Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Apr 1964

Vol. 209 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Land Bill, 1963—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I cannot say if the House has considered the seriousness of this section. That is why I feel that an opportunity is now given to us to stress upon all sides of the House the importance and the seriousness of the provisions of this section.

It is clearly laid down in the explanatory memorandum circulated with this Bill that section 12 provides that the subdivision, subletting and letting of all agricultural land in the State shall be subject to Land Commission consent. I consider that that is a very serious threat to the full rights of ownership.

When this Bill is enacted, and if this section is incorporated in it, then it will be necessary for the owner of agricultural land to relinquish his rights to do as he wishes with the land which probably for generations has been in his family. It is a very strange provision. I feel that the majority of the land owners in this country, big or small, and particularly the small owners, seriously object to the provisions of this section because they are an infringement on the rights of the owner of the land to do as he wishes with his own property.

For the first time, the State is intervening in the rights of the citizen who is the owner of the property. This type of legislation might be expected from somebody of the type of Fidel Castro, Mr. Khrushchev, Marshal Tito, Mr. Bulganin, or some of those people. Here I see the Minister for Lands masquerading as the defender of the people's rights but now taking it upon himself to introduce this very serious section.

Even if it becomes an Act, it is extremely doubtful if it will be constitutional to interfere with the rights of citizens in relation to the ownership of land. I feel that the vast majority of the members of this House do not realise the seriousness of this section and the effect it will have on rural Ireland. This is a section which should be opposed and certainly it ought not to be passed by this House without very serious examination.

Last week, the Minister for Lands went to great pains to point out that although the section will be incorporated in our legislation it is not of a very serious character and it will not interfere with the rights of the landowners of this country. Of course, it would interfere with the ownership of land and with the rights of a person to do what he likes with his property.

Whilst we accept the Minister's assurances that all conacre lettings, all 11 months lettings, all grazing lettings, all the meadowing sales that usually take place under the conacre system are excluded from the powers of this Bill—we take it that they are—nevertheless, when it comes to dealing with the law as it stands, if any circuit court judge or high court judge is asked at a later stage to interpret the law in relation to section 12 of this Bill, when it is enacted, there is nothing in this Bill to enable that learned judge to decide that a conacre letting or any other suitable temporary letting does not come within the scope of section 12 of this Bill.

I accept the Minister's assurance that his intentions are really good at this moment in relation to this matter but, nevertheless, there will be no use in any aggrieved landowner presenting himself in court and saying that the Minister for Lands said in the Dáil during the passage of the Bill that conacre and other temporary lettings, and the usual short-term lettings we have in the country dealing with grasslands, meadowing, and so on, are excluded from the law. Naturally enough, the learned judge will be concerned only with what is before him in black and white and with what this House passes. The section clearly says that all lettings, all sublettings, all subdivision of all agricultural land will be affected. That is very wide. There is no narrowness there. Sooner or later a problem will arise. It will be no use for a landowner to go to court to contest this section because no letting, subletting or subdivision can take place without the consent of the Land Commission. It is an infringement of the right to free ownership of land.

Many agricultural organisations have protested against this section. Even the auctioneers' association have made strong representations and recommendations in relation to it. It is easy for the Minister to give us his assurances here, but they will be gone when the Bill is signed by the President and becomes an Act.

It is wrong for the State to interfere in a matter of this kind. The right of every farmer in this country to own his land is being contested. This section will give wide powers to Land Commission officials. We will reach the stage where the Minister will tell the House he is not concerned with the everyday workings of the Land Commission and that the putting into effect of section 12 is a matter for the Commissioners.

There are many objectionable sections in this Bill, and there are many good ones, but this is the most serious one. It is attacking the right of ownership of land. We are now going to set up the Land Commission as an institution to judge the owner of every acre of agricultural land and say whether he will or will not be given permission to do as he pleases with his own land. Is this not a steady step towards dictatorship? Is it not a first step towards interference with the ownership of private property? I think it is. I am sorry that when we are dealing with the rights of the ordinary people of Ireland to own the land of Ireland there is not a single Government Deputy in this House but the Minister for Lands.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

What about the empty benches on your side? There are just two Fine Gael Deputies here.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We have twice as many as the Government.

Mr. Moran

In that glasshouse do not start throwing that kind of stone.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

This is a matter which should concern every Deputy in rural Ireland. The seriousness of this will not be felt until some farmer is seeking consent to have a letting or sub-letting carried out. The Minister is being extremely vague about this. He referred to Land Acts of the past. We are not dealing with Land Acts of the past, but the present Bill, and particularly section 12. When speaking last week, the Minister did not satisfy us as to the necessity for the inclusion of section 12. Can he give us greater assurances than he has? Can he tell us on what basis Land Commission consent to letting or sub-letting will be granted or refused? Will it be on the authority of the Commissioners or on the authority of the Minister? Are we going to reach the stage eventually that section 12 will be used for a privileged few in this country to do what they like with their land?

Mr. Blowick

You can bet your life.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If we are going to reach the stage that a privileged few can let, sub-let or subdivide their lands while their neighbours, for reasons best known to the Minister and the Commissioners, will be refused the right to do so, who is going to determine whether permission will be granted or not? This is State interference with the right to the ownership of land. This side of the House have always been the champions of the ownership of private property and have always safeguarded the individual's right to his property. It is an immoral section. I feel that if it were tested in the courts it would be found to be unconstitutional, and I am not so sure that it will not be tested. When I see the landowners of this country now having to crawl on hands and knees for permission to have their lettings carried out, I believe it is going too far in bulldozing the people of rural Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is repeating himself. He has practically repeated himself all the time since he started speaking.

Mr. Moran

And he repeated the same speech 40 times on the last occasion.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know about the last occasion but I know he is repeating himself on this occasion.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister should not try to prevent discussion. A very serious principle is involved here.

Mr. Moran

This is complete repetition by Deputy Flanagan for the purpose of holding up the Bill.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is exactly what I expected the Minister to say and for the fifth or sixth time, I shall go on record as saying this Party are not anxious to hold up this or any Bill but, on the contrary, are anxious to help in promoting legislation that will be for the benefit of the people. Our criticism will be helpful and constructive. Far be it from us that it should be in any way described as destructive. I want to know what will happen in the case of certain types of people who must carry out lettings of their land.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to disagree with the Deputy, but in all reason and common sense, I must rule that he is constantly repeating himself, if not in the same words, then repeating the same principle embodied in different words.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Chair is the best judge of that and I accept your ruling. While I admit I have been guilty of repetition, I feel this is the one section that, if the order of the House permitted it, repetition should be allowed. It is a very serious matter and I ask the Minister to review entirely the terms of this section, which is undesirable and unnecessary. It will be too late when it is passed. We now have the opportunity of dealing with this and we should give it the most serious consideration possible because of its far-reaching implications for landowners.

Mr. Blowick

What Deputy Flanagan has said about the Minister's assurance is perfectly correct. No judge dealing with the case, if such a case is contested before him, will bother considering what Dáil records say. A judge dealing with such a case will look at the Act and interpret it as it emerges from this House and the Upper House and is signed by the President.

I have said practically all I want to say on this section. It is an outrage and impertinence for the Minister and the Department to introduce such a section. It is not sufficient to say that without producing support for the statement. Let us throw our minds back to the time of our grandfathers when the land was owned by about 3,500 landlords, if I remember correctly, and the whole Irish population were regarded by them as serfs to pay any rent they liked to impose. These people arose—we had no native Government then—under Parnell, Dillon and Davitt and succeeded through the Land League in forcing the British Prime Minister, Gladstone, to bring in the Land Purchase Act, the first of many that became law. The landlords were purchased out and compensated and the tenants are now the registered owners of their holdings.

We must not forget they bought that ownership at a very exorbitant price down the years and God knows how many of them found the annuity twice yearly when gale day came around. But they found it because they prized ownership of their holdings so highly. I do not give a fig for the assurance the Minister gave us. I say conacre comes definitely within the scope of subletting and any judge or district justice will so have to interpret the wording of this measure.

We have had 23 or 24 years of Fianna Fáil rule during which public enemy No. 1 seemed to be the small farmer and, by every economic means and pressure, they forced him out of the smallholding to England, leaving three or four out of every five small-holdings in the country vacant. Now, see what the present Minister for Lands is doing under section 12. He says: "If these blackguards who went to England and deserted the country do not come home and look after their own country, I shall take their land from them."

Mr. Moran

On a point of order, this section deals with the subdivision of land——

Mr. Blowick

It deals with the letting of land. No more twisting.

Mr. Moran

The subdivision of land. It has nothing to do with the acquisition of land or otherwise.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is putting a point of order, or rather a point of interpretation, and Deputy Blowick should not interrupt.

Mr. Blowick

As far as I can see, with all respect, it is a red herring point to try to put me off my track. I am not dealing with the subdivision side of this but in particular, with the words used in the section "letting" or "subletting". Whether the Minister likes it or not, I assert that any judge or district justice interpreting this measure will have to determine that a conacre letting, whether tillage or grazing or sale of meadow on the 11-months system is subletting. The point I was making is that, having chased the small farmers over to England, we are now calling them blackguards for having deserted the land, although they were run out of the country by the carelessness and neglect of the Government to give them a living here. Now we are going to grab their small-holdings. Let nobody doubt that this section is aimed at the poor unfortunates who were squeezed out of the country.

We heard great talk in the past about the clearances of the landlords but when history comes to be written, Fianna Fáil will go down as the clearance Government who cleared the small farmers out of the country. A good many years ago the present Minister for Finance, Dr. Ryan, who was then Minister for Agriculture, said there were too many people on the land. Of course there are and it would be very nice if we could force the people to be so servile and down-trodden that they would have to join the ranks of Fianna Fáil and come hat in hand to beg crumbs from the rich Fianna Fáil table. Whether the Minister likes it or not, I object to the Land Commission trying to take back the ownership of land. What right have they, sitting in Merrion Street, to say: "We will determine how you will use the land"? Is that not claiming ownership of it? If the Minister goes to the fair to sell a beast, the very fact that he drives the beast out the gate is proof of his ownership, but if I meet him on the road and say: "You will sell under certain conditions", I am claiming part-ownership of the beast. That is what the Minister is doing in this section. He is undoing the work our forefathers did in acquiring ownership.

The last word I want to say on the section is that I hope I shall be returned to the Dáil some day and see a Government—I shall do my best to ensure it—one of whose first acts will be to repeal this obnoxious section. If I describe it as blackguardly, I shall not be calling it out of its name.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Deputy Blowick and Deputy Flanagan have rightly spoken with some indignation on this section. Perhaps one tends to be repetitive on this question but certainly, in this Parliament 40 years after the formation of the State, when, by our own legislation we begin to repeal one of the three Fs, it is an occasion that should lead to some indignation in speaking here. The right of free sale, the right freely to deal with one's land——

Mr. Moran

This has nothing to do with sale and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The right of free sale and the right freely to deal with one's land is part and parcel of the history of our whole land movement here. This section restricts the operation of the right of ownership. It is one of two sections. The Minister says it has nothing to do with free sale. Section 13 has. We are dealing now with section 12 and in the way it will operate, it will undoubtedly restrict a farmer's ability to deal with his own land. I know well that from the time of the Land Acts, just before the Hogan Act and subsequently carried on in the Land Act of 1923 and in other Land Acts, there was always retained in the Land Commission, where any portion of money advanced for the purchase of land was still outstanding, the right to control the subdivision or letting of a purchased holding.

That was debated here originally on the Land Acts in the 1920s and the defence put forward for it was that the State was still owed in respect of that land portion of the money which had been originally advanced, but at all times it was conceded that once the person who had the land repaid the entire outstanding amount of the advance and had the land certificate handed to him, he was as free as the air to deal with his land as he thought fit.

Mr. Moran

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but that is an incorrect statement of the law under the Act of 1923.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I do not think it is an incorrect statement of the law.

Mr. Moran

I can assure the Deputy it is.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I do not think it is. I have no doubt that what I said is reasonably accurate. The point I want to refer to is this. Here under the guise of a section in a Land Bill is something which brings in a new concept of our land law code. Any part of land, irrespective of how it is acquired by its present occupier or owner, any agricultural holding, is now to be controlled by the Land Commission. What picture does that conjure up for us? We can well imagine an inspector going around the country with two or three assistants and, if he has this power, controlling every single farmer he meets in the way he deals with his land. Decisions will be taken by whom? Is it the Minister for Lands or the Lay Commissioners sitting in Merrion Square? What sort of tale bearing and title-tattle is to go on now in relation to dealings with land? What sort of anonymous letters will be written, poison pens set in motion and all the rest because, say, Deputy Blowick's neighbour contemplates letting his land or apparently has somebody working it and must have let it? What letter will go then to the Minister for Lands and arising from which action will be taken?

