Vol. 114 No. 1
I shall only keep the House a few minutes. When this debate was before the House on the 1st December last, I set out my views. I think it was a great mistake that Deputy Cogan introduced this Bill. I agree entirely with the principle that a man who has not merely the occupancy but also the title to his land a man who has vested land——
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
This Bill contains one sound principle; that a man who has, as I said, not merely the occupancy but also the title to the ownership of vested land should be paid a just and a fair price. It is not the first time that that has been brought up in this House or in the other House. It was brought up many times before and it was very unfortunate that when that absolutely just claim was being brought forward that it should have been modelled by Deputy Cogan on another principle over which it is impossible to stand. Deputy Cogan is trying to drag a red herring round Section 2 of this Bill. He is trying to pretend to the people of Wicklow and anyone else who reads about it, that what he is asking for is fixity of tenure. That is not the case. This Bill does not provide that. This Bill would not provide it if it were passed. This Bill, because Deputy Cogan has introduced Section 2 into it, has lost a chance which the farmers might have of getting a fair price if the net issue had been kept before the House in the proper way.
I do not know what the Deputy's idea was in mixing up two parts but he has done a very great disservice to the farmers of the country in dealing with the matter in the way he has. In effect, the result of his section, if passed, would be that the Land Commission could not under any circumstances operate at all. I want to make it perfectly clear that while I am entirely and absolutely in favour of the principle that where, to remedy a social injustice, it is necessary to acquire the land of any farmer, that man should be paid the full and just price. The only way to pay him a full and just price is to pay him the market value just as the market value has been paid since 1931 for resumed holdings. Equally we must remember there is a certain monopoly in land. There is not as much land in the country as everybody would like, and where people do not make proper use of the land, particularly in regard to the giving of employment, there must be a loophole left by virtue of which the Land Commission can step in. So far as I can appreciate the effect of this Bill—no doubt the Minister will give us his view later—it would be effectively to prevent the Land Commission from stepping in to acquire any land anywhere at all in future. I am not prepared to vote for it under such circumstances but I am prepared at all times to vote for the principle that a man should get a fair and just price for his land. I hope the Minister will in the not too distant future be in a position to introduce to this House a Bill that will give the landowner that fair price, and that in giving a man with vested land a fair price he will base it on the same system on which resumption prices are fixed and have been fixed by virtue of the Acts of 1923 and 1931.
I do not intend to say very much on this Bill. Coming from an area in which such a high value is set on land, and believing that if this Bill were passed through the House, as presented, its effect would be to stop the Land Commission completely from working as it has worked for many years, I feel it my duty to utter a word of protest against the Bill and to inform the House and everybody concerned that I shall vote against it. On the other hand, I can assure Deputy Cogan that I do not lay too much blame on him for bringing this Bill before the House. Perhaps if he were a representative of a western area, as the Minister and I happen to be, his opinions might be moulded along the same lines as mine have been in an effort to get better concessions for the majority of his constituents. It would seem from the terms of this Bill that Deputy Cogan represents an area the residents of which are almost entirely large farmers who do not wish to part with a single acre of their land for the relief of congestion or any other worthy purpose. In his efforts to safeguard their interests, he is endeavouring to cut clean across the policy that has been operated by native Governments for the last 25 years and by an alien Government for 20 years prior to that in their desire to acquire land, to relieve congestion and to resettle as large a number of families as possible on the land.
There are two sections in this Bill which is unlike many other Bills that have been presented here dealing with the Land Commission in previous years. The first of these sections absolutely restricts the power of the Land Commission. Any sensible person would realise that with land at its present value nobody is going voluntarily to allow a Government Department or anybody else to take away any portion of his land. Under this Bill if a man owned even 10,000 acres unless the consent of the owner is given to its sale the Land Commission officials could remain in the same place as the officials of the Minister for Agriculture have now to remain—outside the fence. There would be no power of compulsion of any kind for the acquisition of land. That is a state of affairs that would be intolerable and it is very wrong to ask the Land Commission to stand stock-still in the cleaning up of the rural slums and in the remedying of social injustices, simply because it might not suit one section or other of the people. I can assure the House that I have very little confidence in the manner in which the Land Commission has been operated for 20 or 25 years past. Its progress is slow enough as it is, but it would become absolutely stagnant and useless if its powers were further restricted. If these powers were to be further curtailed, the effect would be to leave the congested farmers and the small landholders for all time in the state of poverty in which they have been sunk down the years and in that event it woud be much better to spend the money which is now allocated to the Land Commission on something else.
So far as Section 3 is concerned I am not in full agreement with it, but I am not as opposed to that section as I am to the previous one. There is no doubt whatever that the price paid by the Land Commission for quite a considerable time in the acquisition of land is not by any means satisfactory. It does not represent by any means the real value of the land, but if the Land Commission is to pay the real market value of the land it has to take into consideration the question of where the money is to come from. If the tenant who is to be resettled on that land is asked to pay out of his own pocket over a period of years the amount that would be necessary to give the full market value, then that tenant farmer would be much better off by not accepting that land at all. He could never be expected to pay by means of rent or annuities the full market value of such land. On the other hand, if the Government had to provide the money to purchase such land it amounts practically to the same thing. Money does not rise from a spring well in this country. It has to be provided by the taxpayers, and there again the purchase of such land would impose a very heavy burden on the taxpayers who are, after all, the ordinary people of this country. I think if the Land Commission set about the task, it would be possible to evolve some system of a sliding scale whereby up to a certain scale an increased price would be given for land so acquired. Let us assume that where land was taken over, for the first £20 valuation the price to be paid, if not the full market value, would be as close as possible to it, and then for every amount in excess of £20 valuation, the sliding scale would operate with a downward tendency.
I think that the Land Commission should be able to give a little more than they are giving at present and, if necessary, extend the period of repayment for the tenant who would get the land so that his son or his grandson might participate in the repayment of the annuities on that land. That is the only suggestion I have to make in that regard but, again, I would not be as opposed to Section 3 as I am to Section 2. Of course, if this Bill were passed it would mean the repeal of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Land Act of 1923, which reads:
"As regards untenanted land the price shall, in default of agreement, be such an amount as may be fixed by the Land Commission (other than the Judicial Commissioner), or by the Judicial Commissioner on appeal from the Land Commission, and in fixing such a sum regard shall be had to the fair value of the land to the Land Commission and the owner respectively."
The price of land definitely has increased since that Act was passed in 1923 and, if the Land Commission did increase the price paid, then there could be better negotiation and better agreement between the person from whom the land was being taken and the Land Commission. I say this merely as a sort of pointer to what my ideas would be in order to get a speedier solution of the land question. We have to pay for the land that we take as reasonably as we can, confiscate it, or pay a price so low as will be regarded as almost confiscation by the man from whom we take it. If the Minister would get his officials together and try to arrive at some system, it should not be impossible to clear up this whole problem. It would bring a great deal of case and peace to Deputy Cogan and myself and other Deputies who are anxious with regard to the land question.
However, I could not at any time or in any way support this Bill as it stands because it sets out:—
"No holding shall be acquired or resumed by the Land Commission without the consent of the owner in any case where it is used as an ordinary farm in accordance with proper methods of husbandry."
Even, as it is, the Land Commission are very slow to move in on any man who is using his farm in accordance with proper methods of husbandry. But "proper methods of husbandary" may mean anything. A man who has a stud farm may be regarded as using his land in accordance with proper methods of husbandry. "Proper methods of husbandry" as defined here might mean having a couple of hundred cattle grazing on the land which would be well attended to and looked after by the farmer. It might mean having five or six hundred sheep on the land. Proper methods of husbandry to the Irish farmer should mean mixed farming where there is a certain amount of tillage and a certain number of grazing stock. That is the only system I understand and that is the system I should like the Minister to understand as a proper method of husbandry, because unless that is regarded as a proper method of husbandry we shall have bullocks on the land instead of people.
I do not intend to go into any details as to the rights and wrongs of the Land Commission. There have been enough Land Bills passed in the last 25 years to resettle the land of the world, not alone the land of Ireland. Instead of making the job anything easier, each Land Bill which is brought in seems to make it harder. If you try to study them you find that a Bill brought in, say, in 1933 or 1934 took away the powers that were given in a Bill passed in 1923 or 1924. These things were not in any way helping the Land Commission. I am opposed to this Bill because, if it were passed, it would mean an absolute stand-still in regard to the powers of the Land Commission. There is no man in Ireland so foolish, with the value of land as it is, with the prospects and outlook for farming securer than they have been for many years, as to consent to allow his land to be taken away from him. On the other hand, compulsory powers must be retained. Taking all these things into consideration, I feel that I must be totally opposed to this Bill. I can assure the Minister, who comes from the same constituency as I do, that if he is in agreement with this Bill he will have quite a lot to account for when he comes to see the people of South Mayo.
I think I should first protest against the cavalier treatment accorded to Private Deputies' Bills. In dealing with a Bill produced by a Government you know when the First Reading will be taken; when the Second Reading will be taken; and when the final debate will take place on it. You can make some preparation for discussing the matter and your memory will be clear as to what was stated in favour of the Bill or against it. In this particular case, it is so long since Deputy Cogan made his opening speech—a very long and boring one too —that I quite forget what exactly were the points he was driving at. This Bill has been buried very deep amongst various motions that are not by any means as important as this Bill is or could be. I should like to urge the Minister to put before the Government the idea that more fair and reasonable treatment ought to be given to Bills introduced by Private Deputies on subjects as important as this is.
