Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Mar 1950

Vol. 119 No. 8

Land Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

I move amendment No. 10:—

Before Section 10, to insert a new section as follows:—

10.—(1) Where—

(a) land stands acquired by, purchased by, transferred to or vested in the Land Commission,

(b) the land is subject to a payment to the Land Commission or the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and

(c) the Land Commission, with the consent (whether general or particular) of the Minister for Finance, direct that the payment shall cease as on and from a specified day,

the payment shall cease as on and from the day so specified and the land shall stand discharged therefrom accordingly.

(2) Where a direction is given under sub-section (1) of this section, the payment to which the direction relates shall, where appropriate, be apportioned up to the day specified in the direction and shall be considered as accruing from day to day for the purposes of this provision.

(3) A deficiency in the Local Loans Fund, Purchase Annuities Fund, or Land Bond Fund arising out of the cesser under sub-section (1) of this section of any payment shall not be a charge on the Guarantee Fund.

(4) A deficiency in any account or fund (other than the Purchase Annuities Fund) arising out of the cesser under sub-section (1) of this section of any payment shall be made good to the account or fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas at such times and in such manner as the Minister for Finance directs.

(5) Where—

(a) land has been discharged under sub-section (1) of this section from any payment, and

(b) any annuity or annual sum is subsequently set up in respect of the land,

any payments made to the Land Commission in respect of such annuity or annual sum shall be applied in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct.

This is a new section which really arises from Section 7. It has been brought in as an amendment rather than in the original Bill. It was one of the difficult points that had to be settled arising out of Section 7. It should really have been installed in the Bill and, because of the pressure brought by Deputies in the House, I knew it was a matter that should be brought in by way of amendment.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

There was a discussion here for a considerable time on the payment of market value. From what date will market value be paid for acquired holdings?

An Ceann Comhairle

How does this arise on this amendment?

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Is it not dealing with payment?

An Ceann Comhairle

All right.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Twelve months ago the Minister announced in this House that he intended to change the method of payment to ensure that market value will be paid. From what date will the market value be paid? It may be possible, if certain officers of the Minister's Department had a grudge against a person, from the date the Minister announced that this new provision was about to be inserted, that any such officer who had authority might take certain proceedings against an individual whom he did not like, if this provision was to apply at some future date.

Mr. Blowick

The retrospection which the Deputy has in mind is covered by amendment No. 2, which I moved. The best we could do in that case to give a chance to those whose land, so to speak, is in the process of being taken over or was taken over from the 1st of December last—on or after that date—is that, while the price will be fixed or may be fixed under the old system, they have a chance to appeal and to have the price redetermined under the amendment. That will cover approximately 108 cases. While I do not think it will go back all the way to the date which some Deputies desired, I think it will cover most of the cases and give most of them a chance. There was a complete cessation of work by the Land Commission from February, 1941, down to the revocation of an Order imposed by the last Government which took place, I think, in March or a short time after this Government took office. The result was that very little land started to come into our hands until the fall of last year.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is nothing in this that I can see about market price.

Mr. S. Collins

Does the Minister's statement give an assurance that all acquisition proceedings not completed in the Land Commission will get the benefit of this particular increase in price?

Mr. Blowick

The amendment referred to all land of which the Land Commission has taken possession on or after the 1st December last. That will include 108 cases that are already in the machine, some decided and some not decided.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

On the amendment. Am I to take it that cases in respect of which notice of intention to acquire land was served say in 1938 or 1939—before the emergency, at any rate—and where proceedings were not continued during the emergency but have been continued since, would be covered?

Mr. Blowick

It will depend on possession, and the date is operative— land of which the Land Commission took possession on or after the 1st December, 1949, regardless of when proceedings were initiated.

Mr. Moran

Under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the amendment we read:

Where—

(a) land has been discharged under sub-section (1) of this section from any payment, and

(b) any annuity or annual sum is subsequently set up in respect of the land,

any payments made to the Land Commission in respect of such annuity or annual sum shall be applied in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct.

What is contemplated under this sub-section?

Mr. Blowick

Briefly, it is really only a piece of machinery by which the Minister for Finance shall direct that the annuities being paid to the Land Commission will be diverted into any particular fund or portion of the land annuity fund which the Minister for Finance so wishes.

Mr. Moran

That is not the answer to my question. Sub-paragraph (a) of sub-section (5) of amendment No. 10 says: "where land has been discharged under sub-section (1) of this section from any payment." In what circumstances does the Minister or the Land Commission contemplate lands that will be discharged from this payment under this sub-section? What type of lands does the Minister contemplate will be discharged from any payment?

Mr. Blowick

This new section simply wipes out the old annuity on land acquired from now on. Hitherto the person from whom land was being acquired had to discharge the purchase money out of the price paid by the Land Commission. Now we propose to kill the old annuity completely, in other words to wipe it out, seeing that we do not ask the land owner to redeem the purchase money. Otherwise, it would mean useless bookkeeping, which would not bring any real benefit, in the Land Commission and in some section of the Department of Finance.

Mr. Moylan

The question raised by Deputy P.D. Lehane was disposed of two or three days ago. That is quite specific and it is included in the Bill now. The practice up to now was that when the Land Commission resumed or acquired land the portion of the advance that remained unpaid had to be paid back to the Land Commission.

Mr. Blowick

Out of the purchase money.

Mr. Moylan

Is this section directed towards overcoming that amount?

Mr. Blowick

Does the Deputy mean amendment No. 10?

Mr. Moylan

Yes.

Mr. Blowick

It means the cancellation or the wiping out of that particular sum. Something had to be done about it. We could not leave it in the books. It flows, really, from Section 7.

Mr. Moran

It is not particularly clear to me but even taking it on the basis that the Minister puts it—that it arises out of Section 7—I understood from Section 7 that it was considered by the Land Commission that it was intended to deal with certain charges that might be outstanding on holdings of the Board of Works or drainage authority or some such other people. I certainly did not understand that the whole basis, evidently, is being changed under this present amendment which has been moved by the Minister and that we are going to substitute this method and wipe out whatever the position was. Incidentally, the Minister refused to tell us last night the method of arriving at a standard purchase annuity, because a standard purchase annuity was provided for under the law as it stood.

I have not the particular section before me now but it was provided in a certain way in connection with the amount of money expended by the Land Commission in relation to a particular estate. That is quite clear and was quite clear under the law as it stood. We are now evidently, under this section, completely wiping out the previous basis of arriving at the standard purchase annuity. We now find, under sub-section (5) of the proposed new section, that evidently the old basis will be completely wiped out, and that a new type of purchase annuity will be substituted. If that is so, surely we are entitled to ask the Minister what is going to be the basis on which this new purchase annuity will be fixed. If the old basis has been wiped out, and some new type of annuity is going to be substituted, the House is entitled to know in what way the Land Commission proposes to arrive at the new standard purchase annuity. If it is going to have any relation whatever to the amount of money expended by the Land Commission in acquiring particular lands, well and good. If it is going to be some rule of thumb, well and good also; but I think that, in view of the legislation formerly in existence for the purpose of arriving at the standard purchase annunity, the Minister should tell the House how the new annuity——

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy point out where the question of the new annuity arises under this sub-section?

Mr. Moran

Under sub-section (5), paragraph (b), which reads: "Where any annuity or annual sum is subsequently set up in respect of the land." I want to know, under paragraph (b), how the annuity is going to be set up and what method the Land Commission is going to use in setting up, this annuity.

An Ceann Comhairle

This sub-section does not set it up. It says where it has been set up.

Mr. Moran

Sub-section (5) says: "Where (a) land has been discharged under sub-section (1) of this section from any payment, and (b) any annuity or annual sum is subsequently set up in respect of the land." Therefore there is going to be an annuity set up in respect of the land.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. It says that if it is set up, under this section certain things follow.

Mr. Moran

It says that "where any annuity or annual sum is subsequently set up in respect of the land, any payments made to the Land Commission in respect of such annuity or annual sum shall be applied in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct".

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the operative portion of the sub-section.

Mr. Moran

Surely the sub-section says that an annuity or an annual sum is going to be subsequently set up under this sub-section? The Minister has already informed the House that it is proposed to wipe out the old annuity and to substitute this. The old annuity basis was fixed in accordance with law. I take it that the effect of this sub-section is, and the Minister admits it, that it is going to substitute something new for the old annuity.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is purely a machinery section and the law arose under the previous section that was discussed.

Mr. Moran

With respect, I submit that this section, on the Minister's own admission, is changing the law. The annuity that was prescribed by law formerly is going to be wiped out by the sub-section here and a new type of annuity substituted for it. I think the House is entitled to know on what basis the annuity is going to be arrived at.

An Ceann Comhairle

Section 9 sets up an annuity but this does not. It says that if it is set up certain things follow, but it does not set it up.

Mr. Moran

With respect, sub-section (5) says that where land is going to be discharged under sub-section (1) from any payment——

An Ceann Comhairle

It says if it has been discharged, certain things follow.

