Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Aug 1923

Vol. 1 No. 37

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LAND BILL, 1923.—COMMITTEE STAGE (RESUMED).

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

We were discussing amendment 18, moved by Senator Sir Hutcheson Poë.

For information's sake, might I mention that I thought that that amendment was discussed, and I understood that Senator Sir Hutcheson Poë had withdrawn it by leave of the Seanad. Was that the position?

I cannot agree to the withdrawal. I developed my argument against it, and I ask the sense of the Seanad on it.

What I did say was that Sir Hutcheson Poë said with the leave of the House he would withdraw it. I merely want to establish the fact.

Yes; and I quite gather that Sir John Keane does not agree with my withdrawal.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You wish to resume a discussion upon it?

I made my case yesterday. I do not want to resume now.

Question: "That leave be given to withdraw the amendment," put and carried.
Amendment withdrawn.

On behalf of Senator the Earl of Mayo I beg to move the following amendment: "To delete Sub-section 3 of Section 24." The amendment may be claimed to be simple in character. This Bill, so far as it deals with the question of Land Purchase, is to be welcomed. It aims at the removal of one of the greatest sources of contention and unsettlement in the country. That part of the Bill tends to give settlement and security. The other part of the Bill deals with congestion, and it appears to me not to be quite satisfactory. We have heard a great deal about the 1920 Bill in the course of the debates on this Bill. I suggest we have nothing to do with the 1920 Bill, whether it was a Bill or the draft of a Bill, and we have nothing to do with any other Bill that ever became law. We have got to deal with this Bill, and we have got our responsibility in connection with it. We have no responsibility in connection with Bills we have had nothing to do with. It is for us to see that this Bill does not pass into law in a shape that will tend to harm the country.

If Section 4 becomes law in its present form, the Land Commission would be empowered to take land anywhere at any time for the relief of congestion. They are not limited to the relief of congests. The scope of the Bill is very far-reaching, and goes very far beyond anything which was ever done in this country or in any other country before. The Minister has given us reassurances in regard to the way in which this Bill would be administered, but the point that weighs with me is this: this is a Bill which has no time-limit. Now, it should not be possible to do things which are harmful. Governments and Ministers of Agriculture may change; the Land Commission may change. The giving of land to landless men was contemplated by the present Minister. In support of that decision I think it well to quote his utterances in the Dáil. I will take two which are quite short. They are quoted from the Report of the Debates of the 4th July. One quotation is: "Practically everywhere untenanted land will be taken up. We will deal with the congests first, the evicted tenants next, and the landless men afterwards." The second quotation is: "Further, go outside the congested areas, and let us take it the Land Commission buys 1,000 acres of land and that that acreage is held under one title. They have to buy the whole holding. They may require only 50 acres for congests, and they may only have to deal with one congest in the neighbourhood. When he is dealt with the balance is over for landless men. It is just one estate, one part, one parcel of untenanted land. They buy it for the relief of congestion. There may be 1,000 acres in it and they may require only 200."

The reason I have read that quotation is, that I doubt if this Seanad as a whole realises the far-reaching nature of this measure. When you open the question of giving land to landless men you open a problem which is really insoluble in character. There are two kinds of landless men, some to whom it would be really desirable to give land. I put it to the Seanad that the prime motive in this Bill is not the relief of congestion. That would be ridiculous. I put it it is not likely that if one congest is only concerned, that the thousand acres would be taken for him alone. Although there may be landless men in this country, as I have no doubt there are here as well as in every other country, there are a great many landless men who have got no qualifications more than that they have no land and that they would like to have some. When you try to satisfy that kind of demand you are attempting the impossible. The immediate effect would be a great loss of security.

This is not a matter affecting large estates and what are called ranches. This Bill affects all land; large farms are of course more affected than small ones. The Bill will tend to depreciate the value of land in the Free State. The mere dread of what will happen will bring about that result. I think everybody will agree that, having agreed on the form of agriculture carried on in this country, you must have large farms if agriculture is to prosper. If there were no large farms it would be exceedingly hard for the small farmer to carry on. Improvement in agriculture and developments of all kinds would cease because no man is going to lay out money if he feels he has not a reasonable chance of reaping the reward of his labour. The cattle trade would tend to be very disastrously affected by any such thing as wholesale breaking up of the large areas of land. Apart from farming, other sections of the community would be indirectly affected. Farming in Ireland is the principal thing economically as well as socially. This appears to me to be unsound legislation. It seems to me the Government are attempting too much, and they are setting their hands to a thing which from its very nature will eventually result in loss of confidence, human nature being what it is and politics what they are. The cattle trade will be ruined, and agriculture will be ruined. Unless the Bill is amended I, for one, cannot vote in favour of it, much as I regret voting against the Government, which deserves well of the country for having stuck to the helm in a time of great danger and brought us into comparatively safe water.

I would like to put a serious plea to the Minister to make an effort to allay the very serious apprehensions that this Bill has aroused. Under the Bill there will be plenty of untenanted land to go on with, and to keep the settlement of congestion going for some time. It has been hurried, and it is a highly contentious measure. It has led naturally to a number of amendments designed with a view to rendering it less harmful. The new Government can consider the matter. In the meantime, untenanted land in the Congested Districts can be taken straight away and untenanted land outside with restrictions. I appeal to the Minister on behalf of the Government not to adapt an implacable line on this measure, and to remove any acute features of controversy which are gradually growing and causing uneasiness in the country. The Minister, I am sure, has noticed the uneasiness, and should try to remove this apprehension when it is very necessary that goodwill should prevail.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot allow any Senator to read a newspaper while the debates are in progress. It is not respectful to the Seanad.

Before the Minister replies, I should like to add a few words of criticism. Senators Bagwell and Sir John Keane have dealt with the matter of the sub-clause. I wish to discuss it from the point of view of the arrangement of the clause as a whole. I have heard it said by many who are qualified to be good judges that this Bill is, on the whole, very well drafted, for which due credit must be given to the Minister and his draughtsmen. I cannot believe that that compliment could be applied to this particular clause as a whole, for surely it does require some explanation that in one clause you should begin by stating what you wish to do and why you wish to do it, and then proceed to make a number of very proper exceptions to your general rule, and then in your third sub-clause wash away all those exceptions. For what reason?

No reason, it seems to me, is assigned for these exceptions which are taken away under the same governing purpose —that is to say, for the purpose of relieving congestion. That seems to me very curious. I hope the Minister will be able to give some explanation. I preserve, I hope, an open mind on the subject as a whole, and I certainly do not wish unduly to criticise the Government in a Bill with the general principles of which I agree, but I hope that, apart from those arguments, which have been dealt with as to the danger underlying this clause, the Minister will give us some explanation as to why the clause was necessary at all—that is, why it is necessary almost in the same breath to impose a number of restrictions and to remove them.

I am not in favour of this clause for a rather different reason from other speakers. My point is that this clause gives very drastic powers to the Land Commission to take all kinds of land—tenanted land and land that has already been purchased—for the sole purpose of relieving congestion. If I saw in any part of the Bill a definition of the phrase which would limit it to a special purpose, and if in addition to that I saw that the owners or tenants of those lands were to be fully compensated where it would be necessary to take this land, I would not press my opposition, especially if the expression "relieving congestion" were fully and properly defined in the Act.

It seems to me that the principle reason given by the various Senators for deleting this sub-section is that it would enable the Minister to provide land for some of the landless men in the country. I cannot see that there is any real reason behind that, because there is a vast number of men at the present time in the country who can be classed as landless men. You have in the unemployed insurance list 30,000 of such. You have forty or fifty thousand in the Army who will shortly be demobilised, and you have in or about thirteen thousand prisoners, the greater majority of whom can be similarly classed, and I suppose there are 20,000 unemployed agricultural workers in the country. They roughly tot up to 100,000 landless men, and it seems to be a bogey to the mind of some of the Senators that some of those landless men might get a holding. Of course, they are not entitled to a piece of their own country, in the minds of those men.

Another objection to this section is that it gives a Minister very drastic powers. The Minister for Home Affairs asked for drastic powers, and the very same Senators were pleased to be in a position to give them to him yesterday. I hold that the great majority of those unemployed men—prisoners, soldiers, and unemployed agricultural workers—are sons and grandsons of the people who were cleared off the land a couple of generations ago, and they have as good a right to the soil of Ireland, and perhaps a better one, than the men who are at present utilising it in the interests of people across the water, and scarcely giving anyone in this country an opportunity of earning a living on it. The great majority of this land is held as ranches, which give no employment, with the exception of, perhaps, a man to every three, four, or five hundred acres, with an occasional dog.

In view of what we have heard from the last Senator, I think there is some misconception as to what would eventually be the result of this particular clause. Is it intended that land should be taken anywhere in Ireland and given to people who have no land? On the Second Reading the Minister stressed very properly the case of the congests. He said very little on the other question raised by Senator O'Duffy. I would like to know whether the land is intended not alone for the congests but for landless men.

This is, perhaps, the most contentious part of the Bill, and every issue raised in the Second Reading has been raised again. I was appealed to by Sir John Keane not to be implacable, and he said let there be goodwill. I am about four months on this land question. At the very beginning I stated in the Dáil that, as far as I was concerned, I was not prepared to settle the land question. It is like the old adage:—

"The good old rule, the simple plan,

That they can take who have the power,

And they will keep who can."

The difficulty we have been faced with the whole time is that on the one side you have opposition from the people who want to take over nothing, and on the other side you have opposition from the people who want to take regardless of the equities of the case or of previous agreements. We dealt effectively with the people who wanted to take. Now, we have the Bill in the Seanad. There are 100 amendments, and at least 30 of them are directed to cutting down in the Bill what was accepted both by farmers and landlords. I would like anybody to give a specific denial of that. I was asked not to refer to the 1920 Bill. The reason I have referred to it was that it was accepted between all the parties really interested.

By the courtesy of the Minister I was supplied with a copy of this document which purports to be the 1920 Act. I discovered it was not a Bill. It has never been published. It is an office document, and I ask your ruling whether that document can be referred to on debate.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It can be referred to for what it is worth.

There is another document, and if the Minister would confine himself to this, which bears all the features of the Bill, I think it would clear the air.

Sir Laming Worthington Evans, supported by Secretary Short and Mr. Fisher, brought in this Bill in the House of Commons, and in order to save time the Second Reading of that was brought into the House of Lords and passed.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That has not cleared up anything except to tell us that there was a Bill introduced into the House of Lords which got a Second Reading. Sir John Keane says that the document before him is different from the one referred to by the Minister, which is said to be a draft only. It was not submitted to any House, and therefore is not an authority.

This is a storm in a teacup. I did not refer to the 1921 draft but to the 1920 Bill. All this attempt to confuse the issue by drawing a distinction between those two is absurd. I have both. It was a mere coincidence that I read out of the 1921 copy yesterday. I have indiscriminately examined both, and on any vital issue there is no difference. There were some slight changes in the Bill as it passed the House of Lords which resulted in altering the numbering of the sections, and people who have not taken the trouble to read the Bill carefully have great difficulty in finding in the 1921 Bill what they want if they have not the 1920 copy.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Should we not confine ourselves to the Bill read a second time in 1921 to avoid confusion?