I agree with what I heard from Deputy Sweetman in relation to the Bill. He said that important points were embodied in the Bill but that added on to them were certain features that nullified the apparent purpose of the Bill. But Deputy Sweetman, when he was a Senator, also introduced a Bill into the Seanad of this nation. Neighbour of mine as he is, he did try to keep his Bill clear of any extraneous matters and I think that his friends and supporters at the time when the Bill was debated were much to be blamed for making the Bill obnoxious to anybody more concerned with land division than Deputy Sweetman himself. Again we had another attempt to introduce the same idea in a Bill produced by Senator Counihan in the Seanad. The debate on that and Senator Counihan's attitude was such as to damn the idea for all time— with me anyway.
The second section is drafted apparently for the purpose of ensuring fixity of tenure. Deputy Commons would say that we have too much fixity of tenure. The Land Commission, wide as their powers are, are surrounded by limiting regulations which prevent them from doing things they might do according to Deputy Commons. There is no need for anybody in this country to worry about fixity of tenure. We have fixity of tenure and all the arguments that have been made in proof of the idea that there is not real fixity of tenure are null and void. I have— we all have I suppose—talked loosely now and again even on subjects of importance. Many people preach the idea that the State has an overriding right to land which transcends the ownership of the farmer. I do not agree in any sense with that point of view. I think that the farmer who has been placed on his land by Government action through the Land Commission is entirely the owner and the State has no right or claim in any sense to the land that farmer owns. I think we must be clear about that point before we start anywhere else. To suggest that the Land Commission should be cribbed, cabined and confined in a section such as Deputy Cogan has in this Bill would not merely altogether prevent any activity by the Land Commission but any activity by any Department of State and I am entirely against that particular idea.
Deputy Commons talked about a sliding scale. As far as I can gather, he would pay the market value or a little more to the small farmer but if the farmer proved to have many more acres the more and the wider the acres he had and the better land he had the more the sliding scale would be a slippery slide for him. I do not think we could stand for that; every man should get the same fair deal.
I do agree that an adequate price has not been paid for land in many cases, yet the Land Commission price has never been so far off the market value as some of our orators in the House pretend it has. With regard to this tremendous fixity of tenure we know that the man who has incurred a tremendously heavy mortgage on his land expects when the Land Commission has to acquire that particular land that the annuities are going to be forgiven him and the mortgage ignored. That is not correct and that is one of the reasons for the argument that the Land Commission has not paid adequate prices.
I approve, of course, of Deputy Commons' view that legislation by reference is a bad thing, but I do think that the Land Commission is a rather temporary Department even as the Minister is a temporary Minister and it would be hardly worth while now-adays to start a codification of the whole land code and I do not think we should make it more difficult or intricate by adding this particular Land Bill of Deputy Cogan's to it. I would support the Minister if he brought in a Bill without any complications such as Deputy Cogan, Deputy Sweetman and Senator Counihan have added to their Bills, to ensure that the Land Commission pays the fullest price to the owner of land, the absolute market value. I will support that Bill but I cannot support this.
My remarks on this Bill will be very brief, and I would not speak at all on the subject did I not come from a part of the country which is congested and in which this question of land acquisition and division is a very burning one. I do not know to what class of farmers Deputy Cogan belongs, but I do not think he has any real idea of the necessity of placing people on the land. It is all very fine to talk about giving the full market value for land and all the rest, but I wonder what price a lot of the big landowners in this country paid for their land. It is no use pretending that this question has just begun now; this question of land tenure goes back for a long time. It is no use our shutting our eyes to the fact that tenants were driven out in their hundreds and thousands, and that the people who took over their lands paid practically nothing for them, if they paid anything at all. I think that is a background which you cannot ignore.
I think this Land Bill of Deputy Cogan's is absolutely unnecessary. It betrays a frame of mind, I think, which is very, very conservative indeed, and I cannot conceive that any Minister for Lands, either Deputy Blowick or anybody else, could possibly adopt it, and if we have a Government who could accept the principle laid down here I do not think they deserve to represent our people. I hope that the Minister will promptly turn this Bill down.
I have consulted some people since I heard of this Bill—of course it looks very simple. I consulted people who know a great deal about land division and who are absolutely impartial, some of whom have been entrusted with the acquisition and division of land for many years. I put it to them as a quite impersonal question, and all the opinions I got were decidedly against Deputy Cogan.
In Section 2 the proposed legislation is unnecessary because the existing Land Acts and the Land Commission's operation of them ensure that no average man who keeps his eyes on his farm and works properly can be deprived of it. From all the information I can glean, a single case could not be cited from any part of the country where a person has been so deprived of his land. If a man has resided on the land and worked reasonably he has not been deprived of that land, and I would like to know of any example of such a thing happening. If that is true, as I believe it is, where is the necessity for the clause about fixity of tenure? I maintain that there is sufficient fixity of tenure and quite agree with Deputy Commons that we have been altogether on the careful side on this matter.
It is all very fine to talk about fixity of tenure, but we have in every county in Ireland men with 200, 300, 400 and in some cases, 1,000 or 2,000 acres of land. In normal times they just employ a herd and a few dogs. They support nobody. Some people seem to think that that sort of thing ought to be allowed to go on indefinitely, and that it is no concern of the nation. I say that it is of very deep concern to the nation, and that the sooner any Government that is in office realises that it has a duty to the country in that matter, the better it will be. There is then this question of the proper use of land. Who is to decide that? One Minister for Agriculture will insist that a certain proportion of land must be tilled. But what about your present Minister for Agriculture who has repeatedly stated that the best crop to grow on land is grass? Can that be adopted as a national policy—that hundreds and perhaps thousands of acres of land are to be occupied by one man maybe, and used merely for grass, and in many cases supporting nobody? In some cases there may be one family living on the land. In other cases, there may be no family on it at all except perhaps an old bachelor. Is that position to continue while that land could be utilised to provide a living for 20, 30 or perhaps 40 families? Is such a situation as that of no concern to the State? I say that it is, and I am sure that no Minister for Lands can ignore that aspect of the case.
I am certain that there is no necessity for Section 2 of the Bill. I have not been shutting my eyes to this question of land acquisition. I know of many owners of land who do not live on it. Some even have lived in America. They have not been in the country may be for 15 or 20 years. They have nobody occupying the land except possibly a relative. Some of them have the land set and they have got off scotfree. I do not think there is any cause for complaint in the case of any occupier of land if he has been at all reasonable.
With regard to the question of price, there has been a good deal said about market value. I certainly will not be on the same side as Deputy Moylan if he carries out the promise that he has made. Whatever Government may be in office, I think that this question of market value is surely a very relative thing. Who is to decide what the market value is to be? Is the Land Commission going to enter into competition with other would-be purchasers or with what are called at auctions "puffers"? If there is to be this question of getting the market value for land at auctions, then what is going to happen is this—you will have a number of people—"puffers"— putting up the price on behalf of the occupier. Surely the Land Commission is not going to enter into competition with them.
Will the Deputy say when have Government Departments purchased anything at a public sale?
I am not dealing with Government Departments, but with the Land Commission at the moment. I am certain the Land Commission does not do that. I can assure the Minister that if the Land Commission were to do it, it is not the market value it would have to pay but a far higher value, because the occupiers would be cute enough to have a number of people there to shove up the price. I cannot conceive that the Land Commission would be mad enough to do anything like that. In any case, I think that there is a fair method of procedure at the present time. In my experience the Land Commission has been offering a good price —perhaps not an inflated price—for land.
For which class of land—vested or unvested?
It does not matter.
But that is the whole point.
It is not.
They are two different methods.
My point is that the Land Commission takes all these things into consideration. Maybe the Deputy thinks differently. I do not know.
There are two different methods. Which one does the Deputy like?
I was taking vested and unvested land together, and that the Land Commission offers a fair price for it. If it does not, there is the appeal court to go to. The Deputy is a solicitor and he knows that. I know that, in some cases that have been brought to my notice, where there was an appeal to the court, prices were increased by a very big percentage indeed. Looking at this question from the broad point of view, I think there has been a reasonable price paid for land, especially in recent years. It may be that in times past the prices paid were not so good. The prices paid on the market in those times were not so good either. I think that will be agreed.
With regard to Section 3, I think the Land Commission could not comply with its terms because it would be absolutely impossible to define market value. In the case of an ordinary farm an auctioneer or a valuer might value it at a figure that would, perhaps, be £1,000 more than the value put upon it by the Land Commission or anybody else. The matter would then resolve itself into a competition in raising prices and you cannot have that. I think that the method of procedure that is there at present is as fair as anything that could be devised. I do not know what the attitude of the Minister is going to be on this Bill. I come from the same part of the country as he does, and possibly I belong to very much the same type of people and represent the same type of people in this House. My advice to him is to have nothing to do with this Bill.
I would not altogether agree with Deputy Cogan's Bill. What I am concerned about is to have some statement from the Minister as regards the price the Land Commission is paying for land. I have heard a number of Deputies suggest that the Land Commission should buy up every farm that is put up for sale. I think that if the Land Commission were to act on that advice, they would destroy the value of land in this country. If it were known that the Land Commission were going to do that, an agitation would be got up by local people whenever a farm was put up for sale. In consequence of that, the value of land would go down. It would also have this effect, that if a farmer wanted to get accomodation from a bank on the security of his holding, no bank would advance him anything. Nobody would bid for a farm if there was a local agitation got up in connection with the sale.
