I move:—
That the Seanad censures the Executive Council for their action in appointing, pursuant to Section 4 of the Land Law (Commission) Act, 1923, Mr. Daniel J. Browne, and Mr. Eamon Mansfield to be Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission, in view of the implied assurance conveyed by the Minister in charge of the Land Bill, 1933, when that Bill was in process of enactment by the Dáil and the Seanad that such Commissioners would be appointed from within the Land Commission or otherwise from the ordinary Civil Service.
The object of this motion is to call attention to the appointments recently made in regard to the positions of lay commissioners under the Land Act, and to give the Minister an opportunity of justifying them and, if possible, reconciling these appointments with a certain statement made by him in the Seanad during the passing of the Land Bill in August of last year. Senators will remember clearly that an amendment was moved to Section 7 of the Bill by Senator Counihan which, if it had been accepted, would have had the effect of securing that the appointments to such positions, in the first instance, would have been men who would have had experience of Land Commission work prior to the 1st June, 1933. When that amendment came up for discussion in the Seanad, the Minister in charge of the Bill made the following statement:—
"I do not see, for the life of me, why anybody might reasonably fear that the Executive Council in the future will not appoint men to the post of land commissioners or officers of the Land Commission or members of the Appeal Tribunal whom they can stand over in public."
He also stated:—
"In practice, from the point of view of carrying out the purpose of the amendment, I would have no objection to it, but there is a principle involved which I am not going to accept, and that is that the Executive Council is not to be entrusted with the appointment of the members of the Appeal Tribunal."
If those statements were not intended to convey the impression that it was the intention of the Minister to give effect to the purpose and principle of Senator Counihan's amendment it is difficult to know what meaning could be read into them, unless it was the object of the Minister to mislead the House as to his real intentions.
It is scarcely necessary to stress the importance of these positions of lay commissioners in regard to the administration of the Act. By sub-section (5) of Section 7 they may override the opinion of the judicial commissioner in matters both of law and fact. It was because of this, certainly, that members of both Houses argued strongly for the insertion of some provision in the Bill such as that embodied in Senator Counihan's amendment which would be a guarantee that the lay commissioners would be men whose experience would ensure impartial and equitable administration of the Act when it came into operation.
Statements similar to those I have quoted of the Minister, in some respects perhaps more explicit as assurances, were also made by him in the Dáil. It will hardly be questioned that it is of the greatest importance to have men of experience and administrative capacity discharging the duties which the lay commissioners will be entrusted with. Will the Minister throw some light on the qualifications in this respect possessed by those who have been appointed? The only reply made by the Minister to all the criticisms and arguments in regard to this matter in both Dáil and Seanad was to repeat that there would be no appointments that he could not stand over in public. Can he stand over in public the appointment of a national school teacher and a country solicitor at a cost to the country of £3,000 a year? Mr. Mansfield will enjoy his pension in addition to his £1,500. I do not know what the amount of his pension may be, and I would like the Minister to tell us.
Certain provisions in the Land Act have been the cause of great instability in the country and of great uneasiness in the people's minds. The farmer with his market taken from him and his property threatened with confiscation is in a terrible position. The appointment of these two lay commissioners, who are also appeal commissioners, has not tended to allay his fears. This motion gives the Minister an opportunity to show that he can stand over the present appointments and to furnish evidence of the qualifications of the men appointed in regard to both experience and administrative capacity.