This Bill is one of many provisions with some of which all of us will agree, but there are other provisions which we might reasonably have some doubts about. For that reason it is no harm to get from the Minister some further information other than what he gave yesterday. Land Bills—and this is no exception— are generally involved and intricate pieces of legislation, and I would like, and other Deputies would like, to protest against the bringing before this House of a Bill which, unless they are trained legal experts, very few, if any, Deputies are capable of interpreting.
Land Bill, 1949—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Does not the White Paper explain it?
I think I would be right in saying that one of the principal functions of this House is to frame the laws of the country and to do that Deputies must understand the Bills laid before them. I think it is only fair that the land laws should be codified and laid before the House in such a way that ordinary Deputies can understand their meaning. I think that would be only fair to all Deputies, irrespective of whether they are trained in law or not. The more complicated the laws of the country are, the better for the legal profession, I suppose, as they will be needed to interpret these laws to the ordinary citizen. I am sure the Minister will agree that the laws of this country should be such that the ordinary person, without the help of legal aid, should be able clearly to understand what they are. I am sure the Minister will also agree that, after 60 or 70 years of land Acts, the land laws are so complicated and involved that, without a specialised legal training in them, a person could not understand them. There are many legal people in this country, especially those practising in cities and towns, who know nothing whatever about the land laws and never had to bother about studying and interpreting them. If they come up against the problem of the land laws, they are just as much at sea as ordinary people.
The land laws were complicated more than 70 years ago.
They are complicated for 70 years and they become more and more involved as new Acts are passed. That they are complicated is all for the good of certain professions.
There are a few matters, however, arising out of the Bill as to which I should like to have some more information from the Minister than he gave us in his introductory remarks. He was so brief in introducing this fairly involved Bill, which will create many complications and problems when it becomes law, that we scarcely got as much information from him as he has already given us in the White Paper.
I thought I was very clear.
The Minister skimmed over many of the provisions of the Bill.
If the Deputy mentions the points now, I will explain them when replying.
We would like to have more information from the Minister on many aspects of this Bill.
Section 5 is the first important section that I want to deal with. It is under this section that the price of land that may be acquired by the Land Commission will be determined in future. I understand that, at the present time, the formula under which the Land Commission determine the price of land is contained in sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the 1923 Land Act. It says:—
"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 sum regard shall be had to the fair value of the land to the Land Commission and the owner respectively."
That is the formula under which land has been acquired in this country since 1923. It will be agreed, I take it, as a result of the Minister's admission that the previous Government introduced no legislation that took away the people's title to their land.
I do not know would I agree to that.
I am speaking of the formula under which the Land Commission have been acquiring land compulsorily or by agreement up to date.
That is the formula by which the price was fixed.
The Minister, in his wisdom and judgment, proposes to alter that formula under Section 5 of this Bill, and so I take it that the section will then read:—
"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. The said sub-section shall have effect with the substitution of the words ‘(1) the amount to be so fixed shall be an amount equal to the market value of such land'."
Is the Deputy against that?
I am not against a fair value being given for land. I think that, when property is taken from an owner under the operation of State laws, he should get a fair, honest price for it, and I am contending that under Section 25 of the 1923 Land Act there was nothing to prevent the Land Commission, or the Judicial Commissioner, from giving a fair price for land.
They did not give it.
There was nothing to prevent them from doing so, and there is nothing in Section 5 of this Bill to make them give to the owners of land the price that they would like to get for it. There is nothing mandatory or compulsory in this Bill to make them do that. In fact, the Land Commission or the Judicial Commissioner may determine to give an owner a lesser price for land than they are giving at the moment.
Market value is not defined in this Bill or in any of our written laws. I wonder would I be wrong in suggesting that, in future, true market value will be the value prevailing at the particular time on the open market?
How does the Deputy himself arrive at market value?
Would I be right in suggesting that the true market value of land may be the price which people who come here from across the water to acquire land may decide to pay for it?
The crowd that came in while your Party was in office.
They are to be stopped coming in.
Clann na Poblachta promised that they would pass a law to prevent aliens coming in here, but so far I have not seen that law on the Statute Book.
We have not been here for 16 years.
Order!
O'Donnell Abu.
I want to know from the Minister if the true market value of land is to be the price that people who come in here with bags of money—they may not want it to be further devalued —may decide to pay for land. Is that the price at which the Land Commission must acquire land in the future under Section 5 of this Bill?
Is the Deputy suggesting that the Judicial Commissioner is a fool?
I am speaking of market value.
What is the market value of Locke's Distillery?
If Deputy Collins wants to discuss Locke's Distillery I am quite capable of doing so with him.
Both Deputies would be out of order in doing so.
I take it that, if the Chair will not give me permission to discuss that, it will not give permission to Deputy Collins either. I wonder would I be wrong in suggesting that the market value of land in future may be the value it will bring when Section 23 of this Bill comes into operation? Would I be wrong in suggesting that the Minister's officers or agents attending public sales may determine the market value of land in the future? I propose to discuss later Section 23, but I do suggest that I may not be far wrong at all in saying that it is the manner in which Section 23 will be operated that may determine the market value of land in the future. We all know that land values go up and down. That has always been so, and this Bill will not prevent that happening. I suggest to the Minister that the market value of land in a time of depression might be a most unjust price to pay to the owner of the land. I also suggest to him that the market value of land in a time of inflation might be a very unjust price to pay either on behalf of the incoming tenant or the State.
Has the Minister thought out all the problems that may arise in relation to market value? Market value changes from day to day. It will change in the way I have already mentioned—the activities of people coming from other countries to buy land here and because of inflationary tendencies that we may have no control over. We may do a very serious injustice to the owners of land under that section. It was said in the past that owing to the price-fixing by the Land Commission or the Judicial Commissioner, injustice was done to certain people. I did not meet any of them. I know of people who sold their interests to the Land Commission but I have yet to meet a person to whom an injustice was done by the Land Commission. We heard here that certain injustices were done under Section 25 of the Land Act of 1923.
Did not abuses occur under the system by which the price of unvested land was fixed?
I will put another question to the Minister on that matter. I had nothing to do with the operation of the Land Acts. What is untenanted land? Untenanted land occurs in this section of the 1923 Land Act. Can anybody tell me the statute in which untenanted land is defined?
The Land Act of 1923.
If the Deputy can point it out to me, I shall be delighted. I would like to see it plainly defined and easily understandable.
It is defined all right, but a lot depends on a person's intelligence.
My limited intelligence is my misfortune. I am not responsible for the Minister's lack of intelligence —somebody else may have been, I challenge the Minister to point to the statute where untenanted land is defined.
Look at Section 73 of the Act.
I read that section and it is not too clear. So much for Section 5. Let me deal now with other interesting sections. Will the Minister inform the House what is the percentage of land that may be acquired and that is not subject to an annuity?
Do you mean land not subject to previous Land Purchase Acts that can be acquired?
Land that may be acquired. Will you tell me what percentage of that land is not subject to an annuity—land in respect of which there was no advance in the past? There is another very interesting proposal by the Minister in Section 10. That sets out a number of excepted matters, with the provise that the Minister can come in for the purpose of determining certain things. Under certain circumstances he may determine the lands to be acquired, the price to be paid for them and the persons to whom they may be given.
Where is that power?
You always had that.
Not at all.
The Minister is taking power to do certain things that he had not power to do before.
He is taking some powers.
The Minister is taking power in certain cases to determine the price that may be paid for land acquired.
Not at all. On a point of explanation. Surely, when Deputies are sticking their feet into it and misleading the House it might be better if the Minister were to interject so as to prevent the House being misled? While it may not come within the rules of order, I may say that I interject merely for the purpose of preventing the Deputy misleading the House.
The Deputy is entitled to give his interpretation of any part of the Bill.
So far it is a very poor one.
Under Section 10 the Minister has power to determine the persons who will be selected as allottees for any land, other than any determination arising from or being part of a rearrangement scheme. Will the Minister not have power there? I suggest he has. He is taking power that he previously had not; he is taking power to determine the allottees for any particular parcel of land. That power may be useful to the Minister. He may not like to have that power. Personally, I do not know whether or not he would like to have it for a long time. It may be useful and a good power to have, but I am just wondering whether the Minister is wise in his own interests in taking such power.
The Deputy really should not repeat himself and say everything three times over.
I have not repeated myself on that.
I would like to see a literal and verbatim record of the Deputy's speech.
I have not been long on these benches, anyhow. Under sub-head E it is stated:—
"the determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme)"
—in other words, the Minister is taking power here to determine the price at which land will be sold to an allottee under that sub-head.
The Deputy ought to read that again. I am taking no such power under that particular sub-section.
Mr. Collins
Did you read the definition of "excepted matters"?
There is no point in acting as mentor, monitor, or remembrancer for other Deputies. Each Deputy has to make his own interpretation.
"the determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme) of the price at which land is to be sold to any such allottee".
I am sure the Minister is well aware of the powers he proposes to take under this Bill. I am sure he has made up his mind before this that he had not sufficient powers. He is proposing to give the Minister for Lands now certain powers and certain responsibilities that he had not got in the past. The Minister may say that these powers are being taken only in regard to rundale holdings. As I read this, those powers may operate in respect of any holding that may be acquired by the Land Commission. This may make a big change in the future operation of the land laws. We wonder if the Minister will not need the lay commissioners as he needed them in the past. He is taking unto himself control of work that was formerly done by the lay commissioners. I am sure the Minister fully appreciates the problems that have arisen in respect of the acquisition, division and price paid for land. He may be wise in doing that. He will know whether he is or not in the course of time. It may prove to be a boon to the Minister and to the Land Commission. It may prove otherwise.
There is another interesting section. There are many interesting sections in this Bill. There is the question of the lay commissioners and the Judicial Commissioner. In the early years of the operation of the Land Act of 1923 the Minister will find, if he reads up the records, that there was little satisfaction with just one Judicial Commissioner operating the Land Acts then. Serious complaints were often made here as to the price paid for land and so on. Under Section 5 the Minister is making a radical change in the manner in which the price of land acquired may be determined. He is doing away with the lay commissioners. These lay commissioners acted as a safeguard when sitting with the Judicial Commissioner. The Minister proposes doing away with these because he has no further use for them. I question whether that is or is not wise. The Minister must know quite well that legal minds interpret the law very, very narrowly and they often take quite a different view from the view taken by the ordinary man in the street. They often make a very unwise decision. I suggest that the lay commissioners would be a help and a safeguard to the community at large in that particular respect. They would provide a safeguard to the owner of land, to the proposed allottee and also to the finances of the State, and the finances are, after all, an important matter. The three main factors consisting in the acquisition, division and allocation of land would be better safeguarded under the lay commissioners than they would under the Minister.
I am sure the Minister will agree that Section 23 is a rather revolutionary innovation. It has never appeared in any enactment up to this. Ways and means may be availed of through the operation of the laws to determine the price of land acquired for the Land Commission or for a public authority. There were clauses in some enactments which acted as a guide to safeguard the interests of all the parties concerned.
Not the interests of the congested areas though.
That is a different matter. I am sure we are within our rights, irrespective of what Deputy McQuillan——
You are wrong again. You have not been right in anything you said to-night.
I know the Deputy represents Roscommon. Am I right in that?
You are.
Then I know a little.
And that is a dangerous state to be in!
The Minister proposes to acquire an interest in land offered for sale, carrying with it vacant possession. It is the function of the Land Commission to grant new holdings to allottees. The Land Commission may purchase such interest for cash and they may attend a public sale and bid by auction. I wonder if the Minister has fully considered all the matters that may arise out of that? I am sure he has given it some consideration. Has he foreseen or have his advisers foreseen all the problems and abuses that may arise under the provisions of that section? To my mind very serious abuses can arise under it in many directions. I will suggest a few to the Minister that occur to my mind. The Minister's officers visit a particular holding that may be offered for sale. Immediately they do so the vendor, or the agent of the vendor, and everybody else becomes aware that the Land Commission are interested. A number of things may happen as a result of that. The public sale comes along. Nearly all the vendors are honest people. They fix a reserve price in their own minds and they tell the agent the reserve price. There is nothing illegal or immoral if the vendor makes an arrangement with his legal adviser or someone else to have the price of that holding bid up to his reserve. Will that not be bad? Will it not be a danger to have such a scheme operating—to have the Minister's agents buying at public sales?
It is quite possible that the fact that the Minister's agent or officer visits a particular holding and inspects it may damp the sale. Other persons interested in purchasing the particular holding or piece of land will then and there decide that there is no use in bidding. They will think that if the Land Commission do not buy at the time of the sale they will take it compulsorily. In that way damage may be done to the owner. The principle of free sale may be damaged in that respect too—without that being the intention of the Minister. Even with the best intentions in the world the Minister may do damage which I am sure he would not willingly do—he may damage the principle of the free sale of land. When the prospective purchasers hear that the Land Commission are interested they will say that the State has a long purse and that there is no use in bidding against the State for a holding.
Under this section the Minister is cutting out other possible purchasers. If the Land Commission interfere, attend any sale, or inspect land offered for sale at the time, other purchasers have not a hope in the world. They probably will not bid and you may do an injury to the vendor of that land.
The reverse could be the case.
Yes, but it is a dangerous power for any Department of State to have. I can see very many of the problems that may arise under the operation of that section. The Minister and, indeed, other Deputies, may say that it is necessary in the West of Ireland where land is offered for sale to have that provision. I think and believe—and I am sure Deputies on all sides of the House will agree with me—that whether it is the West of Ireland or the East of Ireland or the South of Ireland or anywhere else that is involved, the section will not operate.
Another thing is that immediately a place is put up for sale, say, in a congested area and, indeed, it need not be a congested area at all, a local agitation starts—local interests, land hunger and landless men. It is quite natural for any human being to acquire property if he can do so, and especially if he knows that he can get it for nothing through the operation of the Land Act. It will compel the Minister for Lands, through agitation, to buy that farm at the auction. He will have no option, none in the world. That is one of the numerous dangers I foresee in this section. Then, when the Minister has acquired the farm they will further agitate as to who should get it. That will create other problems that will not solve congestion in the West. I suggest that the Minister has very elaborate powers already for acquiring every acre of land in this country that he may need. Remember that he is not amending, in this Bill, any of the powers of acquisition which he has; neither is he giving himself lesser powers. He must have felt that he had sufficient powers, elaborate enough, to acquire land. Otherwise he would have been advised that the machinery that was at the disposal of the Land Commission was too cumbersome and too slow, and that it did not enable the Minister nor the Land Commission to acquire the land needed for the easing of congestion fast enough. But Section 23 of this Bill will certainly not solve the problem.
