Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1964

Vol. 213 No. 6

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

Debate resumed on 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 Dillon).

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:

I rise for the purpose of supporting the amendment moved by the Leader of the main Opposition and standing in my name, amendment No. 7 to section 27. The Leader of the Opposition dealt very fully last night with the importance and the urgency of this amendment. I feel that he has said what every commonsense Deputy in this House would wish to say in relation to it. Not alone has he done that but he has expressed the opinions and the views of practically every landowner in Ireland. I say "every landowner in Ireland" because of the large number of landowners throughout this country who, no matter what their political opinions may be, have expressed their horror and astonishment at and their indignation and dissatisfaction with the action taken by the Minister for Lands under section 27 of this Bill. It is because of that dissatisfaction, and because of the great principle involved, that we in Fine Gael have tabled this amendment. It is designed to control and to minimise the activities of the Minister in relation to the extraordinary power which he is now taking. It is a power in regard to which Deputy Dillon has given an undertaking, both last night and previously, and particularly to the people of Roscommon and Galway, at recent by-elections. It has mainly been in regard to section 27 that so many of the landowners in Roscommon and Galway expressed their disapproval. It is because we realise the Minister has power under this section that he ought not have that we are prompted to ask the House favourably to consider this amendment.

Landowners, whether they own a small or an extensive holding, are united in the one expressed opinion that the Minister ought not have power to carry out an inspection of any man's lands. We ask that the Minister intervene only when he is quite satisfied and when the evidence has been submitted to him, that the Land Commission have failed to make such an inspection. It is generally felt that the Land Commission as an independent and judicial body, set up in a rather similar way to our courts, above influence and above intervention from any political Party, acting in an entirely independent manner, should alone have the right to consider whether or not a holding is to be inspected with a view to acquisition.

It is still fresh in the minds of many landowners how, during the Emergency years, they were invaded by inspectors. One thing landowners do not like is the intrusion of inspectors on their property. No State inspector should invade the privacy of any landowner, unless he is invited by the landowner to go in, or unless he is going to give the landowner the benefit of advice in regard to the improvement of his lands or of his production methods. Here, however, we find the unwelcome guest, the inspector, forced on the landowner by the Minister for Lands and he will come for the purpose of carrying out an inspection which may result in the landowner being deprived of his property and driven out on to the roadside, property which may have been held by his family for generations.

I hate to think what opinions the young farmers of today must have when they realise that after 40 years of native Government, the time of Parliament is occupied with legislation designed, as this section is, to deprive them of their right of ownership of their property and to deprive them of fixity of tenure which, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out last night, was so dearly won and is so cherished by the landowners. The Land Commission, in my opinion are quite capable and competent to carry out inspections which they feel should be carried out with a view to acquisition for the relief of congestion and we are asking the Minister now only to direct his inspections. We cannot prevent him, for the time being, from doing that, but, as Deputy Dillon pointed out, we will, at the earliest possible time. That is the pledge which the landowners have been given by the Fine Gael Party and which will be honoured certainly within the next 24 months.

Until we can restore fixity of tenure, we propose to ask this House to ensure that the Minister use these powers only after the Land Commission have failed to carry out the desired inspections. We feel that the Land Commission having carried out the job in the past are quite capable and competent to do so in the future without any political intervention. There are sure to be evil consequences when you have political intervention in regard to the inspection of lands and in regard to methods of depriving the landowners of fixity of tenure.

I should like to hear from the Minister whether he is satisfied that the inspection of land to date by the Land Commission has been carried out in a satisfactory way, or what does he see wrong with the present position. The only explanation he has given for taking these powers is that he feels they will lead to the speeding up of land division. Last night a Deputy said that this was the section which put teeth into the Bill. The reason the people have shown their confidence in this Party is that Fianna Fáil have put those teeth into this section, into the Minister. We are satisfied that the Minister and his political henchmen will provide sufficient strength of jaw to drive those teeth into the owners of every holding in Ireland where the political Party of which the Minister is a member feels they deserve a chop of those teeth. The reason we object to this so strenuously is that the Minister is taking unto himself such teeth in order to drive them into the landowners of this country and deprive them of what they have so dearly won.

If the Land Commission can carry out an efficient inspection—and I have every confidence in their ability to do so in an impartial manner—why is it necessary for the Minister to authorise them to do so? Under the law as it stands, the Minister has no say, good, bad or indifferent, in regard to the inspection of land. At an earlier stage of this Bill, we had a long statement from a Deputy saying he took it on himself to inspect a farm at midnight with the headlights of his car, as a result, in the course of a few days he was responsible for seeing to it that the Minister took action—he complimented the Minister on it—and the farm was acquired. When a Fianna Fáil Deputy can do that, what will happen to people's property when the Minister will have the right to inspect their lands?

This is a very serious matter for the future of this country. A grave principle is involved here. No Fianna Fáil Deputy should have the right to carry out a midnight inspection of his neighbour's land with the headlights of his car. No Fianna Fáil Minister—or the Minister of any other Party—should have the right to authorise the inspection of any lands with a view to acquisition. Later, we will be dealing with an amendment on which we can demonstrate to the House the more serious consequences of such action, when we see that a decision as to inspection will have to be given by an officer of the Minister's Department who will sit as one of the Commissioners. However, we will have an opportunity of dealing with that later.

If the Minister is dissatisfied with the slowness with which the Land Commission inspect holdings, without taking unto himself the power to authorise an inspection, what would prevent him calling the Land Commission together and telling them it was the opinion of the Government that they should speed up their activities? There would be nothing to stop the Minister making a recommendation, which would be considered by the Land Commission in the same way as they are always prepared to consider representations made by any section of the community, without, at the same time, interfering with their independent right of decision.

