision of decent modern housing. Where there is depopulation it is because people have not got viable units. Those who suggest that this Bill is going to close up homes or depopulate the west of Ireland could not be further from the truth. What we are concentrating on, getting powers under the Bill to buy out lands which have been let for a long period of years, aims at getting after houses which have been closed up for many years. It is not this Bill or this policy which will depopulate rural Ireland. Indeed, unless some urgent measure of this kind is passed by the House and the people who are now on the land get an anchor there there will be very much more depopulation of these rural areas.

Anybody who knows this problem and comes from my part of the country should now well realise that the people in rural Ireland are not prepared to accept the standards of living of their fathers' or grandfathers' times, and I would not blame them. It is the height of absurdity, in my view, to have to listen to some armchair critics who will expect people in the congested districts in this day and age to live on those £3, £4 or £5 valuation holdings in so-called holy poverty. These conditions are gone with one of the greatest labour markets in the world right on our doorstep, and anybody who expects that the present generation are prepared to put up with the standards of living that obtained in those western counties even 30 or 40 years ago is completely out of touch with the realities of rural Ireland to-day. I suggest that these provisions being made now and the existing powers of the Minister and the Land Commission should be adequate to tackle the problem of these holdings and to try to achieve the ideal of the 40 or 45 acre family farm, with the other scheme recently announced of housing assistance.

There is one aspect of the problem fully covered by the Bill to which I would point. Everybody concerned with the problem of rural depopulation must feel that we must take up the uneconomic holdings, put them into competent hands and try so that in future we will help to keep the remaining population secure and happy on the land. Sections 34 and 41 of this Bill, which are heavily loaded against absentees, will contribute a great deal towards providing adequately for small holders who still put their trust in farming and who wish to remain on the land. Those people who have stated here that people do not want land any more in rural Ireland or have no further interest in land should come down with me some Saturday, or if I have not gone out of my house, early on Sunday morning, and see whether the people in the congested areas have any interest in land or not. There has always been and always will be a tremendous attachment in our people to the land. It is inherent in our people. But to expect them to eke out an existence with ten or 15 acres of snipe grass these days is being completely out of touch with the realities of the situation. Some people seem to think that it can be done, and that in this day and age they will put up with the depressed standard of living existing in the way that their fathers or grandfathers did on these patchwork-quilt little farms, but that is simply trying to put back the hands of the clock.

As far as housing is concerned, a number of Deputies dealt with it and this is a matter which my colleague, the Minister for Local Government, and I have been studying closely. We recently issued a joint statement outlining a new deal for this group of the population as well as specifying the improved grants which small farmers will be able to get from the Land Commission of up to £500 where formerly they could get £100. They will be available for reconstruction as well as for building. This whole scheme will be effective as from 1st October this year. The reason why this is not included in the Bill is simply that it can be carried into effect as far as the Land Commission are concerned under the existing law. As Deputies are aware, the Department of Local Government propose up to £25 valuation to increase the existing grants by 50 per cent and then on a graduated scale, from that up to £45 valuation. As far as the Land Commission are concerned, we propose to make a loan of up to £500 available for the rehousing of people on the land. This of course is confined to farmers.

We are prepared to make this available to all farmers in any part of the country, irrespective of their valuation, both for erection and reconstruction, so that a farmer in rural Ireland who, with the increased grants and so on, is something short or has no capital of his own, can now come to the Land Commission and get, either for reconstruction or for building a new house, this £500 which will be repayable with his annuity. As far as reconstruction is concerned, the difference between the amount of the grant and the total estimate can be covered by the loan. Deputies who are familiar with this type of reconstruction will realise that an inspector comes from the Department of Local Government who makes an estimate of the authorised work. Then, depending on the amount of the grant he will get from the Department of Local Government, the balance of that estimate up to £500 will be available by way of loan repayable with the annuity.

I was asked about the terms of this loan and the financial details of the scheme. As far as this loan is concerned, it will be made available at the prevailing Government rate of borrowing. It is not the intention of my Department to charge any administrative fee, and the regulations for the making available of this loan are being worked out between my Department and the Department of Finance. There may be some slight difficulty for a couple of months ahead because of a particular regulation, but that will be a temporary phase, and generally speaking, these loans should be available at the Government rate of borrowing.

