Land Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moylan)

Since the common complaint against the land code relates to its extent and complexity it is with reluctance I propose to add a further reason for such complaint by the introduction of this Bill. My justification is that an evil, limited indeed in extent, but grave in its implications, has disclosed itself, as a result of inspection and examination of the manner in which certain unvested allottees have met the commitments imposed on them by the terms of their contract with the Land Commission.

Inspections made from time to time in the five or six years preceding 1944 —during the emergency period when failure to use land to its fullest extent could be held to be more than usually blameworthy—showed that in some 20 per cent. of the cases examined the allottees were not working their lands properly and that several hundred houses built for allottees remained unoccupied. Warnings and threats produced a big improvement but there still remains a substantial number of defaulters who seem to believe that no effective action can or will be taken to ensure their compliance with their contract. It is in the interest of the community that such action must be taken and the instrument devised for the purpose is the Bill now before you. At the moment the position is that we have set up in the Land Commission a special section to deal systematically with investigations for usership and residence and during the past year or so some 6,900 parcels have been visited with the following results:—We are satisfied with 5,660 or 82 per cent. We found that 1,120 or 16 per cent. were not being worked satisfactorily generally because they were being sublet by the allottees. We found that of 1,920 houses on holdings examined 116 were unoccupied.

In addition to these results from regular systematic inspection we have had brought to our notice 500 individual cases of bad husbandry and 175 cases of non-occupancy of houses. So that just now we have in the Land Commission information about 1,620 cases of failure to work land and 291 cases of failure to occupy houses built for or given to allottees. And all this after an amount of publicity and inspection and warning which would have moved any but a really unsatisfactory allottee to change his bad habits.

I feel that the figures given are sufficiently disturbing to justify the introduction of the Bill. I want to emphasise the fact that it is not intended as a punitive but as a reform measure. I also think that the Seanad will agree that definite action and specific powers are needed if the evil is to be eradicated.

The question of residence was dealt with in Section 19 of the Land Act, 1939, which purported to give the Land Commission sufficient powers to enforce it, but they have been advised that an allottee who has been called on, under that section, to take up residence within three months (or such longer period as might be allowed him) and who has actually gone into residence following that notice, may subsequently cease to reside in the house, leaving it empty and the Land Commission have no further legal power to interfere with him. Allottees have also found another method of evasion by assuming pretence of residence. It is therefore proposed to repeal Section 19 of the Land Act, 1939, as inadequate and have it replaced by Section 2 of this Bill. It is essential that there should be no doubt whatever as to the powers of the Land Commission to enforce permanent residence as ordinarily understood, when they provide an allottee with a house on the land given him.

The question of the proper use by allottees of their parcels of land is a matter of supreme national importance and I am sure the House is aware that where allottees to whom parcels of untenanted land are given hold their allotments under purchase agreements, such agreements provide, inter alia, that they will not sell, alienate, sublet, subdivide, or part with possession of their parcels before the land has been revested in them; that they will work the land in accordance with the proper methods of husbandry to the satisfaction of the Land Commission, and that the Land Commission may recover possession in case of any default on the part of the allottee to comply with such conditions.

Though a letting of a holding or parcel in conacre or for the purposes of agistment or for temporary depasturage does not in law constitute a breach of a condition in a purchase agreement against subletting or parting with the possession of the holding or parcel or any part of it, it has never been intended that land provided for allottees could be let in conacre, etc. In addition, some recent High Court decisions have laid down that lettings of parcels by allottees for grazing or in conacre did not constitute breaches of the conditions in the purchase agreements that the parcels shall be worked in accordance with the proper methods of husbandry, with the result that allottees so using the lands could not be dispossessed. Sections 3 and 4 are designed to give the necessary remedies.

Opportunity has also been taken in the Bill to deal with some other points which have come to light in the operation of the land code.

First there is the matter of the devolution of parcels on the death of allottees. This is dealt with in Section 5 of the Bill. The devolution of parcels of unregistered land on the personal representatives of deceased allottees has never up to recently been questioned, so far as the Land Commission are aware, by anyone and the Land Commission and everybody else have acted on the assumption that these parcels of unregistered land did so descend, but recently a doubt arose in the minds of the Commissioners' advisers as to whether the hitherto generally accepted view was correct and it was considered advisable in the general interest to put the matter beyond doubt in this section.

Secondly there is the question of restrictions on dealing with holdings and parcels provided for the enlargement of holdings. The whole purpose of an allotment is defeated if the allottee is free to dispose of either his holding or parcel before they are consolidated. Such a separate alienation is prohibited, except with the consent of the Land Commission, by Section 6 of the Bill and the prohibition extends to parcels allotted before or after the passing of the Land Act, 1939. This section supersedes Section 23 of the 1939 Act which was intended to effect the same result but has been found not to be retrospective.

Finally there is the question of the devolution of holdings and parcels provided for the enlargement of holdings. This question is dealt with in Section 7 of the Bill which provides that following the death of a purchaser for the enlargement of whose holding a parcel was provided the parcel and the holding (prior to the consolidation thereof) should not pass to different persons under the terms of the deceased's will. Such parcels being given as additions to existing holdings, it is proposed that the parcel should go to the person taking the holding in succession to the deceased purchaser.

I do not know if it is any use to inform the Seanad that the Bill, after a very wide discussion—it was attacked from many points of view—passed through the Dáil in all its stages without a division. The Bill is absolutely necessary. It has been drafted in really narrow terms to deal with a limited evil. It asks for what may be considered rather exceptional powers, but the evil with which we have to deal, though limited, is such that it cannot be dealt with other than by an instrument of this kind. I recommend it to the Seanad.

Mr. Sweetman

With the general principle that, when a person is allotted land by the Land Commission to remedy a social evil, the land so allotted should be properly worked, I think every member of the House will be in agreement. I equally think that every member of the House will be in agreement with the principle that when a house has been built for an allottee at public expense—the expense representing a substantial charge upon the taxpayers of the country—it should not be left idle but should be lived in by that allottee. I do not think there can be any doubt as to the views of anybody who considers the problem on those lines, so that if it were merely a question of those two general principles, I think there would be very little to discuss at the moment.

But there is something more. I entirely agree with the Minister that it is necessary to protect those two principles and that if it has been found that existing legislation is not sufficient to protect them, then additional legislation was desirable. I am further in entire agreement with him, when, in his opening remarks, he spoke of the complexity of the land code. Where the Minister and I will differ, however, is in the machinery that he is proposing to adopt, and because of certain other incidental results of that machinery.

The figures which the Minister gave in regard to the number of houses that are not occupied, and in regard to the number of holdings that have not been properly worked, were rather alarming. They certainly show a very disquieting reflection upon the choice of allottees, especially when we find that as large a proportion as 20 per cent. of those allotted holdings which had been inspected should not be carrying out the social principles which they were put in to carry out. Those figures show that there has been some slipping up: that there has been a very large proportion of mistakes made in the choice of the persons allotted land. In my opinion a large portion of those mistakes arose from the policy adopted by the present Government in the early years after it took up office. In those early years people were allotted land who should never have got land, and people were allotted land who did not intend to work it properly. That, of course, only applies to a proportion of them. Certain people were, however, given land who should never have got it, while certain other people were put on land with the best intentions in the world, but in their case what happened was that they had not the means to work the land. One of the great difficulties in regard to a lot of those allotments was this: that people got them who had neither the experience nor the means to work them. The result was that they were not able to work the land. So far as all that is concerned, I am merely commenting on the manner in which these things led up to the very disquieting state of affairs which has been outlined by the Minister to-day.

I want to pass for a moment to another aspect of this measure: to be more strictly accurate, perhaps, I should say to another result of it. This measure deals with land allotted before it has been vested in the allottee. Once vesting has taken place, there is not, and cannot be under the existing legislation, any method by which the Land Commission, as such, can ensure that such land is properly worked. Therefore, the effect of this measure, when passed, will be to increase immeasurably the importance of vesting to individual persons. It will mean that, once an allottee is vested, he is completely free from any restriction. Whether the restrictions are good or bad, does not enter into the question: once he is vested he will be completely free from restrictions.