I was asked here: why refer to the 1920 Bill. I am trying to settle the land question, and it was not a bad start to begin with the Land Convention of which Sir John Keane himself was a member, and which was agreed to by the farmers themselves.

I have not trimmed my sails to any wind in the Dáil, and I do not intend to trim my sails to any wind here. I tried to do the fair thing in regard to this Bill. The difficulty I was in all the time was that I was faced with two classes of irreconcilables—one class that wanted to take all they could, the other class that wanted to do the other thing, and there is not much between them. In the Dáil I appealed to the goodwill of all parties, the Labour Party, the Farmers' Party and the Independents, and I got it, and we passed that Bill. I depend on the men of goodwill through the country, and I am satisfied that I have the men of goodwill here in the Seanad—that the men of goodwill of all parties in the Seanad will regard this as a compromise, and as an attempt to bring goodwill to bear on this subject, and an attempt at least not to be implacable. Senator the Earl of Kerry wants to know why do we draft the section in this way. First of all we state what we would take; next we state the exceptions, and then we state we will take this excepted land in certain contingencies. We put the sub-section deliberately in that way in order to make it plain that we would only take the excepted land when the other land was not available. I am advised by the lawyers that there is no doubt whatever about that on the section. That was the intention, and as it is the intention I do see why we should fight against it. I do not want to fight against it, and hence I intend to put in words to make it clear. I will add these words: The Land Commission shall not without the consent of the owner (this is Senator Sir J. Keane's amendment) acquire land from him under the powers taken by them under Sub-section (3) of this section so long as there is other unacquired land in the same locality suitable for relieving congestion which does not come within the exception in Sub-section (2) of this section, and which the Land Commission could acquire without exercising the special powers given by the said sub-section. That is already in. It is clear, I say, on the sub-section, but in order to show bona fides we will amplify it and put it in black and white.

I am told that the Bill is the important thing—that the Land Commission may change. I agree that the Bill is the important thing. The words of the Bill are the important thing. Where in the section, or in any speech of mine is there any warranty for the statement that we could take a perch of land under that section for any other purpose, except relieving congestion?

The section reads:—

Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, where the Land Commission before the appointed day declare in the prescribed manner that any land wherever situated, herein-before excluded from the operation of this section (other than land which comes within the description in Clauses (f) of Sub-section (2) of this section), is required for the purpose of relieving congestion, then such land shall vest in the Land Commission pursuant to this section.

I stated time and time again in the most explicit language in the Dáil that we could only take land in the first instance for the relief of congestion, and under this sub-section we can take it for no other purpose. This sub-section is slightly narrower than Sub-section (1), which is for the relief of congestion and for the purpose of facilitating the re-sale of tenanted land. That applies to untenanted land not being demesne. Under this sub-section there is no question that land can only be taken for the relief of congestion. It says no more and no less, and it means what it says. I am asked by Senator Linehan what is the meaning of congestion. If we were dealing with anything but the land question, concerning which at least twelve or fifteen Land Acts have been passed—I suppose every one of them containing the term—I would not be surprised. There is a suggestion thrown out that congestion is a vague term, a sort of exotic term that is simply not understood here, and requires explanation in the year of grace, 1923. "Relief of congestion" is in every Land Act, and was, I suppose, interpreted by judges thousands of times. Does the Senator believe that a congest can be a landless man, or that congest can be other than a tenant? I take it that he will go that far with me, that a congested tenant is a tenant. What is the difference between us? What is vague in connection with the term? I have defined expressly and explicitly the meaning of tenancy in Section 69, so we have two things certain—the definition of a tenant is quite clear, and it is quite clear that a congest is a tenant.

Might not a congest be a freeholder?

That is really extremely clever, if I may say so. I will be quite frank, and say I am not quite sure about that. That does not go one iota against the spirit of what I am saying. That is a mere debating point. There is only one thing more to define, and that is what sort of a tenant a congest is to be. We all know that a congest is a tenant who has an uneconomic holding. Are we to go further and say in black and white what an uneconomic holding is? As I say, the Congested Districts Board had a good working rule that an uneconomic holding was a holding which was not £10 in valuation, and they regarded as a congest anyone under £7. They regarded it as their duty to bring anyone under £7 up to £10. Everybody who has anything to do with the working of the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board advises me that it is most unwise to define congest by reference to the valuation. He is defined already by reference to the fact that he is an uneconomic holder.

To put down in black and white a definition of a congest by reference to valuation would be wrong. The Land Commission and the C.D.B. have always been trying in one way or another to get round the cases of absolute congests who do not come within this rule, and, on the other hand, not to deal with some persons who do. A man might have only a £6 valuation holding and have an economic holding. On the other hand, a man might have a £12 valuation holding and have an uneconomic holding. If you are not prepared to trust the Land Commission on an issue of that sort, then put in the Bill some definition as to what the valuation of a congested holding is to be.

The question of landless men has been raised, and I will try to make the position clear. The Bill provides that land can only be taken compulsorily for the relief of congestion in the first instance, and as far as demesne land or any land coming within the exceptions are concerned, it was the intention, and the Bill expressly provided, that such land can only be taken for the relief of the congestion. As far as untenanted land is concerned outside these exceptions the position is this. These are the words, I think, in the 1909 Act as well, and they will be administered exactly the same "for the relief of congestion or for the purpose of facilitating re-sale of tenanted land." Under every Land Act since 1903 landless men had to be dealt with and were dealt with. You have to deal with the herd, with the ploughman, and with evicted tenants, a certain number of them. This demand from landless men has been growing every year.

I have here in the paper from Senator Linehan, amendments that want to curtail the powers of the Land Commission in regard to the acquisition of land. There are also amendments providing that evicted tenants since Brian Boru's time should be dealt with. Where the land is to come from I do not know. The evicted tenants and every other class of landless men were to be dealt with in the Bill. As every Senator knows, three or four months ago the agitation in connection with the land question was much more severe than it is now, and you had all sorts of landless men who had no claims to land, and who should never get land, making the shortest cut to their neighbour's farm, and at the same time giving us timely warning that we had better provide for them in the Bill.

It is necessary to deal with a reasonable number of landless men under any Bill. They had to do it in the 1903 and 1909 Acts. The question with me was whether I should confine the provisions of this Bill to provisions which would ensure that only reasonable cases would be dealt with. I confined myself to the provisions of our old friend the 1920 Bill, which contemplates exactly the same thing. When the Land Commission apply to the owner for a parcel of 1,000 acres of untenanted land, and prove to him that they want 700 acres to relieve congestion, in many cases he will say: "take the lot." There is no use in leaving him the tail-end. In some cases they will offer the whole lot if half is taken compulsorily.

If the landowner goes to the Judicial Commissioner on the attempt of the Land Commission to acquire untenanted land—I do not mean the exceptions outside the demesnes—the Judicial Commissioner will not put him on his proof so absolutely rigidly as if it were demesne, by reason of the fact that we have in the Section the relief of congestion, or to facilitate the re-sale of tenanted land. They will get enough of untenanted land one way or another, without any specific provisions in the Bill in regard to giving the Land Commission compulsory powers to acquire land for landless men. They will get, between the voluntary clauses and one way or another, enough of land to deal with genuine cases of landless men. It would be impossible otherwise. It was necessary under the 1903 Act. There is not a Senator who does not know there is no estate in the country could be rearranged if you had not a few holdings for a few landless men in connection with it.

It would be extremely dangerous to give the Land Commission power to acquire land compulsorily for landless men when land enough will fall into their hands to deal with the maximum or minimum number of landless men. the big reason for not giving the Land Commission power to acquire land specifically for landless men is that we mean to deal with congestion first. I made it plain in the Dáil that in order to get over the difficulty of migrating tenants the Land Commission must make it perfectly clear that they are buying land for congests, so that when we want to migrate congests into another county we will not be met by combinations of landless men preventing the congests from coming in, and asking the Land Commission to exercise the powers in the Bill if there were any such.

I appeal for a little give-and-take and for less implacability, from Senator Sir John Keane, and I tell him with his knowledge of the subject that that is the only possible way we can deal with it. This subject is so difficult and there are so many contingencies, and so many human relationships mixed up with it, that the Land Commission must have a little discretion or they cannot rearrange an estate. They will be able to oil the wheels a little bit. We can do no more and no less in the Bill than we have done. If you say to the Land Commission you are not to give a single landless man a holding on any untenanted land, even in the congested districts, you defeat the objects of the Bill and the Twelve Apostles, if they were Land Commissioners, could not carry it out.

That is the position with regard to landless men. You must give a certain amount of discretion to the Land Commission. We have tried to draft a Bill so that the Land Commission will have a certain amount of discretion and that the Judicial Commissioner would know exactly what the spirit of the Bill was, and know how to interpret any case that came before him. Remember as I have explained there is a new Land Commission, and the Bill provides that at the head of the Land Commission there will be a High Court Judge assigned to that position by the head of the Judiciary. This Land Bill provides that on every important issue a High Court Judge will have the last word.

We ought not to deal with tenanted land on this Section for this reason. Tenanted land vests in the Land Commission under this Section. Of course it must vest in the Land Commission. Whatever is going to happen the landlord's interests, the tenant's land vests in the Land Commission under this Section. Section 28 shows all the tenanted land we will retain and Section 29 says what tenanted land we will resume. When we come to these Sections we can discuss the whole question of tenanted land. Section 24 raises no contentious issue with regard to tenanted land. It merely provides that the landlords' interest will vest in the Land Commission on the appointed day. Afterwards the date of vesting is dealt with in other Sections.

Now, there is just one other point—a point of importance, that point that Senator Bagwell raised about purchased holdings. I said yesterday about the relief of congests that we should have power to take purchased holdings in some cases; otherwise the Bill would be useless. I said further that it is the last thing we will take, and we will take it only when there is no other land available. I will put in this section, and it meets the security point absolutely. It will read as follows——

Where does it come in?

After Sub-section (3). It will be Sub-sections 4 and 5. It reads, "Where the Land Commission declares that any land coming within Clause (a), Sub-section 2 of this section is required for the purpose of relieving congestion, the following provisions shall have effect:

(a) If the land so declared forms portion of a holding. The proprietor or tenant of a holding may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner require that the entire holding be so declared and the Land Commission shall, in that event, either so declare the entire holding or withdraw from the proposed acquisition of the said portion.

(b) If within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner the proprietor or tenant of the declared land so requires them to do, the Land Commission shall, as soon as practicable, provide the said proprietor or tenant with a new holding which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, other than the Judicial Commissioner (subject to the right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision shall be final), shall be equally suitable for the proprietor or tenant, and of not less value than the declared land. The provisions contained in his Act for the transfer of burdens and rights on the exchange of any holding by agreement shall extend to any exchange of lands affected under this sub-section.