I should also like to point out that some Deputies including, I think, Deputy Gilhawley, wanted to know about the possibilities of repayment of these loans. It is the intention to allow the applicant to repay the loan at any time or in instalments as he goes ahead. There are, I understand, under existing regulations certain priorities including the repayment of land reclamation annuities charged on the holding that must be observed, but broadly speaking, anybody who avails of this Land Commission loan will be free, when his circumstances permit and in his own time, to pay by instalments or wipe it out whenever he is in a financial position to do so.

I should also say that the repayment periods will vary. They must vary from case to case depending on the amount of the consolidated annuity and the length of time that the existing annuity has already been payable, because the repayment of the loan will have to be consolidated with the applicant's existing annuity. Broadly speaking, it is a very long-term loan, and I think this particular loan will serve a very useful purpose in dealing with the housing conditions on the farms of rural Ireland to which Deputies have referred.

One other factor is that it is intended so far as possible to eliminate any red tape in connection with this particular loan. We know that our people in rural Ireland do not want other people to know their business and in many cases they were not prepared to avail of a county council loan because they had to get sureties and call in neighbours to help them. In this particular loan, by simple application to the Land Commission, it will be possible for them to deal direct with the Land Commission. Their sole security will be the security of their own land, the loan being repayable in the way I have mentioned along with their own annuities.

Mr. Gilhawley

Would the Minister state if the terms for that loan will be more attractive than the terms existing for some of the small dwellings acquisition loans?

Mr. Moran

I think so. As far as my knowledge goes, the terms will be more attractive.

Mr. Tully

If it is not sufficient to bridge the gap, will there be any objection to a local authority loan being obtained?

Mr. Moran

I am not concerned with local authorities. I am concerned with my own scheme. In discussing this with my colleague the Minister for Local Government we visualised that where local authorities give supplementary grants they would continue to do so in the way in which they are doing at the moment, even though the State is providing these increased grants. I do not see anything against it. One of the reasons I confined this loan to £500 was, in the first place, to discourage people in small farms taking on a burden which would be beyond their capacity to pay; secondly, to eliminate official time in investigating such things so that we could without more ado give the farmer this loan on his valuation. In answering Deputy Tully's question —I am just thinking as I go along— it occurs to me that there are different considerations with the local authority because their loans are really mortgages. You really apply to them for a mortgage on your property; you have to provide your sureties, pay your solicitor, have your title passed and so on. It is really a legal mortgage.

Mr. Tully

There would be no mortgage from the Land Commission anyway.

Mr. Moran

No.

Mr. Gilhawley

When a person gets a loan from the Land Commission, will he not have to surrender the title deeds to the Land Commission?

Mr. Moran

No; that is not so. Let me make it quite clear that I have power under a charging order to make a priority charge for my loan that is repayable with the annuity just the same as with a land reclamation annuity.

Mr. Tully

There will not be a second mortgage. That is the important thing.

Mr. Moran

There will be no lawyers involved and we can do it by simple order.

Mr. Gilhawley

Just as with the Agricultural Credit Corporation, there will not be any surrender of land deeds to the Land Commission?

Mr. Moran

No, that will not be necessary.

Mr. Donnellan

Would the Minister consider applying this to out-buildings and out-offices? They are very important in rural areas.

Mr. Moran

The simple answer is that I will consider everything but what I may be able to do is another matter.

Mr. Donnellan

I hope the Minister will give it due consideration.

Mr. Moran

Deputy Seán Flanagan referred to procedural delays and so forth, and I think I can reassure him on this matter. Within the Bill we have sections 16 and 17 aimed at the speeding up of such matters in the Examiners' branch. We have sections 31 and 36 aimed at speeding up the smaller cases in which undue formality would be specially inappropriate. Apart from the Bill, there has been a great deal of work done on general principles for simplifying procedures and next year solicitors, especially those who work in the provinces, will find great improvements introduced. I largely, if not fully, agree with complaints voiced by Deputy Seán Flanagan and some other Deputies about procedural matters in the legal side of my Department.

I am glad to tell the House that I have already reached agreement in principle with the Incorporated Law Society on a new procedure designed to cut out red tape and expedite sales to the Land Commission. It will be possible for country solicitors to deal directly with the Land Commission and to close sales with the Land Commission in just the same way as they would with some other client. The rules are being prepared and are practically ready for the Rules Making Committee to sign and the frustrating delays and the amount of red tape referred to by Deputy Seán Flanagan will be eliminated. This is an important aspect of the new concept of a speedier Land Commission on which we have been working for a considerable time.

