Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 1954

Vol. 43 No. 13

Land Bill, 1954—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

This short Bill is fortunately free from the complications that are normally associated with a Land Bill. Its purpose is simply to alter the retiring age of lay commissioners of the Land Commission which is at present regulated by Sections 15 and 16 of the Land Act, 1950.

There are four lay commissioners who, together with the Judicial Commissioner, constitute the Land Commission. Prior to the passing of the Land Act, 1950, the lay commissioners had life tenure. The position at present is that two of the commissioners who were in office prior to the enactment of the 1950 Act and who enjoyed life tenure may, under the provisions of Section 16, continue to serve until the age of 72. The remaining two commissioners, who have been appointed since the passing of the 1950 Act, are, under Section 15 of the Act, conditioned to a retiring age of 65 years and the proposal in the present Bill is to extend that age limit to 67 years.

It is hardly necessary to stress the importance of the lay commissioners' functions in relation to the ownership and user of agricultural land throughout the State. The law gives them exclusive independent jurisdiction in relation to a wide range of what are known as "excepted matters". These include matters of such vital importance to the land-owning community as the determination of the particular lands to be acquired for Land Commission purposes and the persons to whom they are to be allotted. The commissioners' decisions are final subject only to appeal on questions of law and price to the Appeal Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The office of lay commissioner is therefore, in some respects, comparable with the judicial office and calls for the same qualities of ripe experience and sound judgment. When the 1950 Act was under consideration there was clear agreement that the principle of life tenure was open to serious objection, but different views were expressed as to what should be substituted. One of the suggestions in the course of the debates was that the retiring age should be fixed at 70, and it was alternatively suggested that future lay commissioners should be allowed to continue in office from year to year between the ages of 65 and 70, subject to the Minister being satisfied as to their fitness and suitability.

I am not in favour of a system of year-to-year extensions, as it is open to the fundamental objection that it would endanger the independence of the lay commissioners which has always been jealously guarded in the statutes. It was for that reason that a fixed and inflexible rule of retirement was adopted in 1950 and incorporated in the Act of that year. The decision then made was to apply the normal Civil Service retiring age of 65, but experience in the meantime has served to show that, having regard to the special nature of the office, that limit is restrictive. It is now considered that the requirements of the situation would be best met by fixing the retiring age midway between 65 and 70 years. Section 1 of the Bill, therefore, proposes a new age limit of 67.

Section 2 of the Bill contains the usual legal provisions found in every Land Act.

I believe that the Bill will effect a worthwhile improvement on the present position and I commend it to the House. Its enactment is a matter of urgency and I would ask the House to be good enough to give me all stages to-day.

Mr. Hawkins

Having heard the Minister's explanation and having regard to the importance of keeping in office the persons who have held the positions for a number of years, with all the experience they have gained in that period, and having regard to the importance which the work of the Land Commission has for the nation as a whole, we on this side are prepared to give the Minister all stages. There is just one point which I would like to put to the Minister. Why was it decided to extend the age limit to 67 and not to 70? Why was it not decided even to leave it to the discretion of the Minister? It is only a matter of two years and if it means that the Dáil and Seanad have to be approached for further extensions, it is not the best means of dealing with a matter of this kind. My own view with regard to this retiring age is that the age of 65 should in all cases be extended much further. That does not arise particularly on this Bill, but I feel that the Minister should give his views on why the age of 67 was fixed rather than 68 or 69, or even 70, as in the case of the three present commissioners.

Mr. Loughman

The Minister has given ample reason for an extension of the age limit, except that he did not tell us the particular reasons, that these commissioners—I do not know them—are people whose services in the past have been worth while and whose services in the future will be of great value. I am sure they are people of that description, but I should like to hear the Minister say that.

Mr. Commons

I have no objection to this Bill and, as this is possibly the last sitting of the Seanad, it is probably not worth anybody's while kicking up a row about these things. I have always voiced my views of the system under which the commissioners work, but this is not the occasion on which to give expression to these views. The Minister has his own reasons, I know, for extending the period of office of these gentlemen, but I wonder is he wise in doing so, without having an infusion of new blood. There are as good fish in the sea as ever were caught and there are as good junior officials in the Land Commission as there are senior officials. It might be wise if we gave some of these juniors a chance to move forward.

I have had a good deal of experience of the Land Commission and I can say that Deputies and Senators have good reason to be thankful that a certain individual was placed in a certain position in the Land Commission a few years ago, because when they look for something which their constituents are entitled to know, they get replies and get the information so far as possible from the Land Commission in the same way as it was always got from other Departments. Because of the success which attended the promotion of that young man—a junior official, if you like—some years ago, I am inclined to say that perhaps if we let these commissioners go at 65 and fill their places from the ranks, we might be just as well off. However, they have experience and they use it. The law is there and they act according to the law laid down for them and nobody who comes into that office could act in any other way; but, while not objecting, I make the comment that if we were to let these commissioners go at 65 and to replace them by promotion from the ranks of the Land Commission, the Land Commission would go ahead just as well, because we have all had experience of what happened a few years ago and we know that it was for the betterment of the working of the Land Commission.