Under Section 23, the Land Commission will acquire a holding without payment of stamp duty. Take, for instance, the case of an ordinary farmer's son who desires to purchase a holding. He has a few pounds which he gathered together over a long period of time, because he got no wages. The father has a few pounds and the son is of a certain age and wants a holding. The father decides to buy a farm if he can. If that farmer buys a farm he will have to pay 5 per cent. stamp duty on the full purchase price of the holding. The Land Commission, when they buy, will pay no stamp duty. I do not know whether they even pay fees to ordinary agents. I do not know whether they pay solicitors. However, under sub-section (4) of this section no stamp duty is payable. The State agent has a 5 per cent. advantage straight away. That is another disadvantage which the ordinary citizen suffers when buying in competition with the State. No citizen can buy against the State if the State is so minded to purchase a particular holding.
Other provisions arise out of that. Rights of way are dealt with but they are not dealt with in a manner that the ordinary citizen of the country might like. There is special provision here to deal with the question of paths to wells and different matters of rights of way across holdings.
I should like to have information from the Minister in regard to charges and equities in the case of, say, a holding acquired in this way. Will the rights of people be safeguarded or not?
What do you think the Land Commission is—looters, is it?
They often, through the operations of the Land Commission, eliminate the rights of people who hold equities and charges.
Never. Never.
I thought you said at the start of your speech that the Land Commission never did an injustice.
I say that to my knowledge. That is not the point. I am not charging the Land Commission with anything illegal, but suppose the Land Commission, for the purpose of collecting annuities due to them, put up a holding for sale, the incoming tenant has none of the charges with which that holding was burdened. Am I right or wrong?
What becomes of them?
They are eliminated.
In what way?
By the action of the law.
And they are not discharged, of course?
Discharge in equity means that the person who owns the mortgages is paid off, but the equities and mortgages are not paid off when the holding is sold.
The Minister has challenged me to give a case in point and
You should bring some that is a case in point. There may not of these cases to my notice.
be anything wrong and I am not suggesting it. If a holding is sold under Section 23 of the Bill, will the holders of equities or mortgages against that holding be paid?
No, I keep them for myself likely.
Another matter may arise under Section 23. The Land Commission purchase a holding at a sale, by private or public treaty, it does not matter which. They divide it among migrants and on the acquisition of that holding the existing annuities—assuming that they were subject to annuities as most of these small holdings are— are wiped out there and then at the State expense. A new annuity is fixed which is half. That holding becomes vested in a year or two in the tenant to whom it is given and the new tenant has all the rights of fixity of tenure and free sale. He puts up that holding for public sale and the Land Commission may be forced by local agitation or otherwise again to acquire it. Again the annuity is wiped out and a new one, half that, is fixed. That could go on as a round robin and they could acquire the same holding 20 times in a century. I put it to the Minister that that is another problem that may arise under Section 23 as there is no provision in the Bill to prevent the free sale of the piece of land that may be given to a migrant or to prevent the Land Commission from acquiring it a second or even a third time. However, these are all matters of which I am sure the Minister is fully aware.
In introducing this Bill the Minister felt that the machinery at his disposal was not sufficiently loose and free to enable him to operate as fast as would be desirable. I have no doubt that he believes that this machinery should be given to him. There are many provisions in the Bill which we all agree the Land Commission should have to make for better working but there are some with which we may not altogether agree and which we may think dangerous. These have been pointed out time after time to the Minister and the matter will come up again on the Committee Stage. I believe that this is a Bill which should be amended drastically by this House and that the powers which the Minister proposes to take for himself should not be given to him. The Minister or his agent may, under this Bill, attend a public sale and buy a farm on behalf of the Land Commission. That is most undesirable and if it were passed, he would have to answer 20 or 40 questions here. He would be all day answering questions about to whom he gave land and what hope Johnnie So-and-So has. It would create a difficult problem for the Minister and the Dáil.
The Minister for Lands lectured the previous Government for many years on the problems of land acquisition and division, but he has found now, since he has the responsibility, that the difficulties are much greater than he ever contemplated when he sat on this side of the House. He has found that there is no royal road to provide land for all the congests of this country. It just is not there. A certain pool of land is available, but it is limited in extent. By disturbing persons who have land which they are using to the best advantage of the community he may damage the structure of the State. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that for the first time. The problem of congestion, which it is agreed on all sides exists very considerably in certain areas, notably in the West and North and in the South to a smaller extent, will not be entirely relieved by giving new land in the East or Midlands to the congests. I am sure that the Minister, who is charged with the full and big responsibility of relieving congestion, appreciates that the organisation of industries in the congested areas would be a great help, side by side with the utilisation of the small pool of land which is available for congests. At the same time as land division is going on and migrants are being put into rearranged holdings, the Minister should build up small cottage industries to give these people a better livelihood in their own districts. The Gaeltacht industries are a part of the Minister's function and come under his jurisdiction.
But not under this Bill.
The organisation of those industries will do more in our time to help migrants and uneconomic holders than the division of the remainder of the pool of land that is available. They must keep in mind that land division has gone on for many years and that the big end of land available for division has been divided.
There is another matter about which, however, there is nothing in the Bill. I would ask the Minister to bring in some provision to cover it. It relates to this question of persons living on holdings of land whose dwelling houses are in bad condition and who, for some reason or another, have not proper title to their land and cannot get a loan from any loan department, either under the Small Dwellings Act or the Agricultural Credit Corporation, for the purpose of erecting a dwelling house they need to live in on that particular holding. I suggest that the Minister should make some provision in this particular Land Bill to enable the Land Commission to make advances and charge those advances on that holding in the same way as the previous advances were charged.
Is the Deputy serious in that—that the Land Commission should build a house at the request of one person on another man's land?
He did not say that.
I am suggesting that, where a particular owner is living in a bad or tumbledown dwelling house and has not funds available to erect a new dwelling house—his title may be faulty in some way, as his grandfather may have made a will which was never discharged——
We cannot help that.
——he cannot get an advance from the Agricultural Credit Corporation or under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act or from any other fund, to erect a dwelling house for himself. He might need it badly for his family.
Has he got the right to put that matter right himself?
He must establish title. We cannot do anything unless title is established.
It might cost him more to establish title than what the land is worth. It is something that needs more than a mere dismissal of it by saying that it cannot be done. Quite recently, the Minister for Agriculture introduced and had passed through the House a Bill enabling his Department, with the aid of the Land Commission, to charge particular lands for the purpose of rehabilitation, draining and improvement, with a new annuity. I am asking the Minister to make provision in this Bill to enable him to charge a new annuity and to make an advance, in cash or otherwise, to enable a particular person to erect a dwelling house for himself. The Minister will agree that the tendency—which I have observed for many years—is for the existing holdings to get larger and for the number of holdings to become less and less. I have suggested here before that, in spite of everything the Land Commission may do in creating new holdings, side by side with that each year many more holdings with homes are going out of operation and going into the ownership of larger farmers. If a farmer requires an extra 50 or 100 acres and that is offered near him for sale, he will buy it and let the dwelling house fall. There are less and less holdings in the country than there were ten or 20 years ago. No matter how many the Land Commission may create, more are going out of existence. There are many people whose dwelling house will go into serious disrepair, who have no means of erecting a new dwelling house, who cannot borrow money from any source in this State. I would suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider taking power—if the Land Commission has not got it already —to make an advance, where it is considered desirable, to any person in occupation of a holding, for the purpose of erecting a dwelling house or carrying out very substantial repairs to a particular dwelling house.
When this country was ruled by British Ministers from the House of Commons in London, and when they passed certain land legislation in response to agitation from the people, they set up machinery here to suit their own requirements and to give effect, as far as that machinery could at the time, to the express wishes of the people responsible for the passing of that land legislation. In setting up the machinery here, they took very good care to select as their servants here in Ireland commissioners or officials who would administer the policy that was very close to their own hearts. That machinery for many years after we got our own Government was biased, in my opinion, in favour of the landowner.
There is no doubt that the Land Act passed by the British, and even some of our own land legislation since I became a member of this House, was definitely biased in favour of the landowner and compelled the Minister of the day, and Deputies of this House anxious to force the hand of the Minister, to go through every iota of that machinery so that a hole would be found in it to circumvent the landlord who was anxious to prevent the acquisition and division of that land to relieve congestion.
I do not blame the civil servants or the commissioners who were put in positions by the British when they passed our first Land Acts. Civil servants—whether senior, or getting the glorified title, which carries a good salary, of commissioners—are very jealous about surrendering their power. Land commissioners under the British, and under our own Government even up to to-day, were generally selected from the ranks of the senior Civil Service or from members of the legal profession, brought in because the Government liked them personally or thought they had the necessary qualifications to administer the laws, passed here and previously, in connection with the relief of congestion.
I deny the right—and I will make this challenge in the future, as I have done in the past—of any civil servant, under any title he may get from this or previous Governments, to lay down public policy. It is the duty of the Minister in charge of the Department of State to lay down public policy and it is equally the duty of the civil servant selected by the Minister, to administer the policy laid down by his Minister and the people responsible for the selection of that Minister in this House of Parliament. We all know that the late Minister, Mr. Paddy Hogan—peace be to him—believed when bringing in the first Land Act that it would speed up the question of acquisition and division and solve, in his own time, I am sure, the problem of congestion. Yet I am here to-day inquiring from the Minister to what extent the British in their day, and ourselves in our own time up to the present, have solved that problem.
If you believe the agricultural expert of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Corry, there is no more land left in this country for acquisition except the land that can be taken from small farmers. That is not my opinion. In my own constituency—and I have enough to do to mind my own constituency, without bothering about his, although he bothers about mine very often—that is not so. I would ask the Minister, when replying to this discussion, if he can put his hand on the figures without any great trouble, to tell us what portion of the untenanted land of Ireland was divided during the period of British control, or up to the time of the passing of the 1923 Act; what portion of land has been divided since the 1923 Act and up to date; what portion of the untenanted land of Ireland still remains to be divided; and in what period he hopes to have that land divided and the problem finally solved. These would be interesting figures, if he can put his finger on them. We would be able to make up our own minds then as to the real cause of the long period of delay in solving a problem which should have been solved within the lifetime of a normal man.
To the extent—and I congratulate the Minister on this—to which the Minister in this measure proposes to take power out of the hands of administrative officers—civil servants or lay commissioners, or whatever you like— and put that power into his own hands, I will shake hands with him. This Bill in that respect is nearer to reality than any Bill that has been introduced in my time here. I am not trying to pull his leg because the Minister has a big leg—he is a big man with a big mind—when I say that this Land Bill has all the appearance of a Bill that has been drafted by a man who is close to the minds of the people, much closer than the draftsmen who were responsible for drafting previous Land Acts. The only thing that requires to be done if the intentions of the Minister are to be put into effect is to ensure that the reorganisation of the Land Commission which is provided for by the Bill is as democratic as possible and that the Minister will have power to decide that the lay commissioners must do certain things.
Will any Deputy say that a senior civil servant or a commissioner should be the person to decide whether 1,000 acres of land shall be set aside for breeding and training horses instead of being divided amongst congests? That is interpreting the public interest and the only person properly entitled to interpret public interest or to lay down policy is the Minister selected by this House in the knowledge that those who select him are the representatives of the people. We should know more than a senior civil servant or a commissioner what the public interest means or how public policy should be laid down. I do congratulate the Minister on that. I do not blame the civil servant of to-day or the commissioners of to-day or the commissioners of yesterday for what has not been done by the Land Commission. I blame the Minister of to-day and his predecessors. The civil servants are very jealous of their authority and very careful about the way in which they discharge their responsibilities. The only complaint I have against them is that they do it in red tape fashion and pay attention to the tradition of the Land Commission even as laid down by the British in their day.
I can quote cases and give the names of estates in connection with which preliminary steps for acquisition were taken immediately after the 1923 Act was passed. Several Acts have been passed since 1923 and these steps were renewed under different Acts and under different Ministers and even under different lay commissioners and officials. Yet, the position in some cases in my constituency is the same to-day as it was 25 years ago. Does that not prove that the land commissioners and those who work under them bear in mind what their predecessors did? Although policy was supposed to have been changed, the administration is the same. The untenanted land is still undivided.
If the Minister wants one glaring case of that kind, let him look up the Alley estate, Knockaroo, County Laoighis. I was informed after every Land Act was passed that steps would be taken to have that large acreage of untenanted land divided amongst the local people. In that case there was an agitation in the days of the late Michael Davitt, and my own father told me last week-end that he remembers attending a meeting in the area with the late Michael Davitt in connection with the land war that was going on at that time in that particular area. That land is still undivided. I hope that will not be the position after this Bill comes into operation and when the Land Commission has been reorganised for the purpose of carrying out the express wishes of the people in a democratic way.
Deputy Aiken, when he was Minister for Lands, told me that a certain section of the 1936 Act—an amending Act—was brought in for the express purpose of making certain that that estate would be acquired and divided. Deputy Aiken was not the boss, although he was Minister at the time. There were other people. That is why I hope Deputies on every side of the House will regard this measure in a non-Party fashion and give the Minister, who should decide matters of public policy, all the power he requires to carry out his own wishes.
I know of individual applications of a minor character, involving small expenditure of public money, that have been made year after year as one Minister succeeded another. Some of these cases are in the same state of suspended animation to-day as they were many years ago. I brought a case to the notice of the Minister quite recently of a decent man in my constituency who got an uneconomic holding but who could not get a house on the holding which would have enabled him to get married and to go in and work the place. He has to work it from his sister's place, which is four miles away, and he has had to drive cows to and from that place every day for the last 15 or 16 years. Although there has been a change in the officials since the time this man got that holding, the present officials are not prepared to change the decision made by their predecessors. The policy is to stick to the old tradition and not to let down your predecessor. We have to get away from that, regardless of individuals. I hope that in this Bill the Minister has power to direct the lay commissioners to do certain things that are in the public interest and the interest of smallholders; and, if he has not, I hope he will take it on the Committee Stage.
I do agree, of course, that we must have a judicial commission. I would not dream of suggesting that anybody except a well-trained person, a High Court judge or Supreme Court judge, would be a proper person to decide questions of law, particularly questions of dispute over price.
