Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Dec 1964

Vol. 213 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Land Bill, 1963: Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 9, line 40, after "1942" to insert "or the Registration of Title Act, 1964".

This is on section 12. Amendment No. 5, on section 18, is also relevant, and it reads:

In page 11, line 53, after "1942" to insert "or the Registration of Title Act, 1964".

Here we have what is purely a drafting point. While the Land Bill was in Committee, the Oireachtas passed a new Registration of Title Act, No. 16 of 1964, which is now to be mentioned in the Bill. There is a precisely similar drafting amendment down to section 18 because this new Registration of Title Act was passed while the Bill was in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, between lines 48 and 49, to insert the following new subsection (in section 12):

"( ) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that an agistment, conacre or grazing letting is not a letting, subletting or subdivision within the meaning of this section".

This amendment relates to section 12. Deputy Sweetman and I have tabled it for the purpose of removal of doubt. We already have in the Bill quite a large number of sections which are included merely for the purpose of the removal of doubt. In the course of the debates on the Bill, the Minister made reference to the removal of doubt in regard to sections 8, 9, 10, 19, 22 and 27. I feel that, for the purpose of removal of doubt, it is most desirable that the amendment should be accepted by the Minister and I ask him in all sincerity to do so.

This amendment has been tabled on the understanding that the intention of the main Opposition Party on the Report Stage, and indeed on the Committee Stage of this Bill, is to endeavour to improve it. Our efforts on the Report Stage to improve this Bill are justified by the high degree of commonsense and intelligence in our amendments.

In rural Ireland, there are large numbers of landowners, big and small, who set land on the conacre system. When we are tidying up land legislation and putting through a Land Bill, we should remove doubts from the minds of landowners, particularly in relation to this section, and that is the reason for this amendment.

The Minister has already said that this section and this Land Bill in general have no bearing whatever in regard to the usual conacre lettings —the 11 months lettings, the grazing letting or the aftergrass letting with which we are all so familiar down the country. Many Deputies have given guarantees of this kind to those interested in conacre lettings. Whilst we give them this guarantee, we have the guarantee from the Minister. However, in the event of legal proceedings at a later stage, there is nothing in this Bill which gives security to the person who conacres his land.

This is a very important matter for the many types of people who must conacre their land. It is important for the cottage tenants, the small-holders who must take the land on the conacre system in order to supplement their small holdings. There are many instances of the cottage tenant who already has an accommodation plot from the Land Commission who frequently attends a conacre auction to supplement his accommodation plot with, say, three, five or six acres of tillage, a number of acres for grazing, or perhaps he may turn up at a meadow sale or may successfully purchase aftergrass over the three months period.

Landowners who set their lands on a temporary basis have been given an assurance by the Minister but we want that assurance written into this Bill for the removal of doubt. When the Minister stands up in this House and gives us the assurance that the ordinary conacre lettings are excluded from the terms of this Bill, what harm will it be—since, on numerous occasions, he made reference to the removal of doubt on various sections—to remove all doubt on this section?

In addition to recommendations from the National Farmers Association and other farming organisations, one of the principal recommendations that came to the Minister from the Irish Auctioneers and Estate Agents Association in relation to conacre lettings was that it should be written into this Bill that such lettings are not covered by the relevant section. In order to improve this Bill, the Minister would make a very good start on the Report Stage, if he accepted this amendment.

There are many landowners who, due to financial circumstances, must set their lands annually. It is common knowledge that when a farmer dies, leaving a widow and a young family, the widow usually sets the land for a number of years until such time as her children grow up and are able to manage the farm. The Minister has assured us that the powers of the Land Commission to inspect under section 27, will not be put into effect in such cases but it is only right that that should be written into the Bill. It is a very reasonable request.

We did not table this amendment without giving the matter very serious thought. A good deal of anxiety, worry and misunderstanding exists among landowners whose land must be set on the usual short-term temporary convenience basis. Nobody has a greater knowledge of the conditions and domestic affairs of such people than the local auctioneers or estate agents. That is why the auctioneers, through their organisation, have made this very strong plea to the Minister to have written into the Bill a provision excluding such lettings.

The Minister will probably tell us there is no need to write it into the Bill. My reply to that is that in the event of proceedings being taken in any of our courts, it will be useless for an aggrieved party to stand up and tell the judge that the Minister for Lands had told the Dáil such lettings would be exempted. The learned judge will be concerned only with what is written into the Act, not with what the Minister said. Neither will he be concerned with the statements of Deputies. It will be his job, and rightly so, to deal with the law as it has been written.

All we ask is that the doubt be cleared up, that the matter be made clear for the learned gentlemen on the benches in the event of such cases arising. The Minister should in all fairness, as he did in other sections of this Bill, write into this section that temporary grazing and conacre lettings are exempted from the terms of the section. If he does that, I, for one, will express my appreciation. Even if it does not seem necessary, what harm will it do? This is one section where it seems most desirable to clear up any doubt that exists. The plea we are making is fair and reasonable and the Minister should accept it in a spirit of friendliness and co-operation.

If the Minister does what we ask in this amendment, I can assure him it will be a big step towards fostering co-operation and common understanding in this House. Those who must set their land in conacre or grazing lettings need this guarantee of security. They must be given to understand that such lettings will in no way interfere with their rights to continue to set their lands on the 11-month system. Numerous conacre people throughout the country are extremely worried and this amendment in my name and Deputy Sweetman's is an attempt to allay that anxiety and that fear. I, therefore, make a serious plea to the Minister to accept the amendment which is aimed at improving the section.

I had some kind of faith in Deputy Oliver Flanagan until he came to discuss the auctioneers. Now I submit that if we accept this amendment we shall be defeating the whole purpose of the Land Bill, which is to make land available for the purpose of division. The Minister has already met the point made by Deputy Flanagan and there is no need for the Deputy to make a case for those who set their land. There is now no need for any farmer to set his land either as grazing or conacre. The man who sets his land in that way does so at the expense of the small farmer who so badly needs land. Such a man does nothing, employs no labour.

As I have said, there is no need for this amendment. The Land Bill was introduced for the purpose of providing land for division among small-holders and if this amendment is accepted that purpose will be defeated. People set their land only because they do not want to work it. I do not think the Labour Party will be anxious to support the amendment because such men do not employ any labour. The people who work their land are being and have been catered for by Parliament down the years. I agree with the Minister that you cannot leave the section open as suggested by Deputy Flanagan. I was not surprised to hear that the auctioneers are so susceptible. Of course, when a man is in that position he may lose part of his work in the setting of land. I submit that the Minister must get this Bill through without the amendment.

Having listened to Deputy Fanning, I am afraid I am tempted to ask the Minister a question I had not intended asking. Until Deputy Fanning spoke, I was under the impression the Minister had given a guarantee that this type of letting would not be affected.

It never was.

Deputy Fanning, in my interpretation, suggested it was right that it should be—that anybody who let his land in conacre or grazing should be subject to acquisition by the Land Commission.

In certain conditions.

There were no conditions laid down at all. The Minister will get his opportunity to reply in a moment.

Deputy Flanagan confused him and the people outside.

That is a reasonable case and it often happens, as the Minister knows.

