Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 12 Feb 1965

Vol. 58 No. 10

Land Bill, 1963: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill".

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I have not very much to add to what I said last night when I reported progress and I do not want to hold up the business of the House too long, especially now that we hope to finish the business by lunchtime. I think that should be possible.

I regard section 27 as one of the most important sections of the Bill because it represents a forthright approach on the part of the Minister to the problem of land acquisition and it will go a long way towards eliminating red tape and delays that have held up the work of the Land Commission and the Land Commission inspectors in past years. I know, of course, that despite certain arguments which have been advanced here and certain amendments which have been put forward, it is the wish of all Parties in this House, as well as in the other House, to have land acquisition expedited for the purpose of relieving congestion.

I said before, and I say again, that the relief of congestion is one of the most important and one of the most urgent problems facing us. It is a national task we have to face. Of course, it is also a special duty. To carry out the policy, we have to depend on the staff of the Land Commission, especially the inspectorate, to do the work for us because if we have no dependence on them to do it, I do not know on whom we can depend. They are the people whose job it will be to pinpoint the vacant holdings, the derelict holdings and the holdings that have not been worked according to proper methods of husbandry.

The work of the Land Commission and the work of the staff of the Land Commission can be likened to any other commercial business. If the people in charge of the business have not confidence in their staff, the business will not thrive. Because of that, I think we should all accept the fact that we have a Land Commission personnel in which we have confidence. Therefore, I congratulate the Minister on having brought in section 27, which is more or less a new departure, because it will, as I have said, do away with the roundabout methods that have already held up the business of land acquisition and land division down through the years.

Mr. L'Estrange

I cannot agree with Senator Ó Ciosáin. He states this is the most important section in the Bill.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I said one of the most important.

Mr. L'Estrange

I know. Sections 4, 7, 12 and 13 and now section 27 were some of the most important sections in the Bill. We on this side of the House are behind the Minister in any effort he wants to make to cut out red tape and eliminate delay. I cannot see how giving power to the political head of the Department will do that. The Minister told us last night the way it is done: the junior inspector gets in touch with the district inspector who in turn gets in touch with another inspector who in turn gets in touch with the Lay Commissioners. I do not see what is wrong with the junior inspector telephoning the Lay Commissioner from, say, Mullingar or elsewhere, and the Lay Commissioner telephoning that man back and giving him instructions there and then, on that very day if necessary, to go out and inspect any particular land. I have no objection to that and I believe it will expedite the work of the Minister and the work of the Department without, at the same time, the political head of the Department having any say in the work of the Land Commission.

Senator Ó Ciosáin stated that this was like any business, that if people have not confidence in their staff the business will not thrive. I think in this particular case—I asked the Minister last night to deny it—the Minister does not seem to have confidence in his staff. If he had, he would leave it to his staff to issue the instructions to visit any man's holding. I believe it would be much better left to the staff.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

The man in charge of a business must always issue instructions to his staff.

Mr. L'Estrange

He had not this power in the past and I do not consider it is necessary now. The Senator states he needs this to take up derelict holdings or holdings which are not being worked according to good husbandry. That is not necessary here. There is a provision in other sections of other Land Acts to take up these derelict holdings and holdings which are not being worked according to good husbandry. Indeed, none of us on this side of the House want to see these derelict holdings or holdings which are not being worked according to good husbandry and which could be used for the relief of congestion.

I am opposed to the political head of the Department having any power over the Land Commission. I want to say the land of Ireland is, in the last analysis, the property of each and every one of us. This, in my opinion, has, for too long, been made the plaything of Party politicians. As a matter of fact, it would be much better if politicians had nothing whatever to do with it at all. I am against the political head of the Department having any say in acquisition or the workings of the Department. I am in good company, if you like, in saying that. The late Mr. Moylan—I quoted him last night—was against it. I also quoted Senator Ó Ciosáin, who was then a Deputy.

It might be no harm to remind him of what he had to say in 1949 about giving power to the political head of the Department. I quote from volume 118, column 1256 of 23 November, 1949:

I for one would not be prepared to give any Minister the power to intervene in the question of the acquisition and division of land.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

He will not.

Mr. L'Estrange

He has the power now. He will direct them as to whose farm is to be visited.

Mr. E. Ryan

It is whose land is to be inspected.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is inspected with a view to acquiring it. We were told last night they are rejected in half of the cases of inspection. It is the first step to acquiring a person's land. Senator Ó Ciosáin also stated in 1949:

The fact that the Minister represents a western constituency makes this provision all the more dangerous.

You could say the same thing now as regards this section. I am not going to make any accusation against the present Minister.

It might be no harm to quote from the late Deputy Ruttledge, in 1949. He was against giving any power to the political head of the Department. The late Deputy Ruttledge was from Mayo. He was a learned legal man. He understood this question and he knew political power could be abused. I am referring not just to members of our own Party but to members of the Fianna Fáil Party, who are equally politically-minded now. They are even more so than they were in 1949. I quote now from volume 118, column 1280, what the late Deputy Ruttledge said in 1949:

Another point I should like to get cleared up is the matter of the delegation of powers. The Minister is doing it only to a limited extent, but it is a mistake to provide for the delegating of powers which are vested in the Land Commission to the Minister or to people nominated by him. It is a bad principle, and I suggest that the Minister should consider it before proceeding further on that line.

He said it was a bad principle and it was bad practice. I think we will have to agree with him. It can lead, and it has led in the past, to political abuse.

I stated here last night—I do not want to go over it again—once politics come into it, you can have meetings in certain areas and the politicians will say to some people: "If you stick loyally by us, you will get so and so's land." That is a wrong practice and it has happened for too long in the past. Every member of the Fianna Fáil Party knows of a local Fianna Fáil cumann meeting which was called to divide a certain farm of land. They adjourned that meeting and said they would have a larger meeting in a fornight's time. They sent out notifications of the meeting and canvassed all around. Everyone knows that a man who had 800 acres of land, and who was loyal to the cumann, still has his land.

Senator Ó Maoláin asked me to quote cases. I shall quote from the Westmeath Examiner of 12th September, 1964, a statement by Councillor James O'Brien, who was a member of the National Executive of Fianna Fáil. I think he was there for four or five years. He said:

If a land owner was confronted with some of his land being taken and he got in with the political Party in power and knew the right man, there was nothing surer than he would be left his land. It had happened in the past and it would happen again.

Mr. O'Brien was a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

He was a member a long time ago. Anyhow he is not there now.

Mr. L'Estrange

He is out of the Party five or six years. He was a member of the National Executive of that Party. He knew what politicians did in the past.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. McGlinchey

Ask Joe Sheridan.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Members of the other House should not be referred to in those terms.

Mr. L'Estrange

What terms?

An Cathaoirleach

Bickering and bantering across the floor of the House.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am not the only one.

An Cathaoirleach

It refers to all sides. Time and time again, the Chair has said that members of this House ought not to refer to members or proceedings in the other House.

Mr. L'Estrange

We object to the political head of the Department of Lands being given power in this Bill to initiate the process of acquisition of lands by directing an inspector to inspect land, for the purposes of acquisition. I want to say I object to that, no matter what Party are in power. It is wrong to have a power in the Bill which, even if this Minister does not abuse it, some other Minister could abuse. He need not necessarily be from the same Party but a Minister from some other Party could do so. I should like the Minister to explain the circumstances in which he intends to issue instructions for inspection and on whose recommendation that will be done. If representations are made by a Fianna Fáil cumann to inspect a Fine Gael person's land, or by Fianna Fáil Deputies——

Mr. Moran

Or Fine Gael Deputies.

Mr. L'Estrange

I was going to say that. The Minister took the words out of my mouth.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Or by a Fine Gael cumann, if there is such a thing.

Mr. L'Estrange

Or by a Fine Gael organisation——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

If there is such a thing.

Mr. L'Estrange

Will the Minister order an inspection of such person's lands? Will he order it immediately? The Minister, or any Minister, can easily wait until a month or two before an election and then send out an inspector to inspect those lands. We know that one Deputy during the East Galway by-election sent 500 letters promising land amounting to 400 acres. Five hundred letters went out from that Deputy promising land and those people understood that if that farm were divided, their holdings would be brought up to 40 or 45 acres.

That practice is bad. That power should not be there. I ask the Minister to drop section 27 if its only purpose is, as we are told, to expedite proceedings. That could be done in many other ways. In my opinion, any expedition that could be procured under this section would create endless trouble and problems, not only for the Minister, but for any Minister who may occupy that office, no matter from which side of the House he may come.

Mr. McGlinchey

Listening to the Fine Gael contribution on this section, I tried to picture the following situation. Let us assume the Minister accepted the recommendation to delete the section, and a large and extensive farm came on the market somewhere in the midlands. Let us assume the owner happened to be a member of the Freemason order, the Knights of Columbanus, or some similar organisation, and it so happened that the Lay Commissioner was a member of a similar organisation and refused to direct that the land should be inspected.

Public opinion is outraged in that constituency and the Fine Gael Deputy, ever mindful of his public duty, tables a question in Dáil Éireann, asking why this land should not be inspected. The Minister meekly replies that he has no function in the matter and the Lay Commissioner refuses to budge. What an outburst there would be! What an outcry from the Fine Gael front bench! The Minister would be told he should have a function in the matter. He would be told, as many Ministers have been told in the past, that he is the head of the Department, and should be in a position to answer for the Department.

Let us be practical about this. The Lay Commissioner does not have to face the people. He has no election to face. He can set himself up as a ruthless bureaucrat and he will not have to suffer any consequences. The Minister has his own neck to watch and the neck of every Fianna Fáil Deputy in every constituency in Ireland. The public are now well informed and public opinion can easily be aroused against injustice. Political commentators in various newspapers would see that injustices in any part of Ireland were made known to the public. If a series of injustices were to occur, possibly one of the Sunday newspapers would re-introduce that series of articles called "Who Fears to Speak", if they could get the author unstuck from the mud up in Raphoe in County Donegal.

We must be realistic about this. The Minister is the man who will take the rap if the work is not done. Therefore he must have the power to see the work is done. Let us assume also that the Minister took the advice of Senator L'Estrange, and others, and deleted sections 13 and 27, and a large farm came on the market, say, in Westmeath. The owner of the land was not too concerned about the working of the Land Commission and not too worried about the relief of congestion or the provision of land for uneconomic holdings. The Land Commission indicated their interest, and while it went up the long ladder to the top in Dublin the owner could sell the land, maybe to some foreigner, maybe even to an Egyptian Jew, and by the time the Land Commission were ready, the land would be gone.

If we are serious about the relief of congestion, and if Fine Gael are serious about it, it is not enough to stand up on platforms throughout the country at meetings after Mass and tell the people that this is a bad Bill. I believe that with this section the work of the Land Commission will be greatly expedited, and without it, their work would be slowed down considerably.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

To deal effectively with some of the arguments that have been advanced against this Bill, it is necessary for me to go back for some years on the law dealing with this matter. I want the House clearly to understand the purpose of the Bill because of the clouds of misrepresentation that have been built up around the section in the other House, here, and outside. I have found from experience that absurd as the arguments that are advanced and repeated may seem, irrational and incorrect as they are, it is too dangerous for me to let them go by default. If I appear to be repeating denials unreasonably often, I am doing so because I have found that some people trade on the old truism that, if you keep repeating an untruth often enough, you will get some people to accept and believe it.

The reason the section is essential is that, unless we have it in the Bill, we know that several farms that should be acquired by the Land Commission for the relief of congestion will not be acquired. The purpose of the section is to ensure that there will not be a time lag of six months, or more, between the report on a farm needed for the relief of congestion, which is about to be sold overnight, or within a week, and the time that effective legal action can be taken by the Land Commission to acquire that farm.

I have described the existing procedure and the long line of bureaucratic red tape that must be gone through between the time an urgent report is made to the local office— perhaps by Deputies or Senators—that a certain farm should be acquired for the relief of congestion and its acquisition. The local people, or the Deputies or Senators, have information that that holding is about to be disposed of by the owner. Perhaps it is to be disposed of to some undesirable person, but, irrespective of who the purchaser is, it is a holding in which either Deputies or Senators from local knowledge or a local deputation from the people surrounding that farm, realise is vital for the relief of local congestion. From that time, under present procedures and because of existing law, we have this time lag as a result of which in 99 per cent of cases such a holding has been disposed of before the Land Commission can put an effective prohibition on the owner from selling it. Such holdings are thus lost to the Land Commission. That in brief is the main purpose of this section.

Senator L'Estrange alleges that all this delay could be eliminated assuming that this power was in the hands of the Lay Commissioners, by simple delegation of powers. I could forgive Senator L'Estrange his lack of understanding of the legal problems involved but I cannot forgive his colleague, Senator Fitzpatrick, who came along with the same proposition, because he must know well that under the law as it stands, it takes two Lay Commissioners to decide any excepted matter and these two Lay Commissioners must decide as between themselves and cannot delegate their power to anybody else. They are quasi-judicial officials and their powers are written into the law.

The last Act that dealt with their powers which are reserved functions was the 1950 Act. They cannot delegate these powers to anybody any more than two judges of the Supreme Court could delegate their power to some little clerk down the country to decide a Supreme Court issue. As far as the Senator's suggestion is concerned, the Lay Commissioners would have to get a joint telephone into which both could speak in order to give a joint decision to somebody down the country. I should like to see Senator L'Estrange's colleague trying to defend that position.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is nonsense.

Mr. Moran

The Lay Commissioners cannot delegate their powers any more than the district justice can delegate his power or Supreme Court judge delegate his power. The legal gentleman from the Fine Gael benches who advanced that argument last night was speaking with his tongue in his cheek because he knew that proposal was nonsense. I have pointed out the objectives of this section, the necessity for it and the consequences at the moment of not having such a section and the delays that take place, particularly in urgent cases, with resultant loss to the Land Commission.