I do not want to put the Minister to too much trouble because I am a wholehearted supporter of this Bill. I shall not assist Deputy Allen to butcher it and to butcher the most important parts of it. But, I would like to hear from the Minister whether many cases have come under his notice since he came into office where the landowner has been agreeable to sell to the Land Commission and did not take the attitude adopted by the majority of landowners of putting the Land Commission to every trouble and expense he could think of. How long, on the average, should it take the Land Commission to acquire and divide an estate where the landowner has expressed his willingness to sell? On the other hand, how long, on the average, should it take the Land Commission to acquire and divide an estate where the landowner objects and makes use of every section of the Land Acts to pursue his objection?
I know of a case where a landowner in my constituency—the Minister for Defence and my colleague, Deputy Flanagan, can confirm this—agreed about three years ago to sell his land to the Land Commission. Last week, Deputy Flanagan put down a question asking if and when that estate was going to be divided, with the knowledge that the landowner had agreed so long ago to sell to the Land Commission. Here are we, the Deputies for the constituency, being badgered by our constituents, and properly so, in regard to the delay on the part of the Land Commission in connection with that estate and the Minister in that case was unable to say when that estate would be divided. I think there has been something radically wrong with the machinery of the Land Commission in that case, and that is why I ask the Minister to tell me what is the average period it should take the Land Commission, if it is a properly organised Department, to deal with cases where the landlord is willing to sell and where the landlord is unwilling to sell.
The Land Commission, apart from the heads, requires to be reorganised from top to bottom, or from bottom to top, whichever way you wish to take it. It is the only Department of State I know of from which you get this buff-coloured acknowledgement of your communication—and you are a lucky man if you get a reply in six months. I understood that, when the Minister for Finance took over control of that responsible Department, when this Government was established, he issued an instruction or advice to the heads of all Government Departments that members of the public and Deputies, anybody who thought fit to write in to or to telephone a Government Department should be treated courteously and should get an answer one way or the other within a reasonable time. We get acknowledgements from the Land Commission, but it takes a hell of a long time to get a reply, and in some cases we never get a reply. One is told that one's application is being dealt with in a sympathetic way.
Will the Deputy not have an opportunity of discussing all that on the administration of the Land Commission?
I thought I was entitled to refer to it because there is a section in the Bill, a most important section, giving the Minister power to reorganise the Land Commission, and I suggest that if the Land Commission is properly reorganised, citizens who write direct to the Department, who telephone or call to the Department, and particularly Deputies who represent these citizens, will get what they are entitled to, that is, an answer to their communications within a reasonable time.
Purely a matter of administration.
I further suggest that, if the answer is in the negative, a good and valid reason should be given for the commissioners' refusal to accede to a reasonable request. I understand that the Minister for Finance issued that instruction when this Government took office, and I urge the Minister, before sanctioning the scheme of reorganisation, to make certain that it will be done in future. There are enough officials in the Land Commission to deal with the business of that very important State Department in the same way as I see it being dealt with in other State Departments. If the commissioners or chief officers have not got sufficient staff to enable them to do the work in a proper businesslike way, the businesslike way in which work is done in any well-run commercial concern, I urge the Minister to provide the necessary staff so that the work under this new scheme of reorganisation will be done better in future than it has been done up to the present.
With regard to Deputy Corry's statements, the Minister can deal more effectively with Deputy Corry and Deputy Allen than I can. It is not my job, but I thought it a very serious statement for Deputy Corry to make when he said that the only land remaining to be acquired is that owned by the ordinary farmer. If that is so, we are wasting our time here.
Deputy Corry knows that that is not so.
He used those words.
No trouble to him.
An estate of 1,500 acres, 1,300 acres, 1,000 acres, 600 acres or 500 acres in the possession of a citizen is not in the possession of what is commonly known as an ordinary farmer in my part of the country.
A gentleman farmer.
"Landlord" is a word which is more understandable by those of us who are anxious to have the untenanted land which we see all around our constituencies acquired and divided in a reasonable time.
I note that it is the intention of the Minister to secure power to pay gratuities to disemployed labourers. I personally regret that the necessity for such a provision should arise and I have grave doubts whether it should arise in the same way in the future as it has arisen apparently in the past, because there was another way of settling the question. During Deputy Moylan's term of office as Minister a Bill was brought into this House and passed to give power to the Minister —I voted for it and I regret to say that I knew that there were good reasons why I should do so—to dispossess people to whom land had been given and who never took possession of that land or made any attempt to work it. In particular areas in my constituency there were decent young men, the sons of small farmers and labourers, who were quite willing to work the land if the commissioners had used more wisdom in the selection of the allottees.
I spoke to the Minister quite recently, with others, about one estate divided 15 years ago, on which three allottees had houses built at the expense of the taxpayers and economic holdings provided for them, and who up to this day have not walked into the houses built for them or made any attempt to work these holdings. We passed a measure empowering the Minister to dispossess about 1,500 such persons. If 1,500 persons of that type get houses built and holdings given to them at the expense of the taxpayers, it is a very serious reflection on the judgment of the Land Commission inspectors responsible for recommend ing these people. It is in the public interest that they should be dispossessed and the holdings given to good Irishmen who will try to make a living out of them.
I want to put it to the Minister that the real cause of the failure of men who were herds or ploughmen employed by landowners in the old days to work land was the fact that they were not provided with sufficient working capital when given these holdings. If in cases I know of good ploughmen, herds and agricultural labourers had been given sufficient capital to make a start at the proper time, there would be no necessity for the inclusion of this provision in the Bill authorising the Minister to pay gratuities to disemployed labourers. I wonder is it too late for the Minister and his colleagues to do what has been so well done in other countries where activity of the same kind has been carried on, that is, to provide the labourers who lost their employment on the land acquired and divided with a minimum amount to enable them to purchase machinery and buy stock and make a decent start rather than to pay them compensation and to tell them to look for a job elsewhere, to look for their cards at the employment exchange and for a passport from the Department of External Affairs to enable them to go to work possibly for a farmer in Great Britain. I should prefer to see these people who have been working on the land given some chance of working land for themselves and providing a decent livelihood for themselves and their dependents. If that had been done after the first Land Act was passed by this House there would not be the same kind of story to tell about the failure of that class of people in the matter of the working of land as is to be told to-day.
I am not going to take up the time of the House any longer because I am fully satisfied with the contents of this Bill and with the assurance given by the Minister that further legislation will follow. I am very keen that the Minister should avail of his great knowledge of the people of the country and of his limited experience in the Land Commission to see that when this Bill becomes law, the Land Commission will not be worked under the type of machinery that was considered suitable for the working of that Department when the British Parliament passed the first Land Bill in the House of Commons.
I do not think that the Minister, in making his opening statement, told us very much more than was already in the White Paper. For instance, when he was dealing with the question of market value, I think he might have given us an idea of how market value is to be arrived at.
In the same way as market value is arrived at at the present time and for a number of years past for unvested land.
I assume that was done under the old definition, namely, a fair price from the point of view of the Land Commission and the point of view of the purchaser.
No. That is what has caused the trouble in regard to vested land and that is what is being repealed now in this Bill. Market value was paid for unvested land since the 1923 Act but it was not paid for vested land and that is what gave rise to all the trouble.
In administration, I assume that the inspectors had always in mind the principle that in fixing a price for the purchaser, the price must be such that the farmer would not be plunged into debt and such as would enable him to bring up his family in frugal comfort and with reasonable profits. Under the former Administration that was one of the main objects and every inspector or valuer had to take that very carefully into consideration. If they are to arrive at the market value now, it must be according to the fluctuations which take place from time to time. Looking back over the history of the value of land, we know that these fluctuations swung from very high to very low. The Minister can recall a period, during and after the first war, when the price of land was very much inflated. That was the market value then. Afterwards there came a period when farmers were coming to all of us who represented rural areas, telling us that they had suffered very severely. Some of them were "broke" because they had bought at a time when prices were very high. Later the price of cattle and other produce fell to such an extent that they were not able to make ends meet. I suggest that the standard "market value" by itself is swinging too much in one direction and that it would be fair that "market value" should be checked by some other considerations such as the old definition which protected both the State and the individual purchaser as well.
Further, I would suggest that if there is a gap between what you might call the economic price to the purchaser of the farm and the amount that would be fair in cases of hardship to the vendor, the difference should be made up not by the imposition of a high rent or price which would be too difficult for the farmer to meet, but that the State should intervene and give compensation. There is reference to compensation for disturbance, and I think the Minister might have told us that he was taking that type of case into consideration. He did mention that there was a small number of cases where there was real hardship to the vendor, but hard cases make bad law. I do not think the overriding definition should be determined by such hard cases, but that the State should allow for such elasticity as would enable it to deal with hard cases as they arise. A danger also arises once the State goes into the open market, as the State will have to now. I gathered that it was implied by the Minister that the operations of the Land Commission will be largely concentrated on getting rid of rundale holdings and placing migrants on other holdings. If that is done on a wholesale scale, it means that the Land Commission will have to go into the open market to a very considerable extent and that in itself will enhance the value of land.
Then again on the question of market value, rich people come along here from other countries and buy farms. I know one county where about 34 such farms were bought. They do not regard these purchases from the economic point of view. They regard these lands rather as residential farms and they give fancy prices for them. That can influence the whole standard of prices and the market value. We ourselves, in regard to house property, had to put on a high tax in order to stop inflation of the price of property of that type and it had the desired effect. Do I gather from the Minister that he would not like farms to be sold from the Land Commission to foreigners, that he would confine it to nationals? In answer to Deputy Lehane, I gather that he said something of that sort, that the Land Commission would not allow farms to be sold to outsiders?
I said nothing like that.
That is a matter that will have to be taken into account. To quote a speech of Lord Rugby on one occasion, he said that these fellow-countrymen of his were coming over to this country and buying property here and that some people regarded it as the retreat from Moscow. If you do get a number of rich people buying land in that way, it is going to inflate the price. I, therefore, suggest that there should be some controlling phrase governing the definition of "market value" which will protect the purchasing farmer.
Does the Deputy not think that there is a difference between market price and market value, which latter is specified in the Bill?
I think it should be elaborated a little further.
There is a difference between market value and market price.
The old definition by which the land inspectors were guided did not increase the price of land. They would not take the day-to-day market value. I think it is not definite enough.
Would the Deputy not agree that it is not the ordinary layman in the main who will determine what the market value is?
If farmers are buying land that is going to affect prices and the value of land will go up as a result of the general lay opinion in the matter. Then, again, I think it is a weakness in the Bill that you should be reducing the number of commissioners on the Appeal Board. However clever the Judicial Commissioner may be—like the professor of classics on a famous occasion who, when he made a mistake when writing on a blackboard, said he was ex-officio ignorant in mathematics—if a man has concentrated on being an expert in law, he is not necessarily a good valuer of land. It is much more likely that your lay commissioners will be experts from the point of view of fixing the value of land. For that reason, I think it is throwing a tremendous responsibility on the Judicial Commissioner to ask him to decide questions as to the value of land.
Does the Deputy not think that Section 5 would reduce considerably the number of appeals that might arise on the question of price?
I do not think so. I think the very vagueness of the phrase "market value" is going to increase enormously the number of cases that will come before the Judicial Commissioner.
I am of the opinion that it would be quite the reverse.
Unless you are able to elaborate this definition so that it will be very much clearer to people what market value means, I think you will find that the number of cases that will come before the Judicial Commissioner in future will be much greater than in the past. I think the Minister might have been a little more frank with the House in pointing out the extra power which he himself is taking with regard to rearrangement schemes. He is taking very large powers with regard to rearrangement schemes. In that case he can himself appoint a senior inspector to fix the price and to decide who are to be the allottees. In that case, also, he need only get the consent of one commissioner and not two, as in excepted cases, so that he is taking very great power for himself. He may claim that he is going to expedite the work, but I think that in these two matters he is taking very dangerous power unto himself. He will be responsible not merely for the price fixed, but also for the allottees who are to receive the land.
No, that is not in the section.
Surely the Minister admits, with regard to rearrangement schemes, that he is taking much bigger power. It is not an excepted matter. Elsewhere he has power to appoint one inspector not lower than a senior inspector.
The matters referred to in (d) and (e) are excepted matters.
Except in the case of rearrangement schemes, which are not excepted matters. They bear on rundale and, obviously, on migrants. The only other point I should like to make is to emphasise a point made by Deputy Moylan. I do think that, even if you have commissioners who are only used for the purpose of appeals, some of them who have experience could be employed very well in helping to consolidate the Acts which have gone before, because consolidation is really needed. I am perfectly sure that the officials of the Land Commission would be delighted to see that that work had been done. It would simplify the work of everybody very considerably and save headaches all round if the Minister would direct that a consolidation Bill should be given very special attention and introduced in due time.
I subscribe thoroughly to the last suggestion made by Deputy Little. I think a consolidation Act is long overdue. Like many other Deputies. I welcome the Bill with this reservation—I should like the Minister to realise that to me at any rate it is a positive reservation—that I look upon this Bill as a step in the right direction. I am not going to weary the House by airing many of the views I have already aired on other occasions as to the administration of the land law. Part of it is a bad legacy and, in the main, efforts at amendment of the land law have only added confusion to something already confused. I feel that the Minister in this Bill may be possibly making more difficult the ultimate codification in a reasonable way of our land law. I must confess, as a practitioner of a number of years' standing, that I find each new amendment or each new regulation under the Land Acts only more confusing. Beyond two specific powers given in this Bill, I do not feel that there is any radical change being made, except possibly a question of interpretation which is dealt with.
I am not going to be tempted, as at one stage I was, to follow the rather tragic, pathetic, calamitous, stupid argument of Deputy Allen to its logical conclusion. Whether he was deliberately mischievous or just plain dumb, he started off by telling the Minister that he is taking certain powers under Section 10 and quoted paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). The actual opening words of Section 10 designate these clearly as excepted matters with which the Minister cannot deal. Yet Deputy Allen has the audacity, the crass impudence, to suggest that the Minister is acquiring this power under the Bill when the actual opening words of the section designate these specifically as matters excepted from the purview of the Minister. That is sufficient for Deputy Allen's rambling, wandering statement which was purely obstructive rather than constructive.