Deputy O'Rourke seemed to think that the Land Commission have been paying a good price for land. If he knew some of the sad stories that I have heard, I do not think he would say that. I can quote the case of two decent, respectable farmers. One of them had four or five sons. He bought a farm for one of them. He had not all the money to pay for it and had to go to the bank. These people set part of the land and, by working hard, paid back what they could to the bank. The times then changed. They could not set the land or make enough to pay the interest due to the bank. The farm was then taken up and divided by the Land Commission in 1938. It had been purchased originally for £2,000 or £3,000. When the Land Commission took it over, the price they paid for it left the position this way: that the widow of the purchaser found that she had to face a debt of £3,000. That was how she found herself, while her sister's husband, who went security when the farm was purchased, was proceeded against by the bank. That purchase broke the two families, and that is their position to-day. Will the Minister tell me why is more paid for a farm that is not vested than for a vested holding? In the case of a vested holding, the occupier may have been paying annuities on it for 40 or 50 years to the Land Commission. The two farms may be of equal value and may be side by side. A rotten, bad price is paid for the vested holding, while the owner of the unvested holding—for the same quality of land—gets three or four times more than the owner of the vested holding. That illustrates one aspect of the injustice done by the Land Commission in taking land. The unvested land makes more than the vested land.
These lands are equal in value and size, yet a man gets nearly ten times as much for the unvested farm as he gets for the vested farm which he has paid annuities on over the years. I say that is a great injustice to the farmers. People are not so much afraid of land division, but they are afraid of that clause. When the Land Commission take a holding, the price might look a big one, £2,000 or £3,000, but you must remember you have to pay the annuities. The man who is not vested at all gets away with all that, and that is a great injustice. I would like the Minister to make some statement that will clear up the uneasiness that is there. When a farm comes up for sale there are people who say that the Land Commission will buy it. If the impression gets abroad that the Land Commission will purchase it and if I want to get a few hundred pounds from the bank I will not get it. If it is known that the Land Commission will buy a farm that is up for sale, that immediately lowers the value of the land. People may be in very poor circumstances and their land has to be sold. If it is known that the Land Commission may come in, there is no other buyer for it. I do not agree with all parts of Deputy Cogan's Bill, and I would like the Minister to make a statement in order to clear up the uneasiness that exists with regard to the value of land, vested and unvested.
Deputy Fagan has put his finger on the root of this trouble. Why is it that no bank will advance money in connection with land if there is an impression that the Land Commission may step in when a person offers a holding for sale? There can be only one reason and that is that the Land Commission are not paying the value of the land. That is the only reason that can be given if there is any truth in Deputy Fagan's statement. The Land Commission are not paying the value of the land and, therefore, the bank will advance nothing on it.
How is the value to be determined?
I have any amount of sympathy with that portion of Deputy Cogan's Bill. The land in many instances has been bought and in other cases it has been inherited. It has been paid for. If any Government said: "We are going to take over the firm of Arthur Guinness and we will pay them only half the value of it," what an uproar there would be? If the Government said they were about to take over Clery's or the private property of any man and that they would pay only half its value, what an outcry there would be? I have seen instances of this and I suggest that Deputy O'Rourke's statement is largely correct. I have observed the value put on land by the Land Commission and the value put on it by the appeal judge, and the judge's value was in some cases nearly double what the Land Commission put on it.
There are valuers in the Land Commission paid big salaries. They are either good valuers or they are not. If there is a gap such as I saw of £800 or £900 in a holding of 150 acres, who is wrong? Is it the Land Commission valuer who valued it at so much, or the valuer who came down on the appeal or the Land Commission judge who allowed that appeal and gave £800 more? To whom is public money being paid who does not know his job? The Land Commission valuer values a farm. The farmer from whom the holding is being forcibly taken goes to the appeal court. The farm is valued a second time and the valuation is £700 or £800 more. Which of the two valuers should be sacked?
Both of them.
I was rather amazed at the statement by Deputy Commons. I did not think we would find in this country a farmer's representative who would stand up and make an excuse for paying a farmer less than the value of his holding because the State would have to pay more. If the State, for the benefit of the community, considers it right that a farm should be taken over, then the State should be prepared to pay the owner the value of his holding.
The statement made by Deputy Fagan as regards vested and unvested land is correct. I have seen that worked out over a number of years. They take the value of the land first, then they take over the value of the annuity, the balance of the capital that the land was purchased with. When that is taken out of it, in some cases there is practically nothing left.
There is a lot to be said for Deputy Cogan's Bill. Where the Land Commission, for the general good of the community, decide that a holding must be taken over, then it should be taken over at the proper value of the land and not, as Deputy Commons put it, taken over at portion of its value.
Deputy Commons did not use that expression.
The argument of Deputy Commons was that the full value of the land should not be paid as the tenant would have to pay it or the burden would fall on the State. I say the burden should fall on the State.
How is it the Deputy has not backed up my argument for the past 16 or 17 years when the Land Commission were not paying the full value of the land?
I did.
I did not hear him.
The Deputy must have a bad memory. That is definitely a case that the Minister should take in hands and rectify. The bulk of the holdings that will be taken over for the division of land are holdings in the possession of ordinary farmers.
Would the Deputy tell us how he would determine the value of land?
The open market is the only way in which to value a farm.
By open competition?
By open competition. If the Land Commission wants land then let the Land Commission go out and buy it in competition with every other purchaser and let the Land Commission take its chance in the open market.
Why should they not at market price?
At market price. I cannot agree, though I am sorely tempted, with the other portion of Deputy Cogan's speech. Who is to decide when a farmer should be put out of his holding? Who is to decide as to what is good and bad husbandry? There is a certain kind of farming that can be done in the back yard. In the back yard a man can keep 30 or 40 old pigs and a few hens. That farming can be done without any land at all.
And without free lime.
If Deputy Collins will take up the question of lime with the Minister for Agriculture we shall have a right lively debate.
The Deputy should keep to the Bill.
I cannot help the interruptions. The danger that I see is in relation to the decision as to what is good or bad husbandry. One of the Deputies on the Government side of the House said that the decision should be taken on the basis of the amount of employment given. To my mind that is a good way in which to take such a decision. But if by any chance there was a Minister who was prepared to take the "tune of the bullock" as good husbandry a lot of farmers might be thrown out as being guilty of bad husbandry. That is a danger. Recently that has become a somewhat live danger. In spite of that, I regret that I cannot agree with the second portion of this Bill. I certainly am in favour of the principle that the full market value should be paid for land. If the Government decides to take over land for the benefit of the community generally, then they should pay for that land on the basis of market value and on that basis only. I do not wish to delay the House on this measure, but I do not think it would be right for me to record a silent vote for it.
On a point of order, I want to know when we shall hear from the Government on this Bill. It is unusual to have a Bill of this kind before the House for such a length of time without some announcement of Government policy in relation to it. When shall we hear what Government policy is? When shall we be told what the Government's attitude is?
The Bill was introduced by two Deputies. It is a Private Deputy's Bill.
I know that.
I would like to hear the Deputies on the Bill.
But this is an important measure since its effects might be very far reaching.
Is the Deputy afraid he might put his feet in it?
Just a moment. I am sure the Government has made up its mind on this measure. It is important that the House should know what the Government's attitude is in order that we may properly debate the Bill. Will there be silence on the Government Benches on the matter?
You will hear from the Government's Benches in due course.
At what time will this debate conclude.
There is no time limit on it.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Cogan in his introduction of this Bill. I have known Deputy Cogan for a number of years. I know that he is sincere in the views he expresses both inside and outside the House. I know that the motives which prompted him in the introduction of this Bill are genuine motives.
Deputy Allen is very anxious to hear what Government policy is on this Bill. The Bill is at one and the same time both good and bad. It is only fair that I should make it clear at the outset that I do not agree with the method that has obtained in the past whereby the Land Commission was compelled by statute to fix the price of vested land. Long before this Bill was introduced I had put proposals before the Government and received the consent of the Government to alter the method obtaining and to bring it into line with the method adopted in the case of unvested land. To some extent Deputy Cogan stole my thunder because, in reply to a question during the course of my closing speech on the Vote for the Department of Lands last summer, I indicated that I was not exactly enamoured of the present method under the 1923 Act whereby the price paid for vested land was fixed by statute as a price which "is fair to the Land Commission and fair to the owner". At the present time a Bill is in course of preparation dealing with that particular matter. I hope to introduce that Bill before the Estimates come on. One of the features of that Bill is that vested land will be paid for in the same way as unvested land is paid for at the present time. I do not know whether Deputy Cogan knows that; I do not know whether Deputies in the House do or not. Section 2 of Deputy Cogan's Bill runs as follows:—
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Land Purchase Acts no holding shall be acquired or resumed by the Land Commission without the consent of the owner in any case where it is used as an ordinary farm in accordance with proper methods of husbandry."
