The powers, as I have explained, up to now were rather limited but part of the provisions of this Bill confer the very widest powers on them in this regard. In the first case posed by the Deputy, as I am sure he is aware, if there is a landlocked holding or field, under common law there would be an easement of necessity between the dominant and servient tenements, if that were the position. As far as the Land Commission are concerned, their powers were limited to dealing with rights of way on lands purchased under the Land Acts. Even then they were rather restricted as set out in section 39 (2) of the 1931 Act which states:
The powers of the Land Commission to expend money on the improvement of land sold or agreed to be sold under the Land Purchase Acts shall, in addition to the matters mentioned in section 43 of the Land Act, 1923, include power to confer on the Land Commission and their licensees and to define and extend or improve ways and rights of way over any land to any land sold or agreed to be sold under the Land Purchase Acts, whether such rights of way are or are not so conferred as to be appurtenant to any Land.
That, I understand, has been interpreted to mean, certainly by the Land Commission and others, that they could only deal with a right of way created first, on land purchased under the Land Acts or with the aid of advances under those Acts, and secondly, that the right of way could only cross or join such land. In other words, if there were a piece of land intervening that was held in absolute fee simple or under fee farm grant or squatter's title or otherwise, the Land Commission could not cross that or deal with the situation under existing law.
Power is being taken in these sections which we are amending so that the Land Commission can create or extend or improve or acquire land for the purpose of doing any of these things to give a right of way anywhere over any type of land, held under any tenure or to extend a right of way where they were restricted under the former law, from land purchased under the Land Acts or lands held in absolute fee simple or under whatever title, to other lands irrespective of title to them. So, just as the prohibition about sub-division applied to about 80 per cent of land purchased under the Land Acts, that control is now being taken over all the lands. In the same way power is being taken here in respect of title to the land and the Land Commission will have the right to create or extend or enlarge rights of way. In this regard, where they take land for that purpose, they must compensate the owner.
We have also in mind the many representations made to me either during the discussions here or in my Department that many of the old rights of way are not now suitable in this day and age and are incapable of accommodating modern machinery such as tractors and it is mainly for that purpose that these powers are taken.
The short answer to the other point made by the Deputy as to whether the Land Commission have power to deal with the case where only one owner is concerned is "yes." I have no doubt that before this, possibly, the Land Commission were slow to do so because there were doubts about their powers but the answer is that they can in a suitable case exercise these rights to alleviate the position of a single owner and give proper access to his farm. No doubt when they have received the wider powers provided under these sections, they will be able to deal with many more of these cases.