Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 May 1964

Vol. 209 No. 9

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

It is only now when this section has been debated at length that its provisions are becoming known in the country. I want to appeal again to the Minister for Lands to introduce some commonsense and intelligence into this section. The section is objectionable, unreasonable and I feel it is unconstitutional. Within the past few days, I received a deputation from the Central Executive of the NFA and they asked that their views on the section be made known. They oppose it very strongly and they feel it interferes with the rights of ownership of land.

It does interfere with those rights as we can see if we look at the explanatory memorandum which was circulated with the Bill. It says: "Section 12 provides that the subdivision, letting and subletting of all agricultural land in the State shall be subject to Land Commission consent." Further to that, if we read the first few lines of the section we find that "an agricultural holding shall not be let, sublet or subdivided without the consent in writing of the Land Commission".

The explanatory memorandum goes on to state: "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." Members of this House do not realise the seriousness of this matter. We have asked the Minister to write into the Bill that conacre lettings, agistment and lettings for a temporary convenience be excluded from the terms of the section. That is all we want. Why is the Minister remaining so silent?

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

This is about the twentieth time that this speech has been made so, evidently, we can reconcile ourselves to further obstruction on this section.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I can assure the Minister and the House that it is not our intention to obstruct. This provision should be criticised. Members do not realise the serious consequences which would follow the passing of this section. It is all very fine for the Minister to assure the House that conacre lettings and other such lettings are excluded but, as has been pointed out, if legal proceedings are instituted in any case it will be no use going into court and telling the learned judge that the Minister for Lands said in the Dáil that conacre lettings, sub-lettings, agistment and other temporary lettings were excluded from the terms of the Bill because the judge will only be concerned with what is written into the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy remember saying that before?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I certainly do. The Minister has had time to consider the implications of this section. Bearing in mind that every landowner is opposed to it and bearing in mind that he is depriving landowners of the right of fixity of tenure and the right to do as they wish with their property, I feel that this is the thin edge of the wedge for the introduction of a Communistic type of legislation and those of us who realise the seriousness of interfering with private property should not be reluctant to speak out. The Minister has remained silent and has not convinced the House of the need for such a provision. I am asking him to drop the idea and to amend the section in view of the appeals made to him by the farming community and those familiar with conditions in rural Ireland, who know the feelings in rural Ireland and know the manner in which landowners can be aggravated by interfering with their rights, rights which they have won dearly and cherish very much. I would appeal to him to come to his senses and see that this objectionable section is removed.

Mr. Blowick

In what way will section 12 help in the relief of congestion? The Minister will probably use the stereotyped reply that because the question of letting, or the definition of letting never arose, that it does not apply now to conacre, or the letting of meadows or agistment, but it is no harm to remind the House that once this Bill is passed, with its present wording, that will no longer apply. From now on, no matter what the law was in the past, whether common law or statute law, because the Minister has written it into the section, letting is now definitely put in and, as has been pointed out, any judge trying a case will not read what the Minister or what I said about it but he will read the Act and I am afraid he can only come to one conclusion and that is that letting of any kind is prohibited except by the permission of the Land Commission.

Again, I should like to ask the Minister in what way, if the Minister is serious in his intention to relieve congestion and bring small farms up to 45 acres, does it help him to do that? If he can point that out to me, I shall not say another word about this section and I shall withdraw my objection to it. As I said on a previous occasion, there are good parts in the Bill but this is a very bad provision, whoever slipped it in, whether it was the Minister or somebody else, and I shall not hesitate to speak out about it.

This Bill is an unwarranted and impertinent interference with the farmer's rights to do what he likes with his own property. One would imagine the farmers were out to sabotage the country or to plunge the country into misery that they are regimented and browbeaten in this way. Our fathers and grandfathers fought a fierce battle to achieve the position we are in today of owning our own land. One of the first things about ownership is that a man may do what he likes with what he owns, provided it is not against the common good or against the law.

The Minister is a member of the legal profession. If some other body tried to bring in a law circumscribing the members of the legal profession as the farmers are being circumscribed in this Bill, I wonder how would he take it. There is one question to which I want an answer: in what way will this help the relief of congestion about which the Minister has so much talk?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

In any reply which the Minister gave to the arguments put up to him on this section, I understood him to state the section was for the purpose of procuring more land, of ensuring there would be sufficient land to deal with the congestion that exists in different parts of the country. I do not think there is any foundation at all for that. Apart from the fact that I agree in toto with what Deputy Blowick, Deputy Flanagan and others have said, that it cuts across the freedom of the individual, I do not know why land owners should be treated in this manner. Any other property owner is entitled to do what he likes with his property.

The Irish Land Commission were created for the purpose of giving the people land, as far as possible, and giving them security and fixity of tenure. There are many instances in which it is necessary to let farms. I understand the mind of the Minister in introducing this Bill was that he believed he was going to create a land revolution in the west of Ireland, that he was going to confer considerable benefits on those who live in that area where the majority of congests exist. Surely this is not the right way to go about it?

As the Minister must know, many people, due to economic circumstances, have emigrated from the west of Ireland, as they have from many other parts of the country. Although they have been forced to emigrate because they are not in a position to carry on economically on the small holding, that holding is possibly as dear to them as is the property of any other owner in the State. Very often the land has been in the possession of the family for generations. Under this section if they find it incumbent on them for economic reasons to emigrate and to seek employment elsewhere, and they want to let the land, instead of doing what they did before, going to an auctioneer, as they should be entitled to do under a free Constitution, to sell that land, they must inform the Land Commission.

What puzzles me about this—I am sure it puzzles many other people, too, because the Minister must know there is tremendous opposition to this section and the section which we shall be discussing later—is that foreigners can come in and buy land and not be asked to go to the Land Commission and register there. An Irish citizen, if he wishes to let his land, must trot along to Merrion Street and inform the Minister and his officials what he intends to do. In the glorious redistribution of land envisaged in this Bill, this unfortunate person from the west of Ireland or from County Cavan, Deputy Dolan's area, where the farms are not so big and the farmers not so rich, will find his farm seized by the Land Commission and handed over to his neighbour. That is the system embodied in this Land Bill from beginning to end, as far as I can read it.

It is incumbent on the Minister to explain to the House what exactly is in his mind in this section, why it has come about that he is introducing legislation like this which is contrary to the ordinary principles of freedom. There seems to be a great advance in State control generally these days, but when State control is advocated, it is for a specific purpose. The Minister says the purpose of this is to enable him to get more land, to enable him to deal with the situation of congests as a whole. This House is entitled to a full explanation as to how he believes that will operate, how he believes this will enable smallholders, not only in his own part of the world but throughout the country, to benefit.

On the question of there being any difficulty on the part of the Land Commission in getting land, there is none in the wide earthly world. The Land Commission have today more land than they are able to deal with. In fact, as I ascertained in reply to questions, in my own county, the Land Commission are doing the very thing they do not want the ordinary tenant farmer, the person who owns a farm, to do. The Land Commission are letting land and they are not letting it for three months or six months but for two years. In reply to a Parliamentary Question I asked recently in this House as to the amount of land held by the Land Commission in my constituency, I was told it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,500 acres, and the Minister hurriedly said they had distributed 850 acres since 1962. This is now 1964. He did not say what the Land Commission are doing with the land they had on hands. I can tell him. They are doing the same thing as the Minister is endeavouring to stop the farmer who owns the land from doing. Why should there be one law for the Land Commission and another law for the ordinary people of Ireland? We Irish farmers, by our contributions to the State, by the payment of taxes and land annuities, are contributing to maintain the Land Commission in existence. Why should they have rights over and above any of us?

The Minister knows the struggle that went on so that the people could own the land. He knows the difficulties with which they had to contend, how their forefathers had to fight and go through every danger, how in many cases they were forced to emigrate, never to see their native shore again. Nevertheless, we have reached the unhappy situation in 1964 when a Fianna Fáil Government bring in a Bill like this. The Minister must know there is widespread opposition to this Bill. There have been representations from the National Farmers Association, from the Landowners Association and from practically every group concerned with land in this country. This section and the subsequent section have aroused the indignation of everybody. They have aroused not only indignation but a feeling of insecurity for the future.

One of the greatest assets of land and a very necessary prerequisite of owning land is land security and fixity so that one can plan in advance what one will do. I have referred to emigrants. Wexford is considered rather better off than some of the counties on the western seaboard. I do not think it is but it is supposed to be. Even in Wexford, it is a regular occurrence that people let their land and go to England for the purpose of saving capital and returning to restock their lands. That is very desirable. They save money and come back, bringing assets into the country. They buy stock and set themselves up in a strong position in the farm. When they come back, they may find that the Land Commission have seized their land because they have to go to the Land Commission and say: "Please, may I let my land?"

I am surprised that the Minister, who is supposed to be a member of what claims to be a democratic Party, should introduce in a democratic State with an agricultural history such as we have had over the centuries, a Bill such as this with a section such as this, which is absolutely dictatorial, giving to the State powers that he will not allow to the ordinary farmer. If the Land Commission themselves took land and divided that land straight away and had a plan for the division of land, or if they even left it to the owners to let it until it was ready for division, it would not be so bad but they want to take the land from the individual and do the letting themselves. If that is justice, I do not know what views the Minister must have of the cardinal principles of justice in relation to Irish landowners.

Mr. O'Sullivan

As other Deputies have stated, this is, undoubtedly, a most revolutionary provision in section 12, that an agricultural holding shall not be let, sublet or subdivided without the consent in writing of the Land Commission. I understand the Minister has given some indication as to what will happen where a farmer dies and his widow is left with young children and may seek to hold the farm until such time as the son has left school and is in a position to operate the farm. Is it a fact that such a person must now apply to the Land Commission for permission to let the land and, in the event of permission not being forthcoming, how is such a person to maintain the productivity of the farm and to carry it on so as to ensure that it will be in a proper condition when the son is in a position to work it?

We require more than the Minister's word for this because there was an occasion in relation to other legislation where we accepted the word of the Taoiseach in respect of a measure that will be before the House tomorrow —the Transport Act. On that occasion a verbal undertaking was given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as he then was, and was flagrantly broken subsequently when branch lines were closed. Therefore, we have to ensure on the Committee Stage of this Bill that there is something more than a pious affirmation from the Minister. We want it in black and white that this provision will not be used to the detriment of people placed in such unfortunate circumstances that they are unable to work a farm for some few years and will be prohibited from letting it to somebody with the machinery, capital and capacity to make a profit from it in that period.

The Minister has stated that it is not intended that the provision should apply to conacre or agistment lettings but there is nothing in the Bill to indicate that such exclusions may be made and if there were a case submitted to the courts at any time, the courts would not be bound by any declarations by the Minister in the House but would be bound by the terms of the Bill as enacted by the Oireachtas. Consequently, we are opposed to the passage of section 12.