Let me emphasise again that in many cases, particularly in the congested areas and particularly in the hard core where we are waiting to solve the rundale problems, the Land Commission have been waiting for years to get one vital holding to enable rearrangement schemes to go through. When such a holding comes on the market, it is essential they should be able to go in straight away or they will lose that holding which will disappear as far as they are concerned for all time. They have no way of doing this now, and if this section were not there and if Senator L'Estrange and the Fine Gael Party had their way, they would never have a way of dealing with such a situation and people would be left without rearrangement, without roads or houses, and to rot in their misery because the legal machinery of the Land Commission was unable to move quickly where such a vital holding, for their purposes, came on the market.

It has been suggested that this power might be used for harassing political enemies and for political inspections by me or some other Minister. Now, Ministers for Lands may have many qualities but generally they are not clairvoyant and I do not expect that any of my successors will, by looking at a file, be able to smell out how that particular gentleman votes. Senator L'Estrange's friends must be far more able politicians than I am because if I were given my own constituency to divide up in sections on the basis of knowing which section to keep and which to throw away in a rearrangement, I could not do it. Perhaps in Senator L'Estrange's county the vast majority are illiterate or everybody knows how they vote.

Mr. L'Estrange

It was the Minister who suggested in 1950 that Deputy Blowick would do it.

Mr. Moran

It was an indication that we still had an illiterate vote. Leaving that proposal out, I wish to say that anybody who asserts that he knows how the vast majority of the people vote in any particular section of a county is simply, in my view, bragging.

Mr. L'Estrange

In rural Ireland you know how 90 per cent vote and people make no secret of it.

Mr. Moran

It appears to me that the people in other counties differ from the people I am used to dealing with.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Moran

This allegation about political pressure needs some further examination. Week after week I have questions in the Dáil not as to why inspections were made but why inspections were not made. I have questions from all sides of the House asking me to get the Land Commission to consider the propriety of taking over X's lands for the relief of congestion. I have never yet, nor has any Minister for Lands yet, as far as I can trace in the history of the Land Commission and of the Dáil, been asked a question as to why X's lands were inspected. Never was such a question tabled, but we have 40 questions every week as to why inspections have not been made. Week after week while the Dáil is sitting, the questions are asked.

In the weeks in which the Dáil is not sitting, we have Deputies and Senators, including the Leader of the Opposition, calling to the Land Commission, demanding that inspections be made of particular lands, with a view to having the lands taken over for the relief of congestion. Is it not one of the most frequent duties of Deputies and Senators to receive representations and deputations up and down the length and breadth of the country, deputations calling on public representatives to visit the Land Commission or table questions for the purpose of having certain lands acquired for the relief of congestion? That has been going on since the foundation of the State and it will continue so long as we have a congestion problem.

All this absurd song and dance about political inspections is utterly illogical, considering that 80 per cent of the correspondence from Deputies and Senators in rural Ireland deals with this very issue of carrying out inspections. One would think we were living in outer space and that political pressure should never be mentioned in relation to the acquisition of land for the relief of congestion. There is a flourishing mushroom growth in the south and in the midlands; when a large estate is up for sale, what is called the "land club" appears; its purpose is to urge Deputies and Senators to get the Land Commission to acquire the lands. The most regular attenders at such "land clubs" are the local Fine Gael Senators and Deputies and the other Deputies and Senators representing the rural areas.

I shall pass now from this political shadow-boxing in relation to taking inspections out of the realm of practical politics. If those who advance this argument are logical, then they should urge on the Parties of which they are members that, from now on, no Minister for Lands should be asked any question requiring him to have inspections made for the relief of congestion. We all know inspections must be made for the purpose of reporting to the Lay Commissioners the actual condition of the lands and whether they are suitable for the relief of congestion. Let me emphasise once more that it is still the sole and exclusive function of the Lay Commissioners to decide whether or not any land is to be taken for the relief of congestion.

It has been suggested that inspection is the first step in acquisition proceedings. That is not so. It is true to say —I suggest more true—that the first step leading to the acquisition of any lands is (1) the visit of the local people to the local office asking that the lands be taken over or (2) a letter from a Deputy or Senator asking the Land Commission to take over the lands. In a question tabled, the Deputy will ask if I am aware that there is grave local congestion in the particular area and dire need for these lands to be taken over. He will go much further in his letter, and I get these letters from many of the friends of Senator L'Estrange as well as from others. In the letter he will allege that there is grave local congestion; that X is the owner of the lands and has been letting them for the past 50 years; that he has the bank full of money; that his son is so-and-so and his daughter is so-and-so and it is a crying shame to leave the lands in his ownership. I get the most intimate details about that individual's standing, his family circumstances, and so on. These are what I call ex parte representations. The Land Commission also get them.

When an inspector goes out to inspect, he has to decide not alone what he will recommend in his report, whether the lands are, in his opinion, suitable for the relief of congestion, but has also in a general way to cross-check on the allegations made by the Senator, Deputy, or ordinary people, about the particular individual. That report is sent to the Lay Commissioners so that they will issue a notice to inspect. When the inspector inspects, as a result of that notice, the Commissioners decide in their wisdom whether or not to proceed in the matter. Before the inspector can make the report enabling the Commissioners to order him to go in and ascertain the extent and suitability of the lands and inquire into the allegations, all this red tape procedure has to be gone through. Delay naturally occurs.

When this section becomes law and local people call to the office informing the local officer that certain lands are advertised for sale, and they have been waiting for years for a rearrangement scheme, the local officer will simply get on the phone to the divisional inspector, inform him of the representations made, and the divisional inspector can thereupon sign the notice telling the local inspector to go in, ascertain the facts, make his report and have it that evening in the post to the Lay Commissioners to enable effective action to be taken. That is what this section is designed to achieve.

I have emphasised that the section starts with the words "For the removal of doubt". I challenge any of the lawyers here, as I challenged them in the other House, to show me any section of any Land Act in which it is expressly or impliedly suggested that the issuing of the notice of inspection is a reserved function of the Lay Commissioners or must be signed by the Lay Commissioners. The excepted matters relating to the powers of the Lay Commissioners were re-stated in section 12 of the Land Act of 1950. I have been quoting that Act in regard to the powers that should be given to the political head of the Department and shall deal with it again when I come to comment on the repeal of section 6 of the 1933 Land Act which took place in the 1950 Act and which conferred certain powers on the Minister for Lands. Before the passing of that section, in 1950, these powers were expressly reserved to the Lay Commissioners.

Section 12 (1) deals with the matters which were to be regarded as excepted matters, reserved as special functions of the Lay Commissioners. They include:

(a) the determination of the persons from whom land is to be acquired or resumed;

(b) the determination of the actual lands to be acquired or resumed;

(c) the determination of the price to be paid for land so acquired or resumed;

(d) the determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme) of the persons to be selected as allottees of any land;

The effect of the words in parenthesis in paragraph (d) is interesting. Prior to that subsection being enacted, it was the Commission solely who had the power to determine the persons to be selected for additions in rearrangement schemes. That had been the law under section 6 of the Land Act, 1933. That section was inserted in order to enable the political head of the Department, for the first time, to decide who the allottees would be in rearrangement schemes.

It was that provision that I attacked at that time—the provision to give power to the Minister for Lands, the political head of the Department, to select allottees under rearrangement schemes. It was that provision that my colleagues and I attacked

Mr. McDonald

That power is here now.

Mr. Moran

I have had attributed to me by Senator I'Estrange and his Fine Gael pals that I could use that power. Of course I could: I could give every person in Mayo an addition. Let Fine Gael put that in their pipe and smoke it. Paragraph (e) of that section in the 1950 Act gives another excepted matter:

the determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme) of the price at which land is to be sold to any allottee;

The subsection goes on, in paragraph (f):

the determination whether a tenant or a proprietor would be or would not be entitled to require the Land Commission to resume or acquire the whole of his lands and provide him with a new holding and the determination of the new holding to be provided for a tenant or proprietor whose land is resumed or acquired by the Land Commission;

It goes on right down to subsection (2) of the same section of the 1950 Act giving the excepted matters. Subsection (2) states:

any power or duty for the time being vested by law (including this Act) in the Land Commission or the Lay Commissioners may, save in relation to accepted matters, be exercised or performed by—

(a) the Minister, or

(b) any officer of the Minister or the Land Commission for the time being authorised, whether specifically or by reference to a class of such officers, in that behalf by the Minister.

Therefore, under that Act of 1950, with the exceptions I have enumerated, the Minister for Lands can exercise every other single function and has the right of delegation of powers to officials of the Land Commission.

It has been suggested during the debate on this Bill that every civil servant in the Land Commission is a creature of the Minister for Lands. If that is so, he or she has been a creature of the Minister for Lands since the passing of the 1950 Act; it is not under this Bill that they became creatures. Under another subsection of the 1950 Act, subsection (8), the following is provided:

the Minister or such officer (as the case may be) may cause the document to be sealed as aforesaid.

So, under this section, in dealing with any rearrangement scheme anywhere, I have the power, and my predecessors had it given to them by the then Government, to appoint an officer to prepare rearrangement schemes, to pick out—if the Minister had that mentality—the people who would participate in those schemes. That power was given under the 1950 Act by the people who now criticise section 27 of this Bill and that power was given in repeal and revocation of a power that had been for all time reserved to the Lay Commissioners until the enactment of that section in 1950.

I am not here seeking power to take over land. That is being reserved, as it always was, to the Lay Commissioners. I am here taking power to give land in rearrangement schemes. That had been a power specifically reserved to the Lay Commissioners but was taken from them in 1950 and given to the political head of the Department. It may be argued and suggested that rearrangement comes through agreement, among other things, between the participants. It involves agreement between participants only insofar as the participants are concerned. If one individual refuses to participate, you can rope him off and leave him in his mess and proceed to rearrange the others.

Where there are ten people in a rundale village, if the Minister for Lands had the political mind that has been suggested here, he could forget five of them and pick out his own five boys and rearrange them. If I were so minded, the Fine Gael Party provided the power for me in this section of the 1950 Act. It was that power I attacked in the Dáil in 1950—the power to remove certain functions from the Lay Commissioners and give them to the political head of the Department — the power actually to pick out the people who would participate in a rearrangement scheme.

That is 15 years ago—it does not appear to be so long ago, but time moves on—and every excerpt quoted here from my speeches in the Dáil then were on the same issue—attacking the advisability of giving such powers to the political head of the Department. I have explained the urgent reasons for the enactment of this section. I have, I think, demonstrated to the House the desirability of the Land Commission having this power.

Somebody has asked in what cases will inspection notices be directed by me. The simple answer is: all cases. What happens under this section is that the Minister for Lands will, by virtue of the power given to him by the Oireachtas under this section, forthwith after the passage of the Bill sign a delegation of power to each of the four divisional inspectors enabling them to operate this section. For the benefit of some Senators who may not be familiar with the organisation of the Land Commission, for administrative purposes, the country is divided into four. In charge of each of these four areas is a divisional inspector. When this section becomes law, the Minister for Lands will simply sign an authorisation allowing these divisional inspectors to sign inspection notices. They, in turn, will authorise their officials to go in immediately and furnish a report to the Lay Commissioners, whose job it still will be to decide in any case whether land should or should not be taken for the relief of congestion.

I have already informed the House that in practice 50 per cent of these cases in respect of which inspections are made are not proceeded with further. When the Commissioners get the report from the local official, as a result of the inspections I am talking about, they decide that the land should not be taken. These men are like judges on the bench. They know nothing about the circumstances of these cases, sitting, as they do, far away in Dublin. Senators should realise that naturally they rely on the report of the individual inspectors who, despite the allegations that have been made, generally speaking probably have some file in the local office dealing with that particular area. Apart from the urgent case, they will usually have in the local office information about the type of cases sent up for inspection and general local information about the area concerned. Indeed, in many cases partial settlements may have been made from time to time in the areas in which these cases arise. The Land Commission may have been waiting to acquire further lands and so to write these areas off their books for all time.

These are the objectives of the section. This is how it will operate. For those who are interested in the relief of this problem, the effect will be to enable quick inspections to be carried out in urgent cases. Therefore, land urgently required for the relief of congestion which now escapes the Land Commission net will come into the hands of the Commission. I suggest that those who have any genuine interest in the urgent problem of the relief of local congestion should back this section to the limit. Indeed, this Bill would be much poorer without its inclusion.

Mr. L'Estrange

According to the Minister, Fianna Fáil Deputies and Senators opposed giving power to the political head of the Department in 1950 when they were in opposition but it is all right to give power to the political head now when they are in Government.

Mr. Yeats

It is a different kind of power.

Mr. L'Estrange

He has the other power already. If that section were not in the 1950 Bill, he would be looking for it now.

Mr. Moran

I do not want any power to pick the individuals who may get land or indeed to take land from anybody.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is still there and you have not interfered with it. The Minister spoke about people being genuinely interested in the relief of congestion. If the Minister and the Land Commission were genuinely interested in the relief of congestion, then why were they shadow-boxing for the past four or five years? Why was there so much land in the midlands and the south sold to foreigners? Thousands of acres were sold to foreigners. I know of 7,000 or 8,000 acres in Westmeath, 4,000 or 5,000 acres in Meath and 5,000 or 6,000 in Limerick. This Bill when introduced had no provision in it to stop foreigners buying land.

Mr. Moran

This very section is to stop this.

Mr. L'Estrange

I may be wrong in this but is it not true there was a provision in the past that, if a foreigner bought land the Land Commission did not want him to have, they could refuse to register the land when he applied to have it registered and could take over the land at the same price ?

Mr. Moran

No; the Senator is completely in error. There is no such provision and never was.