That takes us right back to the reasons why the Land Commission was established at all. The Land Commission, the State Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board were established by an alien Government in this country years ago to come to the rescue of the farmers of this country in general. The principal purpose of the establishment of these three bodies was to make the farmers of this country the owners of their land. The second and no less important reason was to eradicate completely, if possible, the question of congestion. The Land Commission have practically finished with the vesting of the land of this country. That part of the work is practically complete. I think I made quite clear the position both of this Government and of the Land Commission in general on the question of fixity of tenure. We hear speeches in the House sometimes and I often imagine that strangers in the gallery must think that the Land Commission is a kind of lion seeking to grab fixity of tenure away from the farmers at every possible opportunity they get. Such is not the case. I think I made it clear on one occasion that they are doing no such thing. As I said last June, in reply to the debate, suppose the Land Commission take the responsibility, suppose the present Government decides to give into the possession of the Land Commission the ownership of all the land in this country. Where does it get us? Is it not taking on a huge responsibility. I might say that, with the exception of about 40,000 holdings that remain to be vested, all the land in this country has been handed back to those to whom it should belong. We are vesting holdings at the rate of about 10,000 to 11,000 per year and that will continue until the last of the holdings are vested.
If we are to accept Section 2 of Deputy Cogan's Bill, I think it would be much easier to accomplish the purpose of that Section by deleting it as it stands and substituting the words: "The Land Commission shall be hereby abolished." because that is what it means. We could spare a whole lot of print in that section by doing that. At the moment the prinpal activity of the Land Commission is to relieve congestion. I am speaking to the Deputies who know what congestion is. I am not speaking to the Deputies with scurrilous tongues who choose to refer to the small farmers and the poverty-stricken farmers as "hen-roosters." I suppose more contemptible terms would be used if it were possible. I did not think the time has come when elected representatives to this House should abuse and look down on the small farmers who are just as good Irishmen and women as we are and certainly a lot better than the public men who refer to them here on certain occasions as "hen-roosters."
I stated in this House that people who are called farmers, whom the Land Commission call uneconomic holders—people with holdings of four and five acres—could not be called farmers. I did not use that expression as in any way contemptuous towards them. I should like to correct that here and now.
You cannot correct it.
If you care to take it in that manner I have that much contempt for both the Minister and the Deputy—
Deputy Corry has made his explanation and that finished it.
He has made an explanation and the Chair accepts it and the House accepts it. I do not. However, that is a matter between Deputy Corry and me and anybody who chooses to take up the cudgels.
Deputy Corry has made an explanation and it must be accepted.
It is a pity he cannot take the words out of the Dáil Debate. I have not the slightest doubt when he has made his explanation—
When the Deputy explains what he meant that explanation must be taken. Otherwise the debate would be futile.
Did the Minister not say that the small farmer was as good as we are? Is that not a word of condescension?
Deputy Corry's explanation has been made and that is the end of the matter.
This Bill stands in the middle of the road and puts a pistol at the head of the Land Commission. Section 2 says: you shall not go any further. I want to point out to Deputy Cogan the magnitude of the task in front of the Land Commission at the present time. There are at least 40,000 holdings in this country in the congested areas that need rearrangement. There is one estate not far from my constituency which is yet under the same conditions as when the landlord handed over in 1923 under the 1923 Act. There were 617 tenants on that estate and the average poor law valuation amongst them would be about 23/-. The housing conditions on that estate are fearful; they have to be seen to be believed. I could quote the case of another estate which I visited during the autumn. I saw in my own native county a sight I should be ashamed to reveal in this House or to make public. I saw families living in what was an outhouse a hundred years ago. In one room about 10 feet by 12 you had the father and mother, a married daughter, the young son-in-law and six children. There was a manure heap outside the door and four of the children were black and grimy from playing there when they had no other place in which to play. I shall not refer to it as a "hen-roost". The haggard of that little holding was smaller than the open space on the floor of this House. These are Irishmen. They are not responsible for the "To hell or Connaught" policy which left them in that position which they are in to-day. Is it proposed to let Section 2 stand and that we here in this House—comfortable, snug and warm—should leave these people in the position they are in. Remember there are 40,000 of these families.
Section 2 has no such effect.
It has. Let me develop it. Before we can come to the rescue of these people it is necessary to acquire at least 150,000 acres of land. I state here in this House that neither the Land Commission nor I like to take land from anyone if we can help it. The Land Commission seeks out the cases where it imposes least hardship on the owner. We take holdings where we know it will cause the least possible hardship. The price of vested land paid in the past was not in my opinion adequate. The Deputy is, I suppose, aware that that has been the case for 25 years now. Deputy Corry asked what is the cause and why is it there. I do not believe that the Deputy raised his voice on that subject once in the 16 years that his own Party was in power and while a member of his own Party was Minister for Lands. He could have set that right perhaps if he had done so during that time. I treat himself and Deputy O'Rourke——
On a point of order—
I am not giving way.
This is not a point of order.
I have no time for the protestations of Deputy Corry and Deputy O'Rourke at this late hour of the day. They stand up now and say that it is horrible that this should be the case, just as if they had not known about it for the past 16 years. I shall withdraw what I have said if Deputy Corry can show me anywhere in the Dáil Debates where he once raised his voice and protested during these 16 years about the method of payment for vested land.
If the Minister were looking after the interests of the farmers, he would have heard me often enough. Apparently he was not following his own tail at that time.
In case I am belying the Deputy, I shall withdraw my statement if the Deputy can point out to me anywhere in the Dáil Debates where he raised this question during that period of 16 years. I have never seen it and I can assure the Deputy that I spent some time in reading his speeches. The policy of the Government is to acquire land for the relief of congestion. This Government does not propose to turn its back calmly on the 40,000 people, most of whom have to be provided with public assistance in one shape or another. They have either to get outdoor assistance or the dole. They have not sufficient land to support themselves. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the compulsory powers of the Land Commission or of the Congested District Board were not first conferred by an Irish Government. Cumann na nGaedheal could not be accused of establishing that system. It was established by a foreign Government under pressure from this country. It was established by the British Government in the House of Commons. Compulsory powers for the acquisition of land were first given, in a small way, in the 1907 Act and were extended two years later in the 1909 Act. These powers were operated many years before a native Government was established here.
Many Deputies say that it is a shocking thing that a man has not security of tenure but we have no desire to interfere with the vast majority of our farmers. Time and time again—it is futile to repeat it—it has been stated that any farmer who is residing on his farm and who works it in a proper manner will not be touched. In reply to a question some months ago I told Deputy Cogan that any farmer who works his land will not be disturbed in it. There is more derelict land in this country to be dealt with under the compulsory powers of acquisition than the Land Commission could attend to during the lifetime of this Government, the next Government or the next Government after that. Is that clear? Every single case is very carefully examined to ensure that no hardship or injustice will be done.
We frequently hear Deputies making jokes as to the slow progress of the Land Commission. That is solely due to a desire to see that no mistake will occur and that no person will be treated unjustly in the acquisition of his land. I know what it is to own land and I would consider it frightfully unjust if the Land Commission came along to acquire my land when I am working it properly. They examine every case very carefully and for that reason they are neither the tyrants not the vultures that some people represent them to be. If there is the slightest doubt about any case reported by their inspectors, they examine it thoroughly. I have known two Commissioners to travel to the West personally to investigate a report of one of their inspectors with which they were not quite satisfied.
There are three points of view in this House and outside it. One is that no land should be acquired at all, that we should leave everything as it is and vest all the holdings, that we should not improve rundale estates or come to the rescue of smallholders who can only exist with the assistance of the dole and allow them to export their sons and daughters. The emigrant ship then would be the only hope for them. Then you have the diametrically opposite view, in which it is hinted pretty openly that land should be taken ad lib. from everybody. I must say that these two sections are very small either in this House or outside it. The course which the Land Commission and the present Government are pursuing is naturally the middle course between these two extreme views, that is, to acquire land under the laws laid down by the Oireachtas for a very definite purpose, the relief of congestion. That is our policy. Deputy Allen wants to know what is the Government policy. That is the Government policy in a nutshell. We have not the slightest intention of altering that policy. We must first attend to the needs of our smallholders who are trying to eke out an existence on economic holdings. That was the policy even before this State was established and the policy since this State was established, and we do not propose to change it. We propose to speed up the work of ending congestion if we possibly can. It is a pretty big job. It means the acquisition and resumption of, roughly, 150,000 acres. The question of breaking up the big farms to settle the largest number of landholders on them is one that can be taken after that.
The relief of congestion, amongst 40,000 small uneconomic holders who are living under frightful conditions— conditions that must be seen to be believed—must be the first aim of the Government. Let there be no question of doubt about it. In my opinion the price paid for vested land up to now was totally inadequate. It is proposed to change it in the near future but when Deputies ask what is the cause of it—Deputies who have been in the House for long enough and who have done nothing up to the present to change it—I think their complaints sound very hollow and insincere. It should have been changed long ago and when I found the position as it was I immediately got to work and put the matter before the present Government and it is going to be changed.
Much talk has ranged about the question of what is the market value of a farm. The market value at present is paid for unvested land. How is that determined? The market value for vested land will be determined in the same way. I think that should settle the doubts which most Deputies have raised.
The other section of the Bill, Section 2, would completely prevent the Land Commission from acquiring or resuming further land. No landowner is going to give his consent to the acquisition of his land. It would be possible for a landowner to reside in America, Australia or anywhere at the four ends of the earth, and to use his land here at home in any way he likes. Again, who is to determine what is good husbandry? It would put a complete standstill to the operations of the Land Commission.
