Before we take up the Land Bill in Committee, it may be convenient, at this point, if I inform the House that amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 6 are out of order and cannot be moved. The amendments are outside the scope of the Bill. They are amendments in the name of Senator Counihan.
Land Bill, 1938—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I think the House is entitled to more information as to the policy proposed by the Government under this section. The House, no doubt, will remember that this retention of the guarantee land deposit arises under a right the Government has taken to revise the standard purchase annuity. At the time that power was taken it was understood, although I cannot trace any pledge being given in the House, that it would be used only in cases where there was collusion almost amounting to fraud, say where the landlord and tenant had agreed to place a fictitious and altogether too high rent on a holding, and by reason of that fraud the land would not be security for the advance.
The Land Commission have gone a long way beyond that. They have now taken power to revise the standard purchase annuity not only in the case of non-judicial holdings, but in the case of judicial holdings. Now, the judicial rent was arrived at after full inquiry, by a process of law. In all conscience if there ever was a legal or moral contract that was one. It almost amounts to a breach of honour that any Government should take the right to revise contracts or agreements made on the basis of judicial rents. That is what has been done. I should like the Minister to give the House some indication as to how far, in practice, the standard purchase annuities, fixed on the basis of judicial rents, have been revised. The effect of these powers has even gone so far that owners who have been paid their bonds are asked to refund any amount which the Land Commission may claim to have been overpaid. The effect of that is that in the case of a resident in this country the claim can be made effective. In the case of an owner who has left, his external assets cannot be pursued. No English court, I am informed, would give judgment on the basis of any such claim. The whole thing is wholly inequitable, and amounts, I would suggest—I do not like to use the word, but I will use it—to a very shady action on the part of the Government, because if there was ever a firm basis for agreement it was the judicial rent.
Now what happens? Before the guarantee deposit is released, an inspector can go down and practically, with the powers of revision, fix a further judicial rent I would tell the House, moreover, that in any assessment of the value of the land for the advance you must have regard not to present values but to the values in 1923, the time at which the contract was made. The whole thing seems to me not only complicated but unconscionably hard on owners who have been paid their money. This section now goes further than the guarantee deposit. Hitherto, the guarantee deposit was held, with justification, pending final inspection, but the interest hitherto has been paid. It is now proposed even to hold the interest, and many of the people who now suffer are only residuary owners. In many cases that interest is badly needed by men who have got very little remaining over after all charges have been paid.
I ask the Minister to be specific and clear as to what the intentions of the Government are, and whether, as time goes on, under the powers they now enjoy, the final inspection is practically going to be a revision of the values of land. In law the owners have no protection whatever. The inspector who will finally verify the boundary and inspect the land before the guarantee deposit is released will practically revise every holding, wipe out the guarantee deposit altogether, and ask owners even to refund money which has been paid. I hope the House realises the seriousness of this matter and the basic injustice contained in this provision. I repeat that you are cutting away the whole basis of a contract made under the 1923 Act and taking powers to revise values without limitation, merely on the basis of whether the land was or was not security for the money. If you had that sort of thing in commercial life, no court of common law would recognise it for a moment. The Government are taking powers which citizens as between one another could never claim.
On the second point, and I presume the less important point that Senator Sir John Keane made, it appears on the reading of this section that, where interest accrues on a guarantee deposit, it will not be paid out automatically, but that the person must make application to the Judicial Commissioner for the payment of his own money. If that is the exact meaning of the section, it appears to be a reversal of every principle of ordinary law. If we provided in the section that, where the Land Commission desire to retain the interest, they could make application to the Judicial Commissioner and that he could give them leave to retain the interest, that would appear to be reasonable and in accordance with ordinary legal principles and the ordinary principles of natural justice. But, where you compel a man to make an application to the Judicial Commissioner for money which is presumed to be his own, it seems to be an extraordinary provision. I do not know why a man should be made to show special reasons why he should get money which belongs to him and which is being held by the Land Commission. One would imagine that the onus would be the other way round. Am I right in thinking that the effect of this section will be to involve every owner in the costs of an application to the Judicial Commissioner if he wants to get the interest? Where will the costs come from in that case? Surely the person who owns the interest, and who successfully asserts his right under this provision, will not have to bear the costs of his application?
I should like to point out that the retention of the ten per cent. deposit was introduced under the 1931 Act in order to speed up the payment of bonds. Otherwise the owners might have had to wait for a very long time before they would get the bonds at all. That was part of the bargain. There is no going back on any bargain. The purchase price has not been definitely fixed. It was felt to be fairly safe to pay out 90 per cent. of the purchase money and to retain ten per cent., which may have to be held or may have to be refunded. It was in order to enable speedy payments to be made that ten per cent. was held and that authority was given under the 1931 Act. Therefore it is not correct to say, as Senator Hayes suggested, that that money is the property of the landowner. That has to be decided when the purchase price is finally fixed by the Judicial Commissioner.
As to the question of interest, what is sought to be done is to retain the interest. There have been cases in which it was found that the ten per cent. was not sufficient, and that meant trying to get a refund of an overpayment. The State has to have regard to the value of the land they are taking over and, of course, what the security is going to be for the money advanced for it. I do not think there is any question of going back on a bargain. I could not say, without examination, in how many cases it has been found that the money was inadequate. The thing that is of importance is that, in order to help the owner to get his bonds quickly, it was provided that he should get 90 per cent. of the price and then, when the thing was finally settled, it would be decided whether he would get more or less. Of course, even the landlord could object to the price and say that it was not sufficient. The tenant might say it was too much. That is the question that has to be decided. I do know that in some cases the landlord's price has been increased; I would not say in many cases, but it has been in some cases. There is no going back on any bargain.
As to the question of fraud, that might have been an element in it; there could easily be collusion. That would be one consideration, but it would not be the main consideration, as it is not a thing that would occur generally. Of course, it could happen that there would be collusion between the landlord and the tenant. That would be only one consideration. But the main consideration is in order that landlords, who are very often in great difficulties about getting cash, should not be kept unduly long out of it. In order that that might be done with safety to the State, and so that too much money would not be given, part of the understanding was that ten per cent. should be held. That was found not to be sufficient in some cases. I dare say that, before the Judicial Commissioner will decide to issue the interest, he will have to have some idea as to what the purchase price is finally going to be.
Mr. Hayes
That is to say, retention of the 10 per cent., plus interest?
Yes, on the 10 per cent.
Mr. Hayes
Supposing the man takes proceedings and establishes to the satisfaction of the Judicial Commissioner his claim to the interest, who pays the costs?
The Judicial Commissioner has control of that. I think the cost will be simply a stamp—that he will simply make an application. I do not think he would have to do more. The Judicial Commissioner, I am sure, would be in a position to award costs out of the costs fund in that case if he saw it was necessary.
Mr. Hayes
Therefore application in these cases does not necessarily mean an appearance in court.
Not necessarily.
I do not see on what ground the Judicial Commissioner is going to decide to release money without an inspection of the land. If I apply for the 10 per cent. guarantee deposit held, the case could not be decided unless there was an inspection of the whole estate. It cannot be decided in an office. The thing seems utterly unconvincing except it be that the Government want to lay their hands on all the money they can. It looks as if they were simply going to lay their hands on the money as long as they can. There is no logical basis on which the Judicial Commissioner sitting in a court in Dublin can decide the matter. The only basis would be to have an inspection of the land, and on that inspection to decide that in some cases the land was not sufficient security for the money. I was hoping that the Minister would at least differentiate between non-judicial rents and judicial rents. It seems to be utterly inconsistent to take one judicial tenancy out of a number and say that one, which has been decided by a full process of law, was not fairly decided, whereas another judicial tenancy, decided by an equal process was. Surely the judicial rent should be, in every case, the basis of the standard annuity. The Government must take some risk in the matter. To safeguard itself by gross injustice seems an absurd position. I could understand the Government saying that they could not permit that for judicial tenants. Would the Minister consider, before the Report Stage, whether he would say: "We will not re-open cases based on judicial rents, but we will take power to re-open cases based on non-judicial rents"?
I do not think I can say any more about the matter. I understand that out of 85,000 cases only 400 have been reviewed. The main point is that landlords, undoubtedly, had a grievance up to 1931, as they might be waiting for years. Inspection of the land is necessary and, of course, there might be an objection from either the landlord or the tenant, and there might have to be another inspection before the purchase price was finally fixed. If we had not that provision to retain ten per cent., the owners would have a far greater grievance, in having to wait for a long time before the price could be finally fixed. That was part of the arrangement and is understood, and I am sure the landlords were glad to get it. I believe it was an advantage to them. If people had to wait for years it was a great hardship. This provision prevented that. If it is their money they will get it. It happened on a few occasions that they got more. If interest is held it will be recovered, too.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
(b) whenever a sum is payable under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Land Act, 1923, or under that sub-section as applied by Section 7 of the Land Bond Act, 1933, or by Section 8 of the Land Bond Act, 1934, to a vendor, the Judicial Commissioner may, if he so thinks proper, direct that the said sum shall be paid either (as the Judicial Commissioner shall specify in such direction) wholly or to a specified extent in cash, and, upon such direction being so given, the said sum shall be paid either (as such direction requires) wholly or to the said specified extent in cash and, in the latter case, the residue of the said sum shall be paid as if this section had not been enacted.
I move amendment No. 1:—
At the end of paragraph (b), to add the following words "and the cash so paid shall be applied in such manner as the Judicial Commissioner shall specify including payment of costs".
This section deals with the costs fund. Section 5 of the Land Act of 1923 provided for the payment out of the costs fund to the vendor in 4½ per cent. British Guaranteed Bonds of such sum as the Judicial Commissioner would certify to be reasonable, having regard to the work done in connection with the sale. This clearly shows that the intention was that payment should be provided for the purposes of costs, that is to say, added to the purchase money. The costs were not paid direct to the solicitor as if he had a charge on the estate, but were paid to the vendor who in due course paid the costs. Section 7 of the Land Bond Act, 1933, provided for payment in new 4½ per cent. bonds. Section 8 of the Land Bond Act, 1934, provided for payment in different categories of bonds, as the early categories became exhausted. Section 4 (1) of the Land Bond Act, 1925, provided for payment of all claims against purchase money in bonds, and sub-section (3) of that Act provided that the Judicial Commissioner might, in any particular case which justice appeared to him to require, make such order inconsistent with the form of the section as appeared to him to be proper in regard to any claims against the purchase money. Under this provision the Judicial Commissioner can order payment out of the costs fund to be made in cash instead of in bonds. I think he has got discretion. Having the power to pay in cash, of course he will always exercise it when the bonds are standing at a premium.