I want to ensure, in the working of the Land Commission, that after this Bill has become an Act, vesting will be carried through in accordance with strict principles, and that it will not be possible, either during the lifetime of this Government, or of any other Government, so to arrange that people will be taken out of their order and given the privilege of vesting before it is their due. There have been very considerable allotments in the County Kildare. On the 12th December, 1945, there were some 2,000 holding-allotments which had not yet been vested in the allottees in the County Kildare. There were about double that number in the County Meath, and there were some in County Carlow, County Wicklow and County Dublin. At the moment I am taking the Leinster counties. But there have also been in all those counties vestings which have taken place during the years, and I want to ensure in the future that when there are vestings, the vestings will be dealt with on a merit basis rather than on a basis of pull with the particular Government that may happen to be in power at the moment.

I am going to mention two specific cases for the benefit of the Minister, because I do not want merely to make a vague suggestion without coming down to brass tacks There are two large estates that were taken over, one near Prosperous in Kildare and the other near Kilcock. Both those estates were taken over 20 years ago, and the vast majority of tenants on those two estates—the Bury estate and the Cloncurry estate—were put into their holdings back about the end of 1926 and at the beginning of 1927. So far as I can ascertain from the tenants, practically none of them has yet been vested, though they have been there for 20 years. A lot of people in Kildare were disturbed last year to find that, though these examples remain, yet it is common knowledge that there are other similar examples in the county and in other counties—that people who were only on their holdings for a few years or so were being vested, and when they had been vested were selling their land.

The Minister will recollect certain questions that were put to him in the other House on the 12th July, 1945. There was an estate near Celbridge. It was acquired by the Land Commission and in respect of it 16 allotments were made by the Land Commission. In July, 1945, four out of these 16 allottees who had so far as one can measure from the Minister's answer been in possession for some eight or nine years, were vested though holdings not more than a few miles away where the people had been for 19 years, as it was then—20 years now—had not been vested. There is another estate very near to where I live, on the main road down to the South; everybody who passes through to the South through the town of Naas, just outside Rathcoole, knows it. There again holdings were vested in allottees. There were 12 allottees, nine were allotted on the 19th December, 1935, two in 1937 and one in 1938. There were three of these holdings vested though again holdings in which people had been resident for 19 years had not been vested.

I want to ensure, I want to have the complete assurance of the Minister, that that sort of thing will not happen in the future. We all know, of course, that where an allotment arises out of an exchange of holding and where the former holding of the allottee was a registered holding, the new one must be vested as well, but unfortunately that was not the reason for these cases. I want to be crystal clear in this: I am not charging the Minister personally with graft, but I am saying this, that he is the responsible head of a Department and as the responsible head of the Department it is up to him to see that it does not occur. It is up to him to see that there will not be cases taken specially out of their order to suit the whim or fancy of, say, a particular Deputy whether that Deputy is Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or anything else. In case anyone should think that I am speaking of my opposite number, Deputy Harris in County Kildare, in respect of these cases, I want to say I am not. He was not the Deputy responsible in regard to the Celbridge-Ballyulster case.

I want to know now what steps are going to be taken to ensure that that cannot happen again in County Kildare or elsewhere. I am not so foolish as to believe that where I come across cases where people have been given facilities which ordinarily are not afforded— when I come across three or four cases of that, I am not so foolish as to believe that these are all the cases that can possibly exist. We all know that for every one case, good or bad, we come across there are 10 others, good or bad, of the same kind happening at the time. The general feeling in regard to the cases I have mentioned—the Celbridge case—was that facilities had enabled the two people who had been given land to offer it for sale for £2,850 and £2,500 respectively, solely because these two tenants are intimately related to a former Fianna Fáil Deputy. The general feeling in regard to the Rathcoole case is that that was the case of a person who was permitted to sell for £3,200 because he was a well-known prominent Fianna Fáil supporter in the place from which he had come to Kildare.

It was suggested in the other House that these cases occurred during the office of the previous Government. I do not know whether they did or not. I am not interested in whether they have occurred or not. It is in the future I am interested. Whether this Minister or any other Minister is there I want to ensure that vesting which takes the land out of the power of the Land Commission shall be completed in chronological order and that there would be no suggestion of influence of any kind, whether from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, or any other Party, that that influence is not going to have the slightest effect with the Land Commission in making them take cases out of their order. We all know that the best method of ensuring that something like that cannot possibly happen is publicity. I suggest, therefore, to the Minister that it would ease the public mind very considerably if there was published periodically and laid on the Tables of both Houses of the Oireachtas a list showing the allottees who have been vested by the Land Commission in the preceding three months and showing on the face of that list the dates upon which they had been sold their holdings.

It should also show that if they were being taken out of order such as for the reason I have mentioned—to utilise a registered holding in one of the congested districts—that that reason would be there for everyone to see why the privileges were being given. Then there could not be, behind the backs of the Government and behind the backs of the Oireachtas, certain people granted privileges which the ordinary allottee could not get and which if the ordinary allottee who was not vested used would mean that under this Bill he would very probably be put out of his holding if he did not reform. There are further matters in regard to this Bill which will have to be discussed on Committee.

It is perhaps as well, as the Minister has mentioned some details in regard to sections, that I should refer to a few of the sections very shortly. I take it that it is your view, A Chathaoirligh, that on this Bill we cannot run the whole gamut of the Land Acts. If that were so, we should have a very much longer debate. I should like the Minister to clarify certain provisions when replying to the debate. As regards Section 2, I want to know why Clause (ii) of paragraph (ii) is necessary at all. Surely, if a man has a house built for him, it is right he should go and live in it. The only thing that could be done, or should be done, is to extend the time of the direction by the Land Commission from three months in special circumstances. We can all understand that a man might have to go back to look after his mother for a period if his father died, but I cannot understand why the complete direction to live in the house should be revoked.

Section 5 contains a legal monstrosity in one respect. That is the section where it is declared that what I might roughly describe as fee farm land which has been bought out from the Land Commission is to pass not to the heir-at-law but, as I understand, to the personal representative. If that is so, it will, perhaps, be more apt that it should pass before vesting in the same way as it will pass after vesting, but I cannot understand why it is necessary to make that retrospective. If my interpretation of the section be correct, it would seem as if very injurious results might follow. There was a decision fairly recently in the case of a person who held land under a fee farm grant and made application under Section 44 of the Land Act of 1931. He was declared to come within the provisions of that section.

That was, of course, untenanted land held under fee farm grant. Until vesting, it devolved as real estate. After vesting, it should devolve as personal estate. When it was held as real estate, the owner of it as real estate might have parted with his interest to a bona fide purchaser for value. As I read the section, the interest of that bona fide purchaser might be completely prejudiced because he might have got the conveyance from the wrong person. The phrasing is obscure. If my interpretation is incorrect, the Minister will have an opportunity of saying so when replying and time will thus be saved in Committee.

As to Section 6, I am in great difficulty. I do not see how a purchaser of land can protect himself. The Minister is well aware that the land certificate issued under the 1891 Act is prima facie and conclusive evidence of title. Under sub-section (2) of this section, if I purchase a vested holding and am given a land certificate, that land certificate will not show that there has been an addition to the registered land by the Land Commission for the purpose of making it an economic holding. I may find that, with the best will in the world, I have purchased under an assignment which is void. I entirely agree with the principle behind the section. It is in regard to the machinery that I find difficulty. I suggest to the Minister that it will be necessary to have, in relation thereto, something in the nature of the certificate granted in respect of income-tax under Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1928, issued by the Land Commission, stating that there has been no additional allotment to the holding, or, in the alternative, that it should be mandatory under statute on the Land Commission to enter the portion or addition on the folio itself. One of those two things must be dealt with in the statute. These are matters of detail which, perhaps, are not appropriate to the Second Reading but I think that it is well to mention them.

