Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Jul 1939

Vol. 23 No. 7

Land Bill, 1938—Committee Stage.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—

Section 15. 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".

—(Senator Counihan.)

Mr. Baxter

Sir, on this amendment, yesterday evening, we were attempting to meet the point made in defence of the Minister in his attitude that this amendment should not be accepted, when it was being argued that this amendment, if accepted, would mean the holding up of land division. Now, I am quite convinced that Senator Counihan has no such intention in his mind, and I think that the House, having accepted the principle, and having accepted the Second Reading of this Bill, must recognise that there is no point whatever in adopting such an attitude as that. This Bill is going to be the law, and there is no justification for an attempt to frustrate what the Oireachtas will have done. The real point to be made is whether or not the Minister's argument is sound: that this is going to hold up land division if this appeal be granted. I say that nobody could stand for that, and that it might be possible, if the Minister were prepared to come, even some of the way, to meet the case that has been made, to have such an amendment moved as would prevent, for instance, any sort of vexatious appeals to the Judicial Commissioners. It is conceivable that certain individuals, for the purpose of delaying time, might make an appeal that would really not be justified on the facts, but I think it ought to be possible to meet that case if the Minister were prepared to go any distance on the road the other way. I am satisfied that the Minister and those who support him do not realise fully the disturbance that exists in the minds of a great body of our farmers about the possibilities of the operation of this clause, and, as Senator O'Dwyer said, and rightly said, if the Minister could make this concession, or even a lesser concession than that for which Senator Counihan is asking, I think the whole problem of land division would be faced up to by all the people in this country with a goodwill which is not being demonstrated at present; and the position is like that because people are really fearful of the consequences. It is not a question of people subscribing to the taking of somebody else's land, when the possibility is that it will be their own turn next.

Now, I gathered from what the Minister said on the Second Reading of this Bill, or on some other stage since the introduction of this Bill, that he indicated that the amount of land which he visualised as being, probably, the limit which would be available for distribution, was not a very great total at all. We are going to come to the end of the problem some time. Some, indeed, may say that the sooner we come to the end of the problem the better, and that the more quickly we divide the available land the sooner we reach the point of stability with regard to the ownership of land, and that the sooner that happens the better it will be for the position of the farmers generally. If, however, the area which is available for division is a comparatively small proportion of our total area, out of 12,000,000 acres of arable land, obviously the number of our people who are going to be affected, and the total area of land which is going to be made available for subdivision, being small, the position with regard to the relief of congestion is not going to be altered to any considerable extent. There is no possibility that all our people, or one-third of them, or even one-tenth of those who desire land, are going to get it, and there is no strength, therefore, in the case that is made, that, unless this be tackled immediately and with courage, we are going to have disturbance and trouble and the sort of situation which Senator McEllin discussed last night. I do not think that case can be made at all, because the total number of people who will get land and the total area available for them is very limited indeed. The truth is that we are going to leave ten times as many people without land, who want it but who cannot get it because it is not available for them, as will have land provided for them.

I do not know how long the Minister thinks the distribution of the available land will take, but it seems to me that it ought to be possible for the Minister to have an appeal to somebody other than the first court. It ought to be possible to have an appeal, perhaps not on all points but on certain points of fact. If the appeal were a vexatious one, the individual making the appeal might be penalised.

I was trying to say last night that the people of this country have waited for generations for the liberty and the right to handle the land of their own country in the way they think best. There is no justification for rush now, at the eleventh hour. We can wait a year or two or three, if we are going to finally solve this land problem in a sensible way. It is better that we should go slowly and gradually, but go wisely, than to rush, even rush in the matter of legislation, and take powers in a Land Bill which, as somebody pointed out last night, might be used later in a way neither the Minister nor any member of this House would desire. Somebody—I think perhaps it was Senator Johnston—pointed out that you could easily, later on, have a Government much more to the Left than the present Government. My own opinion, indeed, is that there are not many people—perhaps not one at all— in this House very much to the Left. Probably all of us are very close to the Centre. Senator Sir John Keane may be somewhat more conservative than I am, but, taking the House generally, I think that there is very little difference. The difference between us as to what we deem wise in this matter of the distribution of land and how it should be done, coming down to the facts of the situation, would be rather difficult to see. We ought, I think, take our stand on this, that whatever we do in the matter of taking land from those who own it ought to be done in accordance with laws that would be just, and the method of taking should be such as to give the people confidence, whatever their position and whatever the past may have been. It ought to give them confidence that they are getting a fair opportunity to defend their rights because this land is theirs anyhow. The laws of the land have protected them in holding it up to the present time. To take it from them is to take something away which they have held equally with other citizens under the protection of the law of the country, and they hold it to-day under the rights given them by the Constitution. When you begin to discriminate between your citizens there is a minority. The people from whom land is to be taken are the minority, because you cannot take land from the majority: the majority will not stand for it. Minorities, in that sense, for that reason, are entitled, because they are minorities, to even greater consideration than might be given to the great mass of the people. Minorities have a right to protection, and in order to be fair it sometimes happens that you have to go to greater extremes in the protection of rights of the minority than perhaps you would feel justified in doing. But, beyond doubt, the citizens from whom land is to be taken ought to get every opportunity to defend their rights to that land.

The Lay Commissioners, coming to decide whether or not it is justifiable to resume occupation of land for distribution, will have to consider quite a number of matters which will arise in the determination of that question. There is ample evidence that there were difference of opinion in the courts in giving decisions with regard to land, the right to take it, the justification for taking it, and the price of land, in the past. Because of that, and because you are doing something here which you regard as sound national policy, something which you are justified in doing, something which you think ought to be done, because of the past, to some extent, and because of the internal economic situation of the country, you ought, on the other hand, realise that when you determine to take property from some and pass it over to others under the authority of the State that that law, operated by sensible, just and practical people to-day, will remain the law for their successors. When you decide to take land from the man who has got several thousands of acres, to distribute amongst others, you are taking that under the authority of the Oireachtas but you are leaving that law there and passing it on to your successors. Who would suggest that if a situation developed to-morrow in this country that the hundred thousand people who have left Eire in the last four or five years came back here again that you would be able to stop with the man with the thousand or two thousand, or three thousand acres? Who would suggest that there would not be very great pressure exercised to come down the scale, far down, to the man with very few acres, indeed? We all know how these agitations start. Some members of this House may have led in the campaign to distribute land. I do not know that they have, but generally what happens is that this idea takes root amongst the people in a district. Indeed, a local agitator can start it. Then the man who is supposed to be the leader might not be quite satisfied about it, he might not be too satisfied even about the justification for it, but it is rather difficult for him to hold his place as leader and stand against the stream and current of local opinion. That is how these agitations start. Other leaders, not to be outdone, acquiesce and concur, so to speak, in the application of this policy. While the point of view expressed by Senator MacEllin may be true, that you are going to have dissatisfaction bordering on disturbance, if these powers are not there for the Minister to exercise in this fashion, that ought not to be the justification for the operation of those powers. If they are to be operated it should only be done, in my opinion anyhow, when calm consideration has been given as to the justification for it and when the owner of the lands, the aggrieved person—and he is an aggrieved person—has been given every opportunity to defend his right to hold his land. A great many of those people do not think that they can defend their right adequately before the Lay Commissioners and although, as I argued yesterday evening, the decision may not be altered in the next court, nevertheless the fact that there is a court of appeal gives the man the feeling that he is getting fair play. That is what all citizens want. The psychological effect created by the feeling that he is being given fair play and justice is a very great factor in the sort of loyalty that the people give to the Government of the country.

I am not speaking from any practical experience of the operations of the Land Acts in my own county but I am speaking because of my contacts with a great many people up and down the country who are disturbed by this. People are not disturbed if there are not reasons for disturbance and whatever Senator Quirke or indeed the Minister himself may argue—I am quite satisfied that the Minister in his mind has no desire to do anything that is unfair—nevertheless, the owners of land feel that if you have even one individual in a position to start a local agitation about the taking over of land the consequence will be that land may be taken which otherwise would not be taken. Many such agitations have been started in the past, and that has been the consequence. We have had quite a lot of agitation, disturbance and upheaval in the past which the country would have been the better without.

In view of that, I suggest to the Minister that he should be prepared to go some distance to create a feeling of security and stability, not only actual and physical, but psychological stability on his policy of taking over land. I believe that he would be well repaid by doing so. Therefore, I think that he ought to grant the concession which Senator Counihan is seeking in his amendment. The Senator is not seeking it for himself personally, but rather for people up and down the country who want to live within the law and would like to have its protection: people who would like to live under such conditions that they could regard the law as fair, even though its administration might press hardly on them. If the Minister were prepared to make that concession I believe that this problem of land distribution would be accepted in an entirely different spirit. I cannot believe that there would be any grievances, nor would we have conditions operating where you would have the taking over of an estate held up for six or 12 months. I do not see why the Minister, in that atmosphere, should not, if he considered it necessary, set up some sort of an ad hoc court in addition to the Judicial Commissioners to clear away arrears. Finally, I want to say that in my judgment no assurance which the Minister can give with regard to his intentions about the taking over of land is likely to give the same confidence to the people as the acceptance by him of Senator Counihan's amendment, and its insertion in the Bill. Surely, its acceptance is not going to make any great difference to the Minister's policy with regard to land distribution. Therefore, I would urge him to give consideration to that side of the case because it is all important.

Mr. Quirke

I was amazed to hear some of the statements made by Senator Baxter, because I have always regarded him as a fairly sensible man. I have heard him make some wild statements now and again, but I think the wildest statements that he has ever made he made here this evening. Not only were they wild, but, to my mind, they were very dangerous statements. Dealing with the amendment, he suggested that a terrible situation of anxiety exists throughout the country in connection with this Bill: that it has caused terrible fears in the minds of large numbers of people whom he knows through the country, and that they are dreading what may happen if and when it becomes law. I wonder where the Senator met this large number of people. The thing that I principally object to in his statement was his reference to the minority. I would like to know from him if he would find this minority in his own county or in a neighbouring county. He talked about taking land off the minority, and said that the minority have a right to certain protection from the Government. But surely the Senator knows very well that definite provision has been made to protect the minority in every piece of legislation introduced in this or the other House.

Mr. Baxter

I think the Senator misunderstood me. He wants to make out that I was referring to one group of people as a minority. What I referred to was that you have only a small number of people from whom you can take any considerable quantity of land. I was not thinking of that minority in relation to any particular race, creed or anything else.

Mr. Quirke

I was not thinking of them either in relation to race, creed or class, but I repeat that definite provision has been made for the minority in every piece of legislation passed here.

Mr. Douglas

Where is it in this Bill?

Mr. Quirke

It is all over the Bill.

Professor Johnston

Where is the right of appeal to the High Court given on questions of fact?

Mr. Quirke

There is the right of appeal to the Lay Commissioners and to the Appeal Tribunal. Senator Baxter went on to say that the Government would not perhaps take land off the majority because they knew that the majority would not stand for that. I want to describe that as a ridiculous and dangerous statement. There is no suggestion to take land off the majority, and why? Because the majority of land owners are people with valuations of £20 and under. In Senator Baxter's county the majority of the land owners from whom it is not proposed to take land, and whose valuations are £20 and under, represent 81 per cent. of the total. In the County Monaghan they represent 75 per cent. of the people. Does the Senator suggest that, in order to show that we are not biased as against any minority, class or creed, we should proceed to take land off this 75 per cent. in the County Monaghan. In my own County of Tipperary, 65 per cent. of the farm holdings are under £20 valuation. Does Senator Baxter suggest that we should take land off them? The Senator should keep to realities. He should realise that under this, as under previous land measures, the proposal is to take land from those who have big estates and who are not working them. The Minister has already given the assurance that where an estate is being even moderately well worked there will be no interference with it under this measure.

