I rise with relief, but not with pleasure, to move the rejection of this Bill. I shall be as brief as I can, but there are certain points that I must develop. A student of political science who watched our proceedings would certainly have been much troubled by the paradox that presented itself in the Seanad. He would see almost unanimous consent amongst parties naturally divergent in their efforts to secure the passage of this Bill. It excited very considerable comment in the Dáil that the representatives of the farmers and the Labour Party were found in the same lobby. I think it must excite equally interesting comment that a number of landlords and labourers are also found in the same lobby in the Seanad. It has been put to me from many quarters by persons whose judgment is much respected by me that my action in opposing this Bill, which has even been described as an attempt to wreck this Bill, is very unwise. I have given due and weighty consideration to those proposals, and the more I think them over the more I am confirmed in the course I now take, and the more I am confirmed that this Bill is not in the best interests of the country. The action of the Labour Party in this Seanad in voting for this Bill I appreciate. The action of those who, without in any way surrendering their independence, say that it is a wise bargain to support the Government is an action I can understand.
I am more perplexed to understand the attitude of the landowning class. I realise that the failure to pass this Bill may have serious effects on the material and financial position of their class. On the other hand, I cannot understand how, acting presumably on behalf of the proprietory classes, they can set their seal to a measure which contains large powers of compulsory acquisition on such unsatisfactory terms. I do not suggest, or wish to suggest, that those gentlemen have not given full consideration to all the aspects of the case. I do not wish to suggest that they have been actuated or dominated solely by the more immediate financial considerations. I am sure it can be argued that they have set the whole in the balance and come to the conclusion that the measures contained in this Bill to carry out an ideal policy for the settlement of congestion, and many other aspects of the landlord question, dominated and justified their decision. To those few of us, and we are few, who took the responsibility of moving the rejection of this Bill—and personally I do it with the greater relief when I know that my motion will not be carried—I think it is only due to this Seanad, and to the outside public, that we should state the reasons for our action.
First, I consider this doctrinaire measure of a very sweeping and far-reaching character, and I consider it is unwise, to such extent as has been done in this Bill, to disregard the experience of other countries. If I knew of any country where a far-reaching measure of this kind had been operated successfully, and where a very large movement of populations with a view to redistribution of landed wealth had successfully operated, I should regard these proposals with less concern. I may be wrong, but I feel that this is what has happened. I will not suggest, because I do not think it would be fair to the Minister to do so, that he is solely responsible for this Bill. In his own interest I prefer not even to suggest that he is the prime mover. In any case, the Executive Council must claim responsibility, and I fully appreciate that with the highest motives, they have acted according to their lights in setting out to remove this blot of congestion. They have done so, and they purport to do so by very drastic means. In all countries in different forms politicians have felt the problem here presented, the uneven distribution of wealth. It especially takes in this country, expression in the form of land. It is no new thing in principle, for large urban populations in other countries, many of them bordering on a state of necessity, are analogous. None of these countries has yet discovered the Rosetta Stone by which that solution may be found.
Yet here we are asked to believe that the Government, well intentioned but not possessing great experience, has done so. I cannot sustain that belief. The problem of congestion is undoubtedly a great one. I contend that there are ample powers already to tackle it in a thoroughly satisfactory manner for many years to come, and I believe it was the greatest mistake to introduce far-reaching measures, which will have a most unsettling effect upon the country, before voluntary methods have been exploited to the full. The existing Act of 1909 conferred certain limited compulsory powers, and these powers have not been hitherto fully developed. It is a matter of common knowledge to-day that there is a large quantity of land in the Saorstát which is in the hands of the Government and is awaiting settlement for some time.
I also do believe that if the voluntary negotiation proposals, with the powers of the 1909 Act—compulsory powers—in the background, had been developed and exploited, that would have enabled this grave danger that I apprehend is upon us to have been averted. It has been put to me that from the point of view of the national interest there is no greater revolution in the Bill we are now asked to pass, as compared with what went before, than there was in the 1881 Land Act on what went before that. I say the case is totally distinct. In the case of the 1881 Act you were confirming security of tenure to the worker, who is the wealth producer. In this Bill you are unsettling the security of tenure of the small owner, the farmer, who is the wealth producer of the country.