I want to make perfectly clear that I entirely approve of the principle behind those sections. Obviously, where you have a holding which has been enlarged by the allotment of land, if that holding is subsequently split, then, instead of having only one uneconomic holding, as you had before the allotment, you will have two uneconomic holdings.

Therefore, I think that the Minister is on quite sound ground there, but I suggest that he has overlooked one matter. So far as any registered holding is concerned, there is one way in which it might be split by the registered owner without the knowledge of the Land Commission. If the registered owner charges portion of the holding in favour of a mortgagee and then defaults to the mortgagee, the mortgagee can sell that portion in pursuance of his right to sell, and that is not an assignment, within the meaning of the Act of 1891, for which the consent of the Land Commission is necessary. In order more accurately to achieve the Minister's laudable desire to prevent the further splitting up of holdings, that matter should be satisfactorily covered in the Bill.

It is regrettable that a Bill such as this is necessary, but the figures which the Minister has given make it abundantly clear that it is necessary to adopt a new procedure to prevent the social evil of land which has been allotted for the benefit of the country as a whole not being properly worked, and of having empty houses on Land Commission farms throughout the country. Because it is necessary to do that, I accept the principle behind this measure. I think that, on Committee Stage, we shall have to make certain that there cannot be a genuine mistake by the Land Commission in operating the provisions of Section 4, and that we shall have a further safeguard in regard to Section 5.

Mr. Counihan

I have no love for this Bill, but I am not opposing it. After listening to the statement made by the Minister, I cannot see that he could do anything else. I have pointed out to successive Ministers on various Land Bills which came before this House that the indiscriminate distribution of land would be most detrimental to our national economy. I pointed out that it was useless to give land to landless men who had no capital to stock it or buy seeds, manure or implements. Even though they were getting a present of it—sometimes more than £1,000—it was useless to give it to them when they had not the means of working it. These are the classes of people with whom this Bill is going to deal, but the agitation that has been going on, as everybody knows, is one of the greatest vote-catching stunts for any Government, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Clann na Talmhan—this advocating the splitting up and division of land.

There is no question about it, anyone who looks at the Order Paper in the Dáil and sees all the questions there at every sitting, particularly from Deputies from the rural districts, and anyone who knows anything about the conditions of the land that they are seeking to have acquired must come to the conclusion that the morality of the majority of Deputies of all Parties has sunk to a great depth—gone very low indeed. They are going to any extremity to play up to the people who have votes and have no regard for justice for the people whom they want to dispossess. I will give a few examples of the injustice of these questions which appear on the Order Paper of the Dáil. One case is that of Michael Begley of Claremorris. This case was recently discussed in the Dáil in connection with this Bill. I have a great interest in County Mayo. I feel I have as good a right to represent County Mayo as any other Deputy because in the 1925 election they put me at the head of the poll. We here in this House are supposed to represent every county in Ireland and for this reason I thought this case was very unjust and I made inquiries and here are the facts as represented to me. If I am wrong, the Minister can correct me. Michael Begley owns a farm near Claremorris of 36 Irish acres. The Begleys are an old Mayo family. They have been there for generations. At one time they owned a great deal of land which was taken from them, from time to time, by the old Congested Districts Boards. Michael Begley farms these 36 acres in a practical way and to the satisfaction of the Land Commission. His annuities and rates are paid up-to-date. He does not live on the farm because there is no house on it but I understand he is building one there. He lives with his sisters on a farm convenient to his own. There are three sisters of his own on this particular farm, two widows and one spinster. He helps to work this farm for his three sisters and the only farm he owns of his own right is the one of 36 acres. I think this case is most unjust. It has been pointed out to me that if the Minister did not give such evasive answers to these questions when they are asked about this farm or other farms, the agitation would stop. At a recent by-election, I understand, one of the candidates definitely promised at a meeting convenient to this particular holding, that if he was elected he would compel the Land Commission to take up Begley's land and give them no satisfaction. These statements create a great deal of dissension in a locality.

Another case which was discussed in the Dáil recently was that of a Dublin man, a speculator if you like, who went down to County Offaly and bought a farm there with the full consent of the owner. After buying this farm and getting possession of it he split it up into 50-acre farms and sold them to local farmers in the district. The man who bought the farm was satisfied, the men who bought the smaller farms from him were satisfied, and the man who sold the farm originally was satisfied. All were satisfied except the people who wanted something for nothing. They started on the T.D.s of the constituency, T.D.s of all Parties, and a cry went out against the Land Commission, against the Minister, against the man who bought the land and sold it and against the farmers who purchased it from him. That is why I say the morality of our Deputies has sunk very low. I am glad to be able to say, however, that the Minister on this occasion was not intimidated. He stuck to his guns and told them he was quite satisfied with the transaction and would be glad if other transactions could be carried out in the same way if possible. That is one up for the Minister. The most objectionable part played by some of those politicians is their incon- sistency. They speak of the three F's —fair rent, free sale and fixity of tenure. They are constantly talking about the sacrifices of previous generations of farmers in obtaining these concessions; they are constantly talking of what Davitt, Parnell and the Irish Party had endured to obtain them but they have no consideration for the farmers whose lands they want taken over, confiscated. It is simply confiscation, because although the Minister promised that anything the Land Commission would take over would be at market value, I have never seen that carried out. These politicians talk about all the sufferings and tears of our predecessors to obtain these concessions but as far as I can see the three F's have no greater meaning for them, let them be Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Farmers, than so much propaganda.

Sir John Keane

Or the farmers' freedom force.

Mr. Counihan

That is the position so far as Deputies are concerned. The trouble is that we have not sufficient land to go round. If we were in Australia, New Zealand or Canada, I suppose there would be no land question, but as we have only 11,500,000 acres of land entirely, we cannot find land for everybody who wants it. These 11,500,000 acres are divided into 384,563 holdings and of that number there are only 7,226 holdings of 200 acres and upwards. I do not think that any reasonable man or Minister will say that out of 384,563 holdings altogether 7,000 holdings of 200 acres and upwards are out of proportion. If you continue to split up these 7,000 holdings will it lead to any more prosperity in the country? Will it lead to more employment and more production?

An Cathaoirleach

We are not dealing with the distribution of land at the moment.

Mr. Counihan

The post-war committee says "No."

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is opening up a very wide issue.

Mr. Counihan

I want to show that the policy of the Land Commission in splitting up this land is altogether a wrong policy.

An Cathaoirleach

We are not dealing with the policy as a whole at the moment; we are dealing with only one aspect of it.

Mr. Baxter

I do not know that there can be any enthusiasm on any side of the House for a measure like this. It does not do credit to anyone that such a law should have to be passed by the Oireachtas. Wherever the fault lies, whether in the administration of the Land Commission or whether in the interference by responsible people with those who are charged with the obligation of allotting land to landless men or uneconomic holdings, there is a cause in this measure for a much deeper examination of our whole approach to this problem. It is a definite confession of failure on the part of the Minister, on the part of the Department dealing with this problem and on the part of the Governments who have held office in this country up to the present that they should now be faced with such a situation as this. Perhaps it may be that we have not got all the facts. In that regard I would like some further information from the Minister if it is available. Something must be wrong when we are told that there are out of all these holdings 1,620 people who have failed to work their land and 1,290 houses unoccupied-I think that is what the Minister said. I would like to hear something more from the Minister about all this. I would like to hear something more about the causes which have led up to this situation.