Mr. L'Estrange

We all know land was sold to foreigners in the midlands.

Mr. Yeats

The Senator knows it anyway.

Mr. L'Estrange

You have been very personal. As far as I am concerned, the land was sold to an Irish firm. Another Senator got up and made a similar allegation and talked about an Egyptian Jew. The Minister made that allegation all over the west of Ireland. It is completely wrong. The particular gentleman is a Catholic. When I sold the farm, it was sold to an Irish firm and I bought as good a farm inside one week out on the main road. There was nothing wrong about that. It was free sale. I was entitled to do it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Did you halve the three F's?

An Cathaoirleach

I think we should get away from that.

Mr. L'Estrange

It has been going on all day, Sir, but you may not have understood it. I know the Chair cannot be expected to understand everything thrown across the House, but I fully understood it. I claim I did nothing wrong. I was entitled to sell and to buy again. There was nothing wrong in that.

Mr. Mooney

This section is designed to expedite acquisition proceedings. I recall that Senator L'Estrange went down to Leitrim and shed crocodile tears for the conditions in which the small farmers there had to live. He and his Party have opposed the passage of this Bill over the past one and a half years. The land he has mentioned, in Westmeath, would have been controlled by the Land Commission if this Bill had been enacted at the proper time.

My concern is that this section be implemented for the benefit of uneconomic holders in the congested areas. Heretofore the procedure has been as described by Senator McGlinchey: a case went from the local inspector to the senior inspector and then to the divisional inspector and on to the Lay Commissioners. That cumbersome procedure is now being cancelled out and the divisional inspector will have the right to sign the necessary order for an inspection.

In this connection I would emphasise the necessity to provide additional staff to deal with inspections and with the administration of the section. I regret to say that the position in Leitrim is due in no small part to the Land Commission, because people have been led to believe that they would get an exchange farm after a certain time. They believed that that would happen within a week or a month or a year. As I pointed out on Second Reading, there are people who have been waiting 20 years to be migrated and there are people within the county waiting to get an exchange farm within the county. As a result, there are housing conditions which the people might have done something about were it not for the fact that they were led to believe— by whom, I do not know—that they would get an exchange farm. Therefore, they did not maintain their houses or land and, consequently, there are a number of derelict farms.

This section will lose its force unless there is sufficient administrative staff provided in western counties, and especially in Mayo and Leitrim. In Leitrim there is a junior inspector. There is a senior inspector in Sligo who covers also north Leitrim. This section will go for nought unless there is sufficient staff provided in the congested counties to expedite inspection and acquisition.

Mr. O'Reilly

This is the sort of constructive criticism that we should have on this measure. It is not easy, in view of the general nature and tone of the debate, to deal with matters in the way in which we should deal with them. I am glad that Senator Mooney has raised this matter. I regard it as important. As I said on Second Reading, it is our hope that the Land Commission will become a virile and active body. If it is to be active in all matters, as well as in collection of land annuities, it will require staff and reorganisation. If this Bill is to be implemented, if effect is to be given to section 27 and other sections, the question of staff will have to be reviewed.

Senator Mooney has mentioned Leitrim which, overall, is probably more congested than Mayo. Unless there are reorganisation and new staffing arrangements it will not be possible to make much progress. The present position is that there is a junior inspector in Leitrim, a senior inspector in Sligo, an office in Carrick-on-Shannon, without clerical staff, as far as I know. When people go to the local office, if the inspector is, as he should be, out the country, there is nobody to meet them. There is a senior inspector in Sligo supervising the work in Leitrim. That is the pattern.

Irrespective of the powers contained in this Bill or in previous legislation, progress cannot be made if there are not sufficient people to operate the machinery. I am suggesting, with Senator Mooney, that the question of staff should be considered, particularly in regard to Leitrim. I would suggest that there should be a senior inspector for Leitrim, just as there is for Mayo, and the office should be so organised that the purchase of land in the open market and the operations of inspection under section 27 and all the other business could be carried out. One man cannot do everything.

I hope the Minister will take serious notice of the suggestions made by Senator Mooney and myself and do something about reorganisation in Leitrim and, if necessary, also in Mayo. A machine cannot work without operatives. The staff who have been operating in these areas have made more progress than could normally be expected in the prevailing conditions but if effective results are to flow from this measure, the Minister must do something about the problem in Leitrim.

Mr. Moran

I appreciate the importance of the points made by the Senators as to the operation of this and other sections of the machinery we are providing for a more effective organisation. We will, of course, need much more people to operate the powers sought here, assuming that we get them from the House.

I can say about the staff that the are doing the very best they can under our present regulations and, indeed, over the past few years our work has more than doubled in intake, inspections, and so on and the esprit de corps was never higher in the organisation. There are meetings of the divisional and other inspectors from time to time to see how we can more effectively operate the machine we have at present. It stands to reason that under these new powers there will be far more activity in the Land Commission and it will be essential to get the organisation geared to meet the new demands on it. I am already engaged in reorganising in anticipation of what may happen under this Bill.

I should like Senators to appreciate, however, that it is not so easy to get the kind of specialised staff we need. It is difficult, as Senators know, to get engineers and to get graduates or people capable of doing the very intricate work involved here. It is not generally known, notwithstanding some of the speeches made in this House, that the qualities necessary in a Land Commission inspector to make him effective are very exacting and extraordinary. He has to be a judge, not only of land values but of agriculture, and an excellent psychologist and he must know rural Ireland very well. I have seen young men go to the west of Ireland who really are passengers until they get experience of the kind of work involved in trying to achieve a rearrangement scheme or bring it to a successful conclusion. As we say, they are not the kind of people who grow on every bush but we are lucky to have a number of dedicated and experienced men and, of course, we will need more. In so far as possible I am trying to get the administration reorganised to meet the new demands that will be made on it.

This matter is not so limited as some Senators seem to suggest. It is a very long stretch from west Cork, down through Kerry and right along the whole western seaboard. One would imagine from the discussion on this Bill that I was solely a Moses from Mayo and just leading my people across the Shannon to the Promised Land. That is not so. I am concerned with all these other counties from west Cork right around to Donegal and it comprises a big part of our country; there are many people and a very important job has to be done. I shall certainly bear in mind what the Senators have suggested and I shall be asking the Dáil in due course to give me the necessary sinews of war to try to build up the additional effective machine which will be needed to operate this Bill.

Mr. Mooney

Do I take it from the Minister's remarks that a senior inspector will be provided in respect of Leitrim? As the Minister has pointed out, the demands are increasing and have continued to increase as a result of the introduction of this Bill. People are clamouring for rearrangement and are offering lands.

An Cathaoirleach

The question is hardly appropriate on this section.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 28 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 35.

Professor O'Brien

I move amendment No. 38:

In subsection (1) (a) to delete lines 34, 35 and 36, and substitute:

"of land the acquisition of which would be likely to cause serious interference with the amenities of any occupied dwellinghouse in existence at the date of the service by the Land Commission of the notice of intention to exercise such powers) the provision of facilities for per-".

This amendment is similar to the amendment proposed to section 20 which relates to the question of the dwellinghouse. I had a conversation with Senator Ross this morning and he told me that, when section 20 was being debated in my absence, the Minister promised to look into this matter before Report Stage. That being so, Senator Ross has authorised me in his name to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Moran

I undertake to look into the point raised here, too.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McDonald

I move amendment No. 39:

In subsection (1) (a), between lines 39 and 40, to insert a new paragraph as follows:

"( ) it is less than the equivalent of 300 acres of arable land".

This amendment is in the name of Senator Quinlan. The Senator has in mind that in some parts of the country, very large and wealthy landowners are apparently free to buy up all the land that comes on the market in their locality. In view of the grave congestion that exists, the proposal is that some upper limit should be set in this section to prevent the creation of new large estates. I understand that in County Limerick there are some large estates growing there and the wealthy landowners are able to outbid any of the young deserving farmers who want to buy land in their own county. During the time of the British regime in Ireland when the lands of Ireland were confiscated, large tracts were given to many landlords, some of them having several thousand acres. Now that the Government appear to be tackling the problem of congestion, it would be a pity even in the non-congested areas if people were allowed to build up progressively estates of many hundreds or thousands of acres. I should like the Minister to consider fixing an upper limit of 300 acres on all new farms.

Mr. Moran

Is there any Senator in the House who agrees with this proposition, that there should be a ceiling of 300 acres on land held by an owner?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Mr. McDonald

The amendment is withdrawn, on the understanding that it can be raised on Report Stage.

Mr. Moran

I am not so familiar with the procedure in this House as in the Dáil. However, if amendments can be withdrawn and resubmitted on Report Stage, we shall have an interminable debate here. I would not mind if it were an amendment for which there was some body of support but I do not know of any volume of opinion inside or outside this House in favour of a proposition of this kind.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

On the merits of the amendment I have nothing to say, but once an amendment is withdrawn here, it can be resubmitted on Report Stage. Of course, there would be a restriction on the amount of discussion allowed.

Mr. Yeats

Is it open to the House to refuse permission for the withdrawal of the amendment and to have a vote?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes.

Mr. Yeats

I object to its being withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is Senator Yeats moving that permission to withdraw the amendment be refused? It is unusual.

Mr. Carton

The Senator persists in being awkward. I agree with him.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Then it falls.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is Senator Yeats persisting?

Mr. Yeats

There has been no support for this amendment. I cannot see any point in the amendment being withdrawn and having the discussion all over again on Report Stage. Is there any objection to voting on it now?

Mr. L'Estrange

The same could happen on every amendment we withdraw. That is why we withdrew them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Shall I put the amendment and have it negatived?

Mr. L'Estrange

I do not think it is worth it.

Mr. Yeats

That is an end to it then.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Senator wants to be awkward, we can all be awkward. I can guarantee that we will hold up this for another two or three days by putting down for Report Stage every amendment we withdrew and having a discussion on them again.

Mr. Yeats

The Senator has threatened to do that already.

Mr. L'Estrange

No, I have not. There may be a short discussion but we do not intend to hold up the Bill.

Mr. Moran

I should like to raise this point of order. In commonsense and with normal procedure in any Chamber, the purpose of the Report Stage of the Bill is to bring back for discussion certain propositions that, perhaps, need to be examined more fully. I would put it this way: It is an unwitting abuse of procedure to put down amendments for Report Stage when there is obviously no volume of support for these propositions in the House. It simply means you would prolong the Report Stage by discussing propositions that are obviously not going to be accepted by anybody and I suggest that would not be good business. That is my point of view.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Might I suggest that making á move of this kind in the absence of the person whose name is to the amendment might create a precedent that would possibly work the other way at other times, and the amendment in question is of such little substance that if it is retabled for Report Stage, there could be, I think, tacit agreement on all sides that there will be very little discussion on it.

Mr. Yeats

I withdraw my objection, although not on account of anything Senator L'Estrange has said because it is perfectly obvious that he will hold up the Bill as much as possible in any case.

Mr. L'Estrange

I object to that. Those remarks have been hurled across the House at me but we did not hold up the Bill unduly. I did not speak for ten minutes today. I have kept an account of the time I spoke.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

You were not too bad today.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator L'Estrange will resume his seat. I am not going to have my efforts at peacemaking negatived.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Professor O'Brien

I move amendment No. 40:

In subsection (1) (a) to delete lines 40 and 41.

The purpose of the amendment is to prevent a person being penalised because he has offered land for sale. Under the section as it stands, it appears that if he has offered his land for sale he may lose something. I should like to make the point that the purpose of the Irish Land Acts, which go back a long way, is not merely the relief of congestion but also to give security of tenure to existing owners. It seems that in some ways the right of free sale is affected by this subsection. It seems to penalise people who intend to sell their land and that is against the purpose of the Land Acts in general, because their main purpose is not the relief of congestion—although a great deal of work in that regard was done—but to secure owners of land in all their rights as owners, security of tenure and the right to sell or otherwise deal with their land. I suggest this provision, to some extent, limits the freedom of people to deal with their own land.

Mr. Moran

In practice, this section is mainly needed to defeat the landowner who offers his land for sale but withdraws it when the Land Commission show an interest, hoping that he will sell it as soon as the danger is over. It could be made to seem a threat if one says that every farm offered for sale is totally vulnerable for 12 months after the sale. I asked critics to tell me on previous Stages of the Bill what is wrong with making land that has been offered for sale vulnerable—I use the word deliberately—for acquisition for the relief of congestion where it came on the market within the previous 12 months.

There is no question of the Land Commission going in horse, foot and artillery in every case where a man offers his farm for sale but they should be able to take over suitable land which is on offer and which the owner is endeavouring to sell. If the lands are needed for the relief of congestion and have been offered for sale it seems reasonable that the Lay Commissioners should have power to acquire them at the full market value in the public interest. I pose the question: what is the alternative? Probably they would be sold elsewhere against the public interest and to accept that would not make sense.

The Land Commission will have to exercise this power reasonably, as they must exercise all other powers, and if there were any undue interference with sales generally, no doubt we would hear all about it in the Dáil. If somebody changes his mind after the Land Commission intervene, it would always be open to him to convince the Land Commission, if they show an interest in the land, that he has changed his mind and should be left the land. Where there is a change of circumstances, and sometimes owners change their minds about selling land, generally as a result of a change in family circumstances, I have no doubt that even though the Land Commission had displayed an interest, they would accept the changed conditions and leave the land there.

I have emphasised on several different sections that it is not the practice of the Land Commission to interfere with the ordinary individual who is working his land in the ordinary way. Even where he is not working the land normally and has neglected it over a long period or where he has been—as many of them have been in my part of the country—away in England for many years, notwithstanding that very bad history of user, everybody who has been professionally or otherwise concerned in the matter will agree that the Land Commission give them every chance to come back and, once they are satisfied a man is prepared to continue working his land, that is the end of the matter and he is left there to see how he gets on.

