I would make a last appeal to the Minister to change his attitude on this amendment and to accept it. I have listened to the arguments put forward, for and against, and while they were very interesting and, of course, important, I feel that I have to take the question of practical operation into consideration. I think the Minister should see that the powers that he now proposes to take are very unwise and unsound in principle. This, in my opinion, is a very retrograde step that he proposes. We have to ask ourselves the question, why were certain matters excepted under the 1933 Land Act, and why did the Government that came into this House with a clear over-all majority in 1933, after a very hard fought election, consider that it was right and proper to except such matters? Was it not because of the fact that numerous complaints were being made that there had been ministerial and political intervention in the division of land? In fact, the principal matters which were referred to in Section 6 as excepted matters were acquisition, resumption, price and allocation.
The Minister may say, as he has said on various occasions, that he is doing this for speed. I cannot see where speed comes into it. In fact, I believe there will be much greater delay. These matters were excepted because of all the complaining there had been. Now there was a great temptation, in the case of a Government that came in at that time, with an over-all majority, and having such a background of history, to leave matters as they were or, in fact, to further strengthen the hand of its Minister in dealing with acquisition, resumption, price and allocation. We Deputies from the West felt pretty keenly on that line of action at the time. Naturally enough, we felt that we had got our innings, that we should avail of it and have a levelling up, but better counsels prevailed and, after a good deal of consideration and discussion at our Party meetings, we did give way to common sense and reason, and so the excepted matters were put into the Bill and were enacted by the Oireachtas.
Now, the Minister is taking back a considerable share of the powers that the then Government divested itself of. Why is he doing it? He says, of course, it is for speed, and he also states that he will delegate his powers to a senior inspector of his Department to carry out. Nobody can read into this Bill anything other than what is written into it. If the Minister believes that his statement, that he proposes to delegate his responsibilities to a senior inspector, is going to make for harmony amongst the people concerned, and that it will dispel suspicion and doubt, he is making a very great mistake. Any Bill that goes through this House in which any section of the community or any individual is interested is just as capable of being interpreted by others as it is by any Deputy, whether he be a legal man or a layman. Knowing what is in the Bill, they will not be satisfied that the interfering hand of the Minister is not there and nothing will convince them that that is not the case.
In paragraphs (d) and (e) the Minister is taking back very wide powers. Everybody knows that, so far as any rearrangement scheme is concerned, if it is to be completed on a fairly satisfactory basis, it will be necessary to take land either in the immediate neighbourhood or elsewhere to make it a workable scheme. Otherwise, I think there would be no point in trying to bring about any rearrangement. It would hardly be possible to have any rearrangement if there was not additional land.