This prevents the Land Commission from going to a man who has 150 acres and taking 125 acres, leaving him the rest.

I ask the Minister how he proposes the price to be fixed?

That is another point. What I was suggesting here as regards purchased holdings is that where we take a purchased holding we shall bind ourselves to give an equivalent holding. Now, as to security, I pointed out yesterday that 75 per cent. in area of the 13 million acres out of the 20 million acres of land in Ireland that was purchased is owned by tenant purchasers under £20 or £25 valuation. I also pointed out the difficulty of drawing any valuation limit. It might just hit the case we would want. What I do point out is this, that we would never be dealing in fact with more than 20 per cent. of the purchased holdings even in area.

Now, I do not believe for one moment, and I know the country fairly well, that there is a single one of these 75 per cent. of the purchased holders who feels a bit less secure or who goes to sleep with the least fear by reason of this Bill. But for fear there would be any unnecessary alarm, and in order to meet the case, we bind ourselves here to give that man an equivalent holding and we transfer the burdens to the annuity. There is, perhaps, some unfortunate interference with the operations of the 1903 Act. They are absolutely necessary. Could we make them less?

May I ask the Minister whether what he proposes to do for the poor dispossessed holder is to give him another holding and no compensation for disturbance?

That is exactly the position. There will be no compensation for disturbance. A holding which is absolutely as good, or the price of the land, whichever he wishes to have, will be given to him. He can take the holding if he likes. We will give him a holding, or the price of it, on the same terms as we price landlords' untenanted land. It is untenanted land.

But that is occupied land.

So is untenanted land occupied by the landlord, who is owner in fee, subject to a mortgage.

What the Earl of Wicklow means to ask is, what price are you going to give the purchased tenant whom you are going to disturb— on what terms is he going to be raid?

On exactly the same terms as the owner in fee adjoining him who does not happen to owe a mortgage to the Land Commission. Untenanted land is, I take it, land held in fee.

Purchased tenant?

Purchased tenant is hardly correct. A purchased tenant is the owner of land in fee subject to a mortgage to the Land Commission. He is in exactly the same position as his neighbour who is farming any land in fee, but did not purchase it from the Land Commission. If we take a purchased tenant's holding, and if the purchased tenant refuses to exercise his option of taking another holding, he will be paid for his holding, and he will be paid in the same terms as we would pay a landowner who owns land in the neighbourhood—a fair price both to the Land Commission and to the vendor respectively. If we bought it at any other price it would be useless to us.

The reality of the case is this: Where we buy out a tenant purchaser, it is the last land we will touch as long as there is untenanted land in the neighbourhood, and therefore it will be a case of a man in Connemara with 100 acres, and surrounded by 20 congests, with his cattle being driven for the last 20 years; he will jump, as a rule, at the proposition of getting a decent farm of equivalent value in the King's County with a nice house on it. There will be 5 per cent. of the cases where we will have to force them. The real value of compulsion is this, that we can force them. We go to them and say, "You must leave, we want this holding; we will give you an equivalent farm, a better farm." The man who is exchanged always gets a better farm. If we had not those compulsory powers, that man would want 30 acres more and some rooms added to his house before he would consent to leave.

The farmer would not do that, surely?

I am afraid he would.

As a thirsty man in the Sahara, I certainly am not going to reject the proposed amendments without very careful consideration. This whole question is very tricky, and I would like to think over the amendments suggested without committing myself. The question of price is not satisfactory. I hope the Seanad will allow me to say something very brief in defence of myself against a charge of unfair methods of controversy. It has been suggested that there is nothing more than a purely nominal and immaterial difference between those two documents. In justification of my attitude, I might mention that the documents are entirely different. There are 34 clauses in the other Bill, and there are 42 clauses in the document I got. Then there are certain manuscript corrections in this document. All I have to say is that I would like to quote sections that would be available to everybody.

I gave Sir John Keane a copy of the 1920 Bill, so we have both the same copies.

I quite appreciate the manner in which the Minister has met criticisms to this clause of the Bill. He expressed surprise that anybody at this hour of the day would be asking for a definition of the expression "for the relief of congests." I would point out to him that just a little further down in this clause we have a definition of another expression, "the home farm." I am quite satisfied with the definition that has been given by the Minister of a congest—that is, a person holding no land. I am quite satisfied even to bring in a freehold, and also not to make any very minute investigation of a Poor Law valuation. I would ask the Minister to insert that definition in this Bill as well as a definition of the home farm.

What definition?

Relief of congests.

Purchased holdings may have to be taken under very exceptional circumstances for the purpose of relieving congestion. We all know that a man who has made a comfortable home for himself will not, after all his toil and industry, leave that home willingly. He possibly has reared up a family there, and his associations are centred in the district. As the Minister says, there may be a very exceptional case. It may be a very great hardship for that man to leave. His financial concerns may be affected. He may be facilitated by the bank, and money may have been advanced to him in regard to what is looked upon as a market price for his holding. This portion of the clause undermines that basis of valuation. It is suggested under it that he should get what to the Land Commission seems to be a fair price. There would be, in my opinion, a hardship in the case of that man if he were not prepared to take an alternative farm in another county. The Land Commission might say, "This land, instead of being valued for £50, is worth only £20." That would be a hardship. Then, again, the Land Commission might say, "Here is another farm." Possibly a tenant may take the other farm, and when he gets settled in it he will sell his interests at market price and therefore he can get his 100 per cent. in that way. He carries some of his financial burdens to the other farm, and the farms are only relatively just the same. We cannot but look at the uprooting of this man from his holding as other than a very harsh proceeding. Naturally it might create some feeling in the district, and you would have very poor bidding for the farm in the event of a sale. No one would dare to go into it. The Minister should take that view of the case. You would be breaking up a homestead, and it must be considered that in such a matter one can go too far.

We have heard it remarked here that the farm to which a man would be removed when his own farm would be taken from him could be sold if he wishes to sell it, and he would get a price for it that would be the full market value. The great danger that one foresees is that this may destroy the value of all marketable land throughout the whole of the Free State, as far as I can see. I hold that this market value will never again be the same. It has to be faced. Whether that may not inflict just as much injury as it relieves congestion makes an individual like myself very doubtful. The farming industry is the main industry on which the Free State exists, and undoubtedly a large number of farmers require financial assistance. They will require more if they go in for tillage than if they work their farm as ranches or grazing lands, and it is very doubtful that they will have the same security to offer the banks after the passing of this Bill. I may be wrong. Senator Kenny seems to think that the balance is in their favour, but, as an impartial observer, I very much doubt it. If it relieves congestion, and if we are to have the land question finally settled in Ireland, it would be worth it; but it is setting a precedent of hardship and taking away rights which have been granted by law, and that seems to me to be very dangerous. I do not think, in the present state of affairs, that an independent individual like myself, in the Seanad, who does not own much land, can stand up here and say that his opinion is better than that of those responsible for the Bill. I think I will follow my Labour friends in this, and say that if we do this we are doing it with great doubt in our minds as to what the ultimate effect will be. I would urge on the Government, as we go through these clauses, to make it clear whether they could meet some of the difficulties of the case; and if they do, it would meet the wishes of independent individuals like myself.

Arising out of the remarks of Senators the Earl of Kerry and Jameson on the question of value, as I understand it, when a holding is taken of tenanted land, the Land Commission takes it at what is termed the resumed value, which means the market value. Senator Kenny referred to farmers who have to put their land up for sale, and said that they would be subject to the pressure of congests around them, and that such farmers would be debarred from getting a market value. When the Land Commission come along and say they require the land for the relief of congestion, they take the land and give the market value.

Is it the market value?

No; we do not give the resumption price. It is practically the market value, but it applies to tenanted land.

It was tenanted land I was referring to. Option is also given to the tenant, as the Minister says, to take a farm of equal value, but he qualified his statement—and we readily accept it— that it will be of greater value given elsewhere. Mr. Kenny made a point that such a tenant might go elsewhere and sell his holding. If he has the intention of selling, he can take his money. It would be foolish of him to take a holding in another county, surrounded by congests, but it would be equally foolish of the Land Commission to give him such a holding. All the uneasiness arises, I think, more from the want of time to dwell on these matters rather than from what we want to do. These fears would be allayed and all apprehensions removed if we studied this Bill.

Now, as regards the other point about congests and landless men, to my knowledge the Minister explained it three times at least. If the Land Commission takes a farm of tenanted or untenanted land for the relief of congestion, there may be, and probably there will be, a certain number of hands unemployed, such as the herd, the steward, and the ploughman; but when that farm is taken for the relief of congestion, is it not reasonable that the Land Commission would give them a strip of land? They are termed "landless men." We associate in our minds, when we speak of landless men, the countless thousands of men without land. To-day we passed a Bill to give powers to arrest men without reason assigned, but none of us expects that the Government will go round the country arresting people in thousands. Nobody will expect, when this Bill passes, that the Minister for Agriculture will call on all the landless men to come forward now.

Ask Senator Duffy.

In the West of Ireland there may be some congests with large families, including grown-up sons, on small holdings, who will be disinclined to migrate. The tenant may say, "I am eighty years of age, and I am going to die here." The Land Commission may say, "Very well die; but we are going to take your eldest son and give him the farm which we intended to give you." That would be giving land to landless men. Now, as regards a small matter which gave rise to the discussion regarding the two Bills, I think what happened is that the Minister quoted from the correct one, as it was the one agreed on between the representatives of the landlords and the representatives of the Farmers' Union at the time.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Is it wise to start this again? I understand that the Minister has agreed to the suggestion of Sir John Keane, and I think you will only make more trouble. I think it would be well, with a view to understanding the discussion, if Senators would realise—I do not think, from some observations of Senator Irwin, that he does—that untenanted land in this Bill has a technical meaning, and they will find it if they look at Section 69. For example, some seem to think that purchased holdings are tenanted lands, because the so-called tenant is living on them. Purchased holdings are untenanted land in this Bill.

It would shorten the discussion if I say this: I cannot close my eyes to the fact that Senator Jameson has made a serious point in regard to price. There is only one difference between us; he agrees that we ought to give an equivalent holding, and that in most cases the tenant purchaser would take it; but he says that this Bill, by reason of the fact that we do not give the market value if a tenant purchaser refuses to take an equivalent holding, taints the whole of the other tenants. There is the point of the market value between us. We cannot give the market value. That is clear. I suggest that these two amendments be accepted, and perhaps we might meet each other on the point before a court.

I was going to point out that this question of price does not occur in this part of the Bill.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I know that, but it is quite relevant as to the terms on which land is going to be taken. You could not discuss Sub-section 3 unless you look at the consequences which follow. The Minister has made a suggestion which I think is worthy of consideration. He is going as far as he can go to meet the views of all parties in the Seanad. If copies could be made of these proposed suggestions, so that those interested in them might see them, we could pass this over for the present. Possibly then Senator Bagwell would be prepared to withdraw the amendment, because if he is not satisfied with these concessions when he sees them, he might move it again on Report.