I think it is a very drastic step for the State to take to give possession of property to someone and afterwards to have to take it away again. I do not know if there is any record of the same sort of activity on the part of the State up to the present, and I think it is a step the State can only take with regret on the part of all of us on any side of the House. It is undesirable. Steps should be taken to see that we shall not be confronted with a situation like this again. I remember on one occasion in this House a good many years ago, that I made an estimation of the cost of the distribution of land to uneconomic holders and landless men, and as far as my recollection goes these holdings cost the State something like £1,000. When I see so many people who have failed in these new holdings I ask myself how far was their failure due to a failure on the part of the people who investigated them, or selected them, or exercised such pressure as to enable them to get possession of these holdings or how far was their failure due to the fact that they never got a decent start. I would like to know what the Minister can tell us about that. I feel myself from the study I have made of these cases that while the Land Commission and the Government of the day went a considerable distance towards giving these men an opportunity, they never completed the job. They put these men on the land and gave them the bare walls of a house, but beyond that they had nothing but the health that God had given them. They may have had a half-stocked farm with few tools to work with, and they struggled on in great adversity against a market with falling prices, until they reached a stage where they could not hold their heads up any longer. It is quite conceivable that in the case of a number of these holdings that have not been worked, that, if we had enough of the back history, we would find that we are going to pass an Act to dispossess men of farms, because in the first instance the redistribution of the land was not in itself sound. We may, therefore, be going to do a very great injustice and to establish a principle which I should not like to see this State establish. Accordingly, I would like to have some further information on that aspect of this whole problem.

I am quite satisfied it is true that a number of men were given holdings entirely because of the political pressure that was exercised. I cannot say that I have any great personal experience of the distribution of land, because in my county people often have to look for land outside its borders. But a few small parcels of land were distributed here and there in the county. With reference to the remarks of Senator Sweetman, I can recall a rather strange instance myself of somewhat similar partial administration in this whole matter. I know an individual who received a holding in my county not very long ago. He is a very prominent and active supporter of the present Administration. A short time ago I made inquiries as to how he was getting on. I was told that not only had he taken down, and sold off, the buildings on the farm, but that he had managed to sell the farm as well. I do not know if that man could have been more than five or six years in possession of the holding. I do not know what he netted, but in a case like that would it not be a far more decent thing for the State to give him a grant of some sort rather than set up the immoral principle of enabling him to enjoy something which other people cannot have conceded to them?

I would like to support the point of view put forward by Senator S.T. Ruane. Personally, I do not like the position of an official coming down and telling me how I am to manage my farm. I have no quarrel with officials generally. I think that, on the whole, if officials are at liberty to do their job according to their judgment, according to the reason and justice that God has instilled into them, they will do it with credit to the country. On the other hand, I am not satisfied that it should be the complete and absolute responsibility of any official in any Department to come down the country and say to a farmer "yes" or "no" as to whether he is carrying out on his farm good husbandry or bad. I think that is a principle that this House ought to reject every time it is confronted with it. I have no reason to display antipathy to officials.

I do want to say, however, that I know a very good farmer in my own county who had this sort of experience. He came to me last year, I think, about the problem of his tillage. He said that he had been trying to grow wheat, that it had failed with him, and that if he was to continue trying to grow it it would mean wasting his land. The man had tilled the area of his land that he was obliged to do in order to comply with the tillage regulations. He told me that he could not grow wheat. I said to him that it was not really sensible to ask a man like him who could manage his farm as well as any man and better than most, to do that. He said that he had the inspector with him some days previously. The inspector told him that he would have to do it. The man told the inspector that it was a failure with him last year, and would be a failure this year again. The inspector answered that that was not his responsibility, that the farmer had got to do it, and that he did not mind what happened about it.

It is easy for a civil servant, when he goes to a certain individual to discover whether or not he is managing his farm in accordance with the principles of good husbandry, to get the idea that the man is not doing that. It should not be forgotten that all sorts of factors enter into a man's capacity to manage his farm in accordance with the concepts of good husbandry. That is what I fear in connection with the administration of this measure: that a man who may have got a holding may not be managing it well, first of all, because of the problem relating to capital that confronted him at the start. Another factor could be that he might not be awfully popular with some of the boys who shape opinion in the district: the boys who shape opinion because they want to get something which the neighbour has got. People of that type can make quite a fuss. Is there not the possibility that if you put absolute responsibility on an official to decide whether a man is to be allowed to keep his holding or to be ejected from it, the same kind of pressure which was used to put him into the holding may not be exercised to put him out of it? I do not see any evidence of a change of mind or heart, or of a reversion to high principles, that we are going to be saved from that in the future. There is much more of the mentality, so far as my observations go, that if people want to get anything they must all be of the one mind. If they are, then they can manage to wangle anything. I do not want to give any instances of that now, but I do know that that idea has taken possession of many of our people. It may be different elsewhere.

I feel very definitely that where a man is to be ejected from his holding in which he has some legal rights he ought to be able to bring an appeal to a court and there make his case. I do not know whether or not the Land Commission are going to take into account the fact that many of these men did not get a fair start. Some of them may have been put into poor holdings. In a case like that what could a man do unless he had stock and farmyard manure? He could not manage the holding unless he had got the tools and equipment. There is also the question of a man's health. How could a man's health or that of members of his family be good if he is not able to get good food out of his holding? You can have a lot of illness in a family, illness which would make all the difference in the world between success and failure in the management of a holding. I do not know if any of these considerations will weigh with the people who will decide whether a man is to be allotted a holding or not.

On the Minister's figures it may be that some ne'er-do-wells got parcels of land. Perhaps in other instances they were wasters and good wanglers who got out of the holdings that they had, and managed to get good holdings. If that be so, then part of my case falls to the ground. Nevertheless, there will be the residue of people who ought not to be put in the position of feeling that whether they can remain in the holding or not will depend on the prejudice of a neighbour: or whether or not those people can exercise such pressure as will make sure that John will be put out. That would be a disastrous spirit to get a hold in the countryside. I want to say definitely that, even from the point of view of prestige, and of holding confidence in the country, it is of vital importance that the Land Commission should not themselves be the final arbiters in this matter, that there should be a court before which those people can make their case. One cannot disagree with the principle that if the State, out of its resources, makes a grant of land to a man, and that he makes a bad use of it and wastes it, that the State cannot abandon its responsibility in the matter. I want to suggest that before the State determines that the inevitable is to happen, that before they evict people and leave them on the roadside, all the circumstances ought to be taken into account. I do not know that we have heard the full case from the Minister here to-day. Personally, I do not think that we have.

Mr. McGee

I think I should add my voice to those of Senator Baxter and Senator Ruane in urging that for the sake of the credit of us all and of the entire land question some court should operate before people are deprived of their land. The Minister once said here that the one person who throughout the whole operation of the Land Commission activities since 1923, shone out as understanding all about the land question was the late Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Hogan. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to add himself now so that we might have two such persons. I think, however, this Bill is proof positive that, whatever tribute the Minister was paying to Deputy Hogan, the whole system was a colossal failure and that the foundation on which Deputy Hogan started was wrong. It leaves itself open to the charges that were made to-day which were also made in the Dáil and largely unanswered.

The division of land should be decided in open court and on oath. There have been divisions that have been a credit to the inspectors that made them. In fact I may say that I never saw an inspector who was not largely a credit but at the same time they have made some sub-divisions that are a naked and unabashed affliction. That has not been disclosed here because these people work themselves up in life into a position of considerable success and in several instances they could not be deprived of their land. The facts are that this land question should have been started on a solid foundation and, certainly for the sake of the credit and ownership of land, people should not be deprived of it without the operation of a court and without evidence on oath. I have sometimes heard it suggested that parish councils should be consulted before any applicant is given land, that he should be approved by the parish council, where it exists, before getting land. Possibly that might work but I would be in favour of getting down to the question of evidence which the applicant himself could give in his own interest before this question is decided and before the taxpayer is asked to foot the bill.

In my position as an auctioneer I and the other members of that calling see all the returns. And we are in a position to give the applicants or the Land Commission the benefit of that. Down through the years there is the promise to pay on the headland and we find that in thousands of lettings there is seldom a defaulter for the land. I think we can give unquestioned evidence of the value to the country of the applicant who will come forward, backed by his paid bills released from the auctioneers or through the auctioneer's banks and released to the credit of the individual who has made his livelihood in the competition he meets for the purchase of land in the previous years.

