Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Nov 1964

Vol. 212 No. 4

Land Bill, 1963—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I was saying, Sir, when progress was reported, that we had reached the situation in relation to land division in this country wherein it was regarded as essential that both the mode of acquisition and the division of land should appear to be fair. As a result of the events in the early thirties, we had reached a stage, in particular, in which it was accepted that land division and land acquisition should appear to be above and removed from politics. It was because of both these important aspects that the existence of an independent statutory authority, known as the Land Commission, became inevitable.

The Land Commission, under the land legislation, operated and fulfilled a function between the Department of Lands and its political head, the Minister for Lands, and the people concerned with land division. The role the Land Commission have played down through the years has been designed to safeguard people from the unbridled actions of an executive arm. It is for that reason that nobody but the Land Commissioners may decide, under the present law, what land may be inspected with a view to acquisition just as no authority, except the Land Commission, may decide what land may be acquired for division.

The existence of these reserved powers in the Land Commission has been, of course, of irritation to politically-conscious Ministers for Lands and, in that regard, the present Minister is clearly an outstanding example. The present Minister is concerned for the political kudos that may arise from the appearance of a speedup in land division. He cannot appear to be dividing land unless he can achieve a situation in which inspectors are sent around the place inspecting people's holdings. The Land Commission would not permit that and, under existing law, the Minister could not order inspectors to inspect. But he is now asking Dáil Éireann to give him the power to order civil servants to go in on a farmer's land and inspect it, knowing that the result will be that that farmer, from the day the inspector sets foot on his land, may not let, sell, or deal with his land in any way for a period of 12 months, or longer.

In my view, this is an outrageous proposal. It is contrary to all the accepted principles of land division. It is an effort to obtain a form of control over land, and the occupation and use of land, which our people have never given to anyone. I suspect it is being done for political purposes. I know well that Deputies, like Deputy Corry, have come in here and talked about delays in land division, delays in getting this, that and the other done. What is Deputy Corry really saying? He is complaining of the fact that he has not the power to divide land in his constituency. May the Lord preserve us from that situation. If we ever reach the situation in which a Fianna Fáil Deputy, a Fine Gael Deputy, or any other Deputy, can, by arousing agitation amongst people, railroad the division of land, then this country will have taken a step backwards.

If land division is to be sound and fruitful, if the people who work the land are to play their full part, as they do, in the economic life of the nation, it is essential there should be some legal machinery whereby the political caprice and whim of the moment can be stayed so that a worthwhile and proper decision can be taken. That is the function of the Land Commission. This section is designed to destroy the Land Commission. It is designed to push them out of the way as a body found to be momentarily politically inconvenient. No one will convince me that this is not being done for purely short-term political advantage for the people who propose it.

It has been indicated by Deputies on this side of the House, that our function here is to point out what is being done wrong. We shall do that irrespective of whom it offends or whom it suits. We believe this provision is wrong. If it is passed, it will be passed by the votes of Deputies who know in their hearts that it is wrong. It will be passed by Deputies who will on another occasion go out to preach and defend the rights of private property and the desirability of having in this country a nation of independent, frugal, hardworking farmers. This section is intended to destroy the independence of the Irish farmer. It is intended to make him dependent on political patronage and the goodwill of the political head of the Department of Lands. It is intended to make our farmers servile, to make them touch the forelock and doff the cap before local political pundits.

I believe, as other Deputies believe, that if this section is passed, the reaction will be extreme indeed. Once it has been established here that a Minister can, by a flick of his fingers, send a civil servant in on a man's land and, by that action, deprive him of the right to deal with, or let, or run his land as he wishes, then the Minister who does that will have started something that he will bitterly regret. I do not believe our people will accept it and I am certain that, if this provision is passed here, it will not be very long before another Minister for Lands, in a different Government, will propose its repeal.

Mr. S. Flanagan

This debate, beginning with Deputy Dillon's speech last week, has taken a very serious turn. Deputy T.F. O'Higgins has also spoken in very serious vein. I should like to make my position clear with regard to this. If somebody who is the Leader of a political Party, or somebody who was a former Minister in the Government, makes a statement of the gravity that Deputy Dillon and Deputy T.F. O'Higgins and some of their colleagues have been making for the past week, there cannot be any two ways about it, either what they are saying is true or it is not true and should not be said. If the allegations made by these Deputies can stand up to fair examination the Minister should resign and the Government should resign.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Hear, hear.

Mr. S. Flanagan

If you invoke the names of Davitt, Parnell and O'Brien, if you invoke the history of land tenure over 80 years, you cannot do so lightly. Deputy Dillon says, and I quote him from column 398 of Volume 212 of last Thursday's debate:

I want to give you the most solemn possible warning of this—you are going to invent the most pestilential instrument of political blackmail ever forged in the history of this country.

They are fighting words. They are either right or they are wrong. Later on in the same speech Deputy Dillon invoked not merely the history of this country but also his father and grandfather before him and said:

Love of the land is very deep in this country. I solemnly warn you that if that transaction were repeated in many parts of Ireland, you would raise ghosts the nature of which you ought not to have forgotten.

Later on, at column 402, he asked:

Are we not reversing the whole course of history?

The people of this country are entitled to know whether the charges now being levelled against this Party, against the Government and against the Minister, are fairly laid or do not lie. The people of East Galway, who will shortly be voting in a by-election, are entitled to know whether Deputy Kenny was right when he spoke in Headford after me and stated that "this is a contemptuous thing". Since he is a teacher, I take it that he was not confusing it with the word "contemptible"—the word he used was "contemptuous". He told the people of Headford and East Galway that we were doing something contemptuous, that this was designed to enable every Fianna Fáil Deputy, Senator and supporter to wield a political axe over his neighbour. The basis of Deputy Dillon's argument and the basis of these very grave allegations which are being made is that we are attempting to destroy the fixity of tenure of the Irish farmer.

I do not think that Deputy Dillon is right. I do not think that Deputy T.F. O'Higgins is right. I do not think that Deputy Kenny is right. I do not think that Fine Gael are right. If I thought they were I would not vote the way I will vote when this section comes to be decided. Are we to allow the land of Ireland to lie fallow in the interests of an outworn catch-cry? Are we to allow people who have not a sufficient living to remain so to pay lip service to a principle that, in fact, is not? This is what we have to decide and perhaps we could for a moment reflect on the meaning of the three F's, fair rent, fixity of tenure and free sale. Fair rent does not apply any more in Ireland where people own their land. The battle for fair rent was a battle by a tenantry against a landlord. It was not the battle of a fee simple owner. Fixity of tenure is established by reason of the fact that the farmer is not a tenant any longer. He is not paying rent any longer but owns his land. As well as owning it and having all the rights and privileges that the ownership of land involves, he acquires as well the obligations that ownership entails.

Could I remind Deputy Dillon and Fine Gael that property has its duties as well as its rights? Could I remind Deputy Dillon of places very near to where he lives where dozens of farmers do not have a sufficient amount of land on which to live? It seems to me—I said this last week—that, when land becomes available and the machinery of the Land Commission is so cumbersome that that land eventually goes to somebody who can buy it, the whole purpose of trying to create economic holdings in the congested areas, particularly in the west of Ireland, will be frustrated. It is almost axiomatic that if you have not got an economic holding you will not be in a position to buy land when it is for sale on the market, but somebody will be in a position to buy, the man who already has more land than he needs. Are we in this House, in the interests of playing politics, to suggest that there should not be some change in the Land Commission procedure which undoubtedly has proved ineffective over the years?

Deputy Hogan from Tipperary mentioned, after I had spoken last week on another section, that it seemed strange that I who had complained about delays on the part of the Land Commission in dividing land, delays that sometimes involved up to 20 or 30 years, should ask for more power for the Land Commission. I should like to make myself clear on this and, perhaps, remind myself if nobody else, of one of the first speeches I made in this House in 1951 when I suggested that the Land Commission had failed in their task and should be abolished. I do not think I am being inconsistent, and even if I am, I do not mind, because times change and we change with them and sometimes people become wise and sometimes they become foolish with the passing years.

What I then felt was that, unless the Land Commission got more power, they were so ineffective that they were a waste of public money. I feel the same today. I sincerely feel that those in Mayo, Galway and elsewhere, who have been watching the Land Commission let out land year after year without being able to divide or rearrange it, because they had not enough, are entitled to feel frustrated. If under this procedure the Land Commission are able to hold on long enough ultimately to acquire, then I believe this procedure is justified. Unless the Land Commission stir themselves and become an effective unit operating within the policy of the Government, then they should cease. I would even go further. In handing them whatever powers they consider they need, I would warn them that they have a duty as well and that they must perform it within a certain time.

