Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Dec 1948

Vol. 113 No. 6

Private Deputies' Business. - Land Bill, 1948—Second Stage.

Mr. Cogan

I move the Second Reading of the Land Bill, 1948. Perhaps it is fitting that having spent the day discussing the realisation of the independence of this portion of Ireland, we should now discuss what is the fundamental of all independence in every country, that is, the land upon which the people live and from which the people live. This Bill sets out to achieve a two-fold object. It seeks to ensure for the farmer the right of security of tenure, the right for which our fathers and our grandfathers and our ancestors for years fought to achieve, the right of undisputed ownership in their homes and holdings. It seeks also to ensure for the farmer that wherever and whenever his holding is acquired from him by the State he will secure for that holding a just and a fair price. Those are the two fundamental objects of this short Land Bill. Since I tabled this Bill I have received correspondence from every county in Ireland supporting its principles and bringing to my notice cases of grave and serious hardship which have been inflicted under the existing Land Acts. I am not here to condemn the Land Commission or the officials of the Land Commission or any Minister of State who has occupied the position of Minister for Lands, but I am here to condemn the existing Land Acts which enable or permit grave and serious injustice to be done.

The fundamental injustice in the existing law is that the farmer, first of all, has no real security of ownership; no farmer can say: "My farm which I have purchased or which I have inherited will not be taken from me." No farmer can secure from the Land Commission or from the State a definite assurance that his holding may not be acquired if the State so desires. Surely it ought to be possible to give to the farmer a reasonable assurance of security of tenure. Surely it ought to be possible to say to the farmer: "If you comply with certain reasonable conditions, nobody will interfere with your right of ownership." I am not going to set out what those conditions are. They are set out briefly in the Bill, but they may require elaboration. The Bill, in Section 2, says:—

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Land Purchase Acts, no holding shall be resumed or acquired by the Land Commission without the consent of the owner in any case where it is used as an ordinary farm according to proper methods of husbandry."

The section ensures that if land is unjustly acquired, if a farmer feels that he was making good use of the land, not only in his own interests but in the interests of the community, he can take the Land Commission into court and secure that his holding will not be acquired. That is the effect of this section.

That some protection is necessary will, I think, be acknowledged. As the land code embraces up to nearly 40, I think, different land Acts, and having regard to the volume and complexity of that legislation, I am not prepared to pronounce that this section will achieve all it sets out to achieve. This is the Second Stage of the Bill. If the House accepts the broad principles involved in those two main sections, if the House agrees that a farmer should have a reasonable measure of protection in his right of ownership, if the House agrees that a farmer is entitled to a fair price for his land if it is acquired, then I would ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and before the Third Stage is reached, such improvements or amendments as are necessary to carry out those general principles can be included in the Bill. Is there any Deputy in this House who will say that a farmer who is using his land properly, who is seeking to produce from that land the maximum output that can be secured from it, can have it compulsorily acquired from him? Is there any Deputy in this House who will say that a farmer whose land is compulsorily acquired from him should be forced to sacrifice that land at less than what is a just and reasonable price based on its market value?

This is a country in which the majority of the people belong to the Catholic Church. We have been taught from our earliest childhood that there is a Commandment known as the Seventh Commandment which says, "Thou shalt not steal." That Commandment binds not only on individuals but on Governments. No Government has a right to steal from the humblest citizen of this State, and the acquisition of any title to property at less than a just price by the State is stealing, just the same as if an individual were to commit a robbery.

I want to make it clear that this Bill if enacted will not retard the progress of the Land Commission in their efforts to provide parcels of land for uneconomic holders and to relieve congestion. I am satisfied that the existing legislation is retarding the operations of the Land Commission. If the Land Commission were in a position or were allowed by the law to pay a reasonable and fair price for land, they would get all the land they require to relieve congestion, all the land that their officials could deal with and distribute voluntarily without having to resort to compulsory methods. Compulsion, I think, should be the very last resort. I am satisfied that at present, having regard to the quantity of land that is on the market every day—tens of thousands of acres of land appear for sale in the auctioneers' advertisements in the daily and weekly newspapers—if the Land Commission were in a position to buy that land on the same terms as ordinary purchasers, pay the full market price for it in cash, they would get all the land they require, and perhaps more than they would be able to deal with efficiently. That is why I say this Bill, if enacted, would speed the work of the land acquisition and division rather than retard it.