That is introducing a new principle. It is the first time in the whole of these Acts where anyone is taking power to pay in whatever is the cheapest form. It was always in bonds. If the bonds were at a discount the vendor suffered, and if at a premium, the vendor gained. It seems to me to be the prevailing tendency always to give the vendor the dirty end of the stick. This arrangement might be equitable if, having paid the vendor his proportion of the costs in cash, he had power to pay his solicitor in cash. The provision remains that the vendor should be paid, with the adjudged amount of the costs, in cash, but he will still have to pay his solicitor in bonds.
In the case of 4½ per cent. Land Bonds, which are at a substantial premium, the vendor would suffer. If they were at a discount it would be another story. Surely there should be consistency throughout. If you depart from payment on all sides in bonds you should, at least, allow the same treatment to both, to the vendor and to the person whom he has to pay. If you pay the vendor in cash he should have the right to pay the solicitor in cash. The Minister may say that this section gives full discretion to the judicial commissioner. I cannot agree that he is likely to interpret the section as meaning that discretion given in a particular case shall apply in all cases, that is to say, where the costs fund of the land bonds are concerned. It means that the Judicial Commissioner has full discretion to order payment in cash for costs, but he can only do so in particular cases. The effect of the amendment is that he can do so in all cases where costs are concerned. Apparently it is necessary to put it in this form, because the Judicial Commissioner has power to order payment of costs in cash and he can order payment of any charges on the estate in cash. I do not know if it has been done, but he has the power. That is the reason the amendment is in this form, that having discretion to pay anything in bonds, he shall also have power to include payment of the costs in cash.
This is an unnecessary amendment, because the Judicial Commissioner has the power to decide—it is a matter for him—first of all, as to whether he will pay any costs. An amount equal to 2 per cent. of the purchase money is set aside in a cost fund. There are three cost funds. One is appropriate to the old 4½ per cent. pre-1923 bonds. Then there is one for the new 4½ per cent. bonds, and there is the cost fund at the present rate of 4 per cent. The cost fund is made up of 2 per cent. of the purchase money. It happens that in the new 4½ per cent. cost fund there is not sufficient money to meet the costs, and the Judicial Commissioner is empowered under the provisions of this section to treat all the cost funds as a pool, out of which he can draw, and he can order the bonds to be sold to realise whatever amount of cash he orders in his discretion.
I do not see that there is anything in the amendment. He has already the discretion which it is proposed to give him. That is the position. It is to enable him to pool the three cost funds because of the fact that one fund is very small. The 2 per cent. in that case did not reach a sufficient amount to pay costs arising out of transactions appropriate to that particular denomination, the 4½ per cent. That is really all that is in it, and the amendment is unnecessary. It is a matter for the Commissioner to decide whether or not he will award costs.
Surely the Judicial Commissioner should have no discretion in the matter. Where cash is paid to the vendor for costs, the vendor should be assured by law that he will be empowered to pay cash to his solicitor. Is that not elementary justice? I quite understand that the Minister wants to bolster up the cost fund by this device. There is not enough money, apparently, and when that is so the vendor suffers.
That is not right.
Assuming there is not enough money, what is the position? The Minister says that the object is to treat all the cost funds as a pool. Assume you are going to pay out in cash instead of in bonds. Having paid in cash to the vendor, surely there should be no question of discretion? There should be common justice and the solicitor should be paid in cash. The Minister says the Judicial Commissioner has discretion. This is the section under which he has discretion. Listen to me while I read it, and decide whether, as an ordinary jury, you consider this gives absolute discretion: "The Judicial Commissioner may, in a particular case in which justice appears so to require——" That, surely, does not cover my contention? There is no question of particularity at all. In all cases cash should be paid and why tie it down to a section which will certainly give the Judicial Commissioner power to pick and choose? On what basis will he pick and choose? Not on any basis of justice. He may be influenced by the colour of the hair of the counsel, or whomsoever is appearing before him. There is no logical basis on which he can pick and choose.
The Judicial Commissioner is the person who decides whether any costs will be paid. That is purely a matter for himself. I would remind the Senator that it is not a question of there not being money. There is plenty of money in the cost funds, but not in this particular one, the new four-and-a-half per cent. bonds. The Senator talks about the colour of a man's hair deciding whether the Commissioner may award costs or not. We must leave that to the judge to decide. The amount of the costs awarded will be decided by him and he will have regard to what is the justice of the case, whether it will be better for the person to get bonds or cash, or be paid partly in both. He has to pay the money out of a particular cost fund which is there and all we are asking is to give him the right to treat the three cost funds as one. There is plenty of money set by in the three cost funds, but in one particular cost fund there is not. There is no point in trying to compel the Judicial Commissioner to take a certain course when the actual awarding of costs is a matter for himself. Surely the Senator can see that?
It seems to me the whole point is being missed by the Minister. If the vendor is required in any case to receive payment in bonds, he should have the right to pass on payment of costs to the solicitor in bonds, and if he is to receive payment in cash he should have the right to pay the solicitor in cash, bearing in mind that to receive payment in cash is a distinct disadvantage where the bonds are at a premium. That is a point the Minister should meet, and he does not seem to me meeting it at all.
The costs are a matter between the solicitor and the vendor, and all these things are taken into consideration by the Judicial Commissioner. I do not suppose he gives the full costs in any case. I do not think I have missed the point. I am afraid the Senators who have spoken do not seem to have got the point. The Judicial Commissioner awards the costs, and whether they will be paid in bonds or cash is a matter for him. If the cash is not available in one cost fund he cannot get it there; he goes to the others. The transaction between the solicitor and the vendor is a matter for themselves; the Judicial Commissioner does not settle that. We give him power to draw on a pool of three cost funds where before he had to draw the money out of a particular fund. I do not think I have missed the point, but I think the significance of this section has not been grasped by Senator Sir John Keane.
Has the vendor the right, if paid in bonds, to pass on payment to his solicitor in bonds, and vice versa, if he is paid in cash, has he the right to pass on payment in cash?
How he pays the costs to the solicitor is a matter for himself and the solicitor.
We want to arrange so that the judge will have no alternative but to order payment in cash if the vendor receives cash, and bonds if he receives bonds.
The vendor has got to pay the solicitor in bonds by law; he cannot offer any cash. Will the Minister get his advisers to put him right on that point?
I have to clear that point up. I cannot clear it up now. I still think I am right in this matter. The central point is that no costs need be awarded if the Judicial Commissioner does not wish to award them. He need not award costs at all and, therefore, it is superfluous to try to force him to pay in bonds or cash, when it is a matter for his discretion whether he will pay costs at all. As to the point whether he is bound to pay the solicitor in cash or bonds, there may be some case in which it is necessary to pay in bonds. Generally, I do not think it is. By the Report Stage I will be able to let the Senator know definitely.
If it be the case that, according to the law, costs must be paid in bonds, then it will be necessary to provide, if the Commissioner gives costs, that they may be paid in cash, which is what I understand the amendment to be. It is not a matter of any great principle. He has discretion. If he does not award costs, the question will not arise. It only arises if he does so award, and this amendment is clearly based on the assumption stated by Senator Sir John Keane, that at present he should pay in bonds. The Minister ought to undertake to consider this amendment on the Report Stage and, if Senator Sir John Keane's statement is correct, the Minister might carefully consider whether there is any objection to giving the Commissioner power, if he does so award costs, to provide the manner in which they will be paid.
He has the power, undoubtedly, to give it in bonds if he wishes to do so. I want that to be remembered by Senators, and what I have said here so often is that there is one particular fund in which there is not sufficient to meet the payment, and, therefore, he must draw from the other funds, but it should be borne in mind, that, at the present time, the Judicial Commissioner has the power to pay in bonds if he wishes to do so, and I am not prepared to make it mandatory upon him to do so. I am not prepared to do that. He can do so, if he wishes.
If the Judicial Commissioner makes an award of costs without specifying either bonds or cash, is not the vendor responsible for the payment of costs to the solicitor without specifying whether the payment will be made either in bonds or cash? As far as I can see, this is a footy point that is being raised, because, after all, the vendor is responsible for paying the costs to the solicitor and the Judicial Commissioner need not specify either cash or bonds.
There seems to be a terrible misconception in all quarters of the House with regard to this particular matter. Perhaps I am suffering from a misconception myself, although I do not think so; my mind is quite clear about it. As far as I can understand Senator McEllin, if the Judicial Commissioner does specify whether it is to be in bonds or cash, the solicitor has got to be paid similarly.
He is not bound to do so.
I understand that he has got to pay in bonds. It is only in this Bill that the law is being changed. Hitherto, if the vendor were being paid in bonds, the costs were paid in bonds—either the 4 per cent. or the 4½ per cent., whichever was appropriate. No question of payment in cash has ever arisen heretofore, and it is only being brought in by this Act. That is what I believe, and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. Now the Minister keeps stressing the inter-changeability of these bonds. That does not concern me, and there may be good reasons for it. My concern is this: that if an award is made—of course, as Senator Douglas said, if no award is made, then nothing arises— but if an award is made, then I say that it is only common justice that the solicitor should be paid in the same currency as that in which the award is made.
Not necessarily.
I say that it is only common justice. Generally, I think it will be found that the solicitor's costs are more than the costs awarded. I think that Senators should look at this matter from the purely commonsense point of view and not as a debating point across the floor of the House. It is purely a case of commonsense argument. Let us say that the solicitor's costs come to £100. Unless the Minister accepts this amendment, what is likely to happen is that £100 cash will be paid to the vendor and, by law, he will have to pay the solicitor £108, because if they are bonds it is equivalent to £108 and that is what he will have to pay. Is that justice? I think we should get away from this sort of orientation of mind about the poor man and the rich man, and that we should get back to the question of ordinary justice.
Is it justice that, to enable you to pay a bill if £108, you should be given £100. That is the effect here, unless the Commissioner exercises his discretion and, under the law, he can only exercise his discretion in particular cases. Why should it not be mandatory on him to exercise his discretion in every case where similar circumstances apply? It is getting terribly heart-breaking to try to get anything accepted by the authorities. There seems to be a sort of barrier which has the effect that nothing that is suggested by the Opposition will be considered on its merits. I say that this is a case, not for Party outlook, but for looking at the matter from the point of view of sheer justice. Should not a matter of this kind be considered on its merits, instead of taking the attitude that, because you have a sledge-hammer majority the thing will be passed whether we like it or not?