I totally reject what Deputy Dillon and various other Deputies in Fine Gael have said about this. I do not think it right or proper that it should have been said at all. When you invoke the history of this country, particularly the history of the land of Ireland, you are doing something—in this I agree with Deputy Dillon—that goes to the heart of the people. I resent his mentioning land grabbers and putting us in the same category as the moonlighters of 70 or 80 years ago. I resent the attempt being made by Fine Gael to describe this Government and this Party—people like me—as the successors of the people who shoved guns in kitchen windows in the dark of night. I bitterly resent it. I consider that Deputy Dillon and his Party have let down the people of the country by adopting this attitude. I would go further and say I believe that the people of East Galway will not accept from Fine Gael the proposition that Fianna Fáil have become a Party of land grabbers. I do not believe the people of East Galway will accept the proposition that we have forged the most pestilential instrument for blackmail in the history of the country. I do not believe they will accept that we are reviving the ghosts of other times.

As far as I am concerned—I was born in the middle of the country and I am sufficiently long living in the west of Ireland to be able to say what I have seen in those years—if this Land Bill does not enable the Government to carry out their agricultural policy, then it will be a failure. The Land Bill is only a part of a wider policy which the Government are obliged to implement if we are to be able to play our part in the Europe of 1970 in open competition. I said before, and I repeat now, I do not want this Government, this Party, or this Dáil, either in the name of famous Irish people or in the name of any catch cry of yesteryear, to abandon the duty they have to give to each person on the land a reasonable opportunity of making a living. That is what this section is aimed at. It is not aimed at what Fine Gael describe as political blackmail. I can only hope it will achieve the result for which it was designed. If it does, then the people who are now living on tiny holdings of land while their rich neighbours are becoming daily richer will have some hope for the future—a hope that would be denied to them if the Opposition had their way.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Are we going to hear something from the Minister? Surely the Minister, having heard the speeches made by the Opposition and the few speeches made by his own Party, will not sit in silence without offering some comment on the merits of the views expressed? He has been asked to give reasons for the introduction of this section other than the reason he did give, which we do not believe and which we know is not the real reason, that it is merely to expedite land division. I challenge the Minister to give us the real reason that he and the Government had for introducing this section. We want him to come out openly and not sit in silence. No responsible Minister would sit silently by when asked for an explanation for resorting to unusable and unwarranted legislation.

The last Deputy who spoke made reference to Deputy Dillon's speech on this section last Thursday. If this section is passed and if the Minister can direct a senior inspector of the Land Commission to carry out an inspection at the whim of the Minister and of every Fianna Fáil club, it will bring about a state of affairs that will render the work of the Land Commission useless.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely this has been said over and over again?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan;

No.

Mr. Moran

He has said it 40 times, Sir, and he will try to keep it up until 10.30 p.m. if he is allowed.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I do not propose to go on that line. If the Minister has this power, he will make it impossible for the independent judicial Commissioners to act. Eventually, we will find the Commissioners looking on their duties as a waste of time and they will resign. Then we will have the spectacle of the Minister and the Government appointing their own nominees, so that they will have the whole set-up in their own bag. That will be the outcome of this. This is downright political blackmail, nothing else.

I want to endorse what has been said earlier. We can describe Fianna Fáil, without any shadow of doubt, as land grabbers —and they are land grabbers if this section is passed. Not alone are they land grabbers and moonlighters but every single farm, big or small, in East Galway will be subject to Fianna Fáil inspection and intimidation. I hope that that will be made clear by every Deputy who speaks in the approaching by-election. It is only right that the issues should plainly be put before the electorate that whether they own five acres or 50 acres in East Galway the Fianna Fáil land grabbers will have them listed and the cold dark hand of the moonlighter will hang over them in an effort to dispossess them of the little holdings their fathers and grandfathers so dearly won. In its true form, this is a section which we can describe as Fianna Fáil blackmail.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl,42.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carroll, Jim.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Colley, George.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James M.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Meaney, Con.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.

Níl

• Barry, Anthony.
• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Browne, Michael.
• Burke, Mrs. Joan.
• Burton, Philip.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Connor, Patrick.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Murphy, William.
• 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.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Thomas G.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

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

Question declared carried.

Section 28 agreed to.

SECTION 29.

Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Can the Minister assure the House that this is an improvement in the present system of notification of an intended inspection? Perhaps, he would go into some detail to enlighten the House and also for the record for future purposes show the difference between the present system and the improved system which this section will give us.

Mr. Moran

The section deals with the inspection notice under section 40 of the 1923 Act. Under this section the inspection notice must be under the formal seal of the Land Commission which makes it a more formal document than heretofore. It also ensures that inspection notices would not be issued lightly as has been suggested by Deputies. When the formal seal is attached to them, it increases the formality and importance of the documents. That is the reason for this section.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister very properly says the purpose is to attach some formality and significance to this procedure. I think he is right. There is a special value in connection with important procedures relative to property in attending its transfer or acquisition by certain formalities in order to record the care and circumspection with which authority regards private property. I ask the Minister this question in no controversial sense. Did he compare this provision with the rather odd provision in another Bill which one of his colleagues is presenting to the House, the Succession Bill, not in regard to the highly controversial parts of that Bill but in regard to the position where the old procedure of witnessing wills is being streamlined and simplified, as I understand it, on a principle diametrically opposed to the principle which the Minister would appear to be following here? I think the Minister for Lands is correct in his view, and particularly in regard to rural Ireland, that this kind of operation should be surrounded with solemn forms because they are readily understood by the people and the very solemnity conveys that something of substance has been done.

May I suggest that inasmuch as the Minister has adopted this principle in the Land Bill he might direct the attention of the Minister for Justice to the fact that when he is dealing with property this extra formality is brought in and that there is good reason for doing so. If this be true, for reasons envisaged in connection with section 28 of this Bill, there is even stronger ground for avoiding the abolition of such formality in connection with the making of wills, which a solicitor of the Minister's experience will recognise, has a certain relationship to the transactions in land which we have in contemplation in connection with the Land Bill.

Mr. Moran

As I understand it, the Succession Bill, in contradistinction to this Bill, is one in respect of which many Deputies on all sides have different views. The Minister in charge of that Bill has already indicated that he is not tied to any particular provisions of the Bill. No doubt in the matter to which the Deputy refers, making the execution of wills more formal than formerly, his view may be shared by other Deputies. In this case, however, I feel that, contrary to the former practice, it is better in a notice of this kind that the formal seal of the Land Commission should be affixed to the document.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Moran

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 13, before section 30, to insert the following section:

Section 46 of the Land Act, 1923, is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (5) of the following subsections:

(5A) For the purposes of such registrations, the Registrar of Titles may order any person having possession of the land certificate (in this section hereafter referred to as the old certificate) in respect of the original holding to deliver the old certificate to the Registrar of Titles or, where he is satisfied that the old certificate has been lost or destroyed, may dispense with the production of the old certificate.

(5B) Any claim of lien or other claims on the old certificate shall, as from the date of the registrations, be transferred to the land certificate in respect of the new holding and the priority of such claim or claims shall not be affected.

(5C) The land certificate in respect of the new holding shall be issued by the Registrar of Titles to the person who had possession of the old certificate immediately prior to its delivery to the Registrar of Titles or its loss or destruction.

My only purpose here is to settle some uncertainties which have arisen about the procedures to be followed in the Land Registry in recording exchanges of holdings carried out by the Land Commission. I put forward my proposals as an amendment to section 46 of the Land Act, 1923, because it is the key section governing exchanges of registered land.

First, we have the case in which, following an exchange of holdings, the allottee cannot produce the land certificate in respect of his old holding because it is lost or destroyed. It is proposed that the Registrar of Titles should, in an appropriate case, be free to accept the fact that the certificate is lost and should issue the certificate for the new holding in the same way as if the old one had been physically surrendered.

Next, we have the case in which a third party holds the certificate on foot of a claim and does not wish to release it without a settlement. It is proposed that any such claim should transfer from the certificate for the old holding to the certificate for the new so that the rights of the third party shall survive the exchange. The Registrar can compel the third party to hand in the certificate but under the new proposals he will be able, at the same time, to assure him that his position will not thereby be prejudiced.

Lastly, it is provided that the Registrar shall give the new certificate to the person who last held the old one. This is to prevent the Registrar from being caught up in disputes between parties as to who should have the certificate. He will simply deal with the one party on the basis of the status quo ante and will not enter into the merits or demerits of that party's possession of the document.

This is a simplifying and enabling procedure that we find will be very necessary to enable the Registrar of Titles to more expeditiously deal with the type of case to which I have referred.

Mr. Dillon

We are obliged to the Minister for his exhaustive exposé of the amendment but he will realise it is very complicated. Could it be simplified to a simple procedure which would provide for a person who has lost his certificate getting a new one, provided the Land Commission are satisfied that the application has been notified?