On the question of the price which the Land Commission may pay for land, I want to draw the attention of the House to the anomaly and injustice which exists in the present Land code. Under the 1923 Land Act, the Land Commission may acquire land from any farmer in any part of the country and the Act provides that, in the case of land so acquired, the price shall be based, not on the market value of the holding, but on some sort of calculation as to what is fair to the Land Commission and to the owner; some sort of compromise between what the Land Commission might like to acquire the land for and what the owner regards as a fair price. That sub-section— sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the 1923 Land Act—still remains in force so far as land acquisition is concerned.

In the case, however, of land which is being resumed from a tenant who is not the full owner of his holding, from a farmer whose land is not vested in him, but is still vested in the Land Commission, Section 39 of the Land Act of 1939 holds good. Section 39, sub-section (5) of the Land Act of 1939 lays down:—

"It is hereby declared and enacted that whenever the Land Commission resumes a holding or part of a holding, the following provisions apply and shall apply and have effect, that is to say:—

(a) the resumption price of such holding or part of a holding, that is to say, the compensation to be paid therefor by the Land Commission, shall be the market value of the holding or part of a holding so resumed."

I want the House to realise that all the land of this country held by farmers may be divided, roughly, into two classes—tenanted land and untenanted land, tenanted land being land which the farmer does not yet completely own, which he holds under a lease mainly from the Land Commission, and untenanted land being all land which farmers own completely. So far as I can estimate, the proportion of untenanted land to tenanted land would be at least three-fourths to one-fourth. I am sure that at least three-fourths of the farms of this country are owned by the farmers; the land is vested in the farmer as owner and it is his undisputed property.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

Is the Deputy describing that as tenanted or untenanted land?

Mr. Cogan

Untenanted land. That is the point I want to make. So far as I can read the Land Acts, untenanted land is land which is vested in the farmer as complete owner. One would expect that such land, land which is vested in the farmer as complete owner, would carry a bigger and better price on being acquired by the Land Commission than land which the farmer only holds by way of lease. The contrary, however, is the case. Land of which the farmer has acquired complete ownership, for which he holds a certificate of ownership signed by the Land Commission, can be acquired at as low a price as one-third of the market value and has been acquired at one-third of its market value by the Land Commission. The 1923 Act provides for that and compels the Land Commission to pay less than the market value.

Since I introduced this Bill I have received letters from almost every county in Ireland setting out the grievances and injustices inflicted upon farmers. It would be hardly possible for me to go through all these letters. They are human documents. In these letters there is a cry of distress from individuals who have been robbed, from small farmers throughout the length and breadth of the country, whose rights have been trampled upon. Here is the case of a farmer with 166 acres of land, the market value of which is £5,000. We have some members of the House who are auctioneers. I think they will agree that 166 acres of good land should be worth £5,000. The owner of the lands, in a letter, says that they have been in his family for very many years, and that the Land Commission, against his will and consent, and despite his opposition, have made an order acquiring the lands and fixing the price at £3,000, payable in 3 per cent. land bonds. The Land Commission have also made it a condition that the redemption price of the annuity will be £1,390. That would mean that he would actually receive £1,610, or £6 1s. 6d. per acre. There is the case of £1,610 being offered by the Land Commission for a farm which is valued at £5,000.

I have another letter from the owner of 72 acres which were taken up and divided. He says that he is only a poor man, far poorer than some of the people who got a divide of his land. He says: "When Mr. Joe Connolly was Minister for Lands he came to Ballyshannon and called in a barber who was in politics. This man gave the names of people to whom some of the land should be given."

Mr. Blowick

Would the Deputy have any objection to giving me the names in these cases?