Mr. Baxter

Will the Minister's assurance be binding on a court of law?

Mr. Quirke

We had a statement from Senator Hogan the other night, and he has had a long record in the public life of the country. He said that he did not know of any case where a man, who was working his land according to proper methods of husbandry, was interfered with. That was the state of affairs that he found even before this Bill was introduced, and before the Minister's statement was made to which I have referred. Senator Baxter has raised this question of special provision being made for the protection of the minority. Of course, that is a thing that cuts both ways. If one class is to get more consideration than another, surely to goodness the majority should be considered before the minority.

Mr. Baxter

That is the trouble.

Mr. Quirke

I am not admitting that the rights of individual members of the minority or of the minority as a body are being neglected. The suggestion in the amendment is that it is not sufficient protection for an aggrieved person to have the right to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, but that he should have the right to go to some other court. Why should that be? Surely, on any question relating to land there is no more competent body to deal with that question than the members of the Appeal Tribunal.

Professor Johnston

The suggestion is that land owners should have the right to appeal on questions of fact as well as on questions of law.

The McGillycuddy

On a point of order, are we not wandering a long way from the suggestion contained in Senator Counihan's amendment? Instead of dealing with that amendment, Senators are making long Second Reading speeches, and this has been going on for hours. The one question in the amendment is whether or not there should be the right of appeal on questions of fact as well as questions of law.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid there has been a certain amount of repetition of what was said last night, and Senators, I think, might abstain from going over the same ground again.

Mr. Quirke

I quite agree that perhaps people are inclined to go over ground which has already been covered, but when one person does that, then I suppose his remarks call for the reply which he got last night. It is very hard to avoid giving the same reply again.

Mr. Douglas

We will not accept that as a principle to be accepted all round, because if we did our debates would never end.

Mr. Quirke

There is complete confidence, so far as I know, in the Land Commission courts as at present constituted, and the overwhelming majority of the people are waiting anxiously for this Bill to go through, so that the machinery of the Act may work as intended.

Mr. Baxter

How many people are going to get land altogether?

Mr. Quirke

The Senator is not interested in the people who are going to get land in this way, but in those who are going to lose it.

Mr. Baxter

I am interested in both.

Mr. Quirke

By the time this amendment has been decided upon the House will be divided into two sections —not on the ordinary basis of an amendment, but for or against landlordism in this country.

Mr. Baxter

Senator Quirke would be nearer that class than I.

Mr. Quirke

I would be further away than Senator Baxter; and for his information I may say that I was not a product of the landlord class in this country. I was brought up in the Fenian tradition upon a 66 acre farm in County Tipperary. I was the son of a farmer, the son of a Land Leaguer and the son of a Fenian who did his term in jail in the Land League days. I regret having to make such a personal statement, but it may be useful for Senator Baxter's guidance in future debates.

Sir John Keane

Senator Quirke said that he is a descendant of a Land Leaguer. According to him, I am a descendant of a land confiscator. However, I think one aspect of the question has been overlooked. We are rather inclined to look at this matter from the analogy to a court of law. If action is taken under the common law or statute law on some question, it can be based on some legal custom or usage; but, in this case those considerations do not apply at all. As I understand it, the Land Commission have power to take land for a number of reasons, and the appeal is not on anything analogous to a legal dispute; it is on the question whether they are exercising those powers harshly or not. The Land Commission can always find a reason for wanting to take land. If they have got no congestion to plead, they can say they are relieving congestion elsewhere or they can say that we have landless men, though I do not know where we can produce a crop of landless men. I notice considerable apprehension that the number of landless men is increasing, to the detriment of the proportion in which it is going to relieve congestion. However, I will let that pass.

As I see the work of the Commissioners, they—for some reason or other; I think very often in response to local agitation—are asked to take over the land of So and so. When they come down to do that, what are the considerations that must influence them? They must, and should, have regard to the social value of the person whose land they are going to take. There is the question of fact there—a rather vague question, not a precise one, of fact—whether that person is an essential asset, a civic asset, or not, whether he is working that land for the benefit of the community or not. Surely there could be nothing more difficult to determine. I do not know what goes on before the Commissioners, but I suppose they say: "We are taking this land; we do not consider you are working it as you should." Presumably, he will then say how he is working it or may give reasons why he is not working it up to its maximum capacity. It may be shortage of capital, or his having a young family and very little home help, or there may be other misfortunes.

On questions of that kind, the decision vitally affects the whole economic existence of this land-holder, considering the miserable prices that are paid for the land that is taken over. By the time the compensation is apportioned there is practically nothing left for the miserable owner who may have been generations on the land. I feel, in justice, decisions of this kind should not be left to one body of men alone: there should be a rehearing on the facts, and not on law exactly, as to whether these powers are exercised harshly or not. We have heard a good deal in this debate. The Minister has challenged anybody to bring forward a case where anybody who worked land had been dispossessed. I heard of a case—and I can get him the particulars —where land was the property of a person who was away and whose mother lived there. This man was in the service of the Crown—I do not suppose there is anything wrong in that— He was away serving his country in the bigger sense. The Minister smiles when he hears that, but, after all, we are members of the British Commonwealth of Nations; he was serving the British Commonwealth of Nations— perhaps that will satisfy the Minister's political outlook in the matter—serving in the British Commonwealth of Nations, of which our common King is the head.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not think it is altogether necessary to debate those points.

Sir John Keane

At any rate, the property had been in the family for generations, and he was looking forward to coming back and living on that land. I admit that the lady was old, and was not working the land to the best advantage, but it was occupied and was adequately stocked. Yet now the Land Commission can come in and take this land—and take it at the price of a mere song—as untenanted land. That person, when he came back, having served the Empire, was a valuable social asset to the country in every way. He was socially prepared to live there and add to the amenities of the place and to the general development. He was a cultured element in the district. That is a case of which I know.

Mr. Quirke

The Senator did not tell us what the employment on that estate was.

Sir John Keane

No. I am prepared to admit that possibly as much employment was not given as if the owner had been living there himself; but are we going to have land taken away on the employment test? That was a case where I think there might have been an appeal to some other body. I am not wedded to the Appeal Tribunal, because this is not law at all—it is the question of human values. An umpire —any man in the world—would probably have been better able to determine whether the Lay Commissioners were acting justly or not. It is awfully hard to discuss this matter, as people seem to fly off the handle and say that the country must have this, that there is only one side of the story, that land has to be taken away whether one likes it or not, that the big men must be put out somehow or other. The big men are of value in this country: everybody knows that. If the country is to be divided up until there is nothing but small holders, look at the effect on the income tax alone. Everybody knows that substantial people in the country are necessary to create a social balance.

I agree with Senator Hogan when he said that one may have all kinds of trivial matters brought forward to delay land acquisition. I do not object to provision being made for a substantial deposit which the Appeal Tribunal could order to be impounded if the appeal proved unreasonable; but it is most unfair that the disposal of a person's whole property which has been in the family for generations should be left to the arbitrary judgment of one body of men. There may not have been a very big revenue from it; it may even have been run at a loss, but look at the value of the home where previous generations of a family have lived. Surely it is most unreasonable not to allow a rehearing in a case of that kind.

Senator Quirke spoke of how the minority here were protected by this power to appeal on questions of law, but it is really no protection whatever. I set no value by this appeal. The appeal on a point of law would be against the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, and what happens is that every time a decision is given against the Land Commission, a Bill is brought in and the matter put right. There is no safeguard whatever in that respect, but there might be some safeguard on equities and on facts.

Mr. Counihan

There is not very much to be said without repeating what has already been said, but I should like to assure Senator Quirke that there are no landlords in the country now. They are all done away with and are all big farmers or small farmers. He says that, when the division on this matter takes place, we shall see ranged, on one side, the people in favour of protecting the landlords and big farmers, and, on the other, the people in favour of protecting the landless men and the small farmers. What the Seanad is supposed to do is justice to all parties, even though Senator Quirke says that there are only 20 per cent. of a minority who could possibly be affected by this Bill. Even that 20 per cent. deserves some consideration. These statements of Senator Quirke will not tend to allay the fears which this 20 per cent. minority has as to the effects of the Bill. I ask Senators on the opposite side to read the amendment and to read the section. The amendment seeks an appeal, not to a British judge, but to a tribunal set up by the Government, of two Lay Commissioners and a High Court judge. Is it unreasonable that there should be an appeal on questions of fact and questions of law to such a tribunal? I cannot see that it is, unless, as Senator Quirke says, that they do not want to do justice to the 20 per cent. for which he has such disregard.

The Minister says that the Land Commission is an independent body of men. I have the greatest respect for the Land Commission, but we must remember that they are civil servants, that, as civil servants, they carry out the wishes of the Government and that the wishes of the Government are the wishes of the Árd-Fheis of Fianna Fáil. The Land Commissioners are entirely independent of the Minister on these questions because the Minister cannot do more than lay down policy. He is precluded under the 1933 Act from interfering in any question of acquisition or division. I agree that they are quite independent, but they are only civil servants who can be dismissed at any moment at the whim of the Government, and we have had experience already of quite as important Government officials being so dismissed, without reason given. In one case, I think there was the reason given that the official had not the confidence of the Minister. It looks like getting into politics to talk like this, but we have an Appeal Tribunal set up by the Government who are quite independent of everybody and who can be removed only by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

If this 20 per cent mentioned by Senator Quirke had the option of an appeal on questions of acquisition, price, or any matter on which they are aggrieved by the decision of the commissioners—as every citizen, I contend, has a right to appeal to a court of justice when he feels that he is aggrieved—it would go a long way to allay the fears of the 20 per cent who may be affected. I appeal to the Minister, at this eleventh hour, not to use his majority in this House to steamroll these amendments which we are seriously suggesting for his consideration. If he thinks that my amendment is going too far, I appeal to him to consider some amendment which would meet the case and which would allay the fears of the 20 per cent. who Senator Quirke says, are afraid of being affected. It is worth while to do it, and it is worth the Minister's while to spend another two or three days considering the matter, because there is certainly unrest and a feeling of insecurity amongst the farmers, even though they represent only 20 per cent.

Mr. Quirke

As a matter of explanation, I want to point out—I am sure that Senator Counihan did not deliberately misrepresent what I said— that I referred to 81 per cent. of the land holders in County Cavan as being below £20 valuation. I did not by any means suggest that the remaining 20 per cent. were big land-owners. I did not suggest anything of the kind, and I did not suggest that Cavan was all Ireland, as Senator Baxter may have had in mind.

Mr. Counihan

What I understood from the Senator was that there were only 20 per cent. of the land-owners in Senator Baxter's county who would be afraid of this Bill.

Mr. Quirke

No, I did not mean that.