In this case, if that is what is worrying the Senators who put down the amendment, I have no doubt that in a bona fide case of an owner having land for sale and the Land Commission displaying an interest in it, if he changes his mind for any reason, apart of course from the reason of trying to defeat the Land Commission's purposes, as the Senators will appreciate, such as a change of circumstances or for family reasons, the Land Commission will not interfere with him. Indeed, if they did, the courts are still there for his protection.

It is true the law will say now he is vulnerable, once the land has been up for sale within the previous 12 months, but he still is entitled to make his case as to the reasons why he changed his mind and the reasons for any change in his circumstances. The Land Commission would be very slow to pursue their acquisition proceedings in such a case, if there were a change in the man's circumstances, and he could reasonably convince any court that his change of heart about the sale was genuine.

The arguments I have heard in favour of this amendment put private interest above the public interest and I could not accept that proposition. The provisions in sections 12, 13 and 45, the speed encouraged by section 27 and the greater facilities provided for cash purchase by one of the repeal items, will all tend to make any offer for sale clause less important than it might otherwise be, but at the same time it is important to retain it. It is correct to state we are getting all these additional powers and that possibly this will be used less. Notwithstanding that fact, there may be a case in which this power would be very necessary.

For the assurance of the Senator and the House, the normal practice would be if there is a genuine bona fide case of a change in mind, the man would not be interfered with. Senators should accept that proposition and indeed it is the practice of the Land Commission always to try to meet them with lenient acceptance, and sometimes, it is alleged, too lenient, of family difficulties put to them.

I should also like to remind the Senator, because I am sure it is relevant, of some figures I have given on our recent operations under the Land Acts, particularly since commission has been provided for auctioneers. It may perhaps not appeal to Senators that such an unsentimental thing as money should have an effect on these matters. It is extraordinary the change of heart that has taken place so far as auctioneers are concerned in cooperating with the Land Commission since they got the proverbial five per cent. As a result of that change which I have made in the workings of the Land Commission, well over 50 per cent of the land coming into the machine last year was acquired by voluntary agreement. The idea Senators may have from the discussion on this Bill that most of the lands taken by the Land Commission must be so taken on a compulsory basis is not correct and that pattern will, I think, continue to change with those new powers. For instance, the amendment of the 1950 Act enabled us either by agreement or by public auction, to buy without any restrictions and, in the light of the other different powers and inducements, I think we will be getting much more land on a voluntary basis in the future than in the past.

I suggest to the Senator that this amendment should be withdrawn. He can rest assured that the fears that inspired it will not arise in practice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are being taken together.

Professor O'Brien

I move amendment No. 41:

In subsection (1) (a), line 46, before "has" to insert "or a member of the family of such person as defined in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 45 of this Act".

These are procedural points. The point of this amendment is to ensure that anybody who has any sort of interest in land should receive notice before any proceedings are taken. Subsection (b) (i) says:

Where a person other than a body corporate is the sole tenant or proprietor of the land—such person has throughout the whole of the qualifying period resided either on the land or in the immediate neighbourhood thereof.

It seems limited to one individual. The word "person" should be enlarged, I suggest, in the same way as it is in section 45, subsection (2) (c)—"member of the family". This amendment suggests that the same people should receive notice, as are mentioned in section 45.

Mr. Moran

I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment because it would water down or weaken the residence provision too much. This provision, as I have often explained, is designed to enable the Land Commission to deal with the problem of vacant and let lands, about which so much has been said and written in recent years. Very often these vacant holdings belong to long-term emigrants, some of whom vaguely imagine they will some time return home. They are gone away for years and as often as not, a member of the family is left in the district who either takes the land himself each year or lets it to others on a casual basis. This amendment, tabled by Senators Ross and Stanford, would mean that such an owner would be protected year in year out by the fact that his uncle or aunt resided within three miles of the land. This is precisely what I do not want to see happen. I do not think the mover of the amendment would want to see it happen either. That would be the legal effect of accepting the amendment.

This country cannot afford to have lands vacant or unworked because the title is held by absentees, big or small. A number of these people, whether in London, Paris or in this city, outside of the large ranches east of the Shannon owned by non-residents, create just as great a problem where urgent rearrangements are necessary as people who have gone to America, England or Australia and who have no intention whatsoever of returning. I find particularly with people in America that they have a sentimental attachment to what we call the "ould sod" and I get letters from them about the family home, but they have gone away from it for perhaps 30 or 40 years and have married in the countries to which they have gone. Indeed, times have completely changed here since most of them left and they have no intention of returning to these places which are urgently needed for the relief of congestion.

There is another aspect to be considered. Often an Irish farm is occupied by a man who is entitled to a share. There are brothers and sisters abroad who hold legal rights to their shares. In so far as the residence qualification worries them and makes them release their shares in favour of the man at home, I think it is a good thing that the family farm which we regard as the sound foundation of rural society, should be 100 per cent owned by the head of the family who resides on it, or jointly by him and his wife. It is for the part owner to justify his exceptional position, and I cannot as well make generous provision in his favour. I would like Senators to appreciate that in respect of legislation of this kind no doubt a case can be made for dealing with an exception. It is that very exception, if you like, put into the law, that will be utilised as a method of evasion by the very people we are trying to get at.

It is necessary under this section, in order to get ahead with the job, to make these lands particularly vulnerable, that is that the non-residential, vacant lands, should first come under the hammer. Again, let me emphasise, in any particular case, where there are special family circumstances—these are always arising—I have not yet heard of unduly harsh treatment by the Land Commission or of the ignoring of a particular family difficulty. However, I feel that to make exceptions of this kind would really make the working of this section ineffective. In view of the danger which could arise and could tie up the Land Commission in getting after genuine cases, I am afraid I shall have to resist this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 42 not moved.

Professor O'Brien

I move amendment No. 43:

In subsection (1) (a), line 57, before "in" to insert "in possession" and in page 17, line 1, before "in" to insert "in possession".

This is to give certain rights to people who are in possession. It is not perfectly clear that people who have a possessional interest in the land, apart from ownership, are covered in subsections (1) and (2). They seem to refer to the legal owner. There may be people who have an interest in the land. Their right of possession should be protected by subsection (1) and that is why the words should be inserted twice in the subsection, in order to make it perfectly clear to people who are in possession what their rights are, apart from the rights of the proprietor, who may be absent from the land.

Mr. Moran

I must confess I was not quite sure what the amendment proposed. I see that the Senator wants to protect the people who are entitled to possession as distinct from the remainder. It sounds reasonable enough in layman's language but I should like to consider the implications of it. I was not quite sure what was behind the amendment, until I heard the Senator. If the Senator will leave it over, I shall have a look at the legal implications between now and Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. L'Estrange

I move amendment No. 44.

In subsection (1) (b), page 17, line 28, to delete "three" and substitute "seven".

I believe the three mile limit is too short and I would ask that it be increased to seven miles. We all know the case of a farmer who has succeeded in buying a farm of land four or five miles away and it would be unfair if that land could be taken away from him, under this section. We also know of farmers' sons who have bought farms of land four or five miles away with the intention of settling down, building a house and rearing a family on that land and becoming farmers themselves. We also know of farmers living near a bad road buying land on the main road four or five miles away with the intention of moving in and building a house there at some later stage. Those people can be deprived of their land under this section. This will depreciate the value of land.

It could mean that people outside the radius of three miles will be free to buy land when it goes on the market. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this. If it were extended to four or five miles, I would be satisfied. I believe three miles, especially with modern machinery, where it is no trouble to a farmer with a tractor or a jeep—it might have been years ago when there was the ass and cart or horse and cart—to travel to the outfarm. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter.

Mr. McDonald

I should like to support this amendment. Three miles is a very short distance nowadays. As well as that, I feel it discriminates against the farming community. Nobody suggests the industrial worker should live within three miles of his work. When we consider we have people driving from Counties Meath, Kildare and Wicklow into Dublin five or six days a week, I cannot see why the Minister should insist that farmers should reside within three miles of their work.

As Senator L'Estrange has pointed out, there are many reasons why this short distance will gravely affect the lives and the fortunes of many people. If the Minister would increase it to seven miles, as the amendment suggests, it would be a great help. With motor cars and tractors, it is only a matter of minutes for a farmer to get across to an outfarm. Tractors are highly geared and farmers have equipped themselves to work this kind of land. They are doing reasonably well. If the Minister insists on this very short distance, it will be a severe handicap on them.

Mr. Moran

Let me start off by saying that this section was deliberately drawn up to capture certain people. I had an amendment in the Dáil to define "immediate neighbourhood" and it was designed to include any place where the Lay Commissioners were satisfied it was not more than three miles from the relevant land. That amendment was agreed to. It was necessary for us to find a workable definition to make non-residential landowners vulnerable before other land owners. It is a difficult thing to do to get down to a global definition that can be used to deal with the gentleman who has a farm which is being worked by a person here while he is in London or elsewhere. It could still be suggested he was giving adequate employment, and it would be necessary to find a method of getting at his land for the relief of congestion, or to make it vulnerable for Land Commission purposes.

There are also some cases where the people concerned are not living on the land, and do not derive their livelihood wholly or mainly from farming. They are engaged in very lucrative business pursuits elsewhere. It has become a popular practice with certain good and legally experienced accountants to channel off certain funds from one enterprise into land, where it can appreciate for their own purposes. When the Land Commission require land for the relief of congestion, and the creation of migrants' holdings in particular, that type of place should be vulnerable, in my view, before other lands are touched. Therefore, it was necessary to find a way to remove the protection which the law gives to owners against Land Commission acquisition proceedings in such cases.

I know this power has been painted as a method of taking away outfarms. Indeed, it has been suggested that people would be prevented from working any land over three miles from the parent holding. Nothing is further from the truth. This provision has nothing whatsoever to do with the ordinary farmer who is working his land and, indeed, any of us who have experience of Land Commission proceedings know that there is provision in the Land Acts for severance. If a man has a farm which is suitable for tillage, and another farm four or five miles away which is suitable for grazing, and the Land Commission want one of them, they have to compensate him for what we call severance at law. That is the position. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the ordinary individual who is working his land, whether the land is scattered in two sections or in ten sections. Any argument about whether it is possible efficiently to work land three, four or five miles away from the parent holding simply does not arise under this section.

However, as this has been misinterpreted outside the House, perhaps I should spell out chapter and verse. Last night some Senators wanted to take the name of the Irish Country-women's Association in vain. In that connection I see that Mrs. E. Duffy of Laois said there were certain aspects of the Land Bill which were harsh and drastic and it seemed to her that the drafting of it had been a rushed job. I am quoting from the Irish Press of 28th January of this year.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Truth in the News.

Mr. Moran

She said:

The Government had not been elected to interfere with the private individual. One section of the Bill to which she particularly objected was that people could not work land if they lived four miles from it.

The three miles has become four miles according to this good lady. She continued:

A number of people were successfully working such land now, and others were letting it and keeping it economically sound. They would now be forced to live on it in order to keep possession, and there might well be an economic loss because of this interference.

I can assure the good Mrs. Duffy that if she is living on one portion of land in one place, and has a piece of land three miles away, or even four miles away, I am not asking her to put up a new house on the place four miles away. Before pontificating, she might have gone to the trouble of reading the Bill, and finding out that the distance mentioned is three miles. Because they have been headlined in the daily press I thought it better to kill the misrepresentations that have been made on this section, whether deliberately or otherwise.

Senators who are concerned with the relief of congestion should support this section when they realise its sole object is to get after non-residential people who have land in this country, and to make that land available for the relief of congestion. When we come to section 45, dealing with the sale of land to aliens, Senators will find there are a vast number of sections and subsections which try to cover the vast number of different types of potential evasion that can take place unless the law is put in that meticulous way. In the same way in this section, in order to make vulnerable the kind of land we have in mind, and to deal with certain types of absentee owners, it is best to put it this way. If this section were not in the Bill, it would be impossible for the Land Commission to acquire these lands in the national interest. Some of the people we have in mind are foreigners, and when I say "foreigners" I mean non-nationals——

Mr. L'Estrange

Including Jews.

Mr. Moran

Including Jews, Arabian Jews or otherwise. There are also the types of people who have acquired large tracts of land and who are not living on them, or dependent on them, but who have acquired them through their business operations in other fields. I think any reasonable Senator will agree that where it is necessary to get land for our purposes, at least such lands should be vulnerable before other lands are touched. If the owners have some special national advantage, or some special case to make, the law is there for them to make it.

This section has nothing to do with outfarms, or the ordinary working farmer. It has been suggested by Senator L'Estrange that the distance should be seven miles. I want to bring to the attention of the Senators that outside the class of which I speak, there are also people in some of these congested areas who are absentees and perhaps because of the family set-up, it may be difficult for the Land Commission to acquire their lands, although they might be badly wanted for the relief of congestion, and if through a relation or resident within seven miles, these people could not be touched, you would cover an awful lot of ground in these areas. We had "the immediate vicinity" and this was fully discussed in the Dáil and when we came down to defining what the "vicinity" was three miles, for this purpose, seemed to be accepted by all Parties. Three miles is reasonable, always bearing in mind what this section is designed to do. It would not materially affect the work of this section whether one said three miles or four miles but three miles is reasonable, again keeping before Senators' minds that this has nothing to do with the ordinary man living on and working his land.