There is growing in our community today something which distresses me, something which we thought was finished many years ago. I refer to the jealousy, the envy and the positive efforts to disturb and unseat persons in the possession of land.

Mr. Blowick

To liquidate them.

Mr. O'Sullivan

To liquidate them. We know of instances where unfortunate people have been hospitalised for a short period and, instead of being visited by their neighbours, there are inquiries made as to how soon the neighbours can get their hands on the little farm.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The section deals with the letting, sub-letting and subdivision of land.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Quite, Sir, but this is part and parcel of a growing attitude of disrespect for what was won for us by our forefathers in regard to the ownership of land. This opens up all kinds of reporting. If you have any animus against a neighbour or any grievance, real or illusory, you can immediately report to the Land Commission that he is letting his land without approval.

How many additional officials will be required to control the letting of land as a result of this section? What expense will be involved? At Budget time we are told of the expenditure on State Departments. What additional staff will have to be recruited to control every letting of land?

I would ask the Minister and the Government to review this matter. They can be informed by Deputies sitting behind them as well as by Deputies on this side of the House that this section is causing nation-wide concern. The Minister laughs and smirks. How frequently have Deputies been stopped within recent weeks and been obliged to satisfy somebody that they would avail of the opportunity provided by the Committee Stage to ensure that the Government would be prevented from enacting this section?

This is something which strikes at the very roots of private ownership. The Government have alleged that they are moving to the left. How far left, they have not indicated until this proposal was brought in to make people insecure in the holdings that were won for them over centuries and in which they thought they were secure from the imposition of such requirements as are contained in this section, that they must inform the Land Commission in writing and must secure the consent of the Land Commission if they want to let any part of their holding.

I want to know, if the Government will be so foolish as to persist in putting this section through, what limitation of time is involved. If a person notifies the Land Commission that he proposes to let land for a certain period and advances cogent reasons for doing so, how long will it take to reach a decision and, if the person is not prohibited from letting the land within a limited period, can he accept it that approval has been granted or will such person be left awaiting a decision for as long as applicants for housing grants are left at the moment waiting some indication as to the result of their applications?

If the Minister succeeds in enacting this section, will he give some assurance that there will be a limited period within which a clear indication will be given to the applicant that he is at liberty or is not at liberty to proceed to let? I am saying that only in the event of the section being passed by the House. Even if the Minister agrees to the conditions I have referred to, it is my belief that the people responsible for enacting this provision will be very sorry for doing so. It is for these reasons that we feel the section should not be pursued.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Section 12, as amended, agreed?

Mr. Blowick

Indeed, it is not, and I do not think it will be agreed. In England, during the war years and since the war, a situation arose whereby the Government had to take notice of production on the land. It became purely an economic necessity. Now what happens? In England, though conditions there are different from here, they want to ensure that land is properly worked, but instead of giving the power to one central authority, as is proposed in section 12 here, they have set up county committees composed, say, of neighbours and fellow farmers of a particular landowner whose land it is alleged is not being worked properly from the national viewpoint.

Here we are going a step further. We are bringing the entire 26 counties under the control of Merrion Street. I would not oppose the section if it contained a proposal providing for committees like that established in England—on the lines of our county committees of agriculture—who would be empowered to inquire and report on a farmer who, it was alleged, was not working his land properly.

During the past 20 or 25 years, we have been engaged in a steady pursuit of small farmers, driving them off the land as hard as we can. Not one of those farmers turned his back on his holding, turned the key in his door, put up the shutters willingly. Every one of them had to go because of Government neglect. Now that they have gone we are trying to seize their holdings. First of all, we drove them out by our contempt and our absolute neglect of their economic necessities. Now that they have gone this Bill pursues them to wherever they have been scattered, in all corners of the globe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going away from the section, which deals solely with the question of letting of land.

Mr. Blowick

I am doing nothing of the kind. Certain powers are being sought under the section in regard to subdivision and I have no fault to find with it, but I am seriously perturbed about the use of the words "letting" and "subletting" of agricultural land. There is a vast area of land which has to be let simply because we chased the owners into exile. It is all around Castlebar, the Minister's own area. Some of the Minister's friends have fled and have let their holdings. What will happen to them? Must they come with caps in hands, bowing and scraping to the Minister or some official saying: "For God's sake, can I let my land?" They are in America, in Australia, in Canada. God knows where they have scattered to. They have been banished.

Every one of them has the hope of returning home, of rebuilding or of putting the old home into order, of buying stock and furniture and, in the holding that belonged to his father, grandfather or great-grandfather, ending their days. We have succeeded in doing what the landlords never did: we have followed our people into exile. I have a file of letters from such exiles asking me what has come over the Government, what does this mean. It means they can never come back to the homes they left. I know the Minister has got scores of similar letters because every other TD in Mayo has told me he has got such queries. One has come from as far away as Canada.

The Minister tells us this does not apply to conacre lettings for grazing, tillage or meadow. If that is so, what is the harm in writing a few simple words into the Bill so that no judge with jaundiced eye can put a wrong interpretation into the first words in section 12? What is wrong about that? I must say I do not see anything wrong with the rest of the section if the Minister safeguards farmers in that way. If it is a fact that letting or sub-letting by virtue of common usage in the past does not mean conacre, either agistment or tillage, what is the harm of putting in a few words to say so?

I do not care what the Minister says. In a year, in two years, in five years, if the Bill goes through, a judge can put no other interpretation on subsection (1) of section 12 than that the Oireachtas, in passing this measure, meant that no land was to be let or sublet. To my mind, "sublet" is the more dangerous term from the legal point of view. What is the harm in putting in a few simple words to set our fears at rest?

Surely it is not too much to ask the Minister to give way in that respect to appeals made to him. I shall not go further than point out that responsible bodies in the country are thoroughly alarmed, whether the Minister likes it or not. The NFA are one of those bodies. A bishop spoke today very strongly on this subject. Groups of people whose strength or influence I do not know have gone to the trouble of preparing documents and getting legal opinion. Surely the Minister cannot turn down the NFA and Macra na Feirme. If he only promises the inclusion of a few simple words of amendment on Report Stage I shall be quite happy, but subsection (1) as it stands proposes the adoption of powers the effects of which I do not know, if it is not to establish a kind of tyranny that will not for one moment be tolerated.

Mr. Moran

I am touched by Deputy Blowick's concern for my friends in Mayo and wish to record my appreciation of his concern.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister should not make a joke of such a serious matter.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister's stand has been that the power was there before. Without going into legal details, the matter is there for all to see in the Minister's explanatory memorandum which says:

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. Without effective control over subdivision, etc., the other proposals for land reform could be impeded or frustrated.

I agree with the last sentence, but in relation to the letting of land, no assurance by the Minister that this Bill will not be imposed in relation to conacre lettings, and no undertaking of any other kind can be looked upon as anything but personal undertakings. The Minister's statement that he had this power previously is no good to us. His explanatory memorandum suggests he is now consolidating what was regarded as an unsatisfactory set of powers into one global power.

What has been said by Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Blowick in relation to the storm of fear, perturbation and real concern aroused by this Bill is directly related to the Minister's remark that he will not give way one inch and will not amend this Bill by one word. Will he finish up with the power to do what Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Blowick fear: consolidate holdings in the West to which people want to return? Everybody knows that in the West there comes a decade when people are poor or where people, for health reasons or some other reason, are not in a position to work their own land. I think this is a legitimate fear on the part of Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Blowick. In my county and other counties on the eastern seaboard, there is a different situation, but it is similar in some respects. There comes a decade when people, who might be better off than the less fortunate congests in the West, are unable, because of health or other reasons, to farm their land. The Minister says that if they keep letting on the 11 months system, he will not prohibit it, but he has taken power to prohibit it. He refuses to accept any amendment or introduce any amendment himself. All we want to ensure is that the 11 months system is excluded.

It is not good enough for the Minister to wave any past Act of Parliament at us and say that this power was held before. That section is being repealed and replaced by section 12. The Minister tells us he will not use this power. God forbid it should happen, but the Minister could walk under a bus tonight. We could have a new Minister. We could have a new Government in the next six months. There probably will be another Government in the next six or 12 months.

Mr. Moran

Hope springs eternal.

Mr. Donegan

You bought a few votes but I think the money will run out in six months' time. A new Government may not act in the same way as the Minister says he will act. All that is required is an exchange of portfolios in the present Government and you can start on a line which will prohibit lettings on the 11 months system.

There are good reasons why this system should be preserved, apart from the personal reasons and economic reasons I have given. Very often a man may feel that a machine would be too large for his own holding, so he takes land on the 11 months system. He knows he will get no personal profit, but he will get profit which he can set against the cost of the machine— a machine which would be uneconomic on his own small farm. We do not accept the Minister's statement that he will not implement these powers and we feel we cannot let this through.

Mr. Tully

The Minister, having introduced so many amendments to this Bill, might add another one. I cannot understand why there is such opposition to introducing the short amendment which has been requested, that is, to include the condition that a certain type of letting will be excepted. The Minister says that has always been so and will continue to be so. While I might differ with the people on my left on occasions, I must agree that their interpretation of this section, and particularly of the explanatory memorandum, is the same as mine. I must also agree with them that subsection (1) of section 12, which says that an agricultural holding shall not be let, sublet or divided without the consent and writing of the Land Commission, can only mean one thing outside this House. I appreciate that if the Minister says he intends to exclude conacre and agistment lettings, he means that. Unfortunately, the people who would be dealing with these matters outside the House would probably take a different line entirely. Almost certainly the fact that it is laid down in subsection (1) of section 12 would ensure that in future the interpretation taken would be that it would include all lettings.

In addition, there is the problem that certain of the people who deal with these matters have had a rather inhuman approach to this question of letting or subletting. In passing, let me remark that if I make a comment on a matter of this sort to the Minister through the Chair in this House I want a reply, if a reply is to be given, from the Minister and from nobody else. If I want to raise a matter with the Minister in this House, I do not want an official of the Land Commission to reply to me in writing. It has nothing to do with him. It is a matter between the Minister and myself. The Minister could save himself and the House a lot of trouble by agreeing to have another look at this section and by including the very slight amendment asked for from this side of the House.

Mr. Jones

I want to put a question in regard to dairying. In my constituency quite a number of people take land on the 11 months system for dairying. They have no land of their own, but it has been traditional for them over the years to take land and engage in this occupation. I know of several cases. One, which was brought to the attention of the Land Commission, concerned a farm in Limerick where people had been in occupation of this land year in and year out on the 11 months system. Eventually, they found themselves without any place in which to put their cattle. They felt the Land Commission was going to take this land, but the farm was sold and they found themselves looking about for land. There are people like that and people with very small amounts of land who have been enabled to make a living for themselves and their families from this type of husbandry. I should like to hear from the Minister that the interests of these people will not be affected by this section and that they will not be prevented from engaging in this type of husbandry.