Mr. Moran

I ask the Minister in what circumstances it is going to be discharged. The Minister states that the old annuity is going to be discharged and something else is going to be substituted. Surely the House is entitled to know what the new annuity basis will be?

An Ceann Comhairle

This section does not set it up.

Mr. Blowick

Perhaps the Deputy would allow me to intervene for a moment. Under the old system as it obtained, and as it will obtain until this Bill becomes law, the law prescribed that the vendor of the land or the person from whom the land was taken should, in the case of vested farms, redeem the purchase annuity so that the land would come to the Land Commission free of rent. The Land Commission could not take over possession from a man who still owed money in respect of the original purchase money and he could not know the market value until the purchase money was redeemed. Therefore, before we could legally take over possession of the land that man would have to discharge his liability by freeing the land from rent. Now, under this Bill we are not asking persons from whom land is acquired to discharge the land from rent. We are doing that ourselves now. In other words, the burden will not fall on the shoulders of the person from whom we are acquiring the land. We are asking the State to shoulder the burden. Sub-section (5) merely sets up certain machinery for the guidance of the Minister for Finance and has nothing whatever to do with the new annuity.

Mr. Moran

That certainly clears the air. If that is the intention behind this sub-section, of course, we are satisfied with it. There is just one other matter which arises under this section particularly under sub-section (3) which reads: "A deficiency in the Local Loans Fund, Purchase Annuity Fund or Land Bond Fund arising out of the cesser under sub-section (1) of this section of any payment shall not be a charge on the Guarantee Fund." I want to direct the Minister's attention to this because it certainly came as a surprise to me quite recently to discover that the redemption value of annuities varies in accordance with the price of land bonds.

Mr. Blowick

That has always been the experience.

Mr. Moran

I should like on this sub-section to direct the Minister's attention to this fact. In one particular case a certificate of the redemption value of a holding asked for away back in 1938 showed the redemption value to be £236 and we discovered ten years later, in 1948, that the redemption value of the same annuity amounted to approximately £40 more. Everybody, every farmer, understood that so long as he was paying his annuities the amount should be getting less each year; but it would now appear that this amount varies. It is very strange to find that after a farmer pays his annuities for ten years the amount of the redemption value of the annuity, after the ten years, is £40 or £50 more than it was. It came as a shock to a particular farmer I have in mind, and I am sure it would come as a shock to the general public.

The Minister might consider this matter before the Report Stage. There should be some method whereby, when the annuity is fixed and the redemption value is fixed, the amount paid by the tenant farmer should go towards reducing that annuity and the farmer should not find himself ten or 20 years afterwards having to pay a bigger redemption value.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not see what that has to do with sub-section (3). I should like the Deputy to show its relevancy.

Mr. Moran

I suggest it is relevant. At any rate, I have said what I wanted to say.

Mr. Moylan

I have no desire for a discussion with the Minister, but I would like to get one point clear. Section 7, according to the White Paper, gives the concession that the remaining amount of the State advance need not be paid by the owner from whom the land is acquired.

Mr. Blowick

Yes.

Mr. Moylan

Section 8 provides that every advance other than the State grant by way of help towards the land annuity shall be repaid. Section 8 proposes that when land subject to a reclamation annuity is taken over by the Land Commission, the reclamation annuity must be redeemed. Any payment due to the State other than the actual advance in relation to the purchase of the land must be redeemed as well as the funding annuity?

Mr. Blowick

Oh, yes. The funding annuity is another name for arrears of rent.

Mr. Moylan

The land is subject to a payment to the Land Commission or the Commissioners of Public Works. Assuming we remit all the advance for the purchase of the land, in spite of what we did in Section 8, can we remit to the tenant any money he owes to the Board of Works for drainage or for housing? If the farmer owes money to the Board of Works for drainage, for the building of a house, has that money also to be remitted as well as the annuity—will it have to be paid?

Mr. Blowick

No. Did the Deputy read Section 8?

Mr. Moylan

The only money, therefore, that will have to be paid is the money that will be spent under the land rehabilitation scheme?

Mr. Blowick

Yes. There may be other personal things besides the rehabilitation scheme. I could imagine a hay-barn, for instance. I am not quite clear about it, but the intention was the land rehabilitation scheme.

Mr. Moylan

The annuity need not be redeemed. The remainder of the State advance——

Mr. Blowick

On land purchase?

Mr. Moylan

Yes—that need not be redeemed?

Mr. Blowick

No.

Mr. Moylan

The funding annuity must be?

Mr. Blowick

Yes, because it is arrears of rent.

Mr. Moylan

And the rehabilitation scheme money must be?

Mr. Blowick

It must be.

Mr. Moylan

Must the farmer pay the Board of Works if he gets a loan for a house or drainage, or is that remitted?

Mr. Blowick

I cannot say off-hand that it covers that.

Mr. Moylan

Fair enough.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 11 is out of order.

Mr. Moran

On what grounds?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Land Commission improvements are done with a view to improving the land. This amendment would require the Land Commission to be concerned with improving health and going in for housing generally. An amendment of the Health Acts might meet the point. Secondly, I notice in paragraph (1) "he may make such advance in cash", and a Private Deputy cannot move for any advance in cash. There are two reasons why the amendment is out of order.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy erred on the side of generosity.

Mr. Allen

Might I make a submission?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, but I can assure the Deputy that while the amendment stands in that form it will be no use.

Mr. Allen

I bow to your ruling, but I submit that already in the Land Act code provision exists for the Land Commission to make advances towards the erection of dwelling-houses. On the other matter of a Private Deputy moving for an advance in cash, actually it is no charge on State funds and provision is made for charging all the cost against the holding. I respectfully submit it would not rank as a charge on State funds.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Mr. Cogan

I move amendment No. 12:—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (d), lines 49 and 50, to delete "(other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme.)".

In various discussions I think we have all been very emphatic, and the Minister has been more emphatic than any of us, that the Minister should not interfere with the work of the Land Commission in deciding what land should be acquired or to whom it should be allotted. These are functions which have been reserved to the Land Commission and I think there are very strong reasons why they should continue to be reserved to the Land Commission.

Having regard to the Order Paper to-day, I think it will emphasise how necessary it is to have this protection for the Minister for Lands. If the Land Commission were to withdraw from deciding to whom land is to be allotted or from whom it is to be acquired, the Minister would be in the position of a slender, weak reed in a storm; he would be buffeted from every side, not only by Deputies but by would-be Deputies.

Mr. Smith

Irresponsible Deputies.

Mr. Cogan

They would demand that every political opponent's land should be acquired and given to the political supporters of those making the representations. The Land Act of 1933 provided some protection for the unfortunate Minister and it is desirable that that protection should, if possible, be preserved. In this Bill the Minister seeks to discard some of the protection with which he has been surrounded, and is taking upon himself the direct function of performing certain work in regard to the determination of persons to be selected for the allocation of land. Now, I quite recognise that his purpose in this particular section is limited, and that he only seeks to acquire a direct power in regard to what is known as a rearrangement scheme, but even in regard to that I think the Minister should be very careful to safeguard himself from avoidable pressure.

I have put down this amendment in order to ensure that the Minister will come into this discussion and defend the step which he has taken in resuming certain powers which are at present assigned to the Land Commission. It may be that the Land Commission, in dealing with such matters, have been too slow and too inefficient. If that is the case to be made, there may be ways of smartening up the Land Commission rather than by the Minister taking power into his own hands. The small-holder who has acquired land or to whom land has been allotted, as well as the ordinary farmer who is working his land, should have reasonable security. He should not be exposed to attack by political opponents because of his political views or of people who are prejudiced against him on personal grounds. Therefore, it is essential in my view that the Land Commission should retain the powers which they have at present. I can see nothing but chaos, similar to that which we had on the Order Paper to-day, arising from any diversion of the powers which the Land Commission have directly into the hands of the Minister. I am, therefore, asking that the Minister should take the House fully into his confidence in regard to this matter and give us the reasons why he proposes to make this change. If satisfactory reasons are given, or if there are adequate safeguards that this power will not be abused or that the Minister will not be abused in the exercise of that power, then I am sure the House will be reasonable with the Minister and will accept the change in the existing law.

Mr. Moylan

I thought that I would be put into the position that I would not have anything further to say. Politics makes strange bedfellows. The Minister need not be surprised when he opens Saturday's newspaper to see myself and Deputy Cogan ensconced on an O'Dearest mattress except that Deputy Cogan, as some other person did, may take a libel action against the Irish Times. The acquisition and allotment of land, in the words of the Minister himself, are important functions and should be entirely divorced from the domain of politics. Paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) empowers the Minister to select the allottees in connection with a rearrangement scheme, and the final paragraph of the sub-section describes a rearrangement scheme “as a scheme for the rearrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots whether with or without the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said arrangement”. That, to my mind, does not confine the Minister merely to the rearrangement of a rundale holding. Any land acquired by the Land Commission, if we except those specified in certain words, may be dealt with by the Minister directly or by his agent.

