Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 3 Nov 1964

Vol. 212 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Land Bill, 1963—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Earlier I was endeavouring to point out the serious consequences this section will have for the owners of land and the agricultural community generally. I pointed out that Deputy Sweetman referred to certain aspects of this section but the Minister in his reply completely ignored them. The Minister and Fianna Fáil seem to be using this section as an excuse for the introduction of the entire Bill. We are told there is a great problem of congestion, that it cannot be solved without the passing of this Bill and that the main provision of the Bill is section 13, to which this Party strongly object on principle.

In days gone by, landlords held sway over the land of this country and, through the efforts and leadership of such men as Davitt, Parnell, Dillon and others, the right of ownership of land for the farmers of Ireland was secured. My objection to this section is that it takes away the right these men won. I ask the Minister, and I address the same query to any Deputy: what is the difference between the landlords and the head landlord now to be established under the title of Minister for Lands? This section is establishing the Minister as head landlord of this country. While we had good landlords, we also had bad landlords. It has been said that if there were good Lord Lucans, there were very bad Lord Lucans. If we had good Ministers for Lands we may have bad Ministers for Lands, who may abuse section 13. The great danger is the use of section 13 coupled with section 27. Under section 27 the Minister will have the right to cause an inspection. Used along with section 13, this means that any Minister for Lands who desires to do so may avail of this section for Party and political purposes, may put the hand of fear on his neighbours and intimidate them at election time or at any other time.

The Minister may order his inspector to stand on a man's lands whereupon, if the farmer is thinking of disposing of them, they at once fall in value. Every auctioneer knows that the moment an inspector walks out on to a farm, it is the general opinion for ten miles around that that farm will be divided. No man anxious to live in friendship with his neighbours will purchase that farm if it is inspected by the Land Commission. There is clear evidence in the Land Commission that the moment an inspection takes place, unless the Land Commission buy at their own price, whether it is the full market price or otherwise, there is no hope of any private purchaser and the farm falls in value overnight.

It has happened that, as a result of Land Commission inspection, there has been no other purchaser and the owner has been compelled to sell to the Land Commission. If the Minister so desires, he can use this section as blackmail against his political opponents. It is a dangerous power for the House to invest in any Minister, no matter to which Party he belongs. The big danger is the abuse of this section, and knowing Fianna Fáil as I know them over the years, I do not trust them on section 13. Anyone familiar with their record in relation to land acquisition and division and the manner in which certain people have been intimidated over the years cannot possibly trust them with section 13.

Earlier today we heard the Minister make a most apologetic speech, contrary to every speech he made on this Bill in relation to the purchase of land by non-nationals and aliens. Recently, when Deputy Hogan had an amendment down asking that the Land Commission control the purchase of land by non-nationals and aliens and a little over 12 months ago when Deputy Dillon introduced a Private Member's Bill asking that a register of aliens be kept and that the Land Commission keep an eye on the purchase of land by non-nationals and aliens, the Minister said it was not a very serious problem and that the only lands purchased by them were lands we were glad to see go, lands that nobody else would purchase. In addition, we were told that Fine Gael and the Labour Party were giving an exaggerated picture of the position. The Minister held those views strongly even on the last day the House met. But now he tells us the Government have come to the conclusion that there is a serious problem. They must have decided that since the last day the House met.

Mr. Corish

"C.J." decided it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Last week the Minister for Agriculture went down to Loughrea and announced what the Government were going to do about this matter, but there was not a word from the Minister for Lands. He made no speech on the Land Bill since the last day the House met. This is a matter which calls for close inquiry. I have here a cutting from the Irish Independent, page 8, column 7, of New Year's Day, 1964. The heading is “Curbing Land Sale to Aliens”. I quote :

A Bill which would shortly be introduced would, it was hoped, defeat misuse of land division and would have a definite effect in preventing foreigners from buying up vast tracts of Irish land——

Says who?

—said Mr. Childers, Minister for Transport and Power, at a meeting of the National Farmers' Association in Castleblayney.

A special register on vacated farms was being compiled by the Land Commission, he added.

The Minister was accompanied by Mr. P. Mooney, T.D, and Senator J.J. Brennan.

The Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Agriculture seem to know more about what is going on in the Land Commission, and in land legislation, than the Minister for Lands who is responsible to this House for them. We are told that the Government have decided at long last that the purchase of land by aliens is a serious matter and a grave problem—

Mr. Moran

No one has said that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I must be very dumb if I cannot very clearly understand what the Minister for Agriculture said in Loughrea last Sunday.

Mr. Moran

I suggest the Deputy reads what the Minister said in Loughrea last Sunday.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If I were to start to re-deliver the speech the Minister for Agriculture made in Loughrea, it is understandable that your ruling, Sir, would be that the Minister for Lands is not responsible for what the Minister for Agriculture says. I respectfully suggest that when there was a major change in Government policy in relation to the purchase of lands by aliens, the Minister for Lands, if he knew a change was being made, is the man who should have made a statement in relation to this change of heart on the part of the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is getting away from section 13.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Again on section 13, the Minister comes here tonight and endeavours to convey to the House that the NFA are in agreement with him in relation to section 13, and proceeds to quote from a letter which was recently addressed to him by the NFA. I presume I have the same letter as the letter from which the Minister was quoting, and if I have he left out certain portions to suit his own purposes, because the NFA do not agree with section 13 of this Bill. Because of the fact that the Minister is on record as having quoted what the NFA wrote to him conveying to the House that they were in agreement with section 13, I want to point out what the NFA gave as their considered opinion from 27 Earlsfort Terrace. The heading is "Observations of National Council on Land Bill, 1963" and it is dated October, 1964. They state:

Section 13 prohibits any sale, transfer, letting or subletting (except by consent of the Land Commission) of land in respect of which the Land Commission has instituted or propose to institute proceedings for acquisition or resumption.

Where proceedings have been instituted, the control period runs until the termination of these proceedings. Where notice of inspection with a view to possible acquisition has been served, the control period runs for one year.

We regard as a drastic interference with the rights of ownership the proposal that by simply serving a notice of inspection, a Land Commission officer of Senior Inspector or higher rank, can "freeze" all dealings in a holding for one year. We appreciate the necessity of empowering the Land Commission to take prompt and effective action in certain circumstances but we consider the Land Commission prohibition under this section, of transfer, letting and sub-letting should be limited to one month. Sales of land should not be prohibited but instead should be dealt with in the following manner.

Mark this: They make it very clear that sales of land should not be prohibited and then the Minister tries to convey to us that the NFA are in agreement with him on section 13. They go on to recommend:

(a) Before any sale of land could be completed the Land Commission would have to be given an opportunity of buying the land at a price not less than that agreed in the draft contract of sale. It is important that payment be made in cash for land purchased by the Land Commission.

(b) If the Land Commission does not buy within one month, the original deal would go through.

(c) If the Land Commission buys, the land should be distributed speedily in accordance with the following set of priorities:—

(i) to make the existing uneconomic holdings of Irish farmers into viable units;

(ii) to provide viable holdings for Irish farmers willing to give up their existing holdings in congested areas;

(iii) to provide viable holdings for suitably qualified Irishmen who are at present landless.

We in Fine Gael subscribe very generously to that important recommendation. Those are the recommendations which have been made in connection with this section. They go on to say :

Since section 13 as drafted appears to provide the means of controlling the sale of land to non-nationals, we feel that any further sales of land to non-nationals for agricultural purposes ... should be specifically prohibited in the Bill.

That is the considered opinion of the NFA in relation to this section. My reading of it is that on the whole they object to the provisions of section 13, and that no matter what line the Minister may take to suit himself, it is the general considered opinion of the National Council that it is an undesirable section. Whether the Minister is in the section of the Government that is for the Bill, or the section of the Government that is against the Bill, I do not know, but it should be made clear that this provision has been hatched by Fianna Fáil for their own purpose, and whether it is the purpose of blackmailing people to contribute generously to the funds, or for their votes, it is ill-conceived and ill-advised and it will have very evil consequences. That is why we are so bitterly opposed to any Minister getting the powers which this section would give.

For the record I want to repeat what I said before the Summer Recess in order to give an assurance to the landowners of this country in regard to the chains of section 13 which will bind them very severely if this section is passed in its present form—and this assurance was also given by the Leader of the Opposition. As soon as a change of Government takes place after the next general election we will loosen those chains. This ill-conceived and ill-advised section will be suitably amended. We guarantee to the landowners that in the future they will enjoy, as they now enjoy before the provisions of this Bill are passed, the right of free sale, fair rent and fixity of tenure.

Mr. Moran

Lest there might be any misunderstanding, I do not propose to deal with the provisions of section 27 until the House comes to section 27. There is nothing else I have to say except this: It has been alleged that there is something extraordinary in any member of the Government making an announcement about any matter except that concerning his own particular Department. It would appear that Deputy O. J. Flanagan has never heard of the constitutional rule about collective responsibility. What, in fact, the Minister for Agriculture said in this connection is as follows:

I am sure you have all heard references made from time to time about the amount of land being bought by foreigners. I want to let you know that the Government have recently reviewed the general position and that they have come to the conclusion that it is now advisable to introduce tighter control over these transactions. We have taken this decision calmly, after careful examination of all the facts, and without regard to the often misleading statements which were sometimes made about this subject.