Mr. Sheldon

There is one point which the Minister might clarify. This sort of section is somewhat confusing to an ordinary innocent soul like myself, where there are a number of qualifications and double negatives and one is frequently not too sure whether it is a prohibition or a permission that turns up. In regard to the definition of "immediate neighbourhood", do I take it that this also covers the use of these words in section 35 (1) (a) which says "the Land Commission shall not acquire compulsorily for any purpose other than the relief of congestion in the immediate neighbourhood..." I take it that because of this definition migrants could not be brought in, or only if there is congestion within the three miles. I can see the intention is that the definition will cover "immediate neighbourhood" as regards residence but it would also seem to cover it here. I am not sure whether that is intended, whether the Land Commission shall be compelled to restrict themselves to the three miles.

Mr. Moran

That is for the special purposes here. The owner would satisfy all the other requisites under the Act. Notwithstanding the fact that he did satisfy all these other additives, I will call them, as it is a word we are accustomed to use, then notwithstanding that, this would apply. That is the purpose.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 45 and 47 will be taken together.

Mr. L'Estrange

I move amendment No. 45:

In subsection (1) (b), page 17, lines 41 and 42, to delete "may at their discretion" and substitute "shall".

This is to provide that instead of saying the Land Commission "may at their discretion" the subsection will state "shall at their discretion disregard... any temporary absence or absences from the land which they are satisfied is or are reasonably attributable to illness, business, vacation or any other cause".

Mr. Moran

This could raise all sorts of legal issues and encourage delaying tactics. It is essential that the effective control in this matter should rest in the hands of the Lay Commissioners. If the provision in the Bill were mandatory, as I think is the intention of Senator Fitzpatrick who tabled the amendment, then all the Commissioners could do would be to allow an objection on proof of absence, irrespective of the merits. The owner who wished to delay proceedings might go on a holiday to England or elsewhere and cause endless legal argument as to whether the Commissioners would accept his absence as reasonable or otherwise, whereas he would only be kicking his heels in Blackpool and laughing at them while this procedure was going on. I feel sure this did not occur to Senator Fitzpatrick.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Professor Stanford

I move amendment No. 46:

In subsection (1) (b), page 17, line 45, before "vacation" to insert "education".

In a vocational House such as this purports to be, it is natural that those elected by educational bodies would try to press an amendment of this kind. It seemed to us to be fitting that a matter of such importance as education should be specifically mentioned in the section. It is true, of course, that the phrase "any other cause" will cover it but for the purpose of clarification and to a certain extent for the ennoblement of our art, we would ask the Minister to insert "education".

Mr. Ross

I should like to support Senator Stanford very strongly on this. The point about putting in "education" is that it is a somewhat different sphere from the other spheres, the other causes which the Land Commission can take into account. We had very much in mind that a person covered by this might be away for farming education or attending an agricultural college and the period of education is likely to be longer probably than a business or vacation period. We would press the Minister particularly to consider this as a special addition to the subsection.

Mr. Moran

I will say that this did not occur to me. I think it might be desirable to write it into the section. It is a reasonable amendment and I propose to accept it.

Mr. Ross

Thank you very much.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 47 not moved.

Professor Stanford

I move amendment No. 48:

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:

"( ) In this section the requirements as to residence contained in subsection (3) of section 32 of the Land Act, 1933, as amended, shall not apply to any holding which is bona fide used as an out-farm or accommodation land in conjunction with a farm in respect of which such requirements are complied with, or to land bona fide owned by a farmers' co-operative.”

This amendment traverses some of the ground already covered in the debate on this section. It is a protective amendment. It is still felt that this section is rather too drastically framed and it would give reassurance in some quarters if this fairly modest concession were made. Otherwise, the powers are very far-reaching and compulsory acquisition may be equally far-reaching.

Mr. Moran

On first examination, this proposition seems reasonable, but, like many seemingly reasonable propositions, it could in actual practice be used for purposes far from the minds of the Senators moving the amendment. It could, in fact, be used to defeat the Land Commission's purposes in certain circumstances. It could encourage the aggregation of non-residential out-farms by companies and large land owners irrespective of total area or distance. Secondly, it would be impossible for the Land Commission to get adequate evidence to rebut a claim of bona fide use as an out-farm, however spacious it might be; and, thirdly, it could lead to criticism of unfair discrimination against absentee smallholders whose lands might be acquired in the same locality as a protected out-farm.

The Land Commission can be relied on not to penalise a good farmer solely on the point that his out-farm is more than three miles from his home. I made that clear in the discussion on the section. If a guarantee for co-operatives is written into the Bill, all sorts of co-operatives will be created in order to escape the attention of the Land Commission. I do not know whether Senators are aware — I am sure Senator Ross is — that one can, under the Friendly Societies Act, if one belongs to a large family, as I do, get one's brothers and sisters to form a society, which has the same effect as forming a company, and one then has a co-operative, with one member of the family, living perhaps in London, owning 10,000 shares and giving one shilling share to all the other members. That is a device not unknown to some legal gentlemen in this country and I am pointing it out to the House to demonstrate what could happen if this amendment were accepted.

One of the great difficulties in a Bill of this nature is endeavouring to foresee the devices that might be used for the purpose of defeating these provisions, or widening their scope unnecessarily, and some of us have had experience of these devices that have been used from time to time and the idea here is to protect the Land Commission and the public from either stultification or exploitation of policy as a result of certain devices being used.

On the face of it, this looks a reasonable amendment, but if it were the law, it is not the ordinary, genuine person who would operate under what the Senators have in mind. It is the fly-by-night we are trying to catch who would use this for the purpose of defeating Land Commission policy. Taking one thing with another, it would be too dangerous to write this into the Bill. I can, however, assure Senators on this section, as I have assured them on earlier sections, that there is no intention in the wide world of looking at any particular farmer and saying that some piece of his land is more than three miles from the parent holding and we will take it over. Senators can forget all about that because the Land Commission have no intention now, and never had any intention, of proceeding on such ridiculous lines and, if they did in the case of any ordinary hardworking farmer, I should hate to be the political head of the Department having to answer for it in Dáil Éireann.

Mr. Ross

The Minister, in taking powers for the Land Commission to overcome one foreseeable evil, is creating, in my opinion, powers in the Land Commission which are far too great in relation to the offence. As I said yesterday, it is all very well for the Minister to give us an assurance that the Land Commission will not use these powers in circumstances which we and he consider reasonable, but the fact is the powers will be there. The Minister says we can forget any idea of the Land Commission using the powers unjustly. I think the Minister is, in the Bill, as drafted, taking an enormous sledgehammer to crack a comparatively small nut. I am not for one moment denying that the potential evils the Minister speaks of are there and I am not denying that certain abuses might not be possible, as the Bill stands.

To take the Minister's point about a family co-operative, that surely could be got round. I remember about 20 years ago the British had a different point entirely in dealing with the problem of companies formed by families in order to avoid heavy taxation. In the 1942 Act, I think, they included a provision that a company must have a certain number of persons and that, for the purposes of the Act, an entire family would be considered to be one person. The same kind of proviso could be put in here. In principle, it is wrong that the Land Commission should have the power to take anybody's out-farm which is more than three miles away. It is wrong they should have the power to take a hill farm. It is wrong they should have the power to take a co-operative.

Looking at the past, and considering the present policy of the Land Commission, it is probably correct that they will not abuse these powers, but the fact is these powers are being given. I believe they should be restricted and this amendment is tabled on a point of principle in order to restrict the powers to powers which are reasonable from the point of view of the Land Commission and which will still give proper protection to the bona fide farmer of an out-farm, a hill-farm or a bona-fide co-operative. I hope there may be some means of arriving at some amendment of the section — some new subsection, perhaps — which will enable the Land Commission to do what they want to do but which, at the same time, will not constitute a threat pointed at the genuine farmer of an out-farm or the genuine co-operative.

Mr. Moran

I have a holy horror of companies, in any form, dealing with land, whether you call them co-ops or what have you. I am far too long in the tooth not to know what can be done by companies and I should hesitate to provide what is suggested, no doubt innocently, by members of this House—a method which I have no doubt at all some of my colleagues outside will find good use for in knocking the Land Commission.

Mr. Ross

If I may take up the time of the House for three minutes, I should like to reply to the Minister. He may dislike companies in any form but there is one thing we must get straight. One must face the economic facts of life today and a company is the normal method of trading and is becoming the normal method of land trading. This is not for the purpose of doing any of the peculiar and almost nefarious things the Minister has hinted at.

Companies exist legitimately for the holding of land. They are not just something thought up by clever lawyers to do down the Minister for Lands or other Ministers. They are not the evil the Minister apparently thinks they are. They are not formed just for tax evasion. There are all other sorts of reasons for forming companies and, as I have said, we have to accept companies as an economic fact of life. I hope the Minister will reconsider his attitude to them because he must realise it is reasonable for companies to hold land and any other thought process about them would be retrograde.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Business suspended at 1.5 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Question proposed: "That section 35, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. L'Estrange

Section 35 and section 42 taken together radically alter the defence against compulsory acquisition of vested lands and the resumption of unvested lands. In addition, in order to provide adequate employment and production from the land, the owner or owners must now be resident on the land or within three miles of it throughout the previous year. It must not have been offered for sale during that time. The residence qualification may be disregarded by the Lay Commissioners at their discretion in respect of temporary absence and so on.

The Minister stated in the Dáil that the purpose of these sections was to eliminate abuses arising from conacre letting, to get at the fly-by-nights and absentee owners in London, Paris, Miami Beach or wherever else they may be. We are in full agreement with that. But we consider that such abuses could and should be dealt with specifically in the Bill without giving the Land Commission the far-reaching powers of acquisition proposed.

The Minister knows that these sections would leave the following lands open to acquisition: out-farms situated three or four miles from a residential farm; a hill sheep farm; a co-operatively-owned farm. As the Minister said, four farms could be registered in the name of a family company in which shares may be held by trustees or by a solicitor or an accountant. It would also leave open to acquisition farms from which one or more of a family have emigrated or moved to another part of the country but who still have a legal claim to part of the estate; also commonage land and, of course, farms which are offered for sale in the preceding year.

Therefore, I oppose section 35 in its present form. Like other sections, I regard it as a dangerous interference with the rights of private ownership and with the principles of free sale and fixity of tenure, which are spoken of so often and which were spoken of by the present Government in opposition when opposing certain sections of the 1950 Bill. I am convinced that the threat of possible acquisition will have an adverse effect on both the market value of and, more important, on the creditworthiness of the owners. The effect on creditworthiness would be a very serious handicap to the proposals for agricultural development between 1964 and 1970, demanding a vast increase in production by the farmers. By undermining the accessibility of land as security for advances by the banks and the Agricultural Credit Corporation, I believe section 35 will in future years impose a brake on our expansion programme.

Mr. McDonald

I oppose the section also and support Senator L'Estrange. The section clearly lays down certain matters but the Minister assures the House that it will not necessarily be so. That has been the case also with other sections. On an amendment which sought to alter the residence qualification, the Minister said that even though the Bill lays down a distance of three miles, the mileage will not affect persons who are bona fide farmers. I am glad to hear that, but a doubt remains.

I was disappointed when, in reply to Senator Ross, the Minister did not appear to be in favour of agricultural co-operation. The Government and agricultural advisers have been endeavouring to foster co-operation in Irish agriculture so that small uneconomic holders might have the benefit of machinery and equipment which it is not economically possible for them to have as individuals. Here the Minister has voiced his disapproval of co-operation. Perhaps he did not mean to be anti-co-operatives in every sense. There is room for more co-operation amongst smallholders.

Throughout the discussion of this Bill, Government Senators have promised the Irish farmers a minimum of 45 acres of arable land. It is common knowledge that there is not sufficient land to provide the 300,000 farmers in the country with 45 acres each. That fact is inescapable. In those circumstances it is surprising that persons owning large estates can acquire at public auction, additional lands that could be more usefully owned by farmers' sons and smallholders. They can acquire these lands because they are the wealthiest people in the area. The Government are not sincerely tackling this problem in an all-out manner. I do not suggest that there should be a limit put to the size of any man's holding but when it is possible to expand an estate of perhaps 2,000 acres, that is an indication that the Government are not making sufficient effort to fulfil their promise of a minimum of 45 acres of arable land.

There are many reasons why the section is not acceptable to the average agriculturist in the midlands. In Laois, for example, there are lands in the areas of the Nore and Barrow valleys that are subject to almost yearly flooding. There are lands there on which the owners cannot live but have to reside, perhaps, two or three miles away. It would be a pity if their summer grazing were in danger of acquisition for the relief of congestion. The Minister again and again says that all these sections are designed to ease red tape in the west, in Mayo, but I object to the farmers in the midlands and in the intensive tillage areas being entangled still further in red tape. It is regrettable that measures designed to make the job easier for the Land Commission should still appear to make it more difficult for the ordinary midlands farmer to sell, or set, or transfer property to members of his family in the normal way in which that has been done for years.

Mr. Moran

I do not want to take up much time in going over the arguments that have been made on these sections. Senator L'Estrange said that sections 35 and 42 radically altered the defences against the Commission's acquisition activity. Of course they do; that is the purpose of the Bill. That is why we are here so long, endeavouring to provide a better and more efficient machine for the purpose of acquiring land and relieving congestion.

Regarding all the things enumerated by Senator L'Estrange that can be done under these powers, from the taking over of outfarms up and down, of course these things could be done if the Land Commission and the Minister for Lands went mad. It is equally true that there is a provision in the 1923 Land Act which enables the Commission to walk in on a working farmer with ten children living on a holding of even £10 valuation in a congested area, where there is congestion in the immediate vicinity, uproot him and take his land from him. He has no defence except that they have to give him in exchange a farm which under that law, I think, was of a market value of £2,000 and which I think under this Bill is being increased to £6,000. These powers are there but are never exercised in such circumstances, and never will be, but they must be there to deal with the multiplicity of circumstances one meets in practice in coping with this problem.