Mr. Moran

That is correct in a limited number of cases. It also provides for the case of a new holding. Somebody may have left the lien on the land certificate and it is necessary to produce it for the dealing so that the new land certificate would be subject to the same rights of lien as the old. It is an enabling procedure that we feel from experience is necessary. It will expedite the work before the Registrar and will be an aid to those people to whom I have referred here. There may not be a large number of cases but they are cases that can give rise to trouble in the Land Registry.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister will understand we are a little embarrassed on this side of the House that this is an amendment so that we are not fortified by the explanation provided in the White Paper with the Bill as it originally stood.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy will appreciate the purpose here is to settle, in exchange holdings, some uncertainties which have arisen in procedure, such as might happen in the case of a man who has migrated from a small holding in Mayo to a holding in Kildare. The procedure formerly was that the new one would be subject to the same equities as the old. He may not have his land certificate. This provision is for dealing with that certificate. There may be people having claims against the old land certificate or having a lien on it in respect of the old one. This provision is so that the same provision will attach to the new certificate, which would have to be issued in lieu of the old. It also provides that the Registrar of Titles will not be drawn into the procedure between the contending parties for the custody of that certificate. That would be a matter for the courts or somebody else to decide.

Mr. Dillon

I am a little surprised. I should be interested to hear if it is the Minister's considered opinion that this is sound procedure. Take the case of a small congest in Mayo who has deposited his land certificate as a security for a loan and a lien attaches to it or, possibly, there is a lien attaching to an old holding in respect of support or some second party has a claim against it. You transfer that congest to an economic holding in Kildare, Meath or elsewhere. Is it a good plan that such a transferred person should start off on his holding in Kildare or Meath with the same burdens attaching to his new holding as he accumulated on the old place in Mayo? Perhaps it is.

The Minister will recognise that this amendment is largely by reference to previous Acts. What are you to do with the lien on the old holding? What is to become of those who have claims against the old holding? When the congest moves to his new holding, you are going to give him a new start, a new house and a loan for stock. He is set up in a new surrounding and with a new status. In fact, he has ceased to be a congest. He has now become an economic holder with a new life opening out before him. Is it good to start him off with a kind of chain attached to his leg of liabilities and contingent debts which have largely arisen as a result of the congested state with which he and his family have been struggling for centuries?

Does the Minister grasp my apprehension in this matter? Does the Minister think it is a good thing to carry on some of the congest's earlier liens and attach them to the new life which we propose for him in economic holdings, into which after all we are going to pour a great deal of money in order to get the migrated family off to a good start.

Mr. Tully

Does Deputy Dillon suggest that it might be a good idea that whatever liabilities were on the congested holding the man should not have to bring them with him, that if he is not a thrifty man and has gone into a considerable amount of debt, then the State should clear that debt for him? There would not appear to be any alternative to it. It has to be cleared. The only way debts can be cleared is if somebody redeems them. The suggestion Deputy Dillon has made, if we follow it to its logical conclusion, is that if somebody outside the district gets an addition to his holding, he should not get the same treatment. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I should like the Minister to clarify this position for me. I am puzzled as to which is the better way. Personally, I think it is reasonable that the debt must be carried to the new farm. Otherwise, a situation would arise which would be embarrassing for someone before the whole thing was cleared up.

Mr. Moran

I know this is a complicated matter for people who have never been engaged in this business. I remember a good many years ago a man with a small holding from Mayo was transferred to either Meath or Kildare and he was migrated, subject to the equities arising out of the grant provisions of his own holding in Mayo. When he went to his bank ten years afterwards and tried to discharge equities against a batch of land in Mayo which had been divided ten years previously, he found it virtually impossible to get evidence to discharge equities. The reason for this is there is no other way for dealing with the situation. A man down in, say, Mayo, Donegal or Sligo who is migrated in many instances has certain burdens on the small holding he has there. The transfer of these burdens was a traditional system going back to the 1903 Act. In this situation if he has not his land certificate, he may be in trouble straight away in connection with the new holding. Deputies will be aware that holdings are under the Registration of Title Acts now.

If there are rights of support for maintenance or other such burdens, there is only one practicable way of dealing with them, that is, the new holding must be subject to the same rights as the old. In order to deal with some of these matters, including the position when the land certificate is lodged as the subject of a lien, as Deputy Dillon said, in respect of the old holding, that burden must go to the new holding and that is what this subsection is providing for. It is enabling the Registrar to deal expeditiously with a situation which could hold up the man in his new holding as a result of any of these mishaps I have recited in respect of the loss of the land certificate, and so on.

There is no method I can conceive whereby you could more effectively deal with the situation. In the first place, some of these burdens that may attach to the old holding might not be capable of being discharged by the man in question at the particular time. He may need some time in the new holding to make the necessary money or take the necessary steps to meet these burdens or obligations and discharge them. Deputies will appreciate that, generally speaking, in every case, before the Land Commission can migrate a man, they must see that his title is in order. It may be there are rights or burdens, such as, for instance, the right of the man's mother to reside in the dwellinghouse and be supported there while she lives in the small holding from which he is being migrated. Unless that right were transferred to the new holding, the Land Commission would have to maintain the old lady in the small holding for the rest of her life.

This is the only practical way that I can see of dealing with this matter. In fact, this is the way it has been traditionally dealt with, except that the provisions in the amendment are enabling provisions, to allow the Registrar of Titles to deal with some practical difficulties that have arisen from time to time.

Mr. Dillon

I do not wish to delay the Minister unduly. I think he will agree with me most of us are interested in those affairs and have always regarded it as a tragic mistake that in the original Registration of Title Act provision was ever made for registration subject to equities. It has operated to create titles more complex than were ever known under the old law. I am interested in the reactions of Deputy Tully and myself. I come from the relatively impoverished lands of Mayo, while Deputy Tully comes from the rich lands of Meath. My instinct at once is to buck away from anything that maintains or makes permanent this whole system of registration of title subject to equities, owing to the forest of confusion that ensues from it. I fully understand the Minister's practical difficulty which he admirably illustrates with the case of the mother, or grandmother, let us say, who is entitled to residence. What are you to do?

Under this Land Bill which we are now considering, one of the best provisions in it is that the Land Commission have power to say to an elderly proprietor: "If you would like to surrender your small holding to the Land Commission, we will give you a life pension. You can go and live on your own and surrender your holding to the Land Commission for distribution for the relief of congestion." I think that is an admirable principle. It is one capable of doing great good in the congested areas. Taking that one area the Minister has mentioned, perhaps he would consider whether equities of that kind might not be at least dischargeable on lines analogous to the new section he proposes.

In regard to other unascertainable equities, the case arises where you have a man with ten children scattered over Australia, the United States and perhaps Great Britain, and some of them who have not been heard from for years. One son 45 or 50 years of age is married and with children in the place when his father and mother die and he carries on and he gets his title registered, subject to equity. I think I am correct in saying that—I am not a practising lawyer. This son takes from his father only what his father had to leave and he finds that any title he has is one subject to equities, and these equities may relate to uncles and aunts. I think there is some procedure ultimately for going to the courts to get all these equities swept away,

Mr. Moran

There is now.

Mr. Dillon

Is it under this Bill?

Mr. Moran

Under a previous Bill, the Registration of Title Act.

Mr. Dillon

Any of us who have experience here knows it is astonishing the number of cases where it is not cleared up, where the title gets more complex and involved. I should be glad if the Minister would have another look at this business to see if we could not devise some measure whereby, on the transfer of congested tenants to any holdings of reasonable dimensions, this whole question of equities could be cleared up.

In respect of the equity I mentioned, a device in some other section might be employed. In regard to other equities, we have in the Land Commission an insurance fund which is no longer attracting funds because there is a sufficient sum of money in it to deal with the landlords' titles where we took land over from landlords and maybe mis-distributed bonds. There is a fund to indemnify the Land Commission if somebody can demonstrate they have a claim overlooked in the distribution of the land bonds originally allotted. I do not know whether it is possible to establish an insurance fund of an analogous nature or whether we could graft on to the existing fund a modest annual contribution so that any outstanding equities on a congest's holding would be extinguished, except in so far as they are clearly ascertainable and susceptible to liquidation.

I would agree that if you have clear and certain equities which are capable of liquidation, it would be much preferable to have them liquidated by the Land Commission and a suitable addition made to the land annuities of the incoming tenants, provided the incoming tenants would have a certificate that would discharge all equities for which they were responsible and that any outstanding or unascertainable equities were extinguished, subject to the right of the beneficiary of such equities having a right of hearing against the Land Commission insurance fund if he were in a position to prove it hereafter, as a landlord's heir has such a right at the present moment.

I do not wish to press the Minister unduly but I suggest to him that inasmuch as he shares with me the general regret at the qualification of the Land Registry procedure which permits of the registration of land subject to unascertainable equities, this might be a good way to start and there would be a great psychological advantage in being able to say to a congest that he has lived his life under the shadow of these equities and that he is now moving into a new holding, into a new outlook, to a new start in which he can forget the equities on a farm of a reasonable size capable of meeting the annual charge of annuities and providing him with a reasonable standard of living.

I do not ask the Minister to say immediately that he accepts that view or that he should give immediate legislative effect to it but I do suggest most sincerely that it is worthy of consideration by him between now and Report Stage, during which interval he might be able to give it fuller and better consideration to see if this Bill could not be availed of to effect what would be, to my mind, a desirable improvement, if it is practicable.