The purpose of the Land Commission, after it has made the farmers of this country the owners of their holdings and farms, is the relief of congestion —in other words, to carry on the very object for which the Congested Districts Board was set up. The Congested Districts Board mentality is still there. That work will go on. Therefore, I recommend to this House that this Bill be rejected. I think Deputy Cogan should be satisfied, now that I have given him an assurance in regard to the price question raised in Section 3 of his Bill. It may not be the very assurance he requires but, nevertheless, it is the very best we can do. We are not anxious to take land from people at a price which is less than the market value.
Deputy Corry accused Deputy Commons of making an excuse in regard to the taking of land from a farmer at less than its market value. Deputy Commons was trying to be helpful to the Land Commission and to me in putting forward a suggestion. He made it quite clear that the suggestion was his own and that his remarks were made from his own point of view in the hope that they would be helpful.
Deputy O'Rourke completely misquoted the Minister for Agriculture. He went out of his way to point out that the policy of the Minister for Agriculture is a policy of grass and more grass. Deputy O'Rourke must know quite well that the policy of the Minister for Agriculture is to give the land that is tillage-tired after the emergency, and that has stood up so well to the needs of the country, a rest. I think the Deputy would not have made the remarks he made if he were a farmer or if he knew the first thing about farming.
How did the land get on so well last year?
Because there was a change of Government.
And because of relief from inspectors.
I should like to set Deputy Cogan's mind at rest by reading to him some of the safeguards in some of the Acts as regards fixity of tenure. Section 29 of the 1933 Land Act provides that where tenant or proprietor of land declared by Land Commission to be required for relief of congestion resides on or near the land and uses it as an ordinary farmer would in accordance with proper methods of husbandry then if he does not own other land value £2,000 or over the Land Commission must be ready to give him an exchange of his entire holding. That is a pretty sweeping safeguard. It may not be easy to realise all that that means until one has an intimate talk with the Land Commissioners in the discharge of their ordinary duty.
Section 32 (2) of the 1933 Act provides that where tenant or proprietor would be entitled to an exchange under Section 29 his land may not be acquired compulsorily for any purpose other than the relief of congestion or for sportsfields, parks, etc. Is that not a fairly sweeping safeguard, Deputy Cogan?
Section 32 (3) of the same Act provides that land shall not be acquired compulsorily for any purpose other than the relief of congestion or for sportsfields, parks, or, if the Commissioners are satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is producing an adequate amount of food and providing an adequate amount of employment.
I should like to know in what way that can be improved on to safeguard fixity of tenure for a farmer.
Section 39 (6) of the 1939 Act confirms that Section 32 (3) of the 1933 Act applies to resumed holdings:
"It would, therefore, appear that, no matter where the proprietor or tenant lives, the Land Commission must not acquire or resume compulsorily, except for relief of congestion in the same locality, or for sportsfields, etc., any land which is producing adequate supplies of food and giving adequate employment but that it is only the owner or tenant who resides on or near the land who is entitled to an exchange."
These safeguards are there—cast iron safeguards for the farmer. Something like 21 Parliamentary Questions were addressed to me to-day on the subject of the acquisition of land. Many of the questions were put by Deputies from County Galway and other Western areas. Some Deputies get vexed because of the slowness of the Land Commission in acquiring and allotting land. It is the attitude of men such as Deputy Cogan and others which has forced the Land Commission to go slow and to take the greatest possible care to ensure that no injustice is being done in acquiring property. I would point out to Deputy Cogan that other Government Departments have powers of compulsory acquisition—the Department of Local Government; every county council and county surveyor; and the Department of Industry and Commerce, if they want to use it, for airfields and so forth.
I would ask Deputy Cogan, now that he has had an assurance on the question of price, to withdraw his Bill. I would ask him not to pursue it and not to ask this House to adopt a measure which would leave 40,000 uneconomic holders in the terrible plight in which most of them are at the present time. I would invite the Deputy to visit two or three estates in the West of Ireland —one in Donegal, one in Mayo and one in Galway—and see for himself the conditions. He would then understand the problems which face the Land Commission and I think he would be fully satisfied that a certain amount of land resumption must go on.
Take the case of the Minister for Health. When he took over office he was confronted with the terrific tuberculosis problem in this country. Well, I can assure the House that the problem which faced the Minister for Health is not half as serious and does not require half as much solving as some of the badly congested estates. To my knowledge there is one estate which will take at least £1,000,000 of the taxpayers' money in order to provide the 617 tenants living thereon with fairly decent holdings. Each holding would be but a standard holding with one dwelling house and out office and so forth. That, I think, should satisfy Deputy Cogan. Neither he nor Deputy Fagan nor any other Deputy need worry about the question of fixity of tenure. It is in safe hands in the hands of the present Government and in my own hands also. I come from those who fought for fixity of tenure in the past and I know exactly what it means. I come from a class who would be prepared to fight to preserve that fixity of tenure for the small farmer. But, in the case of landowners, we must, in certain cases, disturb that fixity of tenure—but that will happen in only the very smallest number of cases possible and it will be for the purpose of the relief of congestion. We must acquire land for that purpose, and I hope that a group of Deputies in this House will never propose to end compulsory acquisition or resumption of land until congestion is completely eradicated.
The Minister said that he would adjust prices in a new Bill to bring the price of unvested land and vested land into conformity. Will he indicate whether that would be retrospective or not?
Definitely not. I will not and I cannot take responsibility for what has happened in the past. It would be too big and too huge and it would be impossible to go into each individual case. That part of the Bill would take effect from the day it becomes law and there would be no retrospection—not even an hour. I can guarantee that.
When is this legislation to be introduced?
Before the Estimates.
The question of price, which Deputy Cogan has raised in his Bill, is only one question that has to be set right. I think, altogether, the Bill will embody about 18 or 20 different points. I cannot say when it will be introduced but it is in course of preparation and I have asked the Parliamentary Draftsmen to speed it up. As the Deputy, I am sure, is well aware, the preparation of land law is very troublesome and great care has to be taken to make the various sections foolproof. The measure will be introduced as soon as possible. "Before the Estimates" is a vague guess. I do not want the House to take it as certain.
Is the Minister sure that the Bill will get through the House?
I trust to the commonsense of the House.
There may be objectionable sections.
Well, we always have the Committee Stage on which amendments can be introduced.
There could be a Third Stage for this Bill too.
I should not imagine there would.
The Minister made some very interesting disclosures. The last one was when he told the House that fixity of tenure was in his hands and in the hands of the Government. I want him——
I did not say any such thing.
I challenge the records of the House.
I said that fixity of tenure was safe in my hands and in the hands of the Government.
It does not rest in your hands.
He did not say it did.
If the Deputy will allow me——
I am in possession now.
We are accused of trying to interfere with it.
I will not give way to the Minister.
You are a very good distortionist.
It is time for Deputy Collins to get out of swaddling clothes. I am surprised that the Minister would make such a statement that fixity of tenure rested in his hands or the hands of the Government.
He did not say that.
Do not misquote.
He cannot even hear, apparently.
I offered an explanation a moment ago. The Chair insisted a few minutes earlier that I should accept Deputy Corry's explanation. Deputy Allen says that I say that fixity of tenure rests in my hands and in the hands of the Government, referring to the fact that this Bill implies that fixity of tenure is not safe in my hands or in the hands of the Government.
They are equal to the one thing and the same. Fixity of tenure, the safety of it, or otherwise, does not rest in the hands of the Minister.
It does not rest in the Deputy's hands, anyway.
No, or in the hands of any member of this House.
It is safeguarded by the Minister.
It is a serious and dangerous statement to make, I suggest to the Minister.
The Minister has said that his statement was that fixity of tenure was safe in his hands and in the hands of the Government. That explanation of his statement must be accepted.
I am accepting it. I have no doubt about it in the world but I am suggesting to the Minister that its safety does not rest with the Minister. I want that made plain. After that, I will continue.
I think the Deputy is all wrong.
Not a bit wrong. The House is glad to hear from the Minister that his Party and the Parties opposite have now accepted the law inscribed in legislation by this House—the 1939 Land Act and all the Land Acts passed by this House.
And the 1923 Land Act and the 1927 Land Act.
And all the Land Acts that have been passed by this House since it was established. I am glad now that there is agreement on one matter on which there was not agreement up to now.
What about the price of land?
The legislation and the land laws enshrined in the Statute Book have now been accepted by the Fine Gael Party and by every section of this country. That is a great advantage.
We gave the lead in 1923.
It is a great advantage that there is this agreement. For years and years here there has been an agitation from the people who sat on this side of the House, when there was a different Government in power, that fixity of tenure had been destroyed by Fianna Fáil.
The price of land had been.
That has now been denied by the Minister for Lands. We want that to go on record and we want the people of the country to understand— the landholders of this country, large and small—that every section of the community, every representative of the public, has accepted as a principle that fixity of tenure was not destroyed by the Fianna Fáil Government at any time.
It was, unless the price was changed.
That is a consideration that need not worry Deputy Allen.
The angel, Deputy Sweetman.
You are not an angel, do not worry.
Deputy Collins should allow Deputy Allen to speak.
He is young, Sir.
I will grow.
He is like the babbling brook.
I do not want to know what he is like. I want to hear Deputy Allen's speech.
The Deputy is not able to babble, only to stutter.
We know he is an overgrown baby.
You would not be able to make a speech if I did not interrupt you.
The statement which has been made by the Minister assures the House and the country that the land law of this country needs no alteration. I question the Minister as to whether he needs to alter the law in order to pay an economic price for any type of land that the Land Commission may decide to acquire, or not. I question the Minister on that. It is in the hands of the Land Commission. They have full power and full right under the law that exists at the moment.