As far as I can see, the section seems to govern any letting of land. There must be permission to let it. While the Minister might tell us at this stage that the Land Commission might not be unreasonable in this matter, I should like to feel assured that this type of husbandry, which has contributed very valuably to the national economy and has enabled whole generations to live on the land though not owning land, will not be interfered with. It is a very valuable national asset in its own way. It is also a very valuable outlet for young men who, at the present time, are unable to obtain land for themselves or where the holdings which their people own are not capable of maintaining a number of young men.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am compelled to intervene by the continued representations that have been made to me by various people in my constituency. There is one example I want to bring before the Minister. There are many young men, whom the Land Commission would call landless men, in my constituency of Waterford and in the constituency of South Kilkenny who take various small holdings of five to six acre and ten acre plots. They often have 60 acres of land which they till themselves. That is their way of making a livelihood. If there is any interference with the leasing or letting of those holdings, we will turn ourselves into a complete bureaucracy. I do not like it and I would say to the Minister that he should look at this again. In fact, he must look at it again. It is against all the principles that the Irish people ever held in respect of land.

I am sure every Deputy realises the land hunger that has always been in the Irish people and the way people love the land and love the place they were reared in. Even though many of them had to leave it, they do not want to part with it. It could be said that if many of these farms were given over to the Land Commission, they would be available for division amongst these young men for whom I am appealing. I want to point out to the Minister that these men would be termed landless men and they would not get any share of the land available. They would not be considered for any portion of such land.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The section deals with lettings and sub-lettings.

Mr. T. Lynch

I think I am right in pointing out to the Minister that, if there were not enough lettings and sub-lettings available, these men would not be able to obtain land. I want to point out also to the Minister that there is no use in his saying to me that he wants to buy up this land and offer it to these men because these men will not be eligible for it.

Many people who might be called old-fashioned have made representations to me. Those people remember what they had to suffer, and what their fathers had to suffer, in getting fixity of tenure that was won for them by the various Land Acts in the 1880s and the early 1900s. One of these people said to me: "Did I ever think I would see the day we would have an Irish Government who would prevent me if I wanted to"—this man does not want to let his land—"from letting my land to my neighbour?" I suggest to the Minister that the teeth should be taken out of this section. The Minister says that he does not need these powers. If he does not need them, why is he taking them? I would ask him to reconsider this matter.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It seems obvious to me from the debate, so far as it has gone, and from the silence the Minister is maintaining, that he does not intend to give an inch. That is an unfair principle.

Mr. Moran

I do not intend to assist the Deputy's Party in their obstruction carried out over the past two months.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It is the old argument. Whenever anybody opposes Fianna Fáil on anything, it is obstruction. We are supposed to agree with Fianna Fáil, no matter what they do. If the Minister thinks the Fine Gael Party will line up behind him to pass such a Bill as this, he never made such a big mistake in his life before. I would advise the Minister, if he wishes to get this Bill through, to treat the House with the courtesy it deserves. I saw him sitting there sniggering when Deputy Blowick was making a good contribution just now. It is obstruction when anybody opposes anything which Fianna Fáil wants to introduce.

I believe the Minister does not intend to give much away, whether it is by instructions from the Government or whether he has been advised by his officials that he should try to put this Bill through without amending it in any way. I have come to the conclusion that that is the Minister's intention and that he does not intend to give an inch.

Perhaps the Minister will answer this question. If a person wants to let land and makes application to the Land Commission for that purpose, how long will he have to wait for an answer, under this coercive legislation introduced by the Minister? A situation may arise in which there is an opportunity for a person to let his farm over a certain period of years, which will be of advantage to himself and to the district. In my constituency at the moment, a farm of land has been let for a great number of years and it has been to the advantage of both the people who took the land and the people who let it. The Land Commission have not interfered in this matter. They left it as it is. I do not know whether they had sufficient powers in the existing legislation to take over that land. If they had not up to this, they will get it under this Bill, if the Minister has his way and gets it through this House.

If I, or any other landowner wishes to let his land and has an advantageous offer for it, which he wishes to accept, and which will give a stable livelihood to him over a period of years, how long has he to wait for an answer to his application? I cannot see anything in this section to indicate that it is mandatory on the Minister, or the Land Commission, to decide the issue one way or the other. If a person has such a reasonable offer and makes application to the Land Commission, it is quite reasonable to assume that he might have to wait 12 months for an answer. If you go for an interview, you have some opportunity of getting a decision, but if you write to the Land Commission, I can assure the Minister it is a very long time before you get a reply. I can also assure the Minister, when you get a reply, it is very hard to interpret completely what it means.

It would be to the advantage of this House, if the Minister instead of sitting there sulking and talking about obstruction, got up, was constructive and replied to the queries addressed to him. I am asking the Minister a definite query now. With respect to you, Sir, if the Minister does not answer, I shall assert my right as a Deputy and keep putting the query, even if we have to stay here all night.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Surely the Minister will not ignore the plea made by this side of the House? Surely he will make some statement on this very urgent and important matter?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I must intervene again. In free debate here, I have asked the Minister, as I am entitled to do, to tell the House what maximum period will be permitted to the Land Commission in which to hold up the letting of land.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is repetition. The Deputy has already asked the question.

Mr. Moran

And it was answered 40 times.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Repetition is not in order.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The only things I have heard are sulky remarks and sneers from the Minister. If the Minister refuses to answer publicly in Dáil Éireann, in this free and democratic society, perhaps he would answer it if I ask it through you, Sir: Is it contemplated in this section that the time will be illimitable before the Land Commission reply to a request from a landowner for permission to let his land? I ask you, Sir, who are in control of this House, to persuade the Minister to reply. This is the first time I have seen a Minister sulking during a debate, refusing to answer anything.

Mr. Moran

If the Deputy thinks I will repeat everything I have said in the past month for his edification, he has another think coming to him.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

In the 21 years during which I have been a member of this House, I have never before had the experience of seeing a Minister sitting, resting his face on the palm of his hand and remaining dumb, despite a plea for a simple answer to a simple question put for the purpose of getting guidance for the landowners of this country. Last week and the week before, the Minister gave certain guarantees. What I am afraid of is that these guarantees will be of no use because we have no guarantee that the Minister will be Minister for Lands next week. I fail to understand why this terrible threat should be allowed to hang over the heads of our farmers. I join with Deputy Esmonde in appealing to the Minister to use some commonsense and not behave like a child who has had his toffee filched from him. The Minister is sulking. Surely the Minister is sufficiently adult to be able to exercise commonsense and intelligence? Surely he should answer reasonable requests? It is a very serious matter for landowners to lose the right to ownership. This is a matter on which the Minister should not remain silent.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It is a joke to him.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

No member of the Fianna Fáil Party, not one Fianna Fáil Deputy, has spoken on this matter. It shows the contempt in which Fianna Fáil hold the right to ownership of land and the right of those who own the land to do what they like with their own property. This is an outrage. It is a calamity. The Minister's attitude is an insult to Parliament. It is an insult to the Irish people. Deputy Esmonde asked the Minister a reasonable question: he asked the Minister how long it will take the Land Commission to reply to a person asking for permission to let land. The Minister smiles broadly and ignores the question.

I will go a little further than Deputy Esmonde. May I ask the Minister what the procedure will be under this section? What speed, what efficiency, will there be so that a landowner seeking permission to set his lands will know how long it will take to get that permission? How long after receipt of his application can he expect to have an answer? There is nothing in the section to say that the permission or the refusal, as the case may be, will be conveyed to him within a period of 14 or 21 days. What will happen to the landowner who sits down and writes to the Land Commission for permission to set his land: "Dear Sir, I wish to apply to the Irish Land Commission for permission to set my land. It is important that I should set it because I am unable to work it. Please honour me with a favourable reply." After three weeks, maybe, he will get back a short acknowledgment, in Irish, mark you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of Irish does not arise on section 12.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I take it the Land Commission will use the same type of acknowledgment as they use now. What will happen when a man receives this acknowledgment in a language he does not understand? Does he then proceed to set his land or does he take this as a refusal? This matter is too serious for the Minister to sit silently. Deputy Jones has dealt with the circumstances of the dairy farmer in his constituency and in the dairying areas in which tracts of land are set for grazing. He asked the Minister to give a guarantee that those who take these grazing lands will be exempt from the provisions of section 12. The Minister did not give that guarantee. He did not even take the observations made by Deputy Jones seriously, and Deputy Jones spoke with commonsense and intelligence out of the knowledge he has of the landowners in his constituency and the benefit that system confers on those landowners and on the community generally. Deputy Blowick asked the Minister why he was seeking power to deprive the owner of land of his full rights of ownership and his right to do what he likes with his land, without making application to a group of civil servants or to the Minister.

We are dealing here with the principle of the right of ownership and the right of the owner to do what he likes with his own property. There is a serious implication in this. After the passage of this Bill, nobody's land will be his own. It will be tied up in red tape. Before he can do what he likes with his property, he will have to seek permission. As the explanatory memorandum says he must apply for permission. The Bill says he must obtain it in writing from the Land Commission. Deputy Blowick received no answer to the point he raised. Neither did Deputy Donegan. Deputy T. Lynch dealt with the circumstances prevailing in his area. All through the Minister has remained silent. I fail to understand this silence on the Fianna Fáil benches. Is it because the Minister, when dealing with this section before his Party, met with such very serious opposition from the Fianna Fáil Deputies in rural Ireland? I ask the Minister now to apply to the Chair for permission to adjourn this debate and go back to the Fianna Fáil Party with this section. If he does, I venture to say he will be met again with the hostile opposition he met with previously in the Party on this section.

Surely the Minister realises that a battle was fought in this country for quite a long time in order that our fathers, our grandfathers, and our great-grandfathers could enjoy the ownership of land. Yet here we have, as Deputy T. Lynch pointed out, an Irish Government, by a stroke of the pen, by section 12 of this Bill, depriving the people of the benefits of the great sacrifices which were made in the past. The Minister for Lands of this Fianna Fáil Government is sitting with two men behind him who have remained as silent as himself. There has not been a single voice on that side of the House to defend the landowners of this country, nor a single voice to prevent Civil Service control over every acre of land within the State.

I put it to the Minister that the guarantee he gave a fortnight ago that conacre lettings, temporary lettings, agistment lettings, and temporary lettings for convenience were exempt from this section might be all right if we had a guarantee that he would be Minister for Lands permanently. We have no such guarantee. The Minister for Transport and Power might be Minister for Lands in a month's time.

Mr. T. Lynch

Then we were sunk. He might start taking up the land.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We have no guarantee that the Minister for Justice will not be Minister for Lands.

Mr. Donegan

Horror.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Then where would the guarantee of the Minister stand? This is probably the most serious question to be decided in this House since the State was founded. Many serious questions were decided, many serious problems were debated, and many serious motions were discussed carefully and fully, but never before was such a serious matter debated in this House as the matter of preventing the owners of the land of the country from doing as they wished with their own property.