What sort of system of secret control is to be set up under this section to restrict further the right of people to act freely in accordance with their own convictions and dictates as to the way they would like to live? What is the purpose of this section? The Minister cannot say that the section is necessary to enable the land resettlement problem to be solved. As the law stands, if the Land Commission see a farm of land being run down by faulty management, through a wrong policy being adopted or anything of that kind, and if there is a congestion problem, there are ample powers at the moment to enable that land to be acquired and made available for resettlement. Why is it necessary to introduce this power except for the purpose of intimidating people?

Unfortunately, I feel there is something sinister behind it. I do not say there is something sinister on the part of the Minister but it is the system, the bureaucratic control that has grown up across the street. I know of certain inspectors in the Land Commission who would dearly love to have this power, dearly love to be able to tell——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not make a side attack on these officials.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am sorry.

Mr. Blowick

I want to say that inspectors have gone out already on lands and——

An Ceann Comhairle

I will not have my decision discussed.

Mr. Blowick

All right.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not attack officials.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I think I am entitled to say that the effect of this section, if it is passed, may be to have the Land Commission officials and representatives of the Land Commission exercising arbitrary power which will have an adverse effect as it may also cause injustice and hardship to people owning land. This is a serious section. I have not done this before but I think it is right that it should be done. I want a house and I want inside in this House the Deputies who intend to vote on this section.

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

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I called for a House in order that Fianna Fáil Deputies—I am glad to see that Deputy Lalor has arrived—who will be asked to vote on this section will realise what their Minister is asking them to do. They are being asked under this section to restrict the right of free farmers in dealing with their land, in letting it as they wish and in selling it. The Minister interrupted me a moment ago. I was not quick enough to keep one eye on the Minister and the other on the section. He interrupted me to say that this section had nothing to do with free sale. It has. I think the Minister knew that it had, because the section says:

An agricultural holding shall not be let, sublet or subdivided without the consent of the Land Commission.

Are we to have the situation in this country that any small farmer, or any farmer, big or small, who owes no money to the Land Commission or to anyone else, will not be entitled to sell portion of his land if he wishes to do it, without the consent of the Land Commission? Surely, the object of the land movement in this country throughout the last century was to establish fixity of tenure, a fair rent and the right freely to deal with one's lands as one wishes without the consent of any supervising authority, be it the Land Commission or a landlord?

That is the principle involved in this section. It is a serious section. There is a very large principle involved and certainly if Deputies are asked to vote on this section, they should at least sit in the House and understand what is involved.

I do not know the object or why this section has become necessary in the Bill. That may appear. The Minister may be able to tell us that later on. I do know that the Minister in earlier discussions said that the section has nothing to do with conacring or temporary lettings, and so on. On what basis does the Minister say that? It is an interesting fact—again, I hope Deputies will understand this—that in no part of the Land Acts that I am aware of is there any definition of letting or sub-letting which would safeguard a person making a conacre or grazing letting.

It is all very well for the Minister to give assurances in the House but, later on, if the powers conferred by an Act of this House come to be tested in the courts or anywhere else no one will pay any attention to the pious hopes or aphorisms of a Deputy or Minister speaking inside this House. We now have the power to deal with legislation. Once we walk into the division lobby and vote, our function is finished and it is important that we should realise when we are deciding a matter of this kind that we may be doing something in relation to dealings with land which can have very wide effects.

I think this is a retrograde step. If it were the case that the Minister was able to come in here and say that this is essential to resettlement of land in Ireland, I certainly would consider it then very carefully, as I think any Deputy would, but no such case has been made. I do not believe such a case could be made.

There are ample powers in existence at the moment to enable the Land Commission to proceed with its work without this section. The inclusion of this section may bring about a form of control of landholders in this country which is not desirable. It is a bad section and should be opposed.

Mr. McQuillan

According to the Minister, the purpose of this section and the amendments which he has introduced to the section is to prevent the subdivision of holdings into uneconomic units. That is the purpose according to the Minister. In fact, this section will provide a weapon that will enable whatever Government are in power over the next five years, if they implement the Bill, to bring about the structural changes which, according to the Minister, are so necessary if we are to become a member of the EEC.

Personally, I have given the most serious consideration over several weeks to this section and I have not the slightest compunction or qualm of conscience in asking the House to reject the section, although there is no Deputy in this House who is prepared to go so far as I shall go on the question of land division and I have been called many things inside and outside this House as a result of my views, which are described by many people as extreme on the question of land division. But I shall not listen in this House to a Minister from the west of Ireland betraying the small farmers of his own constituency and the other constituencies in the west and other congested areas and allow such a section through without protesting in the strongest possible fashion and making known the reasons why I feel as I do on this matter.

I have here the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Problems of Small Western Farms, These are not the musings or discussions of amateurs; this is a report of professionals, of serious experts on the subject. This is what they have to say, on page 13:

The Land Commission has powers to prevent subdivision of holdings (for which an obvious need has existed over the years)——

In other words, what the Minister has in section 12 is, according to this Inter-Departmental Committee's Report, already in operation in the country. This is the key. This report goes on to say:

but it has no corresponding powers, for which a need may also exist or may be developing, in regard to the undesirable agglomeration of holdings by private individuals or concerns.

In other words, the group that examined the problems of the small farms recommended that action be taken by legislation to prevent one individual from buying up an entire townland.

I want to say that there is no danger today of any farmer on a small holding in rural Ireland looking for permission to subdivide what is already an uneconomic unit. That is not a problem. That problem has solved itself through the people leaving the localities and today, as this report of the Inter-Departmental Committee states, the real problem is to prevent the grabber, the opportunist, the speculator, the non-national, the gombeen man, or whatever you like to call him, taking advantage of the fact that his neighbours living on uneconomic holdings are forced to emigrate and thus allow him to move in and grab up all the small holdings that are left. This section is in order to enable that speculator to get away with that. Why?—because, the Minister says, we must adapt ourselves in the next four to five years for European conditions. "We must adapt ourselves"—that is what he had to say.

He is reported in the Irish Independent of Monday, 29th January 1962, speaking at the annual dinner of the Tralee Chamber of Commerce, as saying that he was examining the stark reality of some of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and their implications for countries joining the Common Market. We can take that statement in conjunction with the Minister's opening remarks on the Second Stage of this Bill where we find that, right through, the question of membership of the EEC runs like a thread. We can add to that his remarks in connection with the necessity for bringing about structural changes in so far as small agricultural units are concerned.

If the Minister were taking power under section 12 to deal with conacre settings of land in areas like Meath and Kildare I should not object—I would walk in and support the Minister in the Lobby. However, the Minister has stated that conacre lettings are excluded. Who is he protecting by that device? Whose confidence is he gaining? Is it of the small, uneconomic holder in the west? It most certainly is not. I have here a list of 105 people from Counties Dublin, Kildare, Louth, Meath, Kilkenny and Carlow who, between them, have 40,000 acres of conacre. Of these, some are non-nationals and some of them work under the subterfuge of limited liability companies. They can still take land on conacre for the growing of wheat or, under the new priority given to beef, they can take land for the grazing of cattle.

Is section 12 there for the purpose of trimming those gentlemen's sails? Is there anything in section 12 to give the Land Commission authority to move in and say they will acquire those holdings? According to the Minister, section 12 precludes the Land Commission from dealing with lands let for conacre under the 11 month system. What, therefore, is the position and what groups will be affected by the section?

We have the answer, again, in the Report of the inter-Departmental Committee on the Problems of Small Western Farms. It is enlightening to read. On page 12, under the heading Vacated Holdings, it says:

The problem of these holdings seems to be a growing one as migration gradually develops into emigration. At present wholly let holdings amount to some ten per cent on average in many western counties. In some of these cases the original family still lives on the holding but for one reason or another is not in a position to work the land. In many of these cases, however, the owners have emigrated. The emigrants understandably hope to return some day and wish to retain the house and holding and will temporarily let it to neighbours or friends rather than sell it.

What is the recommendation? It is this:

It is accordingly suggested that holdings let and not properly worked are left vacant for a period of five years might be taken over by the Land Commission and used for the relief of congestion.

That is an exhaustive report, well prepared and well directed by those experts. Now we find this is the locality to which section 12 of this Bill referred. Instead of dealing with the ranchers, the people who take the large acres for the growing of wheat on the 11 month system, for the grazing of cattle to benefit by the new priority scheme, it is concentrated on taking land from congests in the west and other areas where congestion obtains. What are we asked to do? We are asked to take the five, ten or 15 miserable acres from the unfortunates who were forced to leave, forced to emigrate to earn money in order, as the report I have just quoted states, that one day they would be able to return and resume occupation of the house and the holding they had temporarily let to neighbours or friends during their absence rather than sell it.

Mr. Moran

On a point of order, I have already made the point that this section deals solely with the consent of the Land Commission to division of holdings for redistribution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation Deputy McQuillan deals with.

Mr. McQuillan

What I am most concerned about is that the Minister will come out in the open and tell us what the full implications of this section are. There is no statement by the Minister that, if we take the land, we will ensure permanent employment of some kind, or some means of livelihood will be provided, for those from whom the land is taken. While this Minister is preparing to decimate whatever number of small farmers remain in order to get huge units of land, we have the Taoiseach bringing over Dr. Knapp from the USA to preach to us the value of co-operation amongst small farmers. How can we reconcile the co-operative movement, which the Taoiseach now seems to have embraced, with the aims of the Minister in this section to get rid of smallholders all over the country? What kind of divorce is there in the mind of the Government in relation to this, or is this a deliberate plan on the part of the Taoiseach and his Minister for Lands to delude small farmers in regard to what the future holds for them?

Mr. Donegan

This is a bad section and there is need for some curb on control by the Land Commission, if only because, and I speak from experience now and quite apart from politics, a great deal of division has occurred because of local agitation. This agitation is sometimes founded on real need and sometimes not. We have already given the Minister power to institute proceedings and, in my opinion, it is entirely wrong to strengthen that control in another section.

There is, too, the psychological factor that land is now making a great deal of money. The Agricultural Credit Corporation take two values when they make a loan, the selling value and the value from the point of view of profitability; in other words, the value the land should have if the buyer were interested only in existing profitability as against exploiting it with a further investment of large sums of money. If we create a situation in which people — I include non-nationals — believe that, by a stroke of the pen, the Land Commission can wipe out the deal and refuse to allow them to buy land, we may find ourselves interfering to a grave extent with the money that can be lent by the commercial banks and, perhaps, even the Agricultural Credit Corporation itself.

Up to this the Land Commission had certain rights but they could not automatically put a stay on the sale of land. If a deposit had been paid and the deal was under way, as it usually was, the Land Commission could do nothing about it. That may be right or it may be wrong, but, after all, land is personal property and the whole basis of our democracy is founded on the right of a person to hold property and to exploit it. If that person decides to sell and makes his deal before the Land Commission move in, it seems only right and proper that he should be allowed to do so. If the land were needed for subdivision, why should the Land Commission not move in first?

This makes me think of French law; any sale of land means an application for subdivision to the Land Commission, an application which may be refused without any reason being given and, of course, at that stage the sale is null and void. Is it our intention to reduce land values? What will be the result if we do? It must be all of ten years since the rough definition in Britain that, if you rent land, as you must in Britain because you cannot own it, then, in regard to a farm worth £10,000, your landlord wanted you to have another £10,000 to exploit it.

I may be labouring the value of employment on the land but where I come from, land is a very valuable asset where there is sufficient capital available to exploit it. If we create a situation in which people feel they have something which is not an easily disposable asset, we will force people off the land, people who should be on the land, exploiting it, and paying good wages out of it. This may be construed as a defence of the purchase of land by foreigners but, so long as these purchases by foreigners or by wealthy nationals do not constitute a major part of the movement of land from one citizen to another, from a national to a non-national, or vice versa, I do not think it is too important.

It has been my experience that where wealthy people have come in, they have given good employment and paid far more than the minimum wage. There is nothing wrong in that. There is nothing wrong in a man owning 500 acres if on every 40 or 50 acres, he employs a man and pays him £10 per week. A non-national who lives three miles away from me employs people all through the year on piece rates and employees are earning as much as £12 per week on the taking out and packing of vegetables. These people would never make £10 a week on a subdivided holding.

We need land division. There is no doubt about that. The need is founded far back in the days of Cromwell and the Penal Laws. Minute divisions of land put the whole economy wrong. But, even if we do need subdivision, are we going too far when we do something in section 12 which will weaken the whole fabric of our agricultural economy and our agricultural financial framework, which is so important? I do not know any progressive farmer today, unless he happens to have a sock capable of holding more gold sovereigns than any normal sock would, who does not have to have an overdraft. So far land has been, and will continue to be, I hope, when this section is removed, good security without collateral because it is always worth something. Land values have increased over the past ten years. This is not a bad thing because it allows people to borrow in order to exploit the land. Will we be right in creating a situation in which people will not buy something because they cannot sell it?