Mr. Boland

I have not much to add to what I said last night. I did not approach this question with a closed mind. The whole matter was debated for quite a long time, and I think it was the one point that got more consideration than any other in the Dáil. I examined the matter from all angles. This principle was discussed in the Dáil on Section 39, and I did admit there that, as the section was originally drafted, it was objectionable. I amended it by bringing in this section. Senator Johnston asked me if the Minister's assurance would have any effect in a court of law, but, in Section 39, I did introduce an amendment which will have effect. Some Senators are seeking to amend that sub-section, although it was introduced specifically and definitely as a protection for the farmer who is unvested and who is working his land properly. That is a definite amendment that was brought in to this Bill, which does several things to improve the land code.

Professor Johnston

Is the Minister referring to Section 39 (5)?

Mr. Boland

That is one of them. The section was also amended to provide that, as required by the court in the Potterton case, the power under which we are acting and the purpose for which we require the land shall be stated. These were two decisions of the court and we are simply legislating to fill up the deficiency which the court found. I decided on consideration that we would abide by what was decided there in the country and we did in that Section 39 actually provide for stating the purpose for which we required the land and the power under which we were acting which was required by the Supreme Court decision.

There was a point mentioned by Senator Sir John Keane about the person who is abroad. Probably that case did happen but the circumstances are what should count. I have personal knowledge of a similar case where a man was abroad and there was great pressure brought to bear on the Land Commission—as far as pressure could be brought—and they decided to leave the land in the owner's possession. I am aware that there are several cases where there is a prospect of the owner coming back. If there is such a prospect, there is, I am satisfied, no intention to hunt people out of the country in that fashion.

I am taking my stand against this amendment very largely on the grounds mentioned by Senator Hogan last night. He said it was not unprecedented to have an appeal on the question of fact. He mentioned cases under the Workman's Compensation Act and I mentioned another. We know that jury cases where a man's life is at issue are left to laymen to decide on the facts. A man may be tried for his life, the facts are found by a body of laymen and they are accepted as unappealable.

There is an indefinite hold-up. We have been held up already. I am quite satisfied that the remainder of the land there for division shall be acquired. There are about 600,000 acres in question. We do not know whether that will all be taken but most of it will be required for the relief of congestion. According to the recommendations of the Commission on the Gaeltacht arising out of the disaster in Scotland a couple of years ago a commission over which Deputy Seán Moylan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce presided, it is clear that while some of the land must be given to ex-employees, the greater proportion of it will be devoted to the relief of congestion. I am quite satisfied that there will be no undue delay.

In these cases the hearing is in open court. The person from whom it is proposed to take the land gets every opportunity to present his evidence. The statement we had last night from Senator The McGillycuddy supports that assertion. He had one case and though he knew there was local pressure sought to be brought on the Land Commission, his objection was upheld. That has happened in a great number of cases. I might remind the House that the Land Commission are not confined to taking large farms of land off people who misuse it or abuse it. No matter how small the holding it may be taken over. A 30-acre farm that is not properly worked, or if the land is misused, can be taken over by the Land Commission just as well as the 600-acre farm.

Professor Johnston

Has any 30 acre farm been taken?

Mr. Boland

Yes; it is not a question of the size of the farm at all. It is a question of whether the land is being properly worked. Now on that question as to the rights of property, I want to say that there is undoubtedly a difference between property in land and any other property. There is a difference which has been recognised by this Government, by the Government of which Senator Fitzgerald, who spoke on this matter, was a member, and by the British Government.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Their recognition does not make it right.

Mr. Boland

I say it does make it right.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Oh! Oh!

Mr. Boland

It does make it right; what I mean is that a Government would not act in that way if it were not right. Governments in democratic countries, elected as Governments are elected, will not fly in the face of natural justice. There is, I am quite satisfied, a fundamental difference between land in a country and ordinary private property in a country. It is quite unnecessary to contend now that there is. On the Second Reading Senator Johnston made the point that the amount of employment given on the land should not count, that it was the good that might be made or got out of the land that mattered. He said that even if it were a grass farm, if it were essential or was being worked properly in the national interest, that is, in the way of producing food for cattle, that that should count. These are the things on which I insist. So did the last Government, and any Government in the future will have to do it. I am digressing, but I naturally have to follow others who digressed also.

On the question of appeals, I am fully satisfied that there is no need for anxiety. I know there is anxiety in certain places, but I know why there is. People in this House are elected on a different franchise from those in the other House. There are, unfortunately, people who go around trying to disturb the country, telling them that they have no chance of holding their land if this Government is returned. We might be saying something of the same kind ourselves if we were in Opposition. That sort of thing is not confined to any Party.

A case was mentioned here last night, and I am almost satisfied that it is the same case as that to which I referred. The facts I mentioned are real facts, not such as those disclosed by the Senator. I tried to find out in that area another case that would fit in with the cases I had been given, and I could not discover it. I have not yet been presented with any such case. As far as the example given by Senator Sir John Keane is concerned, I know that there are several cases of that kind where the persons have been allowed to retain the land——

Mr. Madden

I think that case is the case of O'Connor, Market Street, Listowel.

Mr. Boland

Yes, that is the case.

Mr. McGee

The tone of the Minister's reply is something that is very encouraging. At the same time, there were two statements made by him that I think should call for some little comment. Where the Minister erred was when he stated that every opportunity was given to persons whose lands were to be taken over. But in the tribunal of the Land Commissioners the valuer for the Land Commission is absent and there is absolutely no chance of giving to the person or to his counsel whose land is to be taken an opportunity of cross-examining that valuer. The valuer may be anything. His status may be nothing. To my own knowledge in one instance he himself was a broken-down farmer. I think the Minister should give some consideration to this fact. Much of the discontent and much of the non-stability which I am satisfied the Minister is anxious to remove would be removed if an opportunity were given of cross-examining the valuer.

I do not know that any Senator is entitled to imagine that he himself is to give the Land Commission the law for Ireland. Nobody should think that because his Party is in the majority they are going to remain in that position. The pendulum swings very often, and in a Christian country and under a Constitution which is supposed to be a Christian Constitution, there should be some clear idea as to what the Government of this country stands for and the valuation that should be set upon any person's property. All of us are interested in the future of Ireland. All of us have our children to look after, and we here on this side are as interested in the future of the country as the people on the other side of the House. Christian charity demands that some little consideration should be given to people's property and suggestions for the protection of people's property should not be brushed aside by any Government. For my part I hold 200 acres of land; I work 500 acres, and I defy any representative on any side of the House to come down there and show me where there is one sod of that land waste or lying idle.

I have been listening to what the Minister said. He tells us to-night that money in land is not to receive the same consideration as money on deposit in the bank. The Minister for Finance stated here some time ago that, under a Catholic Constitution, we could not see property confiscated. But there is wholesale confiscation of land. I have the facts before me. I have been a valuer before the tribunal ten or twenty times. It is most encouraging to go there and to see the conscientious countenance—I had almost said the sweet countenance—of Mr. Justice Maguire and the conscientious manner in which Mr. Brown and Mr. Mansfield discharge their duties, but the valuer is not there. He is absent.

Supposing to-morrow I have made a decent harvest, and I try to make as decent a harvest as I can. I work at it as hard as I can, doing my level best. On that farm there may be two or three miles of drains. In face of the instability that exists in land tenure, am I well advised in cleaning these drains? Shall I let them corrode? Would any citizen be justified in face of the statement, made here for the first time, that land has no relation to money and that this Government and the last Government started to commandeer land "any place, anywhere, any time", in the words of "Peggy O'Neill", in expending money or labour on his farm? This whole system has killed the enthusiasm of our best farmers. It is all right saying that I am doing my utmost. It is all right to say that my father was a grand Irishman and a decent Irishman, and that he went out with a gun. That is away altogether from the practical point of view. The difference in political outlook of various citizens has nothing to do with the economic position. The economic position and the stability of the State demand that land be held as a sacred asset. In my opinion, it is the greatest asset which the country has. I know the whole system of land rule in this country is rotten from top to bottom. I know that the day when the State abandoned the local Land Court, where a man could be brought in and put on his oath to say what he was doing with his land and where a man who was looking for land had to show what right he had to get it, was a bad day for this country.

At the present time the methods by which land is acquired have corroded the whole system. I saw where one Fianna Fáil Deputy in the Dáil—I think his name is Childers—had the courage to state that he was appalled when he went down the country at the present system. There is a system under which, if you happen to have any trouble with an individual in the district, it is possible for him to get up an agitation, and as soon as the Minister or the local T.D. visits that district he is approached to get the land divided. The moment that that is published in the Dáil or anywhere else, can you tell me what bank manager is going to make any advance on that land? There is widespread instability, and that instability need not exist if a proper tribunal examined this question of the acquisition of land. I know places in which there is plenty of land available for sub-division. I can see people crying out for that land, men with families who, if they got possession of this land would be an asset to the country, but everybody seems to be waiting for something to turn up.

The great proposal here is that we should go to the Lay Commissioners on questions of fact. That may have some good effect, but it may have the effect of delaying sub-division. We have Senators on one side of this House who say that they want progress on this question while everybody on the other side says, "Stand back." I think that is wrong. I think the question is one which the Minister should have appointed a commission to consider instead of appointing a Banking Commission and a Commission on Agriculture. This is a question which should have received prior consideration by the Government. The most terrible statement of the many we have heard is that if you have money in land to-morrow, it is absolutely and entirely on a completely different basis to money invested in any other property. Yet land is supposed to be the biggest asset and the bishops of Ireland were supposed to have looked through the Constitution and the Constitution rules. That is a very serious statement.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided. Tá, 20; Níl, 15.

Tá

• Byrne, Christopher M.
• Campbell, Seán P.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Cummins, William.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Hawkins, Frederick
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Johnston, James.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• Keohane, Patrick T.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar
• (Cú Uladh).
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Stafford, Matthew.
• Tunney, James.

Níl

• Alton, Ernest H.
• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Butler, John.
• Counihan, John J.
• Douglas, James G.
• Doyle, Patrick.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• Keane, Sir John.
• McGee, James T.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks,
• The
• Madden, David J.
• Robinson, David L.
• Rowlette, Robert J.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Goulding and Hawkins. Níl, Senators Counihan and Doyle.

Question declared carried.

Sections 15, 16 and 17 put and agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Mr. Boland

I think, if the Seanad would agree, that Amendment No. 4, in the names of Senators Crosbie and Butler, would be more appropriate to Section 37. Senator Sir John Keane has an amendment down seeking to do the reverse of what is sought in this Amendment No. 4.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The two amendments may be taken on Section 37.

Mr. Boland

I think that would be better.

Mr. M. Hayes

The amendment will be in the same terms in relation to Section 37.

Section 18 put and agreed to.

SECTION 19.

Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Doyle

This section deals with the obligation on allottees to take over the dwellings within a reasonable time. That is fair enough, but the Minister, in the exercise of the powers he already has, should see that in cases where dwellings are proposed to be provided those dwellings will be built within a reasonable time. I think he has the power to see that the contracts are fulfilled. I know cases where the land has been allotted over 3½ years, and I know ten buildings on one estate which are in various stages of construction. In some of them the roof timbers have been rotting all the winter, and there is no sign of those houses being completed. I can give the Minister the name of the estate if he wishes. This delay is a particular hardship on the people concerned. When they were allotted the land, some of them got married, on the understanding that houses were being built for them. Their families will probably have grown up and emigrated before there is any sign of the houses being completed.

Mr. Boland

There may be some cases where there is delay, but that is very often due to difficulty with the contractors. This section is to compel people for whom houses have been built to live in those houses. I may remind the Seanad that this is not a matter for the Minister. The question of taking up land is a matter for the Land Commission and not for the Minister.