Mr. Cogan

I object to giving names in the House. I can give them to the Minister privately. I have another letter here from a man who says that he lives with his father, brother and three sisters, that he is 32 years of age, and that the Land Commission have made an offer of £1,400, but that £600 have been taken out of that by them. There is another case of a farm of 419 acres of excellent land which has been acquired for £5,500. The owner says that it has been in his family for 80 years, that he is a young, hard-working man of 44 years of age. He says that he has a son farming who is 22 years of age. He adds that this is the home place and that it has always been well worked, and that they employ eight men constantly.

I want to ask, is there any justice or fair play in offering or paying such prices for land acquired compulsorily? I have another case which, I think, was mentioned in the House at one time by Deputy Beirne. That is a farm that is worth between £6,000 and £8,000. The Land Commission offered £5,000 for it, less the redemption value of £2,300. That would leave the owner abut £2,600, and that is what he is offered for a farm valued at between £6,000 and £8,000.

Mr. Blowick

Does he say what he was fined?

Mr. Cogan

I understand there have been some further negotiations. I know, to my personal knowledge, that the price finally paid does not reach near half the value.

Mr. Donnellan

Was it acquired eventually?

Mr. Cogan

It was.

Mr. Donnellan

At what price?

Mr. Cogan

I have not got the figure with me, but I think it was a little more than the sum I have mentioned. Here is the case of another farm, value for £7,000 and acquired for £4,000 odd. The redemption value of the annuity was fixed at £2,000, leaving less than £2,000 in cash to the owner. I cannot see any reason why such injustices should be allowed to continue so long. It is time that this thing should be ended once and for all. I have received many letters from farmers who, as yet, are not so much aggrieved about the price that is going to be paid for their land as they are by the fact that orders have been served on them in recent months by the Land Commission seeking to acquire their holdings. The grievance with those men is that they have been working their land. Some of them have large families, and they can see in the land they have a prospect both for themselves and their families. Yet their land is to be acquired. Another man writes and says that he has 165 Irish acres, the poor law value being £181. He says that the land has always been properly worked, that it has never been sub-let and that the tillage quota has always been fully done. He says that he was sent to an agricultural college with a view to making farming his career, that he is now 37 years of age, and that the Land Commission have decided to take 110 Irish acres. He appealed against this decision to lay commissioners and has been to see the Minister for Lands.

Mr. Blowick

What is the total acreage?

Mr. Cogan

165 acres. I have a letter here from a farmer who is setting out to establish a pedigree herd. He considers that it would be a desirable thing for him to go in for dairy farming, and hence decided to establish this pedigree herd. He went to the Land Commission and asked for an assurance that, if he put his capital into a pedigree herd, his land would not be taken from him, but could not get any such assurance. What this Bill is seeking to do is to enable farmers to secure from the State a guarantee that, if they comply with certain reasonable conditions in the working of their land, it will not be taken from them under any circumstances. That guarantee has been refused over and over again to farmers who sought it.

I am not blaming the Land Commission because, under the existing law, they cannot give such a guarantee. But the law should be changed. There is no reason why a farmer who is working his land in the best interests of the community, who is seeking to improve it and produce from it the highest annual output, and who is doing his utmost to preserve and maintain its fertility, should not be granted reasonable security in the possession of his holding. These are very important issues. They are issues which cannot, I think, be side-tracked and which cannot be allowed to lie any longer in abeyance. Land is the foundation of the nation's wealth and of the nation's well-being. The people who are working the land must be given a square deal. I have pointed out already and I repeat now that the enactment of this Bill will help in the redistribution and division of land. It will open up to the Land Commission a vast reservoir of land because when this Bill becomes law every farmer who has a farm to sell will go to the Land Commission and seek them out as possible purchasers. The Land Commission will cease to be a bugbear and a menace to the farmer and will, instead, become the farmers' friend.

