Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 1936

Vol. 64 No. 2

Private Deputies' Business. - Provisions of Land Act, 1933.

Mr. Bennett

I move:—

That, in the opinion of the Dáil, the Land Act, 1933, should be amended so as to ensure that:—

(a) any land purchase annuitant, who farmed his land satisfactorily, produced a sufficient amount of food, and gave adequate employment, would not be disturbed in possession; and

(b) that in the event of any such lands being resumed by the Land Commission the market value without any deduction would be paid by way of compensation.

This motion has been on the Order Paper for many months and, since it first made its appearance, certain legislation was introduced. While I have no intention of criticising the amending Bill recently put through this House, it still devolves upon me to point out that certain doubts exist in the minds of farmers as to their rights to their farms. I should like, first of all, to refer to the difficulty in disposing of a farm at the present time. As an instance of this I might mention a case which came to my notice recently. The holder of a large farm in the south died. His holding of land was advertised for sale by public auction. The auctioneer approached me to know if I could get any definite information as to whether the Land Commission intended to take over this land. He told me it was really immaterial to him and that he did not wish to hold an auction if the Land Commission were going to take the land. I endeavoured to make what inquiries I could and I was informed that the Land Commission, at that moment, had not this particular farm on their list for acquisition, but they could not give me any undertaking that the land would not be taken at a future date. The auction was held and, because of the doubt that existed as to whether the farm would be acquired, there were no bidders. That is an instance of what is happening. I do not say that sales are abortive, but in the case of sales that do take place, the farms are sold considerably under their value, largely because of the existing doubt as to whether the purchaser will be allowed to hold the farm for any definite length of time.

There is another serious point that arises. Farmers have recently found that it is not only difficult to raise new loans on land in the bank, but they are being pressed to pay the existing loans or to offer alternative security other than the security of their farms. I can quote some cases privately to the Minister, if he desires me to do so.

Mr. T. Kelly

I should like to call attention to the fact that there is no House.

Mr. Dillon

I am sure the Deputy will notice, with satisfaction, that Deputy Boland is taking his place as a fully-fledged Minister, by the leave of the Governor-General.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is Deputy Kelly asking for a count?

Mr. T. Kelly

I made a count myself as best I could, but I cannot see 20 members.

Mr. Dillon

I suggest the Deputy should rivet his attention on the newly-appointed Minister.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present.

Mr. Bennett

I said that one of the consequences of the doubts created in the farmers' minds was that there was a difficulty in borrowing money from the banks. Most Deputies who have experience of farming recently will be aware of that. I am particularly sorry that the Minister for Finance is not in the House and that he left when he did. The Minister was here when I proposed to move this motion a couple of nights ago, and I think he was not anxious that it should be moved. I am not quite sure if the Minister wished to be here, because the case for the particular motion on the Paper could more easily be made out of the mouth of the Minister than in any other way I can conceive. All the consequences that at present arise out of the doubts as to the tenure of land and the difficulty of selling land were prophesied by the Minister when speaking on another question of land holding some months ago. When there was a question of ground rents and the holding of building property, the Minister waxed very eloquent and spoke strongly against any proposal to destroy property in ground rent holdings. In column 1044, Volume 61 of the Official Debates, he made this rather significant allusion:—

"Possibly at this stage I should remind the House that one of the fundamental principles upon which our social system has been built is the right of private ownership in land. Our whole rural economy is based upon that principle. We fought the land war in order to establish it, and I believe any person who attempts to undermine it will face an opposition that would overawe a Hitler or a Stalin."

The Minister was not satisfied with that particular allusion to history, and to the fight made for the land, and he pointed out things that were certain to happen if there was any interference with the rights of land ownership. He said:—

"They are a property in which many persons have invested their savings to make provision for themselves in their old age and for their widows and children after them."

And he went on to say that if the House were to accept any interference with them, the capital of individuals would be gravely and seriously depreciated and possibly it would eventually be wiped out. He then said, in substantiation of what I am saying, that banks

"would find themselves compelled to recall some of their loans or to ask those ground rent owners to whom they had made advances— most probably to finance industrial undertakings—to put up additional security..."

All those evils which the Minister prophesied would occur if there was any interference whatever with ground rent holders and with the inviolability of property in land, as he argued, have occurred. There is a grave depreciation in the value of land. There is certainly the difficulty he foretold in respect of the borrowing powers of farmers and of the possibility that banks would ask them to increase their security. All these are everyday occurrences until we now have practically arrived at the position when the farmer has no longer the security. He has no longer something on which he can borrow anything.

There are other difficulties to which this fear of being dispossessed gives rise. One very obvious difficulty—and it pertains to the debate we have been engaged in for the last four or five hours—is that by reason of the doubts in the farmers' minds at the present moment, even if things were a little more prosperous than they are at present, there would be a lack of any desire to carry out improvements on many farmers' holdings. No man is going to undertake any serious works if he fears that when he has completed these works the farm on which he has made them will no longer be his. There are 101 things that could be done on many farms to my own knowledge that are not being done. Possibly one reason is the shortage of money at the moment, but I honestly believe that, even if there were better times, if economically the farmers' condition was improved, as we all hope it will be improved immediately, there would still be hesitation to undertake any serious works on farms while this fear of dispossession exists.