One matter referred to by some Deputies was the fact that there were very good reasons for getting the goodwill of the auctioneering profession. Having made a study of the matter, I realised that there were two bodies whose goodwill and co-operation were vital to the working of the Land Commission if we were to speed up the acquisition of land, if we were to build up a land pool, or make any impression, in our time, on this great national and social problem. One of these groups were the auctioneers and I well understood the reasons why auctioneers down the years would, as some Deputies said, try to sell their clients' land to the devil before dealing with the Land Commission because the Land Commission was not prepared to pay them the commission provided for their profession. Therefore, when the Land Commission tried to get land by agreement from any owner and an auctioneer was involved he immediately told him that the Land Commission were the wrong people to deal with, that he would never get his money, or that he would get inflated bonds, and he painted a picture of an ogre in Merrion Street and gave the impression that it would be just as much as his financial life was worth to become involved with the Land Commission.

The result was that the intake to the Land Commission was slowing down. They had to rely on compulsory proceedings and by the time they had finished in the Appeal Court which fixes market value, there was much delay and tremendous expense. I decided, with the Minister for Finance, to make this different approach to this fundamental element to increase the land available to the Land Commission pool by co-operation.

The auctioneering profession have been informed that the Land Commission will now pay the normal commission which their profession enjoys and I have been assured by that body of their full co-operation. Indeed, in many cases I already have evidence that the old order and the old attitude has completely changed and that they now regard the Land Commission as their best customer and are prepared to give the Land Commission the first refusal. I am quite satisfied that this is not only going to eliminate a lot of frustration on the part of the Land Commission but in the long run is going to save quite a lot of money and bring much more land into the Land Commission pool for the relief of congestion.

It was also necessary to take the view of the legal profession in this business. There are some very old and archaic procedures for dealing with the Land Commission and the solicitors throughout the country, where they had a client whose lands were sold to the Land Commission, were subject to interminable delays and had real labour in dealing with these matters. Country solicitors had to employ Dublin agents to work for them and the fees laid down were inadequate to cover all those people. The result, as far as a client was concerned, was that it was a very long time before he got his money.

That gave people a bad impression of the Land Commission and the public impression of dealings with the Land Commission was that nobody could get paid for his land within a reasonable time. In a great many cases the fault was not so much with the Land Commission as with many members of the legal profession who were not familiar with the procedure and who, because of that, had to employ agents and who did not think it worth their while to deal with Land Commission business when they had extensive practices to cope with.

We have now eliminated the cause of many of these complaints and we have drawn up new rules and procedures for which we hope to have the full co-operation of the legal profession in dealing with the Land Commission in future. These are the two bodies that I regard as being particularly important in co-operating with the work of the Land Commission rather than to have them as sworn enemies in negotiations over land as many of them formerly were.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister has the best wishes and gratitude of the auctioneers throughout the country and he will have their fullest co-operation.

Mr. Donnellan

Could the Minister give me the date from which the auctioneers will get their fees?

Mr. Moran

From about the beginning of this year. Some Deputies have suggested that there should be a ceiling placed on the value or size of holdings but I am doubtful whether any limitation placed on the size or value of holdings without regard to the use would be desirable. One man can hold 500 acres and secure such production and give such employment that he is an asset to the nation while another can hold 50 acres and use it so badly that he is a disgrace to the community.

It cannot be laid down that a married woman cannot hold land in addition to the land held by her husband nor can we deny a farmer with several sons the right to purchase land to provide for them. One could not frame laws to stop that without resorting to extreme measures. I do not think we should seek to retain the land of Ireland while we see that so much of it is now being used to the best advantage but we should take the positive step of taking up land that is under-used and see that it is put to the best advantage. I cannot see that there is such a serious problem of land being retained in the hands of a few although some Deputies have made these allegations.

There are small, medium and some large farms in this country. Some of the larger holdings must be kept in order to provide conditions for the finishing of cattle and for the calves produced in the west of Ireland. If there was to be an upper limit it would have to be in the region of £200 rateable valuation and we have only, according to the statistics I have been able to gather, about 2,000 holdings exceeding that level in the country. That is far from an excessive number. Indeed, it is a moderate number.

The time may come in this country, as it has come on the Continent, when a new look will have to be taken at this question. In many parts of the Continent only certain classes of people are allowed to hold land at all. There are many countries where a shopkeeper or a man engaged in a profession cannot hold land at all. If we take the industrious Dutch who are reclaiming land from the sea in the Polders they have laid down strict provisions as to the kind of people who get it.