We have been maintaining a close watch on the number and size of agricultural properties purchased by non-nationals and the total amount involved. The Minister for Lands has periodically reported to the Government on the position and it was always our intention that, if ever it appeared that the 25 per cent special stamp duty was inadequate as a protective device, we would adopt more stringent measures.

I do not wish to suggest that there has been any widespread evasion of the existing heavy stamp duty or that any large areas of land have been sold to non-nationals. There is some reason to think, however, that a few Irishmen have found ways to facilitate the purchase of farms by non-nationals, using legal subterfuges which enabled the purchasers to evade the special duty. In short, loopholes have been found —and we have decided that they must be closed before any general harm is done.

On a number of occasions I informed the House that this subject was kept under very close scrutiny and that should it appear to the Government at any time that other action was necessary such action would be taken —and that is exactly what has happened. While, as I have said earlier on this section, we have heard vague rumours as to devices being adopted to evade the existing law under the Finance Act, we have no proof of it. Neither I nor my colleagues have any proof of it. I invited members of the House to let me know of any particular case where it was suspected that the law was being evaded but we have had no response from any member of the House in that connection.

At all events, this suggestion that control would be effected in this way on sales to non-nationals has come through different bodies including the National Farmers Association. It has been suggested that the Land Commission are the proper body to deal with this matter rather than the Revenue Commissioners as is the position under the Finance Act. There is substance in that suggestion. I think the Land Commission are probably better geared to find out than are the Revenue Commissioners whether much land would be concerned in transactions of this kind and they are in a better position to ascertain whether the law is being broken or evaded.

I think there have been certain administrative objections by the Department of Finance in trying to deal with this problem in the way that was provided under the Finance Act. I feel that this provision in the Land Bill will be a more effective method of dealing with any alleged abuses. That does not mean to say that we have evidence that there is any widespread evasion of the law or that there are the abuses that have been suggested loosely from time to time by different people speaking on this problem.

As far as section 13 is concerned, I repeat that this Bill would be completely ineffective without it. It is essential so as to enable the Land Commission to make an impact on the relief of congestion. I agree that the National Farmers Association have stated that they are opposed to the section. What I did quote from their letter was their appreciation of the necessity to empower the Land Commission to take prompt and effective action in certain circumstances. How these people who are concerned with the relief of congestion suggest that the Land Commission can effectively deal with the problem without some such powers as these is beyond my comprehension. It is very easy to talk about fixity of tenure and free sale, and at the same time, to suggest that the Land Commission can get land and deal with the congestion problem but it does not make sense to me. We have seen holdings being sold in these congested counties, week in and week out, that should have come into the hands of the Land Commission but, due to the deficiency in the legal machinery of the Land Commission, they have been unable to take action in time.

As Deputies know, before this Bill was introduced, the Land Commission could take land for the relief of congestion, where there was congestion in the immediate vicinity of that land and irrespective of how that land was used or worked. That power was already there. It is, therefore, not correct to state that every landowner is quite free to sell his land to whomsoever he wishes. This other power was there, for the Land Commission to take land in a congested area, before ever this Bill was brought in. I suggest to Deputies who are concerned with this problem that this section is essential to the Bill and that the Bill would be unworkable without it. I therefore ask the House to accept it as it stands.

Mr. O'Sullivan

If one listened to the Minister in the past ten minutes, and had no knowledge of the fact that there is within the ambit of the Land Commission a pool of land which they have been letting year after year, one could readily understand his reference to the urgency attached to embracing thousands more of holdings in the country so that he would meet the demand upon him to divide land. If the situation was reached that the land which was already in the possession of the Land Commission and which was being let year after year has been disposed of, then one could understand, although not agree with, the drastic measures proposed in this Bill. Surely it blows the Minister's case sky high when one realises the fact that he has in his Department land that has been let for a period as long as ten years?

Is it not true that the Land Commission have been letting lands which they acquired a decade ago and are still letting them? What explanation can be offered by the Minister for this? What would he regard as an ordinary time within which the land should be redistributed? Would he regard two or three or four years as normal? Or does he think, in a situation such as this, five or six or up to ten years would be involved? Do we not all know how many auctioneers are registered by the Department of Lands for the purpose of letting lands in the possession of the Land Commission year after year?

The Minister referred a few moments ago to the difficulty encountered on the legal side: there are no legal difficulties in regard to the lands. All the legal aspects have been resolved and, therefore, the Minister's reasons are not sustained for a moment that it is necessary in this measure to destroy what was won, God knows with what loss of life and limb, by our forebears in securing fixity of tenure for people living on the land. He must provide this House and the country with extraordinary reasons before he can get people to accept from him that it is either necessary or desirable to accept this section of the Bill giving such extraordinary powers. I suggest the Minister might at this stage explain what is preventing the Land Commission from redistributing the land already in their possession and which they are letting over such long periods, if that situation exists.

Mr. Leneghan

I suppose it is well known here as in the country that this Bill is no longer known as the Land Bill but as the anti-auctioneers Bill. Every auctioneer and everybody associated with them is now organising against the Bill. A certain section of newspapermen carries on the same kind of propaganda but I see no reason why the Minister should be dictated to by newspapermen, some of whom do not know their own religion but who have the audacity to dictate to us and to the Minister. If the Minister does not now take the steps he has decided to take and which are badly needed, somebody else will have to take the same steps when it is too late. I do not intend to hold up the House for many minutes but some steps must be taken to ensure that in the near future there should be an equitable distribution of the land of this country. Such steps are overdue and I ask the Minister to make it quite clear to the House now that he is not going to be dictated to by minions of the newspapers or by political eunuchs of the main Opposition Party here.

General MacEoin

I approach this section in a slightly different way from that of my colleagues. Knowing the history of Fianna Fáil, it reminds me of my youth. In Longford, some 60 or 70 years ago, we had a famous election known as the Martyn-Greville election. Greville was the landlord and he demanded that every one of his tenants should vote for him and anybody who voted against him—unfortunately at that time there was open voting: a man had to put up his hand in the market square to say how he was voting— had his notice to quit the next day. I fear that this power being taken into the hands of an Executive that has been fairly ruthless in their threats— they did not always carry them out because unfortunately people gave way to their wishes—is a menace likely to recreate the Greville situation of 70 or 80 years ago.

I have a clear knowledge of one farmer who, not wishing to lose his land at that time decided to lie in bed and be "sick". He was made to get up and when he was in Granard and asked to whom he was giving his vote, he said he was voting for honest John Martyn. He was nearly killed for saying so and next day he got notice to quit and his farm was divided into three parts, like all Gaul, and in that area from that day to this there are three congested holdings.

When we find a prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party writing to islanders saying they could not expect to make headway in their economic demands unless they had an affiliated branch of the Fianna Fáil club there——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does this arise on the section? I might point out to the Deputy, who has been wandering somewhat, that the section deals with the prohibition of sale, transfer, letting or subletting of certain lands without the consent of the Land Commission.

General MacEoin

I shall try to prove——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must relate his remarks to the section if he is to continue.

General MacEoin

If the Chair will bear with me——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has borne with the Deputy for a considerable time but the Chair will not be so patient if the Deputy refuses to listen to the Chair.

General MacEoin

I beg your pardon, Sir; I shall listen to the Chair. Before any sale of land can be completed and when the land has been inspected or notice of intention to inspect is served, it can neither be set. let nor put up for sale, nor, in my opinion, bequeathed by the farmer. I think that this fits in with the whole system being thought out at the moment by the Government. Why, I do not know, unless it is for the reasons I am trying to adduce. I assert that if there is a proper, affiliated branch of Fianna Fáil in the area and a man is a member of it, he will have no difficulty whatever in bequeathing, selling, letting or subletting his holding. That is why I respectfully submit I am in order in drawing attention to this particular aspect of the affair as I see it.

I met representatives of the farmers' association, not at my request, but at theirs. They were amazed that any one of us would even for a second consider agreeing to section 13. When I see what the national body has produced I must say it is very mild compared with what they said to me. I wish to goodness they would have the courage to use the same language to the Minister as they used to me. Apparently they think that this is a gentle way of impressing the Minister. It is quite clear that the Minister is not impressed because he considers that the Bill would be more effective with this section, although the next moment he admits that the Land Commission have power to acquire land, no matter where it is and no matter who owns it, provided it is for the relief of congestion and there is congestion in the area.

What constitutes an area? Dear knows, the country is small enough. The whole country from Cork to Donegal and from Mayo to Dublin is an area, and that is all it is. There may be some legal interpretation of the word "area" but I doubt it very much. Therefore, the Land Commission have statutory power to acquire land but there are certain obligations on them when they do so. They must either give an alternative or provide ample compensation. Surely that is just. If it is going to be argued that land can be taken at a knock-down price where is the equity in that? I should like any Fianna Fáil farmer Deputy listening to me to consider for a moment if he were in our position if we brought in a Bill such as this. I respectfully suggest that the Fianna Fáil farmer Deputies would rake the House and that they would not in any circumstances allow us to put such a measure through.