Deputy Sweetman said that I made a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the views of the Minister and the intentions of the Bill. That sounds very like a very grave charge until one examines it, and then one sees that there is nothing in it but bluff. We are not concerned with the views of the Minister or the intentions of the Bill. We are just dealing with legislation which may be tested in court. The lawyers here may tell me that, in getting a decision in court on any matter relating to the Bill, the judges will not take any cognisance of the intentions of the Bill or the obiter dicta of the Minister. They will decide on what the Act says and nothing else. I have just stated what the Bill says. If the main purpose of this Bill is to relieve congestion, is not the allottee being handed over body and bones completely into the hands of the Minister?

Mr. Blowick

The allottee? Not at all.

Mr. Moylan

Any man to whom you propose to give land, call him what name you like, is in the hands of the Minister now instead of being in the hands of the commissioners. If the Minister purchases a holding under Section 23, then under these terms, is not the Minister himself empowered to select the allottees for that holding?

Mr. Blowick

No.

Mr. Moylan

What does the Bill say?

Mr. Blowick

I will tell you.

Mr. Moylan

I have read it. There is no good in Deputy Sweetman telling me about intentions or good wishes. All that we have got to be concerned with is what is in the Bill. The Bill says: "The determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme)... relating to lands held in rundale or intermixed plots, whether with or with out the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said arrangement." With or without.

I think the Minister who dealt with the 1923 Act described a civil servant as an agent of the Minister. The Minister made a slip in this debate, I think, when he stated that the commissioners are civil servants and that they will carry out the orders of any Government. The commissioners are not civil servants. The point is that they are completely distinct from civil servants and, therefore, cannot be the Minister's agents.

The Minister has said: "We do this for the purpose of speeding up the solution of congestion. There are only five honest men in the Land Commission, according to Fianna Fáil, and all the rest of us are rogues." It reminds me of Falstaff, who said: "There are but six good men unhanged in England." We do not argue that the inspectors or officers of the Department of Lands are dishonest. We do, however, argue that the commissioners are not civil servants, that they are a judicial body and that they are not the agents of the Minister. I am not trying to prove the Minister is dishonest. I am trying to protect him from himself. Every one of us who has had any experience of office knows the tremendous pressure that we always had to resist, and the Minister, if he insists on getting this power, will be unable to resist the pressure placed on him because he has the power. He will be unable to carry out the work which this House has put him in the Department to do.

What about speed? Some time ago I read somewhere that an ambassador in a country is nowadays not as important an individual as he was before the days of rapid communications. Nowadays he can be reached by his Minister at the end of a telephone or he can be ordered home by plane. In the horse and buggy days, an inspector of the Land Commission had to have certain qualities, perhaps certain authority, that are not needed now in these days of rapid communications. If an inspector down in Mayo has a problem to which he wants an immediate solution, he will find the commissioners at the end of a phone in Merrion Street and, unlike the unfortunate Deputy who has to suffer for the sins of the various Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs, he will get priority and he will get a solution.

Mr. Blowick

I suppose the commissioners will also send their signature by phone?

Mr. Moylan

I really want to save the Minister from himself. He is doing something that is wholly undesirable and which will create difficulties. When I was in the Land Commission, the only difficulty that arose about swift solutions was in relation to the question as to whether the budget estimate of the Land Commission might or might not be utilised. Every commissioner and many of the civil servants in the Land Commission had views on the budget estimate and some of them did not like it. But, at least, those who liked it believed that it was the one solution for the cutting of any Gordian knot that might exist. If the advisers of the Minister in the Land Commission—I am sure he has listened to some advice—had the view that the budget estimate would speed up any difficulty in relation to the relief of congestion, have they suffered some sea change lately?

Mr. Blowick

What does the Deputy think of the budget estimate scheme?

Mr. Moylan

I was inclined to believe that it was a good proposition.

Mr. Blowick

That is what you have in the Bill.

Mr. Moylan

That is not the budget estimate.

Mr. Blowick

It is.

Mr. Moylan

No. The budget estimate can be handed to the inspectors by the commissioners, but the comissioners remain in control. There are certain minor difficulties which can be adjusted by giving the inspector certain authority which he possibly has not got now. I have no objection to that. I did not like to see Deputy Commons going to jail over the Cottage Farm.

Mr. Blowick

He did all the same.

Mr. Moylan

Deputy Commons is a man with very strong views in relation to congestion, an energetic and forcible man. The Minister is inclined to agree that Deputy Commons is wrong as we have in Section 4——

Mr. Blowick

What?

Mr. Moylan

No one can deny what will be in the Dáil Reports. Deputy Commons in all honesty, in his belief that certain things are right, will bring great pressure to bear on the Minister and so will everyone concerned with land in Mayo.

Mr. Blowick

God knows, it is hard to blame them if they do.

Mr. Moylan

The Minister is in a difficult position already, being a Mayo man living in Mayo. I think the Minister is very unwise trying to seek powers which have been in the hands of the Land Commission away from politics and political pressure. The most definite attack that was made in this House on Fianna Fáil in relation to lands was that the secretaries of the Fianna Fáil clubs dictated to the inspector. Everybody said that. Now, if there are any Clann na Talmhan clubs and they have secretaries it will be said and can be said with much more truth, with real truth, because the Minister is taking this power into his own hands. A Minister under the Fianna Fáil regime had no authority of any kind to suggest to the commissioners what they should do in relation to any farm. I have never seen any association of Fianna Fáil club secretaries waiting as a deputation on the Land Commissioners here or anywhere throughout the country. I have never seen any dictation of any kind. Now the dictation can be used because the Minister is going to take into his own hands certain power, the misuse of which he cannot avoid.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Moylan is very fond of quotations. He is especially fond of quoting Shakespeare. I would suggest that his last speech might be described as "Much Ado About Nothing". He wonders that himself and Deputy Cogan are together on this issue. That is not extraordinary because I think they could both be suitable bed-fellows. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that. Conservative is a very gentle description of both their outlooks.

The idea behind the power the Minister is getting under this Bill is, in my opinion, necessary. Deputy Moylan put his finger on it when he said the need was to speed up the work with regard to rearrangement schemes. There is no doubt that the power the Land Commission had in this respect in the past was not a sufficient power with regard to speeding up the work and bringing the problem to an end. Some of these rearrangement schemes have gone on for 15 or 20 years. We have experienced the position where an inspector arrived, had a chat with the local people concerned in the scheme and more or less obtained their consent to a certain plan. Before anything could be done, that had to be vetted at the top by headquarters and, by the time it came back down again, the people who were concerned in the scheme had fallen out between themselves and refused to continue with the rearrangement. We had the inspector coming on the scene year after year with no hope of getting a solution to the problem.

The Minister is now taking steps to ensure that an official of his Department can strike while the iron is hot. In other words, when that official gets people to arrive at a decision, they can sign on the spot and must be prepared to abide by it. I think that is an admirable solution. It relates only to rearrangement schemes. There is no general principle laid down with regard to ministerial powers. The proof that it is necessary is the fact that it has taken so long to arrive at a decision in relation to rearrangement schemes. Neither Deputy Moylan nor Deputy Cogan can put forward any alternative solution. Both realise that the machinery in use up to the present was inadequate and too slow. Deputy Moylan brings up the old question of speed. He says we should go slow. That, of course, was the propaganda put out by the Land Commission Moguls themselves.

Mr. Blowick

No. The legislation passed by this House was the principal cause and it is not fair to blame men for not running when their legs are tied.

Mr. McQuillan

I congratulate the Minister on having the courage to bring in this provision. His predecessors were definitely hiding behind the powers of the Land Commission and they were prepared to go on indefinitely saying "I have nothing to do with it". We do not want a Minister like Deputy Moylan and his predecessors if they are prepared to shelve all responsibility. The list of questions that could be put down in the Western Counties alone with regard to rearrangement would fill the Order Paper any day. Deputy Moylan should at least know that. He said he had no function in the matter. Is it not a good thing to know now that these problems can be solved once and for all? It is no good saying we are going too fast. We must remedy what has been described as a social evil. The longer people are here in this House, the further they seem to get away from the ordinary man and woman. The attitude of the previous Government was one of being miles above the heads of the ordinary people. They forgot that while they were here quibbling——

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy want to widen the debate?

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Moylan has given a long discourse on Fianna Fáil Clubs. I would like to say a word or two about them.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think he gave two sentences, as far as I recollect.

Mr. McQuillan

It would be a bad day when the members of any club, be they Fianna Fáil, Clann na Poblachta, Fine Gael or anything else, would dictate to a Land Commission inspector. With regard to Fianna Fáil I have always said publicly that their clubs and their speakers by a process of intimidation before elections, and otherwise——

An Ceann Comhairle

What has this to do with the Bill?

Mr. McQuillan

—— sought to frighten people into voting for them by saying: "If you do not support us, you will not get a piece of land when that farm is being divided." That was the propaganda that was disseminated. They got away with it then, but they will not get away with it much longer.