For these reasons I am perfectly certain that this Bill is necessary but we must remember that many social questions and many difficulties arise. Some time there is much keenness and spite and sometimes an individual may not want to see another man obtaining land. Before, however, there is any wholesale depriving of people of their land, evidence should be given and in my opinion the whole decision should be taken as a result of evidence on oath. Senator Ruane went into the matter as also did Senator Baxter. The list of cases mentioned by Senator Sweetman are contemptible and I think it would be a healthier atmosphere if everybody requiring land went on oath and if everybody who is to be deprived of land should have their case decided in the same solid way.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Senator Sweetman anticipated me in calling to the attention of the Minister what I think is a defect in Section 6. I wish to emphasise the remarks made by Senator Sweetman on that section because so far as I can see there is no protection whatever for the bona fide purchaser.

Assume the case of a man who is registered as a full owner with the Land Registry. He has received from the Land Commission promise of an additional portion of land for the enlargement of his holding. There is on the register no note to that effect. The purchaser comes along anxious to buy the original holdings and he finds a perfectly clean folio. He pays his money, he gets possession and he himself is registered as the full owner. The original owner puts his money in his pocket and goes off to America. Subsequently the newcomer is confronted with the fact that an application has been made for the enlargement of the holding when additional land has been allotted. But there has been no vesting order and yet by the operation of sub-section (2) the transfer of the land on the original folio is completely void. I think that is a case which, unless amendment is made, is likely to happen. I could introduce a number of amendments designed to avoid such a contingency but this is eminently a case in which the Minister should introduce his own amendment. He could do it either by putting in protection for bona fide purchasers or, as was suggested by Senator Sweetman, by providing that caution or inhibition must be entered by the Land Commission when they proposed to give the extra holdings and until such is entered the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 6 should be ineffective. Or he could do that by providing that there would be put on the face of the folio a note something in the nature of what we are familiar with in relation to land purchase folios stating that the lands in the folio are subject to the prohibition on sub-letting contained in the 1923 Act. It is for the Minister to adopt the proper method but that he should secure the result necessary is the important matter.

One further matter occurred to me when listening to the speeches of the various Senators here to-day. As they spoke there came before my eyes the vision of a road in West Galway on which have been erected a number of excellent houses and a number of excellent outhouses but attached to them is nothing but strips of absolutely bare bog undrained, unfertilised and unlimed. I have seen attempts made to put the land into good heart and for years I have seen the land go back and back because the occupants had not either the knowledge or the capital to do the necessary drainage and to apply the necessary lime and other materials for bringing the land into good heart.

I do not think that such a strip of mountain should ever have been chosen for building houses and for settling people on unless the Government were prepared to choose a very particular type of settler and to give them assistance to engage in the rather thankless job of trying to bring bare, solid, acid peat into some kind of cultivation. I know that that can be done and that people have done it, but they were people of considerable intelligence, pertinacity and capital. In the selection of land which is to be granted and in the selection of people to whom it is to be granted I think a certain difficulty has been overlooked. The type of allottee must be suited to the land allotted.

Mr. Madden

I do not intend to keep the House very long. I am glad to welcome this Bill. I was listening to the Minister when the Bill was being put before the House, and I think he brought in an atmosphere which would be welcome in the country. He has faced up with realism to the whole position, in my opinion. Listening to some of the speeches which Senators have made here it appears to me that they can see the beam in the Minister's eye without seeing the mote in their own. I am delighted with the terms of this Bill, and there is only one point I want to draw the Minister's attention to.

I know many who during the lifetime of the previous Government got land. Perhaps they were adherents to the policy of that Government: I do not know. I never ask a man to what Party he belongs, and indeed I do not care a damn to what Party any man belongs. My concept of life is that if you can do a good turn you should do it, and I never question a man as to what his allegiance is or to what Party he belongs. I know some people who got land and who, after the statutory period for the vesting of the land had passed, have sold and realised that land. I do not think some of these people had any political convictions. If they had they changed their beliefs. I believe that they simply changed horses and Parties with a hope. I know some of them, and on one occasion I met the present Minister in another place, and I told him of some of these gentlemen who had come to me and who were applicants for land when it was available in the area. I told him about these cases of people who had been trying to get land in that way and I was much impressed by his answer. He said: "Give me the names of those gentlemen and they will never get a foot of land from the Land Commission." I hope, indeed, they will not.

I am sure the Minister is aware that there are perhaps such applicants who having disposed of land previously secured from the Land Commission and having joined another Party in the hope that they will secure land through that Party—the present Party—are now again looking for land. I want to draw his attention to that. I know quite a number of these people and I trust that they will not be successful. I heard people talk here about the number of houses that are vacant but I heard nobody speak of the hundreds of houses that have not been vacated and of the many people who have got land and who have justified the lettings that were made. There is only one other matter I wish to mention. I believe that five acres of land for those who come within the category of the working or labouring class is insufficient. It provides no encouragement or incentive for them to go out and do something which would keep themselves and their families in frugal comfort. I think that when the working classes are being considered in the allocation of land that the Land Commission ought to be disposed to give more than five acres. Five acres is too insignificant and trifling.

I think Senator Counihan ought to bear in mind that the cause of neglect in preserving the population of this country may be traced more to the farming community than to the working classes. I am afraid the Irish nationals would largely disappear only for the working classes and they ought to be encouraged by getting more land. The whole atmosphere created by Senator Counihan seemed to be that we should encourage the disappearance of the people and the reappearance of the bullock.

Professor Johnston

The object of this Bill is to get rid of some thousands of allottees who have failed to work their land in a workmanlike manner or in accordance with the principle of good husbandry, as the phrase goes. Now this Bill is an attempt to deal with a minor problem which arises because of the attempt to deal with the major problem being not entirely satisfactory. I do not propose to deal with the major problem, but there are some aspects of the minor problem to which I would like to refer. I would like in particular to say that while this minor problem is a very real problem the machinery to deal with it as proposed in this measure is not the kind that commends itself to me, and the Bill itself would be quite unnecessary if the approach to the major problem had been as it should have been.

There are, perhaps, a thousand allottees or more who are not making sufficient use of their holdings. I could base from reliable statistics a case to prove that there are probably 10,000 or 20,000, or perhaps 100,000 people in this country who are not making adequate use of their land and should be dispossessed by administrative means. If the method contemplated in this Bill was applied to them it would give rise to a vigorous and angry protest but the method and principle of this Bill are not any less objectionable when applied only to 1,000 allottees. The facts which I am going to give will show that there are thousands of people not making adequate use of their land and they are not only large owners, large farmers, but others too. From our knowledge of different parts of the country and from reading Lamartine Yates on "Food Production in Western Europe" and from other sources of information we know that in 1937 the net output per acre in our country was about £4. In Britain it was £6; in Germany, £8, in France, £8; in Denmark, £10. It was £14 in Belgium and Holland and £15 in Switzerland. The net output per person occupied in 1937 was £76 in our case; £70 in Germany; £90 in France; £100 in Belgium; £120 in Holland; £155 in Denmark and £200 in Great Britain. I know you can prove anything by means of statistics, but in face of these it would be possible to build up a very strong case in favour of dispossessing this section of agricultural occupiers who are not pulling their weight, and it would not be an answer to say that there is not enough land to go round, and that is why output per person is low. Actually, in comparison with other European countries, there is more land per head of agricultural population in Eire than there is in most European countries. There, again, I should like to put on record the statistics. The number of persons agriculturally occupied per 100 acres of farm-land is: in Switzerland, 14.1; Belgium, 13.3; Germany, 12.7; the Netherlands, 11.2; France, 8.5; Denmark, 6.3; Great Britain, 3.0, and Eire, 6. The figures relate, of course, to one of the immediate pre-war years.

In face of those statistics, it is quite evident that, from the point of view of the country as a whole, there is no real problem of agricultural congestion, though there is a problem of greater mobility of agricultural labour and some geographical distribution of persons available for agricultural work. I do not want to go into that at any length but I think the real problem is how to maximise output per person and output per acre. I fear that this Bill is making only a very minor contribution to that real problem.