I remember not so many years ago a widow in my parish, Lord rest her, who suffered from two physical disabilities. She owned 37 acres. She had 18 acres in the home farm and 19 acres three miles away. The case ended up before the Lay Commissioners, with her parish priest and myself arguing against the Lay Commissioners. We succeeded to the extent that the outfarm was not taken from her. Later she handed that over to her nephew. He is now farming it and farming it well. Was it not a good thing these provisions were there? Was it not a good thing that what the Minister describes in his explanatory memorandum as "the unsatisfactory patchwork" allowed this to happen?

Is it the intention now to create a position in which the Land Commission will always be right no matter what happens? When one is always right, one can grow careless. Whenever a decision a person makes is one in which there can be no kick back, unless someone ensures that values drop or that there is less investment in land, then one can become very arrogant. It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think this section goes too far. The 11-months system is being dealt with in the wrong way. A few years ago we had the wheat ranchers, but they have left. There were a few bad harvests. Some of them owe money to the people who gave them seeds and fertilisers. Now, because we had a few dozen of these ranchers, operating, there is a sort of idea that wheat ranchers live exclusively in Louth, Meath, Kildare and elsewhere. That is not so.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Dillon said he was going to fix them if he had the chance. The Deputy does not agree with him evidently.

Mr. Donegan

No. At the present moment there are not very many of them. In fact, there are very few.

Mr. McQuillan

That is a list of Deputy Dillon's.

Mr. Donegan

No. This list to which the Deputy refers should be a list of landholders but he is producing, as far as I know, a list of people who are wheat ranchers. I do not know how the Deputy can produce this list of 105 people with so many acres but I can say that in Louth, Meath and Kildare, there are not many of these people still existing.

I can tell Deputies another reason for this 11-months system in these counties where a lot of land is set on this basis. There are farmers who, because they have done well, have, for instance, a herd of cows and are supplying liquid milk to the Dublin milk sales district and getting 2/10 for it in the winter and 1/11d. in the summer. It is quite a good price and these people find they cannot keep their followers because they have not enough land. Because they have, perhaps, spent 15 or 20 years breeding up a good yielding cow, they do not want to sell the heifer that cow produced because they want to keep her to find out has she produced better results than her mother.

It will be found in Louth, Meath, Kildare and other places that the farmer with 20 cows, or maybe six, seven or eight cows will take a field and pay £12 an acre for it. I want to be quite specific about this. He is getting no profit out of it but it allows him to maintain his herd as an entity.

The same thing applies to the ordinary farmer, who cannot be described as a wheat rancher because he decides that being a 20 or 30 acre wheat man, in order to defend his crop and make sure it will not be rejected for various reasons, he must have a combine harvester which will cost him £700 to £900. In order to get the capital for this expenditure he takes 15 acres of wheat land and sows them. All he will get out of that are the overheads that will enable him to see his way to have this machinery. There are very few wheat ranchers in this country. Nobody wants them. There are hundreds of people who take land on the 11-months system for the reason that their own holding is just not big enough for the unit of machinery, the unit of stock and even the unit of employment they have. Anybody who is involved in agriculture knows such men cannot be described as wheat ranchers.

Take my own experience. Four years ago, I leased 50 acres of land from a neighbour and a friend for five years because her husband had died. It suited me and it suited her because her family was young. Next year I walk out. Is there anything wrong with that? If this had happened this year rather than four years ago, would this particular lady not say: "I will not set it to you because I do not want my name in the Land Commission as a person who has too much land."

These are simple cases of ordinary parish society finding reasons for disposing of their lands for a period. Why should the lady in this instance, who had young children going to school, not set her land to a customer who wanted to use his units of machinery and wanted to give more work to the men he was paying on the farm? Why should her name be listed in the Land Commission so that in years to come when there might be congests in the area, the Land Commission might say to her: "We want 100 acres. You do not want it. You leased it to Paddy Donegan some years ago."

People fear what may happen in this connection. While the Minister might be doing a good job in relieving congestion, if this provision is passed, he will strike at the whole fabric of agricultural society. As far as I am concerned, the 12 million acres of arable land are there; the definition is also there of £1,000 million invested between the value of the land, the value of the stock and machinery and the value of the farmyards. Anyone who wants to read about this can read it in the NFA document produced three weeks ago. However, if the viability of the land is removed and if the Minister says: "Land cannot be sold," he may do good in the particular instance, but as far as agriculture and the employment of our people at a good wage are concerned, he will not be doing anything worth while at all.

On the question of unoccupied holdings and holdings that are not being worked by their owners, if the attention of the Land Commission is drawn to a holding that is not being worked and that is being set, they can move against the owner. The 11-months system has one great defect, that it is too short for rotation. The farmer who wants to set his land and who wants it to be looked after properly has to set it for grass and, following that, for wheat, then for another crop and so on. This cannot be done on the 11-months system. He cannot do as I did, lease the land for five years and organise rotation. If he does it, he has to go to the Land Commission and put himself on a list as a person who does not want his land.

There may be a period of a decade and perhaps more in the life of any family when they cannot work their land. People may be too old or too young; people may be sick. A people in a business are entitled to work in the business or away from it and if their health or their age does not allow them to work their business, they are entitled to set it to whomever they like. Is there anything wrong if the man who is too old to run his public house sets it to the man who worked it for him and allows him to continue until his son, who may be five or six when the arrangement is made, reaches 21 and then, by an amicable arrangement, takes over?

The rights of the individual are most important. On a farm there is exactly the same situation. Why should a family who have owned a farm for 300 or 400 years have that land taken from them because for a period they are too old to work it? They may not want to hand it over to a nephew or somebody else who is coming after but, as in a case I know in County Louth, to a person who is no relation but of the same name, or even to a person who works in the yard. If they are old, they may feel that the needs of their old age are safe in the hands of that person, whether he is a relative or not.

Why should they be interfered with? Under the old system, they had some defence at least. Under the new system, so far as I can see, they have no defence. Even if the Minister says there is no great difference, he has hit the money market for land. Some people may think that is bad, but I think it is good so long as it does not go too far. In my opinion, this is a very bad section, and it should be deleted from the Bill.

Mr. Moran

I do not propose to wander about dealing with the various bogeys put up, but to deal again with what is in the section, as I did at great length on the last occasion it was before the House. I shall start with Deputy Flanagan who, of course, made the very same speech this evening as he made on the last occasion. Indeed, I have lost count of the number of times he made it on the last occasion the Bill was before the House. He is obviously trying to raise a scare as well as killing time.

He suggested that this section was brought in by me as a Fidel Castro or Khrushchev for some sinister dictatorial purpose. I should point out to the House that if this is true of this section in my case, it was equally true of the late Deputy Paddy Hogan of the Fine Gael Party who introduced the Land Act, 1923, in this House. Let me again quote section 65 of the Land Act, 1923. It provides:

(1) Where the Land Commission have after the date of the passing of this Act made any advance for the purchase of a holding or parcel, the proprietor thereof shall not subdivide or let the holding or parcel without the consent of the Land Commission, and every attempted subdivision or letting in contravention of this provision shall be void as against all persons, and on any such contravention the holding or parcel shall at the option of the Land Commission vest in them.

That is the law, and has been the law, for all land purchased under the 1923 Act. I am sorry to see Deputy Donegan leaving the House because I propose to give him some free legal advice. It is this: the letting to which he referred in his county for five years was completely and absolutely void under section 65 of the 1923 Act, if he did not get the consent of the Land Commission and, after the first year for which the Deputy took the land, if someone offered her 10/- a year more, the lady who gave him the lease for five years could have pitched him out if he had not the consent of the Land Commission——

Mr. Donegan

That is not right.

Mr. Moran

——because the whole lease and letting was completely and absolutely void under section 65 of the Land Act, 1923.

Mr. Donegan

What are the first words of the section: "Where the Land Commission have ..."

Mr. Moran

The section provides:

(1) Where the Land Commission have after the date of the passing of this Act made any advance for the purchase of a holding or parcel, the proprietor thereof shall not subdivide or let the holding or parcel without the consent of the Land Commission, and every attempted subdivision or letting in contravention of this provision shall be void as against all persons...

Mr. Donegan

The Minister's free legal advice is not worth much.

Mr. Moran

May I suggest it might be wiser in future, if the Deputy wants to take a five years' lease, to get his legal adviser to have a look at section 65 of the Land Act, 1923.

Mr. Donegan

It is governed by the first words of the section.

Mr. Moran

I have repeated the purpose of section 12 of this Bill over and over again to the House. If it earns me the accolade of a Castro or a Khrushchev, as suggested by Deputy Flanagan, a fortiori those expressions apply to the man who introduced the 1923 Land Act, and who provided this complete control over subdivisions or lettings on all land purchased under the 1923 Act. Indeed, long before the passage of the 1923 Act, there was a certain amount of control. Many years before that, certain forms of control were exercised over subdivisions and sublettings.

I had better correct another complete misstatement of the law and the purposes of this section made by Deputy T.F. O'Higgins this evening. He wanted to know the purpose of the section. He called for a House to enable Deputies to contemplate the terrible things that would be done under this section, and he wanted me to explain it. If Deputy O'Higgins had such a great interest in the section, and if he could spare the time to come in here for the hours of discussion we have had on this section already, he would have his explanation.

Deputy O'Higgins is, no doubt, a distinguished lawyer in his own field, but he will never set the heather on fire with his alleged knowledge of the Land Acts when he does not know what every legal schoolboy knows, as I said before, that conacre lettings or agistment agreements are not controlled and are outside the Land Act, and have been for the past 80 years. There is not a first year solicitor's apprentice who does not know that. That is the answer to those people, including Deputy Blowick, who want to create the scare that conacre lettings are being controlled for the first time under this section.

Now, let me come to the other point made by, I think, both Deputy Blowick and Deputy O'Higgins about the sinister reasons for the introduction of this section, who had the power to give consent, and the awful things that may be done under the section if the Minister has any power to give consent to subdivisions. That comes very strangely from Deputy Blowick who, for the first time, provided in the 1950 Land Act, which he had passed through the House with the assistance of Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Flanagan, that subdivision would not be an excepted matter for the Land Commission and would be exercised by the Minister for Lands. That principle was laid down for the first time in the history of this Dáil in Deputy Blowick's Land Act of 1950. Those are the Deputies who are accusing me of having sinister intentions and exercising the withholding of consent in some sinister manner under the proposed section 12 of the Bill.

Deputy Donegan also took I think rather a bad example when he suggested, for instance, that anybody can let a public house if he feels like it and it does not interfere with his right of sale or any of his rights over it. Deputy Donegan should know, or some of the legal luminaries over there should know, that, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1951, if any business premises in this country are let for a period of three years or over the owner cannot ever get them back and the tenant is entitled to go to court to get a lease for 21 years, renewable forever, on that particular property. So, on this question of getting consent and the statement that property outside land is quite free and easy to be dealt with without any restriction, Deputy Donegan is completely incorrect and what he says is completely untrue.

This requirement of the Land Commission's consent to the subdivision of land in the future, as set out under this section, is for one purpose only and that is to make the law uniform. Take, for example, lands purchased under some of the older Land Acts prior to 1903 which were not caught by the section I have quoted of the 1923 Land Act. By redeeming the annuity in these cases, the owner could subdivide at his own sweet will without the consent of anybody. One cannot do that, as I have pointed out, with any land purchased under the 1923 Act which I think deals with most of the land purchased in this country, certainly a very large amount of it. This is making the same law that was passed by the Dáil in the year 1923 applicable to all other types of land.

Again, Deputy O'Higgins does not know what he is talking about when he alleges in respect of land purchased under the 1923 Act that if the annuity were redeemed one could subdivide it without any consent. That is not so. That is not the law. Any land purchased under the 1923 Act, whether or not the annuity is redeemed, is for all time subject to the provision that it cannot be subdivided without the consent of the Land Commission. Indeed, if any rural Deputies look at their own folio they will see written across it that subdivision without the consent of the Land Commission is prohibited in respect of every single perch of land purchased under the Land Act, 1923.

The purpose of this section is to apply the very same control and the very same necessary consent in respect of other lands outside the 1923 Act. Under this Act, we are making it applicable to all the land in the country irrespective of the title to it so that lands that were formerly held, for instance, under a Fee Farm Grant or what lawyers call main lands will be brought under this Bill. There is no reason, to my thinking, why these lands should not be subject to the very same rules against subdivision and subletting as was the position with the vast majority of the lands of this country that were purchased under the Land Act, 1923.

I do not propose to follow all the bogeys which Deputy McQuillan raised under this section but he has a different approach altogether from that of Deputies opposite on this matter and attributes a different type of sinister purpose to this section. He asks: "What is the necessity for having this section at all? Why have this control at all?" The reason for the necessity for this control against the fragmentation of holdings is quite obvious.

Would it not be ludicrous if we, through legislation in this House and at the taxpayers' expense, built up economic units without at the same time maintaining control so that the units built up at the taxpayers' expense can be parcelled out and sold indiscriminately in sections, say, the following week or the following month? I think that that, as a proposition, should make quite obvious to anyone the necessity for having control against subdivision. Millions of pounds have been devoted down through the years and will be devoted towards increasing the size of holdings and towards endeavouring to build them into economic units. If we have no control, what will be the position? Consider, for instance, a man who gets an addition of land and the following week, shall we say, flogs it to whoever comes along to him with a good price and he is quite free to do it. The purpose of this section is to stop operations of that kind: I am speaking now of subdivision.