We heard a great deal yesterday about this question of insecurity, and when I heard the Minister arguing the point I got some indication of why it was he was not so alarmed as I am on the question of insecurity. Arguing with the two leaders of the banking community—who. I think, are becoming somewhat uneasy on the position—he said "What is there to be afraid of? You take a man from one farm and you give him a farm of equal value somewhere else. There is nothing disturbed. That man's assets are as good as they were before." That line of argument, to my mind, shows a complete misconception of the word "insecurity." Insecurity is not a physical conception except to a very limited extent. If you go back to the Latin derivation of the word, I believe scholars differ, but the best instructed say sine cura—without care. Does the Minister or anybody else suggest that these provisions which are going to unsettle, and which give the power to take any land, anywhere, are going to leave the owners of land without care? None of us are without care, but anything that tends to deepen and confirm our anxieties might be translated or described as insecurity.
Insecurity in its fullest sense is an atmospheric condition. You cannot describe it. You cannot bring it down to firm words. It is a sort of feeling of uneasiness which makes you loath to employ your savings to the best and fullest advantage. It makes you tend to keep your capital liquid. Bankers understand that well. One of the features of banking is liquidity, and any man who is insecure aims at keeping his wealth liquid. That condition of liquidity is the very worst condition when viewed in the light of wealth production. National wealth is not money in the sense of currency, and is not land. I took the Minister to believe that mere land is national wealth. It is only land when worked to the best advantage that is national wealth. You may have land and do nothing with it, and it is not wealth at all. The enormous reserves of gold in America are not wealth, because they are lying there in vaults. It is because this Bill is making for less production that I oppose it.
Take an owner of untenanted land in the congested districts. As soon as he understands this Bill he knows that on a certain day that land will any longer cease to be his. Further, he knows that according to Ministerial statements all that land will be wanted for the relief of congestion. What is the owner of that land going to do? Is he going to continue farming to the utmost? Of course he is not. He is unsettled, and is thinking of where he will go next. He is going to cut down tillage to the utmost, and put his land back to grass. Probably operating first in the congested districts, that is liable to extend all over the country, and I anticipate that you are going to have a very large increase of grass farms when the provisions of this Bill are known. It will be this way. In many cases these farmers will get unsettled. The Government may not require their land for years. They may never require it. But these men will be so uneasy that once they have put their farms in grass they will let them remain in grass.
I am afraid the effect of the Bill will be materially to impair food production and industry in land, which, of course, everybody wants, and which is the real source of national wealth. As regards the immediate effect, I honestly feel in regard to the congested districts, where the acquisition of the land by the Land Commission is certain, that the most active person very shortly will be the furniture remover. It is an occult force, and I honestly feel that the insecurity the Bill will create and the damage it will do will be only second in effect to the positive damage that has been done by the action of the Irregular forces.
There is another aspect. We all know the extraordinary interest there is attached to the possession of land and the passion it excites when you are going to take land on a general doctrinaire scheme; to move people about and put people on land who do not appear to have, in the ordinary plain sense, any more title to it than anyone else. You raise all kinds of cupidity and undesirable forces, and you will get men on the border of land to be broken up exceedingly hostile to the introduction of strangers and people from other counties.
The Minister says, "Oh, that is all right; we have got the forces of law established, and we can deal with that." I am not so sure that you can. I do not think you can deal with that merely by the positive forces of law. If he said "We have got a mentality that accepts the law and yields to and respects the law," I would not be so uneasy. But when he says "We have got the forces fully developed and we are going to do it by force," then I am uneasy. I do not think the country can afford to keep an Army for this purpose, and I do not believe, so great will be the passions, that it can possibly be done by such a body as an unarmed Civic Guard. I would be sorry if anything I say would be taken as an attempt to incite people. I am only stating what I believe to be the fact, and what will be the effects of this Bill.
Now we come to the worst portion, in fact a feature of this Bill which is novel, and which, I think, is exceedingly dangerous—that is the acquisition of land automatically. Under the old powers you proceeded by negotiation. You came to a person and said you wanted his land for this purpose, and tried to make a friendly arrangement about it if possible. It was only in the last resort that you used compulsion. Under this Bill you take the land automatically, although you may never want it, and then after a time maybe you give it back. That is absolutely the wrong way to do it, because you create uneasiness in the minds of people by the mere fact that they feel that on a certain day the legal title to their land is not theirs. That will have a most damaging effect.