This question has been raised in various debates and I do not want to cover a great deal of the ground already covered and possibly be accused of wasting time. I believe that in the short space of a few minutes as much can be said as it is necessary to say. Everybody knows the position; everybody who is not blind knows that in the minds of a great number of farmers, no matter whether it is legitimate or not—and I leave out that question—there is a fear that at any moment they may be dispossessed, that their land may be compulsorily acquired and that the amount paid to them would be insignificant. Under those circumstances, it is idle to look for any extraordinary expenditure on land, even if the money was there.

Probably the moving of this motion at this moment is propitious, because we have a new Minister and I am sure that neither he nor the previous Minister had any desire that the farmers should be perturbed unreasonably. I do not believe the previous Minister or the new Minister has any desire to upset the agricultural economy by the creation of such a fear as undoubtedly exists. If, at this stage, even outside an amending Bill, we could have the assurance of the Minister now in charge that no farmer such as I have mentioned, who farmed his land satisfactorily, produced a sufficient amount of food, and gave adequate employment, would be disturbed, and that, in the event of the land being resumed, the Land Commission would pay the market value without any deduction; if the Minister could assure the farmers through this House that there was no intention to disturb them; and above all, if he could assure the people who lend money to the farmers, the banks of this country, that the farmers to whom they have lent money on the security of their land will be left in possession of those lands, that the banks need not hesitate to lend money to any decent, honest, hard-working farmer, and need not fear that the land will be compulsorily acquired, it would go a long way towards removing the doubts and fears of the farmers. While I am sure that the present Minister has no intention of proceeding ruthlessly with the acquisition of farmers' holdings, nevertheless, the powers are there in the Act and they can be enforced ruthlessly. I hope the Minister will give us some such assurance as I have asked for and allay the fears that exist in the minds of the majority of farmers in this State.

Mr. Keating

I beg to second the motion. There is a great feeling of insecurity amongst farmers in the Saorstát, especially because of what happened in County Wexford, since the 1933 Act was passed. Seven hard-working, industrious farmers in that county, some of them having as little as 27 acres, received notice from the Land Commission that their land was required for distribution, notwithstanding the fact that other land in the district was offered to the Land Commission and that they refused to take it. People in the county which I represent do not know where they stand at the moment, since that notice was served on these seven farmers. They were men who always worked their land in a proper way. They tilled a big proportion of it, and gave a big amount of employment. We had the case of one man who held 90 acres, a man named William Devereux, a man with whom I had the pleasure of going to school. He is a neighbour of mine. I know him from boyhood, and I knew his father before him. This man gave employment to six agricultural labourers and a domestic servant, and he had temporary men employed at busy seasons of the year. Farmers are sometimes asked, when served with notices of this kind, why they do not pay up, but this man had his rent and rates paid up to date. He paid also his share of the British tariffs that were imposed as a result of the dispute between the British Government and our Government. While he was a big feeder of stock, he believed in mixed farming, and he made a success of it until this dispute arose in 1932 between our Government and the British Government. The farmers of this country have been taxed almost out of existence by the system which the British Government adopted to collect the £3,000,000 which they say the farmers of this country had agreed to pay them, and also the £2,000,000 that, under the Treaty settlement, was to be paid for pensions. Notwithstanding the fact that the farmers have to pay that £5,000,000 to the British Government, we had our President declaring that he would half the annuities and would collect a further £2,000,000 from them. That means that the Free State farmers, since the commencement of the economic war, have been liable for £7,000,000 per annum. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to boast that the one bright spot on earth was the Free State, as he was able to collect from the farmers here £500,000 per annum more than was due to him. It is nearly time for the Government to get away from this rainbow chasing, and either settle the economic war or release the farmer in some other way from the liability to pay tariffs.

We were promised before the 1932 and 1933 Elections that alternative markets would be provided for the farmers' produce, and that England would not be able to collect this money. Nobody would be better pleased than I if we could get out of the payment of these moneys, but what has happened? The British Government not only collected what they say the farmers had guaranteed to pay, but they have collected £2,500,000 more that the farmers never agreed to pay. On top of that, our Government asks the farmers to pay £2,000,000 more per annum. That is £7,500,000 the farmers have to provide. Then the farmer is told, if he does not pay and asks where he can find the money, that he must get out. We are told further, that there is an alternative, and that every man should live up to the new policy of Fianna Fáil by growing a big amount of wheat and a big amount of beet. They had a couple of successful seasons with their tillage policy, but what has happened this year? The majority of farmers in the constituency which the Minister for Agriculture and I represent have only been able to get from five to eight barrels to the acre. How can these men pay these extra charges under conditions of that kind? Let it be the fault of the British Government or of the Free State Government, it is not fair, or anything like fair, to put the whole burden on the farmers. The Government should step in and help the farmer by asking him to pay only what he is able to pay, and that is very little at the moment.

We hear a great deal about growing beet, but in some districts the growing of beet is not known. My information is that the average yield of beet this year will be eight tons to the acre. After paying freights, the price to the farmer will be about 30/- per ton or £12 per acre. After the farmer has met other charges he will not have £1 per acre. I should like to ask the Minister how long this state of affairs is to continue. Where are the alternative markets that were promised to the people? We know that a certain amount of cattle are being sent to continental markets, but that is due entirely to the British tariffs. If the British tariffs were removed the gentlemen who buy these cattle would not be needed here. No farmer can afford to raise a beast for two years and then pay a tariff of £4 5s. 0d. on it before he is allowed to sell it in the British market. The home market will not compensate him because, as everybody knows, when you have a surplus of any commodity it is the export price that rules. The sooner the Government makes up its mind to settle the economic war, the better for the country, for agriculture is the principal industry of this country. If agriculture fails, the country fails. Some Fianna Fáil Deputies may tell us that we are cattle ranchers and that the bullock must go, but it is as easy to be a wheat rancher as it is to be a cattle rancher. If this country could grow sufficient wheat to support itself, the very thing that has happened in wheat-growing countries would happen here. We would have machinery to cut, thresh and handle the corn and two or three men would be able to deal with hundreds of acres.