He asked me specifically if I could give him some definition of "untenanted land." If he reads Section 73 (2) of the 1923 Land Act he will get, basically, a definition of "untenanted land" and it still stands with the exception of tenancies which may have been in being at the passing of the 1923 Act which a decision of the Supreme Court held to be such. Untenanted land, as it implies, is land in regard to which there is no contract of tenancy and of which the owner in occupation is owner in fee simple, or under a fee farm grant, or any lease for lives or for a term of years of which 60 years is unexpired.
Deputy Allen has practical experience as an auctioneer in his own constituency and, therefore, the definition of untenanted land should not present to him any of the difficulties which he has been airing in the House. I do want to say at the outset that we are all a little bit dishonest and inclined to be political on a land matter. The land problem is of vital importance to the economic structure of our country, and so it should be moved, if possible, from a Party political level. From my limited experience, I want to point out to the Minister some of the difficulties that can and must inevitably arise under the land system as it is, and will be when this Bill is passed. The only real difference which the passing of this Bill is going to make is contained in Sections 5 and 23. Section 5 will compel the Land Commission to pay the market value for land. I can, to some extent, appreciate certain of the difficulties which are presenting themselves in a genuine way to the mind of Deputy Little as to how market value is to be determined. I think that, when the section comes to be operated, that difficulty will simplify itself.
We have to draw a distinction between market price and market value. I want seriously to sound this note of warning for the Minister, that he will have to consider what has been urged upon him from all sides of the House, namely, the detrimental effect, from an inflationary point of view, which the arbitrary buying of holdings by wealthy foreigners could have. That may not have reached very alarming proportions so far, but it is something which the Minister will have to watch because of its possible reaction in inflating prices.
I think that Deputy Little was honest in the submission that he made on that point. If anything of that kind were to occur it might result in very grave hardship to the person who, ultimately, was put in possession of a farm that had been purchased by the Land Commission. I wonder if it would not be more reasonable to assume that, under the operation of this section, there may be infinitely more goodwill found than heretofore as between the Land Commission and the person selling the land. I say that because the person whose land is going to be acquired will not be subjected to an arbitrary price different from that for unvested land. That person will be met on the basis that, no matter what the technicalities behind the scenes are, the value of land itself, whether it is vested or unvested, is going to be the same.
Fundamentally, there was at one time, possibly, a reason for a difference in price as between vested and unvested land. That was a difference that could be legitimately argued and was properly argued. It was that, in the main, the people in this State were reentering their own, that tenants were being replaced on land which was formerly theirs but which had been acquired, through confiscation or plantation, by the foreigner. I think that in the main that stage has passed. If it has not passed, I would urge on the Minister that, on the Committee Stage, he should make a reservation to himself that he could still pay not anything like the real value for a holding that could be acquired by the Land Commission, where it is still in the possession of the seed or generation of planters, to meet the claims of evicted tenants in the locality. I think that the acquisition of the type of land that Section 23 contemplates for the benefit of migrants will be from decent Irish men who are properly in possession of it but may want to sell it. It may be necessary, in the national interest, for the Land Commission to acquire some of that land in order to give decent people a chance of living on the soil of Ireland.
This Bill is revolutionary in the steps it takes under Section 5. I think that, possibly, our doubts and our fears in regard to the section may be allayed when the Bill has been in operation for some time. I think the Minister will have to be very careful to see that some basis is found on which to determine the real value of land. That should not be left completely to be settled in a situation in which you had either inflation or deflation. A situation of that kind should not influence the Land Commission in the price they would pay. I wish the section good luck. I think that Deputy Little was honest in his submissions in trying to point out the dangers which he could conceive in regard to this section. I, too, can see dangers in it, but possibly youth makes me optimistic. I am of opinion that, if the section is given a chance, the difficulties that genuinely seem to arise at this stage will resolve themselves in practice.
The section of the Bill which merits the serious consideration of the House is Section 23. Deputy Allen excelled himself on it. He was lachrymose as to what was going to happen under it. He did not know whether he was going to stand on his left foot or his right foot when speaking on it; he did not know whether the poor person whose land was being sold was going to be mulcted because the Land Commission was going to bid for it. People, he said, would not dream of bidding against the State, and he did not know whether the Minister, on behalf of the State, would not be mulcted by people running up the price on him so that he would have to pay an exorbitant price for the land. I think that Deputy Allen, possibly, and to some extent Deputy Little have missed the real essential. Deputy Little's submission was, possibly, due to an oversight, but Deputy Allen's was mischievous. The section puts no compulsion on the Land Commission to bid. If it finds that the price is too high it can withdraw from the contest.
Some people seem to think that the only agency through which the Land Commission can act under this section is going to be composed of either rogues or fools. I am content to believe that they will be neither. I am satisfied that the agent buying on behalf of the Land Commission, or the person designated to do so by the Minister, will be a rational being, and that normally he will be authorised by the Land Commission to give for the land what is considered to be a reasonable price. If he is outbid at the auction he can withdraw and let the land go to the highest bidder. I cannot see, under this section, any reason for alarm. I think it is a very good idea, and a bold experiment if it comes off, for the Land Commission to buy land in the open market, It will make for infinitely more content among the people whose land is taken in that way, because they will then feel no grievance as to price.
I do not believe there is any danger of Deputy Allen's left-legged idea of land being deflated to little or no value. His fears that the Land Commission will frighten other bidders are airy, fairy fears. This is a section that has to be put into effect cautiously, I will admit, but in my optimism I am prepared to think it is a section that will work extremely well. It will relieve the heartache and burnings that we Deputies have to face over people who are quite anxious to get rid of big holdings but are afraid the Land Commission will not give them value.
Taking Deputy Little to be a reasonable person making reasonable submissions, I question him as to why he is apprehensive that the Judicial Commissioner might have an increasing number of determinations of price to deal with. He made no solid case. Surely, if the situation arises that a person will get a more equitable price for his land, as Section 5 will ensure, and if the Land Commission in the future, with regard to migrants, can go into the open market and buy their holdings, those two things must logically and rationally lead to a better degree of satisfaction as to price and, therefore, inevitably the appeals that will go to the Judicial Commissioner for determination must decline. The appeal in the main will be because the price is too low. What appeal will any person have if the Land Commission buy in the open market? It will wipe out that type of appeal and I think the Judicial Commissioner can look forward to many happy years of lean work.
I do not like being facetious, but I have often felt that the best description one may give of the "lay commissioners" in the Land Commission is the "delay commissioners". I am glad the Minister is improving this cumbersome procedure and we will not have that anomaly any more where you have lay commissioners excluded from acting as lay commissioners because as lay commissioners they are members of an appeal tribunal. It is an amazing situation. It must have been a tortuous brain that conceived it. Fortunately, we have a fairly active brain operating to remove it.
People seem to be anxious to see difficulties and dangers in this Bill. I have one great hope for it and that is, that the clarity of some of its sections will remove some of the difficulties and dangers and some of the extraordinary juxtapositions that exist. It will ensure that there will be no more general outcry, no more wails of widows or anybody else that the Land Commission have practically robbed them of their heritage, because this Bill will enshrine one principle, that there will be no more virtual confiscation price for land when it is resumed or ac-acquired, as there was in the old days, in so far as this Bill tends to establish the principle that a man selling his land, whether to the Land Commission or to anybody else, can go into the open market and get the best price. As long as it ensures that principle, you are making a realistic advance in settling land problems.
In my own constituency I know people anxious to vacate fairly substantial farms, people who, when this Bill becomes law, will without hesitation offer them to the Land Commission. These people may, through economic circumstances, old age, lack of a young family coming up, or possibly lack of younger people in farming as a livelihood, find themselves in the position where it would be infinitely better if they could get rid of the land. They will be happier and they will have a real appreciation of the Minister because he is now assuring them that they need not be afraid there will be any arbitrary price imposed on them or that the Land Commission will pay only what they feel like paying for the holding.
I do not think this Bill goes half far enough. It is only still scratching at the problem. There is a wealth of confusion in our land code. There is every necessity, not only for codifying land legislation, such as Deputy Little pleads for, but also for reasoned minds to address themselves to the problem of clarifying as well as codifying the law. I suggest that the Minister, before he takes his next step in relation to the land code, should deal with everything in a careful way and not content himself with one small sphere, such as he does in this Bill. I trust he will deal with the whole matter on the basis of simplifying the method of making good your title and, above all, he should bring about a more speedy method of vesting. I regret that this Bill does not deal with that problem. I think perhaps some of the worst delays in vesting may be offset when Section 5 becomes operative because then the people controlling credit will know that unvested land and vested land rank pari passu so far as price is concerned.
I wholeheartedly support this Bill because it is a step in the right direction. I think the Minister is working along the right lines. I think he should ensure that economic holdings, upon which the State has spent money, will never under any circumstances, if offered for sale, be allowed to pass into the hands of an alien who might thereby benefit but that those who suffered under the old order of "to hell or to Connaught", will be given an opportunity of coming back into the enjoyment of the land of Ireland.
This problem of land and the various Land Acts governing it has been one of the most debated problems throughout the country. People will naturally look at this Act to see if there is in it any improvement on previous Acts. From a cursory glance at the Bill it appears to me that the Minister is anxious to take more control himself. That is my personal view.
You are quite right in that.
That may be a good thing and it may be a bad thing. I dare say every man ought to be boss in his own house. As a nation we are susceptible to likes and dislikes. Governments can change overnight. Taking the long view, I feel that the lay commissioners acted impartially in the acquisition and distribution of land. Admittedly the machine may have been slow. No matter how fast the machine may go, the fact remains that we have not sufficient land for everybody. No matter how willing and anxious the Minister is, he will not be able to please everybody. Under this Act the Minister is doing away with the lay commissioners. I think the lay commissioners were very sound because they did not act from political motives. They decided each case on its merits.
I come now to deal with the market value of land. I think that if a man decides to sell his land, because of economic circumstances or for any other reason, and the Land Commission decides to acquire that land he should be given the value of the land on the open market. The only difficulty is as to how the Minister will determine the market value. Land normally goes to the highest bidder. The possibility is that, if it is known generally that the Land Commission intends to buy, the seller may have other bidders there for the purpose of running up the price. That is only human nature.
They would not be bidders. They would be rogues.
How will you keep them out?
One must face the position as one finds it. That, as I say, is only human nature. I believe that a seller should be paid a proper price for his land. On the other hand, a greatly enhanced price may have repercussions on the subsequent allottee because it may place on him a liability he cannot afford to carry.
Has the Deputy ever heard of the Land Act of 1933?
Mr. Burke
I have.
It might pay you to study it.
I have studied it. I come now to deal with the question as to whether or not the Minister is taking too great powers under Sections 5 and 10 of this measure. Every native Government has done its utmost to deal with the land problem. The difficulty is to decide whether to rush matters or to let events shape their own course. Possibly the Fianna Fáil Government made some mistakes in allotting land to people who did not deserve it or who did not make good tenants. No matter how careful the inspectors may be, that can occur. Naturally if that does occur steps must be taken to remove such people. So far as I can see the Minister is abrogating more power to himself under this Act to settle any friends he likes on land than any of the powers taken by the Fianna Fáil Government under the 1933 Land Act.
It was often stated to the Fianna Fáil Minister, in relation to the 1933 Act, by Deputies who were then on the Opposition side of the House that the Fianna Fáil clubs did this, that and the other but, under that Act, the Minister was actually a Minister and the Commissioners were there to carry out the Act as laid down to them. I see that under this Act the Minister can settle up a few friends and that he will have more power to do so or, if any other Deputy should go to him, that he will have more power than the Fianna Fáil Minister had or than he himself has had hitherto.
Would the Deputy tell me under what section I can do that? I should love to know.
Take "Exercise of powers by the Minister, etc." under Section 10.
There is a lot in Section 10. It covers pages.
I am giving my own interpretation. The Minister can give his interpretation later on. I am as at one with the House in that I should like to see the rundale system cleared up completely.
Hear, hear.
It is long over-due. That system has been responsible for a good deal of trouble in families and between neighbours. I hope that the Minister, under this Act will divide land and, further, I should like to see a section in this Bill to the effect that roads would be provided in such a way that the Land Commission could hand them over to the various county councils. I should like to see a section in this Act dealing with that problem because the position all over the country, even under the last Land Act, is that the roads that were made through holdings or through estates, either for sub-division or for ordinary holdings or for farms, were not what they should have been. I hold that any Department of State responsible for land division should see that they make a perfect road through the land and that, in conjunction with the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Lands should have a provision in this Bill which would ensure that that road would be taken over by the various county councils. That is a point that has been neglected, notwithstanding the fact that the roads were made. They were reasonably good roads too —at least, they looked all right for a while. I became a member of this House in 1944 and, since then, I have made more representations about bad roads through holdings of land than, possibly, any other Deputy in that period.
Does the Deputy want me to compel the Minister for Local Government to take them over?
The Minister must agree with me that there is definitely a problem there. If he states that there is not a problem there, all that I can say is that he has changed very much since he was sitting on this side of the House. I heard him, when he was a member of the Opposition, making several representations in this House regarding the problems of bad roads, Land Commission roads and so forth.
The land of this country should be divided, as a matter of national policy, amongst the very best applicants. Another matter which has often been discussed in this House is the question of the size of holdings. I realise that in the Minister's county and in other western counties the problem of small uneconomic holdings is ever present and has been in existence for hundreds of years. The same can be said in regard to other parts of Ireland also. My sizing up of the whole matter is this: is it not better to give a man an economic holding than to try and give him nine or ten acres of land and leave him hanging in mid-air, as it were, so that he is neither a farmer nor a labourer?
Hear, hear!
The problem is not so bad in County Dublin because, with a few acres, a man could develop a market garden and, possibly, make some kind of a living for himself. But down the country, and even in parts of my own constituency in County Dublin, the position is quite different, because these people will have to try to make out a living for themselves, to keep a horse or two horses, or maybe a tractor, and a few cows on, say, only 22 statute acres of land. I do not think, taking the long view, that the State is any better for that condition of affairs. I have come across a number of such cases in my constituency. These men are out looking for work on the roads and, if they have a family, they are up against it. If you are giving a holding at all the very least should be one of approximately 35 acres.
That is not an economic holding.
There are many people in the west of Ireland who would say that it is.