Mr. Blowick

Might I say a few words at this stage? This amendment relates to a departure from the procedure or practice which obtained in the past. On the Second Reading, I said it was a big departure. The land law of the country is very tangled because of all the rights of land owners, big, medium and small, and so on. I want to direct my remarks for a moment to Deputy Moylan in particular. When he was Minister, was he satisfied with the statutes dealing with rearrangement? I think Deputy Moylan, whatever about his predecessors, was perfectly genuine in trying to find some solution to the relief of congestion. The relief of congestion is tied up with rearrangement. Rearrangement is necessary wherever people are overcrowded and where holdings are either in rundale or badly intermixed. It is a social evil that we must set right. It is no use burying our heads in the sand like ostriches. To refuse to see the problem will not get us anywhere. I would ask Deputy Moylan does he disagree with the principle of this or is it the mechanics of it to which he takes exception?

Mr. Moylan

Does the Minister want an answer now?

Mr. Blowick

Yes.

Mr. Moylan

Paragraph 13 of the White Paper says:—

"Section 10 defines and enlarges the number of ‘excepted matters' which are to be within the commissioners' exclusive jurisdiction."

When paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) specifically gives to a judicial body the determination of the persons to be selected as allottees of any land, it seems to be a peculiar enlargement of the powers of the Land Commission and a peculiar definition of their powers to say "other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme." It seems that there should be a minus sign rather than a plus sign. The White Paper sets out to deceive everybody. This is not an enlargement of the commissioners' authority or power. It is a complete deduction from their power and I am quite in earnest about it.

Mr. Blowick

I do not want nor would I allow nor will I allow if I possibly can help it the function to be taken away from the commissioners of allotting either land or new holdings, the fixing of annuity on such holdings and the determination of persons from whom land is being acquired. Rearrangement, as Deputy Moylan knows well, presents a very peculiar problem. Deputy Moylan seeks to tie up the allotting of land with a rearrangement scheme.

Mr. Moylan

I am reading it in the Bill.

Mr. Blowick

The rearrangement scheme is an improvement on the previous holdings of the tenants. Otherwise it would be a complete waste of the Land Commission inspectors' time and of good money. We are asking for power for the senior inspector, not the inspector who prepared the scheme, not the inspector in charge but power for the senior inspector to sanction a rearrangement scheme on the spot that is agreed on by the tenants. A rearrangement scheme is not a Land Commission scheme. It is solely the scheme of the tenants in the townland that is being rearranged. Until you get agreement from every one of them, the tenants themselves, whatever you do would not be worth an ounce of energy. Once you have the agreement from the tenants it does not matter who sanctions it. Remember, the tenants themselves are the most severe critics that either I or the commissioners or the inspectors or this Dáil could have. We must wait until they are agreed that it is the time to strike. It is their scheme not ours. All the inspector can do is to offer something.

I see the Leader of the Opposition laughing. I hope that this will not be torpedoed. God knows, I do not want to speak harshly but it is all very fine for us to sit and laugh here. We must not forget that some of the people to whom we go with our tongues in our cheek, so to speak, asking for their votes, are at this moment trying to make a living on wretched holdings of which even the blacks in Africa would be ashamed.

Mr. de Valera

Keep to the Bill.

Mr. Blowick

This is a genuine attempt on my part to bring a measure of relief to these people and I think I have Deputy Moylan with me although he wants to safeguard the farmers of this country in their ownership—and I am with him in that too. There is no intention to take away from the commissioners their powers of allotting or of giving a new holding. Deputy Moran should know the difference. He should know that a rearrangement scheme is not the inspector's scheme but rather that it is the tenants' scheme.

Mr. Moran

It is the Minister's scheme.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister is powerless until he gets agreement. Why did some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies who come from congested areas not put down an amendment in this connection? They did not do so because they were too wise. I want to free the machinery of the Land Commission. I do not want to have a situation similar to that on the McDermot estate, on the borders of Roscommon and Mayo. I do not know the locality very well but I know that the position since 1940 is that something like 13 different attempts have been made to rearrange it. Each attempt has failed because the matter had to go through the hands of many different people, from the Grade 2 inspector who proposed the scheme right up to the commissioners, for sanction.

Take the Patten estate, which is right beside Deputy Moran's doorstep. Suppose Deputy Moran had to rearrange that estate. Would that be Deputy Moran's scheme or would it be the tenant's scheme?

Mr. Moran

The Minister has divided that particular estate so often that I am not going to divide it now.

Mr. Blowick

If this Bill becomes law in its present shape I hope to be able to have a reasonable solution to the problem. I do not promise the tenants there, or any tenants, that I will be able to give them 40 or 50 acres, and so on, but I shall do my living best to ensure that the land will be in one block and that it will not be like the case of a man who is the proud possessor of seven acres divided into 33 unfenced plots, no two of them touching.

I see Deputy Moylan's point. I want to go further along the road towards improving the position. I have done my best to word it but if the Deputy can suggest better wording, and provided he can show me that this is foolish, I shall be only too glad to meet him so that there will not be any doubt. All I want is the O.K. for a rearrangement scheme to be in the hands of the inspector for the sake of speed and so that, for instance, a mischief-maker will not have an opportunity of getting in among the tenants —sometimes a public man—and making trouble.

Mr. Moran

And the Minister promised to have their problems solved two years ago.

Mr. S. Collins

And Deputy de Valera is grinning.

Captain Cowan

I think any man would have a tremendous job to do to divide seven acres into 33 unfenced plots, no two of them touching.

Mr. Blowick

And do not forget that that estate was purchased under the 1909 Act and that the tenants are in the same position as they were under the former landlord.

Mr. Moran

And in the same state to-day.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cowan.

Captain Cowan

I have some slight knowledge of the conditions which the Minister described, though it is not as extensive as the Minister's. I consider that the powers the Minister is asking for in this section are powers that ought to be given to him. I am delighted that he is not afraid to take on these powers which may or may not be popular.

Mr. Blowick

They will not be popular.

Captain Cowan

They may not. I think it is necessary that that type of work should not just become a matter on routine procedure, that it should be a matter that would be tackled by some person and settled, as the Minister says, on the spot. The powers that the Minister seeks relate only to particular parts of the country, what are known mainly as the congested areas. These congested areas have been a source of trouble for many years. Every time a Land Act was introduced, whether in this House or the British Parliament, claims were made for it that it would deal with this problem of congestion and help to solve it. I think the only real practical solution put forward is that which has been put forward by the Minister in this section. If we were to accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Cogan and Deputy Moylan we would be going back to the system that was there. In other words we would be saying: "The machinery and the procedure are quite good. They have worked satisfactorily and there is no reason to change them." I think that if Deputy Moylan or Deputy Cogan want to help they must realise how serious this problem is. They must realise that the present methods and machinery are unsuitable. If they have any suggestions to make to help in easing the problem, then they should have put it forward by a reasonable amendment, but simply to put down an amendment to deprive the Minister of the powers he asks from the House to deal with this problem, is not progress; it is reaction.

Mr. McQuillan

It is worse; it is sabotage.

Captain Cowan

I hope that when this section is passed it will be operated in a realistic way by the Minister and that the putting of the Minister into this Bill will not simply mean that he will leave it entirely to his officials to draw up schemes. I would ask nothing better—and I do not think there is anything undignified or wrong in it— than to know that the Minister for Lands had taken his car down to Mayo for one fortnight and there engaged himself with the local people in settling these problems and giving his decision on the spot. I do not see anything wrong in that.

Mr. Blowick

Oh, well, the inspector is the expert on the job.

Captain Cowan

I know but I see nothing wrong in the Minister doing it himself.

Mr. Blowick

I am afraid my presence would only create trouble.

Captain Cowan

The operating machinery given in the section gives the Minister power to do that. The amendment tries to deprive the Minister of the power to do it, either by himself or through his officials. Even though we give this power to the Minister and even though it is operated with all the energy and drive that we know the Minister will put behind it, even though his officials act with all the enthusiasm they can to solve this problem, it will not be solved to-day or to-morrow. It is a tremendous problem and it would be very helpful for us here if, when the Estimates come round or in the annual report of the Land Commission, we are able to see mapped out the sections of the country in which this vital and necessary rearrangement had been carried out. We should be able then to see what progress had been made and was being made.

I think that probably Deputy Moylan's purpose in associating himself with Deputy Cogan in this amendment was probably to have a clear explanation from the Minister as to what in fact was intended by the section. Deputy Cogan has clearly stated that he knows very little about the problem, that he is not acquainted with it. It is not a problem in his own area. Now that the Minister has given his explanation and that it makes it perfectly clear that no person's rights, outside the particular areas in which rearrangement is necessary, are affected then I think both Deputy Cogan and Deputy Moylan should withdraw their amendments and wish the Minister God speed in the very essential and vital task that this section imposes on him of making a real effort to solve such a serious social problem.