The greatest injustice under this Bill —and I use the word advisedly—is in the case of these retained holdings—the unpurchased tenants. I have been at a loss to discover why the unpurchased tenant is, by the operation of this Bill, treated essentially differently from the purchased tenant. The unpurchased tenant's land is taken first for sub-division and relief of congestion. The purchased tenant apparently remains on his land, which is only taken as a last resort. What is the position of the unpurchased tenant? The unpurchased tenant all over the country, not merely in the congested districts, but every unpurchased tenant who owns land in excess of £3,000 —and for the purpose of that calculation you take into account any land on which he pays an annuity elsewhere— will have the whole of his land retained. I really think that is a sad picture, viewed in the light of those who love their homes.
Picture a man who has lived for generations on his farm. On a certain date the title of the land must pass. He lives with this sword of Damocles hanging over his head, week after week, month after month, possibly for two or three years, never knowing when it may descend, never knowing when the morning post will bring him a letter saying "We are going to take your farm. You can seek a place elsewhere. We are going to give you the market price for it"—a place that that person would not sell for three times the market price. The Minister will, I have no doubt, say that this would only operate in exceptional cases. I am prepared to accept that for what it is worth, but how can he answer for those who are to come? The power is there in the Bill, and I refuse to examine this Bill from any other point of view than what is contained in it. To say that the Government will not do this or that, or that the Land Commission will not do this or that is not enough. The Land Commission will do all that the Bill empowers them if they get orders from the Government. In respect of these retained holdings, and in respect of the Bill generally, I think there is a tremendous lot of sentiment for the congests at the price of humanity to the individual.
With regard to the Judiciary, I still am not satisfied on two points. One is the absolute independence, beyond yea or nay, of the Court of First Instance. The Minister himself admitted yesterday that the Judicial Commissioner was, at least to a small extent, concerned in administration. Of course, nominally he is a member of the Land Commission. That alone leaves me unsatisfied. I am further unsatisfied with the limiting powers of these appeals on points of law, and I am unable absolutely to assess the value of the concession given by the Minister. It does not cover the whole the question of retained holdings; it does not cover the question of parcels of land and who are not to get them. It does not cover farming in the interests of food production, which I say is a most litigious question. I am not satisfied that the present Judicial Commissioner has not been consulted in the preparation of this Bill. It stands to reason, on the face of it, that he must have been. He is a member of the Land Commission. The Land Commission must have been consulted, and if he has been consulted in any way on the Bill it is doubly worse. He will be asked to rule and give a final decision on points of law and on questions on which he has already been consulted and on which he has given his opinion. I think that is a very grave feature in this Bill, and one to which the Seanad should attach grave importance.
On the question of price, we have heard so much about it that I have not much more to say. You take a man's home and all he loves, the hallowed associations and memories, and you give him the market price. It may be said that, compared with previous Acts, it is not bad. To take another comparison—that of tenant right. Untenanted land carries the equivalent of tenant right. Many expensive improvements were made on holdings on the assurance that land taken compulsorily would not be taken below market value, and in the belief that land taken compulsorily would carry with it compensation given under previous Acts. Taking that land and not giving even market price is doing exactly the same thing in essence as in the case of retained holdings. When you come to that definition I think the matter becomes ludicrous. You give a definition which cannot possibly be fair to either side. You have two people; one who wants to get it—the Government, to do their duty, should get it very cheap—and the other person who owns the land and who has a right to get its full value. To give a Judge a direction to be fair to both when it is impossible to be fair to either is to reduce the whole thing to absurdity.
For these reasons, therefore, because the measure is a doctrinaire attempt to do by revolution what should be done by evolution, because there is compensation given in cases where land is acquired compulsorily for public purposes, because it excites passions when it should be the object of legislation to allay passions, and because the independence of the Judiciary is not adequately safeguarded, and because last, and this is the most important, it strikes at the economic life and at the productive power of the nation, I shall have to ask the Seanad to divide on this measure. I do so with a full sense of responsibility, and I would not do so unless I believed that the consequences would be very serious. Believing them to be serious, I have tried to exploit this question to the utmost, and I would still ask whether it is not possible to give a breathing space. Under the Constitution, I think Article 47, there is a provision under which any measure upon which the Oireachtas has a doubt can be put to a poll of the people. If that provision was ever invented for a purpose it is for this one. I am not going to do anything further than make the suggestion. It rests with the Government. If the Government like to take the responsibility of this Bill it is in their hands. I should have thought that the Government, realising their responsibility as trustees for generations to come, would exploit every avenue before they ran this grave risk, would refer this matter to a poll of the people, so that they could say to the people later on, "You have had it before you, the responsibility is yours."