The power of inspection should be vested in the Land Commission and in them alone. No other person should have, or seek to have, that power. If the Minister had sufficient evidence before him to justify his feeling that the Land Commission were failing in their duty, there is nothing to stop him dismissing the personnel of the Land Commission and re-appointing, on the nomination of the Government, their successors, with the request that they carry out their duties with speed and efficiency but, at the same time, leaving to them the right to determine whose land should be inspected, when and by what means.

This is a most desirable amendment. In recent weeks the Minister should have learned a lesson and should accept this amendment. It was put down for the purpose of loosening the teeth in the section and of nullifying the Minister's powers under this section. For the moment, it is the best we in the Opposition can do, until we are in a position to do better. Section 27 is so bad and so evil in motive and design that the amendment is the only way by which we can possibly try to render it harmless.

I put it to the Minister, in the event of the amendment being rejected by the House, and when the Bill becomes law, does he propose, as the law will enable and entitle him to do, to authorise what inspections he desires of various lands and farms submitted to him by the Fianna Fáil organisation? Would it not be better if instead of using the powers vested in him by section 27, if the Minister, as my amendment suggests, would give the Land Commission an opportunity of doing their job first, independently? Should they fail, then the Minister could authorise the inspections. First, he should be satisfied beyond all doubt that the Land Commission, as an independent and competent body, had failed in their duty. It is only when they had failed and evidence was available in the Department that they had either failed or refused or had delayed in the carrying out of an inspection, that the Minister could use the powers vested in him in section 27.

There are principles which all of us cherish. Many people have what they consider to be their own high principles. Some may have political principles. Some may have principles characteristic of their individuality. A principle with which the people of rural Ireland can be associated is the principle of fixity of tenure. That principle has been endangered. It is for that reason that the Fine Gael Party ask the House to accept this amendment. I am quite satisfied that the amendment, in its own small way, will help for the time being to convey to landowners that the Land Commission must first be given the opportunity before the political head of the Department intervenes.

An Ceann Comhairle:

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but it appears to me that the Deputy is repeating himself.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:

It is very difficult for any Deputy to say something that has not been said already in relation to this matter. I agree that the time of the House ought not to be occupied by repetition of statements. We do not learn anything new from repetition. That has been the way with the Minister for Lands. The more the Fine Gael Party have stressed the seriousness of the powers taken upon himself by the Minister, the more there has been public demonstration outside this House against the authority which the Minister is taking to himself, the less heed the Minister has taken of it.

An Ceann Comhairle:

It seems to be an argument against repetition.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:

Yes, it is an argument against repetition and it is an argument also that the Minister has failed to lend a favourable ear to the wise counsel and just advice given to him by the Opposition. The reaction to that has been demonstrated in no uncertain manner by every single voter who got the opportunity of voting since the Minister introduced this Land Bill. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. It is, as Deputy Dillon has pointed out, the very best we can do for the time being and I trust the House will accept it.

Mr. Moran:

It is rather difficult to talk seriously on this amendment which has been described by the Leader of the main Opposition as a contemptuous amendment and one on which he does not intend to divide the House. That being the view of the Leader of the main Opposition of Deputy Flanagan's amendment that we are discussing here, I do not suppose that I should devote much time to it except that it is probably necessary to put on the records of the House that the amendment would entirely frustrate the purpose of the section, which is to expedite the process of inspection generally.

Basically, what I have proposed is that the decision to inspect will be delegated in every case to the senior inspector of the region or province. In this way reference back and forth to Dublin on this point will be avoided. What is proposed in the amendment is that the reference back and forth to Dublin will continue and that the senior inspector will be able to order an inspection only if the Commissioners unreasonably fail to do so.

Let us glance at the mechanics of that proposition. Firstly, is does not provide for tackling the problem either realistically or expeditiously and, secondly, it fails to recognise that the Commissioners, being superior in rank, cannot rationally be overruled by an inspector, which this amendment suggests. It would simply cause an upset in the working of the Land Commission.

The amendment, of course, is put down for a purpose and if it is the view of the Leader of the main Opposition that it should be treat contemptuously, perhaps we can treat it with the contempt which it deserves. But, outside this amendment the opportunity was taken to roam, high, wide and handsome, on the whole of this section and whereas practically everything that Deputy Dillon said last night or Deputy Flanagan said today would be far more relevant to another amendment which they have tabled and on which we will have to discuss these matters in principle, still, it is necessary for me to nail some of the wilder statements that have been made.

Under section 27—let me reiterate because it is necessary to do so to nail these falsehoods—it is the Land Commissioners who must decide what land will or will not be taken.

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

Mr. Moran:

I was saying it was necessary to repeat that under this Bill it is still the Land Commissioners who will decide what land may be taken or may not be taken in the very same way as they have had to decide what land would or would not be taken under the Land Acts down through the years since 1923.

What this section proposes is that a senior inspector can authorise the signing of a section 40 inspection notice. Let me reiterate that this section starts off by stating that it is there for the purpose of removing doubt, that as far as the legal advisers of the Land Commission can determine or ascertain, the question of signing a section 40 inspection notice was never a reserved or excepted function of the Land Commissioners. Even if it were, all these crocodile tears now being shed for alleged invasion of the Land Commissioners' domain were conspicuously absent when Deputy Dillon and his colleagues were putting through the 1950 Land Bill because in section 12, subsection (1) (d) for the first time, it is stated:

the determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a re-arrangement scheme) of the persons to be selected as allottees of any land;

For the first time the power was given to the political head of the Department solely to deal with rearrangement schemes and that power which was always reserved to the Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission as an excepted matter was swept away under section 12 of the 1950 Act by Deputy Dillon and his colleagues without any song and dance about the awful thing it was to interfere in the domain of matters reserved to the Land Commissioners. Subsection (2) of section 12 of the same Act says:

Any power or duty for the time being vested by law (including this Act) in the Land Commission or the Lay Commissioners may, save in relation to excepted matters, be exercised or performed by—

(a) the Minister, or

(b) any officer of the Minister or the Land Commission for the time being authorised, whether specifically or by reference to a class of such officers, in that behalf by the Minister.