I think that is scarcely fair. I do not think it is fair of the Senator to make that suggestion. There is no question of Party here at all. I think that anybody who has taken the trouble to follow the debates on this Bill in the Dáil will admit that I tried in every way to meet any suggestions that were put forward there and that, although I was fiercely attacked by the Opposition, I went to the limit of compromise in order to meet any points that were raised. I can assure Senator Sir John Keane that, if I saw anything at all in his proposal, I should do the same and would go as far as I could to meet him but I can tell him that there is nothing in the point he is raising. I am sure that, when he examines the matter himself, he will be satisfied that there is nothing in it and I can also assure him that I am not approaching this matter in any Party spirit at all. I would refer him to the debates in the Dáil on this Bill in order to show him that I have not taken that line at all. I am not looking on this matter from a Party point of view because I would like to go as far as I possibly could, in a Land Bill, to get agreement if agreement could be found, and I think it will be agreed that, in the Dáil, we almost got to that point. If members of this House who are connected with Fine Gael would ask their own people in the Dáil, I think they would find that it would be admitted that we came to agreement on almost every point that was raised.
There seems to be a great difference of opinion between Senator Sir John Keane, who insisted that one point of view was right, and the Minister and his advisers, who insist that their point of view is right. I suggest to Senator Sir John Keane that he should withdraw his amendment until the Report Stage and, in the meantime, have a discussion with the Minister and his advisers, and I am sure that, if there is anything in the Senator's point, the Minister will agree with him on some amendment to meet the case.
Does the Minister accept that what Senator Sir John Keane says is true, that for £100 costs, £108 will have to be paid? I think that is the kernel of the whole question. Does the Minister accept that?
I say that, when and if the Judicial Commissioner is awarding costs, he has regard to all these things. He is not bound to pay a round figure, and he will pay in bonds, if they are there—either out of the old 4½ per cent. bonds or out of the new 4½ or 4 per cent. bonds. In this case, however, the bonds are not there, and consequently we give him power to pay, if he likes to do so, partly in bonds and partly in cash, and he is not compelled to give a round figure of £100. He will know whether the bonds are at a premium or not, and I am sure that none of us will accuse him, at any rate, of being a politician. Anyhow, the Judicial Commissioner, whoever he may be, will act judicially, and if he sees that the bonds are at £108 he will say that he will either deduct so much from what he is awarding or else provide for it in some other way, but he would certainly have regard to that fact.
I look at this purely from a business point of view. Why should the Commissioner have a right to look on the matter in that way at all? If I owe £100, why should I have to pay £108? That is the main point at issue. The matter of what fund the money comes out of does not appeal to me at all. What I am concerned with is the question of what money I receive and what money I pay, and that is the real matter at issue.
I have tried to explain that the Commissioner need not give any costs at all, much less all the costs. It is a matter for himself. He has discretion in that, and it is a matter for him to decide, not for me.
It is the payment of the costs that I am concerned with, after the award has been made.
Well, Sir, I am not going to pursue this matter further except that I should like the Minister to realise that if, in a moment of heat and irritation—and it is not easy sometimes to keep quite a calm demeanour in connection with some of these things, in view of the statements made by other people—I suggested that he was not treating this matter fairly or that he was regarding it purely from a Party point of view, I really did not mean to convey that, and I would not like the Minister to think so. It was the attitude of Senator McEllin that made me feel in that mood. I think he ought to try and treat this as a business proposition. I want to return it. I am not satisfied. I would like to withdraw the amendment, with the leave of the House, and to raise the matter again on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 12 to 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Every provision of the Land Purchase Acts whereby a right to require the Lay Commissioners to state a case in respect of a question of law is conferred is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted as follows, that is to say:—
(a) whenever a question of law arises in any proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts before the Lay Commissioners, any person aggrieved by the decision of the Lay Commissioners on that question may appeal from such decision to the Appeal Tribunal.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In paragraph (a), in line 32, to delete the words "a question of law" and substitute therefor the words "any question"; and in line 35 to delete the word "that" and substitute therefor the words "any such."
If my amendment is accepted the sub-section will read:—
Whenever any question arises in any proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts before the Lay Commissioners, any person aggrieved by the decision of the Lay Commissioners on any such question may appeal from such decision to the Appeal Tribunal.
I do not think that I am asking any great concession of the Minister when I ask to have an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal from the decision of the Lay Commissioners. If this clause stands in its present form, the decision of the Lay Commissioners is final on all questions relating to the compulsory acquisition of land, and there is no appeal except on a question of law. At this time an appeal on a question of law is, I think, out of the question, having regard to experience in regard to appeals on questions of law. The Land Commission have been consolidating their law and their Land Acts since 1923.
If the Senator would forgive me for one moment, as the Senator is developing the question, I think it would be more appropriate to Section 39, because this section deals entirely with questions of law, and the debate I expect we are going to have is on this general right of appeal. I suggest, if I may, that it might be more properly dealt with on Section 39, because if you read the section you will find that it deals with questions of law arising before the Lay Commissioners. That will not debar the Senator from having his full say, but I think we would have it at the wrong time, and perhaps would have it again on Section 39. There is one point in Section 39—that the certificate of the Lay Commissioner shall be conclusive evidence—which was the main subject of debate in the Dáil. It is the very same point.
Mr. Hayes
Does the Minister suggest that this amendment should be taken as a new section before or after Section 39?
On Section 39. I would almost say that it is out of order on this section. I do not know whether I have the right to raise a point of order as Minister, but I would say it is not in order.
The amendment may need re-drafting in its other position.
If it is a new section and if it is out of order it will be just as much out of order on any other section.
In Section 39 there is a particular provision that a certificate of the Lay Commissioners shall be conclusive evidence. On that, I suggest, the main debate on the right of appeal ought to take place as it did in the other House. It is merely a question of order. I am not trying to evade it at all.
If I can raise the amendment on another section I am satisfied to meet the Minister.
This amendment appears to be quite relevant to Section 15, and, perhaps, it would be better to discuss it now.
Is it not an over-riding paragraph?
The amendment proposes to delete words in the section and substitute other words. The amendment seems quite specific and quite relevant to the section and it might be as well to dispose of it right away, without complicating Section 39 afterwards.
If we pass this it will then be in conflict with Section 39 of the Bill. That is why I am making the point. It is merely a question of order.
Mr. Hayes
If we get to Section 39, having passed Section 15 and not passed this amendment, where are we? It is a practical question rather than a question of order.
That would be a matter for the Report Stage. Of course, it would be clearly understood that this question would not be raised on Section 39 afterwards.
If this clause stands in its present form, the decision of the Lay Commissioners will be final on all questions relating to compulsory acquisition of land. I was arguing that there was no question of law at the present time because if the Land Commission find that they have made a mistake and that any decision of theirs is upset in a court of law or before the Judicial Commissioner they immediately bring in an amending Bill to legalise whatever illegal action they have performed under the previous Land Acts and making that retrospective. We had the experience that whenever the Land Commission made a mistake there is an amending Bill brought in. The question of appeal on a question of law is not what any man with any common sense will consider for the future. For that reason, I want the Minister to be reasonable. There is nothing unreasonable in asking for an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal on all questions which the Lay Commissioners decide. I am not going outside the Land Commission in my amendment. I am still within appeal to the officers of the Land Commission, the Lay Commissioners and the Judicial Commissioners. The only difference is that in that particular case we may obtain some justice in having a High Court judge on the tribunal. As the law stands, any two Lay Commissioners may come along and say, "we require this land; we are going to acquire it compulsorily for any of the particular purposes, for the purpose of relieving congestion, for the purpose of the provision of land for resale or any other purpose mentioned in Section 31 of the Land Act of 1923 as amended by later Acts, or for the purpose of increasing the food supply of the country or for the purpose of improving or rearranging holdings." All that is required to be done by the Lay Commissioners is to make out a certificate that the Land Commissioners require the land for any of these particular objects and the Appeal Tribunal has to declare that the land must be acquired without any further appeal. To say that the owner of the land may appeal to the Lay Commissioners does not mean much, because when the Lay Commissioners give their decision that the land must be acquired that finishes it. The Appeal Tribunal, once the certificate of the Lay Commissioners has been issued, have no say in the matter except a question of law arises. I think this is a very reasonable proposal. It is reasonable protection to give the people whose land may be acquired in the future. It will have the effect of creating some confidence. It will not do a great lot but at the same time it gives one a chance of seeking justice where one feels that he has been badly treated. It will give the right of appeal to a tribunal on which there is a High Court judge. It will allay some of the fears which many landholders have in connection with the acquisition of land by the Land Commission.
This section seems to me to be drafted for the purpose of repealing provisions in previous Land Acts on the questions of law, and is introduced here as a substitute. Senator Counihan's amendment is not a substitute. Paragraph (a) of the section deals with one matter, and paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with the matter which the section sets out to deal with. Is not this amendment calculated to create confusion? Ought it not to be brought forward as quite a new matter? I think it should not be included in the section at all.
I submit that the amendment will not achieve what the Senator wants to achieve. The opening paragraph indicates that the section is repealing all power conferred in respect of questions of law, whereas in paragraph (a) underneath, Senator Counihan, as I understand, wants to refer to the Appeal Tribunal questions of fact as well as questions of law.
Any question.
Even so, you still leave there the over-riding principle that you are only repealing matters in reference to questions of law.
Is it not the inclusion of the words, "in lieu thereof," in the first part of the section that puts the Senator's amendment entirely in the wrong? His amendment is surely not "in lieu thereof."
It seems to me that sweeping changes are proposed under this section: that in lieu of what prevailed formerly we are going to put in something else. It may be that in the first part of the section we are limiting the right of appeal, as it was limited in the previous Acts, to questions of law. I cannot see Senator Hogan's point about the over-riding principle in the first part of the section. It merely refers to what is in previous Acts, and goes on to set out what shall take the place of that. I am not making the point that this is the most appropriate place for Senator Counihan to get what he wants, but it seems to me that if you are changing a thing and saying, "Knock out that and put in something else," it is quite legitimate for Senator Counihan to get up and say, "Knock out that and put in not merely what you propose but something else that I want in as well."
I agree with what Senator Fitzgerald has said. I want to suggest to the House that it does not matter very much how we do this. We simply want a point at which we can test the opinion of the House on this general question of appeal. It may be that if the amendment were carried it would involve the moving of consequential amendments. The point that I want to make is that we need not waste the time of the House in discussing the exact relevancy of the amendment to the section. The important thing is that it will enable us to test the opinion of the House on this question.