The Minister has stated that for years the principle has been and will continue to be accepted that this type of letting will not be interfered with. If he is prepared to stand over it, we will be satisfied. While it is true that there may be some big farmers who are setting their land and do not want to work it and we believe it is right to take the land off them and give it to others who will work it, it would be most unfair if people who have to set their land because of family circumstances, and until the family are in a position to work it, were interfered with.

There is one other point. Perhaps, I did not understand what Deputy Fanning meant. As far as I know, the small farmer and the landless man take conacre and work it and may make a living from it. There are many in my own constituency who cannot get land and who are able to take conacre and live on it. Naturally, when the owner starts to use the land it is no longer available for that type of man and if the Land Commission take over all the land that becomes available, then the small farmer and the landless man will be left without any means of livelihood at all. The Minister has again assured the House that this type of letting is not to be considered by the Land Commission and, while Ministers may change, a ministerial statement here must hold good in the years to come, no matter who is Minister for Lands.

This is not a question of a ministerial statement; this is a question of law. Since the very earliest times, away back before 1860, prior to the Decies Act, there was this traditional system of conacre lettings and lettings for temporary convenience. Under the Decies Act, under the Gladstone Act and under every single Act passed by this House there was never any question of it being suggested by anybody that conacre lettings were within the Land Acts. On an earlier stage of this Bill I put on the records of this House several judicial decisions going back at least to 1881 in which the different judges in dealing with contentions of this kind held that, where the circumstances showed it was a conacre letting or a letting of temporary convenience, it was completely outside the Land Acts. I do not want to go over all the matters on this particular proposal that I put on the records on Committee Stage. I am not surprised that Deputy Fanning was confused because that was Deputy Flanagan's purpose in putting down this amendment. This amendment was put down for one purpose and one purpose only, to create fear outside this House, to terrorise the people, to terrorise the poor widow into believing that she could not let her land for 11 months in her circumstances because he alleges and tries to create the idea outside the House that conacre lettings and lettings of temporary convenience are controlled under this Bill. That was the sole purpose of the Deputy's previous amendment and of this amendment also and so long as the Deputy thinks he will get people outside to fall for this he will try to create this smokescreen.

This, as I said, is not a question of ministerial assurances or statements. It is a question of the law of the land that has been in existence since the first Land Acts were passed. Indeed, long before the establishment of Dáil Éireann, in every Land Act passed here, including the 1923 Act, it was not thought necessary, for instance, by the then Government to write into it, as Deputy Flanagan said, to remove doubts that conacre lettings were outside that Act. It was not thought necessary in all the Acts from 1923 up to the 1950 Land Act, which was passed by the Deputy's Government, to write in for the removal of doubts that conacre lettings should be specifically excluded from the Land Acts.

The fact is that there is no doubt in this case. There never was a doubt. The only doubt is that created, and deliberately created, by the legal men on the opposite side, although they do not come in and argue it like Deputy Flanagan. They want to create it in the minds of unsuspecting people outside who will believe them. The people who fell for the doubts deliberately created by Deputy Flanagan on this issue have now been reassured. Certainly the recent deputation of the NFA, when the legal position was explained to them, were perfectly satisfied. The legal position is what I have stated it to be and, consequently, I ask the House to reject this amendment.

This section can be looked at from various points of view. It is a rather intricate question. Deputy Tully made a point with which I agree entirely. Deputy Flanagan wants a free for all in so far as land letting is concerned. We can put those people into two categories. There is one type of person who through no fault of his own, through family circumstances, is compelled to set his land. There is another type of person who sets it and earns a very good livelihood by setting it systematically, that is, setting it for cereals, for root crops or for corn. He can continue that year after year and he can prove to the Land Commission that the farm is being used according to the rules of good husbandry.

On the other hand, we have the conacre man who is earning his livelihood and rearing a family by that system of farming and who may be, over the years, paying an average of £20 per acre for that land. Should the Land Commission acquire it you will be depriving that man of his means of livelihood. I may be departing from the section when I say this, but a great many of the people I have in mind may live more than a mile from the estate and may have been taking it for more than 30 years. If the Land Commission acquire it they do not qualify for allotments because of the distance. It is very difficult to know how you can meet the desires of every section, of the conacre people and the people setting the land. The position differs in various counties and our first consideration should be for the uneconomic holder, or, if you like, the landless man who is earning his livelihood and dozens of whom are in my constituency, fully mechanised——

I am afraid that is going outside the amendment.

They are all included in this section.

We are dealing with the amendment, not the section.

To deny the right to set land will on the one hand deprive those people of their livelihood. On the other hand, I do not know how the Land Commission can deal with those who specialise in living upon the sweat and enterprise of the uneconomic holder. It is very hard to meet everybody's wishes.

I do not subscribe to the idea of the Minister that there is any motive behind the putting down of this amendment, other than the sincere intention of avoiding confusion and clearing up all doubt. The expressed opinions of Deputy Tully, Deputy S. Flanagan and Deputy Medlar clearly indicate the necessity for the acceptance of this amendment.

I do not think so.

Deputy Tully referred to the number of people in his constituency who had to take conacre to supplement their incomes in order to get a good standard of living. He said they were working the land well and depended on it for conacre. Deputy Fanning dealt with the person who must, of necessity, set his land. Deputy Medlar said there were a number of people in his constituency who would be worse off if they could not have their conacre lettings. It is a matter of grave necessity that people be facilitated in letting or setting their land on the 11 months system.

This is totally irrelevant.

Deputy Flanagan is not Ceann Comhairle yet. The Chair will tell me when I am not relevant.

Surely the Deputy's argument is totally irrelevant to his own amendment?

In the view of the Chair, Deputy O. J Flanagan is relevant.

I am grateful to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. He is always the best judge of order in this House.

On a point of order, the Deputy's argument here is that a person should be allowed to let his land in conacre or grazing. That is not at all in issue. What is in issue is whether or not such a letting in conacre or grazing is a letting within the meaning of the section.

It is not a matter for the Chair how Deputy O. J. Flanagan argues the point of his amendment. The Deputy is relating his remarks to conacre and grazing lettings and is in order, in the view of the Chair.

I am again grateful to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his protection in this matter. Deputy Seán Flanagan's intervention is for the purpose of creating confusion. As Deputy Medlar said, it is no offence for a person to conacre his land in rotation. The conacring of root and grain crops in rotation is the usual practice of these people, who must, of necessity, resort to temporary conacre lettings. What the Minister says is true: temporary conacre lettings are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. If the Minister is prepared to give the House that guarantee, what harm is there in writing it into the Bill?

Again, the purpose of writing it in is the removal of doubt. There are many smallholders, who, because of family circumstances, must resort to temporary conacre lettings. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to indicate that those people will not come under the cold, dead hand of the Land Commission, particularly in view of the powers the Minister is getting under section 27. I feel Deputy Sweetman and I are justified in asking the House to accept this amendment. Deputy Fanning and Deputy Medlar appear to be concerned about the people who must, of necessity, set their land either in grazing or tillage on the conacre system. These two Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party are both practical farmers, who realise the inconvenience it will be for those people who must set their lands for temporary convenience. In many cases those lands are extremely well worked by the person who takes them on the conacre system.