Mr. Bartley

The last few remarks of the previous speaker would indicate that he views this amendment only in so far as it affects the holdings or patches immediately concerned in any given rearrangement scheme. If the Minister were taking any powers whereby he could bring in other lands to operate these rearrangement proposals, then I personally would look more favourably on that.

Mr. Blowick

The acquisition of land is reserved to the commissioners but I am sure that if the inspectors report that it would be advisable to acquire certain lands to facilitate a rearrangement scheme, the commissioners would consider it provided they were not infringing the law.

Mr. Bartley

In any event the Minister says that he is going to settle the allottees, where the problem is one of any determination arising out of or being part of a rearrangement scheme. I cannot see where the Deputies find any hope in that statement that rearrangement is going to be speeded up. In my opinion it is going to be retarded and confusion and chaos worse confounded will arise out of any attempt to operate this. It is all right if you have two people and the problem of rearrangement concerns only these two.

Any wise Solomon of a Land Commission inspector can come along and say: "Here, Tom, you divide the holding and, Jack, you will have the choice of the division." We all know it is not so simple as all that. If it were, the Minister would not have to take these powers. The rearrangement scheme has got to go on in the way we have been acquainted with heretofore; in other words, the ordinary machinery of the Land Commission goes ahead with the rearrangement schemes. I have no objection to the work of the Land Commission in the matter of rearrangement or in any other work. I have only one objection, and that is that it is too slow. The quality of the work was sound.

Mr. Blowick

And you are proposing to leave it so.

Mr. Bartley

If the Minister would only speed up the work and not bring confusion in as he is now doing, he would be doing a good job.

Mr. Blowick

It was the 1933 Act that brought in the confusion, not the Minister.

Mr. Bartley

The only thing I found wrong was the slowness of the work. The quality was sound. We all know the joke that appeared in Dublin Opinion about the Land Commission inspector going away after doing his work in a district. One local person says to the other: “Well, Jack, he must have done his work very fair because there is no one in the town satisfied.” That joke will not appear any more in Dublin Opinion because henceforth the dissatisfaction will be placed, entirely as a result of this, at the Minister's door.

I appeal to the Minister, if it is not too late, to withdraw this because it will lead to all sorts of confusion. It is much better that the Land Commission should take whatever blame there is in relation to the division of land or rearrangement. Now it would appear it is going to become a political football. The Minister will find that he will have retarded the work and confused everybody who has any interest in it—retarded it much more than has been the case up to the present. Does not everybody know that people interested in land will find out that under Section 10 the Minister will have all the say? It is all very well for the Minister to say that he will nominate an inspector to do the job, but the people will get a spokesman to get the Minister to influence that inspector, seeing that the work will be done directly on behalf of the Minister.

Mr. Blowick

In a rearrangement scheme?

Mr. Bartley

We have to take what is before us here. Section 10 points out:

"The following matters shall be excepted matters for the purposes of this section:—

(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...."

That is excepted, except in so far as it arises out of rearrangement and the obvious inference there is that where rearrangement is concerned the Land Commission no longer have an exclusive right to handle it.

Mr. Blowick

Are you satisfied with the present system?

Mr. Bartley

I am satisfied with the work they are doing but I am dissatisfied with the speed.

Mr. McQuillan

How would you have it speeded up?

Mr. Bartley

Will anybody convince me that giving the Minister the right to name A, B, C or D as allottees would speed up the work? The Minister does not take any power to speed it up but he is taking power to name the people to whom he is giving land, the people who will get it, and that is a retrograde step.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister is not going to name the persons who will get it.

Mr. Bartley

The Minister put his finger on it when he said that these schemes are not inspectors' schemes. If the people agree to the rearrangement this right of naming allottees does not come in at all. If there were only two or three holdings the thing would have been all right.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy must have been of great assistance to his Minister when his Party was in power—he must have been wonderful.

Mr. Bartley

If the Minister had an opportunity of looking up representations he would find out that when Fianna Fáil was over there the Fianna Fáil T.D.s concentrated on getting speed into the job, getting the work done. I challenge any Deputy to produce a letter from the Land Commission files in my writing objecting to the work of the Land Commission or to the people to whom they gave land or to the quality of their work. All my representations were to get the work speeded up. That is all I want to see done now.

We know the work was suspended from 1939. That was a great grievance so far as we in the West were concerned. But we accepted the assurance of the Government, who had the job of conducting the country through the war period, that it was a necessary suspension. We accepted it, although it was for us in the West politically unwise. It will be easy to get allottees if you can rearrange a scheme that is generally accepted. You could put the names into a hat and draw them out. The main thing is to get an acceptable scheme and I suggest the Minister does not aim at doing that in his amendment. I appeal to the Minister to shed these powers and leave things as they were. Above all, let him speed up the work.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy has admitted he was not satisfied with the speed of the Land Commission. Do not mind the letters or the representations. Did you ever have a serious conference with a view to helping your Minister for Lands to limber up the machine and get the work done more speedily?

In case any other Deputy would follow the mistake that Deputy Bartley fell into, I would like to make some points clear. Deputy Bartley seems to be confusing two things which are as diametrically opposed as the two Poles. One is the rearrangement scheme and the other is the allotting of a farm by way of giving it in additions to farmers at a distance from their own holdings. That scheme of dividing farms into small allotments and giving these to farmers with uneconomic holdings in some cases did more harm than good. You might give a man a few acres perhaps at a distance of four miles from his own holding, with the result that for his lifetime and possibly the lifetime of others after him practically all their time would be spent on the road going from one small place to another. In those cases you were really recreating congestion instead of relieving it. This is not to be confused with the rearrangement schemes.

In the case of allotments, giving them out, I do not propose to interfere. I would be the first to take up the cudgels to see that no Minister grabs that power for himself or takes the power to allot holdings to particular friends of his.

Mr. Bartley

That is what will be said.

Mr. Blowick

That is safeguarded in the section.

Mr. Moran

I was rather amused at the Minister's shadow boxing on this section because nobody knows better than the Minister, coming as he does from a constituency like Mayo, the tremendous political power he proposes to take under this section.

Mr. Blowick

This is obstruction— dirty obstruction.

Mr. Moran

He is taking under Section 10 the power of determination of the persons to be selected as allottees of any land and the determination of the price at which the land is to be sold to any allottee.

Mr. Blowick

Who is taking that?

Mr. Moran

You are taking it under Section 10. These are the powers in the Minister's section, in the Minister's language, and he asks the House to approve of them. There was never in the history of the country any Minister for Lands who proposed to take these particular powers. There is nobody more familiar with the political work that may be done if these powers are given to the Minister than the Minister himself. The Minister well knows that, in the rearrangement of land and in determining which particular allottee is to get a particular portion of land——

Mr. Blowick

On a point of order, is there any machinery available to the Chair by which, when a Minister or a Deputy makes a misleading statement he can be checked and prevented from being misleading by making such a statement as we have just heard?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no machinery by which it can construe a section.

Mr. Moran

Will the Minister tell me what is the misleading statement? If he does not think that this section means what I say it does mean, let him say so.

Mr. Blowick

What paragraph?

Mr. Moran

Paragraph (d) which deals with "the determination of the persons to be selected as allottees of any land". Is not that clear to everyone? It should be clear to the Minister. It means that the Minister is the person who is going to pick out those who are to be the allottees of land under this particular section. We are trying to stop the Minister from getting that power.

Mr. S. Collins

The Minister says he is not going to do that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If we had less interruptions we would get on a lot better.

Mr. Moran

I am trying to point out to Deputy Collins, who does not know, for his information that this particular section purports to give to the Minister power, again in the words of the section for "the determination of the persons to be selected as allottees of any land". Surely, that is clear in the section. That is what Deputy Moylan objects to; that is what the Opposition objects to and what I think Deputy Cogan objects to. In connection with the rearrangement of estates, the Minister well knows that the first difficulty is that some of the lands are good and that some are bad. If the Minister is going to be in the position that he will be under the section, to give, for instance, Clann na Talmhan supporters the best portion of the estates that are taken over——

Mr. Blowick

Thank God that day is gone.

Mr. Moran

Unfortunately, it is not gone, and that is why I object to this. He is in a position to do that. He deliberately purports to take that power by the legislation of this House. Then, I think, the House and Deputies, no matter what side they sit on, should oppose giving that power to any particular Minister. This opens wide the door to all kinds of political corruption and the Minister well knows it. If the Minister is going to be in the position to determine who are going to be the allottees of any land, surely there is no hope for the Minister's political opponents, and they may be people who may be entitled to a portion of that land. The Minister is taking unto himself this power which up to this was exercised by the Land Commission.