No security of employment is given by saying that we shall grow wheat because, even if we could grow sufficient to supply our own needs, the wheat ranch would be more dangerous than the cattle ranch from the point of view of unemployment. We do not want any kind of ranch. The farmer who has 50, 60, 70 or 80 acres and who goes in for mixed farming gives employment for 356 days of the year, while the man who goes in for wheat-growing gives employment only for about 40 days of the year. It should also be remembered that we cannot continue growing wheat. Men who have had experience of sowing wheat in the same land two years in succession know that it has been a failure on the second occasion.

The sooner the Government secure for the farmer a free entry into the market where he can compete on equal terms with the produce of other countries, the sooner the farmer will be in the position to pay agricultural labourers a living wage. I know as well as anybody in the country the condition of the agricultural labourers. I know they have a very bad time. I know that a few shillings brought into a man's wife at the week-end is of very little use. We are told that the labourer in 1931 was only getting 2¼d. per hour, but what is the difference between the purchasing power of the wages which he then received and the purchasing power of his wages to-day? The price of flour, tea, sugar and other necessaries of life have been considerably increased. To my mind, the sooner the Government waken up and settle this dispute the better. It is necessary, also, that they should amend the 1933 Land Act, and the even more rigorous Act passed this year. No farmer in the country feels secure in his holding, because of the policy of the Government. The action of the Government in regard to the seven farmers in Wexford, whose case I have mentioned, has caused a feeling of insecurity amongst all other farmers in the Free State. In the old Land League days we had our members fighting in the British Parliament, and they got the land for the people. They got fixity of tenure, free sale and fair rent. The policy of the present Government has destroyed all that. As Deputy Bennett told the House, if a farm is put up for sale to-day, there is not a man to bid for it, because there is no security. Deputy Donnelly may laugh, but Deputy Donnelly has not to depend for his living on a farm. He always got his living by his brains. He did not want a farm. It is as plain as the nose on your face that the farmer will not be in a position to pay the labourer a living wage until the economic war is settled. The labourer is to be pitied as well as the farmer. He is paid a bad wage, but in most cases the farmer is worse off than he is. So that, as soon as the Government sees its way to settle this economic war, the country will be prosperous. You never can make this country prosperous by bankrupting its chief industry, agriculture. No matter what your wage is, the farmer is not in a position to improve his place, because he does not know who he is improving it for.

Mr. Davin

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, and what I have to say will be very brief. I deplore some of the statements that have been made, particularly the statement made by Deputy Keating. He repeats what has been said so often from the benches over there: that there is no security for the farmers because of the policy of the present Government. Unfortunately, that statement is being believed by some of our bank managers and bank directors, and it is having serious consequences and is interfering very much with the credit facilities accorded to farmers. I say that that statement should not be repeated in this House by any Deputy who has a desire to see a better and more prosperous future in this country.

Mr. Keating

Is not my statement true?

Mr. Davin

I will leave the Deputy's hearers on that side to swallow that dope.

Mr. Keating

Never mind the dope. I can stand over what I have said. It is true.

Mr. Davin

The reason I stand up here——

Mr. Keating

You stand up because you are a twister.

Mr. Davin

That, from the Deputy, is a compliment to me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I allowed Deputy Keating a good deal of latitude in his remarks, which were not quite relevant, and I must ask him to withdraw the remark he has just used to Deputy Davin, a remark which is entirely unparliamentary and which may not be used in this House.

Mr. Keating

Very well, Sir. I withdraw the remark.

Mr. Davin

I thank the Deputy for his withdrawal, although I would not have pressed him for a withdrawal. At any rate, Deputy Keating made a statement in reference to the average yield of beet, and he said that his information—and I should like to know where he got it—was that the average yield of beet this year is at the rate of eight tons per acre. Now, I have reason to know that 5 per cent. of this year's beet has not yet arrived at the factories. Therefore, where did you get this information?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Davin should address the Chair.

Mr. Davin

How could the Deputy get the average yield of beet from anybody in this country if 5 per cent. of the beet has not yet been delivered to the beet factories?

Mr. McGovern

I do not intend to say very much on this motion, but I think that the proposal put forward in the motion is so obviously fair that I should say something in support of it. I think there is nothing more reasonable than that farmers or land owners of the type described in this motion should get a square deal. Any class in the country is entitled to be dealt with fairly and their property should not be confiscated. After all, the motion only asks for reasonable security for people who are working their land, using it to good advantage, and giving a certain amount of employment. Whether that employment is given to members of their own families or to hired labour does not matter so much. If, however, they are working their land and giving a certain amount of employment and putting the land to good use, whether you regard it from the point of view of the welfare and prosperity of the people who are working the land themselves or from the national point of view, it is quite reasonable that security should be given, and I think that this motion should be considered sympathetically by the Minister. There is no reason why, when it is decided to take over land, a fair value should not be paid for it also. It is a popular thing in this country at the present time to regard the farmer, especially if he is a large farmer, as Public Enemy No. 1. I think that is not fair. I think that any farmer, especially if he is a working farmer who has purchased his land, is certainly entitled to a square deal, and it is no thanks for any Irish Government to give him a fair chance.