I want to make it clear I do not in any way subscribe to the idea of Deputy Fanning that the intention of this amendment is to encourage conacre lettings on a large scale. That is not the intention. What we propose to do is to see it written into the law so as to safeguard those people who must resort for the time being to having their lands set in conacre. If there is large-scale letting of land, either for tillage or grazing, and if the owner cannot establish a good case for conacring the lands, I have no doubt the Land Commission have power to examine the merits of the case in which such a farmer is doing so. In 99 cases out of 100, the person who sets his lands on the 11 months system is doing so as a matter of necessity.

In all conacre and temporary convenience lettings, there is a proviso inserted in the conditions of sale that the lands must be well nourished and kept in good heart. For that reason, I cannot see the argument of the two Deputies from the Government Party that the lands will run out and will eventually become neglected, if continued letting is allowed. Under the conacre letting system, the land must be manured and cared for and the crops must be sown on a rotational basis.

With particular reference to sections 8, 9, 10, 19, 22, and 27, the Minister went to great lengths to explain why certain sections were included for the removal of doubt. Here is an amendment submitted by Deputy Sweetman and myself, again, for the removal of doubt, and the Minister is not prepared to consider it favourably.

I would again appeal to the Minister seriously to consider writing this amendment for the removal of doubt into the Bill. I am convinced that it would add considerably to the peace of mind of persons who, for the time being, must resort to temporary conacre lettings of their land until such time as family circumstances improve, for instance, until such time as a widow's family are sufficiently adult to take over the holding and to work it.

There are numerous holdings which at the present time people are compelled to let in conacre. In the case of minors, where the father and mother are dead and the lands are in the hands of a reliable solicitor and auctioneer, the lands are let annually and the proceeds are credited to the minors concerned. There are many cases where such lettings must continue to be made.

When this Bill is enacted, there will be a considerable amount of justifiable fear, having regard to the terms of section 22. In my view, amendment No. 2 is a most desirable amendment designed to remove all doubt from the mind of everybody concerned.

The Minister has indicated that there is an understanding that all such lettings are exempt from the terms of this Bill. I accept the Minister's assurance most sincerely on that but again I would ask the Minister to have that written into the Bill so that his assurance may go further than this House. In the event of legal proceedings as a result of a conacre letting on the 11 months system, the learned judge disposing of the case would be concerned not with what the Minister thought or the personal guarantees which the Minister had given the House, but with what is written into the law. It would be his function to administer that law. It is for that reason I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided : Tá, 42; Níl, 64.

  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Browne, Michael.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Byrne, Patrick.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Connor, Patrick.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan D.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Farrelly, Denis.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Murphy, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Donnell, Thomas G.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
  • O'Keeffe, James.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Ryan, Richie.

Níl

  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Boylan Terence.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Colley, George.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Galvin, Sheila.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Hillery, Patrick.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Leneghan, Joseph R.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Meaney, Con.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty; Níl: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 9, line 59, to delete "one year" and insert "three months".

I suggest to the House that we take amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together.

On section 13?

Yes. These amendments are brought in to meet the wishes of the House and outside bodies as expressed in the discussion on this section on Committee Stage. On Committee Stage, I indicated that I was inclined to accept the argument that the prohibition on dealings for a period of 12 months after the service of notice of inspection was perhaps too severe and that a lesser period might serve the purpose well enough. It seemed to me that although the bulk of cases might be dealt with inside three months, it would be necessary to hold out for a period of up to six months in cases of difficulty or delay.

This matter was also discussed at some length with a deputation which came to me from the Council of the National Farmers Association. On balance I have concluded that there ought to be a normal control period lasting only for three months from the service of the inspection notice. To cope with special difficulties, however, I am satisfied that there should be provision for extension by a further three months, making a total of six months, if required. To avoid delay, the first decision has to be left to the Senior Inspector. The decision to extend the control period can be given to the Lay Commissioners. This is what the amendment does. This is a fair practical compromise. It goes a great deal of the way to meet the opposing views expressed on this section.

The effect of these two amendments is that, normally, the freezing period will be three months but in cases of special difficulty the Lay Commissioners may issue a notice controlling or freezing the land for a further period of three months, making in all a period of six months.

Since this power is to be exercised only by the Commissioners, I want to inquire whether the Land Commission may extend the period for one month or whether it must be extended for the full three months period.

No. During the first three months, the notice may be signed by the divisional inspector but if the three months period is not enough, the Lay Commissioners may give a further extension up to three months, if necessary.

It may be one month or two months?

Does it mean that if the inquiry is completed in the fourth or fifth month, that is the end of it? It is not tied down for the second period of three months?

The Minister has gone a long way to meet the requirements of the House in this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, line 62, after "Land Commission" to insert the following:

"; provided, however, that the Lay Commissioners may by order (which shall be an excepted matter for the purposes of section 12 of the Land Act, 1950) extend the said period by a further three months and also that notice of the said order shall be served by the Land Commission in the prescribed manner".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, line 53, after "1942" to insert "or the Registration of Title Act, 1964".

That was discussed with amendment No. 1.

It is purely a drafting point similar to one which arose on section 12.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 12, line 2, to delete "twenty years" and insert "twelve years", and in line 3, to delete "twenty years" and insert "twelve years".

This deals with the point on which, I think, there should be no disagreement. Several Deputies thought that sporting rights should be regarded as abandoned if they were not exercised for 12 years. This suggestion accords rather well with certain provisions in the recent Registration of Titles Act which was passed by the House this year and I am adopting the new period rather than adhering to the original period of 20 years as proposed. That would conform to the new statutory period under the Registration of Titles Act. The view had been expressed in this House and by some outside bodies that 20 years was too long. I think the 12 year period should be accepted to meet the wishes of the House.

This amendment is reasonably good and certainly gives the farmer complete ownership of his holding if it were not for the provisions of section 27 that we shall be dealing with later. We accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 14, line 39, after "determination" to insert: "unless the Land Commission shall, in the opinion of the Minister, unreasonably have failed to make such determination and".

Deputy Flanagan has asked me to move the amendment reserving his right to intervene in the discussion himself at a later stage. We are now on the Report Stage of the Bill and, therefore, confined to one statement in explanation of any amendment we submit. On the Second Stage and on the Committee Stage we directed the attention of the House to the provisions of section 27 to which we now submit this amendment.

I think it right to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that we submitted the case we had to make in this regard to a wider tribunal, a cross-section of our people, in the Parliamentary by-election and I do not think the Minister himself will deny, nor will any of his colleagues attempt to deny, that they eagerly accepted that challenge in the country, arguing their case with all the emphasis and influence they were in a position to bring to bear and that the verdict in East Galway went against them. I want to make this clear: the amendment we now submit is not the amendment that we shall ultimately make in this law. I want to fix the House and the country with notice that as soon as we take over Government we shall repeal section 27 of this Land Bill.

That will be after Doomsday.

May I point out that we are on amendment No. 7, not section 27.