My objection to this part of the Bill goes further than that, and I think I must press the matter to a division. I have heard the Minister's explanation and I regret to have to say that I am not reassured. My reason for that is that, whatever his intentions or the intentions of the Land Commission may be, the Bill as it stands makes it possible to go much further than what we understand to be the relief of congestion—so much further, in fact, that infinite harm may be done to the whole country. I cannot take responsibility for legislation that might do as much harm as that. At the same time, I would like the Minister to know that I give him all credit for trying to do what he believes to be the best under exceedingly difficult circumstances. What I find fault with is that he has tackled too much. I would remind him that it is possible, in trying to remove one evil, he may create a greater one. That is precisely what I am afraid may happen.

Amendment put and negatived.

I beg to move:

Section 24, Sub-section (3): To delete all after the word "section," in line 31, to the word "section" in line 33.

The object of this amendment is to bring in under this sub-section (3) land which is held by Government Departments. In cases where land is to be taken under very exceptional circumstances it is provided that land held in trust by any State or Government Department will be excluded. My proposition is to bring in all purchased holdings and all other classes of holdings for the purposes of the relief of congestion, and that these lands held by the Government in different districts should be brought in also. I am aware that in the congested districts large areas of land are available.

The Seanad can decide that for itself. The State is you, I and the man round the corner. The only question is whether we should take this land from ourselves.

There is no necessity then for having it excluded.

Only the necessity of having it transferred from one department to another.

If the amendment is accepted, railways can be appropriated for the purposes of congestion.

I wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I do not intend to move Amendment No. 22, as I am bringing it up in another form later on.

I beg to move: —Sub-section (3): To delete in line 32, "Clause (f),” and to substitute therefor “Clauses (c) and (f).” This comes to the question really of the demesne. I know perfectly well that the Government is going to bring forward two amendments which I hope will meet the wishes of the parties who are criticising this Bill. The Minister has said something about congests and landless men. I can quite understand that congestion has to be dealt with. Congests come first, and landless men come next, when there is any more land left for them.

Any land in the hands of the Land Commission.

I have before me a report of what the Minister said in the Dáil on the 23rd July, which interested me very much indeed. He said:

"There will be no land to divide amongst landless men for the next two or three years. It will take at least two years to deal with the tenants. By that time I think it will be found that you will have at least three or four applicants for every possible holding. It will be for the Land Commission and, if I may say so, for the Trade Unions to find some way out of the difficulty by that time. My suggestion is that some such organisation as the National Land Bank perfected should be made use of and improved, so that advances would not be made to individual landless men, but societies of landless men."

I think I heard the Minister say he was rather afraid that a conglomeration of landless men would come down on to the lands and interfere with the working of the powers that are given to the Land Commission in this Bill. I only put this forward because I had heard nothing about Trade Unions in the very full statement that the Minister has made I am not the least nervous, but I think if that was stated in the Dáil in all sincerity and in all seriousness, the Minister might have said something to us about that. We have heard about the organisation of the National Land Bank, and that the money that they advanced was going to be paid off.

What exactly does the Senator mean? Does he suggest that I was deceiving the Seanad in holding something back which I might have referred to?

I am not suggesting anything. I am reading what you said. I only said that I thought it would be right and proper that you should have told us something of this after what you said in the Dáil.

Senators seem to delight in the rather futile exercise of trying to catch me out. I am glad that the Senator referred to that. I think I can give a satisfactory assurance to the Seanad. May I say at once that I did not refer to it because it did not arise. In the Dáil, and outside it, I was faced with a demand for land for landless men, and I pointed out that congests must come first, and that when we had dealt with all the congests there would be very little over. We had to make it clear that the land should be taken compulsorily for landless men, otherwise there would be groups of landless men—some deserving and a lot not deserving of land—in every parish like a ring fence round a particular farm who would say, "No congest is going to come in here," and there would be three landless men to every congest. I kept insisting that congests must be dealt with first.

I said under the operation of the Bill we would have enough land in our hands, and I am perfectly satisfied we will, to deal with deserving landless men, but that we will be extremely short of land. I suggested that the trade unions—and I shall put this to the Labour Party who acted consistently on this Land Bill all the time—should, now that we have our own Government, and when we can begin to think not about politics but about business, think along the lines suggested by Senator Sir Nugent Everard the other day, of holding land in some form other than individually. I pointed out that when we had dealt with congestion there would be very little land and that they should be thinking of the question of how to make the little land we have go round. I pointed out that there would be two or three advantages in doing that. I am not very sanguine. I know it will be difficult because it is in the Irishman's blood to hold his own land. I pointed out the National Land Bank scheme. We will have a certain amount of land on our hands, and there are landless men who in the ordinary way as agricultural labourers would be getting some of that land. Let them think seriously now of how we can make that land go round, because there will be very little and it will not be very much good splitting it up individually.

I inserted the words, "any other body," in the hope that some people who are fond of using the land question for some other purposes than politics would between now and this time six years think of the land question as something more than a political problem, and that they would be able to find some organisation like the Land Bank organisation, so that if we had two or three holdings over in a parish we would be able to make more use of them other than to give them to two or three landless men. There are many possibilities in the "body" mentioned there.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You wish me to put your amendment?

It very much hangs on the Government amendments that are to be brought forward.

Of the two amendments I stated I would accept, one deals with the Land Commission having power to acquire land under Sub-section 3 for any purpose, so long as there is other suitable land in the neighbourhood. That was Senator Sir John Keane's amendment, and I stated that I would accept it. The other amendment provides that the Land Commission shall sell an equivalent holding, and transfer the burdens to the proprietor of a purchased holding which they might acquire. I suggest that the Seanad should accept these amendments, but I cannot close my eyes to the fact that Senator Jameson has made a point that deserves further consideration on Report.

This amendment can be considered on Report.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There is nothing to prevent any amendment being considered then.

My suggestion is that the Seanad accepts the two amendments that I mention. One binds the Land Commission to give an equivalent holding, and we can leave the question of the price of the purchased holding, in the event of the tenant purchaser not taking the equivalent holding, over for Report Stage.

I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

As to what the Minister in charge of the Bill stated I do not intend to confine my criticism of this new Sub-section to price only.

I thought if Senators would agree to these two amendments they would be able to make up their minds on the question of how far they would deal with a number of the amendments.

The Minister promised yesterday to introduce these amendments, and I propose that the Seanad accept them.

I beg to second.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The Minister's amendments read as follows:—

Section 24: To add a new Sub-Section after Sub-Section (3).

Where the Land Commission declare that any land coming within clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) of this Section is required for the purpose of relieving congestion, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) If the land so declared forms portion of a holding the proprietor or tenant of the holding may, within the prescribed time, and in the prescribed manner, require that the entire holding be so declared, and the Land Commission shall, in that event, either so declare the entire holding or withdraw from the proposed acquisition of the said portion.

(b) If within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner the proprietor or tenant of the declared land so requires them to do, the Land Commission shall, as soon as practicable, provide the said proprietor or tenant with a new holding which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, other than the Judicial Commissioner (subject to the right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision shall be final), shall be equally suitable for the said proprietor or tenant, and of not less value than the declared land. The provisions contained in this Act for transferring burdens and rights on the exchange of holdings by agreement shall extend to any exchange of lands affected under this Sub-section.

Section 24: To add new Sub-Section after Sub-section (3):—

"The Land Commission shall not, without the consent of the owner, acquire land from him under the powers conferred on them by Sub-Section (3) of this Section so long as there is other unacquired land in the same locality suitable for relieving congestion which does not come within the exceptions mentioned in Sub-Section (2) of this Section, and which the Land Commission can acquire without exercising the special powers given by the said Sub-section."

Amendments put, and agreed to.

I move Section 24, Sub-Section (3):—

To add at the end of the Sub-Section the words "provided always that the powers given to the Land Commission by this Sub-Section should not, without the consent of the owner, be exercised so as to leave in the hands of the owner lands of a less Poor Law Valuation than £400."

This is another way in which I tried to get round the effects of the Bill as regards the taking of land in demesnes. After the new Sub-sections that have been accepted by the Seanad I cannot very well see how I can argue in favour of the amendment. To be quite frank I put the valuation very high, but I was prepared to come down a little in that figure. I think it would be wrong for me to argue that now, having these Sub-Sections to which we can put in amendments if necessary in the Report Stage. I will, therefore, withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move Section 24, Sub-Section (4):—

To delete the words from the words "farm used" in line 37 to the word "therewith" in line 38, and to substitute therefor the words "in connection with the owner's residence."

This is a small point, and I think Senator Moore has another amendment in the same sense. I hope the Minister may be able to accept either or both amendments. I think there has been a certain amount of misapprehension about the last line in Sub-Section 4.

That has been thought to be liable to the interpretation, that only a farm which could be shown to be land run at a loss would be included in the terms of this Sub-Section. According to the wording of my amendment I propose to delete the words from the words "farm used" in line 37 to the word "therewith" in line 38, and to substitute therefor the words "in connection with the owner's residence." I do not think I need elaborate the point. I think the Minister will appreciate it.

As I have got an amendment practically the same you might as well take them together. It is "to delete in Section 24, Sub-Section (4) all the words after the word "therewith" in line 38." I know a great many of those things have been decided by lawyers and judges and their technical explanations are quite beyond me. I daresay the Minister will be able to explain. My doubt about it was this last phrase "not merely as an ordinary farm for the subject of profit." It would mean that nothing could be sold off it. Everything should be consumed in the house. It would really mean a cabbage garden, and sufficient grass to supply the house with milk.

This was an attempt to define a Home Farm, a very difficult thing. What we do say we did is this, we went through the cases and took out the words of the judges, and used the exact wording of the Acts in the 1920 Bill to define a Home Farm. I have Cherry here and can read the decision of the Judge for you. A Home Farm is here defined "as one used in connection with the landlord's residence chiefly for supplying the residence and not for the purposes of profit. Surplus products may be sold or disposed of in the usual way." There are other definitions and they all contain the expression "not for the purpose of profit." I went through all these decisions, and they are all very much alike. The 1920 Bill gave us a nice digest of the lot and we put it in en bloc.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I would advise the Seanad to leave it as it is. I think they have extended the definition.

We did not intend to do that. I hope we did not extend it much.

Might I ask the permission of the Seanad to move this amendment? I was assured there would be a division on Sub-Section 3 but I was disappointed.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I suppose the Seanad will have no objection to our going back. There was, of course, an explanation. These two amendments that the Government undertook to accept were uncertain; therefore they cut the other discussion short.

I have no objection on condition that it is not made a precedent for a general practice.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Throughout this week as I stated already I have given every latitude to every Senator who wishes to move amendments, and I do not want to cut them short in any way, subject to the arrangements of the Seanad. I did it in the other Bill, and I propose to do it on this. I am only going back now, as I presume there is no objection made by the Seanad.