Dr. Doyle

Houses should be built for the people to live in.

Mr. Boland

They are, as a rule. There may be some cases where there is trouble with the contractors.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 20 to 36, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 37.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

There are two amendments, one by Senator Crosbie and one by Senator Sir John Keane.

Mr. Butler

I move amendment No. 4, standing in the names of Senator Crosbie and myself:—

At the end of the section, to add a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) In any case where a landlord has failed to comply with the provisions of the Land Act, 1923, regarding the furnishing of particulars of rentals, etc., such tenants shall be entitled to all the benefits of the Land Acts to which they would have been entitled had the landlord complied with the provisions of the said Land Act, 1923, as from the date when the tenant made a claim to his landlord to be entitled to the benefits of the said Act or instituted proceedings to have his holding declared entitled to such benefits, and such claim was upheld by the courts, and, accordingly, the Land Commission shall include such lands in the list of vested holdings made under Section 9 of the Land Act, 1931, as extended by sub-section (1) of this section.

This amendment is moved with the object of correcting an omission in the 1923 Land Act. That Act compels every landlord in the State to make a return of the land let to tenants, and on failing to do so, is liable to a fine of £20. On the passing of the 1923 Act many landlords obeyed the law and many did not, and by ignoring the law they enjoyed their full rent, which they would not have done had they obeyed the law and made their returns, because on vesting the tenant was entitled to a reduction of at least 33? per cent. After the passing of the 1933 Act, the tenant would have received a 50 per cent. reduction on the remainder, proving how unjust it was to the tenant when the landlord failed to make his return.

Tenants, when they found their landlords had not made their returns, usually proceeded by refusing to pay their rent in an effort to make their landlord do so, and after considerable delay, in which every obstacle was placed in their way, had to bring the landlord into court to compel him to make his return. When the tenant got judgment and the court made the order, he usually found himself with five or six years' rent due at the full rate, because, under the law as it stands, he was not entitled to any of the benefits of the Act of 1923, no matter what efforts he made to get them, until the law compelled the landlord to comply with the Act. Clearly it is to the landlord's advantage not to obey the law, even if there is a fine of £20 provided for in the Act. That is a small sum in comparison with what the landlord has made and the tenant has lost. In justice the tenant should be entitled to the benefits of the Act from the date on which he took action to compel the landlord to make his returns. It is for that purpose that Senator Crosbie and myself have tabled this amendment, and I feel confident that the Minister and the Seanad will accept it.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Sir John Keane.

Sir John Keane

My amendment is quite different from that. I should like the House to dispose of this amendment first, as it is not on the same point at all. According to the Order Paper, this amendment is to Section 18.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister asked to have the two taken together.

Mr. Boland

I meant that this amendment should be taken on Section 37.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

We can dispose of amendment No. 4 first.

Mr. Boland

Undoubtedly, that is the position, that the landlord was required to return these particulars. But the Land Commission could not be expected to get after every landlord in the country. The tenant who is paying the rent surely ought to have looked after his own interests. If he did not do it, the blame cannot be left on anyone but himself. He might not have been paying the full rent if he had taken action under the 1923 Act and compelled the landlord to lodge the particulars. He did not do that, and, therefore, we cannot go back on it. What we are doing in the section is, we are making provision that, where particulars are lodged, the compounded arrears of rent will date from the date of the lodgment of the particulars by the landlord. I think that is as much as can be expected. It is a matter between the two individuals concerned. If the landlord did not comply, as I say, you could not expect the Land Commission to go round the country looking for people who were not availing of the rights given to them. That is what happened in one case that I happen to know of. I do not think it happened in many cases, because most tenants were well aware of the benefits that the 1923 Act conferred on them and took advantage of them. From now on the date will be from the lodgment of the particulars, and I could not accept the amendment for that reason.

Mr. Goulding

There was one point made by the mover of the amendment, that the tenant had endeavoured to get the landlord to make this return and the landlord deliberately evaded the law and did not make the return. Therefore, the tenant cannot be blamed for the delay. Judging from the statement made by the mover of the amendment, the landlord must have deliberately refrained from making the statutory return.

Mr. Boland

I cannot be expected to deal with a special case. We are legislating for all people; this may be a special case and there may be circumstances connected with it for which I cannot account. The decree given would be for 75 per cent. of the rent, not for the full rent, as was stated by the Senator.

Mr. Goulding

What remedy would the tenant then have?

Mr. Boland

As I say, it is difficult to deal with a case which may have been decided in the courts. It is a case we cannot deal with. If I were the tenant and I knew I had the right to get the benefit of a 75 per cent. reduction of arrears and then become an annuitant, I certainly think I would not have let the grass grow under my feet. Very few people did it. A particular case gave rise to the other amendment. It cannot be done in this particular case retrospectively, and the provision made in the section is quite satisfactory for future cases.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir John Keane

I move amendment No. 7.

In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), page 21, to delete paragraph (a) and to substitute the following paragraph:—

(a) the arrears of rent payable by the tenant or owner in respect of such holding, part of a holding, or parcel which accrued due prior and up to the gale day next preceding the date on which the said particulars are furnished or the said application is lodged, but not exceeding three years of such arrears, and in addition all arrears of such rent which accrued due after such gale day up to, and which are unpaid on, the appointed day, together with an apportioned gale of such rent from the gale day next before the appointed day, shall be compounded by the addition of compounded arrears of rent to the purchase money of such holding, part of a holding, or parcel;

This amendment raises a point of some considerable importance, and the intention is to repair a very palpable injustice that will be done unless the Bill is so amended. It applies only to fee farm grants and long leases. What happens is this: a tenant of a fee farm grant abstains from paying. Payment is made once a year, and the first year is gone by before the landlord knows that the rent has not been paid. He then may proceed and have recourse to the courts. It may be conceivably another year before the case is heard, and another year's rent may be due before then. The tenant then says: "I intend to apply for the redemption of this fee farm grant under the Act," and the judge says: "Oh, very well, in that case I will not give an order for payment," and the matter stands adjourned. Then the tenant proceeds to lodge particulars and, conceivably, three years' arrears might have accumulated before they are lodged. The date the particulars are lodged is the date from which no rent can be recovered at all. The rent then runs on and becomes subject to the rules for compound arrears, and from that on the delay is entirely due to the authorities because of administrative causes. I do not know what they are, but my information is that as many as four years have gone by until the appointed day. On the appointed day payment of the moneys is brought to credit of the vendor and the matter is closed.

The House will thus see that possibly seven years' arrears may have accumulated, none of which have been recovered. Under this Bill the vendor is entitled to the whole of the arrears, during the period between the date of the application and the appointed day, but he is entitled to nothing previous to the date of the application—there may be three years' arrears—unless the arrears after the lodging of particulars are less than three years. There are two periods, the period prior to the date of lodging particulars, during which arrears have accumulated, and the period subsequent to the date of lodgment during which arrears continued to accumulate. If in the latter period only two years have accumulated, then one year can be given on account of the arrears previous to the appointed day. If three years' arrears had accumulated between the date of lodging particulars and the appointed day, nothing can be allowed in respect of arrears prior to the appointed day. That seems manifestly unjust. These head rents are well secured, and it is only due to the one cause, the recalcitrance of the tenant, that arrears have been allowed to accumulate, and the power of the judge to adjourn on account of the promise to lodge particulars. After the lodgment of particulars, the arrears are entirely due to administrative delays. The effect of the amendment is to secure that all arrears, whatever they may be, shall be recoverable. I need hardly tell the tenants that the full amount is not recoverable. They are only recoverable as compounded arrears—75 per cent. is recoverable—and the amount is added to the purchase money. It seems manifestly unjust that the owner should suffer at all, and I am sure the Minister is prepared in this matter to recognise the injustice, and to recommend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Boland

Senator Sir John Keane is not correct in saying that this only applies to fee farm rents and long leases. The amendment would apply to tenanted land also. There is nothing in the Land Act, as we heard in the last case, to prevent a landlord getting a decree. If a landlord had moved in the matter and got a decree, there is nothing in the Land Acts that could prevent him exercising his rights. The only conclusion that could be come to, if considerable arrears have been allowed to accumulate, is that the landlord must have thought he could get them, but for some reason he did not do what the man in the other case did. That man proceeded to get a decree and the Land Acts did not interfere at all. It was a personal debt of the person whom a decree was given against. What this proposal amounts to is, that what the landlord failed to try to do, and had every power to do under the existing legislation, we are going to be asked to do for him. That would mean putting goodness knows how many years' arrears that he let accumulate on top of the purchase price, and would make the annuity something that, perhaps, the land would not be security for. That would be the effect of the amendment. What we are doing is, we are allowing all the period that may elapse between the application being lodged, or particulars furnished in the case of tenanted land—because both are included up to the appointed day, and if there are not three years in that period, then to go back to such date, previous to the lodging of the application and the furnishing of particulars, as will allow three years. As the landlord did not exercise the rights he had, that is as much as could be expected from the Land Commission, having regard to all the circumstances. Senator Butler's amendment set out to do something the reverse of this.

Mr. Fitzgerald

It was the other side of the picture.

Mr. Boland

The landlord's, as against the tenant's, side. The course we are adopting is a middle course, and I suggest that it is fair to both sides. I do not think we could be expected to do more. In this section the procedure has been simplified for those who come under sub-section (1) and for all new cases. I cannot accept the amendment for the reasons I indicated.

Sir John Keane

My impression is that in practice it only applies to fee farm grants. It may apply in law in cases of ordinary tenanted land. I may be wrong, but I have to act largely on information given me in these cases. Is the Minister aware that it has been the practice of the courts not to give decrees? Where the tenant has said: "I am going to lodge particulars," the case is adjourned, decrees are not given and the landlord cannot get a decree, however much he may try. The process of law will not give him a decree. Is the Minister aware of that?

Mr. Boland

My information is that the Supreme Court has decided that the owner may claim up to the actual appointed day. I do not know what the practice of the court has been; it is not a matter for me. I am told that the Supreme Court has so decided, that up to the appointed day the land owner is entitled to recover.

Sir John Keane

The process of the courts ceases as soon as the particulars are lodged, and then arrears are running and they are given on the compounded basis. Does the Minister not see there is an indirect injustice? It is entirely in the hands of the Land Commission how expeditious they are after the lodgment of particulars. If they were really expeditious, it could be done in one year, and two years would be available for the throw-back, as it were, in respect of arrears prior to the date of lodgment. If not done in a year, it drags on until there is no surplus left to apply to the arrears prior to the date of lodgment. I think there is a grievance in this case.

Mr. Boland

These delays may be occasioned, as we have seen in one case, by the tenant not exercising the rights he had and the landlord not furnishing the particulars. There is no undue delay unless for such a reason. I am informed definitely that the right is there, by the Supreme Court decision, to the landlord, up to the appointed day—not up to the day on which the application is lodged or the particulars furnished, but up to the appointed day. People might not have bothered, possibly for the reason that they thought they could not get the money and that it would not be worth while going after. I have no say in what the courts may decide.

Sir John Keane

I think the Minister is misinformed. There is no obligation, in these cases of fee farm grants, on the landlord to furnish particulars. The initiative comes from the payee. It is quite different to the Land Act of 1923. Under that Act there is an obligation to furnish particulars, as Senator Butler told us. The person who pays the head rent makes the application. The rent continues and the particulars have got to be furnished on the application of the person who pays the head rent, the tenant.