Therefore, in dealing with rearrangement schemes if I wanted to, either I or an inspector appointed by me and sent down specially by me could go round in that land slum and say:

"Pat, you will get only half an acre" or "John, you will get four acres", and so on. That power of dealing with rearrangement and additions was, since the foundation of this State, a reserved function of the Lay Commissioners until Deputy Dillon and his friends removed it under the 1950 Act. These are the people who suggest that it is an outrageous thing that in order to cut red tape and expedite matters, I should have the power to authorise divisional inspectors—and there are only four of them in the country under my seal—to serve the preliminary inspection notice.

Let us get this clear—we shall have it again, I know, but Deputy Dillon had a rehash of it last night—this procedure of the Secretary-Commissioner of the Land Commission sending out notices and sitting on the case has been going on since the foundation of the State. The Lay Commissioners who have signed the notice for the purpose of getting a preliminary inspection under section 40 have to sit and hear the case in respect of which they authorise the inspection. That has been the position since 1922. How would they inform themselves as to whether lands should be taken or should not be taken unless they authorise the inspectorate of the Land Commission to go in and make a report to them as to the user of the land and as to the suitability of that land for the relief of congestion.

It is utter nonsense to create the fear in people's minds that by this provision every farmer in Ireland will be affected. I have no doubt that this smokescreen is paying political dividends for the Deputies who have created it. It is not appreciated that since away back in 1923 there has been no such thing as fixity of tenure in this country. It is not appreciated that in respect of any land where a man is working day and night, working it according to the best methods of husbandry, giving full employment and even though having no other means of livelihood, under the existing law, if there is congestion in the vicinity, the Land Commission are entitled to go in and take that land willy-nilly.

It is suggested we are doing away with fixity of tenure here. That law is there but everybody knows that it is only in the case of badly worked land, or in the case of the absentee owner or the fánach farmer who is letting his land year after year that the Land Commission move in. When they do that, all these rights provided by law are still there for his protection and, taking one thing with another notwithstanding all the inspections that take place in the normal way of the Land Commission, in the case of approximately half of them no further action is taken. Even where compulsory proceedings are initiated only in about 40 per cent of these cases is the land allowed by the court to be acquired for Land Commission purposes. These are in the main the worst worked lands in the country. That is the type of land that Land Commission policy deals with and that is as it should be. To suggest, because the law is as I have stated, that under this Bill the purpose is to move in on every working farmer, is absolutely utter nonsense.

Let me put this on record also. In reference to section 27, I should like to quote section 40 (6) of the 1923 Land Act of which we hear so much from the Leader of the main Opposition. Section 40 (6) provides that any inspector or other person appointed by the Land Commission may, after notice sent by post to the person who appears to be the owner or occupier of any land, enter upon the land and make all such inquiries as may be necessary to enable the Land Commission to ascertain the extent and character thereof and such other particulars in relation thereto as they may require for the purposes of the Act. That is the law about inspections since 1923. The material words are "any inspector or other person appointed by the Land Commission", not by the Land Commissioners.

Mr. Dillon:

What is the difference?

Mr. Moran:

If the Deputy does not know the difference between the Land Commission and the Land Commissioners he is wasting much of the time of the House. The Land Commission is under my control; the Commissioners, except in connection with excepted matters, are under my control and work under me as political head. Let that be clearly understood because it appears to me that the Leader of the main Opposition is utterly ignorant of the work of the Land Commission and the respective powers and functions of the political head of the Land Commission and the Lay Commissioners.

Any inspector on the staff of the Land Commission was authorised under the 1923 Land Act to carry out inspection. In case anybody should contend that is not so and a doubt could arise, by this section I am simply putting the matter beyond doubt. The very first words of this section state that it is there for the removal of doubt. I am satisfied that a mere reporting of the facts concerning any land, its ownership, character, user and conditions of local congestion in accordance with the terms of the 1923 Land Act, that is left to the commissioners as an excepted matter, raises no doubt that this will alter the position where little more than half of the inspected lands will, in the last analysis, be subjected to steps for acquisition. These rights are still there. Under that section, since 1923, we have the power of an inspector to go and inspect land and, under this section, to remove doubt, I am making it clear that a divisional inspector, instead of having files going up and down gathering red tape, will be able, where matters are brought to his notice by his local inspectorate in the different areas he controls, to sign the inspection notice so that a report will come up to the Land Commissioners to enable them to determine whether that land is suitable for the relief of congestion.

Let us be clear as to what the purpose is. If the Land Commissioners so decide, as it was their function to decide since 1923, that these lands should be taken over, the owner has an appeal against that on the question of law to the Judicial Commissioner and, indeed, up to the Supreme Court, and on the question of price to the Judicial Commissioner who is a judge of the High Court. As regards the status of these Land Commissioners, let me make it clear that they are not, as Deputy Dillon suggests, judicial personages. That status was taken from them a long time ago, strange to say, by the 1923 Act, to which the Deputy has referred. They did have the status of county court judges before that Act but under that Act—and on the next amendment on which this is relevant, I shall have the relevant section here— that position was changed so that they are in the position of independent arbitrators of the Minister in respect of these specified excepted matters to which I have referred.

That function is still there and it takes two—not one—of them to decide whether the land should be taken for Land Commission purposes or not. That law is not being interfered with. The picture that is being painted around this section that all the Land Commission inspectors will be let loose on the country for political purposes to enable the land of enemies of the political head of the Department to be acquired, is utter nonsense. It is being said for the purpose of misrepresenting the purposes of this Bill and to frighten people who do not know the law and do not know that since 1923 that power is there enabling the Land Commission inspector to go in under section 40 and inspect any land, and report back to the Land Commissioners.