Perhaps, one of the reasons why these allottees have not been in every case successful—perhaps the principal reason—is that the method of choice of allottees is administrative rather than economic and because the person who is successful in his application for an allotment is getting something for nothing to the extent of some £600 to £900 per allotment, in capital value. Expressed on an acreage basis, that means that the successful allottee is getting at an annuity of, perhaps, £1 per acre something for which, if he were paying the full economic cost, he would be paying £3 per acre. In other words, the whole system involves a subsidy of, perhaps, £2 per acre for every successful allottee. When you have that situation, in which a person who is sufficiently persuasive can get something for nothing, you have the danger of favouritism. I have no personal knowledge of any case in which favouritism was actually exercised but the system itself is open to favouritism. Under the system, it is quite impossible to eliminate the suspicion of favouritism and quite impossible to eliminate accusations of favouritism. I should like to see both the suspicion and the possibility of favouritism completely eliminated from the choice of allottees. If a man gets for £1 an acre or thereabouts— I am using those figures purely for the purpose of illustration—something which he can turn round and let, under present conditions, for £5 an acre, without doing a hand's turn of work, you are putting a very considerable temptation in the way of that man and making it well worth his while to sit back and do nothing. Human virtue is hardly sufficiently great to resist the temptation to take the easy way.

If you made him pay the full £3 an acre which it cost the State to provide the land for him, then the margin between that £3 and the £5 which he might get by sub-letting would be so small that he would have little or no temptation to sit back and do no work. He would have to work the land according to the principles of good husbandry if he wanted to get an income out of it. As things stand, paying £1 an acre and getting, perhaps, £5 an acre, he makes £4 by doing nothing. If he worked the land in accordance with the principles of good husbandry, there is no reason why his gross return per acre should not be about £10 rather than £4. In that case, the difference between the £3 he should pay and the £10 he should get by working the land properly, would be £7 an acre, which is considerably more than the difference between the £1 he now pays and the £5 or thereabouts he gets by letting the land on the 11-months system.

The way to solve this problem is to eradicate its roots. That would involve changing the whole method and principle by which the annuities are calculated in reference to those successful applicants for land. In fact, I think that the Bill, in its present form, deals only with symptoms rather than with full economic and social causes. To that extent, it will produce minor results from the point of view of the national interest, as a whole, although, undoubtedly, there is a temptation to do something with those people who have done their best to "do" the State. The way to approach the matter of these defaulting allottees—allottees who have failed to carry out their contract with the Land Commission— would be to say to them: "You have got something for £1 an acre", or whatever the figure might be, "which is actually costing the community £3 per acre. You have failed to carry out the conditions under which you got that bounty from the State. Therefore, the Land Commission propose to increase your annuity to £3 an acre", or whatever the full amount would be which would cover the whole annual service of the capital cost of putting that land in the possession of the allottee. The Land Commission would take power to increase the annuity to the full economic level and would then say to the defaulting allottee: "You have power either to get on or get out; in other words, you can carry on on that basis or you can freely sell whatever your equity in the land may be, subject to that higher annuity; we shall put no obstacle in the way of your selling whatever interest may remain to you after the annuity has been raised to that permanent level".

In that way, you would compel these defaulting allottees either to work the land more efficiently or to get out at whatever might be the market value of their holdings, subject to the higher annuity. Whoever bought subject to the higher annuity would, probably, be a person of greater substance and more agricultural knowledge who would be able to make a living out of the land even with the higher annuity. The price he would pay would be very much less because of the fact that the land was carrying an annuity of £3 instead of £1. It is most undesirable, and quite immoral, that these beneficiaries of the State's bounty should, under any circumstances, be allowed to cash-in on what the State has given them. The best method of preventing this from happening would be to raise the annuity to the full economic level in the case of defaulting allottees and then give them freedom of sale in respect of the amount of equity which will be left to sell, which will be comparatively trifling. It would be most improper that any person should be allowed to cash-in on the capitalised value of the difference between the present annuities and the full economic annuity, whatever that might be.

Mr. Honan

We, of course, all agree with the principle of the Bill and what it implies. I think we are in a position to congratulate the Land Commission, its advisers and its inspectors down the country as well as the Minister on the fact that they have been successful in selecting allottees, 84 per cent. of whom have been successful. I do not know any other occupation or profession, including even the old farmers, of whom it could be said that 84 per cent. were successful in managing their business. It represents a very high percentage and even though there is a considerable number of defaulters, I think that 16 per cent. is not above the average number of defaulters in any other business or profession. I think, therefore, that the Land Commission and its inspectors are to be congratulated on the discretion which they exhibited in selecting allottees, 84 per cent. of whom were successful. There has been an innuendo in some of the speeches made here that the defaulters were to be found principally amongst those who were put in the possession of land by political pressure and also that most of them were to be found amongst the followers of the present Government. I am in a position to state, after an experience of the small amount of land divided in my own area, that that is not the case. At least 50 per cent. of those who have been defaulters, in the matter of working the land according to proper ideas of husbandry, never supported the Fianna Fáil policy.

Default may be attributed just to human nature and the follower of one Party is just as likely to be an offender as the follower of another. I think that when this measure becomes law and when those who have flagrantly misused what the country and the taxpayer have been good enough to give them, are removed from the land, that the percentage of success amongst the allottees will be raised to at least 95 per cent. and that we shall have done a very good day's work.

Sir John Keane

I hesitate to speak on this question of land policy, even considering the limitations of the present Bill, because I speak as a dispossessed landholder, one whose family for two generations lost possibly two-thirds of their income under a policy which has brought about the lamentable conditions we see to-day. I am sorry that Senator Counihan is not now present because I think we are entitled to be regarded as veterans in our opposition to this land policy. Ever since the State was founded, and even before that, in the early days of anti-landlordism, we found Senator Counihan in the ranks of the antagonists. The irony of the situation was aptly illustrated a short time ago when I was able to quote the identical speech I made 20 years ago against the policy of the then Government in support of their policy to-day. I only mention that as showing the morass into which we have got. We have got into a state of what might be called psychological confusion on this matter. Some Senators want to see totalitarian methods of dealing with land. I certainly have an alternative, which I think is infinitely preferable, but by the totalitarian method we would probably get what Senator Johnston says we have not got—and that is increased production on the land. There is a great deal to be said for a policy which in the interests of the State aims directly at maximum production. A totalitarian policy would get us that but what does this Bill get us? It gets neither one nor the other. You get a lot of people who are not qualified to hold land pulling political strings to get favours from those in power and getting those favours for nothing. Therefore, we see the necessity for legislation of this kind.

I would ask the Minister in replying to say whether this evil is confined merely to what he calls allottees. Surely tenants who have been vested are no longer allottees and many of them are doing the same sort of thing as those against whom this Bill is directed. I venture to say that a large part of the evil which Senator Johnston pointed out—our low level of production and comparatively small numbers supported by the land—is due to this policy of putting on the land people who are not qualified and giving them something for nothing. So surely as you get something for nothing, you will not make the best use of what you get. That is the moral to be drawn from two generations of our policy. What is the remedy? It can only be slow, but it can be gradual. I do not feel that my proposals are likely to be accepted because they imply Ministers free from all political influence. It may be that in order to do the right thing, you will have to eliminate politics, eliminate the fact of political bribery in connection with land. Assume you can do that, and there is one other thing that can be done. You can get private sale and free sale in land. I give you an example of where a beginning might be made. Let the Government secure the land, divide it up and then let them offer that land either for sale, not necessarily to the highest bidder, but to a person who is prepared to pay for it. If you like, make it a condition that no claimant shall be considered who has already a certain amount of land. To my mind it is essential that a person who is put on the land should have a financial interest in it, that he should put his money into the land to a greater or lesser extent. Unless you have that, you will not have the driving force which is necessary to promote production. Meanwhile, for the sake of consistency and in order to justify this objectionable method of control, this Bill should be supported. If we are ever going to get the land position healthy, we must get away from all control. You must vest the land, allow free sale in the land and gradually reach a position where we shall have no Land Commission at all and even face the risk in the dim and distant future of reviving landlordism again.