For that reason I want it to go on record that the Minister has remained dumb, that the two men behind him have remained silent, and that no explanation has been given by the Government as to why they are taking these powers which the Minister says he may not use, which he says may be unnecessary, but, at the same time, he would like to have enshrined in legislation in case he wants to put them into effect. This might be a reasonably good section for Fidel Castro to enact. It might be a good section of a Bill framed by Tito or Khrushchev but here we have an Irish Minister for Lands in an Irish Parliament, putting legislation through the House which, in plain language, will make it a criminal offence for any landowner to set his land without the consent and permission of the Land Commission.

I ask the Minister, through the Chair, in all fairness to treat this House and this Parliament with courtesy. He has been treated with courtesy from this side. It is not our intention, and it never has been—it is not our pattern of working—to obstruct. It is our duty as the Opposition to be constructive, and that is what we are. It is also our duty as the Opposition to see that the present Government, or any Government, do not impose on the people a law which is unjust, unfair, unreasonable and, in my opinion, unconstitutional. That is why we are very strongly opposing the powers the Minister seeks in this section.

Having regard to the attitude of the NFA, the attitude of the Irish Auctioneers and Estate Agents Association, the attitude of the landowners, and the attitude of every organisation which viewed this matter with concern, does the Minister think that silence is the way to treat the views of such representative bodies? I have a feeling the Minister does not realise his responsibilities in this matter, because any Minister who would ignore the pleas of the people outside this House, in the same way as he ignores the pleas of the people inside the House who speak on their behalf, is unworthy to occupy the high office of Minister for Lands.

Probably one of the most serious aspects of this whole matter is the manner in which the Minister has treated the pleas made by three Parties in this House who view this section with the highest suspicion, and the gravest possible concern. If, as the Minister said a fortnight ago, the section is innocent and harmless, is there anything now to stop him from standing up and saying: "A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am now satisfied that in order to ease the minds of the people outside the House, as well as the people inside the House, I should come back on Report Stage and submit a further amendment of three or four lines saying that conacre lettings, temporary lettings, agistment lettings and temporary lettings for convenience are excluded from the terms of this section".

For some reason or other, the Minister will not give us that amendment, and he has not explained to the House or, indeed, to the country, why he has refused such a reasonable request. Is it because there are queer, undisclosed and strange motives behind the section? I think there are very strange, undisclosed, political motives behind it. I now view it with greater suspicion than I did when I read the Bill last October. I feel that the motives behind the section are ill-conceived. Whatever the reasons for it are, the Minister is afraid and ashamed to disclose them to the House, and that is why I join with other Deputies in making a serious plea to him to speak, not to remain dumb, while depriving the landowners of the country of the right to ownership of their own land.

Mr. Dillon

It has been suggested by the Minister responsible for this Bill that our opposition to section 12 is ill-considered and, indeed, he ventured to say, obstructive. I have left the conduct of this Bill confidently in the hands of Deputy Flanagan and my other colleagues who have spoken on this matter, in the knowledge that they would fully express our views on it. I expected that when our views had been adequately ventilated, the Minister would recognise his obligation to go some way to meet the legitimate reservations we had in regard to this provision. He is not prepared to go any way.

I want to say with a full sense of responsibility that our opposition to this section is dictated by a grave sense of responsibility on the merits of the proposals it contains. I am as certain as I am standing here that there must be some members in the Minister's Party who themselves remember or who have heard their parents talk of the three F's in defence of which the Land War was fought and won. Those three F's were fixity of tenure, fair rent and free sale, which at that time were denied our people by the landlords.

Mr. Moran

Might I point out that this section deals with subletting and subdivision and has nothing to do with sale one way or the other?

Mr. T. Lynch

What will the Minister do if they let the land without his permission—evict them?

Mr. Dillon

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

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The Minister should read his own Bill.

Mr. Dillon

What is the meaning of the word "subdivide"? These rights were withheld from our people by the landlords and we challenged their claim to do that. They joined issue with our fathers and our grandfathers in a long and sanguinary struggle, the issue of which was that we cleared the landlords out of this country and established these three rights for all our people.

Now, let us get this clear in our mind. Anyone who knows the story of rural Ireland knows that, down through the ages, there were good landlords and there were bad landlords. A good landlord never interfered with fixity of tenure amongst his tenants. A good landlord never exacted an unfair rent. A good landlord conceded the right of free sale of your tenant right. There were thousands of landlords who voluntarily conceded the right of the tenant to compensation, not for his ownership of the land but for his tenancy of the land. There were good landlords in this country who conceded that although there was no legal obligation on them to compensate a tenant for his improvements, there was a moral obligation.

People often asked me and my father and those who went before me: "Why did you attack all the landlords then?" The answer is that because the system was open to such abuse, we could not allow it to continue. Do not forget that if the first Lord Lucan was a bad man, the next Lord Lucan was a good man. Do not forget that you had the exact reverse. You had a good landlord who reared a bad son. Our fathers and grandfathers said: "We cannot allow our people to live under that perennial Sword of Damocles that their landlord will rear a bad son and the day the good man is buried, fixity of tenure, fair rent and free sale will be taken from the tenants by the passing of their landlord."

This section purports to do in 1964 what was never proposed in this country before since we dealt with Clanrickard. We fought Clanrickard all the way, with all his resources, and we beat him in the end and nobody has made the claim since which is made in this section today. This is not a proposal that where a Land Commission annuity is outstanding or that while a parcel of land which a person is buying from the Land Commission is outstanding, there shall be no dealing in the land without the consent of the Land Commission. This is a proposal to control all the land in Ireland. The last people who made that claim were the Landlords' Convention. Did we fight the Land War to abolish that right in the Landlords' Convention in order to re-vest it in a bureaucracy? Is it any less difficult for an owner of land to find himself entangled with a Government Department or the Minister for the time being or his nominees, the Land Commissioners, for the time being, than it was for their grandfathers to wrestle with a landlord whom they knew and who was their neighbour?

What is the need for this section? How can an Irish Government claim to exercise such a power without limitation of time? How can they assert what certainly is not true, namely, that the Government own all the land in Ireland?

Mr. Blowick

Hear, hear.

Mr. Dillon

That is the claim of section 12. What section 12 claims is that it does not matter how you got the land, how long you have held your land, whence you got it, your title is no longer good because you hold it by leave of the Government of the day, and if you want to sell part of it or to set part of it, you can do so only with the permission of the Government of the day.

Do not let us close our eyes to the fact that today there are certain reserved functions of the Land Commission. We used to regard the Land Commission as a judicial person into whose hands we might commit many great powers with reluctance, with circumspection and with unremitting vigilance, but, in a later stage of this Bill, some of those reserved powers are being qualified. Where the acquisition of land heretofore was a reserved function of the Land Commissioners, now land is to be examined at the instance of the Minister for Lands for the time being through his Chief Inspector and many restrictions are to apply to that land consequent on that inspection at the instance of the Minister for Lands. I very much doubt if a position of this kind is in accordance with the Constitution but whether in law it may or may not be, certainly the spirit of the Constitution of this country never envisaged the claim of this State to own the land of Ireland. I deny that claim and I venture to say that no legislation of this House can ever take from our people the right to own their own land.

Mr. Blowick

Hear, hear.

Mr. Dillon

In all the debates that have gone on here, the great fundamental issues that are here involved are easily lost sight of. The issue raised in section 12 is: "Do the farmers of this country own their own land?" I dare anybody to say, if section 12 becomes law and survives the Constitution, that a man owns his land if he may not let it, sublet it or subdivide it without the permission of the Government Department. I can only assume that, perhaps, the Minister and the Government stumbled into this proposal without a full realisation of whither they are going, because in their explanatory memorandum, they say that subdivision, letting and subletting of all agricultural land in the State shall be subject to Land Commission consent. It is "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. Without effective control of subdivision, etc., the other proposals for land reform could be impeded or frustrated".

There is nothing the Government want to do that is not impeded or frustrated by the fundamental rights of our people set out in the First and Second Constitutions of the State. The purpose of a Constitution is to frustrate and impede the activities of a dictatorial Executive when they no longer realise the right relationship that ought to exist between them and those who are their masters and whose servants they should be proud to be. These are fundamental rights. The right to own land is fundamental and if it is lost, make no mistake, the whole social pattern of our society is fundamentally altered. We shall fight that section with all the resources at our disposal. It is a claim on the part of the State, without limit of time, to control free sale.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of sale does not arise on this section.

Mr. Blowick

It is on account of that we have been here for three weeks.

Mr. Dillon

What does the Leas-Cheann Comhairle mean by the word "subdivision?"

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As has been pointed out to other Deputies, the section deals with the question of letting and subletting.

Mr. Dillon

It does not. I shall read it again:

An agricultural holding shall not be let, sublet or subdivided....

What is that word put in for? Why not leave it out? We are told this section does not refer to conacre lettings. That is what the Minister said. I think as the text stands the courts will interpret it to mean that it does. But that can be easily settled because if the Minister says it does not apply to conacre lettings, let him put in an amendment specifically excluding them. That is what we asked for. If he says subdivision does not relate to sale of land let him bring in an amendment saying that the Government do not claim to control the sale or subletting of land. If the section does not mean what it says, then, of course, we do not object to it. We object to it for what it says, not for what it does not say. If it means something different from what it claims to mean—because in his own explanatory memorandum he says:

It is intended as a global provision taking the place of the unsatisfactory patch-work of control operating under existing enactments.... Without effective control of subdivision, etc., the other proposals for land reform could be impeded or frustrated.

If you look at subsection 4, there is no intention to leave out any acre of land in the country:

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, and whether held jointly or in common or alone or in severalty, and whether or not purchased under the Land Purchase Acts, or registered or deemed to be registered under the Registration of Title Acts, 1891 and 1942; provided that where two or more than two such holdings stand consolidated they shall be deemed to be one holding; "agricultural" in relation to a holding means substantially agricultural or pastoral or substantially agricultural and pastoral in character.

How very specific the Minister is here. There is no ambiguity. This section is designed to take cession of every acre of arable land. No ambiguity is left there. If the Minister can afford to be so specific in subsection (4), which extends the scope of the section, could he not meet the Opposition, which speaks with some authority in respect of the question of free sale in regard to the question of that type of land which may be the difference between the survival of a family on their holding and the compulsion to abandon it through family circumstances for which they have no responsibility?

I adopt all that has been said from these Benches and I warn Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party that, if they do not already know it, in their name are now being struck down the three F's which most of them were reared to revere, fixity of tenure, free sale and fair rent. If Clanrickard could not make a breach in them, I do not believe Fianna Fáil will be able to do so. Of this they can be certain: we shall fight them every inch of the way in Parliament, in the country and in the courts, and if they beat us, one day we shall be in their place and I now pledge this Party to undo what they are attempting to do today.