The other matters referred to by Deputy Dillon last night during the performance he put on about evicted tenants should fool nobody. This section has nothing to do with evicted tenants or with evicting anybody. It simply provides that the four most senior officials in the Land Commission, in charge of the four different quarters of the country through the administrative machine, will be enabled to sign an inspection notice to authorise a man to inspect lands that have come under notice so as to enable the Commissioners to have that report of the inspectors to enable them to decide whether such lands should be taken or not. That is the sole purpose of the section. It is there for the purpose of removing doubt and for the purpose of ensuring a speeding-up in the Land Commission machine.

I shall not follow Deputy Dillon's performance last night quoting from some unnamed document what he alleged to be the view of anonymous Land Commission officials. In all my experience of this House I have never seen such procedures sanctioned. In any case, just as I would treat an anonymous letter, I shall not waste time in dealing with alleged opinions of men whom the Leader of the main Opposition is afraid to name or will not name in the House. That is the kind of smokescreen which they are endeavouring to raise on this section to try to create an atmosphere that something extraordinary is being done and that knowledgeable people are of the view that there is something revolutionary in the section. However, we shall, no doubt, have this out in more detail on the second next amendment tabled by the Opposition. I shall have to go into the law, for the purpose of keeping the records right, in more detail on that amendment. It has been said by the Leader of the Opposition that they do not intend to divide the House on this amendment. Therefore, I do not think I should devote any further time to what Deputy Dillon himself called a contentious amendment.

Mr. Dillon:

The thing that puzzles me about all this is why the Minister feels so deeply that he himself tells us that this amendment is purely for the purpose of securing greater expedition in the inspection of land for the purpose of permitting the Lay Commissioners to determine whether or not it should be acquired. He never fails to emphasise what I have repeatedly said, that we have never suggested, and do not suggest, that section 27 was designed to confer on the Minister the power of acquisition. That is a reserved power still in the hands of the Lay Commissioners. The only power section 27 seeks to transfer from the Lay Commissioners to the political head of the Department is the power to order inspection with a view to acquisition.

Deputy Tully is here. I want members of the Fianna Fáil Party to note what Deputy Tully said about section 27. Deputy Tully takes quite an interest in this. I do not think I misrepresent his position if I say that he takes the view that it might be a very good thing if everybody who is a tenant of land in Ireland were a tenant of the State as the ultimate authority for the user of the land and that if any user misused his right, it should be taken from him and should be given to some other person.

Mr. Tully:

The Deputy presumes too much.

Mr. Dillon:

That is the direction in which Deputy Tully leans. I lean in the opposition direction. I believe if a man is living on the land, he should own his land. By that unique title for which he has no superior except God Almighty, he is entitled to his land. I am proud to avow that. Deputy Tully says he rejoices in section 27. He is quite unlike the Minister who says section 27 is really of no consequence and is there only for the removal of doubt. Deputy Tully says this is what puts teeth into the Land Commission, this is what makes the Land Commission bite effectively. The Minister considers it desirable to institute inspection for the purposes of acquisition.

I called for a quorum to bring in Fianna Fáil Deputies because I do not believe all members of the Fianna Fáil Party want to see a situation which, in the words of Deputy Tully, will put teeth in the Land Commission to enable the Minister—any Minister— for Lands to institute inspection with a view to the acquisition of the holding of any individual in the country. I urge on the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to note well the impression conveyed on Deputy Tully's mind by section 27. He is no neophyte; he did not come into the House today or yesterday. He is as well able to read and understand the Bill as anybody else and he is as capable of interpreting section 27 as anybody else.

It is in order to draw those teeth that we put this amendment on the paper. We do not want the political head of the Department of Lands to have power, or to have teeth, to sink into the flesh of any individual who owns land in this country, whether he owns five acres or 100 acres. We say fixity of tenure is a very precious asset and one that we have carried on in this country since 1885, when the first Land Act was passed. For 70 years we have, generation after generation, scrupulously maintained fixity of tenure. Were they all wrong? I think they were right. This is the first Minister for Lands who has ever challenged that. We have had a Fianna Fáil Government; we have had a Cumann na nGaedhael Government; we have had a Fianna Fáil Government; we have had an inter-Party Government; we have had a Fianna Fáil Government, an inter-Party Government and then another Fianna Fáil Government. In none of these seven administrations has anyone ever challenged this principle before. This is the first time it has been challenged.

Let me follow the Minister through the case he makes today. He says: "The only thing this does is to give four high officials of my Department"—I emphasise "high officials"—there are only four of them in the country—"the power to issue a section 40 inspection notice." Now it is to be done on the instruction of the Minister for Lands, where, heretofore, it could be done only on the instruction of the Lay Commissioners. We cannot divorce from our minds the other sections of the Bill. We shall return to this in greater detail when we discuss a later amendment. One of the Lay Commissioners will be the Secretary of the Minister's Department.

What is the machinery whereby the Minister authorises an act to be done under his seal? The Minister instructs the Secretary of his Department to give effect to his decision and the Secretary will be a Lay Commissioner. The Secretary instructs one senior inspector to go and inspect somebody's land, which the Minister has instructed him to do. Now what? The land is inspected. The land is inspected on the Minister's direct communication to the high official by the Secretary of the Department of Lands. The question now comes before the Lay Commissioners to determine whether the land is in fact suitable for acquisition. One of the Lay Commissioners is the Secretary, whom the Minister has ordered to direct the senior inspector to inspect the land for acquisition. When it comes to examination of the case, nobody will be heard by the Lay Commissioners but the paid inspectors of the Land Commission, every one of whom depends for his prospects of promotion and advancement in the service of the Land Commission on the judgement of the Secretary of the Department of Lands.

