I do not intend to say very much on this Bill. Coming from an area in which such a high value is set on land, and believing that if this Bill were passed through the House, as presented, its effect would be to stop the Land Commission completely from working as it has worked for many years, I feel it my duty to utter a word of protest against the Bill and to inform the House and everybody concerned that I shall vote against it. On the other hand, I can assure Deputy Cogan that I do not lay too much blame on him for bringing this Bill before the House. Perhaps if he were a representative of a western area, as the Minister and I happen to be, his opinions might be moulded along the same lines as mine have been in an effort to get better concessions for the majority of his constituents. It would seem from the terms of this Bill that Deputy Cogan represents an area the residents of which are almost entirely large farmers who do not wish to part with a single acre of their land for the relief of congestion or any other worthy purpose. In his efforts to safeguard their interests, he is endeavouring to cut clean across the policy that has been operated by native Governments for the last 25 years and by an alien Government for 20 years prior to that in their desire to acquire land, to relieve congestion and to resettle as large a number of families as possible on the land.
There are two sections in this Bill which is unlike many other Bills that have been presented here dealing with the Land Commission in previous years. The first of these sections absolutely restricts the power of the Land Commission. Any sensible person would realise that with land at its present value nobody is going voluntarily to allow a Government Department or anybody else to take away any portion of his land. Under this Bill if a man owned even 10,000 acres unless the consent of the owner is given to its sale the Land Commission officials could remain in the same place as the officials of the Minister for Agriculture have now to remain—outside the fence. There would be no power of compulsion of any kind for the acquisition of land. That is a state of affairs that would be intolerable and it is very wrong to ask the Land Commission to stand stock-still in the cleaning up of the rural slums and in the remedying of social injustices, simply because it might not suit one section or other of the people. I can assure the House that I have very little confidence in the manner in which the Land Commission has been operated for 20 or 25 years past. Its progress is slow enough as it is, but it would become absolutely stagnant and useless if its powers were further restricted. If these powers were to be further curtailed, the effect would be to leave the congested farmers and the small landholders for all time in the state of poverty in which they have been sunk down the years and in that event it woud be much better to spend the money which is now allocated to the Land Commission on something else.
So far as Section 3 is concerned I am not in full agreement with it, but I am not as opposed to that section as I am to the previous one. There is no doubt whatever that the price paid by the Land Commission for quite a considerable time in the acquisition of land is not by any means satisfactory. It does not represent by any means the real value of the land, but if the Land Commission is to pay the real market value of the land it has to take into consideration the question of where the money is to come from. If the tenant who is to be resettled on that land is asked to pay out of his own pocket over a period of years the amount that would be necessary to give the full market value, then that tenant farmer would be much better off by not accepting that land at all. He could never be expected to pay by means of rent or annuities the full market value of such land. On the other hand, if the Government had to provide the money to purchase such land it amounts practically to the same thing. Money does not rise from a spring well in this country. It has to be provided by the taxpayers, and there again the purchase of such land would impose a very heavy burden on the taxpayers who are, after all, the ordinary people of this country. I think if the Land Commission set about the task, it would be possible to evolve some system of a sliding scale whereby up to a certain scale an increased price would be given for land so acquired. Let us assume that where land was taken over, for the first £20 valuation the price to be paid, if not the full market value, would be as close as possible to it, and then for every amount in excess of £20 valuation, the sliding scale would operate with a downward tendency.
I think that the Land Commission should be able to give a little more than they are giving at present and, if necessary, extend the period of repayment for the tenant who would get the land so that his son or his grandson might participate in the repayment of the annuities on that land. That is the only suggestion I have to make in that regard but, again, I would not be as opposed to Section 3 as I am to Section 2. Of course, if this Bill were passed it would mean the repeal of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Land Act of 1923, which reads:
"As regards untenanted land the price shall, in default of agreement, be such an amount as may be fixed by the Land Commission (other than the Judicial Commissioner), or by the Judicial Commissioner on appeal from the Land Commission, and in fixing such a sum regard shall be had to the fair value of the land to the Land Commission and the owner respectively."
The price of land definitely has increased since that Act was passed in 1923 and, if the Land Commission did increase the price paid, then there could be better negotiation and better agreement between the person from whom the land was being taken and the Land Commission. I say this merely as a sort of pointer to what my ideas would be in order to get a speedier solution of the land question. We have to pay for the land that we take as reasonably as we can, confiscate it, or pay a price so low as will be regarded as almost confiscation by the man from whom we take it. If the Minister would get his officials together and try to arrive at some system, it should not be impossible to clear up this whole problem. It would bring a great deal of case and peace to Deputy Cogan and myself and other Deputies who are anxious with regard to the land question.
However, I could not at any time or in any way support this Bill as it stands because it sets out:—
"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."
Even, as it is, the Land Commission are very slow to move in on any man who is using his farm in accordance with proper methods of husbandry. But "proper methods of husbandary" may mean anything. A man who has a stud farm may be regarded as using his land in accordance with proper methods of husbandry. "Proper methods of husbandry" as defined here might mean having a couple of hundred cattle grazing on the land which would be well attended to and looked after by the farmer. It might mean having five or six hundred sheep on the land. Proper methods of husbandry to the Irish farmer should mean mixed farming where there is a certain amount of tillage and a certain number of grazing stock. That is the only system I understand and that is the system I should like the Minister to understand as a proper method of husbandry, because unless that is regarded as a proper method of husbandry we shall have bullocks on the land instead of people.
I do not intend to go into any details as to the rights and wrongs of the Land Commission. There have been enough Land Bills passed in the last 25 years to resettle the land of the world, not alone the land of Ireland. Instead of making the job anything easier, each Land Bill which is brought in seems to make it harder. If you try to study them you find that a Bill brought in, say, in 1933 or 1934 took away the powers that were given in a Bill passed in 1923 or 1924. These things were not in any way helping the Land Commission. I am opposed to this Bill because, if it were passed, it would mean an absolute stand-still in regard to the powers of the Land Commission. There is no man in Ireland so foolish, with the value of land as it is, with the prospects and outlook for farming securer than they have been for many years, as to consent to allow his land to be taken away from him. On the other hand, compulsory powers must be retained. Taking all these things into consideration, I feel that I must be totally opposed to this Bill. I can assure the Minister, who comes from the same constituency as I do, that if he is in agreement with this Bill he will have quite a lot to account for when he comes to see the people of South Mayo.