Mr. Moran

For sheer claptrap, the Balaclava we have just listened to could be hard to beat because it is quite obvious the Leader of the main Opposition has been brought in here to help his henchmen in the further obstruction of this section, without taking the trouble to read what went on in the House during hours of debate on this section.

He starts off with the extraordinary assertion that such a proposition as is enshrined in this section was never proposed here before. That obviously indicates that he did not take the trouble to read the debate on the section. In case anybody should be misled by these crocodile tears that are alleged to be shed about the three F's, in the much-vaunted Land Act of 1923, enacted by the Fine Gael Party's predecessors, there is a subsection which has been the law of the land for the past 40 years. It reads word for word with this section:

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 section applies to 80 per cent of the land of Ireland——

Mr. Dillon

The unvested land.

Mr. Moran

——because 80 per cent has been purchased under the 1923 Act. Every rural solicitor, where there is a question of subdivision, has spent much of his time filling up application forms for the Land Commission's consent, week in, week out for the past 40 years. Because under this section, on this question of subdivision and sub-letting, I am applying the same law that applied to 80 per cent of the land for the past 40 years, we have Deputy Dillon coming in at this hour, after approximately ten hours of the time of the House having been devoted to this section, to die at the mast for the three F's. This is the position. This has been the law of this land for the past 40 years as regards subletting and subdivision. It has been the law that any letting of land for more than one year, for two, four or five years, was absolutely void between all parties unless they got the consent of the Land Commission. There are people in Deputy Dillon's Party who could advise him on this.

If Deputy Dillon in his wisdom decided to leave the responsibility for dealing with this to Deputy Flanagan, he might have invited some of the lawyers in his Party to brief him on the law of the land for the past 40 years on these issues. It is true I have said that section 65 of the Land Act, 1923 does not apply to temporary convenient agistment or what are called 11-months lettings because these are not legal lettings. In one case it is what is called a licence for eatage of the grass, or the taking of hay, as the case may be, and it has always been excluded. Just the same as it was not necessary to say on the passing of section 65 that these provisions did not apply to temporary lettings, pasturage, or 11-months lettings, so it is unnecessary under this section because this section merely reenacts the law that applied to 80 per cent of the land for the past 40 years.

If Deputies are interested enough in getting clear definitions of the difference between a legal letting of land and a temporary interest in letting, or an 11-months letting, they might go to the trouble of looking up what the Supreme Court had to say in 1944 in Fitzpatrick v. Beehan, in which they deal specifically with the reasons why the Land Acts did not apply in these temporary convenience lettings. This is what the section is dealing with. It is applying the same law that has been on the Statute Books of Dáil Éireann since 1923 in respect of 80 per cent of the land to the other 20 per cent. Why should not the same provisions be applicable? I do not know what Deputy Dillon is thinking about when he says it is a crime to stop people subdividing land. Does anybody in his sane senses believe that an uneconomic holder should be given, at very great expense to the taxpayer, an addition of 15 or 20 acres to bring him up to an economic level and then the following week after the Land Commission had parted with the land to him, that he should be allowed to go on the open market and sell that land in parcels of two, eight or ten acres?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We are not talking about that.

Mr. Moran

This is the most innocuous section in the Bill inasmuch as there is nothing new in it. We started dealing with this matter on the 14th of April when four hours of the time of the House were devoted to it; then on the 22nd April another four hours were devoted to it. Tonight we have been about two hours on it, for the sole purpose of endeavouring to create a feeling in the minds of people outside that there is something revolutionary or extraordinary being done under section 12 which, as I said, is merely a re-enactment of the law that has been applicable to 80 per cent of the land and is now applying it to the other 20 per cent.

I want the people in rural Ireland to realise that this performance is going on in this House and to realise that the sale of all the lands now being sold in anticipation of this Bill to deprive the Land Commission from getting it is being assisted by the deliberate misrepresentation, the deliberate filibustering that has gone on on this section for hours and hours, with repetitive speeches being made time and time again by Deputies opposite. In my view they know quite well what is being enacted. They know that this section purports to do nothing except what was done in 1923 and extend that law to the rest of the land and they have their own doubtful purposes for holding up the passage of this Bill.

Mr. Blowick

Before this bluff goes any further, I want to nail one falsehood. The Minister has fallen back on section 65 of the 1923 Act. He said that that applies to 80 per cent of the land. The position is that when this State was established the late Mr. Hogan was Minister for Agriculture and Lands and at that time there were 11,000 landlords holding over one million acres with something like 150,000 tenants. That section was brought in by the then Minister to deal with the lands they were about to hand out to the tenants until the tenants would be vested in that one million acres. There is no comparison at all. I suspected that the Minister was using a ruse to put something serious across and now I am convinced of it. He said that the same conditions as applied in 1923 now apply to vested land. All these conditions have vanished and this is nothing less than an act of tyranny on the free landowners of this country. If this is as innocuous as the Minister says it is, why has he changed the wording there? Why has he deliberately set out that in this section a holding "in relation to a particular tenant or proprietor"—the 1923 Act did not mention a 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...."

Mr. Moran

The 1923 Act does mention "proprietor". Would the Deputy look up what he is talking about?

Mr. Blowick

It does not mention "proprietor" or "fee simple" land.

Mr. Moran

Does the Deputy want me to repeat the 1923 section?

Mr. Blowick

I am not a lawyer——

Mr. Moran

That is obvious.

Mr. Blowick

——but when I was Minister for Lands I made myself as conversant as I could with the land law and with the history of land ownership in this country, and I shall not be sidetracked by the Minister. There is no doubt that the Land Act of 1923 paved the way for making every tenant the owner of the land. There were 150,000 tenants to be dealt with and about 11,000 estates. It was absolutely necessary then to bring in that section dealing with unvested land. The wording of that Act did not mean and has not meant since that it would apply to any tenant once he is vested. The Minister now wants to reduce all the farmers of this country to the status of unvested tenants, as they were under the landlord system, by the very peculiar and clever way this section is worded. The Minister can call it obstruction if he likes but while I have a tongue to wag no Minister will put across something tyrannical and try to browbeat the Opposition by calling it obstruction. I shall certainly obstruct any tyrannical move and be proud to call it obstruction.

Mr. Donegan

In quoting section 65 of the Land Act, 1923, the Minister was chancing his arm right up to the armpit. It is quite obvious that section is intended to cover the situation whereby a holding would be transferred from one person to another and while there were still land annuities to be paid on it, and the Land Commission would not immediately find they had a new payee. That is what this is for. However, even by the Minister's own definition and his quoting of section 65 of the Land Act, 1923, if you want a deliberate change as between section 12 of the Bill with which we are now dealing and section 65 of the 1923 Act, then that change is that this covers all land. If the Minister gets a question next week as to when all the land annuities are coming to the stage of being paid up, I think that question will reveal that it will not be very many years until a very large portion of the land of this country is freehold. As acre by acre fails to become completely freehold it is caught under section 12 and if the Minister, by his own definition, wants a difference, there it is for him.

Mr. T. Lynch

The opening of section 65 of the 1923 Land Act reads: "Where the Land Commission has made an advance...." There is nothing like that here. The man must apply to the Land Commission straight away for permission to let or subdivide his land and he must get it in writing.

Mr. Blowick

It covers all land.

Mr. T. Lynch

I want to be fair to the Minister. If we are to be a normal House of Parliament we should follow the rules of Parliament. Deputy Esmonde asked a question here an hour ago: if this section goes through and if a man wants to let his land or subdivide his land how long would it take for that man to get a reply? I shall give way to the Minister if he will answer that question.

Mr. Moran

About the same length as it has taken for the past 40 years, because the very same provision has applied for the past 40 years.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is poppycock.

Mr. Moran

It is true.

Mr. T. Lynch

If this provision goes through, permission for every letting or subdivision will have to be sent to the Land Commission. The Land Commission will need a whole new Department and Parkinson's Law will be justified again. If a man has to make a decision, say, in the month of January to let his land, how long will it take to get a reply?

Mr. Moran

The same as it does to-day if he is letting it for a period of more than a year.

Mr. T. Lynch

Will it take a month or two months or will it be on the Kathleen Mavourneen system?

Mr. Moran

Let the Deputy waste as much time as he likes.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister need not be so testy.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

If the Minister will not answer, he can stay there.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister has mentioned deliberate obstruction. Whether that is parliamentary or not I do not know but I would draw the attention of the Ceann Comhairle to it. I did not speak at all on the Land Bill until today and I came in through pressure from my constituents. The Minister said just now we are trying to stir up agitation against this. The people are concerned about this matter and there is no need to stir up agitation at all.

What I am concerned about is that the Minister has given certain guarantees and undertakings in regard to the previous sections that have been passed, and the Minister has asked the House to let this section go through, that everything will be all right as long as he is Minister. I remember the Taoiseach looking into my eyes here the night the Transport Bill was going through and saving: "There is no need to put this down. There is no need to put down every comma. No railway line will be taken up without full consultation."

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not travel on those lines.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am travelling on these old railway lines and I am looking at this Minister now. He has given us undertakings, too, but we have been over the course before. We have had undertakings before where Ministers said: "We shall do this" and they did not do it. We must take a stand here that it should be put down. We must protect the landowners of Ireland, maybe not from this Minister but perhaps from his successor or successors.

The Minister mentioned disparagingly what Deputy Dillon said about Balaclava. It was about the time of Balaclava that the people had no real rights and it was about the time of Balaclava that they were thrown out on the roads in their thousands. What will happen under this provision if the people ignore this, as Irish people will do and if they let their land in spite of the Minister and the Land Commission? Will the Minister evict them?

I shall give the Minister another opportunity of answering this question in case the section goes through: how long will it take for the landowner to get a reply when he makes an application to the Land Commission?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

He will not tell us that, for some reason I do not know.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am convinced that the Minister has not a united Fianna Fáil Party behind him on this section and I would be disappointed if Fianna Fáil men were to tell me that there was unanimity in Fianna Fáil for this section.

Mr. O'Malley

Of course, there is.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am surprised at hearing that from that Deputy because I am sure there are people who would turn in their graves because he says it.

Mr. O'Malley

Nonsense.

Mr. T. Lynch

There is no nonsense about it. I could not imagine anybody being so subservient to the Party Whip as to snigger or laugh at what I am talking about or what Deputy Dillon was talking about.

The section says

Any attempted or purported letting, subletting or subdivision in contravention of this section shall be null and void as against all persons.

What will the Minister do if people pitch this to blazes and let their land? I should like the Minister to make a statement in the House, to tell us that he is going to take them to court, that he has power to take them to court, that he has power to evict, that he has power to take over the land. Will the Minister tell us that? Is he going to do that?