The Land Commission, when they serve notice, can freeze land under this section. I know there have been occasions on which the Land Commission did serve the notice to inspect and did inspect. The Minister for Transport and Power, when he was Minister for Lands, knows one of the cases I have in mind in which a 300 acre farm was inspected. Then there was the agitation for its division and I mentioned it here some years ago, but it was not divided. There was no buyer for it because the Land Commission had served notice of intention to inspect. I want to assert here and now that a very prominent Fianna Fáil supporter in the area bought that farm for a song and he has it ever since. There was no notice of intention to inspect from that day to this.

There was another farm of land where notice of intention to inspect was served. There was nobody to buy it. The late Deputy Victory and myself attended a meeting to urge the Land Commission to acquire it. When I went there I was greeted with the remark that they did not expect I would attend. I said it was the first Fianna Fáil group meeting I ever attended but then I had pleasure in attending it. They had the list made out as to who was to get the land. There was no buyer for the land. That family could not sell it. No matter what effort was made nobody would buy it. Again, after a short time, the secretary of the Fianna Fáil group bought the farm. There was no intention to inspect it.

This constitutes a threat to the lives of the people of the country. It is something I would appeal to the Minister, and appeal to the Government, as an ordinary plain Deputy, to think twice about before they go on with these provisions. Never mind the National Farmers Association. Never mind the auctioneer nor the pressmen. That does not arise. The only question that arises is whether it is fair or equitable to any farmer? Let any one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies sitting opposite me who has a farm of land which he wants to sell, consider whether it is mean because a Fine Gael or Labour member has agreed that if he applies to the Land Commission to have it inspected the Land Commission can send out notice of intention to inspect it. Is it fair that the Fianna Fáil farmer would be held up for 12 months? I do not care how bad a Fianna Fáil fellow he was. There are decent men there as well as anywhere else but that temptation should not be put in the way and the ill-will and the bad practice of the Martyn-Greville election will be repeated every time this section is operated—not perhaps every time but in a great number of cases. Therefore, before the Government proceeds with this, I would ask the Minister to reconsider it and withdraw section 13 altogether and recommit it with the reduction of the period, if it has to be inspected, to one month, which is a reasonable time. Then if it was for sale after the Land Commission failed to purchase it at the contract price, or if they did not do it within one month then the person selling the land is entitled to sell it freely.

Mr. Gilhawley

Níl mórán le rá agamsa. I should like to relate the few words I have to say to my own constituency. There is in this matter something I should like to refer to in order to clarify it. In so far as the distribution of acquired land by the Land Commission in my constituency is concerned I have found it fair. I should like to put that on record. I also know that at the moment there are suggestions abroad that there is political influence in what has come up. I hope it is not true that political influence overrides the decisions of the local Land Commission officers, whether they be in Mayo, Leitrim, Sligo or anywhere else. That idea is gaining ground. I do not believe in it. It is not correct in my county. I have not seen it since I became a member of this House and I hope it is not true and will not be true, in so far as my county in concerned anyway. I would suggest, as I have already suggested, that we get more staff and engineers if we are to carry out more work.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would not seem to arise on the section.

Mr. Gilhawley

I hope I have put my point home anyway. The only other matter I should like to mention, which has already been mentioned, is in relation to section 13. The three F's are there for a long time and I would like to see them maintained in the future.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The Minister is very anxious to push this section through with a view to dealing with congestion. Deputy O'Sullivan has mentioned the question of large pools of land lying in the hands of the Land Commission for many years. If my memory is correct, it was a colleague of the Minister, Deputy Seán Flanagan, who mentioned land being in the hands of the Land Commission for a period of 30 years. It is strange now that the same Deputy who asked originally about that on the Estimate now comes along and is most eager to ask for more land for the Land Commission.

I wonder would the Minister be able to give us any information as to how much abuse actually arises. He mentioned "jumping the gun". I should imagine that where landowners try to forestall the Land Commission as regards sales, it would be impossible by private sale. Has the Minister any figures in the Department of the amount of land sold here by public auction and the amount sold by private treaty? If an extensive racket is going on—if I may use the word— to sidetrack the Land Commission, surely we should have some figures available to us to show how often this has occurred and what acreage of land has been affected by this method of private treaty sales which we gather from the Minister, seems to be pretty widespread through the country. So far, he has given us no indication as to the amount of land transferred by that means.

Have the Land Commission any figures available to show whether we were stopped acquiring ten per cent of the land sold in this country by some manoeuvre in the past 12 months, by private treaty sales or otherwise. If such figures are available, I would like the Minister to give them to us, to give us some indication as to whether the Land Commission are really being by-passed to such a degree as to make their work in the field of land division less effective than it would be when this Bill is passed. The Minister tells us that there has been, as far as he knows, widespread evasion of the 25 per cent duty on purchase of land by aliens. There has been considerable difference of opinion on the question in this House on the amount of land purchased by aliens. The figures given by the Minister, under legislation which he set up a few years ago, do not tally at all with those submitted by other organisations, particularly the NFA.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That question would arise more relevantly on section 27.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): I maintain that this question of the evasion of the 25 per cent duty is really a very small matter. To most of those people buying land here, 25 per cent duty means very little. I submitted an amendment before the Summer Recess in which I asked the Minister to make provision that where an alien bought land, the purchase should not be sanctioned without the prior consent of the Land Commission. The Minister completely derided the suggestion. It was wrongly drafted according to him. I am not a lawyer, of course, and the Minister is. It was wrongly drafted and he was perturbed at the interference it would entail between a solicitor and his client.

Now I find in the newspapers a couple of days ago the new Minister for Agriculture has practically adopted that suggestion and has told us that the necessary legal enactments will be introduced shortly to carry out in essence the suggestion I made at that time. It is extraordinary how his colleague changed the Minister's mind. The Minister has not done anything about it yet but apparently he will tell us the details later on. He has told us also that he does not want us to discuss section 27 at this stage. Whether it is discussed with section 13 or not, all of us must correlate these two sections in our minds. I would suggest to all Deputies that when they read section 13, they should also read section 27, as they hang together.

I have been amazed at the silence of Deputies on the far side of the House all through the discussion on this Bill. So far as I can recall, only two Fianna Fáil members have spoken on it. One was Deputy Burke who is an innocent man and probably does not know much about land at all. The other is the Minister's colleague, Deputy Seán Flanagan from Ballyhaunis, who is a very active and energetic solicitor and has been dealing substantially in a professional capacity with sales, division and buying and selling of land all his life. I am very taken aback by the fact that, apart from these two, there have been no speeches whatever from the rural Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party. Rural Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party have spoken outside this House on this Bill. I was present when a member of the Party opposite stood up and, thinking it would be a palatable thing to say, admitted he was opposed to certain sections of the Bill. Of course the Deputy will be as silent as a mouse in this House. I would ask the Minister to allow an open vote on certain sections of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss that on section 13. Section 13 is a very specific section indeed.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): It is a specific section and I am asking the Minister to do a specific thing with it—put it to an open vote. Certain sections in this important Bill should not be made narrow Party issues. They affect everybody. They affect Deputies over there as well as here. If Deputies on the Government benches were allowed to express themselves openly, without a Party Whip being imposed on them, I am quite certain many of them would express agreement with our attitude to many sections, including section 13.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I wish also to appeal to the Minister to reconsider the provisions in this section 13. The Minister has probably seen the wisdom of not taking up too rigid an attitude in regard to matters such as this. I am sure he does not regard the announcement made by the Minister for Agriculture the other day as a surrender on his part but rather as meeting a point of view put forward seriously and, when considered by the Government, found to have considerable merit.

I suggest to the Minister that his approach to this section might be on the same lines. It is undoubtedly true that one of the most treasured possessions of anyone, particularly in an agricultural country—and the good Lord did make this an agricultural country, whether we like to admit it or not—is the right to own land and by the right to own land, I mean the right to full ownership of that land. It is a natural right. It is a right which presupposes the right of free sale.

The Minister does not need any reminding, nor does any Deputy, of the fight waged in this country in days gone by to secure for our people the right of free sale as one of the three F's. The right of free sale is now challenged in a very definite manner by the Minister and the Government in the Bill we are considering. One of the sections which throws out the strongest challenge to the right of full ownership and of free sale is section 13.

Many arguments have been advanced as to why the Minister should not continue to travel along the lines he has set himself in this section. If he were to sit down seriously to consider these arguments as genuine and constructive and not in the light of regarding them as political arguments, he would find there is very considerable merit in them. The arguments advanced from these benches represent the views of this Party and the views of those who sent the Deputies of this Party to the House to represent their wishes.

It is quite clear, and must be evident to the Minister as well as to the Deputies sitting behind him who represent rural constituencies, that quite apart from the members of the Fine Gael Party, there is a large volume of opinion, not political opinion, in the country which expresses the gravest doubts and fears with regard to the measures the Minister proposes, particularly in sections 12 and 13 of this Bill. I am quite sure those views have been made known to the Minister and to the Deputies sitting behind him.