I must deny the allegation by the Senator that this Bill will affect the credit of farmers. That is demonstrably untrue and incorrect because if one thought of it in that sense, the fact that the Land Commission will be taking over such lands and paying full value for them would mean that the banker, the Agricultural Credit Corporation or whoever had advanced money on the security of the holding, would get his money because the Land Commission would be taking it over and these charges would attach to the purchase money or Land Bonds paid for the land. It cannot affect the credit-worthiness, I suggest, either of the land or of the owner in any way.

It is a complete distortion for Senator McDonald to say that I am against agricultural co-operation. I belong to a Government who have gone all out to encourage such co-operation and have made special provision to reorganise the whole matter of co-operation in rural Ireland. What I did point out to the Senators was the danger of providing an exception to these acquisition powers by writing into the Bill that co-operatives could not be touched when I was pointing out the legal devices that could be used to defeat the purposes of this Bill, if such an exception were made. It should be unnecessary for me to point out to a Chamber of grown-up legislators that the Land Commission or any other State body are not going to take away from smallholders anything they have owned under a registered co-operative society. It would be a waste of time to give further assurances against a completely mythical suggestion of that kind.

In regard to all these fears expressed about the powers being sought in this Bill, I can only repeat that they are unrealistic. It is incorrect for the Senator to say that we are concerned here with 300,000 farmers. We are not. We are concerned with the number of congests we have and if one takes those with between one and 30 acres, the units we get from the statistics people would indicate 80,000, but, taking the multiplicity of bits and pieces of valuations owned by single individuals in all that class, and taking the number who are more than likely not living on the land at all — small shopkeepers, artisans, labourers and so on—we believe the true figure would be something between 40,000 to 50,000 congests. That is the problem we have in the counties specified.

It is suggested by Senator McDonald that the Government are making no attempt to tackle this problem. That is what we are doing here. This is a practical attempt to deal with the problem and it appears that those who are opposing the Bill in the Fine Gael Party are the best example of people crying out for the creation of an omelette for the relief of congestion but they are not prepared to crack one single legal egg to achieve that objective. We are trying to provide up-to-date and effective machinery to deal with this problem. It is necessary to give the Land Commission these powers if we are to make any impact on it and this section is one of the sections on which the Land Commission will rely in order to get into their intake machine many farms that are not being worked, are under-worked or for any other reason are farms that should be vulnerable for dealing with this national problem. I confidently recommend the section to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 36 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 42.

Mr. Ross

Amendment No. 49 is virtually the same amendment as amendment No. 40 to section 35 which was withdrawn this morning. In those circumstances, I am prepared not to move amendment No. 49.

Amendment No. 49 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.

Mr. Ross

I move amendment No. 52:

In subsection (1) (a), page 19, line 13, before "in" to insert "in possession" and in line 15, before "in" to insert "in possession".

In subsection (1), in lines 13 and 15 the point is if "all the persons entitled to a beneficial interest in any part of the holding" must be included, I think it can lead to absurdity. The purpose of the amendment is to put all these persons in possession. This, of course, is a legal term. It would mean the person actually in possession and would exclude persons in remainder or persons in reversion, that is, persons who will eventually be entitled to land under some settlement. The purpose of the amendment is to fix these persons as being persons in possession. It would be quite impracticable to have a person who was ultimately going to inherit land under some settlement tied to the land in this way. It is probably the intention of the Minister and the draftsman to have only those persons who are legally in possession included. This does not necessarily mean in possession of the land in the ordinary sense but in the legal sense.

Mr. Moran

This is tied up with amendment No. 43. I undertook to have a look at the principle there and a similar point is involved in this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 53 not moved.

Mr. Ross

I move amendment No. 54:

In subsection (1) (b), page 20, line 55, before "vacation" to insert "education".

This is the same point as in amendment No. 46 which the Minister was good enough to accept this morning, and I hope he will accept this in the same context.

Mr. Moran

I accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 55 not moved.

Section 42, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.

SECTION 45.

Mr. Ross

I move amendment No. 56:

In subsection (1) (ii), page 21, lines 46 and 47, to delete "continuously during" and substitute "during each of".

The purpose of this amendment is to widen slightly the scope of this category of qualified person. As the Bill stands, one category of qualified person is a person who has been ordinarily resident in the State continuously. That must mean all the time. The amendment widens it slightly to relate to each year rather than the whole of the seven-year term.

Professor O'Brien

I support this amendment on the same ground as that stated by Senator Ross. It would mean that if you left the State even for two days, you would cease to benefit by the section. I would be inclined to make it even wider and to make it "substantially resident". However, I support the amendment.

Mr. Moran

The provision as it stands represents a considerable concession to those non-nationals who have lived in this country long enough to be well established among us. These people are not citizens. The provision does not stipulate that they should apply for citizenship or indeed that they should have any special skill or qualifications, or that they should be related by blood or marriage to citizens. They need only be ordinarily resident here continuously for the period set out. It follows closely on the wording of corresponding provisions in the Finance Act, 1961, which also contains this expression "ordinarily resident continuously", and it would be desirable to retain in this legislation somewhat similar terminology.

What seems to be worrying the Senators who have tabled this amendment is the interpretation of the word "continuously". Evidently they are under the impression that it would mean continuous physical presence in the country throughout the whole of the period. That is not so, and I am assured by my advisers that that is not the correct interpretation, that the words "ordinarily resident continuously" would be given the interpretation conceded in relation to the tax administration. I am informed that according to the Revenue Commissioners, a person is ordinarily resident in this country if he is resident here as a general rule, even if the time spent here is short.

A visitor who becomes a resident in this country for an isolated year or years merely because he spent six months here in the income tax year is treated as being resident but not ordinarily resident, whereas I understand if a visitor is resident year after year by reason of substantial habitual visits or if he has short annual visits and retains a place of residence or an abode here for his use, he is regarded under the tax code as being ordinarily resident in the country. It seems to follow from the Revenue practice that if the short annual visit to which I have referrred were repeated in each of the seven years without a break, this would be sufficient to comply with the formula "ordinarily resident continuously".

On this reasoning, Senators will be satisfied there is very little difference between the Bill and the amendment. Th Bill, however, has the advantage of following the terminology to which I have referred as used in the Finance Act, 1961, and which has proved to be generally satisfactory. I am informed that there is also a residence qualification in section 35 of the Bill but the two problems are not quite the same. If the words "ordinarily resident continuously" are interpreted in the way it is accepted they should be interpreted for the tax code under the Finance Act, 1961, that should satisfy Senators, and they have the advantage of being words the legal meaning of which we know in practice.

Mr. Ross

I certainly would not like to dispute the legal meaning with the Minister. The only point I should like him to consider is whether we might amend this subsection to tie "continuously" not to the Finance Act, 1961, but possibly to the earlier income tax provisions to which the Minister referred. I do not know whether the Minister would consider that on Report Stage but it would meet our point.

Mr. Moran

I shall have a look at it, but when the Senator studies what I have said, that we regard the words used here as having the meaning and interpretation given to them by the Revenue Commissioners under the Finance Act, 1961, generally speaking, they should meet any of the fears the Senator may have in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ross

I move amendment No. 57:

In subsection (1) (ix), page 22, line 13, to delete "five acres in extent" and substitute "twenty-five acres in extent, or when the Land Commission considers it in the public interest to permit such acquisition".

This deals with another of the qualified person categories and with the subsection which makes a qualified person a person who is certified by the Land Commission as having shown to their satisfaction that "he is acquiring the relevant interest for private residential purposes and where the land involved does not exceed five acres in extent" as the case was made by Senator Stanford on the Second Reading and supported by me, we feel that this did not really provided for the case of a large house where such a house would need much more than five acres to be an acceptable entity.

This whole section 45 is one which has, generally speaking, the united support of the House, but I should like to get into perspective the position of the non-Irish person coming to take land in this country. There are, I believe, quite a number of houses which are of such a size and such a nature that there would, in the normal course of events be very few Irish people who would want to buy them. We might well be pleased to have foreigners here buying these houses and keeping them up. Some of them may be even national treasures but I am not speaking so much of those but of smaller houses. These people would keep up these houses and employ people on lands, living ordinary lives, which will not interfere with the ordinary day to day working of the country or its agricultural system.

With this in mind, that we are not making it impossible for those people to buy these houses, which we probably would not be buying ourselves, we have put down this amendment. There are two points really in the amendment. The first is to extend the amount of land to a maximum of 25 acres which, just as five acres, is an arbitrary figure. The second point really goes further, to give discretion to the Land Commission to permit an acquisition of more than the 25 acres, if they consider it in the public interest to permit such an acquisition.

If it were acceptable to the Minister, we would be perfectly happy if the reference to 25 acres were excluded and the five acres might remain, but the important point, I think, is to leave the discretion in the Land Commission to permit an acquisition if they consider it is in the public interest. I would much prefer to see a figure of 25 acres in the subsection but the principle involved really is just as much in giving the discretion to the Land Commission to extend the acreage. It may be, as the Minister said at an earlier stage, that the Land Commission practice is to give very much more. If that is so, then we feel the Land Commission practice should be written into the Bill.

Professor Stanford

I support this amendment. The point I want to emphasise is that when these rich non-national buyers are looking for a very big house, they are looking for perhaps three things: spaciousness, splendour and privacy. Some of our houses will provide this spaciousness and this splendour, but if we reduce the land to five acres, the privacy will not be there. These big houses need a considerable screen of land simply because of their size. They need something more than five acres to put them in the right kind of setting. I would urge that it is in the national interest to cater for this kind of buyer. It is fairly clear that very few Irish people are prepared to pay something like £100,000 for a house which may run up to 80 or 100 rooms. The alternative very often is that that house will become a ruin. We do not want that. At least I am convinced no one in the House would prefer that. I know one big house not far from Dublin which was bought some years ago. It was in bad condition but is now in magnificent condition. It is in a sense a national treasure, open to the public during the year and giving wide employment. A house of that kind will not be sold in future under the residence provisions of this Bill.

I would plead with the Minister to grant the larger acreage at least and, if possible, also to grant the discretion to the Land Commission. We can trust them to act in the national interest in this matter. I do not think there is danger involved if we increase the area from five acres to 25 acres. I do not suppose more than five or ten of these houses will or could be sold within the next 50 years. It means we are giving of the land of our country another 100 or 200 acres, which spread over the whole country, is not so very considerable.

Mr. Sheldon

I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind this amendment. Unless I am completely misreading the latter part of this section, groundless fears have been expressed. In subsection (2) (a) between lines 28 and the end, it states:

...no interest in land to which this section applies shall become vested in a person who is not a qualified person except with the written consent (whether general or particular) of the Land Commission...

I took it that the intention of the legal meaning of this is that the Land Commission have the power the Senators are asking for. I do not profess to know precisely why it should be done in this way. Then there is paragraph (ix) of subsection (1), relating to a person who is acquiring a house with not more than five acres. He is automatically a qualified person and no particular effective machinery is involved. If he wishes to acquire more than five acres, then he would apply under paragraph (a) of subsection (2), if he can make this case to the Land Commission for the discretion the Senators ask.

Professor O'Brien

I do not wish to contradict the last speaker because I have not really studied the subsection he referred to but I am inclined to support Senator Ross and Senator Stanford in this amendment. We all agree it is most desirable that the agricultural land of this country should not pass into foreign hands. That is what this section is meant to prevent. Every year in this House, when we have a debate on the Finance Bill, somebody suggests the desirability of trying to attract in rich residents, from the point of view of income tax, sur-tax and death duties. We all agree that that is very desirable, that they should be attracted to live in Ireland. I think one must try to adopt a sensible compromise between the two.

As Senator Stanford has said, the allocation of more land to people of that kind would only make a very small impact on the total amount of agricultural land available in this country for congests. The amount received from those foreigners in income tax, sur-tax and death duties might be quite considerable. Instead of putting in the 25 acres, I would be much more inclined to leave it to the discretion of the Land Commission to decide, in special circumstances, that a larger acreage might be allocated to one of those residents. The land attached to the residence would, no doubt, be used for agricultural purposes, no matter who had it. The only difference would be that it would be in the hands of the direct taxpayer rather than in the hands of the person who did not contribute so much to the revenue of the country.

Mr. McDonald

I support this amendment. Many large estates have been divided in County Laois. There is one particular estate which was finalised only last year which employed 14 families. That estate was only large enough to provide three or four farms which means whereas we had 14 families living on it, we now have only four. I believe anything we can do to encourage wealthy people to take over some of these larger, unwanted houses should be done. They are an asset to the locality because of the local employment they give. I would be inclined, for that reason, to agree with Senator O'Brien to leave it with the Land Commission as regards the acreage and not confine them to any particular acreage.

Many of these places have not a very large acreage of land with them and it would be a pity to cut them to five acres and thereby cut across the pleasure grounds and perhaps spoil them. If I may say so, in passing, in cases where the Land Commission allocate one of their farms with a mansion to ordinary migrants, they always reduce the valuation of the building to a reasonable figure, something like the valuation of the ordinary Land Commission house. They overlook having the bimensal ESB charge reduced. Where unfortunate congests are given a farm with a big house, the ESB have been left out of their reach because the bimensal fixed charge is altogether too high. It is based on the floor area of the house. That brings it to many times more than the rate of valuation on the building. I should be obliged if the Minister would, at some stage, look into this matter.

Professor Stanford

The purpose of the amendment is to do two things, as Senator Ross says. First of all, it will ensure to everyone that they will have 25 acres with the house. When Senator O'Brien says he would leave everything to the Land Commission, there is a difficulty because this means negotiations through the Land Commission for anything more than 25 acres. If our amendment is accepted, they would be sure of the 25 acres.