I certainly cannot see any reason why the Minister should take this power except for that one purpose—to ensure that where the Minister is dealwith an estate, he will be in a position to look after his own because this particular section gives him specific power so to do. Even under existing rearrangement schemes very many questions have been agitating the minds of the public in regard to how the Land Commission have been acting, and particularly in one rearrangement scheme with which the Minister is very familiar. It is in the immediate vicinity of the town of Castlebar—the Lucan Estate. It seems to me to be extraordinary that an industrial worker who had been sub-letting his land for twenty years and from whom the Land Commission took the land because he was not using it—he was working the whole time as an industrial worker in the town of Castlebar—should suddenly be made a present of portion of the Lucan Estate, a very valuable building site.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does that arise?

Mr. Moran

It does.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot discuss administration on this Bill, and I will not allow him.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy is making a specific charge against the commissioners, not against me.

Mr. Moran

I am making it against you.

Mr. Blowick

Give the name.

Mr. Moran

I will. Mr. Kenny, the Minister's right hand man in Castlebar.

Mr. Blowick

I will inquire into it and find out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moran has deliberately disobeyed the ruling of the Chair, and the one penalty for that is that he must leave the House.

Mr. Moran

If the Chair so orders I will leave the House.

Mr. Blowick

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I told the Deputy that he should not deliberately disobey the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Moran

With all respect to you. ——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I told the Deputy he should not go into matters of administration and discuss them. The Deputy deliberately did so, notwithstanding the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Moran

This was not a matter of administration. It was a matter of political corruption by the Land Commission, and if I have got to leave the House I will leave it.

Deputy Moran withdrew from the House.

Mr. Cogan

The intervention of the last speaker was not very helpful to this discussion. This is a very serious matter and a very serious problem. Do those Deputies suggest that, in putting down this amendment, I was in any way unsympathetic towards the people living in the congested areas, and particularly those on rundale estates? I have deep sympathy with those people and I believe there is a problem there which has to be solved. I believe that something definite must be done, apart from what has been done in the past, to solve that problem. I am not convinced that the Minister is going the right way about solving the problem. The main difficulty, as far as we can gather, is the fact that when an inspector succeeds, with the co-operation of the people concerned, in carrying out a rearrangement scheme and in getting complete agreement, there is a delay in giving that agreement legal effect. When delays occur the whole agreeement is upset. That, apparently, is the Minister's case. I want to ask the Minister if there is not some other way of settling this matter than by taking power out of the hands of the commissioners. Should not the Minister and his officials be able to act speedily in a matter of this kind?

As I said at the outset, it should not be impossible to compel the Land Commission to act speedily. I think it was Deputy Cowan who suggested that the Minister should be prepared to go down to the congested areas and remain there until the problem was solved. I would be prepared to go further and suggest that the whole Land Commission should be taken down there in lorries and should remain there until the problem was solved. They should be dumped on the spot to deal with this serious difficulty and be compelled to remain there until it was solved. I think there is no excuse for long delays in a matter of this kind.

We all know what the feelings of the rural people are in the matter of fighting for their rights. They have had a hard and a long struggle. Naturally, they are determined to make the best possible deal they can when it comes to a rearrangement scheme or to the exchange of little bits of land which they have on their small portions. When they do make an agreement it happens that it can be broken if it is not completed and given legal effect at once. Surely some machinery could be set up under which the agreement could be confirmed without any unnecessary delay.

I am convinced that the Land Commission, if they were compelled to do it, would act as quickly as the Minister could act. I am satisfied that they would be in a position to act more impartially. Deputies have borne witness to the fact that there has not been any serious complaint as to the manner in which schemes have been carried out by the Land Commission. There have been, of course, certain complaints from various people, but, on the whole, an impartial observer cannot find any scheme which is altogether wrong. There is always a reasonable attempt made to solve the problem on the spot. But the whole complaint is in regard to the delay which causes agreements to be upset completely and the work done by inspector with the co-operation of local people to be completely frustrated. That is what we want to avoid. That is the problem we want to solve. It will not be solved by heated exchanges across the House or by accusations of one kind or another. It will not be solved by restricting the power of the Land Commission and giving additional power to the Minister who is, after all, subject to political pressure of every kind from which the Land Commission could be, should be, and, I believe, to a great extent is immune.

Major de Valera

This matter is one of considerable import and I think it should be widely appreciated that this is a very objectionable form of legal drafting. In the first place, when it works out in fact, ministerial undertakings in the House as to the effect of legislation are of no value, for this reason: that the document will be construed and given effect to in a court according to its tenor in law and any outside undertakings given are of no effect. I am sure that very many people have experience in the past of constructions of documents contrary to the indications given at the time of the passing of the Bill. Therefore it is absolutely useless to consider as beneficial to the community any such assurance.

The plain fact is that this document, as drafted, by means of a dodge or trick, if you like, an exception to an exception, leaves complete power in the hands of the Minister which can be abused—I am not saying it will be abused. It is one of those things in regard to which it is undesirable that the Minister should take power, because, by not taking power, he hedges himself from political pressure.

For these reasons, I think it is objectionable. Let us accept Deputy Cogan's invitation and parse it and see where we are. Section 10, as it stands in the Bill, enacts in the first sub-section what are to be excepted matters. The first sub-section provides for exceptions. Then the important and operative part of the section, so far as we are concerned, is sub-section (2). Note the purport of sub-section (2), which 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 excepted matters, be exercised or performed by the Minister."

That sub-section says nothing more or less than this: that all the statutory powers or duties which heretofore the Land Commissioners or the lay commissioners had will be exercised by the Minister. That is general, subject only to the explicit exceptions mentioned in the first sub-section. In other words, we are dealing with a provision which says, in effect, so far as all these matters are concerned, that where the public were heretofore protected by a statutory independent body, a body that was protected from political pressure, namely, the Land Commission, which was dealing with these matters, now it is the Minister, a political personage, if you like, who will have this responsibility, because the powers are transferred to him, save certain excepted matters.

Mr. McQuillan

Is the Deputy aware that there are more excepted matters now than there were before?

Major de Valera

That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am trying to bring home the fact that the mechanism of this legislation is first, omnibus and, in the totality, to transfer all the powers of the Land Commission to the Minister, save those exceptions which are explicitly made. That being the position, you have only these specifically excepted matters outside the Minister's control. In other words, the presumption in law when this Bill is passed is that, unless the matter in question comes within the provisions of Section 10 (1), then the Minister has complete power, authority and jurisdiction in every other matter that arises.

Mr. S. Collins

Will not the effect be that he will have less power?

Major de Valera

Let Deputy Collins note what is in that. He is a lawyer and will appreciate the point. The point is that, supposing somebody comes to Deputy Collins with a question arising, what will Deputy Collins find himself up against? He may want to dispute something the Minister has done. What will he find? He will find that the onus of proof will be on him explicitly to bring the matter within the terms of sub-section (1) before he can question the power of the Minister to deal with the matter. That is a very important consideration. I am emphatic on the objective principle, not on any question of personality or of any Minister or Party in power. I would lean further in that direction than many other Deputies. It is fundamentally objectionable to take more powers of such a nature, involving equitable distribution as between citizens, into the hands of the Minister or of the Government than are absolutely necessary for the benefit of the community. It is objectionable from the point of view of the citizen, because those powers leave the citizens with very little redress against the State and with very little power of enforcing their rights against the combined machinery available to the State. That is one reason why it is objectionable.

I have already given the second reason—that it puts the Minister in the position of exercising functions that will to some extent embarrass him as making him the arbitrator between individuals in individual matters. In other words, you are, in giving a Minister powers such as these, removing a hedge or a protection which is a great help to him in discharging his duties to the public and which protects him from either accusations of corruption or from pressure by individuals on individual matters which might prejudice his judgment in the performance of his duties for the good of the community as a whole. For that reason, any section framed in this particular form, no matter where it is or what aspect of administration it deals with, should be suspect by the House and should be subjected to the closest scrutiny possible. Here we have a section which says that all power is transferred, all the powers and functions of the Land Commission are transferred to the Minister except the excepted matters. In other words, the Land Commission and the lay commissioners are also for all purposes, save the excepted matters——

Mr. S. Collins

And they are greater than before.

Major de Valera

That does not matter. The principle is still important because they are restricted to very definite sub-heads; and all residual power and jurisdiction falls into the Minister's hands for use or abuse as the case may be. Let us come now to the excepted matters and we find something more objectionable still. We find that allocations relating to rearrangement schemes slide into the Minister's power by way of an exception to an exception.

First of all, the Minister takes complete power out of the hands of the Land Commission and the lay commissioners into his own hands save in regard to these excepted matters. But everything that cannot be brought under the heading of the excepted matters goes into the Minister's hands. One of the excepted matters is (d) "the determination (other than the determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme) of the persons to be selected as allottees of the said land". A reserved matter then is the determination of the persons to be selected as allottees except where the determination relates to a rearrangement scheme. All that is excepted there is the determination of the allottees provided that a rearrangement scheme is not in question. The effect of the exception to the exception is that where allottees are to be determined in reference to a rearrangement scheme, then the Minister has complete power and jurisdiction to the exclusion of the Land Commissioners and the lay commissioners by virtue of sub-section (2). I submit that is the legal position. I would object to it on many grounds. I object to it particularly on the ground that this appears as a device to give a Minister power by way of an exception to an exception. He takes on certain powers and then explicitly excepts them; and then, by excepting once more from these explicit powers, he takes power back again.