Mr. Tully

I have a brief comment to make on what Deputy Dillon has said. I agree entirely with the last part of his remarks, which seem to constitute an ideal solution. However, I do not agree with the first part of the solution he suggests or, in fact, that it would be possible, because if some old person has the right of maintenance on a farm and if the son or daughter has to leave the district, I do not think the answer is to give the old person compensation.

Mr. Dillon

It is conditional on their asking for it.

Mr. Tully

Even so, I do not think it would be the perfect solution to ask an old person to leave the bosom of his family and get a few hundred pounds.

Mr. Dillon

A life pension.

Mr. Tully

Where would he live? Would it mean going to the poor house? We are all aware of the provision in this Bill in respect of old people who are unable to work a farm and who have no friends.

Mr. Dillon

Friends in the sense of blood relatives.

Mr. Tully

I made the comment before, and I repeat it, that I have never known of an old person with land who has no friends or blood relatives when the farm comes up for assignment. No matter what compensation, by way of annuity or otherwise, is offered, I do not think it is the solution, whether or not the old person concerned asked for it. I am afraid the Land Commission would find themselves paying annuities to old people who would be back again in the bosom of their families. It might be possible to add to the annuity the ascertainable equities, and that might be the ideal situation.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to clarify one point for the benefit of Deputy Tully. At any rate, he has a different meaning for the word "friends" from that either the Minister or I would attach to it. In our part of the country the word "friends" means second cousins and further out. It does not mean friendship but relationship. Surely Deputy Tully is not serious in believing that the idea is to promote permanence for elderly parents on the holding of a young family?

Mr. Tully

No.

Mr. Dillon

One of the great difficulties in getting young people to marry in rural Ireland is the reluctance of the young wife to go into a house where there would be two mistresses. It is a source of continual difficulty and trouble. That is why I so cordially approve of the Minister's proposal which gives the parents the right to surrender the holding and retire into the neighbouring market town with a sufficient pension to live in comfort.

Deputy Tully says they would move back again into the bosom of their family. I do not agree. It can cause great hardship if you are moving a vigorous man of 30 or 35 years of age up to Meath or Kildare to say to an old person of 76 or 77 years that he must tear up his roots from a place like Carna or Oughterard or Louisburgh and move up to Meath or Kildare where he does not know a creature, and where the likelihood of his making new friends is remote in the extreme but, if you say to these old people: "You are perfectly free to go; you have a statutory right and you take it with you if that is what you elect to do, but, if you would sooner stay at home in Louisburgh, Oughterard or Carna, the Land Commission will discharge this equity by giving you a life pension on terms similar to that provided in the event of your having given up your holding, being yourself childless."

If Deputy Tully will reflect for a moment I think he will come to agree with me that where it is very often a good and stimulating thing to say to a young farmer with a young and vigorous wife and with a young family that it would be a complete revolution in their whole approach to life and would be a good life for them, it may be a different thing to say it to their father or mother and it would be a good thing not to compel them to surrender their equity but to say: "If you stand on your equity, you have a right to go and the new family must respect the undertaking they gave you but if you would like to stay where you were born and reared and where you reared your own family there is machinery under this Bill whereunder the Land Commission will enable you to stay in your own home and let the young people go off to a new life."

I would agree and I think the Minister would agree with Deputy Tully that one must move in these matters circumspectly. I do not want any mandatory provision here that the Minister for Lands or anybody else would have a right to go in to old people and say: "Your equity is extinguished and your whole family arrangement is broken up because we think it is good to do it" but I would be glad to see the Minister with machinery available to him where the old people approached him and said: "We are glad to see the young ones going off to a holding. We are glad to see our status as congests put an end to, but we do not want to go from Louisburgh to Navan and if you could let us out we would sooner stay here and leave us a pension that will carry us on to the end of our days and bury us decently. Let the young people go and maybe they will come back and visit us and maybe we will get up to visit them but, in the meantime, we will be at home and our neighbours will be calling on us and we will be calling on them. We would not know a creature in Navan". I do not press this but I submit it to the Minister as being worthy of consideration.

Mr. Tully

I do not want unduly to hold up the Bill, on this section of it at any rate, but I still cannot see where the necessary amount of money would be available, to be reasonable about it. It is a small holding in a congested area, and the person is being moved because of the fact that it is a small farm. He is being moved in order to get a viable farm. I cannot see where the amount of money would become available in such circumstance which would enable them to continue to live. That is the point I should like to have clarified because I believe it just could not happen as things stand.

Mr. Dillon

I assure the Deputy that if I were Minister for Lands— and the Minister could confirm me in this—I could send for the secretary of the Department and say to him: "Find me in the Land Commission money to finance that," and there are old bits of funds hanging about there which would provide it without the slightest difficulty.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

There are two questions that I should like to ask the Minister. This may be the appropriate occasion to ask the Minister whether the Land Commission in considering this amendment have received any statistics from the Land Registry, from the Registrar of Titles, as to the extent of defective or complicated or involved titles to holdings. Does the Minister feel that there is a very large number of landowners who have in their possession defective titles? Perhaps it may have been possible for the Minister to obtain from the Land Registry in respect of each county, giving each folio, the details as to whether the title was a good title or whether it was a defective title and, if he has received such statistics, perhaps he would tell the House to what extent this is a problem.

Secondly, I should like to know whether, under this amendment moved by the Minister, whereby the Registrar of Titles, where he is satisfied that the old certificate has been lost or destroyed, may dispense with the production of the old certificate and a new certificate may be issued, the application for the new certificate must be accompanied by a Land Registry stamp and, if so, what would be the cost of such stamp or whether the new certificate would be issued to the applicant free of charge.

I presume that these matters may be governed by regulations to be made by the Land Registry but if there is to be any charge on the tenant seeking the new certificate the Minister might avail of this opportunity to enlighten the House as to what the cost of the Land Registry stamp would be in such case.

Mr. Moran

There would appear to be some misapprehension about this matter. Deputies may not appreciate technically that on a rearrangement scheme the man is surrendering his old holding for, theoretically, a completely new one although the new one may consist of 97 per cent of his old one plus a bit of swopping here and there. It is still a new and different holding. If he is still without his land certificate he is in trouble because the Registrar cannot deal with the matter once a certificate has been issued without its being produced and all kinds of evidence gone into as to what became of it. That applies to these thousands of cases of rearrangement as well as the migrants' holdings to which I have referred and the same matters and principle apply.

I shall look into the point made by Deputy Dillon to see if there is a different way of dealing with this matter. Let me say in passing that I could not agree more as to how useful a proposition it would be to do away with this question of the discharge of equities altogether if it could be done and I think that at least some progress has been made in that connection under the Registration of Title Act, 1964, with which I am not as familiar as, perhaps, I should be but I do know that instead of the cumbersome procedure which we had whereby the man in occupation had to go to the circuit court judge under what we call a section 52 application, under the old Registration of Title Act, the matter can now be dealt with in chambers by the Registrar on production of evidence of 12 years' occupancy in certain instances, which goes at least some distance towards removing the difficulty in the chasing of relatives gone for umpteen years to the far ends of the earth and possibly serving notice on them, as was the law before the passing of that Act.

I fear that the many matters—I have touched on only a few here—which would be covered by what I call technically the discharge of equities would really need to be dealt with in a separate Registration of Title Bill. This particular amendment is providing enabling powers for the Registrar of Titles to expedite matters in certain circumstances that arise.

I can assure Deputy Flanagan, who made the point, that these difficulties have arisen in practice in very many cases. One could say that perhaps there is not such a great number of migrants but there are literally thousands of cases of rearrangement schemes, of rearranging tenants to which the same law and principle apply and it is very necessary that this simplified enabling procedure for the Registrar of Titles should be provided to deal with these cases. I do not know what the position would be or what conditions the Registrar of Titles may lay down or what the provisions are that he has laid down to deal with this question of lost land certificates. The requisition of a new land certificate after issue for the first time, as well as I recollect, bears a stamp of £1. I do not know what will be the position of a person applying for a certificate in substitution for a lost one but the person who lost the certificate is the person at fault and if he is penalised for his carelessness, it does not appear to me to be unreasonable. I do not say that he is and I do not know what land registry fees would be prescribed for some application that would arise under this section.

I shall look into the points raised to see if there is any easier way to deal with this problem than that proposed in this amendment. I should like the House to appreciate, however, that this is an endeavour to deal in as simple a way as we can devise with the hundreds of cases that arise from day to day and it is merely an enabling procedure to speed up the removal of the difficulties of title clearance with tenants, because the Land Commission cannot deal with them, as I have said, until their titles are reasonably in order.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 30 agreed to.

SECTION 31.

Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Dillon

In his explanatory note, the Minister mentioned that this section operates to alter the monetary limits regulating the modified title requirements under section 35 of the Land Act, 1931.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a similarity between sections 31 and 36. They may be discussed together.