As far as sublettings are concerned, the law has been all the time since the operation of the section I quoted in the 1923 Act that any letting of more than one year, any letting of two, three, four or five years—as has been cited here — was completely and absolutely void without the consent of the Land Commission. I have seen many cases. The Land Commission give their consent as a matter of form in most of these cases.

Of course, we always shall have on this section Deputies quoting the completely improbable and unrealistic case of a widow with a young family who will not be allowed to sublet her land. I have been listening to the widow's story since this Bill came into the House. I am not prepared to shed any tears over it here. Everybody knows that that is not the type of case the Land Commission bother their heads about. Everybody knows that if a widow with a young family wants to let her holding for a period of years, she will get consent under this Bill, when enacted, in the same way as she got consent since the passing of the 1923 Act at any time she applied for it, merely for the asking.

This section is merely making the law uniform. It is merely applying the same provisions and the same control to all land in the country as those provided for away back in the year 1923 under section 65 of that Land Act. I think I may have had to repeat myself but I have been doing this for hours on this section. There are some sections of this Bill which, I concede, can be a matter for argument but to raise this bogey and to try to create this smokescreen in order to frighten our people about a section that is merely extending the same law as has been in existence in this country since 1923 to all land is beyond me. I have nothing further to say.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister admitted that he has power under the 1923 Act. I should like to know, briefly, why he is trying to bulldoze this section through the House now.

Mr. Tully

On the last occasion we discussed this Bill, I complained that it had been altered so much by amendments that we had now more amendments than Bill. I have another complaint to make now. I think we can call it the "Bits and Pieces" Bill, after the "pop" record. It is being shoved in for discussion any time there is no other business for the House. It is unfair both to the Minister and to Deputies who want to discuss the Bill that this sort of action should be taken.

I was rather interested in the Minister's last comment that he was not going to lose any tears over the widow. As recently as a week or a fortnight ago, under existing legislation, as I pointed out, a widow in similar circumstances with a few acres of land was visited by an inspector and told that because she had let her land for a few weeks, not for a few years, she would lose the land. A few days afterwards, she got a letter from the Land Commission confirming that. I am afraid the Minister is either not quite clear as to what is happening in his Department or is not telling us exactly what is meant by this section.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy might give me particulars of any such case.

Mr. Tully

I have written to the Minister's Department. I do not like bothering the Minister with matters which are matters purely for his Department. I regret to say that I have not yet received a reply.

In regard to the subdivision of land, perhaps my approach is different from that of some others who have spoken. I do no agree that people with small holdings should be threatened that their holdings will be taken from them if, because of economic circumstances or any other good reason, they have to sublet for a period. However, I agree that those who have a lot of land and who let it year after year for conacre or on the 11 months system for grass, are not entitled to hold on to that land. Unlike Deputy Donegan, I see no good reason why they should be allowed to continue. If that were simply the issue in this section, it would have my support. Unfortunately, it is tied up with the other aspect. It also entitles the Land Commission to take possession of small holdings of a few acres because of the fact that somebody—often a greedy neighbour, I am afraid—puts his eye on it and decides he will bring it to the notice of the Land Commission and ask that it should be acquired.

Mr. Carter

We know from the Minister's statement and from past experience that the power of consent to the subdivision and letting of land was in the possession of the Land Commission under the 1923 Act. We can also say from experience that in most cases they used this power reasonably well and wisely. In this section power is also being taken to deal with lands other than those mentioned in the 1923 Act and I should like to clear up one or two points in this regard.

If you extend the power to lands other than those covered by the 1923 Act, there must be some reason for it. I was not here for the discussion on the Bill last week. We are all aware of the amount of land held under the Ashbourne and Wyndham Land Acts and other Acts as well. Power is not confined in this case. Amendment No. 24a in the list of additional amendments circulated by the Minister states:

In page 8, line 29, after "and such consent may be either general or particular" (inserted by amendment number 24) to insert the following :

"and may be subject to such conditions (if any) as the Land Commission think fit.".

In a further amendment for an extension of the powers being sought under the Bill, the Minister goes on to say:

The power of the Land Commission under this section shall be so exercised as to prevent the creation or continuance of holdings which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, are not economic holdings.

No one in this House or outside it, or in the Land Commission, have issued a blueprint of an economic holding. I have never yet heard a definition of an economic holding. Those are some of the matters on which I should like to get information.

Where an application is made to the Land Commission for the purpose of letting there should be some reasonable specific time mentioned. It might be useful to say whether or not the Land Commission give consent or withhold it. The Commission should at least notify the applicant within a reasonable time.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister saw fit to give me some free legal advice. I rejoined, in the rather flurried atmosphere, that his advice was worth exactly what he defined it as—nothing. I have not the sections of the 1923 Act before me, but we know what has been the practice of the Land Commission over the years. It is when the Land Commission have given notice of their intention to walk the lands that this question of subdivision arises. The fragmentation of holdings was something they could refuse at all times. I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is this. If you had a 150 acre farm—not a huge holding but certainly an economic holding— what normally happened over the years was that if a person sold that holding, it was hardly ever interfered with—I would say never interfered with—so long as the Land Commission had not lodged their notice before the sale. Under this section it appears to me as if the affair is strengthened to the extent that the Land Commission can refuse consent to the transfer of the holding and that is the end of it. That is the step forward, as I understand it.

Mr. Moran

This has nothing to do with transfers as the Deputy will see if he reads the section. It deals with subletting and subdivision.

Mr. Donegan

Take the 150-acre holding where a man is selling 75 acres. What is going to happen then? Can the Land Commission come along and stop the sale of it? People are beginning to see that there is a future in land and beginning to pay high prices for it and beginning to pay men. That is good, and it has only happened in the recent past.

There is definitely a change here. The explanatory memorandum defines it:

It is intended as a global provision taking the place of the unsatisfactory patchwork of control...

There is a definite change. The Minister's amendment, quoted by Deputy Carter, in fact, does not add anything to it:

The powers of the Land Commission under this section shall be so exercised as to prevent the creation or continuance of holdings which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, are not economic holdings.

The subdivision of the large farm between two sons which would create two economic holdings for them could be opposed on the grounds that there were congests about and that land would no longer be available that should be available to them. I find the section most obnoxious. I think the Minister is going too far, that the whole Bill goes too far and certainly section 12.

Mr. Clinton

I oppose the section because it represents a further encroachment on the rights of ownership. We have had examples of this in the Town Planning legislation that went through the House a short time ago under which a man may not now decide to paint his house outside with a certain colour without having the previous consent of the town planning authority. I can see that, by looking for extra power for bureaucracy, we are reaching the position where one would be afraid to cough without previous permission.

This section is being opposed by every Deputy on this side of the House and by every Labour Deputy. The Minister said it is being opposed for different reasons and that is true. I am opposed personally to Deputy McQuillan's view. He objects to the letting of land. I have known many uneconomic holders who made themselves economic and were able to provide themselves with decent living standards because they were able to take a certain amount of land each year. There are many parts of the country where for a generation or so this has been the practice. I know one instance in Deputy Donegan's constituency where the practice has ceased to be possible for one reason. That upset small uneconomic holders so that they did not know where to turn for a livelihood.

It is all right for the Minister to say here that conacre lettings are not legal lettings. A short time ago when the Minister for Local Government made certain statements here regarding his Department, I quoted these statements in our own local authority and our law agent said: "I do not mind what the Minister states in the House; that is not law." There is no good in having on record the Minister's assurance if it is not written into the Bill. It is all right for the Minister to say it was a Cumann na nGaedheal Government that was responsible for the 1923 Act which controlled lettings. I should safely say that if the late Deputy Paddy Hogan were alive today he would be the first to admit that in practice this was a wrong and undesirable provision and he would be the first to agree that it should be removed.

I assume that the whole purpose of this piece of legislation is to improve existing legislation but if it consolidates the provision in the 1923 Act where there was this restriction on letting or ownership I would be prepared to stay here a long time opposing it.

The Minister has complained that he is being kept a long time on this section and that it is not worth that. If it kept us here until Christmas it is worth it, I think, because I have seen so many families who could not have carried on and kept farms for their families. I have experience of this in my own family and I am very bitter about it. A family of eight, we had an outlving farm and we were persecuted by the Land Commission coming to have that outlying farm taken away from us simply because there was local agitation to have that done. My parents were waiting for the family to grow up. These are now two economic holdings doing a good job, thank God, but if the Land Commission gets absolute power local pressure will, I think, always bring about unjust actions.

The people in Merrion Street cannot expect to know and should not know the intimate details of families, financially or otherwise. People should not be asked to explain why, for a particular period, they have to let their lands. That should be their business. If a man owns a shop or a factory he can let it, or portion of it, and there is no power that I know of to prevent him. I do not see why we should give this power to the Land Commission. It is undesirable and I think any Deputy who has any interest in rural Ireland should be here to oppose it.

Mr. Moran

I am really at a loss to know what the attitude of the Fine Gael Party is to this section. I could understand it if the previous speaker, Deputy Clinton, came along with his Party's policy on this matter with an amendment to wipe out the law of this land on subletting and subdivision since the 1923 Act which was passed by the predecessors of his own Party. I cannot understand the hares raised here by Deputy Flanagan and others as to what will happen under this section when, in fact, all the section is doing is making what is the law of this land since 1923 applicable to other forms of land under different titles. That is what this section is doing.

Deputy Carter wanted some explanation of the subsection under which the Land Commission may give consent to subdivision generally or in a particular form. The purpose of that is to save time-wasting red tape where, for instance, land subject to the Land Act of 1923 is being bought by a local authority. In such a case a local authority would have to apply to the Land Commission, if they wanted to erect 20 labourers' cottages on that land, for 20 different consents. In the same way, a building contractor who wanted land for development would, as the law stands, have to apply for Land Commission consent to make each subdivision of the land legal.

The purpose of the sub-section is, in cases such as this, to enable the Land Commission to say: "Since the purpose of the application for subdivision is what is stated you can go ahead and divide the land into as many subsections as you like for your building purposes." The same applies to a local authority. It will not be necessary for them to come back to the Land Commission for a separate consent in each case. It is true that as the law stands their consent can be subject to various conditions.

What is envisaged are conditions the same as apply now. Where small sections of land are involved and there is a subdivision, it involves the operation of the annuity on the whole portion of that holding and where the amount to be apportioned to that small portion that is sold is small, the Land Commission only make it a condition of their consent that the purchaser who is getting the small portion will redeem any annuity on it so as to avoid book-keeping on the part of the Land Commission and indeed to save himself the trouble as he might be issuing receipts for perhaps fivepence or sixpence or a shilling a year in respect of the subdivided portion.

The other point referred to by Deputy Carter was in regard to the subsection which deals with the basis on which the Land Commission should refuse to give consent to subdivisions, that is, to prevent the creation of uneconomic holdings. That has been the whole purpose behind this control of the Land Commission down through the years but it has never been expressly written out in our law. Invariably when the Land Commission refuse their consent to the subdivision of a holding, it is for the purpose of stopping fragmentation of small holdings.

Sometimes reasons are advanced as to why the subdivisions should go through and invariably the Land Commission would make it a condition of their consent that the purchaser of the divided holding would be an uneconomic holder and the piece purchased by him would be consolidated with his parent holding, so that he at least would be getting a better economic unit and two uneconomic holdings would not be created. The Land Commission in this sense cannot look to the individual on the letting for the time being.

It may be that the individual who was trying to subdivide his holding may have some outside work and wants to sell a portion of it. He might be all right because of his occupation and could carry on in that unit but in ten or 20 years' time he may be gone from that unit and his son or some relation who inherits may not have the same skills and would be back again on the books of the Land Commission looking for migration or an addition. That is the reason it is necessary to exercise strict control in the matter of fragmentation of our land.

As I said, that has always been the position in respect of land purchased under the 1923 Act and I think that that section of the 1923 Act captured land purchased under the 1903 Act but other lands purchased, or other advances made under other Land Acts prior to that, were free of that control. In relation to the Acts I have mentioned there is not such a large area involved but it is there. There was also the position in regard to land purchased under the Acts prior to the two I have mentioned, that by paying off the annuity the owner could divide it up anyway he wished, irrespective of whether he was creating uneconomic holdings or otherwise.

It is simply to bring in these lands, the control of which was not captured under section 25 of the 1923 Act, that this section is here, to make the one law for all lands as was laid down under the 1923 Act and the principle of which has been accepted by this Dáil and by the country at all times down through the years since 1923. As I have already pointed out, I think it would be the height of economic lunacy to be spending the taxpayer's money building up holdings without having the power to stop the individual who got the addition from subdividing and selling it out a week after the Land Commission had finished with it. I do not think any sensible Deputy would stand for that, or that the House would stand for it.