Mr. S. Collins

That is nonsense.

Major de Valera

It is not nonsense. Take the section as it stands. It is open to that interpretation and, in fact, to no other interpretation. All powers are to be exercised or performed by the Minister except the excepted matters; and then in the excepted matters there is the exception "other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme."

Mr. S. Collins

And that is again limited if you read the section.

Major de Valera

You get back that power again.

Mr. Blowick

I would ask the Deputy to compare that with the section it repeals in the 1933 Act and show the difference.

Major de Valera

I am not in the least concerned with that.

Mr. Blowick

Of course you are not.

Major de Valera

I do not care whether it ever arose before. We are dealing here with a particular matter now. It is my personal opinion that this is objectionable. It is objectionable to take more powers than are necessary in this particular case. I have given reasons why it is objectionable on broad grounds, without reference to personalities. It is objectionable to take these powers. Apparently there is a case on certain grounds as to why rearrangement should not rest in the Minister's hands. But I am dealing with the form of this and I object to it on the grounds that it is the taking of power by a Minister by way of an exception to an exception. The position is that the Minister is taking omnibus powers. He then says there are certain excepted matters which thereafter become the sole function of the Land Commissioners and the lay commissioners. By this further exception, powers in relation to a rearrangement scheme then come back into the hands of the Minister. The Minister will have complete power in determining the allottees of lands under a rearrangement scheme. That is the legal position. Without any offence to the Minister, it does not matter a thrawneen what undertaking the Minister gives in the House. The law will be there and the law will have to be complied with. One can even go further and say that if any question of allocation comes up in regard to a rearrangement scheme, the Land Commission would have no function and could not deal with it. Not only is the Minister's assurance no good from the point of view of safeguarding the situation, but that assurance is itself to a certain extent misleading because the Land Commission, having no power to deal with the determination of allottees under a rearrangement scheme, it not being an excepted matter, the Minister would be forced by Statute to deal with it. There is no other alternative. The Minister will be in the position that, if allottees have to be dealt with under a rearrangement scheme, he will have under the section as it stands a statutory duty cast upon him and he cannot avoid dealing with the matter.

Mr. Sweetman

Is the Deputy really serious when he suggests that the Land Commission cannot do anything except the excepted matters? That appears to be his argument and that is nonsense.

Major de Valera

I do not go that far. The Deputy knows the arguments about "may" and "shall" as well as I do. I shall not go into that now.

Mr. Sweetman

The logical sequence to the Deputy's argument would be that and that is a reductio ad absurdum.

Major de Valera

That does not answer me.

Mr. Blowick

On a point of order, there is a place for legal men to wear out their minds, and I object to the time of the House being held up with such nonsense.

Major de Valera

The trouble is you are making the law here, and, if we do not consider it here when we are making it, we shall have very little chance elsewhere.

Mr. Blowick

You are wasting the time of the House.

Major de Valera

I am not wasting the time of the House and the Minister's nervousness on this gives cause for apprehension as to its ultimate application.

Mr. Blowick

I was accused of having no nerves.

Major de Valera

To resume, with reference to what Deputy Sweetman said, I quite concede his point but I have no intention of going into it at the moment. Even if the Minister, and I mentioned this as a danger, had concurrent powers with the Land Commission, he nevertheless would have power, in other words, he "may" and, if he may, one can use one's own judgment as to whether he will or not. Again, by reason of a device of having an exception to an exception, the Minister will have complete power under the section as it stands to deal with the allocation of land where a rearrangement scheme is concerned. Many Deputies, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, think that objectionable. Under the amendment before the House, they propose the deletion of the exception to the exception so that the matter will be straight, namely the Minister will get his powers with the explicit exception without any further exception to bring back the powers again into his hands.

Mr. S. Collins

I must confess I find myself rather amused at the hysterical legal argument of my colleague on the Opposition. I do not think Deputy Major de Valera can have seriously studied the land code in view of his contribution here this evening. His argument must inevitably fall to the ground on the basis that the situation which exists is that the general power he is complaining of vests in the Minister and under this new Act the Minister in fact is shedding infinitely more of the power he had before. It goes further. It removes, definitely and specifically, out of the hands of the Minister certain avenues of exploitation that Deputy de Valera thought might lead to political preference or to overpressure in any direction. The Deputy cannot even be honest in reading what is the exception to the exception. He suggests that the Minister takes all power then releases certain facets of that power from his own grasp and tries to slide back through an exception to an exception and regain this power. Read the little piece in brackets and co-relate it with the definition section. Deliberately you ran away from the limitation because it did not suit the purpose of your argument.

Major de Valera

Would the Deputy be more explicit about that?

Mr. S. Collins

Deputy de Valera went further by suggesting that there is some new sinister grabbing of power, which you may deem absolute, by the Minister that was never there before. How could the Land Commission be run at all if the powers he is lamenting about were not vested in the titular head of the Department, the Minister? I want Deputy de Valera to get away for the moment from the legal society debate atmosphere and get down to the practical reality of what is being done in this Bill. I will tell you what is being done. I have a fairly intimate knowledge of the Land Commission, having had the good luck to have a revered pére there for a number of years. I will tell you what the Minister is doing. He is tidying up a bit of the mess, not as tidily as I would like to see it done, but at least he is certainly giving the Land Commission an opportunity of belying many of the statements made in this House that it is a groaning outworn machine incapable of any new impetus to solve this problem.

I regard this particular section as one of the most significant advances yet made in our land code. With regard to Deputy de Valera's worry about the exception to an exception, I have none, because I think that if the Deputy, and certainly Deputy Moran, addresses his mind to the problem that this exception to the exception deals with he will realise that it is a conscientious decent effort to meet that problem that cannot be met in any other way.

Major de Valera

I am approaching this from the point of view of the section as it stands. I have expressed my views and I have pointed out that they are largely personal views. We can relate this section as it stands to the 1933 Act. In Section 6 of the 1933 Act you have an exception. However, these two sections are similar, but Section 6 of the 1933 Act operates by way of giving the Minister all powers and then an exception. But that sub-section does not go as far as to bring that power to the Minister's hands by way of an exception to an exception. Read Section 6 (1) of the 1933 Act. We have as one of the excepted matters sub-paragraph (d): "the determination of the persons to be selected as allottees of untenanted land". I would emphasise "as allottees of untenanted land". Here we have two changes. I will admit that the first is favourable, and that is one of the reasons why this section is an advance, if the objectionable clause in parenthesis were removed. Instead of "persons to be selected as allottees of untenanted land" it is "any land". I congratulate the Minister on the change from "untenanted" to "any". The words in parenthesis to which we object give the Minister complete powers in regard to a rearrangement scheme and the rearrangement scheme, according to the sub-section, means "a scheme which is framed or approved by an officer by virtue of sub-section (2) of this section for the rearrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots whether with or without the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said rearrangement".

I fail to get precisely Deputy Collins' point as to the exact force of that definition of "rearrangement scheme" on the argument which I made. The real effect is that where a rearrangement is concerned and defined the powers will be out of the hands of the Minister. I shall leave other Deputies who represent country constituencies and who are, therefore, more intimate with the matter to voice their objections on that. I can see good theoretical reasons why it would be preferable to leave it in the hands of the statutory body, both from the Minister's point of view and from the public point of view. But, dealing with this matter as it stands, I think it is objectionable. Deputy McQuillan has talked about speed. Let us ask ourselves seriously whether you will get very much speed through a State Department which has to deal with a multitudinous amount of affairs, nominally in the Minister's hands, or, as against that, through the deliberations and mechanisations of the Land Commission, which is also, as far as the Minister is concerned, a State Department. Are you going to get any great advance in speed by going to a Government Department under one head, so to speak, rather than to a Government Department under another head? There have always been and I think in all countries great complaints about delays in Government Departments. This arises because of the administrative machine and that applies equally to the Minister's Department and the Land Commission machine. I do not know that the question of time is involved in this amendment; if it is solely a question of time I think the suggestion already made by Deputy Bartley is a good one, that the machinery heretofore has been satisfactory and that it has the advantages which we have mentioned. As to the suggestion of getting it speeded up, it would be better for the Minister to direct his attention towards lubricating, so to speak, the works of the Land Commission and providing facilities for getting the work done quickly rather than taking the power and the odium — because the Minister will appreciate there is odium attached to this—into the Minister's own hands.

Mr. Blowick

May I address a few words to Deputy Moylan? I said a short time ago that it is not my desire, nor should I like to see it in this Bill, that the question of increasing allotments, additions or new holdings should be left in the Minister's own hands. The Deputy knows that the retention of that power in the Minister's hands would probably make life unbearable for him, but I take it that he would be satisfied if it were left in the hands of a senior inspector. If the Deputy sees any way of amending that, of making it watertight, so that the power of allotment of new holdings or of additions to holdings, would not be in the Minister's hands, but would be an excepted matter——

Mr. de Valera

Surely the Minister can find a method himself of achieving that?