Mr. Quirke

I join with Senators who have said that all stages of the Bill should be given. I see no reason why that should not be done, but, like Senator Hawkins, I cannot see why, when the Minister decided to go so far, he did not go a little further. The Minister, being a farmer and in the habit of selling a few cattle at a fair, must have divided a "fiver" on numerous occasions and in this case he might have said 68 instead of 67. I agree with the Minister that the lay commissioners, in view of their experience over a long number of years, are very important men and the knowledge they have accumulated over those years must be very valuable from the point of view of the Land Commission. Some of these men would know without reference to any records the situation of most estates in the country and I believe that knowledge should be safeguarded and that the Minister should ensure so far as possible that they will be available to give the benefit of their experience for as long a period as possible.

I would not at all be in favour of people of that kind having life tenure because that definitely presents a lot of difficulties. As we advance in years ourselves we beging to think that the fellow who is only ten years older than ourselves is a comparatively young fellow, but when a man reaches the age of 70 it is about time he should be allowed to retire. The only suggestion I would make it that instead of 67 it should be made 68.

With regard to getting younger men into the position of lay commissioners, time would regulate that because it is natural to assume that the ages of all these young men—I do not know them any more than the previous speaker— vary and they are not all on the brink of 67 or 65 and as the older men retire, some of these younger men should be coming in. Apart from young men coming in, I also think it is a good thing that the experience gained by those men over a long number of years should be preserved. In conclusion, I see no reason why any controversial discussion should take place on a Bill of this kind and we agree to give all stages.

Mr. Blowick

I hope that I will not cause any offence when I say I think it is not generally appreciated that the lay commissioners have a very responsible job of work to do. While on all sides we are accustomed to hearing criticism of the Land Commission being slow and various other criticisms, the lay commissioners are the only body in this country or in any other country democratically-governed I know of that has the power to dispossess a man of his property.

It might be said the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have the power to collect a man's income-tax and to recover moneys from a person if that person got the sum wrongfully from the State but there is a big difference between property and money. The lay commissioners have the power, from which there is no appeal, to take anybody's land in the country. For that reason the commissioners have a very heavy responsibility laid on their shoulders. Some people are inclined to think that their position is much easier than, say, that of a Circuit Court judge but a Circuit Court judge, a High Court judge, or even a Supreme Court judge has not the power to dispossess anybody of their property.

Before the passing of the 1950 Act the commissioners had tenure for life, the same as the High Court judges. I admit that under the 1950 Act I decided that they would retire at 65. I am of the opinion now that while life tenure was pulling the pendulum too far in one direction, I pulled it a little bit too far in the other direction.

At the present time we have over there some commissioners whom I personally would not like to see going because they have accumulated a vast amount of experience in dealing with the taking of property which is a very touching business as I am sure every Senator knows and every Deputy in the other House knows. It is a very serious thing when you are issued with a statutory notice. The Land Commission tells you: "We have decided to take your land." You go in before them and they hear your case but they have the power to take that land although it might be the family land for five, six or seven generations with all the sentimental value which is naturally attached to it. For that reason I do not like to lose the experience of men who, through sitting on the bench for so long now, have learned to value properly the evidence that a person puts before them by way of petition not to acquire their land.

Some Deputies in the Dáil, particularly newly-elected Deputies, think— as I did myself one time—the Land Commission should go out and take this, that and the other land. Naturally new Deputies and new Senators desire to settle a burning problem, that is, the relief of congestion, but we must also take into account that we are plucking a man and perhaps his family up by the roots from the land which was handed down to them generations ago.

For that reason the lay commissioners, having such a sweeping power which no other court in this or any other land I know of possesses, should use that power with the greatest possible caution. Sometimes we chafe when we seen them going slowly, realising that whole townlands may be badly congested with people living in poverty and waiting for the Land Commission to come along. We become irked and understandably so at what we think is slowness but if we are going to have any respect for title and for ownership of land, we must go a little bit slowly about the acquisition of land except in cases where it is clear that it will not cause hardship to the person whose property is being acquired or a snapping of sentimental strings. I have seen people who have been migrated to much better holdings, out of all proportion to the holdings, they were giving up, and when it came to leaving the old homestead, which may have been a tumbledown house with a thatched roof, they were weeping and hardly able to tear themselves away.

Senator Quirke has mentioned that he thought the age should be 68. I gave a good deal of thought to 67 and, while it might appear strange to Senators that I fixed on 67, perhaps as we gain a little bit more experience, later on some future Minister may decide to alter it and bring it up to 70.

In order to hold on to the commissioners I could have presented a different type of Bill to the House, that is a Bill under which the Minister or the Government could renew the life of a particular commissioner from year to year. The Government can do that in the case of civil servants but, because of the cast-iron construction of the 1950 Act, when a commissioner reaches 65 he must go and the Government has no power to reinstate him from year to year. I would not by any means favour that because we must protect and preserve the full independence of the commissioners. For that reason I am asking for 67 as the halfway mark between 65 and 70. As I said, perhaps some time in the future when we gain a little more experience there may be a Bill before both Houses either extending the age a little bit further or making some other change.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages now.

Bill passed through Committee without amendment, reported, received for final consideration and passed.