As I said, nothing has been mentioned by any Deputy this evening in regard to this section with which we have not already dealt on the last occasion. If the Party opposite feel, as evidently Deputy Clinton feels, that it is Fine Gael policy to repeal the Land Act of 1923, let them introduce the Bill and we will debate it.

Mr. Barrett

Is the Minister trying to tell the House that it has been the law of the land that the Civil Service can at any time interfere with a man's rights to dispose of his land, although it is subject to no advance?

Mr. Moran

The Deputy will pardon me if I am somewhat impatient, having dealt with this point for hours on end, with the Deputy when he chooses to stroll in now and start to raise this hare.

Mr. Barrett

This is not a hare.

Mr. Moran

It is.

Mr. Barrett

I object; it is not a hare. It is a protest——

Mr. Moran

It has been chased around this House so much that it is nearly out of breath. Chase it down in Cork. You got a bad run there when you started chasing hares. The purpose of section 12 is to provide the same provisions in regard to subletting and subdivision as have been the law since section 65 of the 1923 Act was passed. If I said that once, I have said it a thousand times.

Mr. Donegan

I do not accept that the Minister is correct when he says that the 1923 Act had the same provisions. For one thing, not three minutes ago, he said that there was an extension of these provisions. I have not the Bill before me and I have not the opportunity to examine it in detail, but, as I understand it, the position was that there were certain strictures only when the Land Commission had in fact moved. That is what I understood from what the Minister said to me but certainly if he wants to throw legal jargon across the House and insist there is no change, then we do not accept it.

As I understand it, there will be a great difference between present practice and the actual position when this Bill becomes law, if it is implemented as it now stands. Then a list will exist in the Land Commission of every piece of land that is left in any way and this will constitute a list from which the Land Commission can move on holdings and it will mean a drop in the value of those holdings, with a reduction of value and fewer people employed on the land.

Let us take a subdivision which took place in my parish many years ago. There were 18 men employed on an estate that was then in the possession of M. Delap, a Frenchman, whom I mentioned here a week ago, who was supposed to have got a large fund from the British for betraying Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. It is divided now. There is one family and there are four or five bachelors. That is the sum total of the whole business.

Are we to give power to the Land Commission who will be free to do this sort of thing anywhere they like? I have given an instance tonight where subdivision of a holding was effected by the Land Commission. The total holding was 37 acres and it took the parish priest and the local Deputy to go before the Lay Commissioners to stop it. Deputy Clinton has given an instance of a family of eight on a large farm who, because the mother and father were not in a position to farm the land for health reasons for a period of perhaps a decade, were afflicted by the Land Commission.

Let us face it. We have to look at section 12 and every section of this Bill on the basis that there will be political agitation in a district. I, personally, hate land division as such except it is land division involving a movement from the west to a very big farm that is not being used. As far as local land division is concerned, I have no objection to being reported in the local paper or the national Press as saying that I hate it, that it has done no good and I am personally opposed to it. How my Party deals with it is a matter for the majority in the Party.

This is a most intricate Bill. My Party will deal with it section by section and when it comes, as amended, to be voted on, the Party will vote on it as the majority decide. The individual Deputy, whether he is a member of a Party or not, can say what he thinks. That is the way my vote will be inside my Party. We have to look at every section of the Bill on the basis that, in my parish and in Deputy Corry's parish and in every other Deputy's parish, any holding that, say, for a decade or part of a decade, has been let, any holding that seems to be, for a while, not fully used, is open to local political agitation for subdivision and a full list will be compiled in the Land Commission, a list that never existed previously.

I never knew of the section of the 1923 Act being implemented whereby if there was a letting, that letting was registered in the Land Commission. I never knew of it to happen and I have known of plenty of lettings for more than 12 months. I have been involved in many lettings. I am in the agricultural business and I know of these things. I have never known of it to happen and the Minister says there will be no change.

I am certain that what Deputy Clinton said is quite correct, that if the late Deputy Paddy Hogan could turn in his grave, he would do so in respect of some of the sections of the Land Act of 1923. Apart from the question of bringing people from the west and setting them up on a large estate, what real good has the Land Commission succeeded in doing in regard to subdivision? I could give no instance in my county, which is a county of small farmers, where the result has been better than the original situation.

The Minister can abuse me for my opinions, if he likes. He can say they are wrong. He can say that I am a man for the big farmer, that I am against the small farmer. He can say all these things but we must look at this section in the way that I see it now, that there will be a list of all the land that is let and this means that if you lease land in Ireland you have to work it or, if you cannot work it for health or financial reasons or for any other reason, that land will be on a list in the Land Commission and that means that it is open to local agitation or political agitation.

Would it not be far better if, instead of these strictures and lists that will be prepared as a result of section 12, the Minister had inserted in the Bill a section whereby he would set up a farm apprenticeship scheme and from there set up a system of leasing or purchasing land over a period? There is no suggestion that this will happen. What the Minister wants is power and more power. I do not see the reason for it. I think the Land Commission has far too much power already. There can be a bid at an open auction by a solicitor or any other person who need not give his identity until such time as he has got the land, which means that nobody knows that the Land Commission is the bidder. That is sufficient power. The only exception is the one I specifically mentioned where it is a question of a large estate on which there is no employment and where there is the congestion that Deputy McQuillan speaks of, in which case it might be a good thing to bring 20 people out of the congested area and set them up on the estate in question.

Here we have a list being produced. For instance, in Louth, where there are 1,000 people earning £15 a week in GEC in Dunleer and another 500 to 600 persons employed between the two industries in Castlebellingham, five miles away, not counting female employees, is there anything in saying to a man who has 25 acres: "I will give you 10 more acres and your son can stay there"? Do you know the sons who are staying there? They are the sons who are rejected by the factories, who cannot earn this £15. There is no case for land division in Ireland today, except on the basis of a movement from the west.

This section, to me, seems quite extraordinary. Of course, the Minister has not made any specific exclusion of conacre. He has produced amendment No. 24b which indicates that this section is to be used to prevent the creation or the continuance of uneconomic holdings. That can be defined any way you like. The section can be used for any purpose you like.

There is far too much power being sought and, with the exception of the case in which the Minister and Deputy McQuillan would be more interested locally than I would be, for instance, that is, the case of a movement of congests from the west, I do not see any case for giving more power to the Land Commission.

Mr. Corry

I wonder if Deputies opposite are speaking with their tongues in their cheeks.

Mr. Donegan

I am not. I said what I think.

Mr. Corry

I am glad the Deputy admitted that a Government have come in that have increased the value of land. I am glad we got that much out of them.

Mr. Donegan

It was a German who said that—Mr. Erhard.

Mr. Corry

Deputy McQuillan referred to conacre. There is the stub of a cheque below with Peter Odlum for £27,000 paid to one farmer for wheat grown in conacre last year. That gentleman does not live in this country. He could afford to do that on a net profit from a quarter barrel of wheat per acre.

What about the 40-acre and the 50-acre farmer carrying on rotation tillage? What are his profits; where will he find himself? A sand and gravel merchant in my county has about 900 acres of grain tillage in Tipperary. I suppose it was against him the boys got an injunction in the court the other day. You have that going on throughout the country and side by side with it you have men endeavouring to eke out a livelihood on 18, 15 or, in some cases, 10 statute acres of land.

I have given instances of it here. Unfortunately, today the Land Commission will have to pay five times the price that an inter-Party Government could have got it for if they had been prepared to buy it during their term of office. I mentioned the case of the 425 statute acre farm. The three Deputies for the constituency came here and appealed to the then Minister for Lands to purchase that holding. The Minister refused. The pull of the Unionist section in that area was stronger than that of the elected representatives. The farmer sold the holding for £7,000. It was afterwards bought by a cattle dealer for £14,000. Later still it was bought by a German for £37,000. He has had it for seven years. Is it not time he was got out?

The taxpayer will now pay £42,000 for that farm which could have been bought for £7,000 when Deputy Blowick, as Minister for Lands, refused to acquire it. That is a bitter fact. Last week I mentioned another holding of 1,000 acres. It was recommended for division to the Land Commission and they took 15 acres out of it. That was their measurement. I was amazed. Within three miles of my area, in Carrigtuohill, we took over a farm, again occupied by a German. I found, within a mile of that holding, 13 holdings smaller than 15 acres each. They were occupied by farmers who all deserved sufficient land on which to get married and rear families. I do not know about the fellows in Louth, the bachelors about whom Deputy Donegan complained.

Mr. Donegan

I was not complaining about them.

Mr. Corry

They must be tainted with the dirty milk. We have cases like that every day of the week. An English lady came over and bought 80 acres. That has been let to two farmers during the past five years and she is living in the house. That holding, acquired and divided, would give two decent farms to two decent families prepared to live and work on it. The PLV of the land is 35/- per statute acre.

Any Deputy worth his salt, who wants to do his job for his constituents, should go out after these holdings, put his finger on them and see them cleared out. That is his job. I mentioned that last case to the Minister last week. I shall now mention another. A foreign firm came in and bought about 2,000 acres of land—for an industry, they said. The industry was supposed to extend and expand to such an extent that many acres would be sold out in patches for industrial units. Now we find 1,200 acres of that land set for four years to one individual. I raised the matter here last week and warned the Minister I would keep at it until something was done, until the land was acquired and divided among the people. I have a job to do for my constituents and I shall do it and I do not care whether people like it or not. Deputy Donegan dealt with his constituency, one-third the size of mine.

Mr. Donegan

And twice as good.

Mr. Corry

Unfortunately, or fortunately for the people who got me— I make no bones about it—I have gone over a stretch of country and have found most appalling conditions. I have found numerous holdings of £10 and £15 valuations. Two years ago I went to the Minister about that. I spoke to him on the Wednesday and the farm was for sale by public auction on the Thursday. It was purchased by the Land Commission and divided up——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

On the Friday?

Mr. Corry

Yes, your hard luck.

Mr. Donegan

Grimm's fairy tales.

Mr. Corry

You people slipped up. You muddled it for years; you did not know how to go about it. Are we to leave people on uneconomic holdings? Loud-voiced gentlemen get up from time to time but never answer the question as to what any one of them would do in the morning with 15 acres of land. Could any of them make a livelihood out of it? He would have to get out——

Mr. Tully

This section is for the purpose of preventing him doing that. The Minister says so.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy has not read the section.

Mr. Moran

Do not misquote the Minister.

Mr. Tully

That would be an impossibility.

Mr. Corry

The section seeks to prevent subdivision into smaller holdings. That is what is giving the trouble. You get a holding of 30 acres. The owner has two sons and he gives each of them 15 acres and they are miserable for the rest of their lives. To any Deputy who cares to visit my constituency I can show a holding of 20 acres. One field is Mike's, another is John's and so on right through the miserable 20 acres. When the old man was dividing the land, rather than have them arguing about it he had them toss a coin. That happened down in Carrigtuohill. Thank God, we now have the hundred odd acres we took off the German and we will be able to settle them. One meets that state of affairs everywhere one looks.

I asked the Minister about ten questions last week in connection with areas which should, in my opinion, be declared congested areas because of the condition of affairs I found in them. There has been talk about the value of land. Last year one holding of less than 100 acres was purchased by the Land Commission in Ballymacoda. The Land Commission paid £13,000 for it. That was considered an enormous amount of money. In fact, I think the Land Commission nearly kicked against paying that amount for it. That holding was let a month ago in conacre amongst the prospective tenants, pending division. What rent did they get? They got £1,800 for 97 acres over a period of 11 months.

Mr. Donegan

What is the reason?

Mr. Corry

Because surrounding that holding there are unfortunate people endeavouring to live on ten to 15 acres of land and they must get land somewhere to grow beet.

Mr. Donegan

There is another reason.

Mr. Corry

That is the main reason In my opinion, it is the only reason.

Mr. Donegan

We will tell the Deputy the reason.

Mr. Corry

That is the only reason. The Deputy may say that it is because the Land Commission are dividing it.

Mr. Donegan

That is the reason. They are hoping to get the land eventually.

Mr. Corry

That is a very simple explanation. I have never yet seen the Land Commission act unfairly in any division of any holding.

Mr. Tully

God forgive you.

Mr. Corry

And that was so under all Governments and under all Parties.

Mr. Donegan

The poor devils believe that, if they take the land, they will eventually get it.

Mr. Corry

I will guarantee one thing : the most important thing any Deputy ever has in his constituency is a farm for division. Now, I will always do what I think is right and I will be here no matter who comes.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Corry

The Minister must have power to prevent any more ten and 15 acre holdings. That is the first thing. Secondly, he must have power to take over land. We have nothing but howls and groans and moans right, left and centre. Too many unfortunate people are endeavouring to eke out a livelihood on land today, to eke that livelihood out of an uneconomic holding. They just cannot do it. They would be far better off away from the land earning £10 or £15 a week in a job.

Mr. Donegan

That is the point.

Mr. Corry

It is a grand thing that, instead of going to America or England, they can walk off the land now and get employment in their own country. Is that what the Opposition are moaning about?