Mr. Dillon

I understand neither of them. If the Minister assures me they are both of the same genre, I am quite prepared to accept his word for it.

Mr. Moran

They are the same in principle.

Mr. Dillon

What exactly are these modified title requirements under sections 35 and 38 of the Land Act, 1931?

Mr. Moran

The purpose of this is to deal with the small purchase money limits and to facilitate and expedite the distribution of funds. It is proposed to raise the monetary limits below which modified title requirements may operate.

Under the existing law, that is, section 35 of the Land Act, 1931, as extended by section 52 of the Land Act, 1933, title requirements are relaxed in three categories: in cases not exceeding £30, in cases not exceeding £100, and in cases not exceeding £300. Dealing with the devaluation of money in these small cases, the purpose of this section is to substitute £100 for the £30, to substitute £300 for the £100 and to substitute £2,000 for the £300. In the £30 instance which is now being increased to £100, the examiner can give that money to the occupier, whoever he finds in the place, that is, where the title is non-existent, if you like. In such a small case, he has the discretion to do that.

In the case where £300 is substituted for £100, the examiner can pay it to the occupier as a trustee. Although there may be different owner interests, whoever he finds on the land when it is taken over he can pay that money to him but the occupier will be getting it as trustee for whoever may be found to be the legal owner. It is a quick way of dispensing with the matter.

In the case where £2,000 is substituted for £300, he can dispense with what is laid down as the root of title, that is, going back 30 years or so. He can accept a title for, say, 12 years or possibly less if he is satisfied. These are the distinctions, and the only difference between this and section 36, which follows on the same lines, is that section 36 provides for dealing with shares in small purchase money cases. The same thing will apply. It will increase the jurisdiction of the examiner dealing with these small cases where a question of different shares in a commonage, for instance, is concerned.

Mr. Dillon

The first and second cases are clear enough. In the first case the examiner can pay out £100, and in the second case he may pay out up to £300 and an equitable owner would be entitled to proceed against the tenant up to the limit of £300 because he received it as trustee. In regard to the £2,000, are we to understand that in that case the recipient has a clear title to the £2,000 or is he subject to the obligations of a trustee? Is it clear title?

Mr. Moran

In the third case, he has a title but he may have difficulty in proving the statutory title laid down by the Land Commission in the general run of cases. He may not be able to go back 30 years. He may not be able to adduce title back to that root of title. However, he is in occupation of the land and he is, presumably, the owner. It is the kind of case that would be accepted in normal practice by a solicitor who knew the history of the family, and so on; every "t" was not crossed and every "i" was not dotted; perhaps there were no recitals in any available documents that were more than 20 years old and he would, perhaps, have to accept a statutory declaration of 12 years' beneficial occupation. In this case the examiner would have the discretion to depart from the general rule and accept a lesser proof of title than he would in the larger case. That is the purpose of this.

Mr. Dillon

If there should turn up a person who had some claim in category (c), has he any right against the insurance funds in the Land Commission or is his right exclusively against the recipient of the £2,000?

Mr. Moran

The answer to that is that I have not adverted to it. If a person in the third category appears to have a title, in normal circumstances, it would be generally accepted. The man in category (c), having proved his title and having been accepted by the examiner, must ipso facto get his purchase money. There is a provision in the Land Acts whereby compensation by way of money voted by the Dáil can be paid in such a case, but the short answer is that, once his title is accepted —this is the general law, I might say, dealing with the Land Commission— that is that.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister is acting for the purchaser, he does not accept the title, does he?

Mr. Moran

If I were acting for the purchaser, I might find myself personally liable in an action for negligence.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

This section is intended to bring conformity with monetary changes since 1931. The House might take this opportunity of considering the great change that has taken place in the value of money from 1931 to the present day. In 1932 Fianna Fáil took office. We are now in 1964 and the £300 in 1931 is now equal to £2,000. That is a poor tribute to the economic policy of Fianna Fáil and I think that is worthy of note on this section: £300 in 1931 is equal to £2,000 in today's money.

Mr. Millar

This is monetary reform.

Mr. Tully

The figure £30 has become £100 and the £100 has become £300. How did £300 become £2,000?

Mr. Moran

I felt that, in order to expedite smaller cases, this freedom should be there. None of these is an arbitrary figure. If I understand Deputy O.J. Flanagan's proposition correctly, I suggest that Mr. Wilson should borrow him to bring back the purchasing power of the £ on the other side to what it was in 1931.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I think we would make a greater success with Mr. Wilson than the Government did.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister might say "Touché".

Mr. Moran

This provision is in ease of examiners. In smaller cases, examiners, as is only natural, since they are legal officers of public Departments, are much more wary in dealing with title than the ordinary practitioner outside would be. In order to get the machine moving faster in the smaller cases, we felt this enlarging power should be taken so that the smaller type of case could be dealt with more expeditiously. A sum of £2,000, considering the way the price of land is soaring, is not a big sum. It is a comparatively small case now in which there is not more than £2,000 involved.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister says, in any case, that there is an implied insurance in this £2,000 case that, if someone turns up out of the blue with a valid claim, it will be dealt with either ad hoc or by existing legislation. If his claim is proved, it will be met.

Mr. Moran

That is so. That power is there already. The provisions were originally made so that, if someone turned up out of the blue, he could get compensation from voted moneys. That power is still there.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 32.

Question proposed: "That section 32 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

This is a most important section. I do not know whether the Minister intends to elaborate on it, but I want to sound a very serious note of warning here. This section deals with the power of the Land Commission to create rights of way. At first glance, people might well regard that as a necessary and sensible provision, but this is an amendment of section 39 of the Land Act, 1931, and it is described in the explanatory memorandum as a section—

designed to remedy legal flaws in the principal provision (section 39, Land Act, 1931), relating to the creation of rights of way by the Land Commission. This is being effected by redrafting in clear terms subsection (2) of section 39, Land Act, 1931. In this way, it is intended to overcome the effects of adverse legal decisions in relation to the existing powers of the Land Commission in the creation of rights of way. In particular, the new subsection confirms that a right of way order by the Land Commission will be valid whether any terminal point of the right of way is or is not situate on lands sold or agreed to be sold under the Land Acts.

The opportunity is being taken, having regard to monetary changes, to increase the compensation limit of £50 contained in section 39 (4), Land Act, 1931, to £200.

It is worthy of comment that in this informative explanatory memorandum circulated by the Minister, the Minister elects to describe as adverse the decisions of the court. I have no doubt that the people in whose favour the decisions were reached would not so describe them. They were adverse to the Land Commission. In case the Minister, and I speak of him now in his corporate capacity, should ever allow himself to be persuaded that any decision of the courts which does not correspond with his interpretation of the law is an adverse decision, it is very necessary to keep present to his mind that the decision is a judicial decision on what the law passed by this House is. That does not necessarily always mean that the law is what the Minister believes it or wishes it to be. The function of the court is to discern what the law is and a decision, I suggest to the Minister, of the courts is not appropriately described by a Department of State or a member of the Executive as adverse. It may be adverse in his contention but it is not adverse to the person in whose favour it was given. On the contrary, it is a decision of the court as to what the law was up to today when the proposal changes.

Now, the extent of the amendment which the Minister proposes is not readily discernible. The subsection reads:

The powers of the Land Commission ..include power to confer on the Land Commission and their licensees and to define and extend or improve ways and rights of way over any land whatsoever for the purpose of facilitating passage to and from any land sold or agreed to be sold under the Land Purchase Acts, whether such rights of way are or are not so conferred as to be appurtenant to any land, and whether any terminal point of such ways and rights of way is or is not situate on lands sold or agreed to be sold under the Land Purchase Acts.

What does that mean? It means that in regard to what is freehold land which has never been the subject of land procedure before by the Land Commission, which the Land Commission have never acquired or sought to acquire, the Land Commission can come along today and say: "We have acquired land adjacent to your holding on two separate sides and for the better husbandry of this holding we now propose to drive a right-of-way through your land for the accommodation of the owner of the two pieces which we have acquired adjoining your land." In a very large number of cases I am sure an equitable arrangement can be arrived at which will not seriously interfere with the enjoyment by the owner of the land across the right-of-way, but there could arise cases in which the creation of such a right-of-way would constitute not only a very grave hardship but a diminution of value of the holding out of all proportion to the convenience for which the right-of-way is created. I instance particularly a stud farm. If you drive a right-of-way across the corners of a field it is perfectly understandable that in many cases you erect no fences at all, or it may be desirable in certain circumstances, if it is an exclusive right-of-way, to fence the right-of-way, but if you want to fence a right-of-way on a stud farm it must be fenced with timber all the way, or else you destroy the whole area of the stud farm because you cannot let horses, foals and mares into fields surrounded by barbed wire. Whether the Land Commission are going to take the view that because the particular holding over which they want to drive a right-of-way is a stud farm they have an obligation to fence it as a stud farmer would fence is something which I beg leave to doubt.