Liam O Buachalla

Is mian liom, ar nós an chuid is mó de na Seanadóirí a labhair go dtí seo, fáiltiú roimh an mBille seo. Tá scóip an Bhille seo an tórainnte. Is prionsabal an-chumang atá i gceist ann. Os mar sin atá an scéal, is doiligh a thuisgint cén chaoi ar éirigh le Seanadóirí an díospóireacht seo a choinneáil ar bun chomh fada agus a coinníodh.

D'éirigh le roinnt daoine talamh a fháil ó Choimisiún na Talún agus níor choimhlíon siad an connradh a rinne siad leis an gCoimisiún. An ceart na daoine seo a fhágáil i seilbh na talún atá i gceist? Sílim go bhfuil an Seanad, ar fad beagnach, ar aonintinn nach ceart. A bhfuil an Bille atá os ár gcomhair ceaptha sa tslí is go mbeidh ar chumas an Aire na daoine mí-fheiliúnacha atá i gceist againn a bhriseadh ar a ngabháltais? Níor taspánadh anseo tráthnóna nach bhfuil.

D'fhuagair cuid de na Seanadóirí go nochtaíonn an Bille seo go bhfuil teipthe ar roinnt na talún go generálta. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil an ceart acu. Sílim go bhfuil sé ró-shoiléar ó na figiúireacha atá tugtha ag an Aire tráthnóna dhúinn go bhfuil éirithe go ró-mhaith leis an obair sin. Creidim féin gur scéal an-sásúil é, nár theip ach ar timpeall 16 per cent. de na sealbhaithe a ndualgaisí a chomhlíonadh mar ba chóir. In áit bheith éadóchasach mí-shásta faoin dóigh ina bhfuil an scéal, is dóigh liom, gur ceart dúinn bheith sásta.

I would like to join in the welcome that has been extended to this Bill by practically every section that has spoken so far. The Bill is very limited in scope, so much so that I wonder why the time of the Seanad should have been occupied for so long in discussing it, especially on a Second Reading. The principle of it is very simple. The scope of the Bill is very restricted. Some people, it seems, have got land who have not justified their getting it, and in view of the fact that the supply of land is so restricted, and in view of the objects underlying land division, it is not advisable that they should remain in possession of their holdings. Why should they be allowed to retain these holdings, having failed to fulfil their contracts? That is the simple issue under this Bill. Some people seem to have got an idea from the figures given by the Minister that the position generally in regard to the occupants of these holdings is very bad, and that this question of land division has been a failure. The Minister was rather sudden in coming to his statistics this evening, and I doubt if I have taken them down correctly, but if those I have before me are correct, it seems to me that there is no reason for alarm but, on the contrary, every reason to feel satisfied. If we look at the matter statistically the number of failures is unimportant, but socially on the other hand, the number of failures may be very important. One bad apple in a barrel can destroy the whole barrel. One occupier abusing the rights given to him, misusing the land given to him, can have a bad influence on the remainder of those who got land and who are doing their best to fulfil their contracts. Socially it may be an evil, and if the evil is there it ought to be eradicated. Most of the discussion seems to have been taken up with the making of charges that unsuitable and incompetent people got their holdings through the influence of Fianna Fáil clubs. That, I think, is a most contemptible insinuation. No justification whatever is given for it. I know of many cases of Fianna Fáil supporters I have met who have been dissatisfied because they did not get land, while people who were not supporters of Fianna Fáil did get holdings. I am aware of instances where Fianna Fáil clubs have broken up because of dissatisfaction on this matter; because they felt that supporters of other Parties were getting land in preference to them. If people are going to make charges such as have been made here this evening, and if people are going to impugn the morality of public representatives, as was done this evening, they ought to substantiate their charges. I do not look lightly on Senator Counihan or anyone else standing up here and impugning the morality of members of the Dáil in the manner and to the extent to which they were impugned to-day. It is unfair that the morality of a body of public representatives should be impugned in the way it has been impugned to-day.

I remember some years ago when I first became aware of this problem I was giving a public lecture in a technical school in a certain rural area. When I had finished, the chairman, a very well known and highly respected parish priest, got up to speak on the lecture. I did not know what his politics were then and I do not know what his politics are now, but I think I would be safe in venturing the opinion that he was not a strong supporter of Fianna Fáil. In the course of his remarks he drew the attention of his audience to the fact that in his particular parish a number of people had obtained holdings and that they were not using these holdings in the way they should. He asked his audience there and then whether what he said was true or not and there was a chorus from the hall that he was right and that what he said was true. Later on a young man drew the attention of the audience to the fact that the parish priest himself had supported some of these people who were looked on as undesirable allottees. The chairman admitted openly that he had supported these people but made the remark that he could not be aware that these people would have turned out as they did.

I do not know what care the inspectors of the Land Commission can exercise, but it seems to me that we will always be faced with a problem of this kind—unsuitable people getting possession of holdings and not fulfilling their contracts for one reason or another. I have tried to find out what number of holdings has been created by the Land Commission. If we could get that number of holdings and get an average of the people who have failed to fulfil their contracts, I believe that instead of the Bill being the cause of regret as has been suggested, it would be a cause of congratulation. I do not think I have anything more to say except to hope that all the compliments paid to the Minister will not have the effect of making his head swell.

Mr. Hayden

I wish to say a few words on this particular Bill. I say that it is a regrettable Bill, but I think we have no other alternative. I come from a small county, County Carlow. There is not much land divided in that county, and indeed I would like to see more land divided there. Last October I went to some of the lands that were divided there and on one farm I saw cars taking the corn away from the land. The man who owned the land was not able to till it himself. I think it was appalling to see the way that farm was being used—taking away the crops to manure the other man's land, and leaving his own in a state of starvation.

I read the debates on this Bill which took place in the other House. Some of the statements made there surprised me a good deal. I would like to be honest in any statement I make. About eight or ten years ago a farm of land adjacent to where I live was divided. I had a labour club there, and I sent in the names of four, five or six good labouring men who would have made good allottees. Three Fianna Fáil men came to me and asked me if I would send in their names. I said I would, and I did so. As Senator Madden has said, I never ask a man what his political affiliations are. If I can do him a good turn I will do it. I regard every man as my neighbour. I was greatly surprised to find that the Labour men and the Fianna Fáil men were turned down and did not get any of this land. Men who are supporters of Fine Gael got it. I must say that they were good allottees. Now that the emergency is over we hope that there will be a more widespread division of land. Senator Counihan talked about the big ranches. Instead of these we want more people on the land, and not have them going away on the emigrant ships.

I am sorry to say we have many bad allottees. On the other hand we have a number of good allottees in my district. There has been a good deal of talk here to-day about landless men. I know a landless man in my district living in a labourer's cottage. He got 20 acres of land, and it is a credit to him to see the way he is working it. He is going around now trying to get the Land Commission to give him another 20 acres. As regards these allottees, I want to bring to the Minister's notice that too many old bachelors are getting these houses and land. The allotments should be reserved for men with working families. We have enough bachelors as it is. I trust that the Minister will attend to that point. I am a new member of the House, and want to say that when I made a complaint to a certain Labour Deputy in my constituency about the division of the land to which I referred earlier, he said to me: "Do not run down the Minister for Lands; he is an honest man." I accept what the Labour Deputy said to me because he knows the Minister better than I do. The Minister has said that this is not a punitive measure, but rather one that is intended to bring about a reformation.

We have heard a lot of talk about evictions. How can you evict people who are not living in those houses, which are very fine ones indeed? The houses and the land cost the State anything from £300 to £1,000 each. It is surprising that so many allottees do not show appreciation of that. They should be thankful and work the land to advantage, and not be leaving the houses in a derelict condition. Those Land Commission houses are well built. It is a terrible calamity to see a number of people leaving them vacant. I know that the Minister will not be too drastic in operating this measure. I wish it every success.

Mr. O'Dea

I agree with what Senator Sweetman says about Section 5. Possibly it would be well to provide that if there was a sale of a holding that, before it went through, it would have to be sanctioned—that is on the question of the descent of land. With regard to Section 6, I think the difficulty could be easily got over because in investigating title the purchaser's solicitors must always ask if there has been any allotment of land by the Land Commission.

Mr. Sweetman

How could you get evidence of that?