I am taking into consideration the number of uneconomic holdings I know in that part of the country where I was born and, again, that I have come to know since I came to Dublin. I realise that the problem is there. I do not want to suggest any more at the moment but I feel that if you give a man a nice holding of land he has a chance of making a living on it. In that way you are keeping him off the labour market —and that is an important point. If he is industrious and goes in, say, for dairying or for market gardening, or such like, he will employ a man. On the other hand, if you give him 15 or 16 acres he will employ nobody and, in addition, he himself will try to get a job that some other labouring man should get. If I were to make the same statement among the congests of Mayo they would say I was their enemy but, truly, that is the position as I see it in County Dublin.
Another problem which has often been brought to my attention in County Dublin and especially in respect of areas where there are a lot of council cottages and where the people there find it rather difficult to get milk sometimes—take, for instance, the north-west part of County Dublin— is the problem of cow parks. I should be glad if the Minister would consider feasible applicants and, if there should be any land adjoining council cottages, I think he should seriously consider giving these people a park for milch cows. It has been the practice in certain parts of the country long before the Land Commission came into being.
And still is.
Of course that is true. The Minister should consider that when he is dividing land. I am going to deal with a rather ticklish question, that of migrants.
God preserve us.
Before migrants come into a parish the land in it should be divided among the uneconomic holders of the parish. I must speak for my own people in County Dublin where there are a large number of small uneconomic holdings, 750 holdings of under 10 acres and over 500 of under five acres. We escaped the migrants over the years of Fianna Fáil and during the period of the previous Government. I think there were only 11 in all those years.
Did you look across the border into Meath?
I am hardly able to look after County Dublin without going there. You had more land in Meath than we have in County Dublin. Only that these people are so industrious and carry on market gardening they would not have a living, although their proximity to the city has helped them. I would ask the Minister to deal justly with such people and not to be influenced in a national question of this kind by political motives. The Minister knows of the problem as he was born in an area where it existed. Before migrants are put into an area I should like to see the uneconomic holders with four or five acres looked after. People in County Dublin who have small uneconomic holdings look forward to the acquisition by the Land Commission of certain lands that have not been worked satisfactorily
There is another point about which I see nothing in the Bill and for which the Minister and the Land Commission should be responsible, the problem of water on land. I hold that in law the Land Commission is the landlord of all the land in this country.
Are we not doing a great deal of drainage at the present time?
I am not talking about drainage. I am talking about bringing water into land where no drainage is needed at all. We have that problem in North County Dublin where farmers had to draw water three and four miles last year and it was not the first year they had to do it. The Land Commission should sink a pump when giving land if there is no water on it. The most essential thing for cattle is pure clear water. I have already approached the Minister on this subject and asked him in a question here if he would consider introducing some scheme, as he is in charge of that Department for the time being, to encourage farmers to sink pumps. Many small farmers cannot afford to spend £300 or £400. They can go to another Department and get a loan but few farmers like to put a millstone round their necks by getting a loan of £400 or £500. In certain areas which I can point out to the Minister there is no water.
Did the Minister not tell the Deputy last summer that that is a problem for the local authorities, not for the Land Commission?
When I went to the local authorities they said they were only concerned with human beings.
I see, and you come back and try to foist it on the Minister for Lands.
I am not saying that the problem has not been there for some time, but when we are introducing new legislation we should do this in ordinary justice, because what is the use of dividing land unless you see there is water on it if the tenant has to draw water two, three or four miles when a dry season comes? Shortage of water and bad water is responsible for cattle dying of disease. The time has come to handle that problem which is getting more acute as time goes on. The Minister and the Land Commission are in charge of the lands of this country. They are collecting annuities and they should see that the land is in perfect order as far as water is concerned.
An annuity is only the repayment of money loaned to a farmer to purchase his holding.
I know that, you need not tell me.
The Deputy seems to forget it.
The local authorities have to provide water for human beings and they have to repay money.
I wonder, if Deputy Burke got his way, what the Land Commission would become? It would become an unmanageable body to do all and everything. It would have to provide water, build roads, divide land and do 40,000 other things.
I wonder does the Minister seriously contend that the Land Commission should continue to dish out holdings without water.
Deputy Burke is in possession.
I want to ask the Minister seriously if he thinks he should give a holding with no road there? It is his duty to see that there is a road. An unfortunate man or woman will go into a holding and will have no road there and there is no obligation on the Minister or on the Land Commission to see that there is water there either. I wonder what is the Minister's function or if he is going to say what the Land Commission is going to be. I am very sorry that the Minister cannot see the light of day through the very practical suggestion I am making to him.
Put down an amendment to that effect when the time comes and do not talk about it.
And the Minister will accept it?
I did not say any such thing. I will tell the Deputy all about pumps and other things.
The Deputy is asking the Minister to make a provision.
I will put down an amendment about roads and about watering land where there is no water. Indeed, if the Land Commission did all the things I would like to see them do as owners of the land of this country the Department would be doing a bit of work I assure you.
The drainage of land is another problem with which I will not deal now as it has nothing to do with this particular Minister. He has been relieved of that.
I appeal to the Minister not to reduce the number of lay commissioners. That is the only assurance we have that every case will be considered on its merits and that no political influence will be responsible for a Minister wavering from one particular man to another, or buying land from a particular man because he did not like him, and giving it to another, saying: "Take this fellow's holding." Under the old system, there was a greater chance of ordinary common law and justice existing all round.
Coming from the country, I am naturally interested in any proposals regarding the acquisition or division of land. It is a national problem that affects the lives of our people more intimately than any other subject. Our people have a tradition in land and associations so deep and so general with it that there is hardly a person—no matter what occupation he may have in the course of his life—who has not close contact with land, either directly or through his father or grandfather. Proposals to deal with land arouse feelings that no other subject could arouse in the minds of our people in general.
In my opinion, the present Bill is a much needed one. It introduces the possibility of the Government acquiring land for sub-division or the creation of new holdings. It gives them a power that had faded out and become obsolete over a number of years, due to the emergency period and the economic conditions prevailing since then. The Land Commission, having acquired all the estates which the landlords owned and sold them to the existing tenants, gradually moved on towards acquiring large properties of several hundred acres, which were apportioned out into new holdings —or sometimes used for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings—and after a time, when those estates of comparatively vast areas were exhausted, we came to the point where in order to acquire land, they had to use their powers of compulsory acquisition and pay a price as award to such owners. Our original plans were to acquire big estates from owners who had no popular claim to the ownership and, accordingly, prices were regulated for the award. At the time prices were thus fixed, conditions were different in many ways from what they are to-day. We had reached the stage when the Land Commission, carrying out a useful national work of providing land for the landless and adding to the uneconomic holdings so as to make them economic, have been forced to pay a price to the owners that was out of touch with modern prices and with justice. Therefore, a Bill of this nature became essential, as it empowers the Minister, through the Land Commission, to pay a reasonable price according to prevailing prices.
There arises one danger, which seems to be very serious, in this proposal. It is proposed to go into the competitive market in the purchase of land. If, as a State entity, the Land Commission become competitors for the purchase of land, then if they desire to acquire a particular farm no private owner may venture to buy against them. Under such conditions, I can see a person willing to sell his farm, offering it through the good agency of his friends as competitors, asking the Land Commission, with the State funds behind them, to pay a price far beyond the economic value. They would thus acquire a heavy liability and future rents, demanded necessarily from the tenants who are allotted a portion of that estate, will be proportionately high and uneconomic in the various changes and exigencies of farm economy.
On the other hand, I notice that the Bill says that the Land Commission shall determine the market value. Let us say they determine that it should be something below what, in the ordinary way, a farm would make in fair, open competition where there are fair, open buyers. There is no such thing as a fair value for land. Within a mile of the City of Dublin, an acre may make a few hundred pounds. Even that applies to lands adjoining remote towns in the country, where it may be useful for grazing or building. Within a quarter of a mile from that, there may be a fine farm of many acres, which would realise only £20 per acre, though equal quality land and agriculturally as good as that which fetched the £200 an acre because of its proximity and because of the competition. Therefore, there is no such thing as a fair price for land. It varies according to location and competition. The man—whether it be the Minister or members of the Land Commission— who could determine a fair price for land is not to be found. Prices so vary that, if the Land Commission are going into competition, there is the danger that those who are selling may find advocates who realise that the value of the farm is a very high price, more than normally would be received in the market, and the Land Commission may pay far too much. Bordering tenants may see that land offered as part allotment to their holdings or as new holdings.
Again, if the Land Commission determine the price, should any farm be offered, medium or large, the competition is destroyed, as there are always in a district people who will say: "The Land Commission are buyers, and if they buy, I will get portion of it." In their own way, these men can destroy the possibility of any outside competition and ensure that only the Land Commission shall be the buyer. In that respect, I see in this Bill a danger that that big charter of liberty which was secured during the days of land agitation—free sale—may be destroyed. It can happen.
Unless the operation of this Bill is very carefuly watched and very carefully handled by the Minister and the Land Commission, the right of free sale may easily be destroyed. In that way, the small farmer and the farmer with the medium-sized farm may find, if he wants to put it on the market, that he is restricted to the price that the Land Commission in their wisdom may determine is the fair price. Do not destroy the right of free sale or you will destroy a very important asset to the farmers of this country. As this Bill stands it has within it that danger. I would like to see greater security than is provided in this Bill that the right of the farmer to sell in a competitive market to the best buyer he may find will be retained.
I have already said that I approve of the Bill in so far as it is necessary to bring up the price of land in view of the reduced value of money since ten or 15 years ago and thus make it possible, in a legitimate and a just way, for the Land Commission to acquire lands, where they may be acquired, at a fair price and thus improve the conditions of that needy section of the community, the men who have no land and men who have uneconomic holdings. There is a danger that in doing that we may go too far. We are giving powers in this Bill which, I am sure, will be very discreetly exercised by the Land Commission or by the present Minister or his successors but it still destroys that right, which is a vital thing to the farming community, that, if they have land to sell, they can freely offer it and secure the benefit of free competition in a price that is not measured by some valuation of what is a fair price. The competitive price is the price that every person wants to get when he goes on the market whether he is selling a hen, a pig, a cow or anything else. Competition should rule the price. If the price is fixed, there is no such thing as competition. What business man will venture to put money in a business if there is no speculation that it may improve in price and that he will get a better price for it when he wants to sell it than he paid for it? What man will put a pound on a horse if he does not feel that he may get £2 in return? What man will speculate on the stock exchange without the incentive of potential return? This Bill is destroying that incentive as far as land is concerned and the position must be clarified in the interest of every small, medium and large farmer who holds land.
As regards the purpose of the Bill, the Minister is asking for powers to acquire land. His own intimate knowledge must have convinced him long ago that those best fitted to use the land to the best advantage are those who have traditional knowledge of land, namely, the men in the congested areas. These men have struggled against adverse conditions and have laboured in good periods and bad periods. They have reared large families on what are regarded as uneconomic holdings.
Since the time when Cromwell drove our people from the rich lands and scattered them around the coast, south and west, they have continued to eke out an existence in conditions that could hardly be credited. They have acquired keen knowledge of the land and they have worked out an economy in using the land that can now be useful to the nation. Under the most trying conditions they have persevered. They have endured adverse weather. They have worked land that is not productive at all without artificial means. That work entailed manual labour on the part of the man and his family. They reared large families. They always observed what was natural and right and, guided and supported by Providence, survived. These are the people to whom the Land Commission and the State should turn their attention.
I have listened to appeals that land should be found for landless men. By all means, if land is available. But, the first consideration is to provide land for those whose holdings are uneconomic. If it is intended under this Bill to purchase land at the expense of the State and to pay a fair price for it, I would strongly urge on the present Minister to use the nation's wealth to undo the slums which exist, which were the creation of Cromwell in the past and which are a national disgrace. I would ask him to undo the neglect of his predecessors and give these people a fair share of the soil which is theirs and which they are capable of working to the best advantage. It is an economic thing. It is a national thing. It is a just thing. I recommend it to the Minister as a first claim in this proposal to acquire land. I recommend that he should give the land to those who are first entitled to it, who owned it in the centuries gone by but who were banished from their land by force. They have succeeded in surviving and in rearing large families under conditions in which only supermen could have succeeded.
In that connection the Minister should have a survey made of the congested areas. There is some useful land there but there are also so-called farms in these areas that could not be regarded as agricultural farms. There are vast areas which would be useful for afforestation. Let a survey be made of these areas with a view to discovering what land is useful for agricultural purposes and development. Let these areas be used for whatever number of families they can maintain and let the rest of the land be used for forestry.
Such a survey should be made quickly and before we proceed in a big way to operate this Bill. It is probably the last opportunity any Minister will have of dealing finally with the awful problem of the slums in congested areas. If this opportunity is used merely for the purpose of gaining political advantage, of providing a farm allegedly for some landless men, then you will have used up all the available land and will still have left behind the dreadful blot of these slums around our coast. We are asked from time to time to vote money for the clearance of slums and the provision of houses. We strike our breasts and feel that we are noble creatures because we engage in that work of providing clean houses, but we have yet to have a Minister who will tackle this problem. This Minister is probably the last Minister in whose hands a solution of the problem will rest. He is dividing practically the remnant of the land of the country. Are we to leave behind for all time this black mark on our national standard?
Let me suggest again to the Minister that a survey be made of the congested areas around our coast and find out what area of suitable agricultural land is available. Let us work out how many families that land will maintain in decent comfort and let the balance of the land be used for forestry, and let us then migrate, in so far as land is acquired elsewhere, the remnant of that struggling population who have survived in spite of every hardship and inconvenience. These are the people who will revivify agriculture, if you give them suitable farms. You will never have to be ashamed of what you have done and they will repay you and the nation whatever money is spent on such development. I appeal to the Minister with his knowledge of conditions in the west to do what is fair in this matter, in the light of his knowledge, a knowledge which is superior to that possessed by any of his predecessors.
The size of farms is a debatable question and I do not know that it is possible to define an economic holding. It varies in different districts and according to the quality and ability of the person working it. I hope the Minister will give full consideration to these points, because this is, as I say, the last opportunity we have to solve to any extent the problem of the uneconomic holder. I hope that he will utilise to the utmost all the land available in order to reach a final solution of the problem.