Why was not it done?
Nonsense.
He does not know what he is talking about.
They have full power.
To pay——?
To pay a fair price for any land they acquire.
Why did not you pay a fair price?
The Land Commissioners are bound by Act of this House to determine the price of land in a certain way.
And they have the right under that law to pay a fair price for any land they acquire.
They have not.
They have not. Their hands are tied.
Surely that statement can be controverted without all these interruptions.
It is too bad to have a responsible Deputy misleading the House, talking of what he does not understand.
The Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.
Deputy Allen.
If the Minister wants to get up and make a second or third speech he can do so.
He is going to correct the Deputy.
He can correct anything he wishes, but I still maintain that the Land Commission are absolutely independent in that respect within the law.
The Deputy is talking through his hat.
They have full right to pay a fair price for any land they acquire—absolutely. I am opposed to Deputy Cogan's Bill because I think it would be disastrous for this country if such a Bill were passed. I am glad to see that it is not getting support from any part of the House or any individual in the House and I am sure Deputy Cogan will do the wise thing before this debate is over and withdraw the Bill, because it does not make sense. There is no doubt that, as the Minister said, there is a great deal of congestion to be relieved. I am doubtful if there is land enough in the country to relieve all the congestion, to give every congested holder, every uneconomic holder, an economic holding. I would like to hear from the Minister whether it is his opinion that there is sufficient land to render all the uneconomic holdings economics, even if you divide up every holding of over 100 or 70 acres or whatever you like. It would be bad if such a section as Section 2 of Deputy Cogan's Bill were put into operation. It would be bad for the country, bad national policy, that no Dáil would ever subscribe to. I rose to challenge the Minister on that statement of his about fixity of tenure. We all know quite well that the fixity of tenure which farmers have is safe in the hands of any Government that will come in here. It is enshrined in legislation and cannot be altered except by an Act of Parliament.
The Bill we are now discussing would definitely prevent the land being acquired which it is necessary to acquire for the relief of congestion. The Minister when he was in opposition was keen on the acquisition and division of land. He made some wild and foolish statements in his time on the matter of land division.
Will you quote them?
I am not doing the Minister any injustice. Before he had the knowledge that is available to him now, the Minister believed that it was possible to acquire and divide sufficient land to relieve all congestion within one or two years.
I never said any such thing.
Not in so many words, perhaps.
Daft statements like that only came from Deputies opposite.
We listened to the Minister for years when he was in opposition telling us that the Fianna Fáil Government were too slow on the matter of land division.
I was right and I repeat it to-day.
We hope now as a result of the Minister's activities that the Land Commission will go at a much faster rate than they did even under Fianna Fáil.
It would be easy for them.
The Deputy must be allowed to make his speech.
The Minister may feel assured that in his efforts to acquire and divide the land necessary for the relief of congestion in the West or in the North or the South or wherever it is, he will have the full co-operation and support of Deputies on this side of the House. We trust that as a result of his close contact with the Land Commission the Minister will learn that it is not possible to acquire sufficient land to relieve all the congestion in this country within the short period in which at one time he thought it could be done. As time goes on, he will find that it will be a much more difficult problem to get all the land that is needed for the relief of congestion without hurting somebody. If the Minister thinks he can carry out a hail-fellow-well-met policy and not injure any persons by taking land off them, he is looking for trouble. He knows quite well, even by now——
Is the Deputy discussing the Minister's policy or the Bill before the House?
I am following on the lines of the Minister's speech. My arguments are directed to the speech recently made by the Minister. The Minister will not find the relief of congestion such an easy problem as he thought when he was in opposition. He will find that it will be much more difficult to acquire all the land he needs to relieve congestion without injuring some interest. To try to persuade the House and the country that there are millions of acres of derelict land waiting to be acquired is only leading the House and the country astray. I should like to know where these millions of acres of derelict land are which have not been in use.
I did not mention millions. The figure I quoted was 150,000 acres. The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.
I know what I am talking about as well as the Minister.
150,000 acres are not millions.
The Minister will not find it so easy to acquire all the land necessary to relieve congestion as he tried to lead the House to believe when he spoke about this pool of derelict land which no one knows anything about except himself. I challenge him to say where it is.
I propose mainly to deal with Section 2 of this Bill. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw that section in this Bill. If this Bill were passed, it would sanction for ever the policy pursued in past generations which was summed up in the phrase, "To hell or to Connacht." I do not believe for a moment that Deputy Cogan understands the position which obtains west of the Shannon. If he did, I am quite certain that such a Bill as this would never have been introduced in this House. Section 2 of the Bill reads:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Land Purchase Acts no holding shall be acquired or resumed by the Land Commission without the consent of the owner in any case where it is used as an ordinary farm in accordance with proper methods of husbandry."
In other words, a man with a large farm who is using it properly, although there is congestion in the area and a large number of small farmers who would make equal use of it, must be asked: "Please, sir, would you mind giving up your farm for the sake of those unfortunate men in the locality who have only five, ten or 15 acres, so as to make their holdings economic?" What answer would that gentleman give if he were asked to give up his farm? I think it is quite evident that we would never get one acre of land for the relief of congestion if any such policy were pursued, or if that section was passed in this House.
I can only speak more or less for the people west of the Shannon. That is the portion of Ireland which has mainly filled the emigrant ships in the past. Men who now fill high places in America went there from Mayo, Galway, Roscommon and other counties in the West. Would it not be a good thing if we could at least reduce the numbers who are forced to flee year after year from the country? Would it not be a terrible thing if we had to say that we can never hope to stem emigration if this Bill went through in its present form? Suggestions have been made that the only hope for the West of Ireland is the provision of cottage industries such as the homespun industry. These will never remedy the problem of unemployment or prevent emigration. They are only a sop at the best.
We will never have a decent or proper agricultural policy while we have the land question as it is to-day The division of land and a proper agricultural policy are bound up. What I would suggest on this particular question is that Deputy Cogan should ask the House for powers to speed up the work of the Land Commission, as that is necessary.
That will be the purpose of the Bill and that will be its effect.
In the past they have been very slow in this matter and under the present Government I have not seen it moved up even to a trot. If this present Government is going to be serious about its job of land division, it must get into a gallop pretty soon. The Minister for Lands himself is one man who has favoured division of land and I am speaking on behalf of our Party when I say that we are totally opposed to anything in the nature of this Bill which has been introduced by Deputy Cogan, and we would ask the Minister for Lands not to stay in the same rut that his predecessor was in but to get ahead with this very necessary work of making our uneconomic holdings economic.
Deputy Allen is worried as to whether we have enough land to relieve all the uneconomic holdings or enough to satisfy all the land-hungry men. Deputy Allen knows perfectly well that we have not, but that is not the question or should not be the question here in this House. We should get ahead with the land we have and fix up the holdings which are uneconomic at present. Like the Minister himself, I could draw a very pitiful picture of conditions in certain congested areas in the West. I live in a congested area. I know a village not three miles from me where there are 18 small landholders with 65 acres of good land between them. Say a man has seven acres, he has not even that seven acres together; he will have one acre here and his next-door neighbour will have two acres between that and the next acre.
How will this Bill of Deputy Cogan's remedy it?
This Bill, I submit, has a lot to do with it because if the Bill went through in its present form, Section 2 would mean that the land would be the same in 40 years' time and that those holdings would never have an opportunity of being made economic.
The question of fixity of tenure has been mixed. It dates back to the old days of the penal laws when a man was thrown out on the side of the road by the landlord on the slightest excuse. I do not see why we should make permanent the evil work done in the past. At the same time nobody can disagree with giving a fair price to a man from whom land is being resumed. If it is necessary, and it is necessary I submit, to resume land and acquire fresh land for the relief of congestion and to make uneconomic holdings economic, then consent or no consent that land should be taken over. The question as set out in Section 2 here is covered very nicely of course by saying: "If the farm is used in accordance with proper methods of husbandry"; that particular section goes in to blind us to what is really going on. To-morrow morning a man down in Kildare, Meath, Westmeath or anywhere else can produce evidence that his farm is being properly worked and just because he produces that evidence and shows he is a good farmer, the ten, 15 or 20 unfortunate men whose tongues have been hanging out for the land will be left in the lurch.
I do not wish to say any more except that our Party are completely opposed to this, and instead of this particular section, something should be introduced whereby the Land Commission would be speeded in their work of division and not retarded.
I think that the best service Deputy Cogan could render to the House would be to withdraw this Bill and ensure that the national sentiments and the sacrifices made by men 20 or 25 years ago will not be in vain. I do not know whether Deputy Cogan took any part in those historic times, but I know that one of our objectives was to get control of the country, get the land into the hands of Irishmen for the good of all, and place all on the land in reasonable comfort. If this Bill of Deputy Cogan's were passed, it would undo all the work that we set out to do.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on the short statement that he made here to-day. He certainly cleared the air and made it clear that in the future a fair price would be paid for any land taken over. That is something we can be proud of because up to this there has been public robbery of men in this country by Fianna Fáil over 16 years. I brought up the question in this House eight or nine years ago of a widow, a struggling widow, who had 250 acres of good land taken from her and what did she get out of it? What was offered to her? A five-pound note!
That has nothing to do with this Bill. The Deputy debated that matter on many occasions.
Did she take it?