If the principle of the amendment is affirmed, then any consequential amendments required may be moved on Report.
The matter looks to me quite simple. I do not know, of course, how the lawyers will look on it. "Whenever any question"—that is plain and definite—"arises in any proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts before the Lay Commissioners, any person aggrieved by the decision of the Lay Commissioners on any such question may appeal from such decision to the Appeal Tribunal." I think that the ordinary man in the street can understand that.
We all know what it means.
I am not so much concerned with the method proposed here, but I am with the equities and the principle involved. You have this extraordinary position: that if your neighbour trespasses on your land or claims a right of way over it, you can take him, if you are dissatisfied with the decision given in the Circuit Court, to the High Court—to what corresponds to the Assize Court. There is that right of appeal in the case of trivial disputes between two neighbours, but here you have a Department of the Government, a bureaucracy, coming in and taking your land, and there is no right of appeal. That land may have been in the family for generations. This Department of the Government may come along and drive you out of your home and your land. There is, I believe, the right of appeal on the question of price, but otherwise they practically can do whatever they wish to your property. They are the sole judges in the matter. Let us get away from what has been done before and see where we are going. Elementary justice is being cast aside under this land code. As I have already said, on trivial matters neighbours have the right of appeal to a higher court from the Circuit Court. One has the right of appeal on ordinary questions of fact. The appeal is now heard on full evidence from the Circuit Court. But here, where we are dealing with the vital question of a man's property: on the question as to why it is being taken, whether he is farming it according to the requirements of the Government or not, the decision rests with one body, a Government body, not in a position in any way comparable to our courts of law. That Government body is, one may say, being given the power of life and death over a person who has property. I think it is most unjust, and that the principle in this amendment should be accepted by the House.
As far as I can see, the principle may be a very laudable one in its own way, but the facts as existing are that, under the Land Acts up to now, there is power to take land anywhere and at any time. Now, the effect of the amendment means in practice that a landlord or extensive land-owner who has the misfortune to come up under those conditions would be the victim of all sorts of valuers and solicitors and, ultimately, not alone driven to the Lay Commissioners but tempted to go still further and bring the case to the Supreme Court.
Not all. The Senator is arguing wrongly. I am only making an appeal to the High Court, and it remains there.
The fact remains that the Government has power to take land anywhere and at any time, and when a man comes before the Court and is turned down there is the temptation to drive the fool further. These appeals from one court to another ultimately mean increased cost and more outlay, and in the long run it all comes back to the position that the Land Commission can take land anywhere and any time. Personally, I do not think it is going to be of any benefit to the man who has to give up his land or to the man whose land is taken from him, compulsorily or otherwise, as ultimately the decision will be the same.
Why?
Peace and order for the ordinary citizen necessitate the continuance of land division, and while that fact remains land division will go on. But, if there are going to be appeals from one tribunal to another it is only a case of sending the unfortunate man further, with growing cost to himself. This whole question of appeal from the Land Commission should be left as it is and if I might say it, let the man take his medicine as he gets it from the Land Commission. Otherwise it means greater costs to himself and far greater losses ultimately, without any change in the position.
Senator McEllin's line of reasoning is something that I think one could not apply generally. After all, if a citizen has property which he owns and which he believes he has a right to own, I think—in justice to the citizen—if he wants to spend his last farthing to hold on to the possession of what he maintains is his property, we ought to give him the opportunity to do so. I do not think that it would be just to shut him off from all right of appeal to an upper court merely because it is bad for him and that he is going to spend money on it. The question of justice is an entirely different point. I do not know if Senator McEllin or the House generally has such a low opinion as that of the justice one can obtain in the courts. I think that is not representative of the conditions.
Regardless of whether it is applicable to this particular section or not, or where afterwards an amendment might fit into the Bill, I put it to the Minister that, if he could see his way to accept the principle which Senator Counihan is arguing, he would do a very great deal to restore people's nerves and restore confidence that has been disturbed with regard to the possession of land. I think it is only fair to the Minister to say it was generally accepted that he met the other House very fairly and displayed an attitude of reasonableness and sense, and the desire to do the right thing; and I am sure that this House has no desire— once it has given assent to the Second Reading and to the principle of the Bill —to tie up the Minister in a steel frame which will make it impossible for him to operate the Bill.
There is this consideration, whether he accepts it or not, and whether a certain number of Senators in the House believe it or not. A very considerable number of landowners are disturbed by the thought that the Land Commission can come in and decide to take over a particular farm. I am not thinking now of the 1,000 or 2,000 or 4,000 acre holding: I am thinking of the possibility of going in on smaller holdings and taking them over. A very considerable number of people are troubled about that. Surely, it would not be argued that it is going to retard the Minister in the administration of his policy to give leave to appeal to the Judicial Commissioners in the way Senator Counihan seeks. The Judicial Commissioners are just men, we hope, and they are anxious to pass judgment on the case on the facts and, if they are going to stand in the way of the Minister's policy, the position becomes quite impossible. Beyond doubt, if landowners felt that there was another court of appeal outside the first, there would be an atmosphere of confidence that does not exist at the moment.
Senator McEllin may be right to this extent, that the decision might not be very different to the first decision. There might actually not be a reversal of the original decision. Nevertheless, there is a certain amount of satisfaction in feeling that the first word of the Land Commission is not the last word, and that there is somewhere else another group of men before whom one can appear to plead his case. I believe myself that the reactions, as a result of the acceptance of that principle by the Minister, would be very satisfactory. It would remove a great deal of argument about the instability and the unsettled conditions of land holders and the weakness of title, and so on. I do not believe that the possibility of the Minister getting his scheme of land division through would be hindered in any way. I believe justice would be done. At least, one could be certain that, as far as the courts could decide on the facts, the owner of the land would get a fair hunt. His feeling to-day is that he is not getting a chance of having a fair hunt. I have no personal experience myself—none whatever—I am only arguing from what I hear from various parts of the country, and we know that there is no smoke without fire.
I would say, however, to the Minister that he would be wise to accept this amendment, that if he made this concession he would be going a very long distance to remove a great many of the objections that are being made. While, ultimately, as Senator McEllin says, the decision may not, in many cases, be reversed, nevertheless, the fact that there would be another court of appeal would satisfy public opinion generally, and I think the Minister's acceptance of the amendment would be wise, in view of the disturbing idea prevalent in the country.
I would strongly appeal to the Minister to view favourably Senator Counihan's amendment, not perhaps, on the ground that we have listened to so far, but on the ground that something will have to be done to create and make permanent credit for the farmers. If the farmer is in the position that he is without money, without stock, and without hope of getting any, I certainly cannot see how agriculture is going to be carried on. We know that the banks will not grant credit to the farmer on the security of his holding and, if any title that he has at the moment is finally destroyed when this Bill becomes an Act, where is the unfortunate farmer to look to for help?
The definition of a farmer in the future will be: "A landless man, living on the farm." He will be worse than the farmer was in the old days when he was merely a tenant. He will not even have the right to his farm; it will belong to people who begrudge him the right to it and who want to take it away from him and divide it up. If it was divided up fairly, if the man got reasonable compensation—the value of the land plus what you would give anybody at present when you take land for certain purposes, when there is a certain amount of compensation allotted for disturbance—one can understand the right of the Government to do it; but, where there are no such rights given to the unfortunate farmer, where he has to take a certificate and then know that he has appeal to no higher court than the Land Commission, what hope is there in the future of carrying on the fundamental part of the social State here?
Who are the people who are to-day appealing to a national Government for this justice? Are they not the descendants of the clansmen of old who for 700 years carried on the battle to retain the land of Ireland for the Irish people? To-day they see a Government of their own passing a measure like this which deprives them of the £250,000,000 invested in that land by these people.
I suggest to the Senator that he should not make a Second Reading speech. He should keep more closely to the amendment.
I think my remarks are applicable to the amendment, but if I am transgressing by referring to the rights of the farmers, I will say no more.
It seems to me that this question should be approached from the point of view of elementary constitutional rights. We have, as we all know, a Constitution which is, I hope, respected by all of us, and which is held in very especial honour by some of us, and it seems to me that this Bill as it stands deprives, or attempts to deprive, citizens of some of their elementary constitutional rights. The Bill seeks to remove altogether the right of appeal to the High Court on questions of fact and severely to restrict the right of appeal on questions of law, but it is part of Article 34, Section 3, of the Constitution, that "there shall be a High Court invested with full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions, whether of law or fact, civil or criminal". In other words, as the Bill now stands, it seems to me to be clearly repugnant to the letter as well as to the spirit of the Constitution, and if a leading case came before the High Court, involving a question as to whether this clause is ultra vires or not, in my humble opinion, it would be the duty of the High Court to hold that this clause, and all similar clauses in all existing land legislation, are ultra vires as being repugnant to the Constitution.
We are always being told in this House that too much responsibility for decisions is being thrown on judges. Again and again that is impressed on us, and then we suddenly find an inconsistency in this shape. We have two Lay Commissioners who are asked to decide on a question of fact. The Minister and everybody in the House, I think, will admit in what might be called a round table discussion here that, in many of these cases, the most terrific political pressure is brought to obtain some particular thing. I have seen thick files of letters from T.D.s, local people, and every type of person brought down by inspectors. I was concerned in a particular case—a question of fact. I was served by the Land Commission with a notice that they desired to acquire a piece of land under the 1923 Act for the relief of congestion. It finally came before the tribunal; I made my case, and the commissioners reserved their decision. The pressure was colossal, and the commissioners went down to the district, and, having seen the place, realised that the facts as originally presented to them were entirely wrong. I suggest that it would be a relief to the Lay Commissioners to have the chance, if they are in doubt, of going to someone, of saying: "We are not quite sure about this. Let us take it a little further." It would be justice both to the appellant and to the original judges, apart from the fact that, as other Senators have said, it would preserve a legal right to which, I believe, every citizen of the country is entitled.