I am very glad to see such enthusiasm again for land division. During the war, it was quite natural that no land could be divided, and I am glad that the Minister has now introduced a measure which will give a great number of people throughout the country hopes of getting a home on the land. We heard here on many occasions that the misfortune in this country was that the people were inclined to leave the land. I do not think that any Deputy has had that experience. The people were quite anxious to remain on the land, if they got the opportunity, and anybody who reads the history of the land movement will come to the conclusion that, so far as the various Governments in power were concerned, they passed sufficient Land Acts. I remember going to the trouble of reading over all these Land Acts and reading about the introduction of the earlier Acts in the British House of Commons. On every occasion, the Minister introducing the measure said that it was the ultimate and final Act, that it was going to solve everything. The Minister has admitted already that this Bill is not going to solve all our troubles and difficulties.
We here have had a very peculiar problem to solve. On the Continent, the people took the land by illegal means from the feudal landlords, but we are not in exactly that position. Our land was entirely conquered and and the conquerers exploited it to the full, which in itself has tended to make the Land Acts fairly involved. In that connection, I agree with many of the speakers that one of the things that would be very advantageous and that would give rise to more appreciation of the Minister's work is an effort on his part to consolidate the Land Acts. Any of us who made a serious endeavour to interpret this measure will know the difficulties and labour attaching to it. We have even heard some of the lawyers here expressing doubt as to the meaning of several phrases, so that it is no wonder that the ordinary people and Deputies will find it very difficult to understand even this measure.
Notwithstanding that, great interest is taken in the country in land division, and, so far as the statement made here about a flight from the land is concerned, I say that there is no flight from the land. Conditions on the land, however—let us realise it—day by day are becoming more uneconomic. That position has existed here possibly from the time of the first world war when certain financial conditions brought about a collapse and complete chaos. I do not think this country ever properly recovered from it. However, the Minister is determined to make a new effort. That effort has been made in many countries and in this instance it represents an attempt on the part of the Government to buy land. The proposal may be surrounded by more choice words than I can use but the real truth is that the Minister, representing the Government, is going to buy land.
Quite recently I heard some discussions in regard to Government purchases and I think it was admitted that, in almost every single case in which Governments engaged in the purchase of houses, produce, or commodities of any description, their efforts met with complete failure. I hope that the Minister will not meet with similar misfortune in this instance. At the same time the purchase of land is a matter that is very involved. I do not believe for one moment that the Minister would ever allow himself to be led into any wrong actions but we do know that there are people in this country who gamble in land, who are adepts in selling land, and that they will not be one bit shy or afraid to lead the Minister into difficulties. I take it the Minister proposes to buy land at public auctions, and public auctions are occasions on which the art of "puffing" has reached a very high degree of efficiency. If a man gets to know that the Minister is interested in the purchase of certain land, I think there is hardly a Deputy in this Dáil who cannot visualise what is going to occur. The Minister is going to be an extra buyer, with a good deal of money behind him—in fact, with the State behind him. To my mind, that will be a very dangerous position. Things, of course, may work out all right but it is not my experience, and I think it is not the experience of other Deputies, that when a Government embarks on the purchase of land or of any commodity, its efforts are ever attended by success. It is admitted, I think, that the Minister is going to pay more for land; if not, there is no virtue in this proposal. I think he mentioned the fact that he was going to be merciful to owners of land, that he is going to give them every chance, insinuating that we gave them no chance, that we bought land at the lowest possible price.
Did you give a fair price in all cases?
We always gave a fair price so far as I know.
Will it be given in all cases under this Bill?
Of course, my argument now is that the Minister may become too fair.
Too generous.
What is going to happen to the tenants? We know who regulates the price of land at the present time and I think that in future the same people are going to regulate the price. The price of land is regulated here by the British Government at the moment. Later on, if control is removed from the price of cattle, the price of land here will be regulated by what the public in Great Britain will pay for our cattle. The value of land will fluctuate according to that. When land was producing food here during the war, and in fact before it, I think the Minister will admit that, down in Mayo, land for conacre was fetching from £8 to £10 an acre whereas the best land around Tara was not making more than £5 an acre at the same time. The Minister will not deny that nor will he deny that that may be the case again. At the moment there is something of a boom in the cattle trade. I think that the Minister for Agriculture definitely intends to develop that trade and has taken elaborate steps towards that end. I imagine that some difficulty will arise between himself and the Minister for Lands because if a high price prevails for cattle—and it is not so much a question of high prices as the profit that can be made out of the trade—land for grazing and fattening cattle will go up in value. The value of land is determined by what it can be let or set at. There will be many fluctuations in that respect. How is the Minister going to manage his tenants if the tenants on any one estate have to purchase at a very high price, because it is the tenant who is going to purchase? The Minister does all the writing, but it is the tenant who is going to pay.
What does the tenant pay?
Will he not pay annuities?
Exactly. How is the annuity determined?
The annuities are determined by the amount you pay for the land.
Not at all. That reflects very badly on the Deputy.
Would the Minister let the Deputy make his own speech and and stop his cross-examination?
I shall not allow any Deputy to state deliberate falsehoods before the House.
The Minister should not accuse the Deputy of telling deliberate falsehoods because he does not agree with this statement.
Should not the statement that Deputy O'Reilly was telling deliberate falsehoods be withdrawn?
We are all in the best of humour and we do not mind that.
The Minister should not try to be Ceann Comhairle as well as Minister.
You are very sore about Donegal now.
Not a bit. We are not displeased at all.
Deputy O'Reilly is in possession.
The Minister states there is no relation at all between the price paid for land by the Land Commission and the annuity the tenant will have to pay. I cannot follow that. If that is the case it makes matters much worse, because every man who has land for sale will say: "It is not going to hurt my neighbours in any way because they are not going to pay in proportion to the price I will get. We will make the Minister pay all he can." That is going to inflate the price. That is one of the dangers attached to the action of the Government in entering into a business of this kind. All I can do is to wish the Minister the best of luck. The principal object of the Land Commission always was to relieve congestion. I hope that when the Minister does start to operate all these Land Acts, he will adhere to that principle and relieve all uneconomic holders. It is very objectionable to a Deputy from Meath, when there are uneconomic holders in Meath, to see migrants coming in there. I am sure that the Minister when he starts to divide the land will adhere to the principle of satisfying all the local uneconomic applicants before he starts to bring in any migrants.
That is the practice already.
I only want to have that confirmed. It is not that the people in Meath have any objection to migrants. The only objection they have is when they are left without land and migrants are brought in. As I said, the success of land division depends entirely on the Minister for Agriculture. If the Minister for Agriculture decides, as he may do, to purchase abroad all the feeding-stuffs needed here—and that happened before—it is quite obvious that the value of land is going to drop. I hope that the Minister for Lands will keep in close touch with the Minister for Agriculture and try to relate the price that he pays for land to the policy which is going to be pursued by the Minister for Agriculture.
Before 1850 we supported a big population on the land. The population rapidly decreased, and it decreased for no other reason than that the land was limited to the production of cattle. There was no employment for the people. If he cannot grow his own foodstuffs, if it is not economic for him to do so, there will be no occupation for the small farmer. Our principal aim should be, if we settle the people on the land, to have economic conditions such as will allow them to get a reasonable living on the small farms. That, of course, is going to be a big problem in the near future. At the moment, as a result of the war, Great Britain is unable to purchase abroad. Owing to monetary regulations, we are not able to purchase quite an amount of foreign foodstuffs. That does act as some protection for the small farmer and other farmers. But, to my mind, the day that we cease to produce food here for the people the value of land will fall. I hope that in the near future the Minister for Agriculture will be compelled to see that that valuable food is grown here. If it is, the value of land will be kept up. If it is not, the value of land and the value of stock will fall. The production of food for the people takes up a certain amount of land which tends to make land scarcer and more valuable.
I hope that the Minister will have good luck in this effort. As I said, it is the first time in any Land Act that the Government has had the courage to take power to buy land and I hope that nothing will happen to upset that. I hope that the land that the Minister will be able to give the tenants will not be too dear, that the price will not be so high that they will be inclined to leave it on his hands.
I welcome this Bill. I suppose it is not the last Bill we shall have so far as land division is concerned. If this House is noted for anything, it is for the number of Acts it passes, each one of which is supposed to be final. I do not know, however, that there is any such thing as perfection in this world. However, the Minister has faced up to his responsibility. I am satisfied that he is the right man in the right place, because he has a gigantic task in front of him. I am glad that under this Bill there is going to be justice for the land owner whose land will be taken and justice for incoming tenants. What more do we want under any Act than justice? I am satisfied that under this Bill many landholders who were in fear and trembling that their land would be acquired will have their fears allayed, and that quite a number of fairly large farmers who are not financially strong will offer part of their holdings to the Land Commission for which they can get a fair market value and thus be able to restock the rest of their holdings. That, in itself, will be an immense improvement so far as my county is concerned.
In my county and in the Midlands generally there is a fear of invasion from the West which up to the present had been on a fairly big scale. Knowing that the Minister comes from a congested area, I say God help us in the Midlands if he gets his way. The purchase of land at the market value is a good thing, but I would ask the Minister to be cautious about it. I would not like him to go wholesale into the purchase of land at market value. I believe he has power to purchase large holdings openly and above board, to tell the people that the land is needed, pay them the market value and take over the holdings. There will, however, be such things as a backhand pull, puffers, etc. However, I know the Minister is a man who will be able to handle the situation properly.
When big holdings are on the market I ask him to step in in time and acquire them and not allow them to go, as they have in the last four or five years, into the hands of foreigners. Large holdings of 600, 700 and 800 acres have gone into the hands of foreigners who, I admit, have spent a large amount of money and give a fair amount of employment. At the same time, that is not quite sound economically. Middle class peasants are the people whom we want on the land here, because they will give a fair amount of employment and do a fair amount of tillage. The whole idea of the large landholders who come into this country is to turn the farms into grass or establish stud farms. That has gone too far. We should have a full investigation into what these people who have come in here in the last few years are doing with the land. Some of these men purchase 1,500 acres of land and say they are running a stud farm or going in for blood-stock and that the land should not be acquired. I do not say that men who have lived in County Meath all their lives should be touched, but these big landholders who come in here get away scot-free. I ask the Land Commission to have a full inquiry with regard to these people who came into the country during a number of years past and see if they have acquired too much property in this State. As I said, they give plenty of employment, but nationally it is unsound and will react against this country.
I am glad that under this Bill there will be a remodelling of the Land Commission which is long overdue, because it is a cumbersome body. For over 25 years we have been dividing land and turning it into economic holdings. Unfortunately, we are only half through the work yet. I am satisfied that there was something wrong at the top in connection with the Land Commission. We got our freedom through revolution and that revolution should be carried through in many directions. We should have a more revolutionary approach to the question of land acquisition and division. I believe there was far too much of a conservative outlook at the top in the division of land in the past. I hope that we are getting away from that. In connection with land division, we want a new national approach, and men of national vigour to take over the work and bring it to a speedy conclusion. During the last 25 or 30 years land division, which has not yet been completed, has caused a good deal of wrangling, anger, cattle driving and misery. All that was because the Land Commission did not take effective steps to complete the job in five or six years. I know it is a huge job, but it is one that should be approached in a big way. We were told two, three, or four years ago that vesting would be almost completed within three or four years. These years have now passed, and yet the work is not done. I am afraid three or four more years will have passed before many of the new tenants who have had holdings for the past 25 years will have their land vested in them. There are many in my county who have been in the occupation of land for 20 and 25 years, and it is still not vested. That is a shame and a disgrace. It is unfair to those people that they should be left in that position. They have no title to their land to enable them to go into a bank as independent men and raise some money to stock the land. Most of them require capital to stock their land and so make it of some use to them. As long, however, as their land is not vested by the Land Commission they cannot raise the capital they require for the successful working of their holdings. Many of those tenants are in dire need for want of capital. They cannot set their land on the 11 months' system because they are not allowed to do so. If the land was vested in them, these men would prove to be good tenants. The result of all this is that we have a list of evictions ready in my county. Many of them are justified but many of them are unjustified. I say that it is disgraceful to see people being evicted.
Because they are not working their land according to the terms of their contract.
How can they when they have not the capital?
The Land Commission is not a free bank.
If they get title by having the land vested in them they will be able to get the capital to work it. I am not blaming the Minister. I believe that he has the right outlook, but the fact is that many men in the midlands and in County Meath got land —I do not care how they acquired it— but they had not a "bob" in their pockets. The Land Commission, with their eyes open, gave them these holdings. Is it fair now that those people should be evicted after being in possession for ten or 15 years? The Land Commission was responsible for most of those wasters who got land. They slipped it across the Land Commission, and the latter knew well what they were doing. There were three or four people on home relief who got land. They said they would not be able to work it, but the Land Commission said to them to take it, that they would be able to get on all right. Some of these men are now being evicted. The Land Commission almost stuck it down their necks. I think that these evictions should be cut out.
The division of land should be considered more from the national point of view. What we want in this country is a middle-class peasantry. The position in my county is that when a war is over every man who can possibly do so gets out of tillage and puts his land back into grass. Who can blame him when grass pays him better? If you had a good middle-class peasantry, people with holdings of from 30 to 50 acres of land, they would have to till a fair proportion of it whether they liked it or not. It is that type of farming that would give the country a properly balanced national economy. It is bad from the economic point of view, to see vast tracts of land going back into grass. The small man must feel dissatisfied when he sees the big fellow, with all his land in grass, getting the big cheques for the cattle that go off that land to the market.
The Minister will need to handle the position carefully. If our national economy is properly handled it can do an immense amount of good, but if not it can do an immense amount of harm. There are parts of Dublin, Meath and Westmeath which are naturally suited for the development of the live-stock industry. Is it not a pity to see that land hacked up to relieve congestion? In my county there is a fair amount of land that could be acquired for the relief of uneconomic holders and suitable landless men. I do not want, however, to see that land torn up into small patches. If that is done it will react not only on County Meath but on the West of Ireland, where the Minister comes from and where the people of Meath go to make their purchases of young stock. If that land is broken up, how are you going to carry on your national economy and what about your fairs and markets?
The Minister should go down into Kildare and Meath and view the position for himself. He should visit the colonies that have been created there. Some of them are doing fairly well. Many of these people can well say that if they have been brought out of congested areas that they are now very much in the position of congests. They can say that they are not able to make a living out of the 22 acres of land they have. They had large families when they came to the Midlands. Now some of their children are married and are living in the house with them. In the houses on some of these holdings you have three and four families living, with up to 14 people in some of them. That kind of intensified migration is not a good thing. It would be far better if men were given a holding of 35 or 40 acres on which they could make a living for themselves and their families. Many of those people got virgin grass land, but at the moment a lot of it is only third and fourth rate land. That is not due to any fault on the part of the migrants. Their holdings are so small that they have to graze them day in and day out. I ask the Minister to consider that position because it is a very grave one. I know that he is very anxious to solve this problem, but I think we can never solve congestion because we have not enough land to do so. We can give a fair amount of relief.
