To-day I asked the Minister for Lands the following question:—
To ask the Minister for Lands if he will state on what grounds the Land Commission are acquiring the lands of Carrigkettle, Kilteely, County Limerick (Record No. 7706) from Mr. O'Carroll, Kilteely, County Limerick; if he is aware that the net resumption price to Mr. O'Carroll is less than one-fourth of the price paid by him for the farm in 1924, and that Mr. O'Carroll has three sons and two daughters some of whom he intended to settle on these lands.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in his reply stated:—
"The lands of Carrigkettle are being acquired from Mr. Richard O'Carroll by the Land Commission for the purpose of relieving congestion. The price of these lands was, in default of agreement, fixed by the Appeal Tribunal. Mr. O'Carroll's circumstances were fully considered at the hearing by the Land Commission of his objection to the acquisition of the lands."
In a supplementary question I asked: "Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that there is congestion in this particular district of East Limerick?" and he said "Yes." I asked him further: "Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that Mr. O'Carroll farms his land in a proper manner and gives adequate employment?" The Parliamentary Secretary did not deign to answer that, but he again reiterated that this is non-residential land which was required for the immediate relief of congestion in that area. Then I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he was satisfied that it was because of political reasons that this farm was taken from Mr. O'Carroll. The Parliamentary Secretary was rather horrified at that suggestion. I am loath to attribute political motives to the Parliamentary Secretary, but it seems to me that is the only conceivable reason for the action of the Land Commission and the Ministry which advised it on this particular matter. Here is a man owning a fairly comfortably sized farm with a family of five. During the régime of the late Government, in order to provide, as a man is entitled to provide, for some of his children, he purchased this extra farm in the open market for a sum of £3,030. The Ministry, through the Land Commission, aequired that farm, and the net sum Mr. O'Carroll is to be paid for the farm amounts only to £718.
The Parliamentary Secretary will, perhaps, make an attempt to justify the action taken in this matter, but I hope that he will give some other reason than. If there is any district in which you might say there is least congestion in Ireland, it is East Limerick. I do not say there are not poor people in East Limerick or that there are not people who want land in East Limerick, but nobody could describe East Limerick as one of the congested districts of this country. Above all, if there was congestion in East Limerick, nobody could say that seizing 38 acres is going to make any inroads on that congestion. If that is the only reason the Parliamentary Secretary can give, then I am justified in assuming that there were politics behind this action. We were time and again assured during the passage of the Land Bill through the House that there would be little interference with the ordinary farmer, and the Government even gave an undertaking during these debates that they would not take land from any man who held it for the purpose of providing for his sons. When we raised the question, as several of us did, that the farmer's title to his land was endangered by the Bill, we were met by repeated assertions of many Ministers that there was no danger. I could quote numerous statements of that kind, but perhaps one will suffice. The Minister in charge of the Bill, the Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken), is reported in Volume 49, col. 1370-71, as saying:—
"I endeavoured to put in black and white the policy of the Government and the policy which the Land Commission would carry out under the direction of the Government. Fianna Fáil and the Government are as anxious as Deputies in any part of the House could be to relieve the minds of people who might be disturbed by talk of disturbance. We have in Section 36 a declaration of policy that will hold good permanently. We set out that so long as a man is providing adequate employment—taking the situation of the whole country into consideration—or is producing á sufficient amount of food supplies—again taking the situation in the country into consideration—that man shall not be disturbed in the use of his land."
If there was any value to be set on the Minister's assurances, then we had it defined here that a man who worked his land properly, who grew a sufficient amount of food on his land, and who gave an adequate amount of employment on his land, no matter whether the farm was big or small, was to be secured in possession. We have here the position that the Parliamentary Secretary does not deny that this man was using his land to the best advantage and was employing adequate labour. On this holding of 38 Irish acres, this man has a dairy farm. He has 20 cows, and, in addition, 12 or 13 dry stock. He had sufficient tillage on the land to provide for the cattle. If he is not farming well, under the conditions which obtain in County Limerick, then no other farmer there is farming well. The Minister cannot justify the action of the Land Commission on the ground that he is not farming well or that he is not giving adequate employment. This is the real answer as to the security of title of any man on his own land, be he a large farmer or a small farmer in this country.
The second point that arises on this matter is the value of the land acquired from a man. I said that there was little title to the land, but what is the value of whatever little possessive right a man has to-day. We were assured time and again during the discussions on the Land Bill that people would get an adequate price for their land. We attempted at several periods during the discussion to drag out of the Minister what that adequate compensation would be. I could quote again several instances, but a couple will suffice. According to column 1340 volume 49, Deputy Haslett asked:
"Will the standard price be the price that the Land Commission can give so that the allottees will be able to pay or will it be the average price of land in the district purchased in the open market?"
The Minister for Defence, Mr. Aiken, who was in charge of the Bill, replied:
"As the Deputy seems anxious, I might mention that land taken under this section (28) will be taken over at market value."
Again, according to column 141, volume 49, Mr. Finlay asked:
"What price will the Commissioners pay for land they take over?"
Dr. Ryan, the Minister for Agriculture, in reply, said:
"The market value."
Was not that a clear and implied promise by two Ministers to this House that if land was taken, that if they broke the farmer's title to his land and took his land that they would compensate him fully for it and give him the fair market value of it. Here we have the case of this unfortunate man going into the open market and investing practically his life's savings—perhaps more than his life's savings—of £3,030 for this farm of land, and then the Government direct the Land Commission to acquire the land and pay him the niggardly sum of £718 for it.