Mr. Ross

With regard to Senator Sheldon's point, I think it is perfectly right there is, under subsection (2) (a) a general discretion in the Land Commission. The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that there is a category before the Land Commission if they have to exercise the general discretion, which we believe is in subsection (2) (a). This is category IX. It clarifies quite clearly the category beyond which the Land Commission exercises a discretion. It is only later that the Land Commission can exercise their discretion, if none of these requirements is complied with. It is important to get category IX properly defined; otherwise one is thrown right back to the Land Commission and the Land Commission must know what the discretion would be.

Mr. Moran

I would remind Senators this question of five acres first appeared in the Finance Act, 1956 through which provision people are able to acquire a building with lands not more than five acres in extent. They were exempt under that Act from the stamp duty of 25 per cent, which was chargeable in law, and which still is chargeable in law. In passing, let me say, that it is under that provision that people can make these take-over bids about which some people seem to have doubts and seem to be opposed to the stamp duty. It was enacted under the 1956 Finance Act that this class of property and building with five acres would be exempt from this penal taxation. We have it here in a different form for this purpose. It is on page 22, line 9, which says:

A person who is certified by the Land Commission as having shown to their satisfaction that he is acquiring the relevant interest for private residential purposes where the land involved does not exceed five acres in extent.

It is perfectly true, as Senator Sheldon has said, that under subsection (2) (a), if the area concerned is greater than five acres in extent, the Land Commission have discretion to sanction such a proposition. Where this extra amount of land is involved with a house which the Senators have in mind, the prospective purchaser could be given permission by the Land Commission to buy.

It is the general practice of the Land Commission, as I think I told Senator Stanford at an earlier stage, to allow not five acres, and not 25 acres, but a considerably larger amount of land in order to enable people to sell this type of house. I believe it is a good thing from a public policy point of view that these places should be preserved. It is true to say that in many cases their owners give good employment, and it is also true to say that it takes a substantial income in these days to be able to afford to take over one of those places, and the costs involved in keeping them. Dealing with the Land Commission, I have a habit of calling them economic white elephants so far as the majority of our people are concerned. It is only a person with a substantial amount of this world's goods who can keep and maintain them.

As a matter of policy, we try to have them maintained. When they take over an estate with one of these big mansions, and when it is being prepared for division, even in such a congested area as my own part of the country, the Land Commission allocate what they consider to be a sufficient amount of amenity land to these big houses to make them attractive from the point of view of a purchaser and to encourage them to be taken over by someone who can maintain them. Looking at it from another point of view, we know that if we do not do that, so far as the economics are concerned we have them for their scrap value, which serves no purpose of the Land Commission, or any other purpose. Therefore, it is good business for the Land Commission to allocate a sufficient amount of land to these places and, particularly to ones of historic interest, to ensure that they will be kept going as living concerns.

If the owner of one of these places were going to dispose of his land—and the type of man who would have one of those places would have a substantial amount of land—and if he applied in the morning to the Land Commission for permission to subdivide in order to sell the house with sufficient amenity land, I have no hesitation in saying that permission would automatically be granted. That has been their practice and their policy to enable such a person to get rid of the place economically, and to ensure that the place would be preserved if it were of any interest at all.

We are also quite conscious of the fact that when these places are preserved and some amenity land given with them, a very substantial amount of employment is entailed which would not otherwise be available in the area. So, Senators can take it that it is the policy of the Land Commission to comply with what they are asked to do in these cases, without having it written in here in so many words. It is true, as Senator Ross says, that two matters are involved here: (1) the expansion of the five-acre residential concession to 25 acres; and (2) the public interest. I shall deal with the public interest in a moment, but I do not think it will give Senators much trouble.

Expressing a personal view, from my experience in the Land Commission I think that from the point of view the Senators have in mind 25 acres would be utterly unrealistic. I am thinking in terms of places like Powerscourt. If we wrote in 25 acres it would, possibly, hamstring the Land Commission, and it would not have the effect the Senators have in mind. On the contrary, I think it would have a restrictive effect. Looking at it from another point of view, I am not enamoured with the proposition of broadly exempting 25 acres of good land. That has its dangers too.

I would also ask Senators never to underestimate the ingenuity of people who want to get around the law for their own purposes, not for the purposes the Senators have in mind, and who might try to stick up some kind of a building on the 25 acres. Having assured Senators of what the policy of the Land Commission is — and, indeed, is likely to remain — in this connection, I suggest that it is far better for them to rely on subsection (2) (a) which was referred to by Senator Sheldon. I can see no question of delay in this instance. A decision can be got immediately from the Land Commission. It would not entail any inspection, or anything else, because that kind of place would be well-known. Indeed, I have no doubt that in the type of case I am thinking of the Land Commission would be prepared to give far more as amenity land than the Senators wish to write into the Bill.

I cannot deal with all Senator McDonald's remarks on ESB charges. I know that where there is a big space, the rule of thumb applied by the ESB can be a burden on the small man. That is a matter with which we have some trouble, and we are trying to find some solution in consultation with the ESB in regard to the people with whom we are concerned, such as migrants who might get existing buildings that would be far larger in cubic content than the houses which are normally designed for them. We are trying to reach some working arrangement with the ESB in cases of that kind.

I suggest to Senators who are interested in this amendment that so far as the public interest is concerned it is unnecessary to write this into a Bill of this kind. The Land Commission and, indeed, any State Department must automatically take the public interest into consideration. Let me give one example. When we acquire a very large place like Oak Park and get a demand from the Agricultural Institute for facilities, we automatically give them in the public interest. Where there is any question of the public interest a State Department, or the Land Commission, must automatically take it into account. I think it is unnecessary to actually spell that out in a section of this Bill.

I know what the Senators have in mind but what is here will really have a restrictive effect. I am very conscious and so are my people of endeavouring to preserve any worthwhile type of place. On the other hand, 25 acres of amenity land will not be enough at all in some cases where it is very necessary to sell such land on very large places to provide the necessary privacy and so on that potential purchasers would require. Having heard what the practice of the Land Commission has been and considering the provisions referred to by Senator Sheldon, I feel the movers of the amendment should be satisfied.

Mr. Ross

The Minister has accepted the spirit behind our amendment in the most reasonable way but he has not accepted either part of the amendment. He referred to the five acres as originating in the Finance Act, 1956, but it is significant that the five acres requirement was dropped in some subsequent Finance Act as being unworkable and the five acre requirement is not now law. I feel that the requirement for any minimum number of acres is not so essential. I should like to have seen 25 acres but in default of 25 acres I would rather see five acres than no reference to acres at all. I think that the second part of our amendment is extremely important. Notwithstanding the powers of the Land Commission and their general discretion under subsection (2) (a) and notwithstanding that the Minister says it is unnecessary to put in the second part, I think it is highly desirable. While I am perfectly prepared to accept the requirement that the land involved did not exceed five acres in extent, I would press the Minister very strongly to consider accepting the latter part of the amendment. I am by no means sure that he is right and that it is not necessary to write it in, but I am quite sure it is desirable and should be written in so that it will be quite clear to the Land Commission and everybody else that it was envisaged in passing this Bill that the Land Commission should have that discretion in the public interest.

Professor Stanford

I would appeal to the Minister to incorporate the second part of the amendment.

Mr. Sheldon

I hope that the Minister does nothing of the sort. I was shocked to find two distinguished Senators looking for tautology. As I understand it, paragraphs (i) to (x) in subsection (1) name qualified persons and I would have thought you could not put in this qualification and then widen it in the way the Senators are suggesting and make any sense of it. I do not know what fears they have that subsection (2) (a) will not be operated. Very probably they have in mind that very large houses will have 25 acres but there is nothing about the size of a house in this so that if the 25 acres were included it would apply to any house and a person could buy a two or three-roomed cottage and claim 25 acres.

Mr. Ross

We have dropped the point about 25 acres.

Mr. Sheldon

I am prepared to accept that the Senators have dropped it but speeches in favour of it were made subsequent to my pointing out that it was unreasonable and I have a right to reply. The question of these large houses is still colouring the Senators' minds. In those circumstances, they are roping in a house of any size. It would be very undesirable and I see no point in bringing into a qualifying provision in paragraph (ix) the second part of the amendment, which gives the Land Commission discretion. Why they should want that discretion there when it is already in 2 (a) is beyond me.

Mr. Moran

In passing, I should tell the Seanad that the five acre requirement, while it was dropped from the point of view of stamp duty in section 15 of the 1962 Finance Act, is still there in another form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment No. 58:

In subsection (2) (a), page 22, line 33, to delete "with." and substitute "with, and the determination of the application for such consent shall be an excepted matter for the purposes of section 12 of the Land Act, 1950."

Mr. Moran

Throughout the earlier stages of this section, in considering who will make the decisions on the actual applications for consent, I thought of this as a sort of important function affecting private interests which should be exercised by the Lay Commissioners. The amendment will make it quite clear that this is so. I do not expect that the House will have any objection. There would appear to be some doubt as to how the law might be interpreted, whether I had this discretion or whether the Lay Commissioners had it, and in such a case it is more desirable to make it clear that the Lay Commissioners have this discretion and that is the object of the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 59:

In subsection (2) (b) (ii), page 22, line 37, to delete "the legal personal representative, as such," and substitute "a person as legal personal representative".

Mr. Moran

This is purely a drafting amendment. My attention has been drawn to a High Court decision given in 1923, the reference is Marry v. Drew, published in the Irish Reports, 1935. Because of the judgment it is thought that the phrase "legal personal representative" as such may be given a narrower meaning than is intended unless the alternative words proposed are substituted. The position might be that the control conferred by paragraph (b) (ii) would apply only to personal representatives in the case of a lease or tenancy but would not apply in the case of realty, or in the case of registered land. In relation to section 45 a technical distinction like this would be senseless. The amendment makes it clear that it applies to all legal representatives. It is because of the peculiar legal meaning given under this decision in Marry v. Drew that this becomes necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ross

I move amendment No. 60:

In subsection (2) (b) (ii), page 22, lines 40 to 44 inclusive, to delete all words from and including "if" in line 40 to the end of the subparagraph.

Under subsection (2) (a) which we were discussing earlier, no interest in land becomes vested in a person who is not a qualified person except with the written consent of the Land Commission. Paragraph 2 (b) goes on to say that paragraph (a) will not apply in a case in which an interest becomes vested, and subparagraph (ii) goes on to say:

on the distribution of the estate of a deceased person if the interest becomes vested, in the case of an interest which is real estate, in the heir or a member of the family (not being the heir) of the deceased person or, in any other case, in a member of the family of the deceased person.

The purpose of this amendment is to deal with what comes after "on the distribution of the estate of a deceased person".

I am not at all sure whether the latter part of the subsection, as drafted, may not conflict with the intentions of the Succession Bill, but, quite apart from that, it does seem to us to be wrong that a testator should not be entitled to leave his land to whomsoever he wishes. We propose that there should be no interference, certainly under this Bill, with that right. We stop, therefore, at the point "on the distribution of the estate of a deceased person".

Mr. Moran

It is necessary to keep in mind, in discussing this amendment, what class we are dealing with and in what circumstances. We are dealing with aliens here, aliens who may have acquired land, who may be resident here but who are not Irish citizens. If aliens are serious in their intention to live here and become part of the community, then, as the Senator knows, they will become Irish citizens. If they become Irish citizens they will not be subject to any of the provisions of section 45. On the other hand, we are recognising here, by way of exception, that people who are resident here for a considerable time are to be treated in a different way.

I should like the Senator to appreciate the fact that we are dealing with people who, in the main, come in here for a very restricted period and acquire Irish land for a very special purpose, with the intention of getting out as quickly as they can. They do not intend to put down roots here. Acceptance of this amendment would mean the abandonment of effective control over the passing of an interest in land to non-nationals, following the death of the owner. Irish land could pass automatically into the hands of very far out relatives or others who had no connection with Ireland at all, no knowledge of farming and no experience of Irish conditions. It would be quite contrary to the general intention of the section. I would remind the Senator and the House that the Land Commission could in any case, if they thought fit, give their consent to any person the Senator might have in mind and authorise his becoming the successor of the owner.

The Senator's proposition, as I understand it, is to provide for the unrestricted disposition of land here by an alien on his death. That would allow technically, as we say in the west, a thirty-first cousin to inherit. If a man from Turkestan cashed in his chips here and alleged that someone in Turkestan, with an unpronounceable name, was his first cousin and he was giving the land to him under this amendment, I should like the Senator to tell me how I or the Land Commission could find out whether this gentleman was or was not a relation.

This may be an extreme instance but I give it to illustrate how there could be evasion, if this amendment were written into our law. The House should accept that the Land Commission will act reasonably. If an alien gives genuine reasons as to why a relative should succeed him, all he need do, is apply for permission and, unless there is something queer about it, that permission will be granted. This question of succession must be scrutinised very carefully to ensure the section will not be used for purposes of evasion. The amendment is far too broad and I could visualise very queer things happening, should we accept the Senator's broadening of the definition of who may inherit from an alien.

Mr. Ross

I see the Minister's point up to a point, but the man who owns the land has to die first in order that these things may happen. It seems to be practicably inconceivable that a man will die in order to spite the Act. If he wants to distribute his estate in a certain way, he will make a will doing so, but he will not make a will for the express purpose of alienating the land. It may be that he will bequeath it to some other person. That is something we may have to face. In practice, it will be most likely that he will leave it to someone who has an interest, a son, or a near relative. The example the Minister has given, while conceivably possible, is so far-fetched that it does not offer any real objection to the amendment. The objection that I see to the subsection is that it interferes with the right of a person, alien or otherwise, to leave property in the way in which that person wishes.

Professor Stanford

It will make it harder for the owners of big houses to sell them to aliens if the aliens know they cannot bequeath their property to even close relatives.