I think the Minister ought to accept this amendment. Senator The McGillycuddy has referred to the files he saw. In the case of a judge of the High Court, or of any court, if T.D.s, when a matter was coming before him, wrote letters to him on the matter of his decision, they would be chargeable with embracery. If a T.D. writes to the Lay Commissioners in the matter, is he due for trial on that very grave charge of embracery? The Senator who made the best case for this amendment was Senator McEllin. Look at the picture he drew. He said that you must not hinder the work of these commissioners, but must make it easy for them, and he said that peace and order in this country would be impossible unless land distribution continues and, therefore, let us make their path smooth for the taking of land from the people to whom it belongs and giving it to people to whom it does not belong. The big Land Act was the 1923 Act, and while we cannot exactly say at what point the land which is due for division is used up, we can say roughly that it is used up now. If there are a few acres left, compared with what has taken place, they do not amount to much, but if it is a fact that we can have no peace or order in the country unless we constantly divide land, you are going to have this thing going on for ever. If the Minister looks at the map of the country and finds that the land is all divided, the maximum portions of it being 100 acres, and if I have only 25 acres, I will go agitating to get those 100 acres divided until we come to the point at which we will have nothing, but a nation of congests. If it were a fact, as the Senator says, that you cannot have peace and order, once you cease dividing land, the only thing for us to do is to set out on an imperial policy of trying to conquer other lands so as to have land to divide amongst the people.
At present, there is a feeling, which is very real and which has concrete results, that there is no security in the ownership of land. The Government's attitude distinctly differentiates between the ownership of land and ownership of any other goods. As I pointed out earlier, the Lay Commissioners and the Department of Agriculture were created for the division of land and their life has been the dividing of land. What may have been good, desirable and necessary in one set of circumstances may be bad, undesirable and unnecessary in another. There was a time when a man with thousands of acres knew that, under certain Land Acts, the question of dividing that land might arise. When it was divided, the farmer owned the land, plus a debt to be paid back in land annuities. There was a tangible asset there on which, as Senator Parkinson says, for the purpose of exploiting that land and increasing its productivity, he could raise the necessary capital by pledging his possession as an asset for the acquisition of capital.
We have here the position where, according to Senator McEllin, no matter what portion of land a man may have, the Land Commissioners— who are civil servants, and who are subject to pressure from T.D.s and other people, and subject to the additional pressure of knowing that they must provide the lands in the interests of peace and order in this country—are given power in this matter. But at some stage we must recognise stability in the ownership of land. As I said to-day, if I own a factory and the men go on strike, I have to face that strike, but I am not faced with the position of having a Government inspector coming along to me and saying: "This factory is not being worked in the best interests of the nation, and I must take it up from you." During the last week the picture of the Minister for Lands brought us to tears, with his story of that unfortunate woman whose lands were covered by weeds; that land was not producing what she had to pay for it in rates, annuities and other costs. That case moved the great heart of the Minister to pity, and he came along and he took the land from her. He did not charge her for taking it from her. He relieved her of this heavy burden. Other people had additional burdens put on them, but in this case the Minister came along and took that land, thus relieving the unfortunate ratepayers in the district. So we have that case where the land was covered with weeds and the Minister divided it.
I have always noticed that Government philanthropy is exercised with very great brutality. During the election last summer or the summer before there was a man came to me with his grievance. This man had a large number of sons, 10 or 12 I think he had. He had two farms. One of his sons was proposed for one of the farms. It was not exactly like the case in which the Minister was acting, as he described himself the other day, where the land was taken from the poor woman because it was a burden to her. Now, that man with 10 or 12 sons came to me and said the Government was demanding one of his farms. The result was that one of his sons who had been brought up with the prospect of being given that farm was now in the position that his father had to prepare him for some profession, medical or otherwise. As long as we have that sort of a position operated by the Minister and his Department, with their enthusiasms to work a desirable revolution in this country, as long as his Department has this extraordinary power that they can take land from annuitants, then, according to Senator McEllin, the sub-division must go on for ever: for, as he said, otherwise we are to have a revolution in the country. Surely it is desirable that, as far as annuitants are concerned, they should have some continuity in their holdings. What Senator Counihan proposes in this amendment does not give them a great deal of continuity, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Senator Counihan talks of the fact that when the commissioners have been proved to have acted contrary to law, the Minister comes in and promptly amends the law with retroactive effect so as to make what was illegal quite legal. We have no power to prevent that. It is a modern doctrine of the absolute supremacy of states and governments, that a government can go in at any time and bring in any Act to justify any action of theirs or their servants in the present or in the future. We are now trying in this amendment to prevent the Government bringing in legislation to justify the illegal acts of themselves and their servants. I submit that anything that will remove that general feeling that there is no stability in land and that you cannot own land as you own any commodity will help the credit of the farmers.
I think an amendment such as that proposed by Senator Counihan is desirable in the interests of justice. It is an impossible position for a farmer to find himself in when something that he owns can be taken from him and that his last appeal is to a body of men subject to political and other pressure, a form of political blackmail. These commissioners are civil servants and they may be approached by any number of persons, T.D.s and others; whereas the judge of a court if so approached would have the person brought up and charged with contempt of court and, I think, with embracery. The Lay Commissioners can be approached and no such charge will lie against the person approaching them. At all events, if it does lie it is very extraordinary that no such charge has been laid so far. As long as we have a method of Government taking further power with regard to the acquisition of land, the farms become, as time passes on, smaller and smaller. In such circumstances I think we must give some protection to the land-owner. The amendment proposed by Senator Counihan is desirable as far as it goes, but it is not nearly as adequate as it should be. That is my complaint against the amendment.
Senator McEllin has inspired and really encouraged me to contribute just a little to this debate. It seems an extraordinary thing that the great work achieved by Davitt and Parnell has been nullified to a large extent by our own Parliament. Senator McEllin tells us that under the Land Act of 1923 it is set out that land may be taken by the Land Commission any time, anywhere. He did not say it, but I might add "and at any price." That was a tragedy. The resultant effect of that and subsequent legislation has disastrous consequences for the credit of the farmers, as has been so well pointed out by Senator Baxter. Now, will anybody deny that there has been a great loss of confidence on the part of the farmers? Will anybody in this House deny that there is amongst the agricultural community to-day an atmosphere of timidity, insecurity and instability? I have within the last six months met quite a number of people who, with perfect honesty, asked me did I think from my experience in this House that it was the purpose and intention of the Government to seize land, particularly where there were large farms. I replied that in the Act passed in 1923, unfortunately, the Land Commission were invested with that authority and power. As Senator Parkinson said on another occasion, land is no longer taken as collateral security for money and, consequently, the position of the farmer has been very considerably interfered with.
There is one point to which I want specially to draw the attention of the Minister. With great emphasis he pledged his word that no man who worked his land, using his own words, "moderately well," would be interfered with. On Thursday last in this House he supplemented that and, in fact, clarified the position very specifically and very definitely when he added that not alone did that apply to tillage farms, but that grass farmers who worked their lands "moderately well" would not be interfered with or impaired in any degree. I was delighted to hear that definite assurance from the Minister, and in order to strengthen the two previous statements and promises he said that no Government could last for an indefinite period if, in any way, they interfered with farmers who worked their land "moderately well." I suppose there are some promises that the Government intend to fulfil. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the reluctance of the Minister after making that promise—and I believe he was sincere —to concede the right of appeal. As matters stand at present, what do we find? An inspector from the Land Commission comes to a certain decision and he does not submit himself to be cross-examined by the Lay Commissioners on that decision. Does it not seem an extraordinary thing that young inspectors from the Land Commission—and they are generally young —have these great powers over the properties of the people? It is for them to decide what lands they may take, and there is no right of appeal from that decision.
I have received particulars of a case with which the Minister and his Department are presumably familiar. The circumstances justify me in saying that the promises and the pledges given by the Minister have been grossly violated. I have authority to state that the particulars have been vouched for on solemn oath. I might mention that the case arose near Listowel, in County Kerry, so that, perhaps, the Minister may remember the details of it. When the House hears the details, I am sure Senators will be appalled by them. They afford the greatest justification for the arguments that have been put forward by the various Senators who have supported Senator Counihan's amendment. Sworn evidence was given before two Lay Commissioners that the despoiled owner had expended over £3,750 on improvements, draining and remodelling this farm, which consisted of 130 acres, and that his wage bill had exceeded £275 per annum for three years prior to the resumption of the land by the Land Commission. Wage books and account books were produced for inspection by the commissioners, and were testified to on oath. Three maps were submitted, two of them fair rent maps and the other a Land Registry map, showing plainly at intervals of ten years the great improvements that had been carried out.
A very well-known auctioneer and valuer testified to the perfect maintenance of this farm, but, the Minister's pledge notwithstanding, it has been resumed by the Land Commission, who never questioned, nor even attempted to rebut, the evidence that this land had been not alone moderately well worked, but had been maintained at great expense by the unremitting care and attention of the owner.
The excuse given for the resumption in this case is, not that the land was not properly worked, not that the most that could be extracted out of the land was not so extracted, not that the essential labour, in harmony with the size of the farm and in view of the fact that it was subjected to very considerable flooding, was not employed. None of these was the reason set out or assigned by the Land Commission for their action in taking over this farm. What was it? That the owner's wife had a shop. In other words, there is an unenacted but operative provision which impels the Land Commission to declare that no farmer may feel secure in the possession of his land, as is exemplified and demonstrated on oath in this case, no matter how well worked, no matter if 100 per cent. production is extracted from it, if his wife runs a shop. It was taken notwithstanding the fact, as I have said, that it was more than moderately well worked, in harmony with the statement, the promise and pledge made in this House and in the other House on more than one occasion. Everybody will agree that land must be utilised in this country to extract from it the maximum of its productivity.
Is fior é sin.
That object will be defeated if potential employers of labour in this country lose confidence in security of tenure through the Minister's refusal to permit further investigation into cases of confiscation of property resultant from the mere ipse dixit of a junior Land Commission official. I do not want to detain the House very long. I promised that I should not, and I should like the Minister to say what has become of this pledge in cases such as I have mentioned.
Níl fonn orm labhairt ar an cheist seo mar níl mé morán in aghaidh an leasuighte. Is ceist é leis an Aire agus an Riaghaltas an gcuirfidh an leasú seo isteach ortha. Ach bhí an-chuid bladarachta againn on taobh thall ar cheist na talmhan ar fad agus is iad na daoine céanna a labhair a labhras i gcomnhuidhe. Tá fonn cainte ortha agus, dar liom, níl ina n-intinn acht foun cainte. Ní raibh aon chiall le cuid den chaint. Thug an Seanadóir Mac Gearailt sompla dúinn nuair adubhairt sé gurbh ionann talamh agus monarcha. Ní hionann iad ar chor ar bith. Is féidir monarcha a thógáil. Is féidir monarcha a chumadh —no céad monarchain a chumadh—ach cé hé ar féidir leis acra do chur le talamh? Ní féidir talamh na hÉireann do mhéadú. Ní féidir le haoinne ach le Dia talamh do chumadh.