The Minister referred to the lawyers in the Fine Gael Party and suggested that we should have asked their advice. I am sure that the members of any Party will not go to the lawyers in the Party and ask their advice. We are able to read as well as anybody else and we are able to react to pressure from our constituents. It is good that we are able to do that and that we come into this House to put their point of view. I am convinced that if there were a free vote, this section would not go through. I appeal now to the Minister to bow to the pressure of Deputies because they are speaking for the people who own the land. He is the Minister for Lands and he should change the section and take the teeth out of it, because, if he reads section 65 of the 1923 Land Act again, he will see that it is not the same as the section in this Bill, as he said it was. It is not the same. I would ask the Minister to reply.

Mr. Dillon

I want to say this—and I shall not intervene in this debate again because I think I have said all that needs to be said in my original intervention—either the Minister himself does not understand what he is doing or he is trying to mislead the House.

The 1923 Land Act provides in section 65:

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,...

Anyone who wanted to buy a parcel of land under section 65 of the Land Act, 1923 knew what he was doing. Here is a proposal to say to all those who bought land under the Ashbourne Act, under the Wyndham Act, under the Birrell Act: "Without any regard to what you, in fact, or your father bought under these Acts, we now propose to come along unilaterally and to tell you the bargain your grandfather made is now no longer valid. We, by law, in 1964, propose unilaterally on behalf of the State to qualify the bargain that your grandfather made. We are going to change the whole basis of that bargain."

I want to ask this House to consider carefully where are we going? When before has the Oireachtas claimed to go to any citizen of this State and to say: "Whatever bargain you made before, we are now going to intervene and declare that there is a new condition that you, your father, or your grandfather never heard of and, though we made this condition in respect of future purchases 40 years ago, we have acknowledged for 40 years that that condition did not apply to your land; but now we have changed our mind and, just because we have changed our mind, we have written section 12 into the Land Bill of 1963, and Oireachtas Éireann, when they have passed it, are no longer interested in what your right or title to your land has been".

Are we all going daft? If you have the right to do that, is there any right of property left sacrosanct in this country? Have you not the right to go in to anybody who owns property and say: "Yes, we know you have owned property under a code for the past 40 years or for the past century, but we think you should not hold it that way any more. We are going to pass a nice, neat, Act of Parliament and you will wake up one morning and find that what you thought was your own is your own no longer"? If you can do this in regard to land, what property remains sacrosanct in this country?

The justification for this is that it is necessary as a global provision to take the place of the unsatisfactory patch-work of control operating under existing enactments which are listed for repeal in the First Schedule and without effective control over subdivision, et cetera, the other proposals for land reform could be impeded or frustrated. This is a Land Bill of bureaucratic insanity. This is the claim, the traditional claim, of every totalitarian State in history, that it is too much trouble to recognise your neighbour's fundamental rights and, if they impede or frustrate the desires of the Executive, the sensible thing to do is to wipe them out and get on with the job.

I believe the Minister knows the distinction between the purpose of section 65 of the 1923 Land Act and the purpose of section 12 of the 1963 Bill. I do not believe that Deputy Millar does know the difference. I do not suppose that he had been born when the 1923 Land Act was passed into law but he heard this story from his father and his grandfather. They were on the right side when the fighting had to be done. I happen to know that.

Mr. Millar

That is a long time ago, though.

Mr. Dillon

It does not matter. They knew what they were about. One of the greatest illusions under which Deputy Millar could labour is to imagine that everything that was done a long time ago was wrong. He would not be here if it were not for what was done a long time ago.

Mr. Millar

That issue does not arise.

Mr. Dillon

He might never have been born, and if he were born, he might be a native of Brooklyn or of Birmingham. What enabled him to be born here was the wisdom of those who went before him who said fixity of tenure, fair rent and free sale were the prerequisites of rearing a good family on the land of Ireland. They were right. It is the fruit of their work which has established the social pattern of rural Ireland today.

I know the Fianna Fáil Party believe the time has come to start a great clearance of the land of Ireland. They have declared it is their intention to clear 60,000 or 70,000 people off the land of Ireland in the course of the next seven or eight years. We do not agree that is necessary, any more than Deputy Millar's father or my father, or his grandfather or my grandfather were prepared to accept that ukase from the respective landlords on whose estates they dwelt. When they started the clearance then, we said: "If there is any clearing to be done, it will be Lord Lucan who will have to go", and he went and we were left with fair rent, freedom of sale and fixity of tenure, and on that foundation I declare all the institutions we now operate in this State are founded.

Without the vindication of those things, we would not have a Dáil; we would not have an Oireachtas. It was because of those things that we got the independence of our people. Take those things away and transfer them either to an anonymous bureaucracy or an absentee landlord and you take from the people the spirit of independence that made it possible for our fathers and grandfathers to achieve the prodigies they did. Is it not an interesting thing to hear Deputy Millar say: "Sure, that was a long time ago."

Mr. Millar

Sure it was.

Mr. T. Lynch

So was the first Easter Sunday and yet you remember it.

Mr. Dillon

It was a long time ago. Out of it came nothing we need be ashamed of and much we have every reason to be proud of. It is a foolish man who does not concern himself with the future, but it is an even more foolish man who refuses to learn the lessons of the past. They held our people down in the past by the denial of fixity of tenure which would have made every man, every family in this country insecure and vulnerable, and every man and every family of our people combined to abolish that insecurity and they combined to lay for all time that vulnerability and it was easy then to mobilise them because the antagonist was recognised as an alien.

Let Deputy Millar never make this mistake. It is just as bad to surrender your independence to the State as it is to the foreigner. If our people ever become tenants of the Government of this country, they are taking the first step towards servitude as serfs of the State. I deny the right of the Government of this country, of the Oireachtas of this country, to interfere in a consummated bargain and say, though that bargain was sealed, signed and delivered, 40 or 50 years ago, that it is no longer convenient to the State to recognise its validity.

We are to pass section 12 in order to tidy things up a bit and introduce a new condition into all the agreements that our people made under the Ashbourne Act, the Wyndham Act, the Birrell Act. You cannot do it. You ought not to try, and I pledge myself not to intervene again. I shall conclude by renewing the undertaking that I shall not be forced by the misled majority, including Deputy Millar, to enact this. We shall contest it and in God's good time, repeal it, if that necessity arises.

Mr. Blowick

If this section goes through as it is, I wish to ask the Minister if an application for letting, subletting or subdivision will be used against the applicant in a case of subsequent acquisition proceedings.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The Minister is very silent.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): When this matter was discussed here recently, we appealed to the Minister to include in the Bill some assurance to the public that this question of letting and subletting did not apply to ordinary conacre. The Minister said every lawyer schoolboy knew that or should know it. However, when a simple request is made to him to have this protection incorporated in the Bill, he is prepared to sit here three, four, five, six hours getting more and more stubborn every minute of every hour. Why? Each time he stands up, he protests vigorously that we are misinterpreting him.

Surely Deputy Blowick, who has been Minister for Lands and who has, as he stated, in an attempt to fulfil the functions of that office properly, made a close study of the history of land division here and of the various Land Acts, would not have sat here hour after hour questioning the Minister if he were not seriously disturbed by the implications of this section? It would only be sensible for the Minister to include a subsection here which will satisfy the criticism from this side of the House. His failure to do so only accentuates the doubts and suspicions we hold concerning this section. Ten minutes ago, he proceeded to quote from section 65 of the 1923 Act. When we come to try to interpret his quotation, we find he is dealing with two entirely different things. He tries to pretend that he is merely applying now to the other 20 per cent of the land what already applied under section 65 of the 1923 Act. Apparently, that section applies to land where the Land Commission have already made an advance with a view to purchase.

I do not know what interpretation the Minister puts on "advance". He probably knows more about advances than I do. I assume that where the Land Commission move in to buy land, this section 65 of the 1923 Act is meant to apply, whereas in this case this is, in effect, an attempt to unvest all the land of the country and give the Minister—through his officials; not through the Land Commission—a degree of control over land which no Minister has previously sought here. He can now direct one of his officials to move in on land merely on this question of letting, subletting and subdividing. The question of fixity of tenure, fair rent and free sale—these hallowed slogans of rural Ireland which many of the forebears of the Deputies opposite subscribed to—are now being set aside. The Minister is merely depending on the regimented support of those behind him who deep down are very doubtful about the propriety of this section.

I challenge the Minister to a free vote of the House on this issue. I wonder how his various supporters, given a free vote on this issue, would behave, but, of course, the Minister will not allow a free vote because I am quite sure that in a free vote this section 12 would be amended and altered on the lines we have suggested here.

I cannot understand the absolute obstinacy the Minister has brought to bear on this section. He is prepared to sit here hour after hour defending this section 12 for some purpose which I do not understand. Deputy Dillon thinks the Minister has initiated something he does not understand. Of course, he will undoubtedly say that the lack of understanding is on this side of the House. Surely a simple request to include a simple amendment, which has been paraded before him here hour after hour, should not be resisted?

Several people in my constituency have spoken to me since this Land Bill first came to be considered. I can assure the Minister there is considerable anxiety about this Bill amongst responsible, hard-working farmers up and down the country. This section has been mentioned and another section dealing with the three mile limit has been mentioned. Several people called to my house and asked me if this would upset their rights to their land. I wonder how other sections of the community would feel if some such section were incorporated in a Bill in which, for instance, a person's right to sublet a room was questioned and some Minister for Local Government would have to send down his inspector to give permission before a room could be let? Everybody recognises that the letting of land is sometimes an economic and social necessity, but the Minister will not incorporate in the Bill the simple statutory statement to cover our doubts on that aspect of it. That is why he has been sitting here for the past four or five hours.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I must confess to some disappointment because we have had quite an assembly here of Fianna Fáil Deputies behind the Minister. Whether they were brought in to support him in his loneliness or whether they were expecting a division, I do not know. I hoped when they came in that somebody from the benches over there might have offered an opinion one way or the other as to whether they agreed with the Minister introducing this extraordinary legislation. It would have been a good thing if they had intervened and, if they agreed, if they explained to us on this side their reason for wishing for this type of compulsory legislation. That is the only name one can call it by.

I was also very disappointed with the Minister. When he intervened, I thought he might have dealt with some of the very reasonable questions posed to him from this side instead of getting up, drawing a red herring across the trail and referring to an Act, which, as I understand it, deals with parcels of land and does not relate to vested land at all. The Minister knows quite well that what we are objecting to is that anybody who owns a farm by right and title will not be free to do with that farm what he was free to do with it before this Act was passed, if it is passed. If the Minister can get up and reassure the House that what I am saying now is wrong, I personally would be quite happy to withdraw my opposition to this section. Nothing the Minister said in the few minutes he was on his feet, drawing red herrings across the trail, allayed the anxieties of any of us.