Auctioneers who are hard-hearted and shrewd business men will naturally bring to the notice of the Land Commission any farms which they may have to sell. I think it is time that this question was put on an equitable basis. As we know, it is at the present time the settled policy of the Land Commission to bring uneconomic holdings up to the standard of being economic. In other words, the Land Commission, I think, lays down the rule that they would like to see small holdings brought up to at least £20 poor law valuation. In pursuance of that policy the Land Commission may acquire land from any one farmer who has land in excess of £20 valuation. That means that there are tens of thousands— possibly hundreds of thousands, I have not got the number here—of farmers from whom the Land Commission may acquire a portion. I want to know what guiding rule they have in selecting the holding to be acquired. Is there any guiding rule? As long as there is not anything laid down in our land code which can guide the Land Commission, it is open to them to go in and take any farm in the country, and it is equally open to them to pass over any individual farm and nobody can censure them. That, in itself, opens up a vast field for favouritism and injustice. Deputy Commons, when the matter of land administration was before the House on the 3rd June last, drew attention to an evil in the existing land code. He said, column 353, Volume 111 of the Official Reports:—

"I have been approached by some of these ranchers, with regard to whose lands I have put down questions in this House, who said, ‘Now that you are a supporter of the Government our cheque books will be available to you at the next election. Do not make any move in regard to our lands....'"

There you have a definite offer made by land owners to a young and able member of a political Party in this House. Does anyone think that if the laws were right and fair it would be prudent or sensible or necessary for a land owner to make such an offer? If the laws were right, land would be taken compulsorily only from those people who fail to comply with certain statutory conditions and from no others and no land owner would make any offer to any Deputy because no Deputy would have any power to influence the operations of land acquisition and division. Somebody has said that a Deputy has none. Does anyone think that the prudent, hard-headed businessmen who made that offer to a Deputy in this House were fools?

Mr. Sweetman

Yes.

Mr. Cogan

They would not have made that offer if they did not realise that some kind of political influence decided whose land was to be acquired and whose land was to be passed over.

Mr. Allen

Can the Deputy cite any case?

Mr. Cogan

I have quoted a Deputy's statement in this House which I accept as being absolutely true.

Mr. Allen

Did he get the money?

Mr. Cogan

The next important consideration is how the enactment of this Land Act will affect land division. How will it affect the establishment of new holdings? The objections that might be raised, and very properly raised, to this Bill are that its enactment would raise the price at which land would be sold to the allottees; that it would have the effect of increasing the annuity which the incoming tenant would have to pay in order to give the outgoing owner a fair price. I am satisfied, and I have an expert's opinion on the matter, that it is possible to pay a fair and a just price for land without increasing by 1d. the annuity on the incoming allottee. It is possible to do so either by extending the period of repayment, which can be done, or by reducing the rate of interest at which money is raised for land acquisition and purchase.

The question of an extension of the period of repayment would not inflict any great hardship upon a man who is getting an allotment of land free from the State. If an allottee who receives a holding from the State is told that instead of paying an annuity for 50 years he will have to pay it for 100 years, he is not going to be unduly alarmed or perturbed about the additional 50 years being added to the period of repayment. As far as the question of reducing the rate of interest is concerned, I have never been able to understand why the State, which is the ultimate and absolute source of all currency, should pay a high rate of interest for money which it requires. Nobody has ever been able to explain why a Government, upon whose authority all paper money is created—and there is very little money in existence except paper money— should insist upon paying to certain individuals a high rate of interest for what is the State's own money. I believe that money could be raised for the purpose of land acquisition, improvement and development at less than 1 per cent.; it certainly could be loaned to the farmer, to the incoming tenant, at 1 per cent. I think that would enable the land to be let at a reasonable price while at the same time paying a fair price for the land acquired. This is a very important matter, but in the time at my disposal I am not able to cope with all aspects of it.

The Bill is, I think, a reasonable and moderate measure. The proposals contained in it are simple, straightforward and essential. The Bill will do justice to the farmer who owns the land. It will confer greater benefits on the small uneconomic holder and on the people in the congested areas. It will be a vindication of those who fought the landlords in dark and stormy days in order to get security of tenure for our people. The people who stood with Davitt and Parnell are dead.

Mr. Davin

Davitt would hardly stand for this, would he?

Mr. Cogan

Davitt was the man who raised the banner of the three F's.