I should like to have from the Minister some reassurance that he is satisfied that the compensation maximum of £200 in respect of a right-of-way is in itself sufficient to ensure that no substantial injustice is done to a man whose property has to be trespassed in order to provide a right-of-way. I can envisage a situation arising, particularly in relation to a stud farm, where if you are going to create a right-of-way you will have to cut off a whole corner or a piece and simply fence on one side of it, or tell the person to fence it, but he should be entitled to say: "If I have to fence this and surrender for stud purposes that part of the land which is on the other side of the right-of-way, you will have to give me compensation which (1) will enable me to erect wooden stud farm fences and (2) enable me to sell the bit of land on the other side of the right-of-way to a non-willing purchaser from an all too willing vendor, and the limit of £200 is manifestly inadequate for that purpose." It is necessary to say this: let us in our zeal to rearrange the land bear in mind that the real test of the genuine democracy is its solicitude for the rights of minorities. God knows most of us in this House lived long enough under the tyranny of landlords without, when we shook ourselves free from them, seeking to exercise over landlords or their kind, the sort of tyranny they used rejoice in exercising over us.

I want to be able to say to the stud farm owner, or the large land owner: "Under the law you are treated on the basis of equality with the smallest farmer in Ireland. Everyone in this country is equal before the law. If you suffer a loss as a result of what the community requires to be done your rights will be respected as would the rights of anybody else." The temptation is to say: "That fellow has plenty, why should we bother our heads about him?" The exquisite quality of the system to which we are privileged to belong is that all of us are equal before the law.

I would suggest to the Minister that in our desire to change this provision we are, perhaps, forgetting the rights of a small minority. I can see, in the lowering eyes of some of my colleagues sitting opposite, the kind of implied suggestion: "Why the hell should we not?" The answer is because we should be too proud to do to them what those before them did to us; we have the power to do injustice, it is beneath us to sink to doing it. I think the Minister will sympathise with that view and I suggest particularly in regard to stud farms that he should reconsider the question whether this much wider power creating rights of way has attached to it compensatory provisions calculated to do substantial injustice to an admittedly small minority who are nonetheless citizens of this State, equal with the rest of us before the law.

Mr. Tully

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister in the use of the word "adverse" because it is not unknown that Bills have been enacted in this House and subsequently the court has put interpretations on them which were not intended when they were discussed here. For that reason I feel there is a certain need to describe some of those Acts in a way in which the courts would not like us to describe them. While Deputy Dillon's point about stud farms is a good one, we must all realise that throughout the country farms were divided which, to use a rural phrase, were just a hen's race from a main road but had no access to that main road. Access could be obtained only by giving a large portion of land to somebody not otherwise entitled to it in order to get a right-of-way. If this Bill does something to remedy that position, it will be doing a good job.

Like Deputy Dillon, I am rather perturbed about how far this section can go. The stud farm may be an example, but what about the small farmer whose holding may be carved up by such rights-of-way? Is the maximum compensation of £200 sufficient in that case? Surely it should depend on the actual length of the right-of-way acquired? I suggest that a small farmer who would lose perhaps a small piece of land for a right-of-way might suffer a far greater loss in proportion than the big farmer who has a large amount taken away. I am sure the Minister will try to tie up those matters before the Bill is finally passed, which will be some time yet.

The Minister should deal with the question of the type of right-of-way. Those of us who represent rural constituencies have met the irate farmer who is always complaining he cannot his machinery through a gateway because somebody else owns the gateway and will not allow him to go through it. Modern machinery is much larger than that used some years ago. We now have all sorts of quarrels arising between neighbours over rights-of-way. I think on one occasion the Minister pointed out that rights-of-way were probably the cause of more litigation in this country than any other subject. If anything can be done in this Bill to ease that situation, every attempt should be made to do it.

On another section last week, there was a reference to rights-of-way being laid down by the Land Commission as badly done. No provision is made to ensure that they can be subsequently taken over and developed into public roads. The ultimate end of all these roads is that they should be taken in charge by the local authority. Meath County Council have taken over practically all of them. However, needless expense has been put both on the ratepayers and taxpayers because the roads were badly designed and made by the Land Commission, in the first instance. Even if the proper type of material was put into them, they were either too narrow or there were sharp angles in them for no apparent reason—except, perhaps, that somebody decided there was a gap in the hedge and, rather than make the road straight, they swung around and went in through the gap.

When the Land Commission were laying out houses on an estate, they put them in such a way that it was expensive for themselves and, subsequently, for the local authority to make roads into those houses. Could we ask the Minister to persuade the Land Commission to have the matter fully discussed with the local authority before going ahead? If that is done, a lot of money will be saved.

I would ask the Minister to have some arrangement with the Land Commission whereby we can have an easement of the present position with regard to awkward rights-of-way. Maybe it is a big job and he will tell us the Land Commission have far too much other work on hands, but it is of such importance for rural Ireland that somebody should do something about it. If this opportunity is passed by, I cannot see another Land Bill coming before us for a long time, in view of the time it has taken to deal with this one. Possibly, none of us will see even this one pass.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

This is an important section on which we ought to elicit all the information we can from the Minister. Perhaps he might give us some idea of the kind of adverse legal decision to which he has referred? Rights-of-way have been the cause of much friction and unpleasantness between neighbours and even members of families for many years. If the Land Commission are to be given the right to make whatever rights-of-way they wish, then we should have some guarantees from the Minister. I can assure him that, when holdings are being valued or put on the market, one of the first questions a purchaser addresses to the vendor relates to the rights-of-way on the holding. The more rights-of-way there are on the holding, the greater is the fall in the value of the property. The Land Commission will have to be cautious and realise that in creating rights-of-way, they are immediately reducing considerably the value of the property. If property is being reduced in value, ample and generous compensation should be paid.

Owners of property do not view rights-of-way with any great delight. If this section is passed, new rights-of-way will be created so as to give entry and exit in accordance with the new arrangement of holdings. What provision will there be for an appeal to the Land Commission in regard to those rights-of-way? Will the special circumstances of a stud farm, to which Deputy Dillon referred, be taken into consideration? If the Land Commission create a right-of-way through a stud farm or a dairy farm on which there is a valuable herd, the owner of such holding will have to be amply and generously compensated, because the right-of-way will reduce the property in value.

I feel that for the Land Commission to create a right-of-way through such a holding, the owner of the holding would have to be amply and generously compensated. The right-of-way through his property would consequently reduce it considerably in value. The Land Commission should take steps to see that such a right-of-way would be fenced off completely. In addition, the right-of-way ought to be constructed in the most convenient location of the property, after consultation with the owner.

My experience of the officials of the Land Commission is that they are men with a very high degree of commonsense and a very great degree of intelligence. I feel they are anxious, in so far as it is possible, to co-operate with the land owners, particularly in regard to fencing and rights-of-way. The law should so be enacted as to ensure that the least possible inconvenience will be created to the landowner in regard to the making of a right-of-way.

I am sure the Minister has conferred with the head of this section in the Land Commission in the course of the preparation of this Bill. He might tell us how much compensation, in the last ten years, say, has been paid out to persons over whose lands the Land Commission have created rights-of-way —whether it is a very substantial sum or what the position is. I am sure he has this information. Perhaps he may be able to avail of this opportunity to indicate to the House the steps the Land Commission have taken in the past to create rights-of-way. I know of a number of rights-of-way created by the Land Commission. I have been wondering what compensation has been paid—not individually. Perhaps the Minister could tell us, say in bulk, the amount of money the Land Commission had to pay in regard to those rights-of-way.

Bearing in mind the great value of the activities of a stud farm, the Land Commission would be well advised if at all possible to avoid the making of a right-of-way there. In the event of its being absolutely essential that a right of way should be created through a stud farm, the Land Commission should undertake the responsibility of having it properly fenced with the very suitable type of fence which will be required for the purpose of the stud farm. The same steps should be taken in the event of a right-of-way being created through a dairy farm. The owners of dairy farms who have very valuable herds would certainly be anxious that the law is so framed as to guarantee them the highest possible rate of compensation for any inconvenience that may be caused to them by the making of such a right-of-way. It is very necessary that the Land Commission will use their wise and sound judgment to avoid making rights-of-way in cases of stud and dairy farms.

The whole question of rights-of-way should not be taken too lightly. I would make a special appeal to the Minister, when this section is passed, to give us an assurance that this power will be used only where it is absolutely necessary and that in so far as it is possible the Land Commission will have the consent and the approval of the owner of the land over which the new right-of-way will be made. In the event of the owner submitting proposals to the Land Commission for the creation of the right-of-way along the most convenient part of his farm for him, I trust that the Land Commission will give the case he presents every possible consideration.

I do not like to see the Land Commission getting wide and what may be described as unreasonable powers. It may be the case that the Land Commission may be slow to avail of this section when it is passed. I would ask the Minister to give this House an assurance that the power he now seeks in this section will be used only where it is absolutely and completely essential for the rearrangement of lands in any particular area. I really feel that that assurance should be given, for the records of the House, by the Minister on this section.