Every grabber in the country will deplore this undertaking I now give the Oireachtas and the people. Those who understand what love of the land means will welcome it. The Minister, who, I feel, finds discussion on any part of this section uncomfortable, intervenes to call the attention of the Ceann Comhairle to the fact that we are discussing the amendment. I want to explain why we shall not divide on this amendment. It is because we think it is a miserable thing, not even second best, but second worst. The worst proposal is that of the Minister. This is merely a final effort in some measure to mitigate the fundamental evil that underlies the powers the Minister claims in section 27.

I do not know how many Deputies read the Irish Times. Those who bear public responsibility are obliged to do all sorts of chores, agreeable and otherwise. Without describing it as being in either category, I can say that in the course of public duty I read, with other newspapers, the Irish Times. I want to draw to the very special attention of Deputies a picture that appeared in the Irish Times on December 8th. When one first looks at it——

I have given the Deputy a good deal of latitude. He has not really said anything about the amendment.

I am discussing evicted tenants.

I should like the relevance of what the Deputy is saying to emerge.

That is a pretty strict restriction but the thesis of my case is that an evicted tenant is a great tragedy. We sought to put an end to the power of eviction and section 27 seeks to give the initiative of taking steps towards that to the Minister of Lands for the time being. Our amendment seeks to place a restriction on that power so that he shall not be allowed to use it without being in a position to satisfy the High Court that there has been delinquency on the part of the Land Commission. Is not this a relevant submission?

On a point of order, my submission is that discussion of the whole of section 27 is completely irrelevant on this amendment. We are here discussing a specific amendment tabled by Deputy Flanagan which reads:

In page 14, line 39, after "determination" to insert:

"unless the Land Commission shall, in the opinion of the Minister, unreasonably have failed to make such determination and".

That is what is before the House and Deputy Dillon wishes to discuss all the provisions of section 27 on this amendment.

I do not know what Deputy Dillon proposes to do. That is what I am anxious to find out in respect of this amendment.

I propose to raise the issue of eviction and I want to explain that we have sought to forbid the political head of the Department of Lands to initiate the process of acquisiion by directing an inspection for the purpose of acquisition. In that we failed to do this on the Committee Stage we have now introduced an amendment which you, Sir, ruled to be in order, strictly to delimit the powers conferred upon him by section 27 of the Bill. I want to notify the House that when the time of decision comes, we will not divide because we will not, by implication, say that this power, subject to any limitation, is a power the Minister for Lands should have. I call in evidence to support my case the fact that we put this matter in issue in an election contested in the country and that the people, the sort of people to whom this applies——

The Deputy forgot the football, did he?

——made it as clear as crystal that they rejected the Minister's view and accepted ours. Now I want to ask myself a question which will help to answer the interruption by the Deputy who has just spoken.

The Deputy can, of course.

If the Deputy had looked at the picture to which I have referred, he would see there what appeared today to be a reference to ancient history. But it was not. It was the reproduction of a contemporary portrait of what was passing in Ireland in 1880. It represented a man and his wife, and two children, evicted, with nowhere to go, and the case I want to make to the House is that it was a reproduction of that picture on every road in Ireland that drove our people into the Land War. For what end? To take irrevocably from everybody, from every individual who could have an interest, the power to evict a man's neighbour.

We found ourselves in the position that we had not only a policy of obligation to protect the security of tenure of those who got their living on the land but we had also the obligation of ending the system under which it was possible for an individual with an interest to put a tenant farmer on the side of the road. Now that dilemma of serving the major purpose of defending security of tenure, while achieving contemporaneously the end of landlordism in Ireland, we resolved by the creation of the Land Commission.

Mark you, that is a solution which is the envy of the world. I have been asked in Paris; I have been asked in Bonn; I have been asked in Brussels; and I have been asked in Washington: how did we solve the problem of land tenure? How did we preserve the sense of security of the people on the land, while, at the same time, claiming in one night, as we did in the Hogan Land Act of 1923, to change the ownership of practically all the untenanted land of Ireland? I told them that we had the grabbers to deal with, that we had all the rotten elements in our society to deal with, but that we devised a plan which took the grabber by the throat and which took the landlord by the throat, but preserved the security of tenure of the tenant on the land.

How did we do it? We created a new instrument of executive responsibility, an instrument that had never been devised before, and we invested its members with a security of tenure analogous to that we confer on a judge. Why? Because we were resolved that no interested party would ever again have the power to evict a farmer in this country. But there are many kinds of interests in a free democracy, such as ours, to which one must have regard if one is planning in so vital a matter as fixity of tenure on the land. There was the interest of the landlord in his land. There was the interest of the agent in the docility of the tenant. There was the interest of the bailiff who preferred to have a subservient and terror-stricken tenant to deal with rather than an independent man. We struck from the hands of all these interested parties the right to put anyone on the side of the road. There was the interest of the grabber, always lurking like a hyena on the heels of the tiger of landlordism, hoping to pick up the scraps.

We erected, when we took over responsibility for all the land of Ireland, a body that would be free of the new interest, because there did emerge a new interest. I know that interest, the interest of the unscrupulous politician who goes down the country and says: "My vote is worth its weight in gold. There is land for division and I am going to see it is going to be taken from Patrick Costello and divided among the people who keep my vote worth its weight in gold." I have had my own constituents come to me and ask me to come down to a meeting to settle the distribution of an estate in County Monaghan. I have been told that my political rivals in Monaghan have held their meeting. I have told my supporters, with a clear conscience, that "I have no more power to control the distribution of land than has the Emperor of China. The distribution of that land, the decision whether it will be acquired or not, the decision whether it will be examined for acquisition or not, lies in the hands of the Land Commission and, even though I am now Minister for Agriculture, there is not a Land Commissioner sitting in the Land Commission who is not entitled to tell me to get out of his room and, even if I were moved to vengeance against him, I am as powerless to touch him as I would be to touch the Chief Justice." But there are a great many simple people who believe the reverse, and I do not deny that I came in for harsh criticism on that from my own supporters; I would not do as much for them as those contending with me were prepared to do for their supporters. In the long run, I believe it is best to tell the truth.

I want to ask the House this question now. If this section passes without the amendment we now propose, is there any Fianna Fáil Deputy who can with a clear conscience say to his supporters: "I am not in a position to influence the decision as to whether your neighbour's land is to be inspected for acquisition." I want to say that unless this detestable power, vested in the Minister by section 27, is at least this far diminished—we are sitting at present in a House with a minority Government, and there is not a single day of our sitting in which this Government may not depend for its survival on one vote; every camp follower they have may be depending for his living on one vote—it becomes possible for any camp follower or any member of the Fianna Fáil Party to find himself in his constituency faced by a constituent who says to him: "We think that man's land should be inspected for acquisition. We do not care what you think. We will judge the weight you carry in our Party by whether that land is in fact inspected, because if you are as big a man as you let on to be, you ought to be able to go to the Minister's office and tell him you demand that the farm shall be inspected for the purpose of acquisition, whatever the ultimate decision of the Land Commissioners may be."

I do not have to make any apology to the Ceann Comhairle personally, or to most members of the House who understand what life in rural Ireland means, but there may be people who feel that the history behind me, my long association with this problem, influences my mind, and there may be people who feel that the picture I have painted arouses some atavistic memories that are not characteristic of the generations of people who people the land today. They are wrong. The sentiments I am expressing now are not peculiar to me, and they are not peculiar to the unsophisticated people living on the small holdings.