Now, I think that Deputy Bennett and Deputy Keating referred to the question of security and to this sword of Damocles hanging over some farmers' heads that certainly is affecting the security and the credit of these farmers. There is no doubt about that. If I had any doubts about it, Deputy Davin proved that it was a serious matter when he referred to the damaging effects of statements made by certain Deputies here. I should be only too glad if the Minister would make a statement to dispel any doubt there may be about this, and if he would make a statement to the effect that the class of farmers referred to will be quite secure in their holdings. If their credit has been affected by anything said by any Deputy in this House, one word from the Minister to the effect that their security would not be disturbed could make that all right. I think that the Minister, by such a statement, could not fail to restore the credit that, according to Deputy Davin, has been damaged by such statements in this House. If anybody had made statements damaging to those people, I am not so sure but that these statements have not come from the Labour Benches or the Fianna Fáil Benches rather than for these benches here. In any case, however, any damage that has been done in that respect could be repaired by the Minister's stating that the general policy of the Government was not to interfere with the security of the farmers in their holdings. We all know that credit is very important to people engaged in any industry, and especially to farmers at the present time when they are in so much need of borrowing money from banks or from the Credit Corporation. I know that both the Credit Corporation and the banks are very particular about the class of farmers to whom they will lend money, and a great deal of good can be done by the Minister by clarifying this point and showing that it is not the intention of the Government to interfere with the security of farmers who are using their land in a particular way and giving employment to a certain number of people, whether members of their own families or hired labour.

I do not want to go into the question of the economic war, but when we are dealing with the values of land I should like to point out that the present value of land is not the natural or fair value of land. It is an artificial value which has been brought about by a certain policy pursued for some years. The tariffs imposed upon our produce are responsible for creating a false value. For that reason it would be doubly unjust and doubly unfair to disturb the particular class of farmer who has been referred to in this motion. For that reason I would ask the Minister to consider those points very carefully, and at any rate to restore the security of those people and the credit to which they are justly entitled when they want to raise money to carry on their industry. This will also have the effect perhaps of reducing the rate of interest they will have to pay for a loan. It is difficult for any farmer at the present moment to give as much employment as he would wish to give if he had the cash.

If he could borrow money he would be able to give more employment and utilise his land for his own benefit and for the benefit of all concerned. I think that this motion should be very sympathetically considered. I hope that the Minister will clarify these points raised in regard to interference with the credit of those people who want to borrow money.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken)

The little interest that is shown in this debate is a true indication of its importance. I do not think any single member of the House, even Deputy Bennett or Deputy Keating, is the slightest bit interested in this resolution. We went over this ground in 1933 and we went over it again this year. All sorts of alarmist prophecies were made as to what was going to happen under the 1933 and 1936 Acts. Three years have passed since the 1933 Bill became law. It is the law which this resolution seeks to amend. Notwithstanding the fact that three years have passed there has been no proof advanced, either here to-night or at any other time, that any injustice has been done under the powers which that Act gave to the Land Commission. Deputy Keating mentioned one case where an office girl made a mistake in sending out the wrong form to some farmers down in County Wexford. I think that matter should not be introduced into a serious debate here. That was all Deputy Keating could say about the resolution; he then went on to matters which were extraneous to this debate.

I claim that the 1933 Act gives as full security to the ordinary farmer in this country as it is possible to give, when you take the whole circumstances of this country into consideration. It gives more security than was given under the 1923 Act to lots of farmers in this country. In 1933 I accepted an amendment which came from Deputy MacDermot to the effect that if a man works his land, and gives an adequate amount of employment or produces an adequate amount of food-stuffs, his land cannot be acquired for any purpose except for the relief of congestion in the immediate locality, or for sports grounds or parks for towns or villages. If the Land Commission in any case come below £2,000 market value they have to give that man an alternative holding of equal market value, up to £2,000, and if he is not satisfied with the Land Commissioners' price in regard to that matter he has an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.

Deputy Bennett spoke about the terrible insecurity of the farmers under the 1933 Act, and all sorts of reasons were given for the banks not being willing to advance money. If Deputy Bennett reads the 1923 Act he will find in Section 24 that, notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections—which gave certain rights to men who had purchased under the Land Acts—

"where the Land Commission before the appointed day declare in the prescribed manner that any land wherever situated"——

except State lands

——"is required for the purpose of relieving congestion, then such land shall vest in the Land Commission pursuant to this section."

Mr. Dillon

That was prior to the vesting of the tenants?

Mr. Aiken

It shall vest in the Land Commission to use as they wish for the relief of congestion.

Mr. Dillon

That was land which had not as yet vested in the tenants.

Mr. Aiken

It was land which had vested in the tenants. If Deputy Dillon would only read Section 24 of the 1923 Act he would find that land which had been purchased under the Land Act was subject to being acquired by the Land Commission for the purpose of relieving congestion.

Mr. Bennett

Before the appointed day?

Mr. Aiken

Before the appointed day.