Dar le gach duine ciallmhar, is le muinntear tíre ar bith talamh na tíre sin. Is ó Riaghaltas Shasana, nuair a bhíomar faoi smacht na nGall, a fuaireamar an tuairim seo go bhfuil seilbh talmhau sacráilte ag daoine áirithe. Ní raibh an smaoineadh sin ag na Sean-Ghaedhil. Faoi'n bhFéineachas is ag an sluagh a bhí an talamh agus bheadh an sgéal mar sin go fóill murar chuir na Gaill agus na Sasanaigh isteach orainn. Thug siad an talamh don duine seo agus don duine siúd. Ó díbrigheadh na tighearnaí talmhan b'fhéidir go bhfuil an talamh roinnte níos fearr ná a bhí, ach níl sé roinnte go leor go fóill—no leath-roinnte. Dar liom, is maith an leith-sgéal talamh do bhaint de dhuine toisc nach bhfuil sé ghá saothrú. An abróchaidh na daoine seo a bhí ag bladaracht go bhfuil talamh na hEireann á saothrú mar ba cheart? An dtiocfaidh siad liom go Port Laoighise no go Béal Átha Luain, agus féachaint ar an tuaith annsin agus an abróchaidh siad go bhfuil an usáid is fearr á baint as an talamh nó go bhfuil an toradh is fearr á fagháil aisti? Ní dóigh liom go mbeadh sé de dhánaidheacht ag duine sin a rá. Tá mé ar aon intinn leis an Seanadóir Mac Ellin go gcaithfidh an Riaghaltas dul ar aghaidh le roinnt na talmhan níos tapaidhe ná mar atá siad fa latháir agus go gcaithfidh siad daoine do chur air a bheas toilteanach í do shaothrú i gceart. Dá saoileadh an Riaghaltas no an tAire go gcuirfeadh an leasú seo isteach ar an obair atá idir lámhaibh acu bheinn ina aghaidh ach bheinn níos láidre in aghaidh an phrionsabhail seo gur rud sacráilte é seilbh talmhan.
Senator McEllin rose.
Might I suggest that we hear the Minister, if Senator McEllin does not mind? It might shorten the discussion.
I want to reply to some remarks made by previous speakers. I am going to speak perfectly bluntly. Senator Fitzgerald, speaking a while ago, grossly misrepresented everything that I said.
I did not mean to do so.
He is speaking as a man who has not a perch of land, and is never likely to be affected by the Lay Commissioners. He assumed that I said I wanted to make it easier for the Lay Commissioners to do something that is morally wrong.
I did not say that.
Now, Sir, it is typical of the sentiments of the particular Senator that he should misrepresent people on this side of the House. I think that should not be the spirit of the debate in this House.
If I may intervene, I can say quite sincerely that I did not in any way attempt to misrepresent the Senator. If I misunderstood him, and he explains what exactly he did say, I will entirely accept his word.
I said quite distinctly and clearly, for any intelligent man to understand, that the Lay Commissioners or any commissioner or any judge in this country will have to work on the law as it exists in the Land Acts; and it is that the Land Commission have power to take land anywhere at any time. Surely to goodness that is perfectly obvious. That did not mean that I wanted to make it easier for those Lay Commissioners. I know the meaning, in practice, of those Land Acts, because my family and myself have been victims over the last 40 years of decisions both of the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board. I have been a victim—if you like to call it that—of such decisions within the last three years. Consequently, in connection with the operation of the law as it exists to-day, I do say that misleading landlords who are brought before the Land Commission into the belief that the law is going to be differently interpreted in any other court is simply sending the fool further. It is merely involving them in greater costs with lawyers, solicitors, land valuers and everybody else.
In actual practice what this whole amendment means is that you want to take away from the Land Commission a power that is already in existence in the Land Acts. You are asking a higher judge to change the law. It cannot be done. We must get down to the reason why all those land laws are being brought in. Personally, I do not see any hope of having the law repealed. When I said that it was essential for peace and order, I believed that. This whole question of land division is rooted in our history. The Land League, the Fenian Movement, and every other movement of that kind, were intended to free the people from the grasp of the landlords of the time, and to rectify the wrongs inflicted on them by the confiscations in Cromwellian times. Parnell and Davitt afterwards came along and advocated land reform. They succeeded in bringing in the Wyndham Acts, and so on. Parnell and Davitt never intended that three-fourths of the people of this country should live on valuations of £1, 30/- or £5, while the other fourth lived on valuations of £100. In County Mayo at present the average valuation is about £5, while, as another example, the average in County Meath is about £120. As I see the position now, quite frankly I do not believe there is any future for any extensive landowners' operations. I am quite satisfied that if the Party to which Senator Fitzgerald belongs were to go up to-morrow at a general election, seeking a return to power, one of the main planks of the platform of that Party would be the continuation of land division. The same applies to the Fianna Fáil Party. Neither Fianna Fáil nor Fine Gael has the courage to extract that particular plank from their platform? Why? Because the majority of the farming community of this country are living on holdings the valuations of which are so low that they cannot get a living on them, and each Party knows perfectly well that they would not be returned as a Government if they withdrew that policy of land division.
What has all this got to do with the right of appeal?
The whole question of the power of the Land Commission and the law under which the Lay Commissioners and the judges are operating is under question. It is raised by Senator Counihan's amendment. Senator Fitzgerald accused me and others of making certain statements.
The Senator misunderstood me.
I do not wish to go any further, but I do repeat what I already said in regard to Senator Counihan's amendment. The Lay Commissioners have all the power. The law will not be changed. I believe that the people will get as fair treatment there, according to the law——
The Lay Commissioners have not the power, but the Minister wants to give them the power. The Senator is wrong.
I ventured to suggest earlier in the discussion that this amendment would not achieve anything—at least, that it would not achieve what Senator Counihan seems to desire. Inasmuch as it seems to be the desire of every Senator to discuss the merits and demerits of land distribution and division on every amendment and on every section I see no reason why the principle should not be discussed now as well as it has been discussed for the last 10 or 15 minutes. It was suggested that the position of the farmer at the present time in regard to loans from banks is due to the that he has not fixity of tenure— that the bank does not know whether the Land Commission may not say in the morning to him, "We are going to acquire your land and distribute it." I wonder does anybody who knows the country thoroughly believe that.
They do not.
Does anybody who lives in a rural area and who knows the conditions believe that?
Certainly I believe it.
It is absolutely a misstatement. It is an exaggeration so wide that I could not conceive of anybody coming into a deliberative assembly of this kind and suggesting that that is the position. Banks will not advance money to some farmers because they are afraid that these farmers are not solvent, that they have not sufficient stock on their lands that the bank can easily get hold of, or that their shop debts are too high, or for some reason like that.
That is the point.
It is not the point. The point made is that they are afraid that the Land Commission will acquire the land. It is quite a different point altogether. It is not because they are afraid the Land Commission is going to acquire the land for distribution. That is the point which has been made here, but that is not the position in the country.
It is to a certain extent.
To what extent? Senator Baxter knows the country fairly well, and I suggest to him that he would not say in a calm, rational moment that 3 per cent. of that is correct. This amendment suggests that there should be an opportunity of submitting all questions to the Appeal Tribunal. Whatever is the intention of the amendment as submitted by Senator Counihan, the effect will be to hold up land distribution indefinitely. There are innumerable questions that can be raised if it is proposed to distribute land; there are innumerable questions of fact which can be raised and brought before the Appeal Tribunal. Whoever heard of appeals on fact being taken before a higher tribunal? Is not the lower tribunal always the tribunal which is in touch with the actualities of the situation in the district and more likely to know the particular facts than the higher tribunal to which leave to appeal is now being sought?
Will the Senator give us the position as the law stands at present?
I am here as a Senator and I am expressing my position.
A position which did not exist up till now.
Will the Senator tell me any Workmen's Compensation Act case where there is an appeal to a higher tribunal on a question of fact? If questions of fact may be brought before the Appeal Tribunal it will indefinitely postpone land distribution. The question of the suitability of congests, the question of whether the particular land is capable of growing wheat, the question of whether there are minerals on the land—all these matters can be raised and brought before the Appeal Tribunal, indefinitely postponing the distribution of land.
I am prepared to criticise the Land Commission and the Appeal Tribunal and the Lay Commissioners as much as anybody, but no case has ever come to my knowledge, as a representative either in the other House or here, where the Land Commission endeavoured to interfere with any prac- farmer who was working his land. I know that in my own county there are still thousands of acres which could be distributed, and distributed beneficially, to the community. I know that any man who likes can raise innumerable objections to the acquisition of these lands and bring these objections to the Appeal Tribunal and indefinitely delay distribution of these lands, while there are hundreds of congests waiting to be put on these lands and to work them beneficially. It is ridiculous for people to come into an assembly of this kind and suggest that questions of fact ought to be brought to the Appeal Tribunal. A question of law can be brought to the Appeal Tribunal and decided. The Appeal Tribunal should not be asked to decide questions of fact when you have the Lay Commissioners with their inspectors and their local knowledge to decide all these matters of fact, where the land is there for distribution and the congests are waiting for it and the Land Commission has acted honestly and independently up to the present in the distribution of land.
When the Minister is replying, will he be good enough to make quite clear the position with regard to the independence of the Lay Commissioners, as Senator Hogan says they act independently? I was under the impression that they were civil servants under the Minister and removable by the Minister.
I want to challenge the statement—I was astonished to hear it made by Senator Hogan—that the fear of compulsory acquisition is not affecting the lending of money on land. I happen to know something about the considerations that affect people landing money on land. Obviously, if anybody has power to come in without giving any reason and take the land practically at their own price there can be no free sale. That alone, added to the social boycott which always operates, is, of course, going to affect the lending of money to a tremendous extent. You cannot exaggerate the limitations to credit on land under the present law. What Senator here would lend money on land with the law as it is at present? I would not mind saying that very few would lend a penny piece on land.
Senator Sir John Keane said that he was stung to speech by some remarks that were made. I am stung to speech also by the remarks made by the Senator just now. I have just come from my own county, and the existence of the Land Commission is scarcely known there, for the reason that the people there are all comparatively small farmers.
There is no such thing there as believing that the tenure of their land is in jeopardy, because I questioned them about it. I also questioned them on the matter of getting credit from the banks. Fortunately, the people I was questioning did not require credit from the banks, but they told me that the reason why credit was not so freely available from the banks now was because credit was forced on the people before, and the banks got bitten too severely and, once bitten, are twice shy. Senator Sir John Keane should remember that that is one of the principal things that is preventing the banks from lending money on land to-day. You need not shake your head.