I want to bring in evidence the testimony of some of the most experienced ex-Land Commissioners in this country. I want to emphasise again that I have not felt it proper or seemly even to address an inquiry to any existing members of the Land Commission, but I have deemed it to be my duty to discuss this and cognate matters with many men who have served the Land Commission and the old Congested Districts Board in the past, with high distinction. I want to call to the attention of the House as clearly as I can, by reference to this copious note I hold in my hand, the virtually unanimous view of every Commissioner who served the Land Commission in the past.

Again, on a point of order, Sir, Deputy Dillon is repeating the exact speech he made on other sections of this Bill on Committee Stage. What he now proposes to quote might be relevant on amendment No. 9 when we come to it, but I submit that it is completely irrelevant to the amendment before this House. Let me again, after all this Balaclava, bring the House back——

Is this a point of order?

——to the amendment before the House which seeks to insert: "unless the Land Commission shall, in the opinion of the Minister, unreasonably have failed to make such determination and". The effect of that amendment would be that the Minister could only order or ask for an inspection where the Land Commission had failed to do so. What Deputy Dillon is about to quote may be relevant to amendment No. 9 when we come to it, but, in my submission, it is completely irrelevant to the amendment now under discussion.

It is a little daring of the Minister to anticipate what I am going to quote.

We have heard it before.

Yes, yes, yes, and you will hear me again.

I should like to hear the Ceann Comhairle on its relevance.

I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will not rule on something I am about to say. Yes, yes, yes. That is what you all said when we started this argument three weeks ago in the presence of the people: "We have heard him before", and three successive weekends I went down to tell the same story——

This is relevant, too?

We are fighting for a very fundamental principle, that the Minister for Lands for the time being shall not direct an inspection of any man's land so long as the Land Commission are there functioning as they should function. The Minister made the case at an earlier stage, and indeed at every stage of the Bill, that section 27 is designed for no other purpose than to avoid delay.

Amendment No. 7.

Yes. The case made by the Minister is that the only purpose in transferring this reserved power from the Land Commission to himself is to avoid delay. Our case has consistently been that they defend the proposition on the grounds of the merest expediency, and we attack it on grounds which we are sure go to the heart of a most fundamental principle in which we most passionately believe.

I want to offer to the House the testimony of the experienced men who served the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board in regard to this narrow issue of expedition in the handling of matters of this kind. I challenge it on principle, and I shall never yield on principle. The Minister defends it on the grounds of expedition. I will ask him to yield on a matter which is for him one of expedition and one of principle to me. I join with him on this amendment on the issue of expedition and I call in evidence the combined wisdom of those whom I have consulted, who have detailed knowledge of the working of the Land Commission. My best recollection of the substance of their advice is this: Every stage in the proceedings to acquire a man's land from him from beginning to end should be outside any suggestion that the Minister or the staff under him has had any hand in it. Any Ministerial act in this matter could cause panic in the country. Once the Irish Land Commission inspector is seen on a man's land, there is fear and trembling and undoubted anxiety in that man's mind until the position is finalised.

On a point of order, will the Deputy please tell us what he is quoting from?

It is the unanimous opinion of every experienced ex-Commissioner of the Land Commission.

Why be so coy about this? Who are these experienced men whom the Deputy is quoting?

They are ex-members of the Irish Land Commission.

Have they names? Will the Deputy please tell us who they are?

No. If the Minister is curious enough, he can go and ask them. Let him make the test.

Will the Deputy tell us whom he is quoting?

Let the Minister put this proposal to any ex-Commissioner. Let him put this proposal to any ex-Commissioner of the Land Commission.

Who are they? Whom is the Deputy quoting?

The Minister can find out.

I am asking the Deputy, under the procedure of this House, to give the source of his quotation.

Let the Minister go and ask any single one of them. There is my challenge to the Minister. If it is done under Ministerial control and in a wholesale way, nothing can stop the conviction that it was the work of the local Government TD. The excuse for him is to stop the delay in the acquisition procedure.

When somebody is quoting something, it is the usual practice that the source of the quotation has to be given to the House.

It is only when it is an official document that it may have to be given to the House.

In my experience in the House, it has always been the case that the source of a quotation has to be given. I submit it is a rule of order of this House when a Deputy quotes from a document, he must give the source of the quotation.

Surely this is only a private document.

The excuse for it is to stop delay in the acquisition procedure, the inference being that such delay is caused by red tape in the Commissioner's office. This is a very ancient wheeze. The truth is that the one place there is, or has been, no delay is in the Commissioner's office, the reason being that many years ago when that complaint was first made the Commissioner determined to clear the decks as speedily as possible and to keep them cleared. There is some delay here and there and that is due to the inadequate number of outdoor inspectors. The remedy, and it is one we would help the Minister in, is to appoint more outdoor inspectors and to tighten up the outdoor fabric of the Land Commission by appointing, as there used to be, a few senior inspectors at headquarters to make customary visits to areas where the work is falling into arrears, to find out locally what is wrong and push it along. If this Ministerial power of inspecting land is passed in its present form it will not make, in five years or in ten years, the slightest improvement or difference in the real cause of such delay as may exist.

This is not sentiment; this is not illusion. This is my own intimate knowledge having spent the greater part of 40 years living amongst these people, my people. I cannot deny that there may be in this a certain atavistic sentiment. I know my great grandfather was an evicted tenant. That feeling was passed on from one generation in my family to another. I can remember, as a child, one particular surname in that area in which I lived. It was anathema to me and it was not until I was in my 30s that I knew the reason for this. That name was never mentioned in my house. An old man told me that that man's family had grabbed my great grandfather's land. His association with that act had long been forgotten but the family was remembered as somebody we despised. I had forgotten why we despised them but they were grabbers. I remember a field near home on which I never walked because it was grabber's land. It all came from this deep-rooted sentiment. The man who lived and got his living on the land should be independent and should be free. There is not a historian in this country who will not tell you that the whole struggle for the national freedom of this country was founded on victory over the landlord. Every rebellion failed and every effort that this country made for freedom for seven centuries collapsed until we had established the people secure in their ownership of the land.

There were good landlords in Ireland and let us not forget that. The folly of our present situation is that we seek to confuse this position on the ground that the Minister for Lands is a good man. If that defence were valid we would never have fought for the land code. I knew landlords who reduced themselves to penury for that. I knew landlords who gave away everything they had and wound up poorer than the tenants on their own land. It is hard to believe but that is so. They mortgaged their estates to feed the hungry amongst their own tenants. I knew the agony of mind that it caused many leaders of the Land League that these people should be assailed. I know the agonising judgment they made that the system was capable of such abuses. It had to give good and bad. I make for the moment no individual indictment of this Minister for Lands. I say in respect of any Minister for Lands, to whatever party he belongs and whenever he may come, no Minister for Lands should have the power in section 27, and if he had, and for the time being, since it is Committee Stage of this Bill he has got that power, then we must hedge it around to restore the situation to the limit of our ability.