Mr. Cosgrave

What was the appointed day?

Mr. Aiken

The appointed day was the day which the Land Commission wished to appoint.

Mr. Cosgrave

The vesting day?

Mr. Aiken

Even though the land was vested in the tenant——

Mr. Cosgrave

No—that is the vesting day.

Mr. Aiken

—and even though the land was purchased by the tenants under the previous Act. I will again read the section for the Deputy so that he will not again go astray in regard to it. The first clause was to vest all tenanted and untenanted land in the Land Commission. The second sub-section says that:—

The foregoing sub-section shall not apply to (a) any land which has been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts or is on the appointed day the subject of an actual purchase agreement thereunder lodged with the Land Commission before the date of the passing of this Act.

Then sub-section (3) goes on to withdraw those rights in certain respects, for one special purpose—the relief of congestion. The sub-section says:—

Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, where the Land Commission before the appointed day declare in the prescribed manner that any land wherever situated... is required for the purpose of relieving congestion, then such land shall vest in the Land Commission pursuant to this section.

Mr. Cosgrave

That section is dealing with unvested land.

Mr. Aiken

No, it is dealing with land which has been purchased under the Land Acts and has been vested in the tenants. The purchase is not completed until the land is vested in the tenants.

Mr. Cosgrave

That section deals exclusively with land that has not been vested, and if the Minister consults his legal adviser, he will find that that is so.

Mr. Aiken

The fact is that persons who had completed the purchase of their land were liable to have their land taken again from them.

Mr. Cosgrave

And then they were entitled by law to get an alternative holding.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, of equal value.

Mr. Aiken

But we threshed all that out before.

Mr. Cosgrave

It has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Aiken

It has a lot to do with the answer to the case which Deputy Bennett has made here to-night.

Mr. Cosgrave

Nothing whatever.

Mr. Aiken

If Deputy Cosgrave will read another section of the Land Act of 1923, he will find that the Land Commission could resume any holdings which were not vested in the tenants. I wish Deputy Cosgrave would read again the Land Act of 1923.

Mr. Cosgrave

I happened to read it when the Minister was otherwise employed.

Mr. Aiken

That was 13 years ago. The Deputy ought to refresh his memory. As far as I can see, the only man on the Cumann na nGaedheal side who did understand that Act was the late Deputy Hogan.

Mr. Cosgrave

And if he were here now, he would be told he did not understand it.

Mr. Aiken

If Deputy Cosgrave comes to the 1923 Land Act, and reads Section 29, he will find there that the Land Commission were given full powers to retain any land of any size. The power of resumption of the whole or part of the holding was given them, and they could retain a holding of any size.

Mr. Cosgrave

There were powers to resume unvested lands. These were the powers they were given.

Mr. Aiken

They were given powers to resume and retain holdings for the relief of congestion.

Mr. Dillon

Does not the Minister differentiate between the land which has been vested in the tenants under the Land Act and land which has not been vested and on which the tenant is merely a probationary purchaser paying a rent in lieu of annuity, such rent to be credited to the purchase account after vesting is completed? Does not the Minister recognise the difference between these two classes?

Mr. Aiken

Yes, and I have quoted two sections of the 1923 Land Act, one dealing with the question of purchased land. I am countering the arguments that there had been something new in the 1933 Land Act. I am referring the House to Section 29 of the Land Act of 1923 in regard to the retained holdings, in order to show that these powers existed. Under that section, about 80,000 holdings in this country were subject to even greater restrictions than any under the 1933 Act. Under Section 29 of the Land Act of 1923, even if a man had only a few acres of land, it could be retained by the Land Commission if they so desired. In the course of the long debate on the 1933 Act, we gave security that where a man was farming the land well, giving an adequate amount of employment, and producing an adequate amount of food for the service of the community, he could not be disturbed in his possession of that land except for the purpose of the relief of congestion in the locality, or for the provision of public parks. If that land were resumed, the man was bound to get a holding of equal value up to two thousand pounds' worth. It is difficult to debate this matter again, because we debated it so often before. One thing that I want to point out is this, that after three years' operation of the Land Act of 1933, no solid case has been put forward as to why that Act should be amended. The section which this motion of Deputy Bennett's seeks to amend is in keeping with what the public of this country think is vital in regard to the land. I do not propose to follow the arguments of Deputy Keating about the economic war. These arguments do not belong to this debate at all.

Mr. Keating

They affect the country very much.

Mr. Aiken

They belong to another debate. They do not apply to this motion. I might point out that in his speech Deputy Keating never once mentioned the motion which is now before the House. I think the 1933 Land Act is satisfactory and there is no reason to change it.

Mr. Dillon

I want to make two points and I do so because apparently the Minister has confused the issue in regard to two vital matters connected with the land code in this country. He has repeatedly in this House confounded the respective status of the non-vested tenant with the vested tenant. Certain of the Land Acts passed between 1923 and 1931 gave the Land Commission powers to resume land which had not been vested in the tenant. A non-vested tenant was a person who, in fact, paid rent in lieu of annuity. It was provided that if he subsequently turned out to be a person whom the Land Commission thought should have the land vested in him, the rent paid by him during the time when his lands were not vested could be credited to the annuity account and this could be made retrospective from the date at which the purchase agreement had been entered into until the date at which the lands were vested. It so happened that from the period he entered into the land under the purchase agreement and the vesting of the land by the Land Commission, as much as from five to ten years usually elapsed. During this period the Land Commission had powers of resumption and the tenant knew that during these probationary years the Land Commission could resume the land if the tenant was not equal to the task of farming it under a proper system of husbandry. But the tenant also knew that the day would come when the land would be vested in him. When that time came it would not be open to anybody in this State or to any Government Department in this State to put him out of the land. It was only then that fixity of tenure began. The Minister is confused in the matter of the difference between a vested and a non-vested tenant. There was all the difference in the world between the two.