Surely the Senator should address the Chair.
I think the only remark I did not make through the Chair was the remark about shaking his head. I apologise for noticing that Senator Sir John Keane shook his head. One remark passed by Senator Professor Johnston attracted my attention, and that was the reason why, as he told us, he voted for and was a supporter of the Constitution, and then saying that the missing of a legal point, as to the tenure of land, was ultra vires according to the Constitution. That interested me personally, but his argument there was just as sinister as the argument that he gave for voting for the Constitution, and I do not place much credit upon it. I might compare the attitude of Senator Johnston in voting for the Constitution to that of the boy in Pears' soap advertisement, who would not be happy until he got it.
That is not why the Senator said he voted for the Constitution.
It is on the records, and if it is analogous to the other stories he told I think it is relevant to mention it now. On the question of appeals to another tribunal on law I do not think it deals with knowledge of the facts. That is correct as far as the valuation of land goes, or knowledge as to whether land should be taken over or not. I think it would be as safe in the hands of whatever number of commissioners there are as I would be in the hands of a judge of the High Court. That is my opinion and I am entitled to hold it. The question of amending the law goes back to democratic control. Some people seem to object to the Government having a majority to support what they did. Well, if a succeeding Government gets a majority in favour of a change in the law I do not see how any argument could be put up against a change, if the majority of the people change their mind.
Is the percentage of loan investments by banks in land large in the case of farmers?
I think not. People I have contact with told me that a large body of the farming community are not worrying about the Land Commission taking land. Anything to the contrary is "Dutch" to them. I do not believe that what one Senator told us is a fact, that people feel they are in jeopardy day after day, because the Land Commission may take their land. I do not believe they think so. I am satisfied that what Senator Hogan said is quite correct, and that the other statement was made for propaganda purposes.
I did not say that.
You did not, but I say it.
I did not intend to intervene in the debate on this amendment, but when Senator Counihan moved it I felt he had some little grounds to stand on. Now I think it would be right in saying that the Senator feels like saying: "Lord, save me from my friends." As a result of the debate it is quite evident to Senator Counihan that the amendment has not a leg to stand on, and that, in fact, the speeches in favour of it are obviously speeches aimed at cutting the Bill to pieces, and destroying the whole principle of it. This Bill was introduced as far as I know, and I stated so on the Second Reading, to oil the machinery of the Land Commission, to make it easier to carry on the work of the Land Commission without unnecessary holding up of the machine, so that it would not be, as it has been for the last three years, running partly idle. Arguments put up in support of the amendment are really the greatest arguments against it.
I will not mention anyone particularly, but we had various speakers putting up the argument that the people were in terror of the Land Commission lest it would acquire land, and that, therefore, they could get no credit. Anybody who has studied the position knows that that is not a fact, and that banks refused to advance money on land because the value of land had depreciated for various reasons that it is unnecessary to go into now. It depreciated because of world depression since the Great War. Because land deteriorated in value the banks would not advance money on it. It would be a very serious position if the value of land was regulated in proportion to the amount of credit available. If that was the situation we would have a repetition of what happened in 1921 and about that period, when people went to the banks to borrow money irrespective of the value of land.
Senator Keane said that the fear of compulsory acquisition had destroyed credit. That is not so. The fear of compulsory acquisition existed long before the present Government came into power. As far back as 1923 credit was given on land, and the banks were not in terror of compulsory acquisition then, although, as a matter of fact, the power was there to acquire land compulsorily. As Senator Hogan pointed out, the amendment, if accepted, would result in bringing us back to the same position we were in in the past, and instead of helping as the section intends, we would have the greatest delay about every conceivable matter that could be brought up, and in certain parts we would have the people standing around estates that might be acquired, expecting them to be divided, as well as the unrest and dissatisfaction that we have had for three or four years. In my opinion, the question of credit cuts both ways. I know certain people who have been refused credit not because of the fear that the Land Commission would acquire land, but because of the fear that the Land Commission could not acquire it owing to some technicality. People who went into banks to ask for credit on farms that they were going to sell to the Land Commission were told that the sale might or might not come off, that it might come off in one year or in five years, and an estate that was to be divided two years previously, but that was still there, was pointed to, as apparently there was some hold up in the Land Commission. In that way it cuts both ways. This Bill was provided after having due consideration for the interests of people selling land, proposing to sell land, or proposing to secure land, and also those who eventually will be going into the land. In fact, it was prepared in the interests of the people as a whole.
We have had a very valuable statement from Senator Hogan, and I should like to compliment him on making it. I do so, particularly because of the fact that he cannot be branded as one of the so-called organised majority in this House. Senator Hogan made the statement that, in his long career in public life, he never knew of one case where the Land Commission interferred with a man who was working his land along proper lines of husbandry. I believe the same thing. I have had a fairly long career and a fairly long connection with agricultural interests in the country, not alone in one county but all over the country, and I have never known any man being interfered with who was working his land along the proper lines. That statement should not go unnoticed, especially coming from Senator Hogan, who cannot be classed as one of the organised majority in the House.
I believe whatever argument Senator Counihan had at the beginning, it has been knocked into a cocked hat by those who spoke in support of his amendment. If this amendment were accepted by the Minister—I hope it will not be, and I am quite sure it will not be—I doubt very much if there will be any noticeable change in the attitude of the banks. Senator Sir John Keane is the principal spokesman in that connection, and I ask him, if the amendment were accepted, would the banks be prepared to give credit, or would they be prepared to seek invitations for credit from the 350,000 who have been refused credit, according to the Senator and to other members of his Party?
Surely the question whether the banks are influenced in their decision to lend to farmers by the absence of legal ownership of the farms is a question of fact. On that question we have, on the one hand, the sweeping statements made by Senator O'Donovan and, on the other hand, we have the statements made by Senator Sir John Keane, who is also a banker and who may be presumed to know what he is talking about. I am not quite sure whether the other Senator is not sometimes rather irrelevant. The contents of the Banking Commission Report may not be accepted by all persons as the last word in wisdom with regard to its recommendations, but surely where its paragraphs contain plain statements of fact, we must accept these statements of fact as made with the greatest possible authority and the greatest possible certainty.
If any Senator doubts whether the credit policy of the banks is affected by the existing compulsory powers of the Land Commission, I will refer him to paragraph 514 of the Banking Commission Report. There we have a paragraph stressing the importance, from the credit point of view, of terminating the compulsory powers of land acquisition possessed by the Land Commission. This amendment does not propose to terminate the compulsory powers relating to such land acquisition, but it does propose to protect the owner of property by giving him a right of appeal to the High Court on questions of fact as well as of law, giving him what I regard as an elementary constitutional right, and to that extent it is a step in the direction of restoring some degree of security of tenure without which his credit with the banks can never be fully established.
I should like to say, finally, that this whole legislation has been setting up a machinery of confiscation, not that I am accusing either the present Government or its predecessor of any desire to operate that machinery in such a way as to bring about the wholesale confiscation of land. I do believe there has been some degree of confiscation involved in the treatment of land, but I do not accuse the Government of either having used or intending to use this machinery as a method of wholesale confiscation and expropriation without compensation. But this Government is not necessarily the last Government, and the next Government will not necessarily be Fine Gael, and it is quite possible a government more in sympathy with the views expressed by Senator Hogan will one day rule this country and, if it does, it will find right to its hand the whole machinery of confiscation, without supervision by any proper expert legal tribunal, a machinery operated by civil servants, subject to all kinds of political pressure, and with that machinery it will be very easy to proceed to the extreme of social revolution.
Mr. Johnston
Seeing the latitude that has been allowed to some speakers, I feel that I should like to dwell upon certain aspects of this matter. Senator Counihan proposes to amend this clause by substituting the words "any question" for "a question of law," and later on, in paragraph (a), he proposes to substitute the words "any such question" for "on that question." If that were carried it would mean, when we come down to paragraph (b), that there could be an appeal on any question from the decision of the Appeal Tribunal to the Supreme Court. I put it to the House that it is largely because of the possibility of land acquisition and land distribution being held up that this legislation is put forward.
If this amendment were carried it would, in my opinion, put the Land Commission in practically the same position as it was when these two remarkable cases were decided by a court of law. That decision meant that land acquisition and distribution were at a standstill, and it was that decision that necessitated the introduction of a special Land Bill. If we are going to go back to that position, then all the time spent on the introduction and the consideration of this Bill has been uselessly spent.
I am strongly opposed to any change being made in the section. I am strongly opposed to the attitude of those who are in opposition to the Bill. To my mind, they are not concerned with the dangers that present themselves and that the Bill seeks to deal with. Their arguments, to my mind, were concerned more with political propaganda than with the objects of the Bill. I believe they were influenced more by political motives than by anything else.
I do not agree that the present credit position of the farmers is due to the operation of any Land Acts. There are many small farmers who up to this could not possibly come under the Land Acts. I do not agree with many of the arguments advanced in favour of this amendment. I recognise that the process of land division must go on until as many people as possible are planted on the land. I appreciate also that this amendment might mean some delay and difficulty in the matter of land acquisition. Nevertheless, I would appeal to the Minister, if it is possible to give consideration to the spirit of the amendment in view of the gravity of the position of some landholders whose land might be taken up.
We all recognise how hard it is for the holders of land to be dispossessed. This applies more in the case of people with fairly small farms and large families. If it is at all possible, consistent with the policy of land acquisition to allow an appeal to the Appeal Court of the Land Commission. I think it should be done. I understand from the amendment that it is not proposed to go beyond the Land Commission Appeal Court. I do not think there can be any great question of costs involved. There is already an appeal, as regards the price, from the Land Commissioners to the Appeal Commissioners. Therefore two of these could go on together, but I would ask him to look into the matter because I think it might be possible to make some arrangement, and I know that it would create a good deal of goodwill towards land purchase in general if the Minister could see his way to do something to meet that.
With regard to the question of the credit afforded by the banks to the farmers at the moment, I agree with Senator Hogan when he says that not more than 3 per cent. of the people down the country are affected because of this Land Bill. I think that credit from the banks has ceased for a number of years and, as I mentioned here before, that was entirely due to the manner in which the banks advanced money to the farmers when they were buying land at three or four times its value. They have now no credit in the banks and you would not hear one case in a hundred of a farmer knowing or believing that it is on account of the possession he holds of his land that he is refused credit. The banks are not prepared to give him credit if they know or have the slightest inkling that the farmer requires money in advance for the purchase of cattle to re-stock his land or to improve his land, or to pay his debts, but they are prepared to give money to the farmers who do not want the money. They are coaxing such men, but they are not prepared to give money to a man who is trying to do the best he can for his land, and I do not think that this Bill will have the slightest effect on such a man.