Mr. Donegan

We are not moaning.

Mr. Tully

60,000 of them have gone.

Mr. Corry

I will give an instance.

An Ceann Comhairle

It seems to me that a great many things can be discussed on this section.

Mr. Corry

I am answering the Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy need not answer any other Deputy.

Mr. Corry

I will have another opportunity.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

And, if you do not, you will make it.

Mr. Corry

I have stated my view-point on this section and I stand over it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I give Deputy Corry credit for being a very good Deputy. He is a very good Deputy and all of us who know him appreciate his views, not alone on this section but on all matters on which he speaks. He told us tonight that he knew of a farm in his constituency; he approached the Minister about it on a Wednesday; it was for sale by public auction on the Thursday; that was stopped and, on Friday, the Land Commission acquired it and divided it.

Mr. McQuillan

On Saturday.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If that is a fact, then I humbly and sincerely withdraw everything I ever said about the slowness of the Land Commission.

Mr. Corry

I am afraid Deputy Flanagan is misquoting me.

Mr. Donegan

It is possible. The Deputy has said everything.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If that is so, and if such circumstances as Deputy Corry indicated tonight obtain in his constituency——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

If he said it, then it must be so.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

——then, if I were a constituent in his area, I should be compelled to vote for Deputy Corry. I have never known the Land Commission to work with the same speed or the same efficiency in connection with any farm with which I have been associated for the past 20 years. I doubt if there is any Deputy on either side of this House who had experience of a farm in relation to which the Land Commission were notified on Wednesday, bought it on Friday and divided it on Saturday amongst deserving applicants.

Mr. Corry

On a point of order, I said the Land Commission were notified of the position on Wednesday and bought it on Thursday at an auction. That was my statement.

Mr. McQuillan

Were houses built?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That was on the following Monday.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

So much for the lighter side of Deputy Corry's contribution. To get down now to the serious implications of the section, I want to tell the House that the auctioneering profession decided to seek the best possible legal opinion on the section. They did so. The auctioneering profession, I may say, hold the Minister for Lands in the highest possible esteem. He is the only Minister for Lands who ever did anything practical for the auctioneers. He was responsible for taking the necessary steps to pay the auctioneers the five per cent commission on land being disposed of and purchased from clients by the Land Commission. In that I think he was right. As one member of the profession, I applaud him for taking such a courageous step, a step with very gratifying and satisfactory results. I sing his praises. We all appreciate what he did.

The auctioneering profession has a very high opinion of the Minister for Lands. They appreciate his efforts. They look upon him as a Minister for Lands who has an intimate knowledge of the law since he is himself a very eminent professional man, or was before he became Minister for Lands, and, in that capacity, he shed great lustre and contributed in no small degree and in a very distinguished manner to his profession. Neverthetheless, the auctioneering profession decided, having read the Bill and having read section 12 particularly, that in order to get first-hand information on that section, they should seek the highest legal opinion they could obtain, and they did so. For the record, may I quote from the legal opinion which was obtained by the auctioneers association?

Mr. Corry

Will the Deputy give us the name?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I quote:

It seems to us that section 12 is now so widely worded——

Mr. Cunningham

On a point of order, may I ask what the Deputy is quoting from?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am quoting from a memo which furnishes the Irish Auctioneers and Estate Agents Association with an expression of legal opinion on section 12 of this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is it a document of the Irish Auctioneers Association?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Yes, to be used in connection with this section. It says:

It seems to us that section 12 is now so widely worded that it is very serious interference with the general right of property ownership. Indeed, a question may arise as to whether the section is unconstitutional. There may be some merit in controlling the disposition of land which has been acquired initially with the assistance of the Land Commission and in respect of which an annuity still may be payable. But the section will equally apply to land not held under any of the Land Acts and to land in respect of which all land annuities have been fully paid off. It seems a gross interference with the right of property ownership that the landowner in such a case cannot deal with his land without the consent of the Land Commission.

It seems a fair inference that this section has been put in so that the Land Commission may be put on notice of virtually all cases where land is being let because the landowner is not directly working the land himself. The Land Commission then has an opportunity of looking at the land with a view to acquisition. The Land Commission will then have an opportunity of negotiating from a position of strength for they can prejudice the landowner's own freedom of action through the expendient of refusing him permission to let the lands and then taking advantage of that to try to depreciate the price at which the land could be purchased.

If article 12 is allowed to stand unchallenged, it would be a serious interference with the right of property ownership.

That is the legal opinion the Irish Auctioneers Association got in connection with section 12.

Mr. Corry

May I ask for the name of the legal luminary who sent that?

An Ceann Comhairle

If Deputy Flanagan says it is given by a qualified legal practitioner, I shall not force him to give the name.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Yes.

Mr. Allen

May I say that as a member of the Irish Auctioneers Association, I did not receive any of this legal advice at all?

Mr. Donegan

The Deputy must not be on the inside.

Mr. Allen

I pay my subscription every year anyway.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I can assure the Minister that this legal opinion was expressed to the association for their guidance in relation to this important section. It will have a very serious effect on the auctioneering profession and I am sure that, as an auctioneer himself, Deputy Allen must realise the very serious effect this will have on the auctioneering profession, of which he is a proud and distinguished member.

Mr. Allen

The Irish Auctioneers Association agreed at one meeting I attended that if the Minister gave a definition of "to let" in section 12, they would be quite satisfied with that section.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

If the Minister gave the definition?

Mr. Allen

Yes.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Deputy is easily satisfied.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

This expression of opinion is shared by all people of commonsense and average intelligence. They know quite well the serious implications it has in regard to the right of the individual who owns property. Let me leave aside for one moment the valuable expression of legal opinion obtained by the auctioneering profession and come to a further opinion with which I am sure Deputy Corry will not find fault. It comes from the National Farmers Association. The National Farmers Association is a very reputable and distinguished body, representative of all the farmers. The considered opinion of that body was sent, under the title "Observations on Land Bill, 1963" to members of this House and particularly to the Minister for Lands. The NFA had something very special to say about section 12 in this memorandum which was issued from their headquarters at 27 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin. They say:

Section 12 provides that the subdivision, letting and subletting of all agricultural land in the State shall be subject to Land Commission consent.

The Minister has stated that this does not and is not intended to apply to conacre or agistment lettings. No specific exemption is written into the Bill itself, but amendment 24b, put down by the Minister, states that "The powers of the Land Commission under this section shall be so exercised as to prevent the creation or continuance of holdings which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, are not economic holdings". This indicates that the emphasis is on preventing fragmentation of holdings and we agree that such prevention is essential. However, bearing in mind that there are adequate provisions elsewhere in the Bill to control undesirable forms of conacre, we recommend that conacre and agistment lettings should be specifically exempted in Section 12.

We see no reason why a reasonable time limit, say, one month, should not apply to Land Commission consideration of applications under this section. Failing any objection by the Land Commission within one month the applications should be deemed to have been granted.

That is the considered opinion of the NFA, the farmers. In the NFA there are smallholders, uneconomic holders and conacre tenants as well as substantial farmers. Therefore, when the NFA speak, I presume they are speaking with the full knowledge that they are the mouthpiece of the farmers. I am glad I have placed on record the legal opinion obtained by the auctioneering profession, and the considered opinion, after lengthy consideration, of the farmers through their organisation, the NFA. What greater incentive could the Minister have than to act on the knowledge and advice obtained by the auctioneering profession and the farmers?

I ask the Minister even at this late stage to withdraw the section from the Bill entirely and completely, or to tell the House what does he propose to achieve by leaving it in the Bill. He has not done so. Every time the Minister rises to speak on section 12, he says he has dealt with it all before, that he will not go over it again, and sits down. I did not leave the House from the time the Land Bill was first mentioned today till this moment, and I did not hear the Minister deal with section 12. I heard him make rambling statements, roving and roaming through various Acts. He quoted the Hogan Act and other acts but we are dealing with the 1963 Bill, and section 12 of the 1963 Bill.

When the Minister gets up to speak again, I am sure he will comment on the legal opinion and the opinion of the NFA which I have quoted. Will he tell the House what does he propose to achieve by leaving section 12 in the Bill? Will he do what he was requested to do and make clear what he proposes to achieve with the section? Referring to Deputy O'Higgins's speech he said that every first year student knows that conacre lettings are excluded in the 1923 Land Act, and excluded from the terms of this section and this Bill. There is nothing in this Bill or in this section to indicate clearly and legally to me that conacre lettings are excluded.

As has been pointed out 20 times multiplied by ten in this House, when you are before a learned judge, he will be determining not what the Minister says, not what Deputy Corry says, not what any Deputy says, but what is in the Bill. That is why the NFA have asked in a reasonable, mild, cool and calm way that agistments and conacre lettings should be exempted from section 12 and that the Minister should say so.

The Minister wants the speedy passage of the Bill. Would it not be very easy for him to stand up and say: "In view of what has been said, in view of the expressions of opinion that have been quoted, and moved by the eloquence of Deputy Corry, on Report Stage I will put in three lines exempting agistments, conacre and temporary lettings"? If that were done, we could all sit down, pass the section, and say we had done a good night's work. The Minister would get a halo from the auctioneering profession to go around his head. We might even consider purchasing a bust of the Minister and putting it in the main hall of our office. The Minister appears to have lost his patience. From time to time we all lose our patience. The Minister may now be in a more pleasant mood than he was earlier, and I ask him to come back on Report Stage and exempt conacre, agistments and temporary lettings.

Mr. Corry

I was inclined to pay some heed to the legal opinion quoted by Deputy Flanagan until he followed it up with a statement of the losses the auctioneers would be at if section 12 went through. We all know what legal opinion is. If you could not get two legal opinions from two legal gentlemen, there would be no law cases and no judges. The first thing a legal gentleman asks is what will suit you. Certainly he had 100 per cent proof from Deputy Flanagan that what would suit the auctioneering profession was that he should condemn section 12 in all its moods and tenses, and he did so.

How often have we gone to one of those gentlemen and got five or six pages of a legal opinion? How often have we seen it sent to the local authorities and when the case was over, you would wonder what had happened when you came out and found you had lost the case, with costs given against you. That is all I care about legal opinion. They ask: "What does he want us to say—that the section is all right or that it is rotten, harmful, wrong and contrary to the Constitution? If he wants us to say that, we will do so." That is my point of view on legal opinion and I do not care who likes it and who does not.

I have given instances of the harm that has been done by this widespread letting of land, particularly in the vicinity of Dublin. I have mentioned the man with the cheque for £27,000. Either the auctioneers combined to take all the conacre for him, or they had their instructions: "Look, knock it down to So-and-So, no matter what happens and no matter what price it goes." That man had between 2,000 and 3,000 acres of land under wheat. That has driven the ordinary tillage farmer out of grain.

Mr. McQuillan

There is nothing in section 12 to catch that man.

Mr. Corry

Is there not? The Deputy will be surprised.

Mr. McQuillan

I wish there were.

Mr. Corry

I know there is.

Mr. Tully

The Minister does not know. The Deputy had better tell him.

Mr. Corry

The auctioneers association says there is. They are worried about it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

They are worried about what?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister agreed with me that conacre and 11 months lettings are specifically excluded. He said that.

Mr. Corry

Anywhere there is a letting of land over a continued period——

Mr. Tully

The Minister will be very mad with the Deputy if he keeps that up.

Mr. Donegan

Deputy Allen is right. It is not in the Bill.

Mr. Moran

He is assisting the Deputy's filibustering. That is all.

Mr. Donegan

It is not in the Bill. We are all agreed now, except the Minister.

Mr. Corry

If any of these things are not in the Bill, what is Deputy Flanagan looking for? He said that if the Minister brought in three lines to keep conacre out of this, we would all go home happy.

Mr. Donegan

He did not.

Mr. Corry

What does he mean, if it is not in it?

Mr. Donegan

Three words—cut out the section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Corry

That is what we want to know. Deputy Flanagan tried to put the tail and horns on my statement about the holding the Land Commission purchased. The facts were that it had to be proved that portion of the holding was acquired from migrants or else it could be paid for only in land bonds. As an auctioneer, Deputy Flanagan knows that, if he knows anything at all about it. I can understand Deputy Flanagan's worry and the worry of other auctioneers in this matter. It is sticking out a mile. I have already given here the condition of affairs as I found them in my constituency which is supposed to be a completely non-congested area and the absolute necessity for getting hold of land there and it is my intention to get hold of that land come hell or high water.

Mr. McQuillan

I shall be brief on this occasion. I want to answer the remarks of Deputy Corry. He referred to the stub of a cheque for £27,000 for conacre wheat which somebody in Dublin or some wheat miller has in his possession. I accept the Deputy's word about it. I have referred also to 105 transactions in seven counties and the 105 transactions were in connection with the conacre letting of land for the growing of wheat. The total lettings were 40,000 acres.

I want to make my position clear in this matter. Section 12 will not strengthen, according to the Minister, his hands in the slightest degree in any effort he may make to take that land from those individuals who are letting it or the people who are exploiting it. There is nothing in section 12 that will enable the Minister to lay hands on the land for which Deputy Corry stated £27,000 was paid for the letting. That is the trouble.