I rise to move:

Section 24, Sub-section (3): "To add at the end of the sub-section the words ‘provided always that in every such case the Land Commission shall, prior to making any such declaration as aforesaid, prepare a scheme showing in what manner it is proposed to utilise the lands, and the names of the persons for whose relief it is proposed to acquire the same and shall furnish a copy of such scheme to the owner of the lands."

Section 24, Sub-section (3): To add at the end of the Sub-section a new Sub-section (4), as follows:

"(4) Lands acquired by the Land Commission under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of this section shall not be employed for any purposes other than the relief of congestion, and if at the expiration of three years from the date of acquisition such lands or any part thereof shall not have been so employed, the owner from whom such land was acquired shall have the right to re-purchase the same at the price orignally paid to him therefor, such price to be ascertained if necessary by apportionment, provided always that unless within two months after notice shall have been given to him by the Land Commission that they are prepared to re-convey the lands at such price, the owner does not signify to the Land Commission his desire to re-purchase, all rights given to him in that respect shall cease. In any case where there is difficulty in ascertaining the owner or his address any such notice to him may be given in such manner as may be provided."

There are a number of similar amendments which make clear the operations of these provisions for the relief of congests. If the Minister will give an assurance it will save time. He has several of my amendments. I do not say that I would be quite satisfied with a less positive amendment, but if he would make any suggestion which would clear the ground it would be in the interest of everybody.

I have covered two points already. Before clearing the ground I want to know what ground we have to clear. There is one thing, and that is that land should only be taken for the relief of congests. Here we say it shall not be taken if there is any other land available in the neighbourhood. That is what we have with regard to demesne land. Here is what we have in regard to land purchase. We have stated that we will give an equivalent holding, and I have stated that we will consider the question of the price with regard to purchased holdings before the Court.

All these amendments are directed to make positive on the face of the Statute what is meant by relief of congests. I am suspicious of giving large powers to the Land Commission or to any Executive under certain conditions. I can see a possible challenge to that point of view, and I will deal with another point and a method by which that might be dangerous at another time. In this case my endeavour in all these amendments which admittedly are overlapping, is to make quite clear that this process of relieving congests shall not be wrongfully used in any way. Well now, I have got an amendment here in which a specific scheme with names shall be set out before the lands are vested. I have got another amendment in which the owner is empowered to repurchase where the land is applied partly to the relief of congests. On that point—could the Minister give us an assurance that he will put in words to make it clear on the face of the Statute what is meant by this relief of congests, so that a person whose land is taken can go and argue before a judge that this is being applied to other purposes, so that he can be protected, and could possibly recover his land in exceptional cases.

Senator Sir John Keane professes to have a terrible suspicion of the Government Departments, but when it is a question of delivering the lives and liberties of human beings he has every confidence in the Government and their departments. Listening to his arguments, and taking them in conjunction with the arguments which he and his followers have put forward on other matters this very day, it is very hard to understand them, and what can one say of the help of these discussions at all? It is nearly time we made up our minds before we proceed much further as to whether or not it is seriously intended to get through this Bill. If not, we should proceed with some other business, and not be introducing over-lapping amendments of this kind, and advancing the same arguments in support of them.

For my part I am perfectly content that this clause deals with congestion. I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister has explained thoroughly what the relief of congestion means.

Senator Bennett has exactly expressed my position. I am still at a loss to know what Senator Sir John Keane means. The relief of congestion is pure English, and if he wants me to translate it into Irish, French or German I will have it done.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I can quite understand what the Senator is at. He wants to have a definition of what congestion means, and I can understand the Senator looking for it.

He wants only to have a definition of congestion? He will, I think, admit that congestion means dealing with people who are in the occupation of uneconomic holdings. Do we agree that far? If the Seantor seriously suggests at this stage that congestion means something other than people who have uneconomic holdings, I really do not know where we are.

I am afraid I must argue those amendments, unpopular and unacceptable as they appear to be. I am sorry to have to deal with the charge of inconsistency.

Who made the charge?

It came from the Labour benches, but it is not inconsistency. In time of armed revolt I am in favour of giving very large powers to the Executive, and for that reason I defend my action in previous cases. In time of peace I am for protecting the community by the laws against the invasion of an Executive or bureaucracy. For that purpose I wish to see the law as clear in the matter as it possibly can be. I may be mistaken, but I am frankly uneasy, after the pronouncements that have been made in the Dáil by the Minister, when he said that power will not be abused. These amendments are to protect the people against any tendency to abuse. I put a hypothetical question to the Minister regarding land which would be vested in the Land Commission and subsequently, for one reason or another, the Land Commission would not be able to carry out their scheme. Ultimately the land would not vest in the congest, and would be diverted from its main purpose. The Minister met me up to a certain point. I submit that the provisions as at present outlined in this Bill are insufficient to protect the vendor against the land which is taken for one purpose being applied to another. I beg to move the amendment.

That amendment I could not possibly accept. It is, on the face of it, absurd, and no Land Commission could administer land purchase under such conditions.

Amendment put and negatived.

In the next amendment that I have moved, I have endeavoured to effect this purpose by another means. I have provided that the vendor if he finds the lands, after vesting, have not been applied to the purpose for which they were taken, can claim to re-purchase them. I would be glad to hear from the Minister what are the administrative difficulties in carrying out the schemes. If the Minister or the Government is genuinely anxious to protect the public against the abuse of this provision, this amendment should be accepted.

I cannot accept the amendment. With the amplification I have put into the Section, I have made it about twice as specific as any other Section in any other Land Bill, and I will not go any further. The Land Commission under our Government is going to do its duty just as well and just as impartially as the Land Commission in the past, and the directions to the Land Commission have been made three times as specific as ever before.

The amendments the Minister has put into the Section have nothing to do with the point I made, I suggest.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 22.

  • John Bagwell.
  • Thomas Westropp Bennett.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Sir John Keane.

Níl

  • Richard A. Butler.
  • William Cummins.
  • Peter de Loughry.
  • Dowager Countess of Desart.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Sir Nugent Talbot Everard
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Rt. Hon. the Earl of Granard.
  • Cornelius Joseph Irwin.
  • Arthur Jameson.
  • Patrick Williams Kenny.
  • Joseph Clayton Love.
  • Edward MacEvoy.
  • James MacKean.
  • John MacLoughlin.
  • Thomas MacPartlin.
  • The Earl of Mayo.
  • James Moran.
  • John Thomas O'Farrell.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • William O'Sullivan.
Amendment declared lost.

The following amendment has, I understand, been accepted by the Government.

Section 24, Sub-Section (3). To add at the end of the previous new Sub-Section a further new Sub-Section (5) as follows:—

"(5). The Land Commission shall not, without the consent of the owner, acquire land from him under the powers conferred on them by Sub-Section (3) of this Section so long as there is other unacquired land in the same locality suitable for relieving congestion which does not come within the exceptions mentioned in Sub-Section (2) of this Section, and which the Land Commission can acquire without exercising the special powers given by the said Sub-Section."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

An amendment equivalent to that has already been inserted in the Bill.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

I beg to move: Section 24, Sub-Section (4).

To add after this Sub-Section a new Sub-Section (5) as follows:—

"(5) Nothing in this Act shall render it obligatory for the Land Commission to acquire untenanted land which is intermingled with woodland, or the acquisition of which would, in the opinion of the Land Commission, be detrimental to the preservation of woodland and to the interests of forestry."

This is a proposal to put in a new Sub-Section at the end of a clause. There are within my knowledge, and within the knowledge of every other Senator, cases which, perhaps, occur more frequently in backward parts of the country where in land planted with young trees there are small open patches on which a certain amount of hay is made, or on which two or three cows might graze. These are generally unfenced and not separated from the rest of the wood. As I read the Bill, those would be untenanted lands within the meaning of it. If that is so, there would be no option but to take them over and to use them for the purpose laid down in this Bill. If that were done they would be used for grazing and a lot of cattle would be turned into them, which would knock down the small trees and damage the larger trees of the wood proportionately. I wish to make it possible, with a view to preservation of wood-land, that the Commissioners should not be compelled to take them over.

I suggest that that should be merged with amendment 47 by Sir John Keane. I accept both.

I wish to thank the Minister and hope it is an indication of further favours to come.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The merging of the amendments as a single amendment will alter all the numbers in the other amendments from this on.

That is hardly worth while. This amendment might come in better later on.

Amendment agreed to.

I move in Section 24, Sub-section (4): To add at the end of the Sub-section a new Sub-section (5) as follows:

"(5) The powers conferred by this section shall not be exercised, save for the relief of congestion by the enlargement of uneconomic holdings occupied and used by tenants thereof in the ordinary course of farming."

This is an attempt to make clear what is meant by the relief of congestion. I am not satisfied regarding the persons whose lands are to be taken, and I am giving the Minister every opportunity to solve this matter.

That amendment would be "damnable iteration."

Amendment put, and negatived.

Question: "That Section 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
(1) As respects tenanted land the price of each holding shall be a capital sum, hereinafter called "the standard price," of such amount that interest thereon at the rate of 4¾ per cent. per annum will be equal to the standard purchase annuity for the holding as ascertained in accordance with the first schedule to this Act together with a contribution by the State to the price calculated at 10 per cent. on, and added to, the standard price.
"(2) As regards untenanted land 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.

I move in Section 25, Sub-Section (2), To delete the Sub-Section and to substitute the following new Sub-Section therefor:—

"(2). As regards untenanted land the price shall, in default of agreement, be such an amount as may be fixed by the Land Commission, with a right of appeal from their decision to a Judge of the High Court, and in fixing such price regard shall be had to the fair market value of the holding if sold by public auction, the price to be paid in cash."

The last lines of the Section are, I think, most important, because if the Section as it stands is carried it will affect the economic life of the country in every shape and form. People in this country have not realised the importance of this Section, or the effect it will have on a certain number of tenant farmers.

Are we not dealing with untenanted land?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Section 25 deals with both.

The country does not realise that a big number of farmers in Leinster own untenanted land as well as tenanted land. The whole gist of the argument here was in respect of the landlord and the tenant, and the present Minister was lauded to the skies for his fair play. The Minister said he was speaking on behalf of the landlord who had no representation in the Dáil. Was he thinking that the Seanad was composed of a majority of the landlord class? I have no love for landlordism, but I would not object if the landlords got a little more for their property.

There is a more important Section being attacked now. The landlords are clearing out and the next and the greatest goose is the large farmer, for plucking at the present time. I would very much sooner support this measure if the Minister said "We want all land in the country, and we must have the land for the people all over the country." If he said that I would say "quite right, if the country approves of it." But I say, "give the people whose property you take, fair market value or something near it." I would support the policy if the Minister said "I will have conscription of wealth or a levy on capital." He picks out what he considers an unpopular class, which has no representation in this or the other House, and he victimises it for the benefit of another class. I invite an expression of opinion on that statement from the Labour Party. Would it be fair to have conscription of wealth or a levy of capital? I think there is no justice in the Section.

The Senator has invited an expression of opinion from the Labour benches. We have been for two days trying to impress him with our views on another matter and he voted against us all the time. I do not propose to waste time in answering him now.