The views of which I am now speaking are not those of a political Party but of people concerned for the welfare of this country and of the individuals in it. If he persists in insisting that section 13 of the Bill will be carried by a guillotine vote in this House, by a counting of heads, by the exercise of the Party Whip, the Minister will certainly not be doing justice or a good day's work for the people of this country, even for those on whose behalf he speaks—the people who require genuinely a division of land in order to put themselves on some kind of economic basis.

One of the fears held in connection with this section—I should not like the Minister to misunderstand me: I am not referring to him personally or to anyone in any personal way because it could be true to-day, tomorrow or right down through the years—is on the danger of abuse, that if the section as it stands is passed into law, it is open to the very gravest of abuses. It is open to political abuse and to what I might call private abuse arising out of greed or envy in any locality. I am quite sure the Minister does not intend that the section should operate in that way but he is here inviting the House to lay the groundwork which would set up the machinery to open the measure to abuses of the gravest sort. We must remember that the Minister, his political Party or this political Party will not live forever: others will take our places on all benches in this House and we do not know what kind of inheritance we shall leave them if we open the door to the types of abuse that could become rampant if this section becomes law.

On the score of political abuse, the danger is that if this section becomes law and if it rests consequently with the Minister to press the button and decide what land will be subject to inspection and what land will not, it is straight away quite clear there will be a political temptation and that political abuse may follow if a future Minister is not strong enough to resist the temptation in the days to come. Once the Minister gets this power, the owner's right of free sale is negatived, or is at least frozen for 12 months, by which time the market may have disappeared.

Deputy MacEoin pointed out how, even under existing legislation, that could happen. How much more will that be the case when it is known— and this section has been the subject of public controversy for many months —that simply on the Minister pressing a button and ordering an inspection a person's ability not alone to sell his land but even to let or sublet it may be taken away from him for at least 12 months? His whole income may go simply because the Minister decides on an inspection. That is the type of political abuse to which this section is open.

No matter how worthy the motives are, is it worth the Minister's while to insist on pushing through the House a section that is open to that kind of abuse, a section that will be held by the people of this country in horror and dread, a section that has already aroused the fears of the people on whom ultimately all of us in this country depend, the working farmer of Ireland? As I say, no matter how good the motives or the intentions of the Minister, I do not believe that it is worth while stirring up all the fears and opening the door to the type of abuse that may exist, as the Minister will be doing if he insists on pushing through this section.

I would appeal very strongly to the Minister to have second thoughts about this. I think the section is bad no matter how you look at it. I do not think it would be properly remedying the position to reduce the period for which the land is frozen to six months or one month. I think what the Minister should do is to scrap the section completely. If he does that we can give him this undertaking that we will not regard it as a sign of weakness, that we will regard it as a sign of commonsense and of courage.

Mr. Browne

I think I can claim tonight to speak with some authority on this section and, indeed, other sections of the Land Bill because the Minister for Lands thought fit during the by-election in Roscommon to quote at length a speech I made in this House some time ago on the Land Bill. He was quite justified in quoting my speech but I might tell the Minister that, while he quoted me accurately, I was rather surprised on arriving at a church gate in Roscommon one Sunday morning to hear some of his lieutenants who are not members of this House misconstrue what I said in this House in regard to the Land Bill.

May I preface my remarks tonight by saying that my mind is no more changed tonight than it was some months ago? I said then in this House that I approved of any Land Bill designed to do something to relieve the congestion that exists in my county and in other areas in the west of Ireland.

When a Deputy is honest enough to make an honest approach to a real problem it is only fair that no individual or body of individuals in this House or outside it should use a rather unsuitable occasion to misconstrue the genuine, sincere views expressed by such a Deputy in this House. I would go further and say that the Fine Gael Party in general approve of the Land Bill. The Fine Gael Party in general realise the great need there is for the introduction of a Land Bill but at no time did I say that I would accept in toto the many implications of the various sections contained in this Bill. As a Mayo man, I want to protest in the strongest terms possible to section 13. Michael Davitt, a Mayo man, and the Land Leaguers struggled all their lives so that the three “Fs”—fair rent, free sale and fixity of tenure—might prevail for all landholders in future generations. Section 13 of this Bill, as I see it, takes away free sale.

I have had considerable experience of dealing for the Land Commission in sales. I have had considerable experience of dealing against the Land Commission in sales. I have had considerable experience in dealing with the Land Commission in Land Commission courts. I know for a fact that as a result of the policy advocated by the Land Commission for years with regard to compulsory acquisition of land, a bitter taste is left as a result of the section providing for compulsory acquisition. That fact is known to everybody who has any knowledge of land. In the years gone by more progress would have been made as between the Land Commission and the public in general were it not for the fact that compulsory acquisition left the people with the feeling that they were no longer secure in their own lands.

My interpretation of what the Minister is asking us to enact is that if I own land and I feel that due to financial or other circumstances beyond my control it is necessary to let portion of my lands or all of my lands I must first get the consent of the Land Commission to do that. In fact, what I must do is publicly to acknowledge to the Land Commission that they should take notice of my lands for compulsory acquisition. Before making the final decision as to whether or not their financial circumstances might compel them to dispose of their lands by public auction or private contract or in whatever form they considered most remunerative to themselves, owners must realise that under section 16 of this Bill they will be drawing the attention of the Land Commission to the fact that it may compulsorily acquire the land, in effect creating the risk that if they decide that it may be necessary to sell the farm in the following year they will not be entitled to free sale.

As I have said, there are many sections in this Bill which I commend. The Ceann Comhairle—I always bow to his ruling—may not permit me to say this. I know that one of the main problems the Land Commission will find in the operation of this Bill is in connection with land bonds. In my capacity as an auctioneer I have at all times persuaded vendors who have entrusted me with their business to sell to whoever gives the best price, whether it be the Land Commission or an individual but I must say that to date I have failed to convince the public that the sale of their lands for payment in land bonds is satisfactory. Within the past few months I have had the experience, not alone of one bank, but of two banks, refusing vendors who had entered into a contract with the Land Commission for the sale of their property——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will find a more suitable time to discuss that.

Mr. Browne

I bow to your ruling, Sir. I shall avail of another opportunity. I should like to conclude by making an appeal to the Minister. Coming from the constituency of South Mayo and as a man who has had considerable experience of land sales in the west of Ireland, he must realise that section 13 is a prohibitive section. As Deputy O'Higgins rightly said, even at this eleventh hour if he changed his mind nobody would charge him with running away from the section or running away from the Bill in general. They would appreciate that he was making an effort to get rid of an unsuitable section in a very necessary Bill.

Mr. Clinton

We have tried to make it quite clear from this side of the House that we believe this section of the Land Bill should be totally rejected. We feel it is undesirable and unnecessary, that it represents a craving for more power over the lives and liberties of the people and that it puts a further weapon in the hands of politicians, a weapon of intimidation they should not hold. In the course of this debate the Minister referred to the recommendations of the National Farmers Association. I should like to hear from the Minister how far he is prepared to go with those recommendations. The National Farmers Association have expressed anxiety and disapproval in regard to the idea of putting into the hands of civil servants the right to inspect a holding and freeze it for 12 months. They feel that the question of land acquisition should have been left with the Lay Commissioners and that this is an extremely dangerous provision. They further suggest that the freeze for 12 months is completely unacceptable.

The Minister has stated that he is prepared to bend this condition and that he would now feel it should be reduced to six months. Could the Minister not agree to go that bit further to meet the wishes of rural organisations in general and the National Farmers Association in particular by reducing this period to one month? Why does he feel it is not possible for the Land Commission to transact their business within that reasonable period? Other purchasers of land have to make up their minds as soon as notice of the auction appears in the papers, or if a place comes up for sale by private treaty they also must make up their minds. They must provide the necessary money to purchase the land and make arrangements about it within a reasonable time and certainly the place must change hands within a month.

It is hard to see, with the machinery available to the Land Commission, why they cannot transact their business with similar speed. It is definitely an interference with the rights of an owner of land if he cannot sell his land and get the money or the bulk of it into his pocket within a month. It is also interference with his property, the property which he probably purchased with his own money and which he is not allowed to sell in the free market.

We have insisted, and rightly insisted, that the only competition that should be eliminated is the competition brought about by the purchase of land in this country by foreigners. We have in these benches been insisting for quite a considerable period that this competition should be eliminated, that the sale of land to foreigners should be ended for all time and that we should have legislation to do that.

The Minister has stated that he is satisfied there was no widespread purchase of land. I wish I could get the Minister into a car for two hours and I would cover some areas of land purchased by foreigners in Counties Dublin, Kildare and Meath, an area that would have provided economic holdings for many of our people. However, there is no anxiety or desire on the part of the Government to end this purchase of land by foreigners and so provide land that is badly needed by the Irish people but they are concerned to get the land they require by interfering seriously with the existing rights of landowners. We will oppose this as long as it is possible to oppose it. We will oppose it in the House and we will use every platform outside the House to inform the people that this should be opposed in every way possible.

Mr. Moran

In case there is any misunderstanding, in view of what has been said by some Deputies, let me make it quite clear that the power of acquisition of land will still be with the Lay Commissioners. The Deputies who have been stating the contrary either have misinformed themselves or are making these statements for their own purposes. It is true the Land Commission inspector may inspect but he must report to the Commissioners and if action is to be taken for the acquisition of that land, it is the Commissioners who make that decision.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

But the inspector will freeze it under this section.