Landowners very much dislike and disagree with the making of new rights-of-way. If the Land Commission avail of this section to make rights-of-way ad lib through any farm, if they so desire, I think it would be undesirable and uncalled for. I should like an assurance from the Minister so as to reinforce our landowners in the knowledge that the Land Commission will not use these powers except in cases of absolute necessity. The owner of land would expect an assurance in that regard from the Minister in relation to this section.

Mr. Moran

The general difficulty, in my experience — long before I became occupier of my present office— with the Land Commission was to get them to exercise some powers contained in the sections which are being referred to in this section. I should like Deputies to get their minds clear as to what we do here. Section 43 of the Land Act of 1923 and section 39 of the Land Act of 1931 contain powers for conferring and defining rights-of-way for the use of lands sold or agreed to be sold under the Land Purchase Acts. Doubt was expressed on the adequacy of those provisions in what is known as the Healy case in County Kildare which purported the creation of a right-of-way into the Healy Estate and which was partly over property owned by the Grand Canal Company. These proceedings were contested by the Grand Canal Company at that time. The proceedings were by way of a case brought by the Lay Commissioners for decision of the Judicial Commissioner on a point of law.

The effect of that decision was that the term "any land" in section 39 (2) of the Land Act of 1931 does not include lands excluded from vesting in the Land Commission by virtue of section 24 (2) (f) of the Land Act of 1923, that is, in the main, lands held by central or local authorities or by public service undertakings. That was appealed in turn to the Supreme Court in the Healy case and it was held by the Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, that the Order contemplated in the Notice of Intention to confer and define a right-of-way was not authorised by the powers conferred by section 39 (2) which the Land Commission thought they had the right to do.

The decision of the Supreme Court in dismissing the appeal was based on a different issue, as often happens there, and apart from the power to confer and define a right-of-way over public undertakings' property, a matter capable of arising in the ordinary course of land settlement operations. The Supreme Court decision implied that for a right-of-way order under section 39 to be valid, it must embrace the entire length of passage between the farthest terminal point and the terminal point on the dominant land.

The proposed amendment seeks to improve the position of the Land Commission by covering "any land whatsoever" in line 32 and asserting that it is immaterial whether the terminal points are, or are not, situated on Land Purchase Acts land. I shall deal with the other subsection relating to the compensation in a moment but I should like Deputies to get this picture clear.

The right of the Land Commission, under the present law as interpreted in the Healy case in the Supreme Court to which I have referred, would prevent them, for instance, from crossing land that was held under title not subject to Land Purchase Acts. For instance, if you had a case, as you sometimes do, where a portion of land adjoined Land Purchase Act land, either under Fee Farm Grant or pure realty, the Land Commission could not get a right-of-way over that particular land. And if the passageway ended on such land, they could not enforce such a right-of-way nor could they enlarge it.

Mr. Dillon

Have we not abolished realty under the Registration of Titles Act?

Mr. Moran

Not pure realty. In certain instances, no. There are many cases not registered under the Registration of Titles Act. We abolished realty for the purposes of descent. That is land that comes under the Registration of Titles Act but you have some lands such as I have described that have not yet come under these Acts and in such a case, or in any case in which the land was not purchased under the Land Purchase Acts—however that may have arisen—they could not use this right-of-way power. Outside Fee Farm Grants there are other odd cases of pure realty, cases of holdings with expired leases that were not renewed under the Conversions Act and odd bits and pieces. I have even come across some places in rural Ireland where nobody knows how they originated and it would be impossible to prove they were at any time subject to Land Purchase Acts. In such an instance, as the law now stands, the Land Commission would be stultified and in such a case this amendment is necessary and I think reasonable to enable the Land Commission, where a right-of-way is necessary, or the enlargement of a right-of-way is required, as now happens in modern conditions and with modern vehicles, to provide such a right-of-way. Rights-of-way suitable for our grandfathers would not serve the modern purposes of the modern agricultural user. In these cases, irrespective of the different titles to the land over which a right-of-way runs, the Land Commission should be entitled to enlarge or extend it provided, of course, compensation is paid. That is a different issue with which I shall deal in a moment.

Up to the decision in the Healy case, it was understood by the Land Commission and, I am sure, by those responsible for the drafting of the 1923 Act and section 39 of the 1931 Act, that the Land Commission would have power in dealing with rights-of-way, to run them where they should run, irrespective of whether the land was purchased under the Land Purchase Acts or not.

Mr. Dillon

We shall not quarrel with you about that.

Mr. Moran

However, that is the way the law was interpreted. I think Deputies will appreciate that there is no good reason why, if it did happen that such local or public authority had a small piece of land intervening, that should stop the Land Commission from running a suitable right-of-way for the convenience of a number of tenants on a large estate which was being acquired or divided. Deputies can well realise how a right-of-way could very well be necessary for the economic planning and development or division of an estate.

Coming to the question of compensation, this is rather similar to the section I was dealing with a moment ago in connection with small cases. The particular section with which we are concerned here is section 39 subsection (4) of the 1934 Act. It is very short and I shall quote it because it will make clear what I have in mind. It says:

Where the compensation payable for a right-of-way or right of access conferred by the Land Commission under this section or any other provision of the Land Purchase Acts does not exceed fifty pounds, such compensation may be paid to the person who satisfied the Land Commission that for not less than six years immediately preceding the payment of such compensation he and his predecessors in title (if any) have been in actual occupation of the land over which such right-of-way or of access is so conferred or in receipt of the rents and profits of such land.

This was enabling, simplifying procedure which allowed the Land Commission to run a right-of-way over this land when they wanted to do so in, perhaps, cases of very small holdings in respect of which the titles might be very faulty or non-existent. They could give to the occupier there this compensation up to this amount to get his consent to go on with their right-of-way. What I am doing here is amending that by allowing them to deal with these small cases up to a maximum of £200. Again, that is taking into account changed circumstances and again it is enabling the Land Commission to deal more expeditiously with this type of case where it now arises because in many small cases you would find that as against the £30 the Land Commission might pay, if a small man had to put his title in order, it would cost him as much. That is the purpose here.

I shall look at the case posed to me about the stud farm mentioned by Deputy Dillon. I must confess it is something that did not occur to me. I believe the answer to that to be that the Land Commission would be acquiring that land in the ordinary course under their powers and they would have to pay him compensation by way of market value under existing law. Of that I am not sure. I shall look into the point between now and the Report Stage, but offhand I should say that is the answer, that the Land Commission would have to deal with it on the same basis as if they were acquiring a portion of his lands in respect of which he would have the right of appeal on the question of value if he was not satisfied with the offer of the Land Commission. That may not be the real answer, and if I find it is necessary to write into this section an additional power to deal with the particular case to which the Deputy refers, I shall consider the matter between now and the Report Stage.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister meets the Opposition on this section and other sections in the same spirit as he has dealt with this section, he will find the passage of his Bill will be greatly expedited.

Mr. Moran

When the Opposition are reasonable, the Minister is reasonable.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 33.

Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

This is much the same principle?

Mr. Moran

Under section 39 of the Land Act, 1933, the Land Commission must, in certain circumstances, provide an alternative holding where the owner demands it, that is, where they propose to take land for the relief of congestion from a man who is living on the holding and is working in accordance with the old methods of husbandry. The previous provision gave a value of £2,000. This is now being raised to £6,000.

Mr. Dillon

The old provision was that he had the right to make that demand, provided he did not hold land worth more than £2,000. Now he has the right to make that demand if he owns land up to the value of £6,000?

Mr. Moran

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 34.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are several related amendments: No. 40b and No. 40c are consequential on No. 39a; No. 40c is a Ministerial amendment and meets Deputy Ryan's amendment No. 42 to some extent. Amendments No. 42b, No. 42c, No. 43a and No. 43c are cognate.

Mr. Moran

I move amendment No. 39a:

In page 14, to delete "same locality" and to substitute "immediate neighbourhood".

It might be more convenient and avoid some confusion with the different amendments if we also considered amendment No. 40c which is as follows:

In page 15, line 43, after "In this section" to insert the following:

" `immediate neighbourhood' includes any place which the Lay Commissioners are satisfied is not more than three miles from the nearest point of the relevant land;".

Mr. Dillon

Suppose we assume for the time being that that is the meaning of amendment No. 39a, that it defines the words contained in amendment No. 39a.

Mr. Moran

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

The words are defined in amendment No. 40c.

Mr. Moran

The words "immediate neighbourhood" in No. 39a are defined in No. 40c: " `Immediate neighbourhood' includes any place which the Lay Commissioners are satisfied is not more than three miles from the nearest point of the relevant land;". In the acquisition section which the Bill seeks to amend, that is, section 39 of the 1931 Act and also section 31 of the Land Act——

Mr. Dillon

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but all the section says is that you are seeking to amend section 32 of the Land Act, 1933.