I rise to support the spirit of the amendment in order to see whether the Minister is going to make any concessions to us on this matter of price. In many ways it can be done. One suggestion is that the payment should be made in cash, but that is immaterial if the Minister would accept the principle. There is this big principle. I used the word "confiscation" in the debate yesterday, and I have since considered whether I was exaggerating, but I am not at present inclined to qualify that. We know that the nation through its Parliament has the right to do anything. It has the right to take all the wealth of the country and divide it amongst the people of the country. But experience has proved that there are certain principles in practical politics which have to be followed. One of the most important of these is the development of industry and thrift. If the laws of the country militate against these qualities, and if they make a citizen feel that he cannot reap the reward of his labour, you are striking a blow at the economic life of the country, and in doing that you strike a blow at all classes, rich and poor.

Experience is the only thing of any practical value in politics. We get doctrines every day, but the people who understand government are very chary of doctrines, but they set great regard on what has, down through the centuries, proved a practical proposition in everyday life. As the result of that the governments of all developed countries have been very chary about taking property compulsorily because they have known by experience that you may sap the springs of industry, and they have limited their powers of compulsory acquisition to certain public utilities—railways, docks, harbours, etc. In doing so they have taken the land at full value, with an extra price, in some cases, on account of it being taken compulsorily, and have given the party from whom it has been taken full and complete powers of appeal. Here it is proposed to take a very large portion of the land of this country for a purpose which cannot answer to the hitherto accepted expression of public utility.

You divide the property of one class up amongst many. It sounds a very alluring prospect and, no doubt, excites considerable anticipation in certain quarters. Later on, when this has had a chance to operate, we may be considerably surprised at the result. This is comparable to the case of property on a very large scale for redistribution among a class of the population who are rather at the bottom of the economic scale. It is taken compulsorily from those at the top. Should not the principles which govern prices on the narrower issue in other countries govern this? The Minister and the Government say no. They say that there are different parties in this matter. There is the person selling who has built up the value of this property by years of toil and labour—I do not say they all have, but quite a number of them have, and you will not be able to discriminate between those who have and those who have not. Quite a large amount of this untenanted land is owned by people in quite humble circumstances, and you have to bear that in mind. The Minister, I do not suppose, suggests that you should open up an inquiry into the private incomes of those whose land is about to be taken, and to distribute the burden according to the total power of the vendor to bear it.

The Government propose to take that land, and there is a statutory direction that the Judge has got to take cognizance of these facts. They direct his attention, on the one hand, to the value to the Land Commission and, on the the other hand, to the value to the owner. The value to the Land Commission implies also the value to the taxpayer. This is a Government Department, and the Land Commission have primarily to regard the interest of the taxpayer. The Land Commission is taking this land from the individual who, with his family, has built up its value by years of work and enterprise, and they are giving it, possibly, to a congest without experience as to how to work a larger farm, and with no capital by which to finance his increased activities and, possibly, no house and suitable buildings on the land. If the Land Commission are going to do that, they have to have regard to the price which will enable this person to enter into that farm properly equipped. Otherwise it is only making the thing worse than before. They must, in the nature of the case, be very conservative as to price, and it would be in most cases impossible to finance the incoming tenant on anything like the fair market value of that land. So in essence, I argue that the provision of the Bill, as it now stands, is a direction to the Judge to give substantially less than the land is worth, and for that reason I have used the word "confiscation" in its limited sense, of course, because confiscation may be, taking away everything and giving nothing.

I anticipate that the Minister will say that these provisions are in the 1920 Bill. They are. I would say this, however— and I have been very specifically advised on this point—that that Bill was never agreed to. This is a statement of fact which it would be very hard to prove, as this is not a judicial assembly, but I am stating it, and I would be prepared to prove it in the proper place, that this Bill was never before any joint meeting of landlords and tenants. Landlords and tenants met and discussed certain principles which were to be embodied in a Bill. Some of these principles were embodied in the Bill. Some of them were not. They had dissolved altogether before that Bill was printed. That is my information. That Bill was never before them, and certain of the principles in that Bill would never have been accepted by the landlords if it had been before them. That is, however, secondary to the point. We are not dealing with that Bill, but I think it right to say that as it was brought in so often.

On a point of order does the Senator mean that the landlords and tenants never agreed to it, or that the landlords, through their Convention, never accepted it?

My advisers are not immediately present, but I am instructed that the landlords and tenants never had that Bill before them and never discussed it.

The question I asked was "did the landlords' Convention accept the Bill, price and all?" It is easy to find that out at the end of the room.

We are talking about two different things. There was a Joint Committee or Conference set up between the landlords and the tenants, totally apart from the Convention. That is the body I am referring to. It came after the Convention. They never had that Bill before them, and they never accepted, from the landlord's point of view, certain of the provisions. I am perfectly certain that if I ask people who do know that they will agree they never accepted that definition.

The Senator did not answer my question. Did the landowner's Convention accept that Bill?

I do not know.

If the Senator does not know he could inquire at the end of the room.

A lot of time was taken over this Bill which is only secondary to the Bill at issue. I would be very glad that, by mutual agreement, the Minister and I could have a friendly understanding not to refer to that Bill again. If the Minister will accept that I will observe it in the spirit in which it is made. The fact remains that this land is to be taken at substantially less than its fair price—I do not say its market price—and that will create a general feeling of uneasiness and insecurity throughout the country. For that reason I will support, not the actual wording of the amendment, but the main object of the amendment.

I am not accepting the amendment and I do not propose to make a speech. I think comment would spoil the speeches of Senator Counihan and Senator Sir John Keane.

Amendment put, and declared lost.

I move Section 25, Sub-Section (2).

To delete all after the word "the" in line 51, and to substitute therefor the words "to the rules for assessment of compensation provided by Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919: 9 and 10 George V. Cap. 57."

After the amendments that have been proposed by Senator Counihan, Senator Colonel Moore and Senator Sir John Keane, there is very little need to say much about this one. Senator Sir John Keane has gone into the reasons why a man, whether a farmer or anyone else, shall get the full market value of the land. The object of the amendment is to ensure that the owner, whoever he is, shall get the full market value. The only value in the amendment is to suggest a possible means as to how that value can be obtained. Senator Sir John Keane has suggested that the Land Commission, being the custodian of the taxpayer, is bound to get the land for as little as possible. Senator Bennett has pointed out that a man's holding may be worth a good deal of money and that he cannot get the full market value. The amendment suggests that due regard should be given to the Acquisition of Land Act passed in November, 1919, the object of which was to see that where land was taken compulsorily, the owner should be given full market value. One of the clauses of that Act appointed a panel, and in Ireland the panel consisted of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Surveyors' Institute, or some person delegated by him. The price of the land is to be fixed by them. One does not presume to dictate to the Minister, but when he referred to it, as the panel is still in existence, and as land has been acquired in different parts of the country for soldiers who were in the British Army, it is for the Minister, if he does not like it, to suggest something else.

I would like to give my reason for shewing that it would be impossible to accept this amendment. We are trying to put in here the procedure outlined by the Land Commission since the 1903 Act. Senator Sir Hutcheson Poe was a member of the Land Conference of 1903, and he knows what happened about the price, and what a tremendously difficult thing it was to deal with. What in fact occurred under the 1903 and 1909 Acts was that the landlords sold voluntarily and the tenants bought. There was a certain amount of bargaining, inducement and, perhaps, coercion, but in any case land was bought at a price which in all the circumstances was the best price the landlords could get, and the tenants bought at a price that would leave them an annuity they would be able to pay. That is the principle here. Senator Sir Hutchenson Poe knows well that if we bought land at the market price we could not re-sell it. It would be no use to us. There was not one single perch of land bought under the 1903 or 1909 Acts at market price, and there are 13,000,000 acres of land in Ireland purchased. I think that is well recognised. I think it is common ground that landowners did not get, and did not expect, market price for their land. It is common ground that if a landowner divided a 400 acre farm into 30 acre farms, and put it up for sale he would get more for each farm than he would get from the Land Commission. I wonder did a landowner ever get the market price of land. What we tried to do, and what the Convention of 1918 tried to do, was to arrive at a formula which would express as nearly as they could, the principles upon which the price was reached under previous Acts.

They arrived at a decision and they put it into a printed Bill, and we have it here. It will not be the business of the Land Commission to say what is the smallest possible price they can get the land for. A Judicial Commissioner, a judge will have to hear the witnesses, if necessary, and apply that clause as a judge to the issue, and arrive as a judge in a judicial way at the price of the land which will be fair to the Land Commission and fair to the vendor. In doing that, what we are really doing is what was done under the 1903 Act. In this way we are calling in an independent arbitrator between the landlord and tenant, and we can consider a case like this. Ordinary negotiations took place between the landlord and tenant for the purchase of an estate under the 1903 Act. They could not agree, and they leave the whole matter to be considered by the Judge. That is really what it comes to. We could not possibly change the price for untenanted land. I ask the Senator not to press this amendment. It would wreck the Bill.

The only answer I make is this: I presume that in November, 1919, when the Acquisition of Land Act was passed, it was in consequence of the indisposition of the owners to sell their land at a price that the Land Commission would pay, and the Government thought that by appointing an independent tribunal they would be assured of the market value of the land, or something approaching it. The people need not sell their land. Under that Act there is no compulsion. They could not get a satisfactory price from the Land Commission, and the Government passed this Bill and appointed an Arbitration Tribunal and the price of the land was fixed by them. If it was right in November, 1919, to pass an Act to insure that a man would get the full market value, why is it wrong to do it now? I cannot see the sense of that. I do not see if the English Government protected the interests of the people from whom they bought land, why should the Irish Government now reverse that?

I do not know what that land was bought for.

As the Senator knows that land was bought at a much better price than the 1903 Act. What the Senator wants is an arbitrator, an impartial arbitrator. We are giving a High Court Judge.

I should like an explanation of the words tenanted land. Untenanted land consists of Fee Farm Grants, leases for lives, leases for sixty years, and for temporary pasturage. Those farm grants and leases for lives are just as good as where a man has bought under the Act. I understand that the Minister is making some arrangement to deal with people who bought under the Act—purchased tenants. Is not that so? It is not decided, but I understand that it is under consideration. I do not understand that these people deserve less than the others. Why should he not give the same to them, except that he does not want to spend more money?

I hope we are not going to mix up this question, in connection with the special rates on unpurchased tenants.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Colonel Moore proceeds to argue that tenanted land ought to be treated the same as untenanted land.

We are treating with untenanted land.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You asked why should not these Fee Farm Grants and leases for life get the same good terms as the others.

What I said was that land has been already purchased and paid for, and that the Minister will consider what terms he is going to give them.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You do not apparently understand what you yourself have said. I do not want this discussion to go on on wrong lines. You want to say why should not the same principle that is applied to unpurchased land apply to tenanted land.

Untenanted land.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There is no such untenanted land. The land you refer to is defined in the Bill if you read it. Sub-section (2) that you are dealing with refers only to the purchase price of untenanted land.