I want to pose a question for the third time, if you will bear with me, Sir. I said that in a free society one is allowed in a parliamentary assembly to ask questions of a Minister, and, in a free society, one expects an answer. I have asked twice already this evening if the Minister would tell the House in a few simple words if this section is enacted and if a person is going to let the land—the landowner who has right and title to the land—and it is made mandatory on him to ask the Land Commission for permission to do so, when may he get a reply. In other words, how long will he be forced to wait until he gets a reply?

The Minister purported to answer Deputy T. Lynch when he posed a question, but he did not answer it. He drew another red herring across the trail. He talked about parliamentary obstruction and that kind of thing. I want to ask the Minister other questions as well. I want to ask him if this section goes through, where nobody has any longer the right to let his land, if he notifies the Land Commission to that effect and the Land Commission do not give him the right to do what he wishes, and if he seizes that land and divides it, will he lose his right of appeal to the Commissioners? Is this authority, which the Minister is seeking, vested fully in him as Minister for Lands? Are we still in the same quasi-judicial position, in which we have been all along—that we have the right of appeal to a Land Court? If such is the case, it makes the situation even more serious than one had believed it to be. I do not know why the Minister cannot see the light of reason. I do not know why he cannot come in like any other reasonable individual and reply courteously and lucidly to questions put to him.

Before I sit down I again want to express my regret that no member behind the Minister has seen fit to give the House an opinion on the Bill. I think my guess is as good as anybody's guess. They are silent because they have been told to be silent. I know perfectly well that the vast majority of Fianna Fáil opinion is totally opposed to this Bill and I know that many of the Deputies on the opposite side of the House are opposed to it as well.

It is easy for Fianna Fáil Deputies to laugh here in Dáil Éireann because nobody sees them laughing. I can assure the House that not many of them would go out to the hustings and try to uphold this Bill and laugh if they were heckled. They know the answer they would get. I see a Deputy over there, whose name escapes me, is convulsed with laughter. Perhaps when I sit down, the House will hear his views.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I regret having to intervene again. At least my intervention has served the purpose of extracting a grunt from the Minister.

Mr. Moran

Deputy Dillon told the Deputy to talk it out, that you have not enough for a division.

Mr. Donegan

Would the Minister like it done the other way? I will do threequarters.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If the Minister wants a division, we will give it to him now. In the event of this section being passed, I want to assure the Minister and the House that one of the first steps this Party will take, when in Government, is to repeal this section which is about to be passed. We shall have the division now, as the Minister asked, to let him see how anxious we are.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 39.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, James J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James M.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lynch, Celia.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Con.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Sherwin, Frank.
• Timmons, Eugene.

Níl

• Barry, Richard.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burton, Philip.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Thomas G.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Keeffe, James.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 13.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 29 and 31 can be discussed together.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I move amendment No. 29:

In subsection (1), page 8, lines 52 and 53, to delete "until the termination of proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts for the acquisition of the lands" and substitute "until the expiry of a period of not more than three months from the date of publication of the original list".

The purpose of this amendment is to limit for three months the period from the date of notice by the Land Commission to acquire the lands and the right of the owner to sell or transfer his land without the consent of the Land Commission. These amendments are reasonable and the Minister should see his way to accepting them. There are many reasons why they should be accepted. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the position will be in the event of the owner dying. The lands would certainly pass to the next-of-kin. That is something the Land Commission could not prevent. The fixing of a period of three months should help considerably to expedite acquisition proceedings. It would also be helpful to the owner of the land.

Mr. Donegan

I support Deputy Flanagan. I have the greatest trepidation about the whole of section 13, particularly subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (2) can put a stay for a year and subsection (1) can put a stay to the end of the acquisition proceedings. If the Minister is empowered, in the first instance, to institute an inspection of the lands, and if he invokes subsection (2) of this section and puts a stay of a year, and during that year institutes acquisition proceedings, is it not true the Minister can thereby freeze land as and from any given date? The Minister can, for the first time, through his officers now freeze land. That is my particular objection to this section and I think the amendments help because they bind completely and absolutely these powers to a period of three months. We deal with the power the Minister is taking through the Department of Lands to institute inspection in another section but at least these two reasonable amendments should be accepted.

Mr. Tully

This is a section on which the Labour Party do not see eye to eye with the Fine Gael Party, because we believe there is a necessity for something of this sort. Whether it is too drastic is a matter of opinion. We all know that if the Land Commission intimate that they are even remotely interested in a farm—if they even send an inspector to look across the hedge—immediately, if the land is held by a person who is not a proper person to own the land, that person rushes off and attempts to get rid of it as quickly as he possibly can. Very often we find that farms which should be acquired and divided among deserving local applicants by the Land Commission, are sold to a German, a Frenchman, a Belgian, or an Englishman, and the Land Commission do not apparently pursue the matter any further.

The Land Commission have the reputation of being a great body, but if there is anything that moves more slowly than the Land Commission we have not yet found it. It is said that great bodies move slowly, so the Land Commission must be a great body. Perhaps that is why they want 12 months. If the Land Commission decide they must have a year, and that that would be the fairest all round, we will support the suggestion of the Minister that the provision should be a year. I am not talking about the small man with a few acres of land on which a greedy neighbour has cast his eye, or the unfortunate widow who is trying to hold on to the farm until her children grow up. We believe there are far too many people holding vast tracts of land, and making little use of them. We believe the Land Commission have not only the right, but the duty, to see that land is inspected, acquired and divided in the proper way. If that requires 12 months, we are prepared to support it.

Mr. Moran

It is essential for the Land Commission to have powers of this kind to deal with situations that arise from day to day. We find under the existing cumbersome procedure that lands which were brought to the attention of the Land Commission, and which would take months to acquire, are being sold overnight, and in many cases the sales are negotiated mainly for the purpose of frustrating the Land Commission and preventing them from acquiring land for the relief of congestion.

I have listened to what has been said about the reasonableness or otherwise of the freezing period. It is suggested as 12 months in the Bill, and the Opposition suggest three months. I am prepared to reconsider the time factor between now and Report Stage but in my view, anything less than six months would not be useful for the purposes of this section. Let me say to Deputies who may fear the time limit that in this House very full use is made of Parliamentary Questions, and if any Deputy thought there was unreasonable delay on the part of the Land Commission in dealing with a case about which notice under section 13 was served, the Land Commission, or whoever was their political head, would know about it in a very short time.

I suggest to this House that to make this section effective the Land Commission would require at least six months, particularly to deal with a case in which an individual deliberately sets out to frustrate Land Commission purposes. If Deputies are prepared to leave the amendment we are now discussing on that basis, I undertake to reconsider the time freezing order between now and Report Stage.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is fair enough.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 30 in the name of Deputy Blowick has been ruled out of order as tending to impose a charge on State funds. The Deputy has a substitute tute amendment which is in order.

Mr. Blowick

May I say a few words on that point?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There can be no dicussion. It has been ruled out of order since it would impose a charge on State funds, and it may not be pursued. The Deputy has a substitute amendment which is in order.

Mr. Blowick

I move substitute amendment No. 30:

Before subsection (2) to insert a new subsection as follows:

"( ) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Land Purchase Acts regarding the periods of time allowed in proposed acquisition proceedings, in a case where an agricultural holding has been purchased by an alien or aliens and where such holding is deemed necessary for the relief of congestion or the provision of a migrants holding or holdings, such periods may, if the Land Commission think fit, after publication of a provisional list of such lands under subsection (2) of section 40 of the Land Act, 1923 be reduced to a period of one month."

The amendment does not go as far as I should like it to go. What I want to do is to give the Land Commission power, when a holding is being purchased by an alien, to step in and offer not less than the same price, within one month, provided they deem such offer necessary for the relief of congestion. Hitherto it seemed that there was some reluctance to acquire such land. I do not see why there should be any difference in the case of land acquired by a person from outside the State, or why we should be more harsh with our own citizens than with others. I do not think there is anything in this amendment at which any person, either a citizen or an alien, could take offence. There is no element of confiscation about it, and I have made it clear that the price will not be less than the price paid by the former owner. As the Land Commission will move inside a month, there will be no question of the property having increased in value, or of taking it at a price less than it is worth. That is one of the reasons why I put down this amendment.

Mr. Tully

The amendment goes some way towards achieving the object we had in mind. In fact, we would go much further. As our amendment also was ruled out of order, we would support Deputy Blowick's amendment.

It does appear a little too much that an alien can purchase a holding which, up to now, he is free to do if the Land Commission inspector has inspected it but before the Land Commission have intimated they are about to acquire it. We believe there is nothing at all wrong with the Land Commission having the powers to acquire that holding back from the alien and using it in the way in which it would have been used originally if the alien had not succeeded in getting possession of it because the person who originally owned it would rather see somebody from outside this country in possession of the holding than see one of his less well off neighbours getting portion of it to use.

Mr. Moran

This amendment, as far as I can gather, is apparently intended to telescope times allowed under the Land Act for the lodgment of an objection, for the hearing of the objection and for appeal on price in cases involving aliens. This amendment has nothing to do with stopping aliens from buying land. What it purports to do is to cut down the time that is available under law to any landowner to file an objection against the Land Commission taking the lands or to bring an appeal on the question of price.

Mr. Blowick

Without wishing to interrupt the Minister, might I say that the question of proceedings might not arise at all? The Land Commission could almost acquire by fiat, if I might use that word, under that amendment. At least, that is what I intended, that they could acquire without proceedings, just merely publish a notice saying: “We want this land” and the deed is done——

Mr. Tully

——which has been purchased by an alien.

Mr. Blowick

Yes, and where the Land Commission want it for the relief of congestion.

Mr. Moran

Whatever the Deputy intended, may I quote his amendment:

Before subsection (2) to insert a new subsection as follows:

"( ) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Land Purchase Acts regarding the periods of time allowed in proposed acquisition proceedings, in a case where an agricultural holding has been purchased by an alien or aliens and where such holding is deemed necessary for the relief of congestion or the provision of a migrants holding or holdings, such periods may, if the Land Commission think fit, after publication of a provisional list of such lands under subsection (2) of section 40 of the Land Act, 1923, be reduced to a period of one month."

The existing law is that a person on whom a notice is served by the Land Commission or who acquires land has one month to file an objection against the acquisition. The objection having being heard, he has two months to appeal to the Appeals Tribunal on the question of price. Whatever we write in here, on grounds of natural justice, on an issue of this kind, if, through any fatality a man was not ready within a month, the court would extend the time for him and does extend the time if there is a reason for it.

Deputy Blowick's amendment seeks to provide that where the Land Commission serve notice on an alien who has purchased land, he will not have the same time to object to the acquisition and to appeal on the question of price as would an ordinary citizen. That is something that should not be accepted by the House. That certainly would create a new reputation outside this country for our type of justice if it were accepted on the question of discriminating in procedures that are there for the purpose of protecting landowners as a whole. I am quite sure, in any case in which the Land Commission serve their notice for acquisition—let it be on an alien or on whoever it might be—that, if he is not ready within a month to meet his case in court, he would get an adjournment: so do they all.