Mr. Briscoe

Fianna Fáil for ever.

Mr. Cogan

Fair rent, fixity of tenure and free sale. This Bill seeks to re-establish the three F's.

Mr. Donnellan

That is a most disparaging remark on the life of a great Irishman. It is not true to say that Davitt fought for everything.

Mr. Briscoe

I did not say that.

Mr. Donnellan

You did.

Mr. Briscoe

What does the Deputy think I said?

Mr. Donnellan

You are the last man who should pass a remark of that kind.

Mr. Briscoe

I passed no such remark.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair heard no remark of any kind. If more attention were paid to the Chair possibly there would be less interruptions.

Mr. Cogan

Perhaps the Deputies will continue this discussion outside. This Bill is a vindication of the men who fought to secure the land for the farming community of this country and to give them the right of tenant proprietorship and the right to undisputed ownership. I ask the House, therefore, to accept the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Mr. P.D. Lehane

I would formally second the Bill, though I am somewhat at a disadvantage in speaking to the Bill as I am suffering from a very bad cold.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy feels at a disadvantage he can reserve his remarks for another occasion.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

I will be very brief. The Bill is important. It is necessary. I think the most important part of it is Section 3. I can see certain difficulties in implementing Section 2 as it stands at present. If the Bill can be passed with the deletion of Section 2 it would, I think, achieve the purpose that Deputy Cogan has in mind. We have had experience in the country of land being taken from people and given to others, and we have had experience of those others turning out worse farmers than those from whom the land was taken. I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. R. Walsh

I protest against this measure. I do not think any Deputy from the West of Ireland could possibly support this Bill. The effect of it would be to put a stop immediately to land acquisition and land distribution. With all due respect to Deputy Cogan, I think that is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Cogan

That is absolutely untrue.

Mr. Walsh

I have a certain sympathy in regard to the problem of the market value of land. But what is the market value? How are you going to estimate it? During war land may go up abnormally in value as it did in the recent war.

Mr. Davin

Who put it up? Was it the bank managers?

Mr. Walsh

How is the market value to be decided? Prices may rise for two years and fall as quickly again. I would be in favour of paying a fair and reasonable price to any man from whom land was taken. But how are you to arrive at that price? How are you to estimate the redemption value? I believe there have been injustices under that heading.

Let us have no illusions as to who will supply the difference between the price and the sum at which the Land Commission will let to the small holders. The only way in which that difference can be made up is by the State. Is the State going to supply the deficiency? If that is the idea, I will support the Bill. The deficiency cannot be made up by the tenant. The tenant could not possibly hold the land and work it as an economic unit if that charge were made upon him. I remember in one instance where a certain amount of money was spent on a holding of land. The land was subsequently distributed and the annuities worked out at about £45 a year. No tenant would take the land. The Land Commission had to forego about £20 of that sum and the annuity was fixed at £25 a year. Those are the facts. There is no mention made of that in this Bill. It says here that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Land Purchase Acts no holding shall be acquired or resumed by the Land Commission without the consent of the owner in any case where it is used as an ordinary farm in accordance with proper methods of husbandry. That is very wide in its scope.

We all know what occurred in the past when people endeavoured to defeat the compulsory tillage regulations. We all know the tricks that were played. We all know the pretended tillage where there was no real tillage at all. We know how a lot of clever individuals could get around that clause by saying they are farmers conducting their business according to proper methods of husbandry. That might mean a man and a dog to look after 1,000 acres. We in the West know these things too well, and I certainly would not agree to any such clause unless it was far more definite than it is there.

I am very much in sympathy with any effort that can be made towards giving a fair price to the people whose lands are taken from them, but I will not agree to that being given by placing a blister on the backs of the small farmers who will get the land when it is divided. There is only one body that can supply the difference, and that is the State. If the State is willing to do it, and if the Minister can get the Government to agree to that, then I certainly will support anything that is done, but not otherwise.