The Minister said to the House today: "Remember, on questions of law, there is an appeal from the findings of the Lay Commissioners to the High Court and, indeed, to the Supreme Court, if the matter is of sufficient gravity to justify it." I put it to the Minister that he is an experienced, practising solicitor and that, in saying that, he has been extremely disingenuous because he knows as well as I do that on any matter of fact there is no appeal from the Land Commission at all to anybody. If you are charged with petty theft, if you are charged with murder, and you are brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, there is an appeal on all the mens rea to the whole hierarchy of the judiciary; but, in the acquisition of your land, the only matter on which there can be any probable valid difference is the matter of fact. Do the facts alleged by the inspectors of the Land Commissioners truly exist in respect of the lands proposed to be acquired?

On that issue no one can be heard but the inspectors of the Land Commission and from the findings of the Land Commission there is no appeal to anybody. Now, is it frank and honest for the Minister for Lands, who is himself a solicitor and who has appeared, I suppose, in thousands of cases on behalf of clients in the Land Commission, to tell the House that any person aggrieved has, in respect of a point of law, an appeal to the superior court? We all know that in regard to price there is an appeal from the decision of the Land Commissioners to the Land Judge, but how often in the Minister's experience in the Land Commission work that has passed through his hands has he found himself obliged to appeal on a point of law from a finding of the Land Commission to the superior court?

Mr. Moran:

On a point of personal explanation, and in case anyone is misled, I will quote for the Deputy subsection (4) of section 25 of the Land Act, 1936:

An appeal shall lie from every decision under this section of the Lay Commissioners (other than the members of the Appeal Tribunal) to the Appeal Tribunal on questions of law or of value, and the decision of the Appeal Tribunal shall be final subject only to any appeal to the Supreme Court on question of law.

Deputy Dillon knows quite well that every question of fact must be decided by the Commissioners really on a question of law, because the statutes define what is good husbandry and what are the protections for the farmer against acquisition, so that, in fact, you have an appeal; and a regular appeal, outside the question of price, is where people fight against the acquisition and there is an appeal taken from the Lay Commissioners to the Judicial Commissioner. I said that it is on a question of strict law only from the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court, but let me tell the Deputy that I have been in the Supreme Court on questions of law on a number of occasions on appeal from the Judicial Commissioner.

Mr. Dillon:

Of course, we are all agreed that on an issue of law, there is appeal all the way through the whole judicial system, but the real fact is that 90 per cent of the differences that exist between persons who own land and who go before the Land Commission are on matters of fact, in which there is no appeal, and all I say is that I feel it is disingenous of the Minister inadequately to distinguish, for the information of the House, the difference between appeal on law and on fact. They are two entirely different things and substantially on questions of fact, there is no appeal. So far as my information goes, in the proceedings before the two Land Commissioners who hear the case for acquisition, the only evidence that can be called is that of the inspectors of the Land Commission.

Mr. Moran:

That was changed as a result of the Dunleavy case to which I referred already.

Mr. Dillon:

I understand that case simply imposed on the Land Commission the obligation of putting the inspectors on oath.

Mr. Moran:

And giving their evidence in the witness box and the objector is entitled to call his evidence in rebuttal.

Mr. Dillon:

I was not aware of that. I did know that the Dunleavy case changed the law in that heretofore the inspectors of the Land Commission were heard not on oath, but, as a result of the Dunleavy case, they are now required to be put on oath and submit themselves to cross-examination, and I think it is a good thing if it is now established practice that external expert evidence can be presented by the objector in rebuttal of the inspector's views.

The Minister quoted section 12 of the Land Act and from the quotation he gave, would anyone believe that the effect of section 12 was to increase the number of excepted matters reserved to the Lay Commissioners from six to 14? The impression created by the Minister was that section 12 transferred from the Lay Commissioners very substantial jurisdiction and further limited the number of matters which were restricted to their discretion. In fact, it increased the number of matters restricted to their discretion.

Mr. Moran:

Quote what I said.

Mr. Dillon:

"In this subsection the expression `re-arrangement scheme' means a scheme for the re-arrangement of land held in rundale or intermixed plots whether with or without the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said re-arrangement, such other lands being either adjoining any of the land held in rundale or intermixed plots ..." Subsection (2) says: "Any power or duty for the time being vested by law (including this Act) in the Land Commission or the Lay Commissioners may, save in relation to excepted matters, be exercised or performed by— (a) the Minister or (b) any officer of the Minister or the Land Commission for the time being authorised ...." The land law is extremely complex to read and digest on one's feet but, in fact, I believe the power there conferred on the Minister for Lands was to relieve the situation of dealing with rundale estates.

Mr. Moran:

The power transferred to the Minister for Lands was taken from the Lay Commissioners to enable the Minister to deal with questions of rundale estates, which form the vast majority of the estates we are dealing with in the West of Ireland.

Mr. Dillon:

Oh, give it up. The number of rundale estates left in this country is microscopic, and the Minister well knows it.

Mr. Moran:

I am very sorry, but the Deputy is completely in error. They constitute the hard core of congestion left in the country.

Mr. Dillon:

I know all about the rundale estates and I know all about the man in the red waistcoat who went down to settle the rundale estates. I have been listening to the rundale estates all my life and I know them intimately. Of course they always constituted, as the Minister says, the hard core of virtually insoluble land settlement, and if the Minister had come in here and asked the House frankly and openly for special powers to deal with rundale estates, I certainly should have heard such an application with great sympathy. How many Deputies know what a rundale estate is? How many people in Ireland know what a rundale estate is? According to the Minister, one would think every man you met on the street would know all about them. They are as rare now as white blackbirds and 99 people out of 100 walking the roads of Ireland in any part of the country would not, I venture to say, know what one meant by the word "rundale". The Minister practised all his life in Castlebar, and I lived all my life in Mayo. A person living in Galway or Mayo is familiar with this problem, but outside those two counties, how much rundale is there left in the country?