Mr. Boland

The tenant makes the application and lodges the particulars, but the delay comes in the landlord's reply. The delay occurs where landlords, I daresay for their own reasons, have been known not to reply in time and to cause delay in that way. I am acting on definite information that that is the thing that happens. Undoubtedly the application is lodged by the tenant, not by the landlord, but the delay is caused in replying when the landlord is requested to say whether the particulars furnished by the applicant are correct or not. That is where he comes in, and that is where he has delayed.

Sir John Keane

It is the tenant who makes the application and not the landlord, so it is quite different to the 1923 Act. We have got that far.

Mr. Boland

This section applies to both Section 44 cases, as they are called, and the other cases where the landlords must furnish.

Sir John Keane

Will the Minister be prepared to limit its application to Section 44 cases? I am quite satisfied it should apply only to Section 44 cases. There is always a way out of repairing that omission.

Mr. Boland

It must deal with Section 44 cases.

Sir John Keane

The application comes from the tenant, and what happens is that the tenant proceeds with all subtlety to get into arrears, and then he says, "I will make an application." There may be even three or four years, much to the detriment of the landlord, in that process, and that is where the injustice comes.

Mr. Boland

The tenanted land has to come in as well as the fee farm grant. If the tenant, with all his subtlety, does that, the landlord has his remedy if he wishes to take it.

Sir John Keane

I would like to reconsider this matter in view of what the Minister has stated, and I will bring it forward again on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 37 and 38 agreed to.

SECTION 39.

(1) It is hereby declared and enacted that the Land Commission have and shall have power to resume, in whole or in part, for any one or more of the following purposes, any holding vested under the Land Purchase Acts in them or in the late Congested Districts Board for Ireland, that is to say:—

(a) for the purpose of relieving congestion as defined in sub-section (4) of Section 73 of the Land Act, 1923;

(b) for the purpose of the provision of land for resale to any of the persons or bodies mentioned in Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, as amended by sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Land Act, 1933;

(c) for the purpose of increasing the food supply of the country;

(d) for the purpose of improving or rearranging the holding.

(5) Where the Lay Commissioners (other than the members of the Appeal Tribunal) are satisfied in respect of a holding that, having regard to the area, situation, and character of such holding, the amount of congestion and of unemployment existing in the district in which such holding is situate and in the country generally, and the desirability of increasing the production of food supplies, an adequate amount of agricultural products is being produced on such holding and an adequate amount of employment (including in such amount the employment of any relatives of the tenant of such holding who are permanently employed thereon) is being provided on such holding, then and in such case the following provisions shall apply and have effect, that is to say:—

(a) notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the Land Commission shall not resume such holding or any part thereof for any purpose other than the relief of congestion in the locality in which such holding is situate, or the provision of sportsfields, parks, pleasure-grounds, or play-grounds for the inhabitants of villages, towns or cities or for schools, or the provision of gardens for schools;

(b) if—

(i) the Land Commission resumes such holding or a part thereof, and

(ii) the tenant of such holding or the wife or husband of such tenant resides on such holding or in the immediate neighbourhood thereof, and

(iii) neither such tenant nor such wife or husband is the owner of land (other than such holding or the part thereof resumed) the market value of which exceeds two thousand pounds, and

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I have four amendments to this section and, as they all aim at the same thing, to restrict the power given in the Bill, power given hitherto to the Land Commission to deal with tenanted land, I would like, with the permission of the House, to argue them together.

I, therefore, desire to move the following amendments:—

8. To delete sub-section (1), and substitute the following sub-section:

(1) It is hereby declared and enacted that the Land Commission have and shall have power to resume, in whole or in part, any holding vested under the Land Purchase Acts in them or in the late Congested Districts Board for Ireland for the purpose of relieving congestion as defined in sub-section (4) of Section 73 of the Land Act 1923.

12. In sub-section (5), lines 54-55, page 23, to delete the words "and the desirability of increasing the production of food supplies."

13. In sub-section (5), paragraph (a), page 24, to delete all words from and including the word "or" in line 3 to and including the word "schools" in line 6.

15. To delete the section.

The first amendment cuts out paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) in the Bill. The second one refers to the desirability of increasing the production of food supplies. That has been included in various Bills up to now, but it is an extremely vague term and it goes from mushrooms to mutton. With the change in policy of any Government the farmer would not know where he stands on the question of food supplies. The third amendment is a simple one, and the final one tries to limit the acquisition of tenanted land.

In his reply to the Second Reading debate the Minister made a very reasonable and very moderate speech, and, although I do not agree with a great deal of what he said, I must admit there was a lot of common sense in it. I propose to deal with him in exactly the same way, although he may not agree with some of my arguments.

There are three reasons why I want to limit this question of the acquisition of tenanted land. The first one is the 16 millions of deadweight debt which we are already actually carrying in respect of the activities of the Government in the matter of land legislation. In this there is no consideration for the further four millions of practically irrecoverable debt which we have contracted by estate improvement. The second is that we have already over one-fifth of all the agricultural land in the country divided, and the third is that—although it has been mentioned already—so long as the original mistake of destroying fixity of tenure is continued, particularly in the case of tenanted land, so long will there be a sense of insecurity among those who conduct the only industry which supports the credit of the country and incidentally makes possible our industrial experiments.

There are several other matters of major importance, but I think that these three will suffice entirely for my argument, with the exception of one other to which I should like to draw attention, and that is the very large amount of money which we expend, not entirely on the acquisition and sale of land, but on the staff of the Land Commission, both senior and junior members, amounting to 1,112, at a yearly expenditure in salaries and wages of £378,000. Although this sum is not all attributable to this particular item, I suggest that a curtailment of the Commission's activities would release a considerable amount of money for the relief of congestion and for the provision of holdings of untenanted land elsewhere. According to the last Land Commission report—admittedly a year old, but the latest report we have —there are in the hands of the Land Commission 1,454,000 acres of untenanted land, and the report goes on to say that a large area, in addition, is under preliminary inquiry with a view to inspection. That means that, in the pockets of the Land Commission, so to speak, there are very considerable quantities of untenanted land, but at the same time there has been division of tenanted land to a very considerable extent. Now, Sir, I cannot see why this has been.

If you examine this report you will find that 390 holdings, amounting to 62,541 acres, have been already acquired, and the serious thing is that, if you take the average size of a farm, according to these figures, it works out at an average of 160 acres. That is one point, but it goes a bit further. It is under contemplation to acquire another 392 holdings, which average 90 acres. Now, as a number of large estates are included in these figures, it is obvious that there must be many of these holdings which do not reach the average, and it is the farm of between, say, 80 and 110 acres, which an ordinary man with his family is capable of running with very little outside labour—all the labour, practically, being done by the man and his family—which, as a general rule in this country, is worked the best and to its absolute capacity.

Now, although the Minister has assured us that the holdings in question are derelict or badly worked and that nobody has been disturbed who, you might say, has been guilty of good husbandry, one cannot but have a feeling of insecurity, when you think of those figures, and especially when, in this Bill, all remaining legal safeguards of land legislation are taken away from us, as they were just a few minutes ago. But, Sir, supposing for a moment —but only for a moment—that I accept that there are no cases whatever of the compulsory acquisition of tenanted land except where a farm has been found to be badly worked or derelict, the time will come when all these bad or undesirable farmers—the fellows who let the thistles grow, who neglect drainage, and so on—will have been deprived of their land, and all their land will have been absorbed, and yet there is still power given to the Minister in this Bill, without going to the Oireachtas, to go on further and further and acquire all the tenanted land in the country. There is nothing to stop him. For one reason or another, he has the power to do so, but surely there should be some statutory limit to the power of disturbance other than the opinion of a Land Commission inspector, because that is what it really amounts to. What it amounts to is, that it depends on the opinion of a single Land Commission inspector who goes down and inquires into the circumstances, and, probably, only is informed of half the circumstances, and in many cases, probably, is given wrong information. Of course, we all know that the Minister himself cannot go down and inspect these lands, and I am quite satisfied that, if it were humanly possible for him to do so, it would be all right; but the Minister cannot do that. Well, now, although in 1923 figures were given showing that there were 100,000 congests, the fact that, since then, it has become known that tenanted land would be made available both for the relief of local congestion as well as for migration, has produced something like five times the number of claimants for land. Now, that has a most unsettling effect, and I think that the Minister, or the Government should make a definite statement as to the amount of land available in this country and the numbers who can be accommodated on it. There should be a definite statement of that kind made, and let it be definitely known what is going to be the finish of it, and I think that if that were done a great many people would feel very much better about the whole thing.

Perhaps I might be permitted to digress for a moment. Notwithstanding the two remarkable cases which the Minister gave us the other day as to the profits that were made by migrants, I am afraid that the Minister may have been informed, possibly, only of the good cases, and that there are a great many other cases which have not come to his notice. In anticipation of this debate, I took advantage of the Press and made inquiries as to how these lands, which have been sub-divided amongst the various migrants, are being used or misused. My inquiry was published for one day only, but I got a pile of letters which showed that there was a widespread interest throughout the country in this matter. These letters cover, practically, the whole country, and they deal in detail with thousands of acres, and I am sure that they deal with cases that do not come to the notice of the Minister or his inspectors.

Now, although I divided the value of these letters by about 50 per cent., because I realise that a great many of these people, naturally, would have an axe to grind or might be acting on insufficient information, I am still satisfied that a good number of them would be genuine cases and that there is real ground for inquiry by the Minister or his Department as to how this divided land is being used. One enthusiast from Cavan gave particulars of the use that was being made of certain lands down there, and I can give the Minister the particulars afterwards, but the general gist of all these letters is that the misuse of this land consists generally of setting the land to graziers and letting the houses which have been built. It would appear that setting is very general amongst the migrants; in some cases because they are too idle to use the land, in other cases because they have not the necessary money to use the land properly, and in other cases because they have been able to let the turbary rights. I understand that there are also cases where land has been distributed to men who have other occupations and who have no claim to the land. Some of the people, it would appear, to whom this land has been granted, are actually drawing the dole, and others are not paying the rates. My information is that some of the land is being allotted to improper persons, and I am informed that there is actual sale of allotments.

Now, I do not want to make too big a case of this. I only wish to mention the different things which I feel require examination. Of course it is a great bribe, in the case of these claimants for land, to be told by somebody who wants to seek favour, "Oh, you can get 22 acres in Meath, and a big grant to make it worth your while to establish yourself there," and that is made absolutely full use of.

On the Second Reading, Senator Baxter made possibly the two most important remarks in the debate. He had the courage to say, first of all, that the ideas which he had absorbed as a young man with regard to the division of land had changed very, very considerably as a result of the knowledge he acquired of actual conditions in the country, and he went on to say that much of the money spent in migration would be very much better spent locally on the migrants' farms at home. Really when one looks at the Land Commission report, it is almost incredible to find that the average cost to the nation of settling migrants at Rathcarron is £1,410 each. If you took that same money and spent it amongst five or six holdings in the migrants' own part of the world, you would make those people perfectly happy without any migration whatever and with less expense to the State. A small farmer in the West has got an uneconomic holding because the land requires improvement. He requires a house, manures, labour, drainage.

