I move that the Bill be now read as Second Time.
This Bill is another attempt to obtain common justice for farmers whose land may be compulsorily acquired by the Land Commission. The Bill requires very little explanation. It sets out in plain language what it purposes to do and it contains so bone for the lawyers— which must be pleasing to Senator Ó Buachalla. It does not in any way restrict the activities of the Land Commission. It does not propose that allottees or congests should pay more for the new holdings they may get. On the other hand, it very definitely implies that any land compulsorily acquired by the Land Commission should be paid for at the market value and it sets out a simple formula to show how the market value can be ascertained.
There is no question of the Land Commission going into competition to bid for land. If this Bill is adopted, the procedure will be that the Land Commission, on deciding to acquire a holding, will furnish to the inspector all particulars relating to that holding, such as annuities, valuation and other relevant details. The inspector would then examine the land and, like any prospective buyer, decide what the farm was worth. He would also take into consideration what it would make if sold at a public auction in a free sale and would also consider if there had been any land sold at that particular time in the same locality. Of course, this implies that the difference between the price paid to the owner and the price charged to the congest or allottee would be made up out of public funds. I want to lay particular emphasis on that, to show the Minister that there is no game to be given away. He seemed to think we were hiding something in the discussion on Senator Sweetman's Bill. The difference is to be made up out of public funds. All other responsibilities will still rest with the Land Commission. I am confident that, if this Bill becomes an Act, the Land Commission will carry out its provisions justly and impartially, as they are at present carrying out the provisions of the 1939 Act, which gives the market value to the owners of resumed holdings.
Senator Sweetman very clearly explained the difference between resumed and acquired holdings, but there seems to be still some confusion about the terms, and I would like to give my explanation of them. A resumed holding is one that was never vested in the owner under any of the Land Acts. It is a holding which was vested in the Land Commission under the 1923 Act and was not revested in the tenant, who still pays interest in lieu of rent to the Land Commission but who has got all or practically all the reductions just the same as a vested owner. It is a holding definitely retained by the Land Commission for the purpose of distribution.
As the owners of resumed holdings are guaranteed the market value under the 1939 Act, we need not be much concerned about them. What this Bill deals with are acquired holdings. That means, almost exclusively, holdings of tenant farmers who, themselves or their predecessors, paid rent to landlords and are now paying annuities to the Land Commission and whose land is vested in them. I should like to hear from the Minister the reason why the owners of resumed holdings are paid market value and the owners of acquired holdings must take a price fair to the Land Commission. Of course, I have no objection to the owners of resumed holdings being paid market value. It is only just and right they should be so paid. I may say that it was under an amendment of mine to the 1939 Act that that was done. That amendment was very vigorously supported by Senators Quirke, O'Callaghan, McCabe and O'Dwyer of the Government Party when the Land Act of 1933 was passing through Committee Stage. The Minister's predecessor, Mr. Boland, accepted the principle of that amendment and asked me to withdraw it on a promise to bring in an amendment on Report Stage to meet the position. His amendment was very much better than mine, as it gave greater security. Not only did it guarantee market value but it gave compensation for disturbance and it provided that a resumed holding could not be taken except for the relief of congestion in the immediate neighbourhood. I believed, and I am sure the majority of Senators at that time believed, that we were getting market value for any land acquired or resumed or taken in any way by the Land Commission. That was not so. It is difficult to understand why the difference was made.
The Minister said, when discussing the 1944 Land Bill, introduced by Senator Sweetman, that if Senator Baxter could define for him how the Land Commission could obtain land at what was really market value, he would do business. This Bill explains how the market value can be ascertained and, though the formula is not completely satisfactory, to the owners of land, it should, certainly, be satisfactory to the Minister, as it leaves the Land Commission judge, jury and executioner in the case. If it is accepted, I believe it will create more confidence and give more security to the owners of land which may be compulsorily acquired and to the 300,000 farmers—the people who, Senator Ó Buachalla says, have the monopoly of the land—who have been deprived of fixity of tenure and of the right of free sale by the 1923 Land Act and subsequent Acts. I believe it, also by implication, repeals the clause of the 1923 Land Act which says that the price of land payable by the Land Commission shall be a price fair to the owner and fair to the Land Commission.
The Minister said:—
"I feel sure that no injustice will be deliberately done to any citizen of this State by the activities of the Land Commission."
Injustices have been done and the Land Commission will admit that they cannot do anything else. They are a judicial body and are bound to carry out the provisions of the Land Acts. Until some of the clauses of the 1923 Act and subsequent Land Acts are repealed, they must obey the law as it stands. I am sure that Seanad will agree that it is bad enough to have a man's land compulsorily acquired but it is against all natural justice and Christian ethics to take his property, deprive him of his means of livelihood and not pay him full compensation. That is also the belief of the Minister, according to his statement in the Seanad:—
"I take the view that, when a man owns property, he should not be deprived of it without due payment and compensation."
If that statement represents the honest opinion of the Minister, let him put his views into the Bill. Otherwise, they will not count with the Land Commission.
I was glad to hear the Minister pay a just and well-deserved tribute to his predecessor, the late Mr. Paddy Hogan. He praised him for his commonsense, his wisdom and the justice which he displayed when introducing the 1923 Land Act. He based his justification on that. I should much regret to say anything which would sully the name of the late Mr. Hogan, but he was not infalliable and he never pretended that he was. Though I could point out the justification he had for inserting that clause, I then believed, and still believe, it was a mistake to have the words inserted, "fair to the owner and fair to the Land Commission". I often discussed that point with the late Mr. Hogan. The Minister said that he was a great psychologist, and I agree. It was because he understood the farmers, particularly the farmers of the West, he put in that phrase. But he never meant that that provision should apply except in the congested districts. He often said to me that he did not want the farmers in the West from whom he was going to acquire land to go out of farming. He wanted them to continue, as they were the most suitable people for migration to Leinster and other parts of the country. It was because he wanted then to accept farms and not go out of business, he put in that provision. I thought he was wrong and I opposed it. I oppose it now and I ask the Minister to rectify that portion of the 1923 Act. I feel, as the Minister does, that any man who owns property should not be deprived of it without adequate compensation. I do not care who the owner is. Let him be a descendant of one of Cromwell's soldiers, a descendant of Conn of the Hundred Battles, like Senator Sir John Keane, or somebody like myself, who is lineally descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages—let him be a descendant of one of these, or let him be a descendant of Padraic OÁ Murchadha, pedigree unknown, if he has a legal title to property, he should be paid full compensation, if it is compulsorily taken from him by Government Order. I have purposely refrained from indulging in recrimination about the actions of the Land Commission. I do not blame the Land Commission. I blame the Government. The Land Commission do not want to do injustice to anybody, but they can do nothing else while the Land Acts remain as they are. They must obey thelaw. It is for the Minister, if he believes what he says, and for him alone, to rectify the position.