On the borders of Cavan, in North Meath, we have a vast amount of congestion. You have men living there on five and ten acres of poor land. Surely they are entitled to some consideration as well as the migrants. I have no objection to the bringing up of those smaller tenants to County Meath, but I think it would be a much sounder national economy to buy out some of the large landholders in the West, give them a fair portion of land elsewhere and divide their holdings amongst the local people.
The Deputy's speech seems to be on administration rather than on the Bill.
I do not believe that this is going to be the last Land Bill. I think this Bill is 25 years too late. I believe that there are many people with a fair amount of land in my county who would be prepared to hand over a portion of it. You have people there with 400 acres of land. If 200 acres of such holdings were acquired at a fair market price and a man was left with 200 acres, he would be able to work it better than the 400 acres. I believe that a good deal of the compulsion there should be cut out.
There was too much compulsion in the past. In Meath there was great fear and trembling on the part of the people. Every landowner for the last 20 years never felt secure. There was agitation at his hall-door and at his back-door and he heard the cry: "We want your land; we must take your land." The Minister has done a bold thing. He has offered fair market value for land, and he could not do more to allay the fears of any of these people. I hope this measure will speedily be put into operation. So far as my county is concerned, he has a vast amount of acreage under his control. I ask him to give fair and simple justice to the local people first and then, if there is land available, to migrants of the type who are most suitable from the point of view of national economy. I wish the Minister every success with this new Bill and I hope it will be many years before he will have to bring in another one. All the same, I am afraid this is not the final measure. I think he will have to remodel the Land Commission.
The main features of the Bill have been well and truly discussed and I do not propose to say anything on that aspect. I rise to mention one point which I think the Minister knows something about. That is, the necessity for a short clause—I am disappointed that it is not already in the Bill—amending the pension provisions of previous Bills so as to provide that an officer of the Land Commission who has retired shall have whatever service he may have given to the Congested Districts Board and the Land Settlement Commission prior to 1923 recognised for the purpose of a pension. I would like the Minister seriously to consider that matter before the Committee Stage.
I think the Minister is to be congratulated on the introduction of a measure that will give such relief when it is put into operation. It will, for one thing, remove a very serious feature which was a legacy of the foreigner here. I believe it is principally in my county that it exists. I refer to dual ownership. I am very glad the Minister has included a rectification of that injustice which, as I have said, was a legacy of an ancient despotism that existed here for 750 years.
I was rather amazed at Deputy O'Reilly when he said there is no flight from the land. I do not know from what source he got his statistics, but there is definite and conclusive evidence every day in the week of such a flight. I am sure every Deputy here has had evidence every day over a number of years of the flight of the rural community. Why is that so? Whatever the cause, there has been a feeling of instability, of insecurity among the farming community. The old Irish Parliamentary Party, in a long and enduring struggle, won for the farmers the three Fs. —fixity of tenure, free sale and fair rent. How about fixity of tenure? Is there in the minds of farmers to-day the conviction that they have fixity of tenure? I say "No." I do not want to suggest that the last Government was responsible. It may be that the Land Commission, with the powers vested in them, overrode the authority of the Minister. There has been for a number of years an atmosphere of insecurity, instability and, I would say, unhappiness. Who is responsible, I do not know. I will not fix the responsibility on any Government or Minister.
Quite recently in my constituency farmers have been visited by Land Commission inspectors who required them to show reasons why some or all of the land in their occupation should not be acquired for sub-division. I have drawn the attention of the Department quite recently to the prevailing conditions. It may be necessary to ascertain why some farmers are not properly utilising their land. No doubt there are lethargic, lazy, indolent persons not utilising their land for the benefit of their families, for the food production of the nation or for the benefit of the general community. I do not suggest that such people should continue in that indifferent, lackadaisical way, acting as a dead weight on the nation, but I would like the Land Commission or the Minister to tell me how anyone can justify visits to progressive, hard-working farmers, industrious men working their land to a high standard of husbandry, meeting their commitments, not to the minimum degree under the Tillage Orders, but exceeding the minimum requirements, men rearing fine families.
Numbers of such farmers have recently been visited by Land Commission inspectors who informed them that on a certain day they proposed to make an examination of the conditions under which they worked their land. Now there must be a definite segregation between (a) the lazy, indolent fellow and (b) the industrious, progressive, hard-working farmer. Where is the fixity of tenure there? That is the atmosphere that has been created in my constituency.
I have submitted the facts to the Minister and to the Land Commission officials. I pointed out to them that in farms adjacent to these there were farmers setting hundreds of acres of grass —even grass for horses—and that to my own knowledge for the last quarter of a century. These people are not working the land for the benefit of the State, the good of community, or the advancement of the nation. It is inexplicable to me how an inspector from the Land Commission can pass by such farms as these and half a mile further on go in to inspect a holding held by a farmer, whose ancestors were in occupation of the land in some cases for as long as 215 years. Does not that attitude seem almost indefensible on the part of the Land Commission? It is to me the antithesis of all that our people fought for in order to get fixity of tenure in its real and true sense.
I am glad that the Minister at last realises the iniquities done by the Land Commission in the past. At least they have been examining their conscience. They are going to make good the harm and the injustices done by them in the past. When I was in the other House I drew a particular case to the attention of the Minister. A farmer in my constituency offered the Land Commission 153 acres of land. The land was inspected by the Land Commission and they decided, after a careful examination I suppose, that the land was not suitable for sub-division but that it would be excellent land for afforestation purposes. The owner was prepared to sell. There was no house on the land and he found it inconvenient to work it. I am speaking now subject to correction since I have not got all the data in front of me. The Land Commission offered him £380 for his 153 acres. The seller would be required to pay the cost of redemption and other legal expenses. Out of the £380 offered he would eventually find himself with £134 net. I pointed out how unjust the offer was to the Land Commission and the hardship it would impose upon this small farmer with a family of seven or eight young children. The Land Commission move very slowly. After another 12 months had elapsed they decided to give him £680, from which had to be deducted £160. That brought the figure down to £520. From that had to be deducted another £40 for legal expenses. In the end there was about £250 left for this 153 acres of reasonably good land, and the owner had no option but to cross the Irish Sea to find work in a more congenial atmosphere to support himself and his children.
The Land Commission has a duty to treat the community fairly. The Minister says—all credit to him—that he will in future pay the market value of land. I agree with Deputy O'Reilly that it will not be an easy matter to determine what the market value is, since supply and demand and other factors enter into it. Any auctioneer can readily point out the difficulties in determining the market value of land. I have sold a number of farms in the past. Farms sold by private treaty never realise the same price as they would if they were sold in the open market. One may ask why farms are sold by private treaty when they could be sold to better advantage in the open market. The reason is that, if the Land Commission knew that the farms were on the market, they would immediately step in and take them. They would pay not the market value price, but what they considered to be a fair price. This is a Government Department which, if one approaches it to have something done, sends out two or three letters stuck together. When one opens the envelope one discovers that half of them are torn. They begin with "A Chara", nine or ten lines in Irish, and they end with "Mise, le meas". You get no more than that and you throw them away.
The price that may be determined for these lands is about £3 6s. 8d. an acre. Is it any wonder that this big and benevolent Minister who has come from the land and who is working on behalf of those on the land realises the injustices of the Irish Land Commission and has introduced a Bill in this House to try to remedy the matter? Instead of offering him silly, cynical criticism, as some of those on the opposite benches have done — not all, I will admit — Deputies ought to co-operate with the Minister. They should laud him for introducing a section to remedy dual ownership, which is a legacy of past tyranny and injustice by the British, and, secondly, to give to the farmer the market value of his land and withdraw the locusts of inspectors who are creating to-day a feeling of insecurity and instability, as I have already said. They go around visiting men who are a credit to the country— farmers who work their land with industry and in a progressive manner and who conform to all the statutes in regard to extra tillage. They visit these men who work so industriously and who rear good, decent families. How can these farmers have any feeling of peace or security? By whom is this authority given? Is it the order of the Government? Has the Minister given that order? If not since their advent to power, were these orders issued by the previous Government and, if so, why? I should like to know why certain men, one after another, were selected—men against whom no charge of inefficiency or negligence could be made. These are just a few points that strike me.
I went to the Minister before, and he cannot say that I have, as it were, come here behind his back. I went to the Land Commission and pointed out these happenings. I hope the Minister will remedy them and that the Bill, when it becomes law, will vest in him and in his successors in office power to keep under control the mercenary methods adopted by some officials in his Department.
I have listened very attentively to the speeches of the different Deputies. Some Deputies seem to be very keen on land division. It is a very drastic act to go in on a farmer's land, to take it from him and to divide it out. A farmer has, say, 300 acres of land. He is raising food on that land and he is giving employment. That type of man is an asset to the State. If you take 100 acres of his land from him and give 20 or 30 acres to his workman what will the position then be? The workman will require money to buy stock and machinery for the farm. I believe that we have too many small farms in this country—too many farms of 10, 20 or 30 acres. Usually the farmers on such farms just barely exist. The Minister should be very careful before he starts land division. I know farmers who have, say, 50 acres of land. These men run their farms efficiently and they give employment. If the Minister for Lands is entitled to take this action I think some other Minister is equally entitled, say, to go down O'Connell Street and take over half the business of a big store or to take over part of some industry. Very careful consideration should be given to that matter. Probably other Deputies who have spoken to-night are aware of that.
If the Minister is contemplating dividing the land I think he should not give men ten acres or 20 acres. He should give them 60 acres or 70 acres. Further, along with giving them the land, it would be necessary to give them some money to run the farm. There is no use in giving a man land unless he has the money to stock it and to work it. Therefore, I say that there are lots of problems in regard to the question of land division and careful consideration should be given to the matter by the Minister before he takes action.
I have listened to this debate to-night and to similar debates in years gone by, but I must say that I never thought land was as cheap as a Deputy said it was to-night. I heard Deputy Madden from Limerick say that it could be had for £3 6s. 8d. an acre. If you look for a bit of ground for the purpose of building a house on it you will pay £1 a foot for it. If you build a house in the country for the agricultural worker you must pay at least £25 an acre.
£60.
We get it for £25 in Wexford. We are building houses for the working classes at the moment and we had to pay £135 an acre. Who wants the land in the country? Passing through my constituency and through County Wicklow every week, I notice that the unfortunate agricultural labourer has a half acre in some places and one acre under the new scheme. If he is lucky enough to have a cow he will have to find grazing for it on the banks by the roadside or he may have a goat grazing on the side of a ditch. We hear them talking about taking the land for the farmers. In my constituency there are plenty of good, genuine agricultural labourers and small farmers who are trying to exist. Some of the best farmers in Ireland are to be found in County Wexford, where we till more than in any other county. Some people there are trying to rear families on 10 or even on eight acres. If they go next door, so to speak, their neighbour has a big ranch. They have to pay a high price for conacre, while the owner of that land goes around the country, does not bother about tillage, does not stay on the land at all but draws his conacre money from the small farmer, and so forth. The Minister would do right to divide up the land. The reason some of the small farmers' sons have to fly from the land is because they have not enough to rear families and keep them there. That is why they have to go away. They are not able to get a living. At the same time you have big estates all over the country lying there and set only for grazing purposes.
It is only right that the Minister should come along now and take courage. Many Bills have been brought in and we thought that the land divided for 16 years under the last Government would have almost satisfied the people who want land, but we find no, there are still thousands of people who have not half an acre. Something should be done to give land to the people of rural Ireland and give them a chance of living. That is why there is a flight from the land, and many small farmers and labourers, too, would be glad to get a few acres, till them, and make use of them to produce food. You see in the papers that people in the city have to pay 1/1 for a head of cabbage. They have not a back yard, not to mind a garden, while there are thousands of acres of land around County Dublin, as in other counties, where these people could get some to satisfy them.
There has been great talk about market value, but no farmer to-day sells his land cheaply. Go to an auction where you will see farmers bidding for land and you will see what land will go to. They will not throw it away. We want the Land Commission to give them a fair price and not do as the last people did, take the people's cattle and send around John Browne to give them whatever price he likes. We do not want the Minister to take land without giving a fair price. Give the people who have land to sell a fair price and you will get the land. Divide that land among the working classes and the poor farmers and you need never be afraid that you will leave this side of the House.
I have been in this House for 22 years and during that time I have seen and welcomed many efforts to solve this problem of congestion. I am willing and anxious to help the Minister in any way I possibly can to try to solve this problem, but I would like him to put his cards on the table and give us a much broader outline of what his proposals are. I would like to ask him why, if he is serious in this matter, he did not give us more particulars of his policy. I think we should hear, for instance, the area of land he proposes to acquire or resume under this particular Bill. He should also tell us where this land is situated and where exactly he intends to acquire enough land to form a pool that will help to solve the congestion problem in the West of Ireland. I think that the Minister to-night realises more than ever the problems that confronted the Fianna Fáil Government in their effort to solve this problem. Most of the Deputies I have heard speaking from across the House do not seem to have any knowledge or idea of the problem which confronts the Minister. They seemingly do not understand what exactly congestion means. When I hear a man advocating that the smallest holding given to any particular individual should be at least 60 or 80 acres, I say that it is a pity that that Deputy would not take a tour through the West of Ireland and try to picture for himself how it is that people living on ten or 12 acres of land all their lives have accomplished the feat of eking out an existence and rearing a family.
We all admire the work done and the effort made by the late Mr. Hogan. When he introduced the Land Bill of 1923 the position regarding the amount of land available for acquisition was entirely different from what it was when the Land Bill of 1933 was introduced. At that time there were ranches all over the country in the hands of landlords, and the problem facing that Minister was fairly easy. He could walk in and acquire a farm of 1,000 acres and still leave 5,000 acres to one individual. The only flaw we found in that Bill was that areas up to 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 acres were vested in those landlords, and we had to face the problem of getting after them again, and the Land Act of 1933, introduced by Fianna Fáil, had that aim before it. I can assure the Minister that he will not meet the same type of criticism from this side of the House on this Bill as Fianna Fáil had to contend with when that one was introduced and passed through this House. He is not going to be told that this Bill means the confiscation of private property, as we were told by the people who now occupy the Government Benches. He is going to receive from us every co-operation and assistance to make this Bill workable and to put him in the position, if possible, of solving this problem as soon as possible. It is because of the knowledge we have of the things that happened in those days and because the Minister has had experience of the working of the different Land Acts from the 1923 Act to the present day, that we believe that he should now be in a position to put his finger on the problem and say: "Here is my plan to solve the problem of land division." I am in entire agreement with the purchase of certain types of holdings by the Minister or the Irish Land Commission and I sincerely hope that by this Bill the Minister will solve the problem.