Imagine what could be done with £200 or £300, locally. Without increasing State expenditure, it is really incredible what could be done with a subsidy of ten barrels of lime and a little artificial manure which they could provide out of their own pockets, and reclaiming bogland, and draining. One would hardly believe it until one would see it. If you took all these moneys together which we are spending in taking up tenanted land which has already amounted to £566,000, add half the value of the Land Commission salaries and add on the improvements, there would be about 1½ million pounds to spend on the improvement of uneconomic holdings. In that way you would change the face of the country and make the people perfectly happy without the frightful disturbance which is going on at the present moment. Sooner or later this will have to be done, and I urge a stock-taking and a slowing down so far as the tenanted land is concerned should operate at once. Meanwhile, you have got all the untenanted land you require and you could utilise the money in improving holdings in the localities where the congests are.

I have only a few more words to say on the bearing of the fixity of tenure on the question of tenanted land. In my young days the term was almost a sacred one. Now I find, although times have not changed a great deal, that the term is almost anathema. This view which embraces probably the greatest fact of our modern history is a very important one, but there is also the economic aspect of the unwisdom of destroying with undue haste what very wise men in their generation gave their time and their lives in obtaining for the people.

I do not like to support a banker. I admit that he keeps my money safely but he charges me for it and only does it in order to make a profit, and when I get into difficulties he immediately asks for more cover. But be fair to the Irish banks on this question of lending to the farmers. At the present moment their total loan investments given out to farmers is 26 per cent. of their whole, and every penny of that is not lent out on the land because as a security at the present moment it is valueless, but is lent out on the personality of the farmers themselves. They go to a farmer, they judge him on his record for fair dealing and they say "Yes, we will lend you the money," but were there fixity of tenure they could go to that same farmer whom they knew to be a fair dealer and they could say, "Yes, you have this collateral security in your land." They would increase their advances, for one thing, and the terms on which the advances would be made would be very much easier.

I think that until the Government change their policy on this particular question of tenanted land and at the same time make it clear that they are not going to stand for organised holdups, supported by the Land Commission on many occasions whenever sale is contemplated, they will continue to keep in cold storage what is our greatest asset for getting credit in this country—and that is the main point.

Mr. Quirke

I have just one remark to make in connection with Senator The McGillycuddy's statement. He referred to his letter to the Press inviting complaints as to the way in which the land given by the Land Commission was being used in various towns, and he informed the House that he had received numerous replies telling him that this land had been very much misused, that people who were given holdings under the Land Commission schemes have been letting those holdings, and that the people who have been given turbary have in fact been selling that turbary. We had similar statements from the Minister for Lands and it is interesting to find Senator The McGillycuddy, like Napoleon, standing up, wrapped in the isolation of his own originality, telling us such a story. The House seems to be more or less divided between the representatives of the landlords and the representatives of the tenant farmers. I make no apology for being on the side of the tenant farmers, and I am sure that Senator The McGillycuddy makes no apology for being on the side of the landlords. I say that while there may be certain grievances—and there are grievances—as to how these lands are being used, that the last man who should stand up and criticise the way the small farmers are using their land is the representative of the landlord element in this country and an unapologetic representative of the class who have absolutely and recklessly misused their land, not over years but over centuries. I think it comes very badly from Senator The McGillycuddy to be trying to make capital out of the fact that certain lands have been re-let. The Minister has already made that statement, and he has assured the House on more than one occasion that wherever he found such a thing had been happening those lands would be taken back from those people and reallotted to other tenants who, we hope, would be more successful farmers. That is all I have to say on the matter.

Mr. Hawkins

There are just one or two questions I would like to put to Senator the McGillycuddy in regard to the letter which he had published in the Press calling for information as to how the land of Ireland was being used. Did he receive any reply from any person interested in this division, particularly with regard to migrants, informing him of the number of those people who have taken conacre from their adjoining neighbours who have tilled and put to good use the 22 or 22½ acres, as the case may be, that have been allotted? A number of those people not only have done that, but have gone out and taken what we call conacre, that is, land from year to year, and have used that land to the best interest.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

On a point of explanation. I do not think the Senator could quite have caught what I said. I said I did not want to make too much of this case, but that there were a good many cases of misuse of this land throughout the country which I would be glad if the Minister would look into, and I gave him the types of cases there were. I do not wish to make a big question of it.

Mr. Hawkins

I should also like to know from the Senator, in his compilation of how the land was used, did he find out how many large farmers let the greater portion of their land to people for conacre, tillage and every other purpose?

I know that in my part of the country those people who have holdings of land of from 100 acres to 300 acres use 50 acres themselves and let the rest out in conacre from year to year, or for grazing purposes to other farmers around. The Senator stated that instead of transferring these people from Connemara to Meath, it would be much better to give them a sum of money, £200 or £300. I wonder does he understand their position. If you were to divide £200 or £300 amongst them, how long would it last? Is it his suggestion that there should be a lime subsidy of ten barrels, together with £200 or £300 for them? If it is, I would like to see him go down to Connemara and explain that policy to the people.

The Senator referred to the report of the Land Commission. In that report it is stated "that the migrants generally are doing well in their new holdings, that they have adapted themselves to their changed environment, to modern farming methods", and that they were raising excellent crops of potatoes, corn, etc. The report states that each migrant is tilling more than a fourth of his holding. I would again impress on the Minister the necessity of getting his Department to continue the good work they are doing despite any opposition they may meet with. What we in the West of Ireland and in other portions of the country feel is that the Land Commission are going too slowly. We think there is no necessity for the Minister to insert any further provisions in the Bill on the matter of appeals, because, as things are at present, from the date an estate is acquired by the Land Commission, it takes about five years before it is divided. The great complaint through the country is that people do not see why the Land Commission should not get ahead more quickly with its work.

Mr. M. Hayes

Apart altogether from the merits of the amendments before the House, I should like to take exception to the attitude of Senator Quirke on this whole matter. I know the ill repute and the ill flavour there is about the word "landlord." I heard a great deal about it in my youth. Nobody belonging to me ever had as much land as Senator Quirke told us he was reared on. I do think that we ought to consider these amendments on their merits without bandying about the word "landlord." The main feature in the changed policy of the Land Commission, through legislation, since 1923 is that the Land Commission now have the power to take tenanted land. That is to say they have the power to take land from a tenant purchaser who is not a landlord in the old sense of the word.

Any man who is a member of this House should be given the right to state his views. It is good from the national point of view. It is surely of great importance that since 1922 people who represent a particular class of any kind can come in here and state their views. They should be allowed to state them. Any man is entitled to his view on this question of land distribution and to state it, even Senator Quirke, but I think we should have the matter discussed without bandying about terms which, in reality, are terms of abuse, although I know they are within the limits of parliamentary language. But why not discuss the merits of the amendments without using particular epithets which, historically, are very offensive. I do not own any land. Senator Quirke does, and has a good deal more of the goods of this world than I have. I am not complaining of that, and I am going to let him state his views in spite of that, but I do think we ought to have these things discussed on their merits.

I know a good many small farmers who, I think, would not be quite in agreement with Senator Hawkins. I think if you went down to Connemara and told some of the people there, in good Irish, that you were going to give them a certain number of things and £200, and leave them where they are, that they would have a welcome for you. They might, indeed, be very enthusiastic if you knew enough Irish to explain the matter clearly to them.

Mr. Quirke

Is the Senator suggesting that that would be a good policy?

Mr. M. Hayes

This is a very complicated problem, and, mind you, there is something to be said for it. From the point of view of economics and of the Irish language, which I do not want to go into at all, I do want to say, because I know a little about Connemara and other congested areas where there is Irish, that I feel if you went to the people there with such a proposal there would not be such a doicheall for you. They would have a good welcome for you. In so doing they might not be acting in their own best interests, and it is quite conceivable that the Minister may well be doing what is best for them. But the suggestion made by Senator The McGillycuddy is not the outrageous one that it has been represented to be, nor is it one that would be entirely rejected by congests in Connemara or Donegal. We have now reached the stage when there are really no landlords. In our inexperience and when we had not the power we believed that the dividing of the land was a certain remedy for every ill that Ireland was heir to. Some of us, including I imagine the Minister, believed so in our callow youth. We have since discovered that the problem is not quite so simple. We now have the power to divide the land, and surely that is a question that is capable of being discussed without the bandying about of abusive epithets.

Sir John Keane

This is a very important section, and I hope the House will not consider that the time devoted to it is being wasted. I am glad that Senator Hayes, who is not one of the discredited class, challenged and took Senator Quirke to task for his inability to get away from this bugbear of landlordism. Senator Quirke is not satisfied in making landlordism a corpse, but must keep on kicking it. The Senator is for ever making those attacks when one stands up to defend security, to argue about it and about the perpetual unrest that is involved in this power of resumption. He seems to be obsessed with an anti-landlord bias, so much so that he cannot give credit where credit is due, particularly as regards the past. I remember well, when I was a boy, that the whole countryside came in and discussed their family affairs with their landlord. Before a marriage was arranged they came and discussed it with him and asked his opinion. He was looked upon as a sort of father by the whole countryside. That was so in the case of many landlords.

Mr. Quirke

Would the Senator say if he is talking about Curraghmore?

Sir John Keane

I am talking about individual cases that I know of which present a very different picture indeed from that painted by Senator Quirke. At the present time one may go round the country and see in many parts fine slated dwelling-houses which were built by landlords of an earlier day. One may realise from that that they were not quite as iniquitous as they have been represented here. However, what we are debating here is the perpetuation of this unrest that is caused by this power of resumption. The spirit of envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness has been engendered in this perpetual seething pot involved in this legislation. The Nationalists of old—Davitt, Dillon and Parnell—I am sure some of them said so, looked forward to the day when, land purchase having been completed, there would be finality. There is no finality, because you cannot get people to work at this business unless they know where they are. When we see in this section the power of resumption it means endless unrest. Everybody is looking jealously for an opportunity to get something that somebody else has already got. It would not matter—I would not mind— if there was prospect of any satisfaction for the vast majority of these people who are looking jealously at their neighbours, but there is none.

I would like to make the suggestion to the Minister that if we could get this whole question of land division cleared up it would save a great deal of money. They should put all the strength behind the land Commission and say: "We are willing to divide 600,000 acres, and we are going to finish it at that, and after that we are going to allow people back to the system of free trade and market values and so on." But they are not. There is a large host of civil servants who are perpetuating the present state of affairs and who are keeping this cauldron boiling all the time. As long as that goes on there will be all these difficulties of finance and so forth attaching to this whole problem. Would the Minister consider that that should be cleaned up, that he might spend even £2,000,000 a year on the Land Commission for the next two or three years and then let us know where we are and let us settle down to some sort of security? The present state of affairs only means a perpetuation of the unrest and of these difficulties of credit that we are hearing about.

I do not want to raise this question of credit again, but everybody knows why this is going on. The fact is that credit on the land is disastrous. Going back to this question of resumption under this section I see the four subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d), under which land can be taken. Where is the power to take land if it is not being put to proper use?

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

It is under Section 32 of the 1933 Act.