I take the Minister at his word. He says: "All I want is expedition; all I want is to be sure that if the red tape of the Land Commission holds up acquisition, I have power under this amendment, and that is all it says". Because it says no more than that, I despise this amendment. It is no permanent or satisfactory solution. I pledge this Party unreservedly to wipe this section off the board. It is not in my power to meet the Minister on his own ground and say to him: "Very well; I still retain my point of view that here is involved a matter of fundamental principle; you seek simply greater expedition; very well, take it on that basis; all I ask you now to say is that before you use this power, you will have to show that the process of land acquisition for the relief of congestion, or other purposes of the Irish Land Commission, is being hindered by delay in the offices of the Irish Land Commission". Once you have determined that and placed it on record where it can be challenged, an aggrieved party can go to the land judge and say: "There has been no delay; this is a capricious act on the part of the Minister for Lands" and the judge on hearing the evidence may say: "No, I hold the Minister for Lands is entitled to plead in this particular case that there was undue delay and, therefore, he had freedom, despite the amendment, to act under the powers conferred on him under section 27".

Is there any reasonable Deputy here, who accepts the Minister's case holus-bolus, who could have the slightest hesitation in accepting our amendment? I ask any honest Deputy: if the Minister is irrevocably opposed to that amendment, what other explanation is available than that he fears impartial arbitration on the simple question? So his decision to direct inspection for acquisition is the capricious decision of a hardpressed politician, or was it the prudent course of administrative delay on the part of the Irish Land Commissioners in the acquisition of land for the essential purposes described in the Land Act. I am certain that the purposes behind this section are wrong and bad.

I think it is manifest to the House that the angry rejection of our amendment by the Minister is in itself evidence that my worst suspicions are proved true. I am as convinced as that I am standing here that there are Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party who are as much opposed to section 27 as I am. There does come for all of us a moment of truth. I am a Party man and I believe in political Parties and am quite prepared to assume that members of the Fianna Fáil Party who shared my doubts and apprehensions regarding section 27, hearing the Minister say: "No other purpose is being served by this section but expedition" believed him and said: "Well, doubts that were stirring in our minds are illfounded and the Minister is right."

Here is an amendment which gives him the power to direct inspection for acquisition if there is undue delay. Here is an amendment which exactly reproduces what the Minister says he wants the section for. Here is an amendment moved by a Party that assure the Minister and the Government that this is a matter about which they feel most deeply, sufficiently deeply to take the risk of going into one of the most congested areas in Ireland and fighting an election on this very issue, leaving themselves open to the charge that was widely made that the Fine Gael Party were opposed to the acquisition of land for the relief of congestion. I never feared people would believe that, but we took the risk. If we felt so deeply about it and if we offer the Minister now a means of retaining this detestable power, subject to this moderate limitation, I ask Fianna Fáil Deputies who have had doubts, are their doubts revived? Why does he refuse this provision? If it is only to remove the danger of expedition, he has that power still with this amendment. What other explanation can there be if this amendment is rejected but that he never wants it put to the test?

The Minister in regard to certain other amendments has found a ready understanding on this side of the House. Do not let us forget that since this Bill came before us it has been subject to 48 or 49 Ministerial amendments. Let Deputies ask themselves why, if nothing more is here involved than a mere trifling administration problem, we here, the principal Opposition in Dáil Éireann, should concern ourselves about it to the extent we have? Why should Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party, or any Party, who have heard the consensus of opinion of every retired Land Commissioner in this country doubt that there must be some substance in the case we make?

We persuaded a number of supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party in the recent by-election to share our view by their secret vote. It takes more courage, I admit, to stand up as the culprit and perhaps I am unduly optimistic. We hope that the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who share our views may have the moral courage to do that now. It would be a stimulant to the public life of Ireland if there were found a few of them who would say of this proposal on the Land Bill what many of their colleagues have been bold enough to say about the Succession Bill: "It is so bad that we could not vote for it", and the Bill dropped dead.

If three or four Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party who know that we are right in this regard would take example by their braver colleagues who spoke and were prepared to act in regard to the Succession Bill, we could get this amendment inserted in the Land Bill. It would be a vast improvement on a loathsome proposal but it would provide some reassurance for those of us who hate this mortal blow to fixity of tenure in Ireland and it would show that on all sides of the House there are still men and women who understand what their fathers and grandfathers meant when they gave their lives and their homes in the defence of free sale, fair rent and, above all, fixity of tenure.

Deputy Dillon has evoked a great deal of emotion in the long speech he has made on this amendment. As well as evoking the history of his family, he has appealed to this side of the House to show moral courage with regard to this section. I, also, am the great-grandson of a tenant who was evicted from a farm in South Galway. Unfortunately, my family had rather less fortune than the last speaker's in subsequent years and suffered rather more brutally in the process and those who eventually struggled back on to the land did so in poor and wretched circumstances.

I, no less than Deputy Dillon, understand the love of people for the soil. I, no less than Deputy Dillon, have reason so to understand. But what seems to be forgotten here, and was certainly forgotten by the Fine Gael Party in their by-election campaign in Galway—Deputy Dillon is right, without any doubt—is that Deputy Dillon and his supporters persuaded many hundreds of people who had previously voted for Fianna Fáil to vote against them in the secrecy of the ballot; that we were using the most pestilential instrument in the history of political blackmail in Ireland; that we were land grabbers; that we were bringing Ireland back one hundred years to the time when the farmer no longer had security of tenure—as if the farmer is any longer a tenant in Ireland, for he is not; as if fair rent had anything to do with the Ireland of to-day, for it has not——

He will be a tenant.

I let the Deputy speak for three-quarters of a hour without interruption: let me speak now. I listened to every word he uttered. Let me tell Deputy Dillon that it is not once but many a time that I have shown in this House that I am no moral coward. I would not be afraid, if I thought the Deputy and his Party were right, to stand up against my own: I was not afraid to do so before. I shall not ever be afraid to do what I know to be right.

I accuse the Fine Gael Party in this House, through all Stages of this Bill and in East Galway throughout the by-election recently past, of using the worst form of political blackmail to try to badger people into the belief —and Deputy Dillon dragged the Succession Bill into this as well— that we were trying to take the land of Ireland from the owners of Ireland and that we were coming like moonlighters in the dark to emulate the land grabbers of one hundred years ago. I do not accept that this is so and I will repeat what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, is maith an scéalaí an aimsir, time will tell.

I know what happens in County Mayo. I know what has happened and it has happened now in the county of Galway. The day that some Minister exercises this power in any of the ways suggested by Fine Gael to be an abuse, I shall no longer have anything to do with the Minister or the further exercise of that power. Every day of the week, there are advertisements in every paper in the west of Ireland of farms for sale by private treaty or by auction. There is congestion in the area. Everybody knows that there is congestion there when there are people living in squalid rural slums. They are not too far away from that many of us who reside in the west of Ireland. These people come to the local county councillor or the local Deputy and ask him to get in touch with the Land Commission. Months pass by and nothing happens. The next thing is that the auction takes place. The land is sold and these poor people are left there to fester on.