Mr. Moran

If they serve the notice, yes, but it is the Land Commission that will decide.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

On the acquisition. The inspector under this section will freeze it. That is what I was complaining about.

Mr. Moran

When they serve the notice. Those who say they are concerned with the relief of congestion, that they want to help the Land Commission in their plans and at the same time refuse to provide the necessary legal machinery for the acquisition of that land, are not just being candid with the people or with those in the House.

Let me make it clear, in view of what Deputy MacEoin has said, that the Land Commission must pay full market value for any land they acquire, that landowners are entitled to full market value under the law as it exists, and that law and that right is not being interfered with in any way. There was a time during which landowners did not have the right to market value. The system of assessing what they should get was in a section that provided the price should be fair from the owner's point of view and fair from the Land Commission's point of view. Therefore in those days landowners on many occasions did not get what was the then market value. The law as it exists now is to the effect that they are entitled to market value and if they are dissatisfied with the offer made by the Land Commission, they have the right to go to the land court, to give evidence as to the market value of their land, and the judge fixes the market value for them.

It is not correct to state, as has been stated by some Deputies, that there is a large amount of land in the hands of the Land Commission for anything up to 30 years without being dealt with; there are some exceptional residues of land in the hands of the Land Commission because of some special difficulties. The general rule is that the Land Commission deal with the land within a period of three years. I do not know that there is any other point that has not already been dealt with on a number of occasions either in the course of the discussion on this section or on the original amendments to it.

Mr. Dillon

It appears to me that the Minister is not himself aware of the fundamental principle underlying our opposition to this section. I happen to know that the attitude which this Party have adopted to this section, and its implementation, is shared by certain Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party. I know that certain Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party themselves realise that to give the political head of the Department the power to direct an examination of land with a view to acquisition, which brings this section into operation, is wholly wrong.

Now, we cannot discuss this section divorced from section 27 which gives the Minister the power to initiate inspection proceedings. I know that certain experienced Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party themselves realise that such a proposal constitutes a revolutionary departure from the whole land code. All Deputies who, personally or vicariously, have experience of the whole foundation of land tenure in this country know that the whole social pattern of rural Ireland is founded on the principle of fixity of tenure and it is for that reason that, at every stage of the country's history, from the time of the first Land Act back in 1881, the whole question of the acquisition of land was removed from the sphere of authority of the political head of any British or Irish Department.

When we set up the State that now exists, it was universally recognised in Dáil Éireann, and has never been challenged over 40 years by successive Governments—Cumann na nGaedheal, Fianna Fáil, inter-Party, Fianna Fáil, inter-Party and then Fianna Fáil again —until Deputy Moran, the present Minister for Lands, took office, that the question of acquiring land must be divorced from the political head of the Department of Lands. The most extreme precautions were taken, even under the British administration, to establish the Land Commissioners in a quasi-judicial position so that their discretion could not be influenced by pressure brought to bear upon them from any quarter and so that they would be answerable to nobody for their decision on the merits as to whether land should be acquired or inspected with a view to acquisition.

I have said repeatedly on public platforms throughout the country that the great danger of this Land Bill is that there are provisions in it which are excellent but, concealed behind those provisions, there are damnable principles which threaten the whole social pattern of rural Ireland. The Minister will say in refutation of my argument that he is not claiming the right to determine whether any farmer's land should be acquired or not and he knows that that is the kind of specious plea which it is very difficult to counter when arguing with people who are not themselves steeped in the land code of this country. Those of us who live in rural Ireland know perfectly well that the decision to inspect land with a view to acquisition was always a very formidable decision and the experience of the farmer, large or small, who was called upon to receive the Land Commission inspector, was one of considerable anxiety and distress.

That anxiety is now being doubled, trebled and quadrupled by the proposed provision in section 13 which says that the moment the inspector enters on the land, all dealings in it are prohibited for a period of 12 months without the permission of the Land Commission. You cannot convey it to your own son; you cannot make a lease of it; you cannot sell it to a neighbour; you cannot sell it to any purchaser. Mark you, I think a case could be made for that if the matter of inspection still remained a reserved function of the Land Commission, to be decided by the Commissioners, and utterly divorced from any influence which operates in politics; but that is no longer the case. The owner of land now has to face not only the anxiety of inspection but all the obligations of section 13, plus the knowledge that the inspector is now being sent not by the Land Commissioners in their quasi-judicial capacity but by the political head of the Department of Lands.

We all read in the papers a few days ago a letter over the name of Deputy Cormac Breslin. There was some proposal for some development plan on Arranmore Island and all the interested parties were meant to come together on Arranmore to promote this mutual interest. A letter is published in the daily paper by the senior Fianna Fáil Deputy for west Donegal in which he says: "Look; I cannot very well refuse to come to this but it would be much better if we started a parallel agitation through the Fianna Fáil cumann".

Mr. Corish

A substitute agitation.

Mr. Dillon

He wanted to take over the baby into the Fianna Fáil cumann's hands. My friend, Deputy Mooney, is over there and I suppose there is not a farm in the whole of Monaghan that Deputy Mooney has not divided and subdivided at some cumann meeting or other. I freely admit that heretofore Deputy Mooney has only been in a position to say, when he summoned the cumann, that he would make representations to the Land Commission and he has only been in the position to go back to the cumann and say: "I wrought wonderful. I went to Deputy Moran and I begged him to have this land inspected, but the Minister told me that is a reserved function and he could not help me, but he would pass on my recommendation to the Land Commissioners but they are quite independent of him." It was a complete alibi for Deputy Mooney to go back to the cumann and say: "I was not able to get this land inspected. I know the Minister passed on my recommendation but the Land Commission said no and he has no power to make them inspect it."

I want to put this to Deputy Mooney as a reasonable man, and any other Deputy who knows rural Ireland. He goes to a meeting of his local branch and they say: "You should inspect so-and-so's land for acquisition" and he says: "Well, I do not know, that fellow is working the land" or maybe it is a case of a widow who has young children growing up, and they say: "If you are any good, you will have that land inspected. We hear there is some fellow coming in to buy it and the auctioneer has it on his books." If these sections pass into law, can Deputy Mooney or any other Deputy say to his constituents: "I will certainly make your views known to the Minister and I will ask him to pass them on to the Commissioners but he has no power to acquire land." Will he not see himself, once this section and section 27 have been passed, in the position of saying: "Well, now boys, I could not do that, I would not care to ask to have this widow's land inspected," and will they not say to him: "What is the use of going out roaring and bawling for Fianna Fáil if you have not got that much pull with the Minister for Lands that you cannot get that place inspected? What good are you?"

What can Deputy Mooney say? He must say one of two things. He must either say: "I think you are all wrong; you should not ask for that land to be inspected", or he can say "I will go and see the Minister and ask him to have the land inspected." Will he not find himself, if he goes back to his supporters in any particular district in Monaghan, up braided when he says: "I went to the Minister and said that you all wanted this land inspected and I thought the land should be inspected and he told me that I could go and take a running jump at myself and that he would not send an inspector to inspect it." I ask Deputy Mooney, who is an auctioneer, who is a farmer and who lives in rural Ireland, does he want that power? Does he want to be put in the position vis-à-vis his own neighbours, that he has either got to say: “You are all wrong and I will not ask him, and although you all worked for me and supported me in this area, I will not ask” or go to the Land Commission and be told by the Minister to take a running jump at himself, that he will not carry out an inspection although Deputy Mooney, representing his supporters in County Monaghan, has certified that his local supporters want it and he thinks it should be done?

I put it to Deputy Mooney, to Deputy Millar, to Deputy Allen and to every Fianna Fáil Deputy on those benches: do they want this power? Do they want to be put in the position of being torn to pieces by their own people?

Mr. Allen

That is a poor argument.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Allen is wrong.

Mr. Allen

Deputy Flanagan has been telling the people that the Minister had this power all the time.

Mr. Dillon

He never had it.

Mr. Allen

Ask your colleague.

Mr. Dillon

I am asking nobody what I know myself and through those who went before me.

Mr. Allen

Tell Deputy Flanagan.

Mr. Dillon

I know the meaning of fixity of tenure, fair rent and free sale. I know the precautions that we and those who went before us took to preserve those things. I know the meaning of fixity of tenure. Fixity of tenure never meant in this country that in no circumstances could the Land Commission acquire land. Fixity of tenure meant that anyone who owned land should not have it taken from him arbitrarily, at the whim of a landlord or a politician, but that a quasi-judicial body, holding their office by judicial tenure, irremovable except by a two-thirds majority of this House, would judge each case on its merits. We all have experience of submitting cases to the Land Commission. We do it every day and we get the reply that the Land Commission have considered the matter and that they have determined that there are certain circumstances surrounding that tenant purchaser's conditions which entitle him to a year or two years, or maybe five years, to see how he will turn out, before the Land Commission are prepared to consider compulsory acquisition.