While we oppose this section, I want to make it quite clear that we do so for motives completely different from those put forward by Deputy Donegan. I should like to quote what the National Farmers Association did say in their full comment on section 12. I agree with Deputy Flanagan that their criticism, as he quoted it here, is accurate but he should have finished it. They went on to say that the Minister had introduced amendment 24 (b) which states:

The power of the Land Commission under this section shall be so exercised as to prevent the creation or continuance of holdings which in the opinion of the Land Commission are not economic holdings.

In other words, the Minister was out to allay the fears of the National Farmers Association by saying: "Look, boys, I shall not touch the 100-, 200-, 500-acre farmers but I shall concentrate on the small farmer and on the uneconomic farmer in the congested areas".

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Hear, hear.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is right.

Mr. McQuillan

I quoted already the Report of the Committee on Small Western Farms to the effect that they believe the Minister should move on this. The Minister stated, as reported at Column 66 of the Official Report of 27th November last, in his introduction to this measure:

I have borne in mind particularly the demand of the people in the congested areas for a higher standard of living. The fact that in certain parts of the country many holdings lie vacant and let.... The Report of the inter-departmental Committee on the Problems of Small Western Farms was most revealing also in filling out the picture of the problems confronting us.

The Minister went to the report of the Committee on Small Western Farms in order to get a certain background to suit him in regard to this measure. He did so not for the purpose of improving the conditions of the congests but in order to get sufficient arguments that would enable him to bring in a measure to bring about the structural changes which in the process of bringing them about would eliminate the small holding.

Paragraph 11 of the inter-departmental Committee's Report states that the table attached to the report in Appendix D gives particulars of the lands let in the West of Ireland and in the congested areas. Even in this report, they sought to suggest that in the west the greatest amount of land was being let. On that basis, the Minister brought in this section to deal with that and to get rid of the small farmers.

What is the position? In fact, in the east and in the midlands of this country, according to Appendix D in the report of the inter-departmental Committee on Small Western Farms, over 10.4 per cent of the lands are either wholly or partly let and in the west of Ireland where all the talk is about and where the report concentrates, the figure is only 10.5 per cent. There is a difference of .1 per cent between the letting figure for the east and west of Ireland.

Let is look at the types of holdings in the east of Ireland which are being excluded according to the Minister. Here are the figures. In the 100- and 200-acre groups in the east of Ireland, 8.4 per cent of the lands are let. In the over 200-acre group in the east of Ireland, 12.9 per cent of the lands are let. If we compare the number of 200-acre holdings in the east of Ireland and in the west of Ireland it becomes really apparent to this House that there is no comparison whatever—if I might repeat that word again—with regard to the numbers.

There are few holdings left in the west over 200 acres but we have a large percentage of holdings in the midlands over 200 acres—and over 12 per cent of those are let. Section 12, according to the Minister, will not touch those holdings because at the moment they can be described as economic. But consider the small holding and the uneconomic holding in the west. Fifty per cent of the owners had to get out of the country and the same 50 per cent would like to come back to rear their families here at some stage. They will now be caught under this section. The very man Deputy Corry mentioned in Cork, with the 15 to 20 acres surrounding the 500-acre farm, waiting, and rightly so, for a division of that estate, can now be caught under section 12. If they attempt, in the meantime, to go to England and sublet their lands, they can now be caught by the Minister under this section.

Deputy Corry should think twice before supporting the Minister on this. It is bad enough to find that 47,000 people have left the land in six years because no attempt was made to hold them and allow them rear families on proper-sized holdings. We are now legislating to drive far more off the land.

Mr. Allen

Is the Deputy talking about farm labourers or farmers?

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy is a bit "puggled." I see his brains are slightly addled this evening and he should keep quiet. By inaction, by criminal neglect, we have allowed the rural population to decline.

Mr. Moran

The relevancy of this to section 12 is beyond my comprehension.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going wide of the section.

Mr. Moran

He wants to aid Fine Gael in their filibuster.

Mr. McQuillan

It is not a filibuster. The Minister intervenes and says it is out of order every time he is hurt and the House must accept his version.

Mr. Tully

All the filibustering did not come from this side of the House.

Mr. McQuillan

Section 12 relates to the small holder and the uneconomic holder. That is the man who is disappearing because of the inaction and neglect of all Governments. Are we seriously being asked to speed up that haemorrhage of people from the land by legislating for it? I do not think we should agree to do so.

There was a meeting in the west not long ago at which three bishops attended. I have never acted as spokesman for the bishops in this House. They have plenty of other spokesmen without calling on me.

Mr. Carter

I never heard the Deputy condemning them, all the same.

Mr. McQuillan

I am sure the Deputy would love to hear me. I would not be far down the corridor until he would be in front of me. They met to discuss the serious decline in population in the west. The meeting was addressed by a very eminent Donegal priest who put forward certain plans to stop emigration from the west.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how the Deputy can discuss the economic ills of any area on section 12.

Mr. McQuillan

The section is to enable the Minister to wipe out the very people which this meeting sought to protect. We had the spectacle of Government spokesmen sneering at the idea that these people were in a position to offer expert advice on how to keep the remainder on the land. The key to it is co-operation and making available to these people credit, financial accommodation and educational facilities.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is wide of the section. The Deputy should relate his remarks to the section.

Mr. McQuillan

Instead of utilising section 12 for the purpose of getting rid of the small farmers and congests, the Minister should find alternative means of securing them on the land. For that reason I oppose the passage of section 12 as vehemently as I can. Deputy Corry should waken up to the fact that it is no help to the people in his constituency.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I gather from what Deputy Flanagan said that the Minister, intervening in this debate, referred to the view I expressed earlier with regard to the definition of letting and subletting in section 12. Apparently, the Minister said that any first year law student would know certain things. I am not a first year law student; I am a Deputy of this House, and anything I express I express as a Deputy. May I repeat what I said earlier that, as far as I am aware as a Deputy, in none of the Land Acts is there any definition of what letting or subletting means. In the Hogan Act passed by this House in 1923 provision was made that all tenanted land in Ireland would on an appointed day vest in the Land Commission. That was an Act designed by the late Paddy Hogan to end, once and for all, the idea of landlordism in this country. It achieved that by providing that every portion of agricultural land which happened to be leased or tenanted to a landlord would on an appointed day vest in the Land Commission. From that on until the property was dealt with, it would be held from the Land Commission. The Minister says in that Act there is a definition of letting which excludes conacre, pasturage and provisions of that kind. I challenge him to point out where it is.

Mr. Moran

Do not put up Aunt Sallys to knock down. I said no such thing.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I do not know what the Minister said.

Mr. Moran

Do not misquote me.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Then, I presume the Minister did not say that. May I repeat what I said earlier: in none of the Land Acts is there any definition of letting and subletting which excludes conacre, pasturage, agistment or lettings of that kind. There have been common decisions by judges, of which I am aware, but that is not an issue. The interesting thing in this Bill is that there is a definition section which defines a congested area and various other things but nowhere is there any effort to define the words we are concerned with in section 12 "letting or subletting" or "subdivide".

The Minister has offered us an opinion, based presumably on advice given to him, but has not offered to write it into the section. I think what Deputy Flanagan said is quite a reasonable observation. If the Minister is so clear that this section could not possibly refer to what Deputy McQuillan feels it does refer to, why not put the matter finally at ease one way or another by so providing in the section? Why is it that the section leaves it so vague using the terms "letting or subletting" without defining them, leaving Deputy Flanagan, Deputy Donegan and myself to draw one inference and leaving Deputy McQuillan to draw an entirely different inference, with the Minister quite happy in between? This is a section which is unnecessary and is kept in the Bill for some reason which has not been satisfactorily explained. If it is passed, it will give to some authority a power which should not be there and is unnecessary to the solution of the land resettlement problem. On all grounds, it is, in my view, obviously a wrong section to have in the Bill.

Mr. Donegan

Deputy McQuillan has, in fact, produced an excellent argument regarding this problem. I am sure he can see that on our side we have, for different reasons, reached the same conclusion that this is a bad section. Why, as the Deputy said, when the Minister sought to placate the NFA by putting in amendment 24 (b), did he not go on to specify conacre lettings and agistments?

When I hear there is to be a list in the Land Commission—I maintain this is against the Minister because this is the first time such a list will be compiled of all lettings—I begin to worry whether this will result in land division by the officers of the Land Commission. For the first time also, in another section, the Minister has the right to start division proceedings where perhaps things should be left as they are. With the exception of the clearance people from Deputy McQuillan's area, I still insist there is no case for anything but the bid by the unknown bidder and the Land Commission at the auction.

I heard the other day from a reputable auctioneer that if an auctioneer sends in a list of clients with land to offer to the Land Commission, he will get full commission on the first £5,000 of any purchase and a lesser commission on the balance. What does that open up? It is another sort of list. Who is an auctioneer's client? Take the situation where an auctioneer comes up to a man that he thinks might sell his farm and says: "I may have a customer for your land. I take it the value might be £7,000 or £8,000. Have I the right to inquire for you?" The farmer says: "Yes, you have." Why should he not, if he is interested in selling or if he thinks the price would suit him? That is his first reaction and he is probably a friend of the auctioneer. But when this Bill is forgotten and is a piece of legislation, down goes his name on a list in the Land Commission. Later, some junior official in the Land Commission, looking at the number of congests in the area and the kind of land it is, reaches a conclusion and before the man knows where he is, the first bid is in from the Land Commission or perhaps acquisition proceedings are begun. At that stage his land may have changed in value by 50 per cent. Will this lead people to make investment in land?

I put down a question a few weeks ago about a particular estate, the name of which I did not mention and will not mention now. I asked if it were Land Commission policy to institute proceedings for the purchase of land when a farmer of £40 valuation with three boys and three girls growing up had paid a deposit on the land to purchase it? I got an inconsequential answer. I asked supplementary questions. Deputy Faulkner from my own constituency also came in. The next thing happened was that the Land Commission went in and bid more money. The good deed I did was to get more money for the owner of the land. More luck to him. I am delighted with that.

There are other factors to be considered. There is no use in saying that everything goes back to the Lay Commissioners, four people with the standing of High Court judges, and that the Minister, the Fianna Fáil cumann or the Fine Gael branch or the Labour Party branch has no influence on the Land Commission in the division of land. Under this section we are to have a list of all the land let in the country except the 11-month lettings and also a list of another kind and queer things can happen.

Regarding Deputy Corry and his £27,000 cheque for wheat, I think it was rather like his Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday purchase and sale and division of land. The snag about it is that the man mentioned does not buy himself but through agents. He could not have known the name of the individual farmer.

Mr. Corry

The cheque was to an individual farmer.

Mr. Barrett

The Minister should accede to the very reasonable request of Deputy O'Higgins regarding an addition to the definition section. The Minister is taking a wide power that, no matter what he may have said earlier, this Parliament never attempted to take before. In that regard I want to protest against the terms of the explanatory memorandum issued in respect of this Bill and which is used by the Press and others for the purpose of explaining the Bill to the public. We are told in it, at page 3, that section 11 provides that the subdivision, letting or subletting of all agricultural land in the State shall be subject to Land Commission consent. It would be much fairer, more honest and explicit if the alleged explanation said the section provided that the subdivision, letting and subletting of all agricultural land in the State shall be subject to land Commission control. That is what it means, no matter what the Minister may say.

More and more control is being exercised over the ordinary citizen in regard to rights in his own private property. I should like to refer the House to what exactly "holding" means in relation to section 12.

In this section "holding", in relation to a particular tenant or proprietor, means all the property held by him at or after the passing of this Act under a single demise, whether fee simple, fee farm grant or leasehold or from year to year, etc.

All estates of any land are subject not to the consent—I defy the Minister to deny this—but to the control of the Minister and the Land Commission and some hidden hand somewhere over which the property owners have no control once this section passes. In these circumstances, the very least—I would deem it no concession—the Minister can do is accede to Deputy O'Higgins's request that people whose land is now to be subject to the control of some person or persons described here as the Land Commission, should know exactly what letting and sub-letting mean.

Let me protest again against the compendious terms of this section and against the manner in which it was submitted to the House by way of alleged explanation in the explanatory memorandum which goes on to say:

It is intended as a global provision taking the place of the unsatisfactory patch-work of control operating under existing enactments which are listed for repeal in the First Schedule.

I would understand that sentence to mean that the Land Commission already had these powers. That is not a fact. The Minister knows it is not and when this explanatory memorandum was submitted to Deputies, it was known that it was not a fact and this was, in my opinion, deliberately or otherwise, a misrepresentation of legislation which this House is asked to pass. It was never a fact that up to now all land, whether fee simple, fee-farm grant, or leasehold, or from year to year, or held jointly or in common or alone or in severalty, was subject to the control which the Minister now seeks to obtain over it for the Land Commission. Again let me protest against this: it is revolutionary in the extreme and it is a section which the House should not pass.