The second point I want to make is that the Minister is endeavouring to identify the powers of compulsory purchase provided under the Land Act of 1923 with the powers of compulsory purchase provided under the Land Act of 1933. Both Acts give powers to the Land Commission to acquire compulsorily land which had been purchased under the Land Act of 1923. They give power to the Land Commission to acquire compulsorily any land acquired by the tenant previous to 1923. The 1923 Land Act gave power to the Land Commission compulsorily to acquire the land purchased previous to 1923. The 1936 Land Act has given the Land Commission power compulsorily to acquire land under the 1923 Land Act, and all Land Acts before that. There is this fundamental difference between the powers conferred on the Land Commission by the 1923 Land Act, and the powers of compulsory acquisition conferred on them by the 1933 Act, that the 1923 Act requires the Land Commission to give a tenant purchaser, who is disturbed by them, not only land of equal value but land of equal suitability. The Land Act of 1933 gave the Land Commission power compulsorily to acquire registered land, provided they gave the tenant land of equal market value, if the land taken from him did not exceed in value £2,000.

Under the 1923 Land Act, a farmer could go to the Land Court and say: "I admit that the farm I am being offered is of equal market value but, from the sentimental point of view, I do not want to be put out of a holding which my family fought to retain during the Land War." If he could make a claim on grounds other than purely economic grounds, which were sufficient to convince the land judge, the land judge was entitled to say that the alternative holding offered was not of equal suitability, and therefore the tenant might not be disturbed. It was only when the Land Commission was able to satisfy the land judge that they were giving a man land of equal value to the land that had an attraction for him, that they could move a man who purchased land. Under the 1933 Land Act, if they could satisfy the Appeal Tribunal that they were giving a man land of equal market value, although they might be removing him from Donegal to County Waterford, that man had to go. That is the fundamental difference in these two Acts, and I suggest very strongly that the Minister for Defence, when he has occasion to deal again with these matters in this House, should be frank enough to admit that there is a fundamental difference between the Bill for which he is responsible, and that for which the late Deputy Hogan was responsible, in regard to compulsory powers of acquisition which he claimed for the Land Commission under the two Bills he steered through the House.

Mr. MacDermot

I only rise to make a comment on the last point made by Deputy Dillon. I wonder if he has forgotten that there is a proviso as to "suitability" in the 1933 Land Act. It is true, it is not quite so stringent as the one in the Land Act of 1923 because the word "equally" appears in it. Owing to certain efforts of the Party to which Deputy Dillon and I then belonged, an amendment was introduced in the 1933 Act providing that alternative land offered should not only be of the requisite value but should be suitable. I do not think that point should be overlooked.

Mr. Cosgrave

In the course of his speech the Minister paid no attention whatever to the motion before the House. It is in two parts and refers in the first instance to the case of a man who is working his land satisfactorily, and in the second place suggests that he should get market value. Deputy Dillon has explained the difference between the Land Acts of 1923 and 1933.

Mr. Aiken

I would not advise Deputy Cosgrave to accept Deputy Dillon's explanation.

Mr. Cosgrave

With great respect I prefer it to the Minister's explanation, because the Deputy has had much longer time to study Land Acts than the Minister. He has also had a greater opportunity of understanding them, and knowing all about them. That was in the nature of the case, and it is no reflection on the Minister to say so. I had some experience of the Land Act of 1933 and, as the Minister has paid a compliment to the memory and to the work of the late Deputy Hogan, who was Minister for Agriculture and was responsible for the 1923 Act, may I give the Minister for his information the late Deputy Hogan's estimate of the value of the compensation to be awarded under the Act of 1933? It was an Act in which he was interested. Having some knowledge of the Land Commission and of the price it was paying for land, he had a valuation made of two separate farms of 30 acres each. He found in one case that if the Land Commission resumed, took over, entered into possession, or acquired the farm the owner would get £15 compensation, and in the other case, the Land Commission would ask the owner to put up £15. Along with taking the land they would require £15 from the owner for the annuity. That was Deputy Hogan's analysis of the compensation allowed under the Land Act of 1933, and that is the basis of the second part of the motion to which the Minister did not refer. Another Deputy who had a farm in County Wicklow published in the Press the compensation that he was paid in respect to that holding. There are Deputies representing agricultural districts who have had experience such as that of Deputy Bennett in connection with the acquisition of a holding in his constituency, and that of Deputy Keating in respect to the attempted acquisition of seven or eight holdings in his constituency. Surely that should be brought to the ear of the House. May I say in connection with the explanation given to Deputy Keating by the Minister, that during the ten years I had experience of these matters in this House, I never heard a Minister state that a mistake made by a typist in his office was not his mistake. It is not done. It is not done in any Parliament. The Minister is responsible, no matter what happens in his Department, and for my part I would much prefer that the Minister had not made that excuse. It is a miserable excuse and one which on the facts of the case will not fit, for no Minister should get up and say that it was a typist in the office made the mistake. Did eight typists make a mistake? The first part of the motion deals with a person who works his land, and a man who does that ought to be given authority to hold his property by statute. If it is going to be taken, in all justice and honesty, it ought to be paid for when taken by the State.