Mr. Moran

I do not quite understand Senator Stanford's fears because I think that a person buying a big house would have the intention of becoming resident here and becoming probably an Irish citizen. There is an inconsistency here and I think I see it now. After the passage of this Bill if Ivan Skivinsky Skavar comes here, he must get the consent of the Land Commission if he wants to buy land. He cannot do it otherwise. When the good Ivan comes it may be from a country where 10 wives and 10 families are allowed. Why should he be allowed, without the consent of the Land Commission or anybody else, to tie up this land by leaving it to one of his innumerable far-out relatives on the other side of the earth?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Professor Stanford

I move amendment No. 61:

In subsection (2) (c), page 22, line 50, before "son-in-law" to insert "first cousin,".

This is simply a matter of where to draw the line: It is a question of whether, if we allow a stepson or stepdaughter who are not blood relations to come into this, we should be a little more generous and allow first cousins. I am not appealing on behalf of thirty-first cousins. It is hard to put up any cast iron argument why we should go this slightly further step but I am thinking in terms of people who buy big houses who are not Irish but who are giving a great deal of employment and beautifying the country to some extent. This would be an encouragement to them. I know of one big house where it would make a great difference; the person is a very good employer and citizen.

Mr. Moran

It is desirable to keep the two definitions — in section 6 in regard to life-annuities and in this section—in line as far as we can. I do not think it is likely there will be many cases of non-nationals who will be first cousins of deceased persons acquiring farms here. Under the Bill as it stands, such a person would have to apply for the consent of the Land Commission. As the Senator has said, a line has got to be drawn somewhere. No doubt, no matter where we draw it, there may be somebody in a degree of kin just outside the line. Technically, the amendment is in order and if there is a feeling in the House that it might broaden the prospects of purchases here, I would be prepared to accept the amendment and put down a corresponding amendment to section 6 on the next Stage because I feel it would be illogical to have one definition for one purpose and another for another.

Professor Stanford

I am very grateful to the Minister.

An Cathaoirleach

Would it be better to withdraw this amendment?

Mr. Moran

We can accept this amendment. What I have been pointing out is that the acceptance of this amendment will entail an amendment, on Report Stage, to section 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. L'Estrange

I move amendment No. 61A:

In subsection (2) (c), page 22, line 50, after "daughter-in-law" to add "and, in the case of a female deceased person, her illegitimate child".

The amendment speaks for itself.

Mr. Moran

I accept this amendment in principle.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. L'Estrange

I move amendment No. 61B:

In subsection (2), page 22, to add the following new paragraph:

"(d) In deducing any relationship for the purposes of this subsection, a person adopted under the Adoption Acts, 1952 and 1964, shall be considered the legitimate offspring of the adopter or adopters."

Mr. Moran

I accept this amendment also.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 62 not moved

Mr. L'Estrange

I move amendment No. 63:

In subsection (13), page 25, line 40, to delete "Dáil Éireann" and substitute "each House of the Oireachtas".

Mr. Moran

If Seanad Éireann does not trust the Dáil, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 45, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. L'Estrange

We welcome the section which, to a large extent, was introduced because of constructive suggestions made in the Dáil by the Opposition. We have been accused here of paying lip service only to the problem of congestion. The provisions of this section, which will leave a pool of land available for the relief of congestion, have been advocated for years by Fine Gael. This section was not included in the original Bill. For years we have been told this problem was not a grave one, although the NFA and other such organisations had pointed out that thousands of acres were being bought by aliens.

The Minister is now closing the stable door after the horse has gone, but better late than never. Today, the Minister told us we were not prepared to crack any legal safeguards in our efforts to ease the congestion problem. It took the Minister a long time to crack this particular nut. It took him two or three years. Were it not for our constructive suggestions and the East Galway by-election — when the Minister for Agriculture then made an astounding announcement in this respect — this provision would never have seen the light of day. However, as I said at the outset, we welcome this section, even if it comes when the horse has gone.

Mr. Moran

This section is here for two reasons. Firstly, it is here in order to deal with the purchase of land by aliens. I would remind the House that some years ago a law was introduced providing for a penal tax of 25 per cent on all such purchases. A law was also introduced providng for the establishment of a statutory register to be instituted in the Land Commission in which would be kept a record of every or any purchase of land by an alien so that if any action outside the penal duty of 25 per cent were necessary in the national interest, the Government could take such action. I pointed out to the Dáil and the country from time to time that this matter was continuously under examination and that, if any further action was necessary to control the purchase of land by aliens, it would be taken.

The Revenue Commissioners operate the 25 per cent penal stamp duty. There have been allegations of evasion of the payment of this duty by different legal devices and in some cases by fraud. Though I appealed to the Dáil on several occasions for evidence of any widespread evasion of this law, I got no particulars from anybody. I repeated my appeal on a number of occasions in answer to these vague allegations that much land was being purchased. We have a statutory record in the Land Commission of any land purchased by aliens. The pattern has not changed to any marked degree over the past few years. In many cases, some of the land bought by aliens some years ago has been purchased by other aliens. As Senators are aware, some of these peoples bought lands here since the war and got their fingers burned. Naturally, they tried to unload it on some others anxious to get land. There was, however, a certain amount being purchased, but the picture has not changed very much over the past ten years. It normally runs at between 6,000 and 7,000 acres per annum. At all events, it was felt that, because of the Revenue Commissioners' lack of staff throughout the country to keep an effective check on evasion, this matter could be more effectively controlled by the Land Commission, because of our inspectorial staff and because we are in the position to check through our local officers when it is alleged some place has been purchased by aliens using some device to avoid the law.

In reply to Senator L'Estrange, when we were concerned with this question of alien purchases and enacting the law providing for the 25 per cent penal stamp duty to stop such purchases, we were bitterly opposed by the Deputy's Party. The Leader of his Party said it was a racket and a cod. I would invite the Deputy to look up that debate.

Mr. L'Estrange

I would invite the Minister to quote.

Mr. Moran

They are on record as opposing that law imposing the 25 per cent stamp duty on aliens' purchases here. The Senator and his friends complain about people coming in here with foreign money taking over property, houses and so on. The Senator's friend, Deputy Sweetman, made that possible through the escape clause he introduced into the 1956 Finance Act, whereby anybody can take over a building or business here and five acres of land without any penal stamp duty. That was the first gap opened for this kind of money coming in. Having said this, I do not accept the argument that this is dangerous. In many instances I think it is a good thing that we have this capital investment here.

Finally, the Senator says we are closing the stable door after the horse has gone. I think only a couple of horses escaped. I admit the Senator's horse may have escaped.

Mr. L'Estrange

He did not win!

Mr. Moran

But he will not get the chance again, once this section is passed.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister mentioned that the annual purchase of lands by aliens was only 6,000 or 7,000 acres. Surely that is a large pool of land considering the Land Commission take up from 20,000 to 25,000 acres per year? It is roughly a third or a quarter of what the Land Commission take over.

The Minister referred to this clause being inserted in the 1956 Act. That is over nine years ago. The Minister has been in power for the past eight years. Surely if he wanted to expedite this work and if he did not agree with that section, there was nothing to stop him altering it? That section has been standing to the present Government for the past few years. It is due to it that many people have come in here with the money and "know-how" to set up industry. Indeed, were it not for the fact that so much "hot money" came over from Britain during the past few years, due to fear of a Labour Government coming to power there, we would all be much worse off. The Minister and his Party should be glad of that section in the 1956 Act.

Mr. Moran

Deputy Dillon says it is a disaster.

Mr. L'Estrange

He never said it.

Mr. Moran

He is preaching every day of the week that we are balancing our payments by the amounts payable by these people coming in to buy up these businesses. Yet it was his Party made it possible.

Mr. L'Estrange

He said: the land of the country.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Let us not introduce disaster.

Mr. Moran

On these generalisations about the purchase of land by foreigners, Senators may have read that in my county we are, in modern parlance, "getting very much with it". It is alleged that a foreigner is erecting a shelter as proof against fallout and all the effects of atomic bombs down in the bogs of north Mayo. That purchase was something in the region of 6,000 acres. The valuation of the land is 2d. per acre. That is the type of foreign invasion.

Mr. Sheldon

I am sorry to have to bring this business matter into this very interesting debate. I missed amendment No. 63 about the regulations being laid before the House. I understand the Minister has agreed to widen them. I suggest to him this is not a very good place to have it. I would prefer to see a separate section. It is easier to find, rather than to have tucked away a provision about regulations or orders being laid before the House. It should be in some permanent place in the Act.

Mr. Moran

I shall look into the Senator's suggestion.

Mr. L'Estrange

As regards congestion, the Minister is also riding two horses. When he was in opposition in 1950, he rode one, and now that he is back in power, he is riding a completely different one.

Mr. Moran

I had a good gallop on the Senator's horse anyway.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The only things that do not change are the Ten Commandments.

Mr. L'Estrange

What about the eleventh: Thou shalt not be found out? The charge made against Deputy Dillon is wrong. He spoke only against the buying of land.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think Deputy Dillon is well able to defend himself.

Mr. Moran

I quite agree with the Senator when he says Deputy Dillon is wrong.

Mr. L'Estrange

I said the charge you made against him was competely wrong.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The charge is not very relevant to this section.

Mr. L'Estrange

Why would it not be? Deputy Dillon has spoken against foreigners coming in and buying large tracts of land. He is completely in favour of industrialists purchasing land for industries and bringing in the know-how and the money. We were in favour of it when Fianna Fáil opposed it in 1956.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 46 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.

First Schedule, Second Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Wednesday, 17th February.

Mr. Ross

The Minister has been extremely helpful on this Bill in considering a number of amendments put down and withdrawn and some of which we hope will be put down again on Report Stage. There has been a good deal of legal argument during the discussion on Committee Stage and it will take a little time to set down amendments for Report Stage. It will be necessary in respect of amendments I and my colleagues hope to set down to read what the Minister has said in the course of the debate. The printed report is not yet available of Wednesday's debate and the report of today's debates will not be available until Monday or possibly Tuesday of next week. I would submit to the House that it will not be possible for us to give a proper judgment on the legal debate which has gone on and to put down worthy and proper amendments for consideration on Report Stage, if the Report Stage is fixed for a date as soon as next Wednesday. We should have at least a fortnight from last Wednesday. I would ask the House to consider this most carefully. We cannot really do justice to the Bill on Report Stage if amendments are put down too soon.

Mr. Sheldon

I agree with Senator Ross. The Minister has been most cooperative and helpful. As Senator Ross said, a great deal of this matter is very technical. Whatever difficulty a lawyer may have, not having read what has been said, in determining what he is to do, a layman is in so much the worse position because it takes him longer to study it. There are one or two points in respect of which I should like to consider putting down amendments. I hope it will be possible to give at least a fortnight, although personally, I would prefer three weeks.

Mr. L'Estrange

We would also prefer a fortnight. We have been told that the Minister may not be available in a fortnight's time. I want to join in saying that the Minister must have the devil's own patience.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Knowing the duration of the debate on some of the sections here, I felt the same thing might happen on Report Stage. As Senators are aware, we will be getting financial business in due course and there are other Bills coming up. The enactment of this Bill is urgent. In these circumstances, I felt it would be advisable that the Seanad should take the Report Stage next Wednesday. However, if there is a possibility that we could get an understanding that the Bill would be completed on the following Thursday, that is, including the Fifth Stage, although the Minister has an engagement the following week, nevertheless that would be possible, I think, if we met on Wednesday 24th and, if necessary, on the morning of Thursday, 25th. If it is understood that all Stages will be completed by that afternoon, I think we could go along with the desire expressed by Senator Ross and Senator Sheldon.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is very difficult to give an undertaking but we can hope for the best. Would there be any objection, if the Bill were not completed on Wednesday or Thursday, to meeting the following Friday? We are prepared to do our best. As far as we are concerned, I do not think there will be anything like the same length of discussion on Report Stage. There may be certain sections which we will want to discuss.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I am afraid you will.

Mr. L'Estrange

I do not think we will, unless you rise us in some way.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I have long experience and I am very hard to convince.

Mr. Moran

I will not be available on Thursday, the 25th, from approximately 4 o'clock. I would be able to take the Bill on Wednesday or Thursday morning if I thought the Seanad could finish with it, say, by lunchtime on that day but I cannot be available after lunch on Thursday 25th, whatever about the following day.

Mr. Ross

I think we all appreciate the difficulties mentioned by the Minister and by the Leader of the House. This is an important Bill and will need time. I would not like for my part to give a firm undertaking that I would be finished necessarily by Thursday at lunch time. I do not think anybody could accuse me of being lengthy on this Bill. I have been as brief as possible, but the points are of some importance. I do not think anybody could bind any Senator or any side of the House definitely to finish by a certain time but we will try to be as brief and as reasonable as possible.

Mr. Moran

I do not know how long Senators would consider reasonable. Instead of next Wednesday, would there be any possibility of getting some way of taking at least part of the Bill on next Thursday evening? Would that give Senators sufficient time?

Mr. L'Estrange

Can we not meet the following Tuesday instead of Wednesday?

Mr. O'Reilly

It would seem that one of the difficulties that Senator Ross has is the fact that the Official Report of the Committee Stage proceedings is not available to him. Perhaps some arrangement could be made by the House that the debate could be made available in some form other than the printed form so as to give him a reasonable chance to submit amendments. That might help. If that could be arranged, the Report Stage could be set down for Thursday next.

Mr. L'Estrange

It would be a bad precedent.

Mr. O'Reilly

Would it be possible?

Mr. Ross

I would doubt that that would be possible without a great deal of inconvenience to the reporters. It would put them to very great inconvenience. There are other people besides myself who would like a little more time than a week to consider amendments.

Mr. L'Estrange

Could we meet on Tuesday, 23rd and Wednesday 24th? We might finish in two days and not have to meet on Thursday at all.

Mr. Moran

If that suits the House, I shall make myself available.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 23rd February, 1965.