If you will read Section 69 you will see that tenanted land is explained as——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I will say no more. I cannot explain it to you.

All the things not included in "tenanted land" are included in untenanted lands, and I defined what those are, and I say why should not this be treated in the same way as purchased holdings? Untenanted land, as defined there, consists of fee farm grants, leases for life, leases for 60 years and temporary pasturage and conacre.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Are you sure they are not described as the very reverse.

Would you ask the Minister to explain these things:—"Tenanted land means land held under any contract for tenants other than fee farm, leases for 60 years, letting for temporary purposes, conacre," and so on.

I have an amendment to propose. It is: To delete all the words after "to" in line 52, and to substitute therefor, "the owner who shall have the right of appeal to a judge of the High Court, other than a judicial Commissioner." I would suggest that we omit from that section of the Bill "to the Land Commission." The reason I make that suggestion is this: The Minister has said on several occasions that he is extremely anxious to do the fair and right thing. He even dropped the suggestion that the terms in the Bill for finding the purchase price were not sufficiently clear and he asked that some agreement should be come to by which that might be made clear. I take it that he is perfectly genuine in his statement that he wants to do the right thing.

I think the Senator is mistaken. I said specifically that I could not alter the words or the meaning of that section. If that section were altered I could not carry the Bill.

Was that in private conversation?

No; it was here in the Seanad.

It seems to me that a great many people who are owners of untenanted land may be treated very unfairly. The Land Commission might consider £10 an acre would be a reasonable price, whereas the real value to the owner might, perhaps, be in the neighbourhood of £100 an acre. I do not think, in justice to the people who have done their best to farm and to carry out improvements in the best way, that this is a fair way of dealing with them. I do not see how farming operations can be carried on without the investment of a certain amount of capital. If you farm on a large scale, you have to put into operation a large amount of machinery and things of that sort. With a sword of Damocles like this Bill hanging over them, I do not think you will find people willing to invest capital, and the result is that instead of being beneficial to the country the Bill will be the reverse.

I cannot quite follow the Minister's argument when he says that if that clause is altered, he cannot carry the Bill. He can carry the Bill in the Dáil if he wishes. All I want of him is a statement that he proposes to do no injustice and pay a fair price. That should be made clear beyond yea or nay. I would make an appeal on another ground. This country is more or less on its trial. Last night we voted away in a few minutes after dinner a sum of forty-six million odd pounds, and I do not think I am at all disclosing a secret when I say that we have not got that money. Where are we to get it? If we are going to throw aside people who have done their best in the country in the past and treat them unfairly, if we are to buy land at unfair prices, it will not conduce towards making the credit of this country very strong. On the grounds of benefiting the country and doing plain justice by carrying out his undertaking, I would ask the Minister to accept that suggestion of mine.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think there is a little confusion. I do not think the Minister said, or intended to say, that he regarded every line in Sub-section (2) as sacrosanct. I understood him to say that if those two amendments of his that we accepted were inserted, he would be prepared to consider, with those interested, the question of the price.

That is what I understood, too.

We were referring to a special sort of land—purchased land. Senator Jameson made a very strong case, and said that we are not taking very much purchased land, but this threat against purchased land will taint the whole price of purchased land, and there are thirteen million acres of purchased land in the country. It is serious, and I saw the force of that argument from the point of view of purchased land. I was dealing only with purchased land which was previously purchased under the Land Purchase Acts. Untenanted land is in a totally different position. I simply made that remark in regard to purchased land to try and meet Senators who would seriously put up a strong case, from the security point of view, against touching purchased land at all. A special case was made in regard to purchased land, but if that is now to be translated to tenanted land in general, well, I am not standing for it. I want to meet Senator Barrington's point. If I had the drafting of that Section in regard to tenanted land, and if I were the Dáil and Seanad combined, it would go in exactly as it is there. I am really surprised at the case put up against that. Surely Senators know that of the thirteen million acres purchased and resold to tenants, there was not an acre bought at the market value. Would there be any land purchased if the Land Commission had to buy land at the market value? Was it even suggested in the conference that took place before the Act of 1903, that land could be bought at market value?

You will admit that under the 1903 Act it was purely voluntarily, within certain limits, that the sale was carried through. Under these limits the landlord got more than he is getting now.

He probably got a better price, but he never got the market value; it was purely voluntary. You cannot regard land purchase, having regard to the history of the case, as an ordinary commercial transaction, such as the sale of a shop from one man to another. It has never been regarded as that. I cannot go and wipe out the history of the last couple of years. I cannot say to the Irish people: "we are going to give the market price for the land, you must pay four and a half per cent. for the money, and consequently your annuities must be more than under the 1903 Act." You are talking here of an English Act for English conditions.

Is the Minister not mixing up land purchase that has been carried out under certain Acts and certain conditions, with the resolution which is before the Seanad?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It is perfectly legitimate for the Minister to point out what were the terms of purchase under the 1903 Act. He is pointing out the landlord did not get the market value, even by voluntary purchase.

But this is compulsory purchase.

The Land Commission, will, I so put it, buy the land at a price which will be fair to the vendor and unfair to the Land Commission?

I do not ask that.

That is the only alternative to what we have here. The only possible alternative is that the Land Commission must buy the land at an unfair price.

It might be reversed.

We have endeavoured to give you the mean. The Judicial Commissioner will take all the circumstances into account from the landowner's point of view. Under the Section he must, but he must have regard to the fact that he has to sell it to the tenants.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There are four amendments here that have been discussed. The first one stands in the name of Senator Sir Hutcheson Poë—that the land should be acquired according to the price of the Act of 1909. The second is the suggestion of Senator Moore that it should be the market value of the land. The third is the suggestion of Senator Barrington that there should be an appeal, not to the Judicial Commissioner, but to a Judge other than the Judicial Commissioner of the High Court. The fourth is that of Senator the Earl of Kerry, in which he seeks to have inserted the provision that regard is to be had in fixing the price to the occupation interests of the owner. If the parties are not agreed on which of these amendments is to be put forward I will put them separately.

Was not Senator Barrington's amendment similar to that proposed by Senator Counihan?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

No; it is different. The main part of Senator Counihan's amendment dealt with the price in cash.

As one who has some considerable experience in the compulsory purchase of land, may I point out that there is a vast difference between compulsory purchase and voluntary purchase? If people want to purchase land compulsorily they must make the case that it is for the benefit of the community at large. That, I think, the Minister has done. But they must further show that they are not going to do anybody an injustice. That, I submit, the Minister has not done. I want him to put a provision in the Bill preventing him from doing that. As the clause stands there is only an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner. I have some experience of companies. The Judicial Commissioner is something like the Chairman of a Company, and after the Company's officials have gone through a proposal and done their best there is not much use in appealing to the Chairman. I want an appeal to somebody other than the Judicial Commissioner. I have more confidence in the judgment of a Judge of the High Court, and I ask that an appeal be given to him.

There is a High Court Judge assigned for that purpose, and to do what you ask would make the thing a farce.

Then the Minister expects to get better terms from the Judicial Commissioner?

No. I hope that no Judge of our Judiciary will interpret an Act of Parliament by reference to anything except the words and spirit of the Act. I have every confidence that he will not.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it is worth considering whether it is making a Judge a Judge in his own cause. He is the head of the Land Commission and it is a little unusual to make an appeal to him, but that may be necessary regarding the constitution of the body. I think, however, it is a matter which deserves consideration.

May I suggest to the Minister to leave this matter over until to-morrow. I have been endeavouring to prove to him that the method which he proposes to adopt is not likely to lead to the fairest results all round. We do not want a competitive market price but to ensure that there is no spoliation.

If the provisions in this Act regarding the price of untenanted land were changed this Bill would be finished and I could not carry it.

I think I have been explaining it for the last quarter of an hour. The Dáil considered that the provisions here are the fairest in the circumstances and they were considered even fair by the English House of Lords.

I feel that all these amendments are practically vetoed by what the Minister has told us—that, he was bound to stand by the two last lines of Sub-section 2, Section 25. He said that the instructions to the Judicial Commissioner were that he would have to have regard to the fair value of land to the Land Commission and to the owner respectively. He told us again that he could not take out the words "the fair value to the Land Commission." I I think we have come to an impasse. It is no use pushing forward amendments against the Minister who tells us that if they are passed they will wreck his Bill. If we remember that these two lines are essential to the Bill unless we are prepared to vote for ending the Bill we must vote against the amendment. As time goes on and it is getting late I think Senators ought to make up their minds whether or not they are going to back the amendment which the Minister tells us would wreck the Bill. If we apply our minds to those lines and ask ourselves “Is my amendment against the Bill of such a nature that the Minister cannot accept it,” I think every Senator ought to hesitate a long time unless he is prepared to reject the Bill to bring forward amendments which will achieve that result.

In view of the Minister's statement I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I had an amendment on this point, and although I believe I am right in my statement, I withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I do not think that I am prepared to withdraw my amendment which reads, in line 52 to substitute the words "the owner shall have the right of appeal to a High Court Judge other than the Judicial Commissioner." I think that if we adopt the suggestion of Senator Jameson we might take the Bill as it is and say that we are prepared to accept it without further discussion. I am not at all sure as to the correctness of the Minister's statement that the acceptance of the amendment I have proposed, which boils itself down to a suggestion to substitute a Judge of the High Court, who is not the head of the Land Commission, instead of the head of the Land Commission, who is responsible for carrying out this policy— would wreck the Bill and I am not prepared to withdraw it.

Amendment put and negatived.

My amendment is Section 25, Sub-Section (2).

29. To add at the end of the Sub-Section the words "and to the fact that the owner is entitled to have the value of his occupation interests considered, including the occupation interest of the owner therein."

I do not know whether the Minister will accept it. It is not mandatory, but I only ask that it should be put in.

These words are already in in effect.

I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to propose the following amendment: "to delete Sub-Section 6."

I am not disposed to take the view of our duty that has recently been propounded by Senator Jameson. I feel a grave responsibility in this matter. I may be mistaken, but I am going to vote against the Bill unless substantial amendments are put in. No doubt I will receive very little support, but I will have the satisfaction of having made my protest, and doing what I believe will prove to be in the long run, and sooner than some expect, in the better interests of the country. The Minister has distinctly disregarded our claim to have anything put in the Bill which will compensate the vendor by virtue of the fact that this land was taken compulsorily. I can only assume that he regards as of greater importance, the passing necessities of the moment, than the broad principle of security of property. I know that in certain quarters security of property is regarded in an extraordinarily narrow sense as bolstering up a particular class. I appeal to the Seanad to take the larger view.

It is an axiom that if you take property and security and give nothing in the nature of compensation you are running extraordinary risks. When the Government comes to press their credit with this Bill on the Statute Book they may get a very rude shock. We must exploit every avenue. I am afraid the Minister will not meet us but we have to do what is right. You have two cases, one man, an unpurchased tenant whose land is to be taken under the Resumption Clause. Under the somewhat elaborate machinery of this Bill land goes through a long history. First it is vested, then it is resumed and after that it is retained. Then an operation comes into force in the Land Commission of buying land in the process of transition. That land is held by the tenant with his tenant right. Take the other case of a man who has untenanted land.