Mr. Corry

One matter I should like to allude to in connection with the motion is this, that there are holdings —I do not know whether Deputy Cosgrave is aware of them or not— where the Land Commission would have to be paid to take them over. For one reason or another certain valuations were put on when these holdings were being purchased, and as a result the annuities to-day are beyond the capacity of human beings to pay. I will give one example. There is a holding in the vicinity of my district containing 74 acres on which the poor law valuation is £127, and the annuity, which has been halved, is £66 15s. Would any Deputy care to take a present of that holding? I wonder who is going to fix the market value in these cases? Are these farms to be put up for public auction, and will the Minister or officials of the Land Commission come there as bidders?

Who is going to fix the market value of these holdings? A difficulty that did exist under the 1923 Act was this, that when a holding was to be resumed the resumption price fixed was such that nobody could buy it. These holdings were absolutely useless to the Land Commission or to anybody else when taken over because they were taken over at such a price that the unfortunate tenants who got them were unable to pay the annuities or to meet any other charge on them. That, in my opinion, is what has led to the situation in which we have hundreds of derelict farms all over the country. The price paid by the Land Commission for those resumed holdings was out of all reason, and the result is that we have them lying there absolutely useless. They are a charge on the ratepayers at the present time who have to meet the annuities and rates on them. We do not want to see any more of them.

I believe the reason for this motion arises out of some mistake that was made, I understand, in the County Limerick. I have seen mistakes of the kind occur in other districts, mistakes associated not only with the Land Commission Department but other Departments of State. For instance, during the time that Deputy Cosgrave was President I am aware that an unfortunate woman, with only 15 acres of land, received a demand for £50 income-tax. Her total valuation was about £11 10s. 0d. She was threatened with distraint if she did not pay it immediately. Mistakes of that kind occur from time to time, and I do not know that anyone can be held responsible for them. I do not think there was any need for this motion to be brought forward at all. The only fault that I have to find with the Land Acts of 1936 and of 1933 is that when we had a happy family on the benches opposite—I think it is no great loss to the nation that some members of it have since drifted apart—the Minister, in a weak moment, was foolish enough to accept some amendments from them.

An Ceann Comhairle

Which are not relevant to this motion.

Mr. Corry

As I have said, I can see no reason at all for this motion being brought forward. Deputy Bennett has not told us how he is going to arrive at the market value. In the absence of that information, I think it would be much wiser to leave things as they are.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Bennett to conclude.

Mr. Bennett

The Minister, in the course of his short speech, said he did not think that either Deputy Keating or myself was serious in the case that we put forward. I can say that I was never more serious in my life. In my introductory speech I did not deal with many things that are occuring in the country, but I think I said enough to demonstrate to the Minister and the House the fears that exist in the minds of farmers in regard to their title to their land, and as to whether they will get the market value for it if it is taken from them. The Minister, in his reply, thought so much of the case that I made that he was afraid to rely for his arguments on the provisions in the 1933 and 1936 Land Acts, and so in order to make a case for himself he had to fall back on the 1923 Land Act and try to prove that it created just the same difficulties for the farmer as the later Acts. I think the Minister was in error in saying that the powers taken in the 1923 Land Act were as drastic as the powers conferred in the two later Acts. Whether they were or not, the fact is that they were not acted on. In connection with that Act, we had no public demonstrations of the kind that we have had since the 1933 Act was passed. We had not occurrences of the kind that we have seen in Wexford and Limerick, counties where farmers received notices from the Land Commission of its intention to acquire their land.

The Minister did not make any reference to these occurrences. He treated them as if they never took place. Neither did he deal with the second paragraph in the motion which refers to the market value of land. Deputy Corry had the courage to face up to that, and said that he knew holdings which the Land Commission would not take over if they got them for nothing. I am not concerned with that type of holding because there is no fear of the tenant being disturbed.

Mr. Donnelly

Would the Deputy mind telling the House the date on which he tabled this motion.

Mr. Bennett

I am not able to give the exact date.

Mr. Donnelly

How many years is it since it was tabled?

Mr. Bennett

It was tabled some months, and not years, ago.

Mr. T. Kelly

Five years ago.

Mr. Bennett

The Fianna Fáil Party were not in power five years ago, and it has been tabled since their advent to power. Deputy Corry need not be a bit afraid that the farmers that he referred to are going to be disturbed. The Deputy asked me who is going to fix the market value. That is the question on which I was anxious to get some assurance from the Minister, but the Minister did not give me an answer. Deputy Corry now wants me to give an answer to a question that the Minister did not attempt to deal with. In the case of land that is being resumed—it amounts practically to confiscation—there is a price put on it that has some relation to the economic war, which I want to keep miles away from if I can, but it is a price that has no relation whatever to the value that would be put on it three years ago. The prices that the Land Commission are fixing at the moment for resumed holdings would, in some cases, not be a third or a fourth of what these farms actually cost in the public market not many years ago, and out of that price the unfortunate tenant has to pay all outgoings, including the redemption of his Land Commission annuity, as well as any other charge that there may be on the land. The result is that for a farm that may have cost thousands, the net amount that such a man may receive for his land may be only a few hundred pounds. Deputy Davin suggested that the views that we have expressed on this question had the effect of inducing the banks to refrain from lending money to farmers.