The kind of people who are allowed to get land in Holland must not alone be prepared to pay their share of the full cost of reclamation but they must have an agricultural degree or they must prove themselves to have expert agricultural knowledge and sufficient capital to be able to fully produce and work that land. They must prove themselves to be agricultural experts. That is the rule in Holland and the same rule is followed in Denmark. Only a certain agricultural committee can give a person the authority to purchase land and nobody will be allowed to purchase it except an expert agriculturist who has no other employment.

If things should come to this stage in this country in the future it will not be a new concept. Whoever happened to be Minister for Lands when that occurred would have a tremendous pool of land available to him because, if user of the land was the only criterion, nobody could use the land unless he was an expert. In many continental countries there are severe restrictions on the division of agricultural land. They make provisions against fragmentation. They make provision that those who inherit land will fully utilise it and they are not allowed to alienate it to people not engaged in the agricultural industry. These are some of the matters that make it easier for some of these countries where you have more restrictive laws. The time may come in this country when it would be accepted national policy that the people concerned with the land would be restricted to a certain acreage and that those getting that acreage would not be allowed to engage in any other type of economic activity.

I feel that here we have a big problem to face up to first. We have all this bad user of our land with which we must deal. Under this form of user, we have inherited the 11-months system which is the worst form of user in the whole of western Europe. The 11-months tenant is concerned solely with what he will get out of the land in the 11 months. Driving through the country, one can see how such lands have been mined. The temporary owner is not prepared to keep a fence, make a drain, put a bush in a gap. He is not concerned with putting the land back into good heart. He is concerned solely with what he will get out of it and how quickly. That is one reason why we are taking power now to induce those who let their lands to get out of them so that they can be handed over to people who will work them and care for them.

I knew, of course, that someone would trot out the story of the widow with the ten children. Deputy Blowick shed a few crocodile tears for the widow with the ten children. He alleged the sole purpose of the Bill was to get at her. That, of course, is just so much nonsense to those who are familiar with facts. Where economic circumstances and family reasons demand it there will be no interference by the Land Commission; as I pointed out already, 11 months lettings are not within the terms of this Bill. Some Deputies are under a complete misconception as to what the law is. Any letting for a period of 12 months, or over, is null and void, if the consent of the Land Commission to that letting has not been obtained. That is the legal position established by our own courts. That has been the position since the 1923 Act.

Power is being taken now to deal with cases where land was purchased before that Act because by the device of purchasing off the annuity people could escape the provision with regard to subdivision and so on. Generally speaking, the law is that where lands are let for a period other than the traditional 11 months such a letting is void under existing laws. The provision here which lays it down that the consent of the Land Commission will be necessary in all cases in future is nothing new. If it is necessary for people, because of family circumstances, to let their lands for a temporary period of two or three years, then they would be very foolish, under the existing law, if they did not go to the trouble of securing the consent of the Land Commission to that letting.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Minister aware that his predecessor, Deputy Childers, repeatedly stated in this House the exact opposite when he was Minister for Lands? I asked repeatedly here was it not right to say you could not let land for more than 11 months and his reply was there was no objection whatsoever. If the Minister looks up the record, he will find that reply.

Mr. Moran

Naturally, I cannot say anything about what the Deputy alleges. I am giving the House the benefit of my knowledge.

Mr. Dillon

My impression was the same as the Minister's, but that was categorically stated by Deputy Childers, on three separate occasions in this House.

Mr. Moran

Some Deputies complained about overholding by the Land Commission. The average length of time during which these estates are in the hands of the Land Commission is a period of two to three years. That is the time it takes the Land Commission to prepare a scheme and allot the lands. There are some exceptions to that, with which I shall deal in a moment. Some years ago, due to retirals and so on, the inspectorate staff fell below the norm. Deputies who understand this matter of land acquisition and division will realise the time and trouble it takes to prepare a scheme. It was once said to me, and with some truth, that the best scheme is one in respect of which nobody is satisfied.

There was a good deal of argument about limits. At the moment the limit is one mile and every individual within that limit must be vested and assessed as to the size of his holding, his family circumstances, whether he had other employment, his agricultural ability and his suitability. A scheme is prepared by the inspectorate. A budget estimate is prepared as to improvements and so on. That goes to the divisional inspector and finally to the Commissioners. All that takes time. If the inspector, and I get a great deal of correspondence about these things, does not call on all the people in the area, there is an immediate complaint.