Mr. O'Dea

By producing a letter to the Secretary of the Land Commission. I agree with the suggestion that a note ought to be put on the folio of each person who gets an addition of land to the effect that nothing can be done with this land without notice to the Land Commission.

I do not wish to intervene in the political discussion which has taken place. I would like, however, to refer to a number of aspects of this Bill which are not quite obvious to persons looking for headlines. The principal object of the Bill is to deal with the situation which has arisen owing to a number of allottees declining or failing to reside on their allotments. That, of course, is only one section of the Bill. It is, in my opinion, a miscellaneous amending Bill. The first section, of course, has drawn all the fire, and there is very little fire left for the remaining sections. In the course of the Bill a number of decisions are dealt with and reversed. I would just like to make a few suggestions for the consideration of the Minister for the Committee Stage.

It is admitted that desperate diseases require desperate remedies. The second section of the Bill might well be described as a desperate section, because it empowers the Land Commission to issue a certificate that a direction under Section 2 was given to the purchaser, that the direction had not been revoked and that the purchaser had failed to comply with the direction. Such certificate is to be conclusive evidence of the failure of the purchaser to comply with the direction of the Land Commission. What is the direction? The direction is "to reside continuously to their satisfaction in the dwellinghouse as on and from such date as the Land Commission think fit". In other words, the certificate empowers the Land Commission to go into court and say that the defendant, who is being ejected for failing to observe the direction, has not resided continuously to the satisfaction of the Land Commission in the dwelling-house. The Land Commission take upon themselves the functions, so to speak, of prosecutor, judge and jury, because the certificate is sufficient to obtain judgment.

In order to make that conclusive certificate equitable and just, I suggest that the direction given by the Land Commission should be given in a stereotyped form and under rules to be made under this Act by the Land Commission. In other words, it should be made in accordance with Land Commission rules. Directions given by the Land Commission may vary. The provision is too flexible. Is the direction to be given by an inspector of the Land Commission or by a letter by the secretary to a purchaser or by a notice in the Press? I say that justice requires that the same direction should be given to every allottee who comes within the scope of this section. Therefore, I suggest that the section should provide for rules to be made thereunder, dealing with the form of the direction, how it is to be given, what it is to contain and also making provision for its revocation. Sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of Section 2 refers to the giving by the Land Commission of "another direction" to the purchaser. Only one direction is provided for in the section—that is, to reside continuously to the satisfaction of the Land Commission in the dwelling-house as from a specified date. I take it that it is the intention of the Land Commission, in giving that other direction, merely to alter the date from which the allottees should reside continuously to their satisfaction in the dwelling. I say that the use of the words "another direction" is ambiguous and has no force. However, it is a matter which will require certain consideration, because one direction is provided for and that direction may be varied or modified. That is the direction to reside continuously in the dwelling-house to the satisfaction of the Land Commission.

I also suggest that this section should provide for notice to the defaulting allottee of his failure to comply with the first direction. Unfortunately, a number of allottees oftentimes do not take notice from Government Departments as seriously as they should. It is quite possible that these allottees may be engaged in their own work, may not be literary people and may overlook those directions, with the result that the Land Commission could close down on them by reason of the certificate. Therefore, before evoking the drastic powers given by this conclusive certificate, notice should be issued calling attention to the direction that had been given and informing the purchaser that, in case of breach of that direction, the Land Commission will evoke the powers given it by Section 2 of this Bill.

Another point arises on Section 2. The purchaser must "reside continuously" in the dwelling-house to the satisfaction of the Land Commission. "Continuous" residence is a very difficult matter to determine. It is a matter of opinion as to whether or not a person "resides continuously". He may be sick in hospital for three months. Therefore, he would not "reside continuously" in the dwelling-house. It is difficult to construe the word "continuously". Hence, since power is vested in the Land Commission to construe that word to its own satisfaction, the allottee should get notice of the intention of the Land Commission to invoke the powers given it under the section.

Section 3 is intended to reverse a decision of the High Court on circuit in a case in which it was sought to eject persons for letting land in conacre. It was held by the circuit judge and confirmed by a High Court judge on circuit, that letting in conacre of land is not sub-letting nor parting with possession of the holding or any part thereof. Therefore, it was held that the defendants in that case were not guilty of a breach of the condition. This section provides that "a letting in conacre or for the purposes of agistment or for the temporary depasturage or meadowing of the holding or any part thereof" shall constitute a breach of the condition. There is a well-known principle that the Legislature is deemed to know the law, and the law at present is that it is not a breach of the condition to let land in conacre. Therefore, I suggest that a more accurate way to frame this section would be to provide that the making of such a letting shall be deemed to be a breach of the condition. The words "shall be deemed to be" are in Section 5 (1), where land for the purpose of devolution on death "shall be deemed to be a chattel real". This section also reverses a decision of the court, and in sub-section (2) we find what I call particularly obnoxious legislation—retrospective legislation. Sub-section (2) provides that "this section shall apply with respect to agreements and undertakings to purchase parcels of untenanted land made and deaths which occurred before the passing of this Act in like manner as it applies with respect to any such agreements or undertakings made and deaths occurring after the passing of this Act."

I say that is wrong. In legislation in England, under the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, it is provided that it shall only apply in the case of deaths occurring on or after the 1st January, 1926. If this applies to deaths which occurred five years ago, the heir-at-law who has got his land will be dispossessed by this section. I say that in essence, what I might call remedial legislation, should not be retrospective so as to disturb settled rights or to affect rights already given. With these few remarks I support the Bill. The criticisms which I have made are merely intended to improve the Bill and at the same time make the provisions of the Bill more equitable and just.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I take it the House will now suspend business until 7 o'clock.

Mr. Hearne

Before the House rises. It is understood that the Taoiseach will be here at 7 o'clock for the debate on the motion of Senator Keane. In the event of there being no one else to speak on this Bill the Minister might be called on to conclude the debate on the resumption of business at 7 o'clock and it could be arranged that Senator Keane's motion could be taken at 7.20 p.m.

Mr. Sweetman

If there is no other Senator to speak on the Bill now I think it would be more convenient if the Minister were to reply now and the House could adjourn at 6.20 until 7.20.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If there is no other speaker, the Minister could conclude now.

Agreed.

Mr. Moylan

I found it much easier to reply to the debate in the Dáil on this Bill because even though the debate there covered a tremendous lot of ground, nevertheless it channelled itself into certain lines. Here the debate has been so wide that it would be very difficult to reply with any kind of coherence at all. When I came to the Seanad the first and, I think, the only time, I suggested that the members of the Seanad seemed to be perfectionists.

To-day I had almost forgotten that I said that but again it was impressed upon me that I never met a group who were so much indoctrinated with perfectionism as the members of the Seanad here. Speaking to the resolution on the death of Senator Magennis, Senator Hayes said the late Professor Magennis was a very sensitive person, and that his lack of success in politics was due to his inability to accept the cut and thrust of debate. I am not sensitive. I am not a bit concerned whether Senator Sweetman accuses me of graft or suggests that I am a grafter, nor am I concerned with Senator Counihan's calling me and members of the Dáil politicians. I am a politician and it seems to me in this non-political body quite a big number of politicians have got in here in disguise, because I never heard in the Dáil so many accusations against a political Party by politicians as I have heard here from non-politicians.

And you are trying to ride off as a careless Minister?

Mr. O'Dea

When the Land Commission makes an allotment it could send a note to the Registry of Titles to be put on the file to the effect that nothing shall be done to the land without notice to the Land Commission.

Mr. Moylan

I shall have these matters examined. That is all I have to say on the Bill. I do not intend to pursue Senator Counihan and some other Senators who spoke on it. There does not appear to be any need to discuss the matters they raised. I am not quite sure about some of the legal points that were mentioned. If there are any other matters which it would seem would make for the better working of the measure, without involving any radical alteration in the Bill, they can be examined in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for the first meeting of the House after the Easter Recess.

Business suspended at 6.20 p.m. and resumed at 7.20 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 3 Apr 1946