One would imagine from the discussions that have been held here and from the emotional speeches that we have heard that the Land Commission in its entirety was being abolished by Section 27; that, when the little power that is being given by this section is being used, the farmer will no longer have any right of appeal, that he will not have the Land Court to go to; that these Commissioners, whose independence of the Minister has been so eloquently described by Deputy Dillon, will no longer be sitting up in Merrion Street or down in Castlebar—but they will. If the owner exercises his right of objection, and it is valid and if, by any chance, the Minister's machinery were to operate where it should not, the Land Commissioners, whose judicial capacity is not interfered with, will come along and say: "Oh, no, this man's land cannot be acquired whether for relief of congestion or otherwise". The Deputy painted a picture earlier of himself as a person who always tells the truth and of the menial Fianna Fáil TD who pretends he is a divider of land on the hearthstone. Indeed neither Deputy Dillon nor anybody else in this House has a monopoly of the desire to tell the truth and nobody has the right to point to anybody in Fianna Fáil, or Labour, or in Fine Gael and say he is the sort of person who pretends he can divide land. Anybody who does that is dishonest; anybody who pretends to his constituents that he has any power over the Land Commission in the divison of land is not telling the truth. I wonder would Deputy Dillon and Deputy O. J. Flanagan have the courtesy not to carry on a conversation? I do not propose to continue until they cease.

Deputy Donegan rose.

May I resume my speech later on?

No, the Deputy may speak only once on Report Stage.

I said I was not prepared to continue until the gentlemen on the far side ceased talking.

I assure the Deputy we did not intend to disturb him.

Certainly I will give way.

We were merely restraining ourselves from interrupting.

It was a hard job.

I always pride myself on having some good manners. I do not interrupt Deputies, and if their idea of good manners is to carry on a conversation among themselves——

We have given way——

——and expressed our regret that we disturbed the Deputy.

Or upset him.

I have never suggested to anybody that I have any power over the division of land and this section when it is passed will not alter that position in the slightest. It is being suggested that as a result of this Bill, if it is enacted, members of the reigning Government Party supporting the Minister will be able in future to promise land to their supporters, in return for their votes at election time. It is a poor suggestion, it is also an illogical one because it presupposes again that the structure of the Land Commission in regard to the procedure on acquisition is going to be changed. When the previous speaker mentioned the Minister using the power of inspection and acquisition, he was speaking about something which is not in the section and is not referred to either in the amendment.

May I ask the Deputy to give way to me? I can assure him I never said that. I emphasised that the only power covered by section 27 is the power to direct inspection for the purpose of acquisition. I never said that the Minister sought power to determine land acquisition.

I accept that. I was reading from notes which may have been taken down too quickly. However, it is important to emphasise and to re-emphasise, for the benefit of the people who have been previously misled by Fine Gael propaganda, that the acquisition procedure of the Land Commission remains the same, thereby protecting the security of the farmer and preserving it in so far as it exists now. Long before today and ever since the first Land Commission was set in operation, there was a de facto limit to the security of every farm in the State. There was the limit imposed by the obligations under these statutes from time to time which gave the Land Commission power to acquire land for the relief of congestion and to acquire land elsewhere under slightly less stringent circumstances. But these powers are not new and these powers are not increased, so far as the acquisition procedure is concerned, in any way and will not be by the enactment of section 27. Therefore the security of the farmer will be just as safe in the hands of the Land Commission after as before the passing of this section.

The truth is and the plain fact is that over the years the Land Commission machinery, as it is called, has been creaking and groaning along without ballbearings and without oil and failing in its attempt to cure the dismal situation that exists in several parts of Donegal, Galway, Mayo, Clare and Kerry. People in those areas have been crying out and demanding for years that something be done to strengthen the hands of the Land Commission to acquire land, to expedite the division of land and to see that every person has a fair and reasonable chance, the tools with which to make an economic living for his wife and family. As I said before, and said on various platforms in Galway—and I am prepared to accept that the verdict so far as this section is concerned did go against us —I am prepared to abide by the verdict of time and prepared to abide by the verdict and the experience of the working of this section and when the people realise that they were hoodwinked in 1964, they will learn not to believe some of the wild and strange prophecies that they heard at that time.

I simply want to point out that we in the Labour Party have made it quite clear when this Bill was going through the other Stages that while we oppose the Bill in its entirety and have voted against various sections and will, le cúnamh Dé, vote against it on the final Stage, we do not oppose section 27. It is, in our opinion, the section which makes it possible to put, as it was described earlier, some teeth into the Bill.

Teeth is the word. The position up to now has been that if the Land Commission were notified that a farm was not being used properly and were requested to inspect it, by the time they got around to doing that, the land, in nine cases out of ten, had passed out of the hands of the person who was misusing it and, over the past few years, particularly, into the hands of foreigners. We believe this section will prevent that from happening in future and since the Minister has reduced from 12 months to three months the period during which the land can be freezed, there does not appear to be any objection to the section. As I have already said, we will vote against the Bill on its final Stages but not because of this section on which we are prepared to support the Government because we believe it is a very necessary one. As far as the amendment is concerned, since we agree with the section we cannot agree that the amendment will improve it or meet our point of view and for that reason we are prepared to support the Government if it comes to a division on the section.

Deputy Flanagan says the acquisition procedure remains the same.

Deputy Seán Flanagan.

Thank you. As far as the letter of the law is concerned, so it does. We must remember, however, that the Minister has taken power to delegate to an official of his Department the right to inspect land. Deputy Tully spoke of a freezing period. In my recollection, he is incorrect. The freezing period is six months, reduced from 12 months.

It has been reduced to three months, with provision for a further three months, in difficulties.

The Minister delegates to an official of his Department the right to inspect land and the land, having been inspected, is now frozen for three months. During that period acquisition proceedings can be started. The Minister's Secretary—the Secretary of the Department, that is—will be a Lay Commissioner for the first time. All this adds up to the introduction of politics, through officials, into the working of the Land Commission.

Whether a person's land was taken from him or not, we always believed such a decision should be left in the hands of someone with the status of a judge. No matter in how small a way—in our view, it is not a small way —there is the introduction of politics. Since the Bill was introduced, I have had more people coming to me with reference to the various matters relative to the Land Commission than ever before.

It is all very well for Deputy Seán Flanagan to say he never implied he had the right, the power, or any influence in the giving of land or in its acquisition. Nevertheless, the people who live down the long lanes believe there is such influence, that the local politician has it. If the local politician is a member of the Government Party, he can go to the Minister and, at the Minister's bidding, the Lay Commissioner must consider this and, over a period of three months, decide whether to proceed with acquisition. It was the Deputy who instituted the inspection when he went to his own Minister and made representations to have the land inspected.

In the first instance, the Minister sought to freeze land for 12 months. Now, as a result of pressure, he has reduced it to three months. I admit I was a little out of date in believing it had been reduced only to six months. Deputy Seán Flanagan said that Deputies were impotent in this respect, that when people came to the local Deputy the land had already been advertised in the local papers, therefore bringing the notice of the Land Commission to the fact that it was to be sold. Deputy Seán Flanagan put forward an extraordinary line of thought, when you consider the simplicity and the dignity of those people.