Mr. Davin

I said that it encouraged them to do so.

Mr. Bennett

The Deputy admitted that there was a tendency amongst the banks to refrain from lending money to farmers.

Mr. Davin

That your speeches would influence them to do so.

Mr. Bennett

I am sorry that I have not any influence with the banks. Deputy Davin may have. Anyway, I take it that bank directors are not going to be very much influenced either by my speeches or by Deputy Davin's speeches. When the banks lend money they want to have some solid security for it. Heretofore, the banks were not afraid to lend us money on the security of our land. So long as we had the reputation of being steady, sober and fairly honest people we all could borrow on the security of our land, but that is not so to-day. The banks would then lend money on the security of our land, but within the last year or two the banks will not lend any money on the security of land. They are asking people for alternative security; they are asking us to produce something beyond the security of our land. That means that no farmer can borrow, because the ordinary farmer has no friend except his neighbour farmer, and if his own land is not good enough as security his neighbour's is not either. Forty-five farmers bulked together could not borrow £100 from any bank if they had not something else behind them besides land.

The Minister says I am not serious when I put down a motion like this but I believe that to be the truth. Many other Deputies know it as well as I do. Unless you have a man behind you with a deposit account, or something at his back besides land, the bank will not lend you money. That is the position at present. The Minister failed to face up to it, except by trying to prove that the 1923 Act created all these difficulties. It did not and every Deputy knows it did not. The fear of dispossession, the difficulty of borrowing money, or of selling a farm at its fair market value did not exist until the present Government came into office and passed the 1933 Act and then put it into drastic action.

Deputy Corry asked if I could suggest how the market value can be arrived at. It can be arrived at by putting the farm up for sale and seeing what it would make if the purchaser could feel reasonably sure that he was going to be left the farm when he purchased it. That is what I mean by market value. You can easily depress the market value and the Government have done that by creating the fears I have mentioned in my motion. They depressed the market value until it is now down to something like one-third of what it was, and out of that one-third, if the land is resumed, the unfortunate owner has to pay the total of the redemption annuities. I did hope that the Minister, owing to the fear that every farmer possesses, would make some gesture which would give the farmers some hope for the future. I hoped that he would make some gesture which would do away with the fears that exist among bank directors. They are more than fears, as a matter of fact. Bank directors might be influenced a little by fears, but when it comes to solid business, to the matter of lending money, they are influenced only by the amount of security offered for a particular loan. Bank directors are as good judges of Acts of parliament as any others. I have no doubt that they fully discussed this particular Act and have come to the conclusion, as I have and every other farmer has who read the Act, that no farmer's land is security for any borrowed money.

Mr. Davin

Is it the reading of the Act or the administration of the Act you are talking about?

Mr. Bennett

Deputy Davin tells us that we created this fear, that we persuaded the bank directors that they should not lend. We were supposed to influence the Government of another country a couple of years ago. Now we are able to influence the bank directors. We are such an important Opposition that maybe we will create a fear in the minds of the Labour Party that their attitude in the last two or three years was not right. In fact, I believe we have created that. This particular matter has been debated many times, but there has been no gesture from any Minister that the full powers of the Act were not going to be put into effect and the position is rapidly getting worse. I quoted for the Minister the instance of a farm that was to be sold. The auctioneer had arranged the date for the sale and all he wanted was a declaration that he could give to the purchaser some security that the farm would be his if he bought it. He could not get that, and, therefore, could not sell the land, which was worth £3,000 or £4,000 a couple of years ago.

That is the position with regard to every sod of land in the country. I do not say that the Minister has any serious intention of interfering with certain farmers, but if he has not that intention he should say it is not going to be done, and tell the people who lend money on the security of land not alone that they need not be afraid to lend money, but that there are no powers in the Act to enable the Land Commission to take over land on which money has been lent. These are things that every Deputy should seriously consider. Instead of the manner in which the motion has been met, the Minister ought to have had the courage to face up to it in a real way and not to get out of it in a secondhand way by trying to persuade the House that the Land Act of 1923 gave the same powers to the Land Commission and that they were acted upon. It did not give the same powers, and whatever powers it gave were not acted upon to any extent. As I said, farmers went about their business during the six or seven years after the passing of the Act quite satisfied that any money they spent on improvements was well spent; that if they purchased land it was their property; and that if they wanted to sell land they could get the market value for it.

That is the position to which we have been reduced by the Fianna Fáil Government. The Minister, in the course of his reply, said that land would only be taken if there was congestion. That is a cheap way of getting out of it. The word congestion has been bandied about in the House as if every area in Ireland is a congested district. When we spoke of congestion some years ago we meant congestion. Unfortunately, there are congested areas in the country, but the Minister has put this Act into force in such a way as to imply that there is congestion where no congestion exists. If it can be said to exist in some places where the Minister pretends it exists, then it exists in every parish in this State. If congestion can be proved to exist in some of the places I mentioned in this House some time ago, then congestion can be proved to exist in every parish of every county. I do not think that the recent statistics of population have proved that there is any great congestion. As I said, when speaking on another occasion, the Minister under this 1933 Act can make loopholes in order to take over land. He can take it for three different purposes.

I move the adjournment of the debate.