Sir John Keane

This has practically the same effect. Land can be resumed if it is being improperly used, as well as for these reasons. I would like the Minister to say what is meant by those words: "The Land Commission shall give, in the prescribed manner to the person appearing to be in occupation of the holding" and so on. What is the meaning of the words "the prescribed manner"? Will the occupier be told that the land is to be taken for the purpose of (a), (b), (c) or (d), or if it is to be taken on account of its not being properly used. I cannot see how, unless full particulars are given of the reason the land is going to be taken, the occupier can enter into a defence. Then, what is the procedure under which this petition is heard? Is all the protection of the courts of law allowed, is counsel allowed to appear, is the valuer or the person who makes the charge allowed to state his reasons, and are they tested in cross-examination, and are all safeguards given to the occupier before his property is taken away? I consider unless all those safeguards are provided, there is liable to be great injustice in the resumption of land. Senator the McGillycuddy has rather suggested that we should go slower in resumption, and that only untenanted land should be distributed quickly. I think, on the whole, that it would be better if we went very quickly and finished the work, and got back to sanity and fair dealing and security in the holding of land.

Mr. Boland

I am afraid that Senator the McGillycuddy made a mistake in quoting from the Land Commission report. He seemed to think that we had on hand 1,450,000 acres. That was the final figure in the end of the column, but that is the total amount of land to be acquired, and in respect of some of it there are still proceedings going on. The actual amount of land acquired in the years 1923 to 1938 was in the first column, and it was 818,000 acres.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

In any case, there is a large number of acres still in contemplation, nearly a million.

Mr. Boland

There was a general debate—and there was bound to be, I am sure, on a question like this—on credit and other things. In the first amendment we are dealing with, it is proposed only to have power to acquire land for the purpose of relieving congestion. If we had got only that power a lot of hardship might be inflicted. The case of employees, evicted tenants and so on, could not be considered. I am sure the Senator did not realise that when putting down the amendment. If the amendment were accepted that would be one of the effects. We intend, so far as we possibly can—as I said on a number of previous occasions—to devote the remainder of the land which the Land Commission may acquire to the relief of congestion.

Mr. Hayes

Does that mean migration from the West?

Mr. Boland

Very largely. Where the land is required to be resumed, they will be put into economic possession, or where there is congestion some of them will be induced to relieve the congestion and come on to the new estates. I think the Senator might withdraw the amendment in view of that. I do not think that he would want to restrict us entirely to migration with these people. There may be people losing their employment, representatives of evicted tenants, prevented from getting justice.

The next amendment proposes to delete the reference to the food supply. This is one of the circumstances which are taken into consideration when the Land Commission is proceeding to acquire or resume land. It is one of the points on which there will be a defence for the land owner, if he is able to show that the land is producing food —an adequate supply of food—for the farm. That is a good defence, and it means that the land will not be taken from him. I do not see what is to be gained by deleting that. It is one of the considerations—an important one— that will have a bearing on whether land will be acquired or not.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Tá ceist amháin agam ar an Aire. Ba mhaith liom a fhagháil amach an bhfuil cómhacht aige talamh do thógaint le h-aghaidh foraoiseachta?

Gearóid Ó Beóláin

Tá.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Tá ceist eile agam. An bhfuil léir-mheastachán iomlán déanta aige ar an méid talmhan gur féidir leis ghlachadh sa deire?

Gearóid Ó Beóláin

Tá cómhacht againn an talamh do ghabháil. Tá a fhios agat, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, nach bhfuil mé i n-ann an cúis seo do phléidh as Ghaodhluinn ar fad. Tá cómhacht againn an talamh do ghlacadh le h-aghaidh foraoiseachta, ach níl an meastachán déanta againn fós. Sin an méid is féidir liom a rá.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Are these amendments being pressed?

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

No, Sir. They are all in the nature of a token amendment in order to allow the question of the limitation of the power of the Land Commission as regards land to be discussed. I think Senator Hawkins made one point about £300 being no use to a man in the West. I think if he went to a small Kerry farmer and said: "Now, I have men here and materials to build a new house and to drain the land and to make it productive," I think he would kiss him. I raised the question of food supplies only because, by reason of the varied policies of Governments—one day, the bullock and grass and another day, tillage—the farmer does not know where he is. The phrase "food supplies" is extremely vague and it never occurred in legislation before. I suggest that it should be more clearly defined.

The third amendment dealt with school playgrounds, and I think that if a village, or town, wants such things, they should be bought in the open market, in the same way as housing plots are acquired. Do I gather from the Minister that his policy in the future is going to be congests, first of all, and landless men after?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

The McGillycuddy

I did not catch what Senator Quirke said about landlords.

Mr. Quirke

I said the Senator was an unrepentant representative of the landlord class in this country.

The McGillycuddy

I should like to answer that. You may call us landlords—we probably were—but in our particular case, every acre of land we had came from the people themselves and throughout the whole history of our family any one who goes down to Kerry will find a quite clear record of thought and care for the people through generations.

Mr. Quirke

I did not want to cast any reflection on the Senator as an individual. I merely wanted to refer to him as the representative of a certain class, and I am quite sure he understands that.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Baxter

I move amendment No. 9:—

At the end of sub-section (1), to add the following words: "paragraph (c) of this sub-section shall not be applied except with the concurrence of the Minister for Agriculture."

This amendment provides that the resumption of a holding by the Land Commission for the purpose of increasing the food supply of the country shall not take place, except with the concurrence of the Minister for Agriculture. I should like the Minister to give it favourable consideration because the primary function of the Land Commission, in my view, is to divide land. The division of land is their scheme of things. The function of the Department of Agriculture, obviously, is to have the land of the country used as well as it can be for the production of the greatest quantity of food, and, as I said on Second Reading, there is not, in my judgment anyway, that coordination of thought and effort between the two Departments that will give the best return from the land. That ought to be the aim because, collectively, the people of this country will be well-off or poor, in proportion to the total production we get from our land. It does not matter a pin's point whether that production is on the hills of Kerry, or in the County Meath. My view is that if you abandon lands in Kerry and allow them to go back to the wilds, the total wealth of the country will drop to the extent to which these lands were in the past used for the production of food.

If the Minister for Agriculture were discussing this entire scheme, he would look at the policy from a rather different angle from that of the Minister for Lands and I should like to see some effort at a co-ordinated policy particularly when you are going to consider the resumption of lands merely because the lands are deemed not to be used in such a way that the greatest possible increase in the food supply of the country can be obtained. There are two points of view expressed about this. One is terribly incomplete and very uninformed, and it is expressed, strangely enough, by people in the towns who go out to the country now and again, look at grass and abuse it when they come back.

It is quite conceivable that it can be argued that land used in a particular way is not producing as much food as it would if used in another way. When we come to that point, I prefer, and I think it would be better, even from the point of view of the Land Commission, that reference should be had to the point of view of the Minister for Agriculture as to whether or not land is being used as it ought to be used for the purpose of increasing the food supply of the country. I do not think the men whose main responsibility is the division of land are the people to pass judgment on whether land is being efficiently used or not.

I am quite convinced that the best use being made of some of the land of the country is in the production of good grass and the fact is that by far the greater area of land in this country is under grass. Eight million acres out of about 12 million acres of arable land are under grass. There must be very considerable wealth coming from those eight million acres of grass land or the people could not continue to live on the land. From my point of view, we are not getting as much from our grass land as we might. I am not going into the difficulties that stand in the way, but it is frequently held as a justification, particularly by those who demand the distribution and breaking up of land, that the land is under grass. There could be no greater fallacy put forward by anyone who understands the economics of agriculture. I can understand an individual member of this, or the other, House, or some person outside, who knows nothing about land, who has never worked it, and indeed who has very little sympathy with the men who have to struggle through trying years, with summers, winters, harvests and springs that go against them, enunciating a policy which is contrary to all the known laws of economics in the running of a farm, but amongst men who understand the handling of land none of these can be found.

I have no need to argue that land under grass cannot be as efficiently and as usefully employed in the production of food as land otherwise used. What I fear, Sir, is that there will be a case made and a great deal of pressure exercised on the Land Commission under the plea of getting a greatly increased food supply for the country, and that the way to get that increased food supply is by going in and taking land that is under grass so that it may be put under the plough. In this I am not thinking of people with large estates at all. I am thinking of people who have holdings vested under the Land Purchase Acts which the Minister is taking power in this clause to resume and he is seeking to justify it under all these separate clauses. I am thinking of it under that head. Hence it is that I am arguing that it would be a very good thing for the Land Commission to be able to refer the question to the Department of Agriculture and to the Minister for Agriculture whose primary function is to look after the land, to get the most out of it and to instruct the people how they are to get the most out of it.

Senators can see the advantage there would be in having the concurrence of the Minister for Agriculture when it is proposed to resume land because it may seem necessary to do so for the purpose of increasing the food supply in the country. I have not put the amendment down for the purpose of restricting the Minister in his desire to resume possession of a particular holding if there is justification for the Land Commission doing so. But there can be differences of opinion. In my opinion anyway, the point of view of the Minister for Agriculture ought to be a sound one. There are those who say that if the point of view and the opinion of the Minister for Agriculture was available as to the type of applicants and their suitability to be put on particular holdings, a much better type of agriculturist would be selected by the Land Commission for holdings of land. I am not going to go into that now for I want to keep close to my amendment. If the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment I am satisfied it will be a safe guard to him against the sort of campaign that can be so easily and ill-advisedly started. As far as the economics of agriculture are concerned terribly unbalanced and ill-informed campaigns are often started. We have the case made that because the land is used in a particular way it is not as good for the country as if it were used in another way.

I think the Minister ought to try to meet my point of view on that. I think, in view of the attitude and general outlook of the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Lands can be quite safe in feeling that no obstacle is going to be put in his way. It is a good thing to have a second point of view about these things. Once a deed is done it is done, and injustice can easily be done. I am talking about farmers, and if farmers feel that the Minister for Agriculture can be consulted in a matter like this they will feel a confidence which I believe is lacking under the sub-section as it is.

Mr. C.M. Byrne

I am not going into the various points made by Senator Baxter during debate on this amendment. I quite agree that we require a lot of land in the country under grass, but I would be prepared to maintain that there is really too much grass land in this country. The Minister has emphasised here that the idea of this Bill is to increase uneconomic holdings to an economic size. If there is anything to be done that is necessary in that direction, I have no objection, whether it is done under the Minister for Agriculture or under the Minister for Lands, but I do not see any great necessity for the amendment. The object of the Bill is to do that work— to increase the size of uneconomic holdings.

Mr. Counihan

I support the amendment. The Minister has said here and in the Dáil that any land fairly well worked and used for the production of food will not be acquired by the Land Commission. Who is to be the judge of that? Is it the Land Commission or the Department of Agriculture? If it is the Department of Agriculture, I think the suggestion in the amendment is a very sound one—that the land cannot be acquired without the approval of the Minister for Agriculture. Senator Baxter has made a case that I think is irrefutable. I really cannot see why the Minister should have any objection to the amendment.

Mr. Boland

I cannot see how I could possibly accept the amendment. I would like to point out that even the concurrence of the Minister for Lands is not required. Section 6 of the 1933 Land Act takes the question of the resumption of land, the price to be fixed and the people who are to get the land entirely out of the province of the Minister for Lands. How can I, in this Bill, give power to another Minister which the Minister for Lands has not got? The Land Commission are entirely independent in this matter. Senator Douglas asked me in what respect they were independent.

Some one did mention here to night that the two Appeal Commissioners were irremovable except by a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas and the Lay Commissioners are irremovable except for misconduct. They can be removed without the approval of both Houses. There is no Minister in the matter at all. That is one of the things laid down under the Land Act of 1933. I would say that there is no question of Departments of State working in a sort of watertight compartments. There is consultation. The Land Commission officials are constantly consulting with the officials of the Department of Agriculture. That happens all through the services. Any information that can be got or that is in the possession of one Department is available to the officials of the other Department. It would be out of the question to bring in the Minister for Agriculture where the Minister for Lands has nothing to do in this matter of land acquisition and distribution.