Mr. Blowick

I have done my best to ensure that in the Bill. I want to make my position clear. Perhaps the wording of the parliamentary draftsman is capable of improvement.

Major de Valera

Strike out the parenthesis.

Mr. de Valera

Surely anybody who reads the Bill knows that the Minister is taking to himself the powers suggested here?

Mr. Blowick

For rearrangement schemes.

Mr. de Valera

In regard to price, in regard to the person to whom land is to be given, you are taking these powers explicitly.

Mr. Blowick

Yes, but not in the way Deputy Major de Valera has said.

Mr. de Valera

In regard to everything that is connected with rearrangement schemes.

Mr. Seán Collins

Subject to limitations.

Mr. de Valera

In regard to anything that can be brought under a rearrangement scheme. The Minister objected when I laughed a few moments ago when he spoke of offers. Do we not know that when there is a question of rearrangement, one way to get agreement is to make special offers to some of the tenants? We would object very strongly if any Minister came in here and proposed to put his hand into the public purse and distribute the money which he took out of it in any way he liked. But when you are proposing to give a man a present of land, you are doing precisely the same thing.

Mr. Blowick

You are giving back a man his own holding.

Mr. McQuillan

What do you call a present?

Mr. de Valera

A present to individuals.

Mr. McQuillan

It is not a present; it is a right.

Mr. de Valera

Does not every person in the country who is looking for land think he is entitled to it? You cannot possibly get enough land to go around.

Mr. McQuillan

You must try and solve the question some time.

Mr. de Valera

By all means but do so by right methods and not by a method which is fundamentally wrong. I objected to it in Committee and I will object to it on the Final Stage. I shall fight that principle so long as I am in this House because it is a completely wrong principle. It is open to corruption and it leaves the Minister open to the accusation, even when he is acting in the best interests of the community, of favouring friends. That is the type of thing which should not be in our legislation. The Minister has asked Deputy Moylan if he can improve it. I say it is the Minister's business to ask the parliamentary draftsman to draft the limited powers he wants so that when he brings forward any proposals in the form of a rearrangement scheme he will not have complete power in regard to any offer that is to be made, or any presents that will be made, arising out of such a scheme. He has power to determine all these things.

Mr. Blowick

Not at all.

Mr. Collins

Nonsense.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister will have to show, in accordance with the section, that he has not these powers.

Mr. Blowick

You will have to show where it is wrong.

Mr. Collins

Rubbish.

Mr. de Valera

It is not rubbish. Is it because certain Deputies say that it is rubbish we are to believe that it is so? Any reasonable man can read——

Mr. Blowick

I know the congestion problem better than anyone on that side of the House.

Mr. de Valera

It is not a question of the congestion problem.

Mr. Collins

It is.

Mr. de Valera

It is a question of the powers which the Minister is going to take under an Act of Parliament.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Any Deputy is entitled to be heard without interruption and there is no time limit. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard without interruption.

Mr. de Valera

I am arguing here against giving to the Minister the power that is given to him in this section. He proposes to take powers which, in effect, mean that wherever he is able to relate his proposals to a rearrangement scheme, he can, in regard to (d) and (e) of sub-section (1)—in regard to one case it is the question of price which formerly was an excepted matter but it is no longer an excepted matter —hold that it is a matter for the Minister. He is taking power, if he is able to relate it to a rearrangement scheme, to settle the question of price and to settle the question of who is to get land. That is a power which he should not seek and it is a power which should not be given to him on principle. The giving of land to individuals from a pool of land, purchased by public money which was made available for the purpose, means that you are giving a certain amount of public money to these individuals. It is the same as if you allowed the Minister to put his hand into the public treasury and to take out money to give to certain people whom he would select himself. I have opposed this section all through and I shall oppose it to the end.

Mr. Blowick

Let me say that I know for the first time why the Land Commission has been in existence for 16 or 17 years under Fianna Fáil and why the people of the country, who were supposed to benefit by the activities of the Land Commission, have been fooled.

Mr. de Valera

The Land Commission under Fianna Fáil distributed more land in one year than you would distribute in five.

Mr. Blowick

Is that so? We shall see. In your time it was muddled by men who did not understand the problem, who knew just as much about it as a cat does about flying.

Mr. de Valera

We thoroughly understood the problem.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It does seem to me, from hearing the speeches of both Deputy de Valeras, that the one is confused by lack of appreciation, on legal grounds, of what this section aims at, and the other is confused because he does not know anything about the land of Ireland—that refers to Deputy de Valera senior. I could not believe my ears when I heard him talking about the power given by this section to the Minister to give people a present of land. I represent a country constituency which has a certain amount of congestion and which will, to a certain extent, be affected by the section, but I have not the personal knowledge of the Minister and other Deputies of this particular problem. I do know that the entire problem to be tackled by rearrangement schemes does not involve the present from the Minister or the State of land to anybody.

Mr. de Valera

Does it not?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Quite the contrary. It could never be carried out unless there was the full consent of everybody likely to be affected.

Mr. Blowick

That is correct.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is hard to know what Deputy de Valera thinks. He puts himself on a pedestal that he has created for himself. He thinks about land division and believes there is going to be an allotment to a person who never had land before.

Mr. de Valera

That is, of course, what it is.

Mr. S. Collins

Do not show your lack of knowledge.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I do not know whether it is the policy of Deputies opposite to repeat things so as to try to convince people of something—I doubt if they can convince themselves. Here we have a sub-section referring merely to a rearranging scheme which is defined clearly in the section as a scheme dealing with land held in rundale or in intermixed plots. That is clearly defined there and the section can only refer to that. If there is any sense in clear words it is in that section. Nevertheless we have Deputy Vivion de Valera working himself up into a frenzy. He arrived in the House at a late hour. He sits back to see what the sub-section is about. He reads it and he thinks he understands it. The attitude shown by Deputy de Valera, senior, and the other Deputy de Valera is either the result of failure to appreciate this problem or it comes from a far more serious foundation. I do not know whether either of the Deputies was in the House when the Minister spoke.

When I saw this particular section I had very definite views about it. I felt there was something in the section that I might possibly take objection to. I made inquiries which I considered proper with regard to it and I was satisfied as to the necessity and the urgency for this power. I am certain that any Deputy who listened to the Minister speaking to-day and showing why these powers were required must have been convinced. We heard the Minister stating that in one particular case for almost 40 years—and I am sure for considerably longer in other areas—there has been a problem of small holders with their acreage scattered all over a countryside, existing on what must be the very border of starvation. It is like the case mentioned of the holder with seven acres in 33 different plots, not one of them touching—and they were unfenced plots.

Problems like that that have continued for a great number of years can only be solved by the agreement of the parties concerned to a rearrangement, so that each will get an economic unit. Where that problem exists it is perfectly clear to anyone who understands the countryside and our people that when you are trying to get an agreement like that you must get the parties together and convince them that the particular scheme that is suggested is in their interest. You must get the agreement and you must be in a position to enforce it there and then.

Mr. Blowick

On the spot—that is the principle.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

What the Minister pointed out satisfied me and would have satisfied Deputy Moylan if Deputy de Valera had not come into the House. Where you have to have a rearrangement scheme like that, depending on old, creepy Civil Service machinery, where the particular scheme must go up as a proposal right to the hierarchy of the Land Commissioners to receive their sanction after consideration, and then go down again after a certain period of time as a sanctioned agreement, if you have that time lag, it is perfectly clear that what was agreed six months before will become in the interval somewhat upset and there will be disagreement. I think it is perfectly clear, and I accept what the Minister said, that what I am saying now has been the experience of the Land Commission, and the Minister has been charged with that responsibility for a great number of years. The proof is that this problem is still there and it cannot be solved because of the time lag and the difficulty of getting an official with plenary powers to deal with the problem on the spot.

I was very surprised when I heard Deputy Bartley's contribution to the discussion. Deputy Bartley, like Deputy Commons, Deputy McQuillan, the Minister and others, comes from an area in which there is considerable congestion. He must be as well aware of this problem as any other Deputy. I am sure he spoke here in absolute good faith and what he said he meant, and it represented his experience. What was Deputy Bartley's contribution? He said that his experience was that the only thing wrong with the Land Commission with regard to rearrangement schemes was that they were too slow.

Mr. Bartley

This will make them slower.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I cannot understand why, if he holds these views, he is sitting like a very sulky child up there on the opposite benches. If that is his view it is his duty to his constituents to support the section and reject the amendment. If he does not do that and if by any fell chance the amendment is carried, he will have a great deal to explain why he voted for continuing a time lag, a delay that through almost half a century has prevented the solution of this problem.

Mr. Bartley

I will have more to explain if I vote for this.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again later.