We have experience of people with a number of holdings, one or two of them non-residential, 20 or 30 miles from the parent holding on which the individual resides. As soon as there is any local push to have those lands acquired, that man puts a holding up for auction. The Land Commission says that it does not matter whether it is (a) or (b) holding they purchase. They say: "We will let the man sell his holding and purchase from the new owner at a later stage." But as soon as that land is sold, a high market value is put on it straightaway and the Land Commission find that they cannot look at it. I believe that the Land Commission had the power to take over any land they were anxious to take over for the relief of congestion in any area if they only took the necessary steps to go ahead and do it. In so far as fixing of price was concerned, I have yet to see the first case in the Land Commission courts where an appeal was brought against price and that the appellant did not get an increased price. I think it has always been given in the courts. I think an increased reasonable price was given always.
An increased price would not necessarily mean a fair price.
But the increased price was thrashed out between people who could do justice between one man and another. I do not think the lay commmissioners or the judicial courts are out to rob any individual.
They were tied by the Act.
They were not. They could pay £7 or £10 or £30 an acre. If they were tied by the Act, surely the price they offered would be the same price all the time and one could never get an increase on appeal. The Minister knows they were not tied. The Minister cannot quote from any section of any Act to show where the Land Commission were tied down to £10, £20 or £40 an acre. No matter what he tries to do in this section, he cannot tie himself down to fixing a price, nor can he tell this House that he will pay £40 or £60 an acre. Coming from a congested district, and from that portion of the country, he knows that, in any two townlands, where the land is equal and the valuation is not one shilling greater in one district than in the other, a 50-acre holding in one place may go £500 or more than in another, although there is no difference in the size of the holding or in the valuation.
When he is talking about fixing a market price, I do not know where he is going to get that price, or how he is going to fix it. He cannot put it down in black and white in a Bill, any more than Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Cumann na nGaedheal could not put it in their Land Acts. I must say I would like to see power in the hands of the Land Commission, but I am not prepared to give too many powers to any particular Minister. I have good reasons for that.
When we came into office, I had the unhappy experience of seeing the Land Commission work under an Act whereby the Minister had certain powers. He had the power to give a holding of land, as he actually did, to any particular individual he liked. That individual would not necessarily be a man hostile to the Minister or his policy. Unfortunately, to-day we are going to have a Minister putting himself in the very same position. If we give those powers to this particular Minister confronting us and in charge of this particular Department, I have no doubt in my mind that the people who are politically opposed to him will not be the people coming out best in his division of land. For that reason, I am not prepared to give it to him or to give it to a Minister from these benches, either.
The Deputy was wise then anyway.
I certainly was. I should be much more wise now, when I see what is happening everywhere with the Government in power at the moment, in so far as their powers go to giving anything to anybody supporting them. Because of the things to which I have referred, and because of the danger of any particular Minister getting too many powers and doing too many things from his particular eye, I do not like to give to any Minister very drastic powers in this direction.
I believe that the Minister should produce a policy, should draft his Bill according to that policy and compel the Land Commission then to carry it out. I do not think there would be much need to change any commissioner who is working in the Land Commission, unless you pension them off altogether and clear the whole lot out and put in some more revolutionary crowd-but that would not fit in with the terms of this Bill. If the Minister put his policy into this Bill, he could take power to compel the Land Commission to carry that out. He should keep out of the division of land, the acquisition and resumption of holdings, and so on.
There are three dangerous sections in the Bill—Sections 5, 10 and 23— sections that I would like changed, and which I hope I will see changed by the Minister, for his own benefit as well as for the benefit of all the Deputies in the House who will be voting for anything he puts into a piece of paper, as well as for the benefit of the people of the country in general whom it is intended to benefit by this legislation. We would like to know from the Minister how he intends to fix market value.
How did Fianna Fáil fix it? That is a straight question.
The Deputy should ignore interruptions.
For the information of the Deputy, I say that Fianna Fáil never fixed it but left it to the Land Commission.
There was the Connolly case of Dunboyne—£5 for 200 acres of land.
I have heard remarks about the landless men.
I am talking about confiscation.
I challenge the Minister now, and the Deputy who passed the remark, to name one individual, in all the working of the Land Commission, where the Minister took sides.
I am giving one name.
I am not referring to the Deputy at all. I am speaking on behalf of congests and not of ranchers.
Order! Deputy Fagan will have an opportunty of speaking if he so desires.
I want to challenge the Minister to give us a case now, where Fianna Fáil or any Fianna Fáil Minister gave a holding of land to landless men. The business was left to the Land Commission to decide and they were responsible for putting the man into the holding. If he had not sufficient cash, I do not hold that the Land Commission should finance a person who has not sufficient cash.
Would the Deputy say, so, what was the need for the 1946 act? If none of these things occurred, why did you bring in that Act?
The Minister is a bit quick, but he is not smart. I said I challenged the Minister to give us the name of a Fianna Fáil Minister who gave a holding of land. I said the Land Commission dealt with it and they alone determined who would get the holding. Does the Minister say that is wrong?
Who determined the class that the Land Commission would pick from?
We do not regret that.
That is all right, then. That is enough.
We determined definitely, and the present Minister will have to determine the same thing.
And I certainly will.
The Minister will have to determine it and determine how he is going to compensate the individuals who earn their livelihood on it. The Minister is faced with the very same problem. We made provision for compensating the herds and other people who earned their livelihood on the land. We made provision for compensating Old I.R.A. men who had given service to the country. Does the Minister say that we should not have made provision for these people? Experience has shown that there are other ways and means that can be adopted to provide for those people. We simply made provision for them in the best way we thought fit and left it to the Land Commission to work out the problem and to do the best they could. We did not dictate to the Land Commission that Tom, Dick or Harry should be given a holding. That is the implication the Minister is putting on the whole thing. That is where he is entirely wrong. The sooner he educates some of the Deputies from his own constituency who have been throwing sneers and jeers about landless men across the House the better for themselves and the more helpful for the Minister,
There are two pages of this Bill in Section 10 setting out the powers we are giving to the Minister. As I have said, I am not one of those who are prepared to give any power to any Minister to do any particular thing.
Oh.
The Deputy did not think of that always.
I am prepared to give him power to put his policy into effect and to leave it to the Land Commission then to carry out that policy and to the Minister to force the Land Commission to do it. It is unwise, it is very foolish, for the Minister himself to do it. I wonder what the reaction will be in Mayo if he ever attempts some of the things envisaged here. Two heads are wiser than one. The commissioners are intelligent people who know exactly what they are doing when they are exercising the powers that the Minister is now taking from them. They have had long experience and, if the Minister tells them exactly what he wants done, in as strong language as he likes, and that he wants a particular job done within a certain length of time, he will get results. Experience has been gained from the various Acts that were passed. We brought in the 1933 Act. We found at a later stage that it was not entirely satisfactory. When that Act was introduced it was met with unscrupulous opposition. The Opposition did not want us to take over one acre or to divide one acre and definitely and deliberately set out to ensure, if they could, that we would not take over one acre just as they tried to prevent us doing many other things. It was in spite of them and it was by the loyalty of the Irish people to our policy and to ourselves and by our determination to do this job as speedily as possible that the issue was decided. The people who were talking about confiscation of private property had that driven home to them pretty forcibly, not by mere talk, but by a general election. It took a general election to drive that home and it was driven home. At the same time, that opposition hampered us from going as far as we might have gone with the land division. The Minister may rest assured that he will not meet that type of criticism or opposition from these benches.
As I have said, I am not prepared to give the Minister the power he seeks in Section 10.
Why?
Because, first, there is the danger that a particular man who has a holding that he wants to dispose of can easily make arrangements with the Minister to purchase it. He can easily get some agitation started by two or three people when the Minister comes along.
Where is that now?
Here in the Bill.
It is not, then. Read it out.
It is in Section 10.
Which sub-section?
The Deputy should make his own speech and need not answer interruptions.
He should tell the truth.
I think it is unfair that Deputy Killilea should be prevented from making his own speech.
He said it six times.
Does Deputy Flanagan want to reserve the functions of the Chair?
I want to be helpful to the Chair and to Deputy Killilea.
We have Section 5.
I thought it was Section 10.
Do you not want——
I only want to get the right reference. That is all. I thought you had the Bill in front of you.
I suppose I may correct the mistake I made in saying Section 10 instead of Section 5. In Section 5 power is given to the Minister to fix price, and so on.
No.
What is (a) of Section 5?
The Land Commission fix that.
It does not say that at all.
I wonder has the Deputy the same Bill as Deputy Sweetman has or is he dealing with the last Government's Bill?
It is the 1933 Bill he has.
He is probably out of date.
People may be more than out of date.
The things that may be done under Section 5 are by the powers given to the Minister under Section 10. Is not that correct?
No.
Will Deputies address the Chair? It would make for much better debate than answering each other across the House.
That is what I suggested, Sir.
I thank the Deputy for his co-operation.
I am not prepared to give the Minister the powers that are being sought in this particular Bill for either acquisition or division, particularly as regards division. In regard to the question of price, if the question of price is to be left to the Minister and to any individual that he decides should fix the price on market value basis, it will lead to all sorts of corruption.
I think it was the Minister who made a suggestion about people being robbers. I do not think this country is completely free of people who would be prepared to go that far and who, if they got an opportunity of robbing the Land Commission, would say: "I am only getting some of my own back." I believe that this question of price is too big a problem to leave to any one individual and the commissioners who were dealing with it before are still quite capable of carrying out that duty.
And they will.
And they must.
The chorus again.
Surely we are getting "shut" of the lay commissioners here, clearing them out altogether, and, that being so, how is the work to be done?
I can assure the Deputy that I am not getting "shut" of them.
I regret that the Minister has not made a decent effort to solve the problem, and, further, has not made any real effort to give the House a clear idea of what his intentions are. I hope that in his reply he will give us much more information than he gave us in his opening remarks. Even the White Paper circulated with the Bill does not give a whole lot of information and it is not at all in keeping with the statement made by the Minister, but perhaps he will clarify the position when replying to the criticism put forward. I advise him to be careful in this matter of market value and to try to ensure that "puffing" will not be allowed to interfere. I do not think it at all fair that the Minister should come into open competition in the market with any individual who wants to purchase a holding and some other method must be devised for getting over this particular difficulty.
There are only two excuses that can be given for the speech we have just heard from Deputy Killilea. Either he was deliberately trying to distort what is in the Bill, or, by reason of his rather futile endeavours in another place, he did not read the Bill. I am being charitable and accepting the second as the reason for his failure to understand what he was discussing. The Deputy was at great pains to prove that the Bill gives to the Minister powers which it does not give at all. It is an old Fianna Fáil trick—to put up ninepins for the sake of knocking them down and take attention from the real issue; but the unfortunate thing, so far as the Deputy was concerned, is that he did not read the Bill sufficiently well to know enough about it to be able to draw the red herring across the trail.
This Bill—let us be quite clear about it—does not give the Minister any power to fix the price of land. The Bill in Section 5 changes the legal basis upon which the commissioners and the Judicial Commissioner must fix the price and it leaves to the Land Commission, and to the Land Commission alone, the power of determination of the price at which any man's holding will be acquired. I will say at least this for Deputy Killilea, that he was not the first speaker from the Fianna Fáil benches to make that case. He was not the first who tried to draw the House, and I have a slight suspicion— I am perhaps a little cynical—the country, astray on that issue.
The issue could not be more clear and the Bill could not be more clear. Under the Act of 1923, a different legal basis was established for the price at which resumed land would be paid for by the Land Commission relative to the price at which acquired land would be paid for. The price at which resumed land would be paid for —and it is, of course, land which has not been vested—was set out in the Act of 1923 and restated finally in the Act of 1939. The then Minister in charge of the Bill made it quite clear when discussing the 1939 measure in the Seanad when he said that all that was being done by that Bill in respect of the price of resumed land was restating the existing law. The law always has been so in respect of resumed land. I am sorry the Deputy is not prepared to learn and perhaps I was too charitable in thinking that it was merely that he did not understand the situation; he was perhaps deliberately misrepresenting it.
In the 1939 Act, the Fianna Fáil Minister in charge of the Bill made it quite clear that the insertion of the particular section dealing with the price of resumed land was only a restatement of the existing law and that the law then was that the Land Commission must, as it did, pay, in respect of any resumed land, the market value of the holding to the person from whom the land was resumed and, in addition, were bound to pay, in certain circumstances, compensation for disturbance. That has always been the case and any one who has any experience of the work of the Land Commission in regard to resumed holdings knows that it is and always has been the case, and that there has never been any difficulty about the Land Commission assessing the market value of these holdings.
That market value was paid in respect of holdings that were not vested and surely there should be a very much stronger case for the payment of the market value in respect of vested holdings—the payment of a higher price for vested holdings as compared with that paid for unvested holdings. In spite of the fact that on many occasions it was put up to Fianna Fáil that they should grant that measure of social justice, where it was necessary in the social interests of the community to acquire and distribute land, they always steadfastly refused to do so. This Dáil is not the first Dáil which has had to consider the question. It was put up on two occasions in my recollection in the Seanad when Fianna Fáil were in power, and on each occasion, although the issue was exactly the issue which is now in Section 5, they deliberately opposed it because they were afraid to face the issue.
I am glad to have this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on having faced the issue, and having faced it courageously, and on having determined that there should be at least a measure of justice, because it is only justice, for these people from whom land is to be acquired in the interests of the community as a whole and these people who have to give up their land in the interests of a social policy. I am extremely glad that this section has been introduced. It has been introduced, not for the reason which Deputy Killilea has given, because the Minister under Section 5 has no more power than has Deputy Killilea to fix the price of any land that may be acquired by the Land Commission in the future, once this Bill has become law, as unquestionably it will become law, with, I hope, Section 5 unchanged.
Debate adjourned.