Mr. Moran:

There is a lot in those two, anyway.

Mr. Dillon:

Have we not steadily and progressively eroded it down through the years with care and circumspection? We have taken an infinity of trouble. The Congested Districts Board approached it gingerly, carefully and slowly because they understood the problem and were determined they would not leave any feuds that would last from generation, to generation, to generation. They were perfectly right, but it took them 20 or 30 years in some cases satisfactorily to re-arrange rundale estates. No one but a fool would have done other than they did.

Every one of those rundale estates was settled without the shedding of a drop of blood, without firing a shot, without injury to animals, without a single explosion of agrarian outrage. That should be one of the Minister's proudest boasts of his Department. It is one of their great achievements. So many of the countries on the Continent of Europe found it so insoluble a problem that they simply swept it under the carpet. Here it was tackled slowly and skilfully by the Congested Districts Board, until, as the Minister says, we are down now to a small hard core of the rundale problem which still remains to be resolved. In this year of 1964 it would be legitimate to ask ourselves whether in the small remaining intractable areas, we might not consider a more drastic approach, but I would listen with close attention to the advice of the older and more experienced inspectors of the Land Commission who, I suspect, would tell us the best way would be to keep on going slowly and gradually, and perhaps they would be right.

I freely admit that in regard to rundale there is a unique problem, but we are not dealing with rundale: we are dealing with the whole untenanted land of Ireland. In that connection all we are asking is to provide that the power to order inspections for the purpose of acquisition will continue to be a reserved function of the Land Commission. It is all eyewash for the Minister to tell the House today that I said the Land Commissioners held their office by judicial tenure. I never said any such thing. I said the Land Commissioners held their office by quasi-judicial tenure. The Minister says they are independent arbitrators. If the Minister can distinguish a difference between a quasi-judicial office and the office of an independent arbitrator, I should be grateful to hear it. He knows perfectly well there is no distinction. I know, as he knows, that they ceased to have the stature of county court judges years ago, but the 1923 Act was solicitous to preserve in them their independence of outside pressures, for the simple reason, as we all know from our own experience, that if they were not free from that kind of pressure, the honest discharge of their extremely laborious and difficult duties would be impossible.

The astonishing thing in regard to the 14 excepted matters is that the Minister himself does not propose that we should revert to the old rule of having only six. He himself said he proposes to leave the 14 reserved matters as reserved matters and he said: "We have always believed the right to issue this inspection order was not a reserved matter, but we have always been afraid to act in that belief for fear we might be wrong. Therefore, in order to ensure that any proceedings we initiated would stand the test of litigation, we have acted on the assumption that it was a reserved matter. Now we want to declare what we have always hoped and believed to be true: that it is not a reserved matter."

The Minister says the reason he wants it is that from their point of view it involves no question of principle. He merely wants it to improve the expedition with which lands can be inspected. I believe this is a matter in respect of which the Minister has dug his heels in the ground. He feels that he is challenged and is obliged to fight. God only knows why. If he had not got the bit between his teeth he would have met us in a reasonable way and said: "You feel deeply about this and think we can get increased expedition by increasing the field force of inspectors, and perhaps appointing senior inspectors who would go on to any area where things appeared to be moving too slowly, contact the inspectors, and see if some change would not make things go faster." We have said already that if there is a lack of inspectors in any area, we will strongly support the Minister in the House in asking for additional staff, and we will strongly support additional supervisory services in any area where things are not moving as fast as he would like.

Is it a reasonable man's reply to such representations to say: "Never, never, never." Outside Bedlam, no man would make such a reply to a responsible case. I cannot get into the Minister's mind. I cannot imagine what he is up to, because he seems to move from one foot to another. One moment he seems to think it is bluff on our part, and the next that we are trying to run some extraordinary political stunt. If we are running a political stunt, can he not sweep the ground from under our feet by saying: "Forget it; if you do not like this way of expediting the procedure, we will give yours a trial." If I am running a political stunt, I am immediately exposed to the country. I must say at once: "If this is the Minister's reply to our representations, that is fair enough. He met us on this. What is more, he said he feels deeply that we are mistaken but he is prepared to give it a try. We do not want anyone to feel that any fundamental right was being violated." Accordingly, if this were a cheap political stunt, unless we were all lunatics we would not go to a by-election that we wanted to win and, over a campaign of three long weeks, put this matter in issue before the people, laying ourselves open to the full blast of contradiction, correction and exposure, if that opportunity were available to the Minister and his colleagues. What does the Minister think we are up to? We are telling him we want expedition, and we are telling him we agree that no delay should be tolerated. We are telling him that any assistance he wants in order to secure expedition we shall help him to get.

I am giving him here, and I make no apology for it, the accumulated advice of every ex-Land Commissioner and the Minister is not right recklessly to say that I offered the anonymous advice of officers of the Land Commission. If I asked officers of the Land Commission to give me an opinion which differed from the Minister's declared policy, any such officers would quickly tell me to go take a running jump at myself and it would not matter whether they heartily agreed with me or not. The tradition in the Civil Service is that every officer will support the declared policy of the Minister, and the Minister for Lands knows that and he should not have said that. Perhaps, he said it inadvertently.

I never said the authorities I quoted represented the views of officers of the Land Commission. What I said was that I had consulted every available ex-Commissioner and every available person who I believed ever had experience of Land Commission work, and the distillation of their long experience in the discharge of that work was precisely what I related to this House. I am not exaggerating when I say that the distillation of their wisdom is fairly expressed in these words:

The point about the new plan of inspection of land might henceforward be by Ministerial act. This could cause panic in the country if pursued to excess, especially by any Minister.

Note it is not "by the Minister". There is not a reference specifically to the present Minister. It is a reference to any Minister.