I am not trying to confuse this issue, to represent to the House that the Minister is seeking power to determine the question of acquisition in this Bill, because he is not. The only power he is seeking is to send in the inspector for the purpose of making an inspection, and there is the danger of this. Talk to the poor Minister for Agriculture from north-east Dublin and tell him that the Minister proposes to take this power and what does the poor fellow who lives up in Raheny know about it? His inclination is to say: "That is perfectly reasonable; what harm would that be? You could get corporation inspectors to inspect your house and what about it?" He does not understand. How could it hurt the man in rural Ireland to have the inspector come in and inspect his land? It always meant before that there was imminent danger of the Land Commission being persuaded compulsorily to acquire it. It now means much more, that the day the arrangement is made for the land to be inspected, all dealings in that land are suspended and that there is a danger that your home will be taken away, but paramount, above all these dangers, is the knowledge that this is a procedure no longer ordained by people in a judicial position with a long and intimate history of dealing with land and supported by a body of permanent officials who understand all the delicacy of fixity of tenure and that all that that means is the very fabric of our society. This power is now put into the hands of a politician.

I am proud to be a politician, proud to be the son of a politician and proud to be the grandson of a politician. I do not want to appear to sound as if I looked upon being a politician as anything but the highest vocation, next to the priesthood, in the life of any man, but all of us in politics are aware of the difficulties with which we have to contend as well as the magnitude of the job we undertake to do and we ought try to the limit of our ability to make ourselves independent of pressure which might betray us into doing an injustice to the individual under pressure that politically we are unable to withstand.

I put it plainly to this House: there are three Deputies in Monaghan—and I do not think Deputy Mooney will misunderstand me if I put it this way— there are three seats in County Monaghan—Deputy Mooney has one, I have the other and the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Childers, scrambled into the third. Pressure is brought to bear on Deputy Mooney that he is to get so-and-so's land inspected. He is familiar with the whole background of that particular parcel of land and in his heart believes it is not just to inspect that parcel, that there is nothing concerned in that parcel of land which would ever justify the Land Commission compulsorily acquiring it, at this time in any case. He says to his supporters: "I do not think we ought to get that land inspected. There is no justification for the Land Commission inspecting that land. Go and ask the man would he care to sell it to the Land Commission. If he would, I shall be glad to introduce him to the Land Commission and see if they can reach mutual agreement but compulsorily to acquire the land, no." He finds himself confronted with the irrational, passionate agitation of his own supporters, who say: "We have said we are going to ask Paddy Mooney about it and he will get the land inspected. Do you want to make us look foolish among our neighbours?" He says: "Do you want me to do what I think is not right?" They reply: "Look, it is politically necessary to get that land inspected. That fellow was out bawling for Dillon at the last election. He has the biggest holding in that area and there are a lot of smallholders there. Why not get it inspected? What harm will that do? If you put a blister on him for 12 months, he will keep his mouth shut the next time. Even if the Land Commission decide they do not want to take it, you will have taught him a lesson."

What can Deputy Mooney say? He has only two courses open to him. One is to say: "No, I will not do it", and the alternative is to say: "Very well; I represent you. If that is what you think is right and proper to do, I shall see Deputy Moran, the Minister for Lands." If Deputy Moran says "No. I will not inspect that land", Deputy Mooney has to come back to Monaghan and say "I went to Deputy Moran and made this case to him but he kicked me out and told me he would not touch it." I ask any reasonable Deputy on any side of the House: do you want to create such a situation in this country?

I want to say most categorically— let us be clear as crystal on this— you may do it today, but we shall repeal it the moment we get the power to do so. If I were Minister for Lands in the next Government, the first Bill I would bring in to this House is a Bill to divest myself of the power to order the inspection of my neighbours' land. I am convinced that every experienced Deputy on the Fianna Fáil side who really understands the foundations of the whole rural economy of Ireland is in his heart opposed to this proposal. It is such a useless proposal. The justification advanced for it is that it will save time. That is all. My gracious me it has been truly said that democracy is the worst system of Government in the world, except all the others. Look at what is going on. Here we are passing a simple piece of legislation. There are weeks and weeks of discussion. It is a slow, tedious, inefficient, difficult way to get laws passed; but it has this redeeming feature: it preserves every man's right to be free within the law.

Of course, it takes more time to get lands inspected if the inspection can be done only on the orders of an utterly independent quasi-judicial body. I admit that at once. Of course, land acquisition can be expedited if the Minister has the right to direct inspection; but you can expedite it far more if you give the Minister the right to determine acquisition. Why have the whole paraphernalia of the Land Commission at all? Why do you not wipe it out? Why do you not do away with the whole system of the land courts? For the very simple reason that most of us here were born very close to the land and we know what fixity of tenure means.

If you go down west of the Shannon, or into Monaghan, Cavan, Donegal, Clare or Kerry, can you imagine the unfortunate Minister for Agriculture, who knows no more of rural Ireland than he has seen from the back of a horse hunting with the Ward Hounds, asking himself the question: why would they stay here on 20 acres in Monaghan, Cavan, Mayo, Galway or any other part of the west or south-west or Donegal? Of course, they do not understand what it means to be born on the land, to have your home on the land, to belong to the land just as much as the land belongs to you. It does not occur to them. They cannot understand that, even though the public good demands that that absolute right of the ownership of land must on occasion be abridged, such abridgement must be hedged around by every conceivable protection. Just as before we send a man to jail in this country we give him the right of trial by jury —it is a most inefficient way of trying any man, but we found it preserves individual liberty—so in regard to fixity of tenure we have provided, in our wisdom, that no one should touch it or abridge it except those immune from pressure outside.

I put it to the Minister for Lands: is it worth making himself responsible for something like this out of pure obstinacy? What will he get out of it? What benefit will he confer upon anybody? Does he not know in his heart, whether he agrees with it or not, that there are a number of his colleagues in his own Party, quite apart from the members of this and other Parties, who feel, and feel deeply, that such limitations as these in section 13 are not to be set in motion by the initiative of the political head of the Department of Lands?

That is the issue joined between us here. I put it to Deputies, on whatever side of the House they may sit: who positively believes in the necessity, apart from the desirability, of this grave abridgement of the fixity of tenure of every farmer in this country, large or small? I warn you it is madness. I warn you it cannot long obtain. I promise solemnly the first opportunity I get it will be repealed and I put it to you that in the meantime bitter wrong may be done.

I ask Deputies to remember this. We passed a Land Act in this House in 1933. I saw a widow woman in comfortable circumstances but carrying a burden of debt left by her husband. But she had about 87 acres of land. She had a young family, none of them old enough to work on the land. She was selling the land. Those were the angry days of the early 30's and the machinery of the Land Act of 1933 was set in motion against her. They compulsorily acquired her holding. By the time they had discharged the annuity on that land, which was then the practice, I think the Land Commission gave her £18 11s. 7d. and put her on the road. That was in West Tipperary or East Limerick. The bitterness of those memories will remain in the hearts of many families who were treated in that way for generations.

When we came into office, we prescribed that a farmer whose land was acquired should get the market value of the land. I am quite prepared to make the case in the country at any time that 99 per cent of the old horror of compulsory land acquisition has vanished because the Land Commission are as good a buyer as anyone else. They are required by law to give the market value of the land and the land judge is there set above them. If a tenant thinks the Land Commission are offering less than the value of his land, he has the right to go to a judge of the High Court and quite frequently the land judge says the Land Commission are offering too little and fixes a price. The Land Commission then withdraw and say: "We cannot afford it," and the man is confirmed in his ownership of the land.

I do not believe there is a Fianna Fáil Deputy who knows rural Ireland who wants to go back to the old evil of virtually confiscating a farmer's holding, which obtained from 1936 until the Land Act, which guaranteed a full market price. It was done in anger and grave injustices were perpetrated as a result of the operation of that law. That iniquitous proceeding was put to an end and everyone heaved a sigh of relief and was glad when that black period was over. Why in heaven's name should we want to start another period of resentment, bitterness and hatred which will be precipitated in rural Ireland?

I do not want to be put in the position when I go down to Chapelrock or Scotshouse in Monaghan of being put up against the wall by my constituents and told to ask the Minister for Lands to do something. So long as I am in opposition, I have at least the alibi of saying: "Deputy Moran will not do what I ask him to do. The fact that I want it done will not commend it to his favourable consideration." If we had an inter-Party Government and Deputy Blowick was Minister for Lands, I would be appalled at the situation in which I might find myself every time I went to Monaghan having to battle with my own constituents. I have said a thousand times since I became a Deputy for Monaghan that everyone knows simple people who will come to you in rural Ireland and ask you to get them a bit of this or that holding. I have always said: "I am not able to do it; I cannot do it; but I can and will send in an application to the Land Commission and if I know the circumstances to be deserving, I will recommend them to the Land Commission for favourable consideration but I cannot acquire land and I cannot make the Land Commission acquire it. When I was Minister for Agriculture, I could not do it nor could my colleague, Deputy Blowick, when he was Minister for Lands." Does any responsible Deputy want to change that position?