We hear a great deal about the instability in the country at the moment and about confiscation of land and the courts of appeal, but there are old people living down the country who can tell you to this day that some years ago, so far as regards courts of appeal for the Irish farmer were concerned, it was just a matter of having to clear out within 48 hours, and there was not one word of compensation either. They had to clear out under the old régime and there was no court of appeal for them and no question of fixity of tenure, or of the right they had to the land. The Minister mentioned here, on the Second Reading of this Bill, that the Government were not prepared to penalise a farmer who was working his land; that neither the last Government nor the present Government, nor any future Government of this country could ever attempt it because there would be no place for a government in this country if they attempted to take the land from the people who owned it and who were prepared to work it. The Minister gave that as his word and I am sure he will see that his word will be carried into effect.
Senator Douglas asked me to tell the House, when replying, what was the position with regard to the independence of the Land Commissioners. The position of the Lay Commissioners is that the two Appeals Tribunal Commissioners hold their office by a tenure similar to that of a Circuit Court judge, and they can only be removed by a resolution of both Houses. The other commissioners, not members of the tribunal, may be dismissed for incompetence or misconduct, but if that happens a resolution of both Houses could reinstate them. In that respect, I think they differ from the ordinary civil servant. On the point as to how they were affected by all these stacks of letters that, we were told, were on the files, I think that Senator The McGillycuddy himself has told us, in the case he mentioned, that when the commissioners heard that case they upheld the objection, and that has been the universal experience.
I shall have to reply at length to the case made by Senator Madden. I must say that I do not know of the particular case he mentions, but I have had inquiries made about a case in that particular area, which was referred to by one of the Deputies in the other House publicly, and I had the matter inquired into. This case may not be the same but, certainly, from the investigations I made into it is would appear to be similar, if not actually the same case. While I am on that, I should have reminded Senator Douglas that the Minister is excluded from interfering in cases of acquisition. Section 6 of the 1933 Act removes from the Minister the right to interfere in questions of acquisition of land, allocation of land, or the price to be given for it. I should have mentioned that.
When, however, questions are raised, I can ask the Land Commissioners to give me particulars about any case that has been decided, and I did so in this case, to which I have referred, and found that it was a question of a farm of 120 acres or thereabouts, situated in a district in which there was local congestion, and owned by an old man in the seventies, a shopkeeper and hotel owner. On that farm there was a herd who occupied a cottage which had been condemned in 1935 as unfit for habitation. Even if that had been a well worked farm, and occupied by an ordinary farmer who was running it properly, there is power, where there is local congestion, to take that farm if the Land Commission are satisfied that the circumstances of the case require that to be done, but if he is a farmer working his land properly, and with no other land, he is definitely entitled to an alternative holding to the value of £2,000, if his land is of such value, and, if of greater value than that, bonds for the balance. He gets that security, and I do not think there is much objection to that. He has that protection.
If, however, he is not a farmer, if he has some other business, such as a shopkeeper—and in this case the particular person concerned had two children, one in a profession and the other married and away from the place—the position is different. I am not saying that it is the same case, as I have not the particulars, but I would be very much surprised to hear that this particular farmer was able to show that he had a wages bill and that the particulars mentioned by the Senator applied to him. I would be very much surprised if that could have happened, and when I stated that these things had not happened I was relying on what I was told by those who deal with these matters. The same Senator, I think, said that an ordinary inspector, a young fellow, goes down the country and that his word is final. It is not final, and Senator The McGillycuddy answered that.
Now, I am going to deal with the amendment in time, but I want to deal with some of these general points first. Senator Fitzgerald dealt with a fundamental point when he said that the Government differentiated between ownership of land and ownership of other property. He is quite right. They certainly do, and the last Government did so. Why should they not? Everybody recognises that there is a difference between the ownership of land and the ownership of other property, and it is only where land has not been properly worked or, as I said previously, even moderately worked, that there is any danger of its being taken. I think there is agreement, even on Senator Sir John Keane's side, that if land is neglected and not properly worked, it ought to be properly worked in the interests of the national economy. I do not know if they do agree on that, but I think that there should be agreement on that. There is certainly that difference between the ownership of land and the ownership of other property. I do not want to deny that. It has been recognised by this Government, by the last Government, and even by the British Government, and it would have to be recognised by any Government in a country like this. I quite admit that there is that difference.
On the last occasion I did say, and I repeat now, that lands have not been taken and will not be taken if they are even moderately well worked. There is power to take them in certain circumstances, which are set out, and on the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil I undertook to bring in extra protection for a type of farmer who had not got legal protection although, in actual practice, he had—that is, the unvested farmer—and that protection is contained, I think, in sub-section (5) of Section 39. I do not think he is one bit more secure now than before that was brought in, because, in practice, he was all right if he was working his land even moderately well.
I cannot accept this amendment. I refused it in the other House, although I met the Opposition on practically every other point. On this point, if I thought any wrong was being inflicted, I would meet them too. I am quite satisfied that no wrong is being done. I am quite satisfied that what Senator Hogan has said is correct and that is the reason why I am not accepting the amendment—that there would be undue delay which would have no ultimate effect at all because before the Land Commission decided to take over that land the fullest possible hearing is given in open court. Everything that can be said against acquiring or resuming land can be said in open court. The Land Commission hear the case in open court and in a very large number of cases the result is the same as in the case mentioned by Senator The McGillycuddy. Whether the local people, or the Fianna Fáil, or other T.D.s wish otherwise, the fact is that in many and many a case—I cannot give the proportion—the objection is upheld. I am perfectly certain of that. But, there would be interminable delays if we agreed to this amendment, that is, to allow an appeal on fact. I would say that Senator Hogan is quite right that this is not the only case in which there is no appeal on fact. Juries decide questions of fact and very vital questions of fact at times, which might involve a man's life, and as far as I know, on the question of fact there is no appeal. There is an appeal on law. We have the appeal on law there which has been availed of and, I am sure, will be availed of again. The very big, important question is the question of price. There is also an appeal on that. I say, as I said before, that there is no danger in the world of anybody losing his land. I cannot understand such an attitude. If Senators are really speaking from their experience, they must meet a different type of person in the country from what I meet. They certainly must. I have never heard yet of a demand for well-worked land to be acquired anywhere, even from the most rabid advocates of land division. I have not. I have never heard of that feeling of insecurity from people in the country.
What Senator Hogan and Senator O'Donovan have said has been my experience too—that there is no feeling of insecurity except by certain people —shopkeepers and business people like that, and others who have a lot of outside farms which they do not work and on which they do not reside. We have a big problem still to solve, of thousands of uneconomic holders living in wretched conditions. We have not solved that problem, and there are others, a certain number of landless men to be provided for, but we have to provide mostly for congests. With that position, and with the fact that a lot of this land is almost derelict, I do not see how anyone can object to our proceeding and seeing that that land is worked in the best possible way.
I would repeat, for the benefit of some Senators present now who were not present on the last occasion, that a lot of the land that has been divided has been offered to the Land Commission. Some of those big estates that have been giving a lot of employment would never have been acquired compulsorily any more than the Forestry Department would have acquired the Guinness estate in Cong. The Land Commission would never have dreamt of going to estates like these, but we were the only purchasers. There are several of these cases. I would say the majority of these big estates were not confiscated. The owners were very glad that the Land Commission came in and took them off their hands, because the house and a lot of the lands were going derelict. It was, and is, good national work to proceed with division of that land.
The lands we are looking for are lands which we want to relieve congestion, which are not being worked, and which in that way are anything but a benefit to the country. We are doing nothing to destroy the security of any farmer, and I am quite satisfied that anyone who goes through the country and meets the ordinary farmer, unless they listen to speeches will not hear that the ordinary farmer has any grievance. It is only those people who listen to speeches who will get alarmed. There is no doubt about that. The ordinary farmer has no reason in the world for alarm.
I intend to investigate the case the Senator mentioned, but I doubt very much if the particulars are correct. It is very like the case that I have investigated, and in a case of that kind we certainly had no alternative. There was local congestion, and we had to go ahead and divide that land amongst those who badly wanted it. I cannot accept the amendment for the reason I have stated.
I think the Minister's attitude is really disappointing. However earnest and frank and honest he may appear here—and we accept that he is—in his intentions, nothing which he could say or nothing which he said so far, or that has been said in the other House, will allay the fears and suspicions existing in the country. Senator O'Donovan says he goes through one part of the country, and he finds the people he is living with are not afraid.
Will I be allowed to make a reply?
The Senator may be as much out of order as he was the last time he spoke, but he can make a reply. Senator Quirke and, I think, the Minister say that as far as the people they meet are concerned, they are not afraid. Why? The people Senator Quirke would be dealing with would be mainly people who would be wanting land.
Not necessarily.
That, I think, would be Senator Quirke's policy in regard to the distribution of land.
And obliging people who want to get rid of it.
The policy of quite a number of people is the distribution of land—always the distribution of other people's land. That has to be remembered. This question of the distribution of land is a problem in certain parts of the country, but there are certain other parts where the people's minds are not disturbed, although it would not be too hard to disturb them. There is no doubt at all that there has been too much propaganda throughout the country about the distribution of land and the idea has been created all over that there were millions of acres to be distributed and made available. Senator McEllin may have had that in mind when he said that it might mean something very like a revolution if we did not go on like this. He did not say that exactly but something to that effect. The point is that the people of this country have waited for generations for the solution of this problem that we call the land problem.
The Minister, I think, gave us approximate figures of what he thought was the area available for final distribution. It is very limited now and becoming smaller every day, and I fail to understand why the Minister is not prepared to make this concession to the people who have grave fears and who are distrubed. I cannot understand his line of reasoning. I refuse to believe that it would hold up the machinery of the Land Commission to the extent which the Minister gives us the impression it will. He made a statement that well-worked farms will not be disturbed in their ownership. The Minister and anyone who knows anything about the country knows that owing to the conditions of certain families the lands cannot be well worked. We all know the conditions under which families have to operate at particular times. Picture a farmer with two or three acres who is left with perhaps four or five children. Perhaps it may be a widow with four or five or six children. She is not working the land and she cannot work the land for all sorts of reasons. I move to report progress.
Progress reported, the Seanad to sit again to-morrow.
The Seanad adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 20th July.