Once a Land Commission inspector is sent on a man's land, there is fear and trembling and intense anxiety in that man's mind until the business is finalised properly, and if that is done under Ministerial control in any way, nothing can stop people believing it was the work of the local Government TD. At the moment I am not applying that to Fianna Fáil TDs: I am applying it to the members of the Party to whom the Minister belongs, whoever the Minister may be. If I were Minister for Lands in the morning it would apply to me with exactly the same force as to the present Minister.

The excuse for this proposal is to stop delays in the acquisition procedure, the inference being that such delays are caused by red tape in the Land Commissioners' office. This is a very ancient wheeze. The truth is that the one place where there is and has been no delay is in the Land Commission offices. Years ago, when the complaint was first made, the Land Commission were determined to clear their desks as speedily as possible and keep them clear. This combined source of wisdom which I have been quoting goes on:

There is a quota of delay and the remedy is quite simple. That quota of delay is with the outdoor inspectors and it is not due to any failure of the inspectors diligently to do their work. It is due to the fact that in certain areas the Land Commission have not at their disposal a sufficient number of inspectors.

Then, let there be more inspectors appointed. The very simple remedy is to tighten up the outdoor fabric of the Irish Land Commission by appointing a few senior inspectors at headquarters to make constant visits to areas where the work is in arrears. If that course is adopted any existing delays can easily be put an end to.

In five, ten or 15 years, this proposal will make no difference whatever to the expedition with which land inspection is conducted but it will create turmoil in the minds of our people, particularly those west of the Shannon. I do not want teeth put in the Land Commission and I especially do not want those teeth put in by the transfer of the powers of the Land Commission to the political head of the Department. I do not believe there is a single Fianna Fáil Deputy representing a constituency west of the Shannon, in Kerry, or Clare, or in Donegal, or in Monaghan or Cavan for that matter, who does not in his heart know that in regard to this matter I am right.

The solution of the land problem in Ireland is a monument to the tact, the patience, the forbearance of the officers of the old Congested Districts Board and of the Irish Land Commission. It is a marvellous story, when you look back on it, that since 1885, in all the rearrangement done during the tempestuous times through which we have passed, I do not think you can say that a drop of blood was spilled or the hair of a man's head touched as a result of the operations of the Irish Land Commission. Some of us can remember the early days when the CDB had a great deal to do in the west of Ireland. Sometimes in the pursuit of their duty, the officers of the board had to face the task of dividing up equitably lands, some of them in rundale, which had been the subject of acrimony for years.

I remember Sir Henry Doran going round the roads and gathering the tenants around him. He would get up on a ditch and talk to them, explaning his purpose. One day some fellow gave him a five pound note to try to bribe him. Sir Henry brought that man along to the next meeting, took the five pound note out of his pocket and told the people there assembled: "That fellow there has tried to bribe me. I shall make a report to the Land Commission and he will never get an acre of land if I can prevent it."

The way they moved among the people and the people grew to trust them is a monument of glory to the Irish Land Commission and to the Congested Districts Board, many of whose officers now adorn the staff of the Irish Land Commission. All of it was built up on this extraordinary method we had worked out. They were away from the possibility of contact with political influence of any kind. How many Ministers for Lands have endured inquisition on this point? People have been forced to say again and again: "Control the inspection for acquisition of land." I have heard numerous Deputies here say that you ought to. Whatever side of the House I have sat on, I always supported the Minister for Lands when he said: "I cannot and I will not." This is the first Minister who has ever departed from that principle. Why he has elected to do so, is a complete mystery to me. I solemnly warn him that he puts in jeopardy a reputation built up over 70 years of peaceful reform in land tenure in Ireland.

I want to warn the House of this. The old CDB, the Congested Districts Board, was universally recognised in my part of the country as the friend of the people. It was then merged into the Irish Land Commission and the Irish Land Commission came to be regarded as the friend of the people. The people trusted the Land Commission inspectors and felt that they had a high sense of responsibility and that they acted under a very stern control utterly remote from the possibility of intervention. They never can believe that again if section 27 stands, particularly if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment we are now submitting.

I want this House to realise what it is doing. We are quite casually throwing away 70 years' work on no other plea than that this will expedite the inspection of land for the purpose of acquisition. I solemnly assure this House that this proposal will do nothing to expedite the inspection of land. I solemnly assure this House that any effective measures by way of strengthening the staff of the Irish Land Commission to expedite this work we will support most readily without any possible delay. But, if the Minister persists in this proposal, it is like going out to cut down a 70-year-old oak because he wants to make a walking stick out of one branch.

I know why he does it and I am disappointed that certain members of his Party, who I know share my view, have not been able to prevail upon him to yield in this matter. He would do credit to himself and to this liberal assembly and he would do a great deal to facilitate the passage of this Bill into law, if he would now accept the amendment. This is not the last Land Bill that will ever be passed in this House.

There is one last word I should like to say. It is not true that I described this as a contemptible amendment. I drafted it with Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan. We sat down and worked together and for every word in that amendment, I share the responsibility with Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan. What I said was: "It is not the second best; it is the second worst". That is true. The worst is section 27 as it stands. Section 27 with our amendment would be a million miles away from the preservation of the principle we seek to maintain, but it would be better than the worst, just one degree. I said I recommend this amendment to the House only as the second worst. I do not want to be on the records of the House as suggesting that this amendment removes the radical and fatal evil enshrined in section 27.

I am now struggling to avoid the worst consequences of this deplorable view on the part of the Minister for Lands. It is not true to say that I announced that it was not our intention to divide on this amendment because of our contempt for it. I said we would not divide on it because, by voting for it, it might appear that we believed it to be an acceptable substitute for the situation which section 27 operates to destroy. We will not put it to the test of the Lobby because it is the second worst; but, even as the second worst, it would be some departure on the part of the Minister if, at this stage, he said: "Very well; if this will help you, I am prepared to concede it."