Mr. Moran

I am getting on to deal with the phrases about proximity. We have the expression in different Land Acts, for instance, "the same locality, neighbourhood, same district in which some such lands are situated." If in amendment No. 40c we adopt the three mile radius as settling the immediate neighbourhood, then we logically accept all these localities and districts and substitute the same immediate neighbourhood. Congestion, unemployment and residence could all be judged in the same way.

I realise one can say this is oversimplification. Strict uniformity is not always as logical as it seems at first glance. It is best to do away with these variations in phraseology which we have had in these different Land Acts on this issue, if it is only to remove the temptation of making hairsplitting differentiations in their interpretation. I am accordingly recommending these amendments as a means of rationalising the wording of the original provisions. These amendments are all designed to substitute "immediate neighbourhood", to stick to "immediate neighbourhood" for the purposes of this section and to get away from the different expressions about localisation or localities used in different other sections dealing with this matter.

Mr. Dillon

I hope the Minister will sympathise with us in saying that his exposition of this series of amendments has not about it the crystal clarity which attended the exposition of the previous two sections with which we dealt. My anxiety with regard to these amendments does not relate to any dissent from the Minister's general proposition that we should seek uniformity of expression throughout the land code, where that is possible. But there are implications, different implications, arising in the different circumstances of the different categories of persons who are affected by the substitution of the words "immediate neighbourhood", and no subsequent definition as representing the three-mile limit.

Mr. Tully

The old bona fide is back.

Mr. Dillon

It reminds one, of course, of the old bona fide area. Do I understand at this stage the Minister to recommend amendments Nos. 39a, 40b and 40c and does so on the ground that he merely wishes to introduce uniformity in the use of the phrase “immediate neighbourhood”?

Mr. Moran

Yes, I did say Nos. 39a, 40b, 42 and 43c.

Mr. Tully

"Immediate" is the only word in the last one to change.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister ensure that the effect of this is to establish uniform use of the phrase "immediate neighbourhood" as defined by amendment 40c?

Mr. Moran

Yes, that is so.

Mr. Dillon

If that is so, I think we could get rid of these amendments by accepting them and then discuss the section.

Mr. Ryan

I am in agreement with the Minister's general intention of uniformity but I should like to extend the limit beyond the three miles the Minister seeks to apply. Three miles is an extremely short distance in this day of motor vehicles. In this day of the internal combustion engine with men charging from place to place, it is an anachronism to have a limit of three miles simply because that is regarded as the most arduous journey a person should undertake. What is the practical position in rural Ireland at the present time and what is likely to develop in the years immediately ahead? More and more motor power will be used. It is no hardship at all now for a man to work on a farm which is more than three or four miles away from his main holding.

I am concerned with the kind of situation which could easily arise where, say, an uncle leaves a farm to a nephew who may live three and a half miles away. Under the Minister's definition, the nephew is likely to have that farm taken from him unless he goes to reside on it. If he goes to reside on it he may have to leave his old home where his father and grandfather lived before him. It is unreal in the twentieth century to impose the limitation of three miles only on any person when it is so easy to get from place to place.

I can see arguments to the effect that one can drive persons in a car but one cannot drive stock except one has a large car or a car provided out of the public purse, or one might be compelled to walk animals along the road. It does not get away from the principle I ask this House to recognise. Is it not possible to work more than one area of land within a radius of five miles? I should like the Minister to reflect on this and to move with the age in which he lives and the age in which our children will be living and allow a greater extension than was previously proposed in the Bill.

I am perhaps the person most disinterested in this Bill. No party in my constituency has regard for the land. The constituency is unique in that way and has no problem whatever for the Land Commission. I am saying this to emphasise that I have no personal interest in this. But it seems to me an extraordinary business that the Land Commission and the Minister are incapable of moving with the times and realising the practical family problems and situations which exist in the country.

My purpose in raising this matter was to meet a particular situation of which I became aware. It is in a part of the country where a Fine Gael family consisting of three brothers and two sisters reside. They have two farms and both are five miles from the main holding. They were told by members of the Fianna Fáil cumann that their days were ended, that as soon as the Land Bill came into operation, these farms would be taken from them. It is denied by members of the Fianna Fáil Party in Roscommon and is now being denied in East Galway. This is a relevant affair of one family which I know. One family came to my notice out of the length and breadth of the country. This indicates what a frightful Bill this is.

The Minister is being generous to the extent of meeting my point three-fifths of the way. I would ask him to go further. I can see his point in asking: "If five miles, why not ten?" The reason why five was proposed in my amendment was that we thought ten would be too much, so we halved it. I should say that I am not displeased to see the Minister going so far to meet me. However, I do not think it is far enough. It may be all right in 1964 but what about 1974 and 1984? The fact that his Government accept that rural Ireland will become thinly populated suggests that there will be many more out-farms being operated.

Mr. Dillon

I have just one constructive suggestion with which I think Deputy Ryan will agree. It is that we accept the amendments incorporating the words "immediate neighbourhood" with the exception of amendment No. 40c which we can go on arguing about. The effect of my suggestion is that we get some of the amendments out of the way and then pursue our arguments on No. 40c.

Mr. Moran

Yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendments must be disposed of seriatim.

Mr. Tully

It is important that the Minister be able to designate "immediate neighbourhood". Therefore, I do not see how we can accept Deputy Dillon's suggestion. All we can do is agree we shall not oppose certain matters at a later stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendments must be disposed of seriatim.

Mr. Dillon

Then my suggestion is no good. We can, though, accept amendment No. 39a.

Mr. Tully

Listening to an unagricultural Deputy like Deputy Ryan——

Mr. Ryan

It is fashionable nowadays.

Mr. Tully

——one finds a lot of sound commonsense in some of the things he says. It is true that people who some years ago might find it a hardship to travel a mile in a horsedrawn vehicle now find it easy to travel five or six miles in a tractor or lorry. There I part company with Deputy Ryan. I am not at all interested in saving the out-farm for the person who has a farm which he is not serious about working, just holding on to it for the purpose of disposing of it at a good price. The Land Commission have not facilitated the people who have an acre here and an acre there and who try seriously to make a living out of these bits and pieces.

A man may have an acre and a house in one place and five or six acres of land elsewhere. He may have a job as well and may be able to work the five or six acres very well. It would be a hardship on such a man if the Land Commission were to create a situation in which that man would be deprived of his five or six acres. If there is no other reason for such action except simply that the land is further than three miles away, I do not think it is a good idea. My Party would not be prepared to agree to such a proposal. I am asking the Minister to enlarge on this proposal. I am prepared to go along with the idea that in this section we must have a designated neighbourhood but I am not prepared to agree with the idea that because a piece of land is further than three miles from where the person lives the Land Commission should be entitled to take away the outlying portions of land.

Mr. Moran

Again, are we discussing amendment No. 40c or Deputy Ryan's amendment? The point made by Deputy Ryan is largely met by the amendment I have tabled, providing a three mile radius. He suggested five miles. That would mean, to my mind, that if an owner had been resident in New York during the past 50 years and had a brother living at home within five miles of the farm owned by the gentleman in New York, the gentleman in New York was safe from the Land Commission. The Deputy may not have that intention but that is my interpretation of what his amendment suggests. I submit that the three mile limit is reasonable. Again, let me emphasise that this general provision is to deal with absentees, people not living on their farms, not living in the immediate vicinity of them, companies owning land down the country, perhaps resident in London, or, indeed, in this city.

They are the people to whom this section is directed. The case has always been made here during discussions on this Bill that certain provisions are directed at the widow or the small working farmer or the excellent farmer who may have an out-farm. We have had provisions in Land Acts since 1923 which give powers to the Land Commission for the acquisition of land for the relief of congestion. We do not use these powers for the purpose of getting after people who are working their land. They are used for the acquisition of land for people who are not making proper use of their lands, who have had them let for a great number of years, for getting after people who have neglected the duties of land ownership.

The powers here are not being sought for the purpose of interfering in any way with the ordinary working farmer of this country. They are being sought to deal more effectively with people who have land but are putting it to bad use, to deal with absenteeism—in fact, to acquire lands, not being properly used, for the relief of congestion. I suggest that in the amendments I have tabled I have met adequately the point made by Deputy Ryan. In any event, his proposition would be unworkable. I, therefore, ask the House to accept the official amendments I have tabled.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has pointed out that this section, with the amendments, is directed against companies. He claims it is unthinkable the provisions here should ever be invoked against individual farmers who are working their lands. On the other hand, as Deputy Ryan points out, what is said in the House is one thing and what is said down the country is another. We must be circumspect to ensure there are not powers incorporated in the Land Acts which can be used for the purpose of threatening people with whom, according to all opinions in the House, nobody has the slightest right to interfere.

I should like to say a word at this stage in regard to companies. The hour is late but I should like to pursue it when the debate is resumed on this subject, because here again there are certain provisions which would impose very great hardship on people who have lived their lives in this country for generations and who would clearly be harassed if this section is passed in its present form. I have great sympathy with the case made by Deputy Ryan.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 11th November, 1964.