Professor Johnston

Would the Minister accept the amendment if it were made to read that the concurrence of the Minister for Lands as well as that of the Minister for Agriculture would be required?

Mr. Boland

That particular point was debated but it opens up another question. That point was vigorously raised when the 1933 Land Act was going through. We had all this thing about pressure being brought to bear on Ministers and Deputies. There would be no confidence if the Minister for Agriculture had a say in the matter. Deputy Cosgrave suggested the same thing in the other House and I had on the Fifth Stage there to remind him that that was a thing I insisted on. This body which is semi-judicial ought to have the last say and if they have the last say the matter is safe in their hands. The Land Commission are not going to take grass lands simply because they are grass lands. They are not going to take over a 500-acre estate or 1,000-acre estate simply because of that. They must have regard to the use to which the lands are put. I would say that in view of the actual position, to do what is proposed here in this amendment, would be perfectly ridiculous.

Mr. Douglas

During this debate here I understand the Minister gave a number of assurances as to what the Land Commission will do; now we have his statement that he has no say whatever in the matter. That is what has been puzzling me—the two contradictory statements. It seems to me that all these assurances given by the Minister ought to be in the Bill. The assurances we have heard are quite valueless in view of the Minister's own statement that he had no say in this. He has told us so repeatedly. How can he give assurances then when, as he says, he has no real say in the matter?

Mr. Boland

The point is that the Minister for Lands lays down the policy; he has the right and the power to do that on behalf of the Government. He lays down the policy which the Land Commissioners are to work out.

Mr. Douglas

But he has no power to make them do any particular thing.

Mr. Boland

He has. That is a different matter from directly interfering in the work of taking land from a particular person and deciding the particular person to whom the land is to be given. The Minister can say that migrants must be given precedence or that uneconomic holders must get precedence or that ex-employees on an estate must get preference before others. He can lay down a general lands policy. But, undoubtedly, his concurrence in the acquisition of land, in the resumption of land which is the work here, is a matter on which he has no say at all.

Mr. Douglas

Surely it is a matter of policy? I quite agree that we have got the assurance of the Minister that land will not be taken if it is being properly worked. Is this, or is it not, a matter in which the Minister can see that his assurance is carried out? It seems to me that if he gives us that assurance, he must have power, if any case arises in which an attempt is made to take land that is being properly worked, to stop that, otherwise his assurance is of no value.

Mr. Boland

The manner in which the land should be worked is laid down in the various Acts. This question of producing food is one of the conditions. You cannot expect the Minister to say whether land which is being resumed is, or is not producing food. Someone else has to say that. The people to say it, in this instance, are the Land Commission after they have heard the case pro and con.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Sé mo thuairim nach bhfuil sa leasú ach scadán dearg agus nach fiú aimsear do chaitheamh air.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister has given an assurance to the House that if land is being properly worked for the purpose of producing food, it is not going to be interfered with; but how will he see that that assurance is carried out? How will he know, without some interference on his part, that in fact it is being carried out? I do not want the Minister or the House to misunderstand me. I quite accept that he means what he says, but this is an entirely separate point from the other. It is an entirely different sub-head. It is somewhat more technical, if you like. It is a matter really on which the technical staff of the Minister for Agriculture would be the most competent to pass judgment. We know what Land Commission inspectors are. They are, no doubt, estimable men, and they are capable of giving a balanced judgment, but, from my experience, the predominant consideration with them is to obtain land for the purposes of sub-division. The predominant consideration, on the other hand, with the Minister for Agriculture and his officials is to see that the land is efficiently used. I am not suggesting that the Minister for Agriculture, or indeed the Minister for Lands, should come in any place other than in this particular and specific instance. I cannot say I am convinced—and I am quite open to be convinced—by the Minister's statement that merely because his own name is not mentioned in this connection, the concurrence of the Minister for Agriculture should not be sought. The Minister for Agriculture will never come in on the general question of the resumption of holdings; his concurrence will be sought only on the point of the resumption of holdings under a particular and specific sub-section.

My view is that the Minister ought to take into account the point of view of the Minister for Agriculture as well as that of his own Ministry as I know myself there are two points of view about this matter. You will get two points of view as between the staff of the Minister for Agriculture and the staff of the Minister for Lands. I know what I am talking about and I should like the Minister to give this consideration. I am only trying to get from the Minister what I think would be a definite improvement in the Bill. I should be quite prepared to withdraw this amendment if the Minister would say that he would give consideration to it to see whether there was not something of value in it. I am convinced myself there is. If you are going to resume a holding, because in your judgment you can increase the food supply of the nation by so doing, I believe the people who should be consulted before coming to a decision on that matter are the technical people whose job it is to know how best you can use the land and who, probably, have been watching how the land has been cultivated. You can easily, through an officer of the Department of Agriculture, an inspector of the Department or a county agricultural instructor, get information as to what should be done in the case of a particular holding. There may be a history attached to a particular holding. There may be some information concerning it of which the Land Commission inspector cannot be aware and, from what he sees at a particular time, he is not able to give a fair decision.

I cannot see any insuperable difficulty in the Minister's agreeing to the suggestion put forward in this amendment. I do not think there is much in the Minister's point of view that simply because the Minister for Lands is not mentioned in this particular part of the section, the Minister for Agriculture should not be mentioned in it. If I were asking to have the name of the Minister for Agriculture inserted in such a way that he would be able to pass judgment upon the general provisions of the Bill, it would be an entirely different matter. This has reference merely to a technical point and I would ask the Minister to give it more favourable consideration.

Sir John Keane

Surely to apply the test of whether land is or is not producing food for the nation is a very unfair way of determining this matter. Is no regard to be had at all to the factor of profit? Supposing it can be proved that by a certain type of agriculture I make so much profit or loss, and that by another type I make less profit or less loss, as the case may be, is no consideration to be given to that fact? Do you mean to say that that is not going to be taken into consideration, that the only test is how much food is going to be produced irrespective of the profit-earning aspect? The whole thing seems a most extraordinary doctrine to apply in that one-sided manner. Everybody has a right to use his property in any way he thinks fit. I believe, however, we have already come to a decision on that matter; but if you have got to have some test, I say that it is altogether wrong to impose upon the owner of land a condition of operation which may involve him in loss whereas another method may yield him a profit. The whole thing shows the extent of the morass in which the Government is floundering on this whole matter. The Minister never told us what the procedure in connection with the Lay Commissioners would be, or as to how they are to decide that land is not producing sufficient food. Is there merely to be a bald statement to that effect?

Mr. Boland

I had to try to stick to the amendment before the House. That was the reason I did not tell the Senator. I shall tell the Senator now if the House wishes.

Cathaoirleach

As it is now 10.30 p.m., perhaps the Senator would move to report progress.

Sir John Keane

I move to report progress.

Progress reported, Committee to sit again to-morrow.

Sir John Keane

I should like to have some decision now as to whether the Report Stage of the Land Bill is to be taken to-morrow.

Cathaoirleach

The Committee Stage will be resumed to-morrow and a decision can be arrived at then.

Sir John Keane

I think the Report Stage should not be taken until next week.

Professor Johnston

I am also of opinion that the Report Stage should not be taken until next week.

Cathaoirleach

The Report Stage will probably not be taken until next week.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Cé'n t-am?

Cathaoirleach

Dé Ceadaoin seo chugainn.

Mr. Robinson

I should like to know if the motion on the Order Paper will be taken to-morrow. The Taoiseach is interested and I think we should have some consideration for him. The Taoiseach is a busy man and I think we should know now whether or not the motion is going to be taken to-morrow.

Cathaoirleach

I presume it is the intention to take it after the Committee Stage of the Land Bill has been finished.

Mr. Robinson

It may be the intention, but is it proposed if we finish the Committee Stage of the Land Bill to-morrow to sit until 10.30 p.m.?

Senators

Oh, no!

Mr. MacDermot

As the sponsor of the motion I am indifferent whether it is taken to-morrow or next week, but I would make a very strong plea that we should not be called upon to sit after 2 p.m. to-morrow.

Mr. Baxter

We would all like that.

Mr. MacDermot

I would ask the House to agree not to take the motion.

Professor Johnston

So would I. I cannot be here, and I am concerned with one of the amendments.

Mr. Robinson

In deference to the Taoiseach I would ask that, whenever the motion is taken, it should be at a definite hour—either the first thing to-morrow, or at a fixed hour during the debate.

Mr. Quirke

We should be able to make some calculation as to what hour we are likely to finish this Bill to-morrow. I would agree with whoever suggested going on to 10.30, but I think about two and a half hours would probably finish it.

Mr. M. Hayes

If the Fourth and Fifth Stages of the Bill are going to be postponed until next Wednesday, that surely gives a sufficient opportunity for the resumption of Second Reading debates on two further Stages. In consideration of that, perhaps we could finish the Committee Stage of the Land Bill—I think there are only two further amendments—by 12 o'clock to-morrow; then take the motion, and sit until we finish the motion at some agreed hour; I would suggest 4 o'clock.

Mr. MacDermot

I would make a strong appeal that that should not be done. It is the one and only solution that would be intensely inconvenient to me.

Mr. M. Hayes

I am very sorry about this intense inconvenience to individuals, but people who become Members of Parliament—as many of us know from experience—do find themselves seriously inconvenienced from time to time. Without being offensive, I have no regard whatever for any individual Member's personal convenience. We could finish the Land Bill by 12 o'clock to-morrow, then take the motion, and, at an agreed hour, Senator MacDermot could conclude.

Mr. MacDermot

It is not easy to see what is behind Senator Hayes' suggestion except his own personal convenience.

Mr. M. Hayes

If we are going to meet to-morrow this motion has been on the paper so long that we ought to hear what is behind it, and finish it.

Mr. MacDermot

It is a most abnormal thing for either House of the Oireachtas to sit on Friday afternoon, and nobody should be expected to make plans in advance on the assumption that it will be sitting.

Cathaoirleach

The Chair would very much prefer that this matter should be decided outside the House. The Committee Stage of the Land Bill will be resumed in the morning, and then the Seanad will be in the position to decide its further action.

Mr. Robinson

Has the Chair given a definite ruling?

Cathaoirleach

It is not a matter for a ruling. When we resume to-morrow an arrangement may have been come to as to the taking of the motion.

Mr. Robinson

I am concerned with the convenience of the Taoiseach, who is to be present, presumably, during all the discussion on the motion. I understand he has undertaken to do so. I think the House ought to have some consideration for his convenience. Is he to sit here or sit in his office until the Seanad makes up its mind to take the motion? I think that would be grossly unfair to the Taoiseach, and I do not think it is the desire of the House to treat him in that way.

Cathaoirleach

The strong view of the Chair is that this matter should be arranged outside the House. There will be an opportunity to arrange something definite before to-morrow. It cannot, obviously, be done by way of exchanges across the House.

Mr. Goulding

I understood that the motion was to be taken to-morrow after completion of the Committee Stage of the Land Bill, and that we would go on until such time as we completed the motion.

Cathaoirleach

As I have said, that can be arranged definitely before to-morrow.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 21st July.