asked the Minister for Lands what system is used in the selection of auctioneers to do the Land Commission's work.

The department maintains a panel of auctioneers (on a country basis) to whom departmental business comprising, in the main, sales of houses surplus to Land Commission requirements, temporary lettings of land acquired by the Land Commission and timber sales on behalf of the Forestry Division, is entrusted. Appointments to the panel are made from time to time as vacancies arise or whenever the volume of departmental business in a particular county warrants an additional appointment.

Could the Minister say how these people were selected in the first instance? I have a specific case in point. In a town, we have four auctioneers. The man who has his licence longest is not on the panel while three, who came after him, are on the panel. How are they selected? I have this sort of complaint that this man did the business normally for two people and that, immediately the Land Commission took over the land, the business is transferred to other auctioneers in the town. How is it?

I would ask the Minister if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in a case almost exactly like that of Deputy Clinton, the longest licensed auctioneer was refused membership of the panel on the ground that there were already enough auctioneers in the town while, subsequently, another auctioneer was admitted to the panel, passing over this long-established auctioneer who had an application in. Would the Minister not consider that this is rather unjust?

The idea, from the Land Commission point of view, is that there should be only a very limited number of auctioneers on the panel. The amount of business involved is fairly small.

Could the Minister abolish the panel altogether?

I could think about it. There is no point in saying that this is not a patronage appointment: it is. It is useful for the person who hopes to be appointed to be a friend of the Minister, whoever the Minister happens to be.

Is no account taken of the fact that the auctioneer concerned sold the land to the Land Commission?

No. The practice is to hand it over to the auctioneer afterwards.

Hand it over to the pal.

Yes, that is it.

I must confess I am disarmed by the Minister's frankness.

Would the Minister consider a proposal that these jobs should be rotated among all the auctioneers in the town and that there should be no panel? This would ensure that justice would be seen to be done and that there would be no back-scratching.

He told us his pal would not get it, then.

I do not think the volume of business involved would be of any real benefit if every auctioneer were entitled to act.

But, at present, the existing auctioneers are losing business because they are not on the panel.

They are doing very well.

Nobody quarrels with that.

Would the Minister remove this little "perk"? It is regarded as a reflection on an auctioneer if the business he was always doing is taken away and is given to his pal down the street.

Does the Minister think the manner of selection at the moment is on a fair basis?

I do. Would the Deputy not do the same if he were in my job—appoint his own man?

Does the Minister not feel that the practice of taking away business from an auctioneer who has sold the land to the Land Commission does militate to some degree against land being offered which might otherwise be offered to the Land Commission?

The Deputy has mentioned a salient point. I shall have a look at that.