She did not take it, and I am glad that she had the spirit not to take it. She has gone to the Happy Hunting Ground to-day and she is better there than where Fianna Fáil left her.
If this Bill were adopted, it would be the end of land division and we could not stand for that. Deputy Cogan wants to stand on both sides of the fence. He wants to be a Tory on one side and a patriot on the other but he cannot be both. I come from a county in the centre of the land of the Pale where conquest was done with bloody work, where Irishmen were told to get out to Hell or to Connacht, where planters from the British Empire were planted and where many of them have a foothold to-day. I do not stand for the confiscation of any man's property however he became its owner. Whether he was a planter or not, he is entitled to its market value and I believe that the Government will give him that.
It is time that the Land Commission moved ahead. In my county, vast tracts of land are herded by one man and a dog, and some of the owners of them live in India, some live in London, and some in Dublin; but very few live in Royal Meath. It is necessary that the work of the Land Commission should be speeded up.
We are not discussing the work of the Land Commission—or, we should not be. There will be other opportunities for that. We are discussing the Bill brought before the House by Deputy Cogan.
So many things have been brought up by Deputies and by the Minister that the scope of the debate has been fairly wide. I quite agree that I should confine myself to the Bill, but it is hard to do.
A man of experience might manage to do it, a seasoned man.
I say to Deputy Cogan as a man that he should withdraw this Bill. The Minister made it clear to him and to the House that in future he would pay the fair market value, only take land that was not being worked in the national interest and that he would not touch any man who was living on his holding and working it properly. That is a real Christian precept and a reason why Deputy Cogan should withdraw and see what the Minister is going to produce. Knowing the Minister, knowing the type of man he is and what he has sprung from, I am satisfied that he will give a fair, square deal to every man. In all fairness to the Minister after the statement he made Deputy Cogan should withdraw.
I have a lot to say, but as I cannot say it under the scope of this discussion, I think I will have to conclude.
I would like, with Captain Giles, as a member of the Fine Gael Party, to welcome the assurance and statement of policy given by the Minister here to-day. Our Party, while it was in opposition for a period of 16 years, has always advocated that while land acquisition and division is necessary and very essential, it should be accompanied by a fair price being paid for land that is acquired. Only four years ago, a Private Members' Bill to the same effect as this Bill was introduced by two members of the Fine Gael Party in the Seanad and that Bill was defeated.
Our Party has always been consistent in advocating a measure such as that promised by the Minister to-night. It was a pity that, after the Minister's speech, the House should be compelled to listen to a speech such as that which emanated from Deputy Allen. I do not know whether the Deputy inintended to be serious or not, or whether his intervention was merely some effort at filling a gap from the benches opposite, because it is perfectly apparent that, whatever contribution Deputies on this side may have to make in this debate, there is very little of a constructive nature coming from the Deputies opposite. Deputy Allen went out of his way to say that the Minister had accepted Fianna Fáil legislation so far as the Land Acts are concerned, that he was happy and satisfied with the present position, and that under the existing law there was nothing at all to prevent the Land Commission from paying a fair or a market price for acquired land.
It might interest Deputy Allen to know—I do not see him in the House now—that under Section 25 of the Land Act of 1923, and under other sections in the land code, a very clear statutory standard is laid down for determining the price of land to be acquired. As long as that standard is there it cannot be departed from. That standard determines the price in accordance with certain rules laid down in the section and in the schedules to the 1923 Land Act. But in Section 39 of the Land Act of 1939, a section which merely embodied the practice and the law prior to that, it is provided in sub-section (5) that the resumption price of a holding shall be the market value of that holding or part of a holding. There we have the extraordinary difference referred to by Deputy Fagan and other Deputies, that where land is resumed the market value must be paid by the Land Commission because the 1939 Land Act declares that such a price and such a value must be paid, but when land, whether vested or not, is acquired the purchase price or value is a mere notional value decided in accordance with the Land Acts.
I was informed this evening of a case where the owner of 400 acres or so of land purchased originally under one of the earlier Acts was fortunate enough to have a bit of liquid cash in hands and decided to redeem his annuity. He did so at a cost to him of in or around £10,000 or £11,000. His land was acquired some years later when he did not even get back from the Land Commission the amount of the redemption that he had paid three years before. Now, when you have results like that it is very hard to expect the people of this country—the ordinary farmers—either to understand or to be patient with the present position. Driving through any part of the country you can see, side by side, a field of unvested land and a field of vested land, both of identical value and size, with quite different prices obtaining in the event of acquisition or resumption by the Land Commission.
Now, I am glad for these reasons that the Minister should have made the statement that he did make to-night. I think it is only right to say that land and anything dealing with land affects not merely the owner of a particular holding or the person who might be fortunate enough to get a division of land in this country, but the credit of the nation. If you lessen the people's confidence in either their holding of land or in their ability to sell and transfer land, you do, in a certain way, affect the credit of the country.
The banks do not agree with that.
Deputy Fagan, or some other Deputy, mentioned the fact that in certain circumstances a farmer or a holder of land finds when he goes into a bank—this was so particularly during recent years—that his land and his title deeds, even if he has clear title, are not going to bring him any credit from his bank manager. The reason is that the notion, apparently, is accepted now under our existing land purchase code that the holding or the owning of land beyond a certain size raises the danger of acquisition. That is one end of the problem—that acquisition means purchasing that land out for a sum very much lower than its value. The bank manager, facing a problem like that, just will not do any business with the landowner concerned.
The Deputy is discussing possible proposals by the Minister for Lands on a Bill before the House.
I am discussing Section 3 of the Bill which is before the House, a Bill which asks the House to approve of legislation designed to bring about a fair or market value for land acquired. While I agree completely with that portion of the Bill which aims at that particular object, and endorse it as representing the consistent policy of my Party, I nevertheless join with Deputy Giles in suggesting that, in view of the statement made by the Minister to-night that he will accept the principle contained in Section 3 of the Bill and introduce proposals for legislation to cover that principle, the Bill has perhaps achieved its object. I also endorse what has been said by Deputy MacQuillan and other Deputies concerning Section 2. Section 2 is a section which should never have been introduced by a Deputy such as Deputy Cogan. It is a section which, if passed into law, would put back the hands of the clock in this country nearly 60 years.
Senior counsel disagrees with you.
Senior counsel is not entering into this debate. Section 2, if it became law, would fetter the Government, the Land Commission and the administration of that Department in attending to what is a very real problem—congestion and uneconomic holdings. I cannot see that there is anything to be said for that section. I think it is without justification and that once an assurance is given of a fair price for land acquired, no conceivable argument could be advanced for Section 2. Therefore I ask Deputy Cogan, in view of the assurance given by the Minister, to withdraw his Bill.
But I will say this to the Minister. He is going to introduce proposals here dealing with this particular matter of a fair price for land acquired. He must not forget that his Government has been 12 months in office and that during that period the close-down introduced by the last Government in certain areas, particularly in the Midlands, has been raised. The process of acquiring land in my constituency and in other constituencies in the Midlands has gone ahead within the past 12 months. Steps have been taken to acquire different estates and I assume that in the ordinary administrative way those steps will very shortly lead to the acquisition of these estates. I cannot see any reason why the Bill to be introduced by the Minister should not be retrospective to February 18th of last year.
I think it is only right and proper that the Minister should not for any period of his term in office stand over what is a considerable injustice to certain people. The danger does exist that if legislation is introduced within three of four months, taking effect from the date on which it is introduced, there will be a most unenviable speedup in acquisition. I would, therefore, urge upon the Minister to make his proposals, welcome as they will be, good and beneficial proposals, retrospective to the date on which he assumed office. Then he will know that no injustice, such as is aimed at in this Bill, will have been allowed to exist.
I look on the principle underlying this Bill as retrograde and reactionary. I am not one of those who believe that property in land should be held in the same way as property in other things. I believe the land in this country should be used in the interests of the community as a whole and that that should be the overriding factor to be considered. If the principle enshrined in this Bill were to be adopted, there is no doubt whatsoever that the land could not be used in the best interests of the community and that step by step individuals could acquire land until they became vast landholders and landowners such as we had 100 years ago. If once the principles suggested by Deputy Cogan were adopted, then there would be nothing to prevent any individual acquiring a whole countryside, and just because he would use that in accordance with certain methods of husbandry, he could not be deprived of that land no matter what the community might want to do with it. It must go clearly from this Dáil that a declaration of principle on those lines cannot be accepted in the 20th century. We have, I hope, put an end to landlordism of that type.
Not yet.
I hope nothing that we do here will give a fresh start to the development of another type of large landholder.
They are coming back again.
I know they are coming back again, but they are doing so at a certain risk, a serious and substantial risk, if this House will do its duty in regard to the maximum acreage that any individual will be permitted to acquire and own.
It is a much wider question than this.
It is, but the principle that is involved in this Bill is a dangerous one so far as the community are concerned and it is just as well that it should be exposed at this stage. Now, with regard to the price to be paid for large estates acquired by the Land Commission for sub-division, that again is a matter of principle. We had the same trouble when the big landowners and landlords were bought out some years ago. The tenantry and the ordinary people then were saddled with the payment of sums of money which should never have been paid. The Minister must seriously reconsider the principles suggested here this evening in regard to compensation. We cannot permit the small landholder to whom acquired land is handed over to be burdened with a huge millstone of debt simply because it is held that these landowners should be paid what is described as a fair market price for their lands. Those are my views in regard to this matter. Considering the history of our country in relation to land and land tenure, we ought never to have had a Bill of this type introduced here. This is a retrograde and reactionary measure. I support the suggestion made by Deputy Captain Giles and Deputy O'Higgins that Deputy Cogan should withdraw this Bill and let the Minister bring forward for the consideration of the House whatever proposals he has in mind in relation to these two big and burning questions.