Surely argument and reason have some place in our deliberations. Has anyone in this House made the case that it is a good thing that the political head of the Department of Lands should have power to inspect rather than the Land Commission. Has anyone made that case? I cannot understand how anyone could make that case. I do not believe that Deputy Allen could make it and I do not believe Deputy Millar could make it. Deputy Allen comes from Wexford and may have heard of the evictions at Coolgreany from his father. Deputy Millar may know of the evictions on the Clanrickarde estate which is not far from where he was born. Deputy Mooney knows of the evictions near St. Mary's. Does anyone want that ghost to be raised again? Does anyone want again to create a situation in which the ownership of land could be abridged by the caprice of an individual? Do we not all infinitely prefer to stand firm on the principle that the acquisition of land should be the function of a quasi-judicial body, immune from outside pressure and irremovable except for the exceptional processes prescribed under the land code of this country? I hope and pray that before this business is disposed of, we will have some evidence of understanding on the part of the Minister.

Recently we had a Succession Bill which we were told was the law of the Medes and Persians and the fruit of protracted reflection by the Fianna Fáil Party. It has been blown away and most of it has gone down the drain. We are not asking that the bulk of this Land Bill should go down the drain. There are some quite good provisions in it. What we want to remove are the bad parts and we would sooner do it now. We shall certainly do it hereafter but in the meantime injustices may be done and rancour and ill-will may be precipitated and neighbour set against neighbour by its provisions. I do not believe that Deputy Mooney wants it. I certainly do not want it in respect of the small farmers in Monaghan. We both know in our hearts that such provisions can only create bad feeling and hatred in rural Ireland that neither he nor I wish to be part of. I do not believe that the efficient working of the land code will be in the least undone by the preservation of the principle that has been sacrosanct for 80 years— 40 years under the British Government and 40 years under four or five different Governments of our own election. If reason continues to have any force in this House, I put it to Deputies that we should change the provision the Minister has brought before us and if reason does not prevail now, it will hereafter.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am compelled to come in here and speak against section 13 because of a few important happenings on a few Sundays. In various parts of my constituency I have been approached by people I knew were my own supporters and also by people who were supporters of the Government and well-known supporters of the Government, mainly young hardworking farmers. I am amazed at the enormous number of copies of the Bill which seem to be in circulation because a great many of these young men seem to have copies.

In discussing this, I am compelled to ask the Minister this question. Let us assume that the Minister will put this through. If the Land Commission then serve notice on some people whose farm is in durance vile for a year, what will the position be? There are many contrary people in this country. The owners of the farm might decide to sell it to a neighbour. If the neighbour goes into possession of the farm before the year is out, what steps will the Minister take against him? It was put to me that if the man joined a Fianna Fáil cumann nothing further would happen about it. It has happened before and happened in many cases where the Land Commission had proceedings to take over land that the unfortunate people who owned it were in the position that nobody would buy from them when it became known, to use the local idiom, that the Land Commission were "about the place". It has been put to me, however, that when some officer of the Fianna Fáil Party buys such a farm there are many cases on record that there were no more inspections that nothing else ever happened and that they were left on the farm.

If the neighbour were the type of man who preferred to act according to his conscience and was not prepared to offer subservience to a cumann and bought one of these farms, what proceedings would the Land Commission take? I should like to ask the Minister that question. What would the Land Commission do? Would they or the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who are listening to me evict him? Are they prepared to walk up these steps and give the Minister the power to send the crowbar brigade again on the road? I have been speaking to many members of Fianna Fáil about this. Such is the discipline of the Fianna Fáil Party that none of them has answered me yet. I often wonder when it will come to pass that some great heart will get up and say what is in his mind and will not sit there, grinning maybe or laughing.

I am old enough to remember people being forcibly put out of their places. I am old enough to remember bailiffs going around and putting people out. I am old enough to remember escorts bringing what I would call now the successors of the yeomen, the Broy Harriers, into farmers' places to take possession of a farmer's chattels. Is this the kind of power the Land Commission are looking for now? I know that in the hard, official way of looking at things, many farms are not run as well as some of the experts and maybe some of the crackpots would like them to be run. Such farms would belong to old people or to poor people. But these farms were where generations of these people were born and reared and people should not be evicted from these farms. No such power should be given to a Minister whether an Irish Minister or a Minister from another country and no such power should be given to any official.

Anybody who has ever been interested or who had people belonging to them in this country whose interest had been in the great fight that was made here for the land during the time of the Land League could never have imagined that when an Irish Government would be formed an Irish Minister would bring in a Bill to take such powers. Such are these powers that any Irishman could get hot under the collar when thinking of them—to think that people could be thrown out on the road at the wish of a Minister or of a Minister's Department.

Too much of this kind of legislation has been brought into the House and stood over by Fianna Fáil Ministers. We have had it in other Bills here that Ministers were rigid and would not give way about certain sections even though they knew there were members of their own Party who were not with them and even though they knew that the Opposition were against them and that, if everything were counted up, there would be a solid majority against them—sections and types of legislation brought in here especially during the past few years. This is something that will have to be stopped in Dáil Éireann. It is a negation of democracy. The prohibition of the sale, transfer, letting or subletting of certain lands without the consent of the Land Commission is a dreadful thing and is a terrible power to put into anybody's hands.

We are legislating all our powers away in this House. We gave certain powers to other Ministers and the other Ministers have the brass to come in here and to say: "We have no authority in this now. It is the Department". The Minister says he is responsible for his Department but that he cannot stop his Department from doing anything. If this legislation goes through —I hope it does not: I hope the Minister will change his mind about this section—I can see that in the near future people will be coming in here and appealing to the Minister maybe on behalf of his own constituents because the Land Commission are about to do certain things. I can foresee the Minister following in the footsteps of the Minister for Transport and Power and other Ministers who come here and say: "I have no authority in this matter. The Dáil passed a Bill and gave the authority to my officers".

It is well that the Land Commission have the power to take over a lot of these very big estates but it is not good that the Land Commission are now getting down to taking power to take over small farms. That is what this section actually says. It will only be necessary for any group in the area to cast its eye on one or two small farms and say: "We need those" and start an agitation. There is no regard for the owners of the farm. Also if this section goes through, farms will be sold to the Land Commission at a fraction of their worth.

I have not expressed myself as forcibly as I should like but I appeal to the Minister to amend section 13. It is well numbered, an unlucky section, and it will be an unlucky day for the people of rural Ireland when a section such as this is passed in Dáil Éireann. My Party will challenge a division and I tell the Fianna Fáil Party that I shall watch with interest the names of the people in that Party who will vote for such legislation. It will be a mark that can be used against them for whatever time they remain in politics.

Mr. Tully

Earlier, on this section, I made the position of the Labour Party pretty clear. We do not agree with the interpretation given to the section by Fine Gael nor that this section is intended to injure the small farmers or any type of farmer. We believe it was necessary, if this Bill was to be any good, to have some teeth in it and we believe this section provides the teeth. We are entirely opposed to the view expressed here for the past couple of hours by Fine Gael speakers and I want to make that very clear because of Deputy Lynch's concluding remarks, about challenging a division, so that nobody will be in any doubt as to why the Labour Party are not opposing the section.

We believe it is necessary to ensure that people who, up to now and the type that up to now, have been able to run to the nearest auctioneer and sell their land when they knew the Land Commission proposed to take it over, would be prevented from doing that. Such people are not on the 20, 30, 40 or 50 acre farms but are those with big farms, people getting rid of their land because they are not able to use it. They are not, in my opinion, of much use to the country. I do not think there should be so much crocodile tears shed over them here. It is only fair that these things should be made clear.

The question of whether or not the Minister or the Land Commission should have the right to direct an inspector has no bearing on the matter because the final acquisition of the land will be decided by the Lay Commissioners and it is most dishonest to suggest that this Bill is intended to give the Minister the right to decide whose land will or will not be taken over. Every Deputy who has anything to do with the question of land knows that, time and again, a genuine effort is made to have acquired for division among deserving applicants farm lands which are not being used properly. The rumour goes out that perhaps the lands will be sold to a foreigner as so many of them have been. But when a report is sent to the Land Commission, unfortunately, it takes months before a decision can be given to inspect the land and by the time inspection has taken place the ownership of the land has changed. In many cases the people who have acquired the land are in a better position to hold off the Land Commission for various reasons or by excuses than the original owner. In those circumstances I think it right that every effort should be made to ensure that land can be inspected with the least possible delay.

The Minister has agreed—most of us put a good deal of pressure on him before the Recess—that 12 months was a long time and he said here this afternoon that he is prepared to consider reducing the period to six months. I do not think it will be such a great hardship. I do not believe the Land Commission would be able to acquire land for half the value. That has not been the experience so far: indeed, the latest situation — this should be well known to those familiar with the position—is that land bought by the Land Commission often appears to be bought much more dearly than it would be in the open market.

There is the question of the Land Bonds but that can be straightened out. If the land bonds are not value for what they purport to be, if they are sold quickly, that can surely be put right. Apart from that, I do not think the arguments made here are valid. I think it is a good idea that the Minister should have responsibility because he may then be asked questions in this House about such matters and he cannot say that it is a matter for the Land Commission as he and his predecessors have been able to say so often before.

I want to make clear that the Labour Party are not in agreement with the point of view put here and do not want to be put in a false position by anybody inside or outside the House.