Mr. Sweetman

I am very sorry that Deputy Cogan has introduced this Bill, because what I am afraid he has done is he has spoiled an extremely good case for a revision of the price that should be paid for vested land. I am afraid the Deputy left us rather confused at the end of the introduction of the Bill as to what exactly the Bill purports to do. I do not think I would be overstressing it if I said that the Bill as drafted does not at all do what Deputy Cogan suggests he wants it to do.

As I understood Deputy Cogan, Section 2 is the fundamental section to him in this Bill. I do not think Section 2 matters at all if we have the Land Commission paying, when land is acquired, the proper value for the land, a reasonable and proper market value, and paying something further in addition. I accept it as a matter of social justice that occasionally there may be cases where it is necessary that a man would be completely disturbed and, when a man is being completely disturbed, it is but right and proper that not merely in regard to market value but, in addition, that he would be paid compensation for disturbance. Deputy Cogan has left that completely out of account, a fact which was taken into account in earlier land Acts.

The position is quite a simple one if it is reduced to the proper perspective. Deputy Moylan as he is now, but the Minister for Lands as he was then, and I had a real set-to in the Seanad some two or three years ago and, with all respect to Deputy Cogan, I think the issue I put before the Seanad at that time was a much clearer issue than the issue that is put before this House tonight. The position is that one price is paid for vested land and another price for unvested land; that the unvested land is taken in pursuance of the powers of the Land Commission to resume land; that the price paid for unvested land, for resumed land, is fixed by Section 29 of the 1923 Land Act and Section 43 of the Land Act of 1931. In fact, as I think Deputy Moylan will at once agree with me, Section 39 of the 1939 Act only restated the existing position. The same position was already there before, but in respect of unvested land the price to be paid is the market value, plus, in certain circumstances, compensation for disturbance.

The real difference that arises in fixing the market value arises, as Deputy Cogan said, in the redemption of the Land Commission annuity. The person in whom the land has been vested has a very much stronger case to be paid a fair price than the person in whom the land has not yet been vested, and it is, as those of us who know the country are aware, undoubtedly a fact that whether land offered for sale is subject to a Land Commission annuity or is free from rent, that is a factor which contributes little to the price of the land that is being offered. You will have two farms of equal area, approximately the same quality of land, one subject to an annuity of £25 a year and the other free of rent, and those two parcels of land will in the open market make exactly the same price. In practice that always happens, even though in theory it should not happen. What happens is that the redemption value of the annuity is taken out of the vested land and is not taken out of the unvested land, and, in consequence, therefore, the land that should have the greater right gets the worst price.

If the price that was being paid for land was a fair price, the market value or the value that it was worth to the man from whom it has been acquired, then Section 2 would become utterly and completely unnecessary, and I would suggest with great respect to Deputy Cogan that the line to be adopted in respect of the Land Acts is not towards the restriction that he has set out to achieve in the fundamental principle of his Bill, but towards ensuring that a much more fundamental principle should be carried into effect, namely, that where the State, in order to achieve social justice, decides to acquire the property of a man, it would pay that man a fair and a reasonable price. But if that is made a fundamental objective, if it is made a fundamental principle of a measure such as this, then everything follows from it and it will be unnecessary to provide as Deputy Cogan has provided in Section 2.

For that reason, I strongly urge on Deputy Cogan that he should try to get the Minister to introduce a Bill that will provide for vested land the same price as is provided for unvested land. If he did that he would be doing not merely what is proposed in this Bill, but a very much better job for the farmers and, while doing it, he would at the same time make it quite clear that the Land Commission would be able to operate to clear up a social injustice and, when clearing up a social injustice by acquiring and allotting land, at the same time they would not be creating any injustice to the persons who own it. For that reason, I think the House could not accept this Bill with Section 2 in it, but would welcome a Bill if the Minister could see his way to introduce one along the lines I have suggested.

So far as Deputy Cogan's point about changing the interest on the annuity to 1 per cent. is concerned, I will ask him to consider, if that were done under his Bill, all that would happen is that the owner would get one-third of the price he is getting at present, because land bonds carrying only 1 per cent. interest would presumably be worth about one-third of their present value. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned accordingly.