If, as I suspect, he feels himself in some way deeply committed, feels he has drawn his Party into a difficult position and must defend it to the last ditch, then I know reason can never prevail. I think he is living under an illusion if he feels that way. It would redound to his credit and the credit of his Party if he said even now: "In view of the fact that the Opposition feel so deeply about this, we want to meet them". I am perfectly certain I could get a very large section of the Fianna Fáil Party to advocate that cause if they could make their voices effectively heard. I only regret that none of them has ventured into this Chamber to say in any form they choose to employ: "Remember we are a deliberative assembly and the truest test of democracy is not the strength of a Government's desire to impose their will but the solicitude of a Government for the fundamental beliefs of an opposition."

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 14, between lines 40 and 41, to insert a new subsection as follows:

"( ) The Minister shall lay before Dáil Éireann on the 1st day of February, the 1st day of May, the 1st day of August and the 1st day of November in every year a list giving particulars of the cases in which he has authorised an officer to make a determination pursuant to subsection (1) of this section."

This amendment speaks for itself. Does the Minister propose to accept it?

Mr. Moran:

The Minister does not.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:

Then, I propose to make a comment on it. Having regard to the fact that the Minister is not, in any circumstances, prepared to give one single inch on the powers he has taken unto himself by section 27, it is proposed by the Opposition that we ask him to place before the Dáil on the 1st day of February, the 1st day of May, the 1st day of August and the 1st day of November, a list giving the details of the holdings for which he has authorised an inspection. I feel that such a requirement will at least curtail the activities of the Minister, inasmuch as, with regard to the ordering of inspections of the many lands in this country in respect of which he may be approached by Deputies of his Party, it may be a deterrent to the Minister carrying out the wholesale inspections which we can describe as political inspections.

I am very much afraid of the political inspections. I can see the occasion arising when any Deputy may be approached by his constituents with a request that the inspection of a neighbour's holding, whether small or large, be undertaken. My sympathies in this matter lie with the very small holder who, for example, may be forced to emigrate and with the smallholder who, for example, may have to con-acre or sublet a part of his holding to supplement his income due to financial or domestic circumstances. I am considering, again, the holding which is often mentioned in this House of the widow who may not be in a position to work her lands until her family come of age. I am considering the holding of the energetic landowner who goes out at election time and takes the side of any candidate in opposition to the reigning Minister for Lands. There is nothing to prevent that Minister from saying: "We shall teach this lad a lesson and the lesson we shall teach him, because of his political activities in the last election, is that we shall have his land inspected."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The amendment relates to the laying before the Dáil of a list of certain particulars.

Mr. Corish:

We were not notified that the Front Bench was changed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

In the opinion of the Chair, Deputy Flanagan is going outside the amendment.

Mr. Corish:

Is it usual to conduct a debate on a Bill without a member of the Front Bench being present?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:

I welcome Deputy Philip Brady on the Fianna Fáil Front Bench. I do not believe a more decent man could occupy it.

Mr. Corish:

On a point of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

It is not a point for the Chair.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:

I am sorry Deputy Brady is not the Minister for Lands. If he were, I am sure a good deal of common sense would prevail. My argument is that in the case of inspections which will be carried out under this section, if the Minister knows he has to furnish to this House a list of the names and of the lands in respect of which he authorises an inspection, it will be a deterrent to the wholesale inspection of lands which he will be asked to carry out.

When this Bill is enacted, the Minister will be inundated with requests from Deputies of his Party to carry out inspections of various lands which, in the opinion of the supporters of the respective Deputies, warrant inspection. All my amendment seeks is that where the Minister accedes to the request of a Deputy and says: "Yes, I shall authorise an inspection of these lands," this House will be in a position to keep the matter constantly under review. We want to ensure that, on the first day of every February, May, August and November — four times a year — the Minister will furnish a list to this House giving details of inspections.

I can visualise the manner in which queues of Deputies will be outside the offices of the Minister asking that inspections of various holdings take place under section 27. I can see the Minister yielding considerably through Party and political pressure, through pressure by his Party Deputies, and saying to them: "Yes, I shall carry out inspections of those lands." When the Minister takes unto himself this power, surely Dáil Éireann has a right to know, as a safeguard against an abuse of that power, to what extent the Minister will use the power which this House is giving him under section 27.

Personally, I do not trust the Minister for Lands with the power he is getting under section 27. I feel that, whatever guarantees he may give, under this section we are all human, more particularly when our political colleagues come along to us and say that they consider a certain matter, in which there may or may not be merit, to be a genuine grievance. In a case of that kind, any Minister who takes unto himself this power is more than likely to be swayed by political considerations or by friendship and affection, but above all is likely to yield to the request that the inspection takes place.

We have heard in this House time and time again details of various inspections. It is no harm that on this occasion we should recall the statement by a Fianna Fáil Deputy that he took it upon himself to carry out the inspection of a holding at midnight with the headlights of his car: that is on record. When we have Fianna Fáil Deputies inspecting lands at night-time with the headlights of a car, what will they do when their own Minister will have the power to authorise the inspection of lands if he so desires for his own Party and political purposes? Is it not giving us in the Opposition cause to think and indeed is there any reason why the power the Minister is getting is not leading to what we can describe as public panic in the country—and it is public panic?

There are people in the country today, the owners of land—hardworking, honest, industrious people—who are most definitely in a state of panic because of the fear and dread of what can be the greatest fear and dread in any home, namely, insecurity. We have the fear and dread of insecurity causing panic in the country as it is causing it, not to the same extent amongst the large landowners as amongst the small landowners because it is the small landowners in the west of Ireland who have most definitely given a decision against the dictatorial powers which the Minister is taking unto himself in this section.

Debate adjourned.