Mr. Donegan

It is true of all Deputies, I think, except those from city areas, that they get many representations from people who want land. A very old friend of mine, the late Deputy McMenamin, God rest him, used say that if you went into a country public house where there were ten people present you might be certain that six or seven of them had applied for land. I would also be certain that five of that number probably applied in the first instance by going to his local Deputy and asking him to take up the matter with the Land Commission. Whether the Deputy was a member of Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael or the Labour Party—I include myself in this—we are all political animals whether in or out of power and if we are in power we have recourse to the Minister who was a Deputy with us and a friend and colleague. We can go and talk to him and exercise the influence of a friend and colleague upon him as to whether he should decide to have the land inspected.

I was absent on other political business in Drogheda Corporation and did not know what Deputy Tully has stated, that the Minister was prepared to reduce the waiting period from twelve to six months, but the moment the inspection of land takes place, is it not true that the number of customers for that land, apart from the Land Commission, is reduced? Is it not true that nobody wants to buy land on which the Commission has put its finger? This has been the experience through the years. The fact that there have been instances—I think this is what Deputy Tully adverted to—of the Land Commission going to a public auction or buying land by private treaty at dear prices is no proof that land inspected by the Land Commission does not lose value. Anything that loses a number of customers loses value and I believe there is not the slightest doubt about it. My experience has shown this to me, that when the Commission inspect land it loses value. Land is property and if we want a private enterprise economy, should it not be the position that if property is required for the common good the decision on whether or not it is taken over should be the decision, not of a political person, but of a judicial person? In many cases of local authority work this can be the county manager. In such cases there is always an appeal for the citizen. In many cases it can be adjudged. In many cases it can be arbitrated. Here we are starting off the first machinery of land acquisition through political persons. Some three weeks ago a political columnist in a Sunday newspaper produced what was, in fact, a duplicate application form for land, which is normally sent out through the Land Commission except that at the bottom of it it said that it was issued through the local Fianna Fáil cumann. Perhaps in the Fine Gael organisation there is some smart secretary who would think up the same thing if he happened to see a Land Commission application form for land.

Does this not point to the fact that these political applications—I have written to the Land Commission as often as any other person—are wrong? Does it not point to the fact that if the Minister has the right to send in an inspector then the person who has broken bread with the Minister can exert undue influence? In the past the four Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission had the status of high court judges whether a person's land was taken over. I went with my own parish priest to the Land Commission court to stop the taking over of land and we succeeded. If this is so what is to happen if the Minister becomes the political landlord? He will have the local Fianna Fáil cumann on his doorstep. It is not democracy if the Minister can start up acquisition proceedings by the time six or 12 months have elapsed. There is not an auctioneer who will find a customer ready to buy land which the Land Commission has put its finger on.

It is land which was in the forefront of the national struggle for 700 years. Every war until 1916 was a land war and the people who were in the forefront of those wars were people on the land. Now we are going to say one political party can start acquisition proceedings by sending in an inspector. We are throwing away our entire heritage and yet nobody seems to think there is anything wrong about it. I cannot see why the Minister should decide to take unto himself this particular power. It would be far better that we should leave it in the judicial hands of the four Lay Commissioners.

In regard to the deteriorated value, I am certain that that deterioration would be more than the 25 per cent mentioned by Deputy Sweetman here today. I believe something of the order of 50 per cent would be nearer the truth. Who wants to buy land which will be acquired some time in the following 12 months? Who is the person who should decide whether there is need for land in a particular area and, if there is, which land should be taken? I do not want to mention individual cases because that would be quite wrong and it might, in the present circumstances, if this Bill goes through, influence people. I could mention cases in my own area where there is a question mark over which parcel of land should be taken for land division and there is a very big question mark over whether there is any land for division at all.

If this Bill goes through the Minister will have Deputies from the Fianna Fáil cumann on his doorstep within a week or two. I put it to the whole Fianna Fáil Party that they are throwing democracy overboard. They are invading the rights of the individual and they are doing something which is quite wrong. It is also a fact that undue pressure can be put on the Minister. With regard to this question of whether or not land is taken over by the Land Commission, I found the Lay Commissioners very fair in the past. There have been individual instances of hardship and individual instances of injustice. I do not say this injustice was deliberate. If you have a farmer in Ireland today whose family have farmed the land for generation after generation, and this farmer who is now 75 or 80 years of age wishes to leave his entitlement to the parcel of land to a nephew simply and solely because he has no boy of his own, is it right that his occupancy for a short period of ten years should be refused? His family may have farmed that land for hundreds of years. Is it right that somebody should come along and not give him the right to pass his land on to a relative to carry on the same sort of farming as has been carried on there in the past?

I believe if the Minister is under pressure it will not be as easy for him as it was for the Lay Commissioners to say that if the land is being farmed as it should be farmed for five or seven years time they will not touch it; that they will allow five or seven years because a nephew will come in then. They will decide whether what was said was in good faith or not. Will it be as easy for the Minister, with the local Fianna Fáil cumann or the Fine Gael Deputies, if there is a Fine Gael Minister on his doorstep? We will repeal it if we get into power. That will not be so long as things are going at present. I should like to know how the Minister will resist this pressure and how he will decide, with the local representatives of the Fianna Fáil cumann before him, that the matter should be left over for five or seven years, that this family carried on good farming on the farm and now they want five or seven years in which to retire when they will give the land over to a nephew or niece. It would be quite unwise for the Fianna Fáil Party to put this measure through. We are going to vote against it and I am sorry the Labour Party are not voting against it.

General MacEoin

I should like to make just one comment on the contribution by Deputy Tully. Deputy Tully has given the impression that he is dealing with the large farmers of 300 or 400 acres. This section applies to the 20, 25, 30 or 40 acre farmer and if there is a farmer in County Longford who is working a farm which has belonged to his family for generations and somebody gets the inspection notice sent out that farmer will find that his land can then be divided and his right to it taken away. That is a complete invasion of the rights of the small farmer. I am not referring to the 200 acre farmer about whom Deputy Tully speaks. He comes from a county of large farms. I do not blame him for the way he looks at it. He said he was not going to vote against this section because these large farms were sold and somebody else was about to get them. If that is Deputy Tully's thinking it is a good job he is in Meath. He could not make that speech in Longford, in the parish of Columcille, where demand is being sent daily to the Land Commission to inspect even a 25-acre farm because the owner of it at the moment happens to be unable to live on it and had to go to England. He had to put the lock on the door for a year or two in order to earn a few pounds to set himself back. According to this section, the sale of that farm would be held up if the man wanted to sell it.

I should like to ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that in the County Longford the Land Commission has applications to inspect several small holdings, even as small as 15 acres. Therefore, I cannot for the life of me see how the Labour Party could say there is no difference between the 300, 200, 50, 40, 30 or 15-acre farms.

Mr. Tully

The Fine Gael Party seem to be losing sight of the fact that it is not the Minister who will decide whether or not the farm is taken over. All he can do is have it inspected. He cannot decide to take it over or do anything further about it. God knows every Deputy in this House has made representations up to now to the Land Commission about farms and asked to have them taken over whether they be big or small.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There is no doubt in the world but that the implications of the enactment of the particular section we are discussing tonight plays down to the basic feelings of greed and avarice. In that respect we are aware of the deterioration in the normal neighbourly relations among people working on the land over the last year or two, when this thing was mooted. That is a fact. I know it and I have resisted it where demands have been made by people to have farms acquired for division merely because the owners, through an act of Providence or because of ill-health, were not in a position to work their farms as one would wish them worked, or just because there was an appearance—temporary it is to be hoped— of a set-back in a particular family circumstances. We had at one time the glorious tradition of neighbours flocking around to help a neighbour or friend out of whatever difficulty he or she was in at a particular time. Now when a person runs into difficulty we find he is not helped out, but what he has is to be taken from him and divided among his neighbours.

I have no hesitation in saying that I, too, have made submissions to the Land Commission, even within the past five days, to have a large sized farm purchased and acquired by the Land Commission. I would hope if they had done so they would not let it year after year. I would say to Deputy Tully that we would require an adequate pool of land to be divided and re-allocated among those people who have uneconomic holdings at this moment. I want to know what answer the Minister has in relation to the land which is already in the possession of the Land Commission year after year and which has been let for other purposes and not sub-divided. If that were disposed of then the Minister could say he was not bereft of any pool of land to divide among those who were deserving at all times. Until this is decided, this section stinks for those people who have dearly won the right of fixity of tenure to live on their holdings to this moment.

Question put: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill".

The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 38.

Tá.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Gallagher, James.
• Galvin, Sheila.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James M.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Leneghan, Joseph R.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lynch, Celia.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Con.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Ryan, James.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Spring, Dan.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.

Níl.

• Barrett, Stephen D.
• Barry, Anthony.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Browne, Michael.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Connor, Patrick.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam
• Costello, Declan D.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Thomas G.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
• O'Keeffe, James.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 14.

Mr. Moran

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 9, line 28, after "or persons" to insert "or if such person or any one of such persons is under a disability".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moran

I move amendment No. 34A:

In page 10, line 8, to delete "after the passing of this Act" and to insert "after the form referred to in subsection (2) of this section has been prescribed".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Would the Minister please explain how a claimant to purchase can get to know his rights in relation to the distribution of purchase money? A little more information on that problem would be appreciated.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 4th November, 1964.