When the House adjourned last night I had practically finished what I had to say. Summed up, the Minister's reply to the motion I had put down was that unless it could be shown that a farm was not worked in a proper manner or that there was congestion in the area the tenant would not be disturbed. As to the definition of working a farm properly or to the best advantage, it would be found that there were various interpretations of that phrase and that every successive Minister would have his own idea as to the manner in which the land should be farmed. Any Minister could make a satisfactory case to his own mind for the resumption by the Land Commission of a farm under that heading. As to the Minister's contention that a farm would only be resumed in a congested area, I would like to know what the Minister's definition of a congested area is.
In practice it would work out in such a way that the Land Commission could resume a farm in any parish. I say that because in one particular case which I mentioned in this House the farm was said to be in a congested area because there were a couple of labourers' cottages in the area and there lived there a few farmers' sons who did not have farms. For that reason the district was labelled congested. Under those headings there would practically be no security for farmers owning their own land.
When we come to the second portion of the motion: "that in the event of such lands being resumed... the market value without any deduction would be paid by way of compensation," I do not think that any Deputy will deny the fact that in cases of resumption in the last few years, practically no farmer got what could be described as the market value of his land. The price given is only an uncertain sum that the Land Commission may fix, and out of that sum the farmer has to redeem the annuities. When the redemption value of the annuities is deducted what is left to the farmers may, in some cases, be nothing. In nearly all cases the sum given would not represent anything approaching the market value of the land. The Minister did not make any statement that would give encouragement to the tenant holders who feel the uncertainty of their position. The Minister is certainly a Job's Comforter. He tells us that the farmer can feel secure. Perhaps he can feel secure, in a sense. Secure in his insecurity. Secure in the knowledge that he only holds his land at the will of the particular Minister for the time being. Uncertain whether he can ever pass that land on to his children after him in the same way as he received it from his predecessors. He has, further, consciousness of the fact that he is no longer able to borrow money on the security of his land and that he will in the future be unable to sell it at the fair market value.