The inspector has to be a very experienced man. He has to be a valuer of land. He has to be a psychologist. He has to have a fair knowledge of agriculture. He must be able to persuade one man to give up portion of his holding for the good of his neighbour. He must not allow himself to be influenced by threats, and threats are often uttered. His is a very difficult and specialised task. I can assure Deputies it takes an amount of training to make a Land Commission inspector.

Some of the critics of this Bill show an abysmal ignorance of the issues involved in the acquisition and division of land. Let me assure the House that it is completely untrue to suggest that lands are being let by the Land Commission for the purpose of revenue. Any Deputies who have the idea that the Land Commission have been letting lands for the purpose of making money out of it could not be further off the mark. That aspect of the matter is more of a nuisance value to the Land Commission than anything else. They often incur losses. The longer they hold these lands the bigger the loss on a resale. In some cases, while these lands are being let some person's stock is lost. They are liable for all these things.

In the vast majority of cases, the average is from two to three years for the Land Commission to have a scheme put through. As against that, you have the land taken for the purpose of rearrangement which, as I have already explained to the House, depends on the co-operation of the people. If you cannot get the co-operation of the whole lot of them in most of these cases then the Land Commission must sit back and let that land.

Take those cases where I have given answers to the House about lands being in the hands of the Land Commission for a very long time. These cases, mainly, give you the statistical figure of land, over a very long period, being in the hands of the Land Commission. Broadly speaking, I have given a policy direction that where lands are in the hands of the Land Commission for more than three years I should be told about it and that an explanation be given as to the particular difficulties— and there must be particular local difficulties in that area.

On occasion, too, I know from experience that you will get this situation in an isolated instance. You have one inspector who has been working on a scheme for perhaps a full year or 14 months and he has the work virtually completed. He knows every individual with all the relations and all the implications. Suddenly that man goes ill. If he will be out for long or if that inspector goes to hospital it is a question for the senior inspector to decide to try to get a young man in there, who has no experience of these people, who will have to waste another six months or more in the same work or in collecting the same data, or to wait for the inspector who has spent so much time in the preparation or partial preparation of a scheme for that area. It occurs on occasion. It is a matter over which neither I nor my inspectors have any control. In the main, these are isolated incidents in delays.

Many Deputies take an impartial view of this Bill. I feel I shall have the full support of the vast majority of Deputies in getting it through, irrespective of the Party to which they belong. It has been encouraging for me to find so much appreciation of some of the provisions in this Bill from Deputies from all sides of the House who come from congested areas. I know how difficult it is, from my long experience here, to get people with no experience of the congested areas to understand the arrangements there or to understand the land pattern there. On many occasions, speaking in this House and speaking to Deputies of my own Party from the east and south of the country, I have felt that they had no idea as to the problems that confront Deputies representing west of Ireland constituencies and the problems confronting the people who are living in these particular areas.

We are providing a new and effective machinery in this Bill that should give a tremendous fillip to the work of the Land Commission. The new approaches which are tried out under this Bill are much more suited to this day and age to try to reconstitute our farm structural pattern. The new approach must result in putting into production thousands and thousands of acres all over the country that are now idle and badly used. The ultimate effect of this Bill must be, with the co-operation of all Deputies, to provide a new sheet-anchor for a population on the land with better prospects both in the immediate future and in the long term.

If we can make this approach and induce the people on the land who are not using it to leave it and if we put the land that is now going derelict and to waste into the hands of competent and energetic young landowners the effect on our economy and on the rural population should be apparent very quickly both to the House and to the country. It would be more suitable to deal with much of this in extenso on the Committee Stage when we start to discuss it section by section.

I commend the Leader of the main Opposition to read what I have said in connection with his fears dealing with Section 27 of this Bill. I believe that when he studies what I have said in the record about the legal position the fears he expressed when speaking on the provisions of this Bill last night——

Mr. Dillon

May I also assume that the Minister will give further and better consideration to the reservations which I and my colleagues made in regard to that section, particularly with reference to the dual function of the Secretary of the Department who is also a Lay Commissioner, and that he will give due weight to the matter between now and the next stage?

Mr. Moran

I dealt in extenso with what the Deputy said here last night but the Deputy was not here when I was speaking. I invited him to read what I said.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Next stage?

Mr. Moran

Next Tuesday.

Mr. Dillon

I understand agreement has been reached that the Committee Stage will be taken after the Recess. However, if it suits the Minister's convenience to order the Committee Stage formally for Tuesday next——

Mr. Moran

That may well be. I suggest that we formally decide now to take the Committee Stage on Tuesday next——

Mr. Dillon

On the express understanding that that is a formal decision.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 10th December, 1963.