He said they are left to fester on, a phrase which gives me the greatest offence. Whatever the offence of the phrase, however, the position is that while Deputy Seán Flanagan says Deputies are left impotent in this matter, that they have no power, Deputy Tully has just said that the Labour Party had decided to support this section, to vote for it, because it is the section that puts the teeth into the Bill. Deputy Dillon has told the House it affects fixity of tenure. Are they the teeth Deputy Tully talks about and Deputy Seán Flanagan talks about? The latter Deputy said the local politician was impotent, could do nothing and that the people were left to fester on. Does he believe this section will put Deputy Tully's teeth into the Bill?

Not my teeth. I want them.

The Deputy referred to teeth. Our view is that whether a man's property should be taken from him should be the decision of a judge, of a person in a position apart from politics, a person given a salary above that which he needs, a man of impartial and fair mind. There is a view in this House that the Land Commission only move in cases of large estates which have not been employing people. I want to say now that I went with the parish priest to the Land Commission Court to object to the acquisition of 19 acres from a widow who could not work it because of her circumstances, because the nephew who is now working the land was not available at that time. She wanted the land to give her a living and later to pass on to her nephew. The parish priest and the local Deputy had to go to the court to object. The Commission had decided that the land was needed for distribution in the district.

Our defence was successful for that widow, but this lady might easily have had her land taken from her if there had not been this objection, fortified by facts and figures. What will the position be if it is possible for another Deputy, this time on the Government side, to go to the Minister and ask him to instruct an official to go and inspect a farm? There is to be a period of three months during which the Lay Commissioners can make a case. One thing a farmer, whether large or small, cherishes beyond all else is the right to own his land. This right can be seriously interfered with by this section, which we seek to amend.

It cuts across another section under which land, three miles away from a man's home farm, can be acquired even though the farmer is working it in a proper manner. If a small farmer has succeeded in putting himself in a position to buy an outfarm to which he can send his dry stock, what is the position to be if the local Fianna Fáil Deputy can have such land frozen for three months? During that period the value of those lands, even if the Land Commission decide to do nothing, will have deteriorated by at least 50 per cent.

We on this side of the House do not want power of that sort. As Deputy Dillon has said, we are forsworn that our first act on taking Government, when we have thrown you out—it will not be so long now—will be to remove this section from the Bill. It will be months, not years.

The Deputy did not make it an issue in East Galway.

You had the football in Roscommon.

Deputy Seán Flanagan lets the cat out of the bag when he says "The day the Minister exercises this power in the way of abuse, I will vote against him." Does that not prove the Minister can exercise this power in the way of abuse?

We do not think the Minister is such a man.

We say no man, no matter on which side he sits, no matter how virtuous he is, should have that power. Fianna Fáil say there is no abuse of this power but two Deputies sitting behind the Minister say they do not think the Minister is that sort of man, that even though he has the power he will not abuse it. That means that Deputy Seán Flanagan and Deputy Fanning sincerely believe there is a power in this section which can be used in the way of abuse. That is the phrase Deputy Seán Flanagan used—"in the way of abuse." That is what Deputy Dillon's forefathers and Deputy Seán Flanagan's forefathers and the forefathers of many other people on both sides of the House were evicted for.

More than Deputy Dillon's people fought in the Land League.

I included in my statement Deputy Seán Flanagan, who made it clear that, just as Deputy Dillon's great grandfather was evicted, so was his. We accept that. Deputy Seán Flanagan even indicated that his family had suffered more. But they all suffered to preserve fixity of tenure. Now we have a situation in which the Minister says there is nothing in this which could lead to abuse. Deputy Tully for the Labour Party says this section is the teeth of the Bill. Deputy Seán Flanagan let the cat out of the bag by saying that, if the Minister used this section in the way of abuse, he would vote against it as he had done before. Deputy Fanning says they do not believe the Minister is a man who will use this in the way of abuse.

So you believe it?

I am not interested in the virtue, or lack of it, of the present Minister or any Minister. I am interested in the fact that no Minister, however virtuous, should have that power. When we assume office, as we will, our first duty will be to remove this section entirely from the Bill.

Deputy Seán Flanagan also said the farmer was no longer a tenant. I presume what he meant was that the farmer owned his own land, that he had the right to live on it and enjoy it in perpetuity. If the Minister persists in putting this section through, the farmer may not be defined as a tenant but he will have all the indignities of a tenant. The local Fianna Fáil Deputy—as long as they stay over there—can go to his Minister. His Minister can instruct an official who can inspect the land and it can be frozen for three months. During those three months the Minister can instruct the Secretary of his Department, whom he is now making a Lay Commissioner, to see to it that the Lay Commissioners consider this case. In other words, there is no man owning land in Ireland whose land cannot be considered for acquisition by the Lay Commissioners.

In any representations to the Land Commission, I always made my position perfectly clear. If anybody wanted to apply for land and came to me, I transmitted the information. But I did not transmit information about the acquisition of any particular person's land, unless that person wished it to be done. Perhaps I was softhearted about it, but I do not think it fair for any man to walk up to a Deputy and ask to have his neighbour's land divided or to feel that Deputy has the right—no matter to which Party he belonged—to have that land inspected and frozen for three months.

I want to talk about the position in relation to the freezing of land. All rural Deputies have a good knowledge of how land is bought and sold in Ireland. Land sales are a matter for discussion in every country parish: the price land makes, the bids and all the rest. Deputies know what happens. The man seeking a parcel of land, who knows that 12 months previously the Land Commission had frozen that land for three months, will not be too keen to bid as he would otherwise, because he would be afraid that, having bought the land, he would have to face the Land Commission. Up to this the decision to acquire a man's land was that of a person of the stature of a circuit court judge, a person who was instructed to have all that impartiality and who had been placed, as far as income is concerned, above bribery or any of the things that could lead him into difficulty. Now the local Deputy can make it. If this is so, where are we going?

Deputy Seán Flanagan provided sufficient material for a speech that would last hours, although he spoke for only 20 minutes. He said the machinery of the Land Commission was creaking along with no oil and no ballbearings. It is perfectly relevant to this amendment to say that is not the problem. The problem is fixed on Budget Day. The civil servants in the Land Commission are as efficient, as honourable and as dutiful as any other civil servants in this State. We are very lucky to have the type of civil servants we have. But if the money voted is the same—and, despite all the talk by Fianna Fáil about land division and all the flaunting of this Land Bill, it has been for the seven years they have been in power — then the creaking Deputy Seán Flanagan speaks about has nothing to do with oil and ballbearings: it has merely to do with lack of use.

What is the use in the Lay Commissioners indicating that certain lands should be acquired when the position is that the money is not there to pay for them? We must consider that fact and consider also that at the moment the Land Commission have large tracts of land which they cannot afford physically to divide into economic units and give out to the people. Does everybody not know that? Is Question Time in this House not taken up with questions as to when land held by the Land Commission for from three to six years will be divided? No politician is here for six months without knowing that the reason they cannot do it is that they have not the money to pay for the farms and the houses. Yet here Fianna Fáil come along and say that simply by including this section in the Bill — and I say with certainty it is nothing but a political section—they are going to cure this ill. The creaking without oil and the creaking through lack of ballbearings is the creaking for lack of money.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share