I am prepared to admit that possibly the majority of untenanted land is held by landlords or those commonly associated with the landlord class, but a very large portion of it is held by men of the farming class who bought this land with their savings. You are going to make it possible that a man who paid £50 or £60 an acre for his land to-day is going to be taken into the Courts to-morrow and given such a price as the Land Commission can, with justice to the taxpayer give, even to a man with no reserve or capital. Is that just? If it is not just it should not be passed. In the long run injustice will bring its inevitable consequences. It may be pleasant for a moment, but these honeymoons do not last long. Specious proposals are sometimes put forward and carried at night, but there is always sorrow in the morning. I say there is no difference in essence between those two things, the one case of a man who bought his land at market price yesterday and the unpurchased tenant who has had his land taken from him at the same time. I ask that the same treatment should be meted out to each. When the Government take up this line, having got themselves pledged to a certain purchase and having given certain assurances it is very hard to get them to see the light.

Perhaps Senator Sir J. Keane would be specific and tell us to what assurances he is referring.

To the assurances given in the Dáil that you were going to stand by that clause. I presume that the Minister regards that section as imperative and has given assurances to see it through.

It is fair.

Quite so. I am trying to make my case and to argue that it is unfair, and I consider, with all due respect to the Seanad, that if I could make this case before an arbitrator or a judge I would prove that it has a fairly solid foundation. This amendment of mine assures that these two people get the same price, or that the price be assessed on the same basis. This is the Act of 1881 which I suggest is none the worse for being old. It comes in at the end of Section 5.

These are the terms on which the landlord was allowed to resume possession and which are now being used by the Land Commission when they are resuming possession from the tenant. They were under the Act of 1881 drafted to meet the case where the landlord was resuming:—"Authorise resumption thereof by the landlord upon such terms as the Court may think fit and require the tenant to sell his tenancy in whole or part to the landlord upon such terms as may be approved by the Court, including full compensation to the tenant." If the Government are making any attempt at consistency—I have seen evidence of some small crumbs, but I have not seen anything substantial in the way of concessions, although what little we have got we are not ungrateful for—I claim that untenanted land which carries tenant right and has possibly been bought by some humble person out of his savings should be taken on the same terms as the land of an unpurchased tenant which the Land Commission wish to resume for the purpose of relieving congestion or the settlement of landless men. I can only leave it to the Seanad.

I rise to support the contention of Senator Sir John Keane. There must be in the country a number of men who have within the last 10 or 12 years out of savings or prospective earnings bought tracts of land at large prices and possibly inflated prices. Under this Bill these lands are to be taken from them compulsorily. If the conditions existed which they assumed would exist when they purchased their holdings then the purchase of these farms would have enabled them in the course of time to discharge their liabilities. Events have occurred, such as the toppling down of the values of farm produce, which have rendered it impossible for these people to pay off any reasonable portion of the purchase price of the holding. If these lands are now taken at an unreasonable price—which is possible, I think, under the Section—the price given to these tenant purchasers will be such as to leave them with a load of debt round their necks due to the bank on the security of their neighbours. That is bound to occur if a reasonable price is not given. The Minister emphasised the fact that the whole finance of the Bill is based on a price fair to the Land Commission and he would not accept any amendment which would make the price other than a fair price to the Land Commission or a price that was likely to give——

I suggested "unfair to the Land Commission." The Senator is overlooking that fact.

That could hardly be serious. We are not babies. After all some of us have had experience of land for 45 years and we know the business side of every operation on the farm. I say that there will be injustice to that particular type of man if he only gets a price which would be fair to the Land Commission. I appeal to all reasonable men in the Seanad and to every interest in the Seanad——

The Senator is misquoting the Section. It reads "fair to the Land Commission and to the vendor."

I am emphasising the fairness to the Land Commission for the purpose of evolving my argument. If I am not in order I will submit to the ruling of the chair.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I see nothing out of order up to the present, but, as the Minister points out, the words are not confined merely to the price that is fair to the Land Commission.

Assuming that he means to be fair to the vendor why will he not accept an amendment to make it clear that he means to exercise that fairness? There are many men in my county who for 30 or 40 acres of land gave £5,000 or £6,000. The fair value of the lands to the Land Commission will, I take it, be £1,500 to £2,000. I am not one of them and I have no interest in any of them. I speak with an absolutely detached mind. I say that that class of people, if they do not get a price approaching what they gave, will be an incubus upon the nation and a clog to its progress.

The Senator, as far as I can gather wants to know why I do not insert some amendment saying that it shall be fair to the vendor. That is in the Bill, and that is why I do not insert it. I will read it. "In fixing such sum regard shall be had to the fair value to the Land Commission and to the owner respectively." When the Senator talks of 30 and 40 acres I presume he does not mean tenants, that he means fee-simple.

I mean tenants also.

This has nothing whatever to do with tenanted land.

We will take it as purchased holdings.

I think that the Seanad understands thoroughly that in the new circumstances this has nothing to do with purchased holdings either, and before Senators work themselves into a passion and try to make our flesh creep they should really understand what the Section is about. This does not refer to the circumstances which Senator Bennett waxes so eloquently about. It refers to untenanted fee-simple land. It does not refer to tenanted land. When we come to the sections dealing with tenanted land we will discuss that question. It does not refer either, in the new circumstances, by reason of the promise which I gave to Senator Jameson, to purchased holdings. I am not now going over again the reasons which I adduced for fixing the price of untenanted land as it is fixed here.

I accept the statement of the Minister with gratitude. Even though I may have lost my temper, I still say that a number of these people, even with the concessions made on the suggestion of Senator Jameson, will be still under a grave disability. I may be getting warm again, but I hope the Minister will not follow my example. Even under the Section these men may still be taken away somewhere else, and given a parcel of land which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, will be of a certain value. All through this Bill the opinion of the Land Commission is the basic factor in dealing with the value of lands. That is the particular portion of the Bill which I take exception to. I accept with gratitude the concession which the Minister made as regards purchased holdings.

I have not made it yet.

The Seanad had to accept it. The amendment introduced will, I suggest, do much to make it fairer. These people who bought land under these circumstances may be transferred from Limerick to Roscommon or Meath. Is it likely to assume that a man who gave £4,000 for a farm of 40 acres will get an equivalent of his £4,000 from the Land Commission when their assumption of the value of land is to be based on the value of the land to the Land Commission?

It is hard for a man like me to form an opinion on this question when one side of the case is dealt with by gentlemen farmers and landowners. Not having the necessary experience to judge I am inclined to take the side of the practical men. There must be something wrong, although I am perfectly sure that the Minister for Agriculture wants to deal fairly with both parties. Whether he is taking the proper course or not, I am not so sure about. I was very much convinced by the speech made by Senator Jameson with regard to the credit of the country. I think that is the supreme point we have to keep in view. If the owners of purchased holdings have to share a considerable portion of their holdings I am afraid it will damage the credit of the country very much. It would certainly damage it with the Banks and as a business man I do not want any further leakage in credit. We have very good credit.

On a point of order, having regard to the fact that the Seanad has agreed to discuss the question of purchased holdings on Report, I would point out that tenanted lands do not come in under this Section.

I maintain that purchased holdings are untenanted lands.

What I want to know is, does the purchased holder under compulsion have to give up any part of his farm? If he does not, I have nothing to say.

The Senator who has last spoken is a business man, and I can quite understand that the intricacies of this measure are somewhat confusing. A purchased holder may mean one thing in ordinary plain English, but it means another thing under the Bill. If I get a piece of fee simple land to-morrow I am a purchased holder, but not in the sense of the Bill. A purchased holder has two meanings—it has a legal meaning under this Bill as a man who bought under previous Land Acts and who is now paying an annuity. It may also mean a man who bought a piece of land from anybody and who now owns it. I might have made some money in business and decided that I would like to try farming. I found someone prepared to sell land not subject to an annuity. I bought it and became a purchased holder. I want to put a parallel which I think will appeal to business men in the Seanad. A business man is in the furniture trade, and someone comes along and says to him, "I am interested in some poor people in the Coombe who want to furnish." For the purpose of financing the transaction they have to go to some society to be financed. They are people whose earnings are precarious and naturally a certain amount of risk is involved in the transaction. Someone comes along and says to the furniture owner, "you have got to hand over your furniture to these people, no matter what you paid for it, at such a price as will be fair to you and fair to the persons who are financing this somewhat precarious transaction."

I submit that is an absolute parallel to what is proposed to be done under this measure. I say it is impossible to do it in practice. It must operate in this way The two prices will be poles apart. What I say is that one man has bought land out of savings, and if you are not going to give him something near the price at which he bought or the market price, you are striking a fell blow at the economic security of your country, a blow that will shake to its foundations the credit of the State. I cannot conceive how merely for some immediate purpose, or because the Government are not prepared, in any way to help to bridge the gulf between these two parties, that you should—I use the word advisedly—confiscate the man who has put his savings into the property. The amendment goes far to get over that difficulty. It is justified by the fact that I am only asking for the same treatment for the purchased holder of untenanted land as will be given to a tenant, if his lands are taken for certain purposes. I do appeal to the Seanad to look at the question in the proper proportions, in the spirit of justice and security.

I would just like to say that Senator Sir John Keane had almost convinced me that his amendment ought to be voted for, and I was going to vote for it until I heard his more recent remarks. He has now made it perfectly clear that he regards all these transactions in land as comparable with an ordinary transaction of a business man. As that seems to me to be an absolutely reactionary—if there was a stronger word I would use it—idea, it is obvious to me that I could not possibly vote for such an amendment when he holds that idea.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 21.

  • William Barrington.
  • Thomas Westropp Bennett.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • Thomas Linchan.
  • Colonel Maurice Moore.
  • Michael O'Dea.
  • Col.Sir William Hutcheson Poe.

Níl

  • William Cummins.
  • Peter de Loughry.
  • Dowager Countess of Desart.
  • J. C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Sir Nugent Everard.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Earl of Granard.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • Cornelius J. Irwin.
  • Right Hon. A. Jameson.
  • P. W. Kenny.
  • J. Clayton Love.
  • E. MacEvoy.
  • J. MacLoughlin.
  • E. MacLysaght.
  • T. MacPartlin.
  • The Earl of Mayo.
  • J. T. O'Farrell.
  • B. O'Rourke.
  • William O'Sullivan.
Amendment declared lost.

I move that the Committee adjourn until 8.30 p.m.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I would like to mention that I have been specially requested by the Minister in charge of the Electoral Abuses Bill to say that he is anxious to get that measure through the Seanad this evening. I understand there will be no opposition, but there are some amendments of which notice has been given. The Bill is not likely to take long, and if the Seanad will agree I suggest that when we resume at 8.30 we should take it through all its stages.

Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 7.25 p.m. and resumed at 8.30 p.m.
Top
Share