This has nothing to do with the wider issue if the Dáil at some time decides that nobody is entitled to buy land in this country except a citizen of this country. The legal effect of this amendment is to discriminate against the alien who has bought land, and in respect of whose land the Land Commission have moved, by cutting short the time which he has under law to appeal against the Land Commission's acquisition order or to appeal on the question of the price the Land Commission propose to pay him for it.

Mr. Blowick

What is awfully wrong with that, now?

Mr. Moran

In my view, it is contrary to natural justice. I submit to the House that it is contrary to natural justice. When the Land Commission move in to acquire land, irrespective of the owner, we have a procedure that he has a month in which to object to the acquisition and two months to appeal on the question of price. That is the law as it stands.

I can see nothing more utterly objectionable than having to reduce the time in respect of one individual as against the general run of our people. Remember, this applies solely to procedure. It will not expedite the acquisition of these lands one whit, any more than it would expedite the acquisition procedure if we cut down these times for the general run of our citizens. Many of these cases take time.

A person whose land is being taken and who is objecting in the court needs time to prepare his case: it is quite a regular feature, to those familiar with this line of country, for the landowners concerned. For instance, if it is called an outlying farm, he may have to bring agricultural experts to prove that it is essential to the economy of the home farm which he is running. All these matters take time. In many of them, counsel have to be briefed, and so on. In any event, if there should be a fatality or if the man happened to be ill or, for any other reason, if he was not ready to meet his case within the month laid down, the court invariably gives him an adjournment to the next court.

I have no doubt that, whatever we write down here, even to discriminate against any alien against whom the Land Commission may bring proceedings, the court will give him reasonable time to present his side of the story, as with everybody else, let it be good or bad. That is why I must reject this amendment.

Mr. Blowick

There is, I will admit, a certain amount of discrimination against an alien if this amendment is accepted but it is only in a case of an alien purchasing land which the Land Commission need for the relief of congestion. That makes it very clear that our own citizens want it. No matter how badly the alien wants it, our citizens want it more. The Land Commission are a judicial body and decide that such a farm is needed, say, for the relief of congestion. No matter how badly an alien wants it, our citizens need it more. That is why I put down the amendment. While it can be truthfully said there is some discrimination against an alien, I do not think any reasonable foreigner would blame us for that. It is our duty to legislate for and protect our own interests, not to featherbed aliens no matter how nice they may be or what they bring here.

The amendment does not allow any long time lapse because within one month of the purchase of the land, the Land Commission say: "We want that land more than you do". Only a very unreasonable alien could find fault with that. However, if the Minister says the amendment is so objectionable, I shall not press it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

There is really nothing wrong with this amendment. It relates to lands which are urgently required for the relief of congestion being purchased by an alien——

Mr. Moran

Taken by the Land Commission from an alien.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Exactly. There is nothing in the Bill to discourage aliens from coming here. That is why, if the lands are in a district declared to be congested under this Bill, and are required by the Land Commission for the relief of congestion, Deputy Blowick's amendment would help, if not to expedite the proceedings, at least to discourage aliens from purchasing such lands. In parts of the country, holdings have been purchased by aliens which are required for relief of congestion but, for some reason the Land Commission have not moved with the necessary speed or urgency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how the Deputy can argue on this amendment about the purchase of lands by aliens. This section relates to the time allowed for acquisition proceedings and Deputy Blowick's amendment is for the purpose of reducing the period to one month. That is all that is before the House.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Blowick. Why should we have the same facilities for foreigners? It may be an encouragements to aliens to come here—if there is no speedy way of dealing with them —and to purchase land required for relief of congestion. The Minister claims that if such aliens or others have not sufficient time to present their case, any court will give them an extension of time in order to do so. That may be so, but I feel the idea behind Deputy Blowick's amendment is sound and certainly would be likely to discourage aliens from purchasing land required for the relief of congestion.

Mr. Blowick

Would the Minister consider accepting the amendment even if it were never used? It would discourage foreigners from purchasing land. I should be the first to feel ashamed and sorry if I were discourteous to any foreigner but when land is such a red-hot question here, when it comes to the purchase of land here by aliens, I think no decent alien would say we were deliberately offensive to him or his country if we say: "We have not enough land to go around among our own people and, to put it bluntly, we do not want you to buy our land."

Mr. Moran

Let us not get our lines crossed on this matter. The amendment has nothing to do with the lands purchased by aliens. The final words of the amendment are the operative ones, ".... after publication of a provisional list of such lands under subsection (2) of section 40 of the Land Acts, 1923 be reduced to a period of one month." This means that where the Land Commission have served a notice to acquire lands purchased by an alien, where they have moved in to take them over, the time allowed to the alien to object and to appeal on the price, would be cut down to one month. That is all this amendment says. You are dealing with a case where the Land Commission have already made up their mind to take over land purchased by a foreigner and have served the necessary notice on him.

What you are asking the Dáil to do is to say that we are not going to allow that man to make his case in the same way as an ordinary citizen would be allowed to make it, by not giving him time to object to acquisition before the court or to appeal on the question of compensation or the price the Land Commission propose to give him.

Mr. Blowick

Such a man has no case to make

Mr. Moran

He is entitled under the Constitution to the market value of his land under our law. The Deputy is asking us to make a special law for people who are not citizens and who have acquired land in respect of which the Land Commission have moved to take over. They are not to get the same chance to make a case under the law of the land as ordinary citizens. In my view, that is contrary to natural justice and I have doubts about its implications on the constitutional side. Thirdly, this amendment would not expedite by a single hour the acquisition of these lands already earmarked for compulsory acquisition by the Land Commission.

It has been suggested that in some way this amendment would have the effect of stopping aliens purchasing land. The amendment is designed to cut down the rights of aliens who have already purchased land but in respect of whom the Land Commission have compulsory powers to take over their lands. Either from a commonsense or a natural justice point of view, I cannot see how this amendment can be accepted by a reasonable Deputy. Perhaps Deputy Blowick had a different idea in mind in putting down the amendment and believes that it would have a prohibitive effect on aliens acquiring land, but the position is as I have explained. I think the Deputy is under some misapprehension.

Mr. Blowick

If the Minister looks at the amendment disallowed by the Chair he will find it more in accord with what I had in mind. Surely, in the circumstances envisaged, an alien would have no case to make? If I go to Germany and buy a farm of land which the German Land Commission want for relief of congestion, I have no case to make at all.

Mr. Moran

I do not know that the Irishman who gets land in England or America has a case to make. There is no law discriminating against him acquiring land, that I know of.

Mr. Blowick

There is not, but if at any time the Government of England or America wish to bring in one, I am sure they will not consult the Irishmen concerned if they want to protect their citizens. I cannot see where an alien has a case if a few days after he has purchased land, when he has had no time to settle his roots, the Land Commission say: "We want that land for our own people. We mean no offence; it is the law of the land; and there are probably other farms which we are not interested in which you can buy". It does not prohibit the foreigner from purchasing some land somewhere but it gives the Land Commission an easy way out in regard to the land they wish to acquire for the relief of congestion.

Mr. Donegan

I have an entirely personal view on this point. I think the Minister is right. It would be wrong if we were to make one law for aliens and another for our own citizens. The case has been made that an alien would have no case to make if he had just bought land and had no time to settle. I can think of certain aliens in my constituency who have been involved in industry and who have been responsible for employing quite a number of our citizens, probably some hundreds, over the past decade or two. They are still aliens, as we know when we look at the Voters Register. If one of those wanted to buy land, I would be quite hurt if I felt there was a law whereby he was treated differently from me. When you examine it, it is unbalanced. As I say, this is entirely a personal view. It is not a Fine Gael amendment—we have never considered it in our Party—but that is my opinion, that it would be wrong in individual cases to take the steps suggested by Deputy Blowick.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 31 not moved.

Mr. Tully

I move amendment No. 32:

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:

"( ) All land which has been sold within the eighteen months preceding the coming into operation of this Act shall be inspected by the Land Commission with a view to acquisition."

This is a substitute amendment. If the Chair had permitted, it would have been much stronger, but as the Chair did not, it has to be in this form. Its object is to bring to the notice of the Land Commission the farms referred to in the section. According to the amendment which has been passed, we have decided in future we will not allow an individual to jump the gun by rushing to sell his farm as soon as he finds that the Land Commission have been looking at it. That is all right but we all know that farms have already passed out of the hands of people who were not using them but were holding them as soon as they found the Land Commission intended acquiring them. All we are asking is that the Commission should take action against those people. We think this is an excellent idea and see no reason why the Minister should not accept it.

Mr. Moran

I will have to resist this amendment because it is impracticable. It would entail the inspection of all lands sold during the past 18 months. There is no point in ordering indiscriminate inspection. The Land Commission must be free to choose land likely to be suitable for their purposes. Deputy Tully will realise that this is an impossible request and the amount of inspection would seriously disrupt the ordinary work of the Commission for a year or two if this proposal were accepted. The implication is inherent in the section that some recent dealings were objectionable in the context of the land reform programme and undoubtedly that is so, but that is a long way from saying every dealing, every sale during the past 18 months, should be inspected and investigated by the Land Commission. In the normal sale I should like to see what would happen the unfortunate inspector who would go investigating it.

It is equally true to say that where sales have taken place of land that would be suitable for the Land Commission purposes, where people from abroad have jumped the gun in anticipation of powers being sought by me, there is nothing to prevent the Land Commission from examining these cases and exercising whatever powers the House may decide to give them in order to bring these lands into the Land Commission machine for the relief of congestion. This is an amendment I could not accept and the Deputy should be satisfied with the assurance I have given, that in cases brought to the attention of the Land Commission, where lands wanted for the land reform programme have changed hands, they may re-examine them when they get the additional powers under this Bill.

Mr. Tully

The Minister is a super-optimist. He referred several times to the "past 18 months" as if the Bill were about to pass. The Labour Party were better judges of the time it will take to pass through the House. If the Minister starts making a list of farms sold, he will have no trouble when the Bill has been passed. We do not say this must be done within any particular time. The Minister has all the time in the world to do it and we still believe it should be done. There is no use in the Minister saying that the Land Commission can do it anyway. I had the unhappy experience of bringing to their attention a couple of farms which were about to be sold and which some local smallholders could have used, and what happened? The farms were sold within three to six months and the Land Commission did not inspect them. They told me they had not been able to get around to looking at the land. If that is the way we are to deal with this matter, it will be quite a long time before we get around to looking at some of the farms to which the Minister has referred. While I did not intend pressing this amendment, I would ask the Minister to have another look at the matter to see if something of this nature can be introduced before the Bill is considered here again.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 13th May, 1964.