Mr. Tully

This debate has taken a rather extraordinary turn because we now have the Fine Gael Party making a submission, the Minister seems to think that what they are arguing is included in the Bill, and we have some Fianna Fáil back-benchers stating that they consider, although they did not know it at the time, that what the Fine Gael Party are saying is correct and we in the Labour Party——

Mr. Corry

Who said that?

Mr. Tully

The Deputy did not realise it but he said it.

Mr. Corry

Read the first two lines of section 12.

Mr. Tully

We are all grateful to Deputy Corry for the assistance he gave us in keeping the debate going but he should let somebody else in now.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister is looking at Deputy Corry very kindly.

Mr. Tully

We are opposing the section for an entirely different reason. Perhaps the fairest thing to do at this stage would be to allow the Minister to have another look at the section. He must realise by now that it must be very confusing; otherwise the discussion could not possibly have taken the turn which it has. Unfortunately, I am not in the position that Deputy Corry is in and when I report a big farm with a number of small farms to the Land Commission, they tell me in six months' time that they had not been able to get around to it. Deputy Corry could report it and get it——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

In three days.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You would never get the houses built in three days.

Mr. Tully

The position as we see it is that conacre, and I am referring to conacre on a large scale and particularly to what remains of the wheat ranches, is not interfered with in the Bill. The Minister—I hope I am not misquoting him—says that conacre will still be allowed. If conacre is still allowed, wheat ranchers can without let or hindrance continue to take large tracts of land and make a fat profit, whether they come from Germany or from Cork. It does not matter where the farmer comes from—he can get the conacre and if the weather is fine, pick up a very substantial profit.

The Labour Party do not want the small farmers' rights interfered with but we do believe—and here is where I disagree with Deputy Donegan—that if there is a big farmer who is continually letting his land, whether for conacre or on the 11 months system, or for five years or ten years, it is right that the Land Commission should consider taking it from him. We have no objection to that and we would support the Minister on it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

And I would agree with that.

Mr. Tully

We do not say that the Land Commission should have the right to go to the holder of a small farm and have the further right to take the land from such people because through some unfortunate circumstances they had to let the land over a short period. I do not think there is anything wrong with that and it should be allowed. As Deputy McQuillan said, it is quite clear what the Minister wants to do here. He wants to get authority to get at the small farmer. What assistance this is going to give him in the relief of congestion I do not know. Perhaps I do not know enough about the west of Ireland but Deputy McQuillan certainly does and I am prepared to take his word for it. As far as Meath is concerned, there are large farms which can be taken over by the Land Commission but they do not seem to be in a hurry to do so. They have a sizeable amount of land and if there is talk about subletting, they should be the first to stop it because they have 9,000 acres sublet for a number of years and they will continue to do that as long as they feel like it. We will support the Minister on the question of subletting of large farms—the Land Commission should take them over— but we are not prepared to have the small farmer further abused.

Mr. Carter

The more one listens to Fine Gael and Labour speakers in this debate, the more one becomes confused. All sorts of irrelevant matters are being dragged in, even to the extent of Deputy McQuillan quoting high authorities. We must be fair and objective in our criticism of what the Minister is aiming at. I do not see why the Minister should be asked to make a distinction between one farmer and another. I know as much about congestion as Deputy McQuillan or Deputy Tully or any other Deputy.

Mr. McQuillan

Is he not making an exception?

Mr. Carter

He is not.

Mr. McQuillan

Of course he is.

Mr. Carter

He is catering specifically for the small landholder. When he is trying to do that, I submit he is entitled to fair play, whatever criticism we may express about the Bill. We know that there are derelict small holdings in Deputy McQuillan's county. Why should the Minister not have the same control and be able to say to the owners of these derelict small holdings: "You must return here from abroad and indulge in some form of husbandry; otherwise I cannot permit you to continue to let your land whilst I am at the same time going to penalise a landholder in Meath, Longford or Westmeath"? Why should Deputy McQuillan or Deputy Tully seek to introduce a form of partition, if you like, into section 12?

We have heard a great deal from the opposite benches about foreigners buying land and every Order Paper carries questions regarding the division of lands. We must look at this matter in a reasonable fashion. As we know, there is a demand for more land division. There is pressure in this House every day in the week in regard to it and there is also pressure from outside, as Deputy McQuillan has stated. From platform and pulpit, we hear the call for more land division.

It is assumed that if the Minister wants the Land Commission to play an active part in the rearrangement of holdings and the division of land, they must have the necessary powers so that their intentions in this regard will not be exploited as, we happen to know, their intentions were exploited in the past. All of us know that if a holding is for sale and it is mentioned in the locality that the Land Commission is a potential buyer, the value of the land automatically goes up. We must have sufficient common sense to realise that if the Minister is to allow the Land Commission to stand by powerless while manipulation of the kind we have talked about is going on, he could be deemed to have no power or authority over land division.

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy is getting bogged down.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy is not getting bogged down. The Deputy knows more about land division than Deputy McQuillan knows. I want to bring that home to the Deputy. I may not be as long-winded in this House but I happen to know the demographic pattern in this country just as well as the Deputy.

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy is in the Bog of Allen now.

Mr. Carter

I am not in the Bog of Allen. I can go to the Deputy's own door and point out derelict holdings to him, some of which have been derelict for the past ten or 12 years. It should be our aim to encourage a pattern of good husbandry, not merely on large farms but on small farms. As I have said at the outset, no one has given me or has given the House a blueprint for an economic holding. I want to ask the Deputy: why should the Minister not have the same power of consent in regard to land in the congested areas as he would have, say, in regard to land elsewhere?

As regards Deputy Donegan's argument, I do not think he favours land division at all. He comes from a very good county. He was candid enough to say that much; that, in fact, he does not agree with the policy of land division or rearrangement at all.

Mr. Donegan

And particularly compulsory acquisition.

Mr. Carter

The net point is this: Every Deputy would need a Land Bill of his own and none of us would be satisfied even if we got permission to introduce a Private Member's Bill. It might be the easiest solution for the Minister if he were to say, "I will leave it to the House. Let each Deputy bring in a Private Member's Bill to suit himself." Each of us would do that. The more I listened tonight to the various arguments made, the more I am convinced that each Deputy would want to divide land in his own way, to suit his own locality and the people living there.

Mr. Donegan

My Bill would be the shortest of all.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I would support Deputy Corry's Bill—to take the land on Wednesday and divide it on Friday.

Mr. Carter

Whatever long-winded arguments we may have heard about the NFA, the NFA, if I interpret their intentions correctly, issued documents regarding foreginers buying land here and the NFA were as long-winded on this subject as any other organisation or as any Deputy.

Mr. McQuillan

Including Deputy Carter.

Mr. Carter

Including Deputy Carter and Deputy McQuillan and others. There is also the fact that the NFA did not formulate a blueprint, so far as I am aware, for land division. It is a matter that the NFA or any other voluntary organisation would shy away from because it is a difficult problem. As we are all aware, it is tied up with historical emotions which have been handed down to us from the past. Land has been the cause of major conflicts here and of minor conflicts also and, to that extent, no one will begrudge the Minister for Lands whatever power he seeks in this Bill, short of, as he said himself, setting out to exterminate the farmers. The powers he seeks in the Bill are powers with which we are all familiar and some of the powers, as the Minister said, have existed since the 1923 Land Act. Therefore I cannot see why the Labour Party, in particular, take such a strong view of section 12. I cannot see anything in it that will operate to the detriment, shall we say, of the small holder.

Mr. McQuillan

I intervene to try to alter Deputy Carter's view of this question of creating a new form of partition in the country. It has been suggested that Deputy Tully's speeches and my speeches have sought to create a sort of partition in so far as land is concerned. In fact, it is the Minister and Deputy Carter who are seeking to create a form of partition in this matter.

My reading of the section, and the Minister's expressed interpretation of the National Farmers Association document on it, make it quite clear that the large holding set to conacre is to be excluded from the terms of the section, but the small farmer—the congest in Roscommon and elsewhere, with ten or 15 acres of land, who could not live on it economically, who has set it and is living in England pending the time he can return and resume occupation—is to be included. This section enables the Land Commission to acquire that man's holding, whereas the 200-acre holding set for conacre in County Longford is to be excluded.

Mr. Carter

We have not any 200-acre holdings in Longford.

Mr. McQuillan

I should like Deputy Carter to get his mind clear. If they have not got any such holdings in Longford, such holdings are not too far away from his constituency. It is not so many years since I raised questions here on a number of farms, including a chain of farms in County Longford which had been bought by the jodhpurred gentlemen. We have now got the truth from the Deputy. Is it the Fianna Fáil view now, as expressed by Deputy Carter, that the ten-acre holder in the west, who through economic circumstances was forced to emigrate, must now return on the direction of Fianna Fáil and resume occupancy or get out? Is that the purpose of the section?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has made that point on more than one occasion.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Carter made a charge against me in reference to Roscommon. He suggested that I knew farms sublet, with the owners in England. Of course I do, but I also know the reason why.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is merely pointing out that the Deputy is repeating himself.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not wish to do that. I merely endeavoured to point out the number of farmers who are leaving my constituency and the fact that they are doing so against their will. They leave but they did not want to go. They go because they have to. Now we have this segregation, this partition being imposed. They are the people who are being got at in this section, not the farmers in Meath or Westmeath, or the occasional one in Longford about whom Deputy Carter does not seem to be aware.

The Minister will not have any difficulty, as far as the Labour Party are concerned, if he makes it clear that the section is to embrace the type of farmer Deputy Tully and I have been referring to. I do not want to be repetitious. I want the Minister to say whether or not it is correct that 200-acre holdings in the midlands which are being let and used for conacre purposes are to be excluded.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy is getting preference throughout the entire Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Carter will realise that the small farmer who depends on the production of pigs to a great extent is not in the same position in regard to subsidies as the rancher——

Mr. Carter

That has nothing to do with section 12.

Mr. McQuillan

It is the small farmer, at present existing on the production of pigs because he cannot make a reasonable living otherwise on his ten-acre holding, who is being hit while the man subsidised for wheat growing on 200 acres is to be excluded. Where is the genuine equality of treatment? If it is there, I cannot see it, and I am surprised at Deputy Carter from Longford taking the view that there should be one law for the small, the weak, the uneconomic and another for the rich and the well to do.

Mr. Carter

Equity.

Mr. McQuillan

There is no equity in it.

Mr. Corry

Deputy McQuillan is either retiring into second childhood or inviting the Minister to commit suicide. Can one imagine the Minister, from County Mayo, coming into the House with the intention of taking a 20-acre or 15-acre holding from a congest? Would that not be suicide?

Mr. McQuillan

That is why he will not say what his intention is.

Mr. Corry

I saw people on that side of the House committing suicide often enough, but surely not Deputy Michael Moran from Mayo.

Mr. Moran

Perhaps before the end of the Bill.

Mr. Corry

The section says that an agricultural holding shall not be let, sublet or subdivided without the consent in writing of the Land Commission. That is the provision before the House. It applies to the conacre man and the rest of them. This Minister or any other Minister cannot change that section, once it has been enacted by the House.

Mr. McQuillan

He brought in an amendment to it and the Deputy supported it.

Mr. Corry

We shall see the amendments when they come before us.

Mr. McQuillan

It has been passed —amendment No. 24b.

Mr. Corry

Has it to do with quack lawyers? This seems to be a home for them.

Mr. Donegan

Is the Deputy in order in referring to any Deputy in those terms? He may be referring to his own Minister or to Members of either this side or his own side of the House.

Mr. Corry

If the dirty milk man would keep quiet, we could get on.

Mr. Donegan

Is this general charge in order? Is it in order for a member to refer to other members of this House, whether they be of Ministerial rank or otherwise, as "quack lawyers"? Is it in order or not in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As it is a general remark and not one applying to any Deputy, it is quite in order.

Mr. Donegan

That is one for——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That ruling does not give the Deputy the right to be Ceann Comhairle as well.

Mr. Corry

I put a new road into your graveyard the other day. That should satisfy you.

Mr. Rooney

It would not be the first time.

Mr. Corry

I was about to say that no Minister or Deputy may change an Act of Parliament. It is the duty of Deputies in their constituencies to see that where 200-acre and 500-acre farms are let in conacre year after year, they will be dealt with under legislation enacted in the House.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We cannot help noting the silence of the Minister on section 12. I really feel——

Mr. Moran

The Deputy really feels he might get me to aid and abet him in his obstruction.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I would not accuse the Minister of something I should not like to be guilty of myself.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy is not as innocent as he looks.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister will not find any Deputy from this side of the House guilty of obstruction.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy has been guilty of obstruction since the day the Bill first came before the House.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The most constructive ideas have come from this side of the House. They have been suggestions based on commonsense and intelligence——

Mr. Corry

On what?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

——and backed by sincerity, supported by an intimate knowledge of conditions in rural Ireland. I just wanted to inquire what is the reason for the Minister's silence on this section.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23rd April, 1964.