This Bill has been fairly widely debated. To some extent the debate has caused me a certain amount of amusement. It was certainly amusing to observe the lengths to which some Deputies went and the pains they took on both sides of the House in their efforts to find some reason for not voting for this Bill.
Every Deputy must admit that the fundamental principles in this Bill are sound. The first is that land should be taken from a farmer who is not using it properly. Does anyone dispute the justice of that principle? Secondly, the Bill provides that land that is acquired shall be paid for at a reasonable price. Those are the two underlying principles of this measure. If there is any Deputy who thinks that a farmer who is working his lands properly ought not to have a reasonable measure of security of tenure, then let him vote against this Bill, and if there is any Deputy who thinks that land acquired by the State for the purpose of national development should not be paid for at a reasonable price, then, let him vote against this Bill. But if there is any Deputy who accepts the well-established principles of Christian justice and fair play as between man and man, then he will have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting this Bill.
In a vague kind of way a case was made by a number of Deputies that Section 2 would completely hold up the work of the Land Commission. Possibly some Deputies have not taken the trouble to read the Bill or to give it any serious consideration. I took this Bill to one of our ablest counsel and got his opinion on it. In his opinion Section 2 would not in any way retard the operations of the Land Commission. There is nothing to prevent the Land Commission acquiring all the land that is either derelict or waste, or that is not properly used by its owner or neglected by its owner. There is nothing to prevent the Land Commission from acquiring all the land that will be freely offered to them provided they pay a reasonable price for it. Far from holding up the operations of the Land Commission in any way the effect of this Bill will be to speed up land acquisition and land division. More land will be offered to the Land Commission under this Bill than has ever been offered to them in the past. I have discussed land acquisition with various farmers in County Wicklow. Those farmers who have land of which they would like to dispose are only too anxious to sell it to the Land Commission in preference to any one else provided they are assured of a fair price. For some reason or another, there are Deputies who apparently think that farmers ought not to get a fair price for anything they have to sell, whether it be agricultural produce or land.
The Minister said that this Bill is good and bad. I would be interested to learn what the "bad" is. He acknowledges that that portion of it which is good is the portion which provides that farmers who sell vested land shall get as a good a price for it as farmers who sell unvested land. The Minister accepts that principle. The Minister denounces the prices that have been paid for land in the past and up to the present time. He agrees that people who are selling their land to the Land Commission are being robbed. Does the Minister seriously suggest that the Land Commission should be permitted to go on robbing the people?
Deputy Collins asked the Minister if he would make compensation to the owners retrospective in the Bill which he is proposing to introduce. It is unfortunate that the Minister is not in the House now to answer that question. I know that he has not the right to intervene in the debate, but I am sure the Chair would permit him to answer that straight question "yes" or "no".
I am asked to withdraw this Bill on the tenuous promise that another Bill will be introduced by the Minister. We have been given no definite date as to the introduction of any such Bill. We have been given no definite idea as to how long the passage of the Bill might take. Having regard to the constitution of the House, we have no definite assurance as to whether or not the Bill will be passed. It is probable that the majority of the House accepts the principle of a fair market price for land, but opposition has been expressed on both sides of the House to the payment of a fair price. What guarantee can the Minister give that this Bill, if introduced, will be enacted? The Minister has stated that the Bill will consist of some 20 sections. Some of those sections may be objectionable. Have we any assurance that Deputies will not pounce upon one particular section of the Bill and use it as an excuse for voting against the Bill. Asking me to withdraw this Bill in favour of something which the Minister will introduce sometime in the future makes rather too great a demand on me.
The Minister went out of his way to demonstrate that fixity of tenure exists under present legislation. The Minister knows that the Land Commission can give no assurance to any farmer, no matter how well that farmer may husband his land, that the Land Commission will not acquire it. There is, therefore, no real fixity of tenure. Some Deputies say that Section 2 is so drastic and far-reaching in its effects that it takes us back to the days of the landlords. Others, including the Minister, have stated that security of tenure is as effectively protected under existing legislation as it is under Section 2 of this Bill. So it is evident we have to decide as between those two points of view. All that the Bill seeks to ensure is that a fair price will be paid for land, that land which is vested in the owner will be paid for at the same price as land which is unvested. Is there anything wrong with that? We are told that Section 2 as at present worded may create difficulties. I am prepared on the Third Stage of the Bill, to consider amendments to Section 2.
Is there any reason?
No; there is no reason. As I have already told the House, I was anxious to know if Section 2 would hold up the operations of the Land Commission. I consulted one of the ablest counsels in this State on that matter and I was definitely assured that Section 2 of this Land Bill will not hold up the Land Commission in the acquisition and division of land.
What about the landlord's rent?
Deputy Davin's mentality seems to be very peculiar. He seems to think that—
He is not alone in that.
—we are dealing with landlords. When introducing this Bill I mentioned the cases of some farmers who had less than 50 acres of land which was acquired by the Land Commission. I want to know does Deputy Davin class those people as landlords?
How many cases?
There are cases. If there was only one case it would be a criminal injustice to allow it to take effect. Deputy O'Rourke asked me— I do not know what it had to do with the Bill but I suppose it was relevant— what type of farmer I am. I am a small farmer, a farmer of less than 40 acres of arable land and about the same amount of very poor bog. I do not consider myself a landlord by any means. I am raising this matter in the House and I am introducing this Bill in order to give an adequate safeguard to farmers, large and small, who are doing their duty to the State as citizens should; that is to say, who are using their land properly. Somebody asked how would we define the proper utilisation of land. I would be inclined to accept the view of the arguments which have been used, and are being used at present, in regard to the value of grass as against tillage crops. I would be inclined to define it as giving the maximum amount of employment. That is my view. I strongly hold that it is the duty of the farmer to provide as much employment on his farm as he possibly can and at the same time get the maximum output.
That test is there already.
If that is there already then let us have no objections. What objection can be taken to Section 2, which provides that good husbandry shall be the test as to whether land is acquired or not. If Deputies will not object to the existing law on this point I cannot see how there can be so much objection to Section 2 of the Bill, which seeks simply to emphasise the position in regard to good husbandry and a proper utilisation of land.
Section 2 wants us to go to the landlord and ask his permission.
Section 2 has nothing to do with landlords. We are dealing with farmers. A landlord and a farmer are two entirely different people. A landlord cannot work his land according to the laws of good husbandry because he has not got the land at all; he is leasing it out to tenants.
Why not put that in the Bill?
It is only a farmer who can farm land and, therefore, in our present code we are dealing with farmers. If the Minister is not satisfied on the exact wording of Section 2 I will have no hesitation in accepting any amendment which might be put down on the Third Stage of the Bill. All that we ask in this Bill is reasonable security for the man who has been working his land properly and a reasonable price for the land. Give the Land Commission the power to pay a fair price. They have not got that power at the present time.
A case was put up by the Minister and by other Deputies about the amount of congestion that exists in various parts of the country. We all know that that congestion exists. We all know how urgent it is to relieve it. The purpose of the Bill, as I have said, will be to further the work of the Land Commission in relieving that congestion. It is no use drawing a red herring across the trail by suggesting that this Bill will hold up the Land Commission. It will not. I hold that if this Bill becomes law more land can be acquired by the Land Commission than it has ever been possible to acquire.
Deputy Sweetman, in opposing this Bill, said that the principle of the Bill was all right but that the manner in which it had been presented was wrong. If the principle of the Bill is all right let the House accept it. No just court will throw out a case simply because it is not as ably presented as it should be. If that were done it would mean that a court was either biased or prejudiced or stupid. If a fair court would try this Bill and examine it objectively on its merits and on its merits alone this House would have to accept it.
Now that the Minister is in the House I should like to repeat a question which I asked before he came in. In the Bill which he proposes to introduce is the Minister prepared to make the compensation payable to owners of land retrospective as from the 18th February last? On the 18th February the Minister became responsible for land policy in this country. He has acknowledged here to-day that the Land Commission have been robbing those people from whom they acquired land.
Excuse me, Deputy. Acknowledging that I was not satisfied with the price that the Land Commission was paying did not acknowledge robbing them.
You did not use that word at all.
Truth always matters.
The Minister is not satisfied with the prices paid for land. That is to say, he is satisfied that the Land Commission have not paid adequate prices for the land they have acquired. How can he justify a refusal to pay an adequate and fair price for all land that was acquired since he took over? I am not asking the Minister to make restitution for the sins of his predecessors. Let them account for what they did or did not do during their term. If they acquired land at less than a fair and adequate price let them be responsible. But let the Minister take full responsibility for all land that was acquired since he took office. If the Minister is prepared to give a guarantee that this Bill will be introduced and that he will make it retrospective I am prepared to withdraw this. He should not stand over the injustices, the glaring cases of injustice, that have been committed during the past year and which are being committed at present. I have quoted in this House a number of cases of injustice to farmers. I have, since I introduced the Bill, received information in regard to hundreds of other cases. I ask the Minister is he going to stand over highway robbery of these unfortunate people?
The poor landlords!
I think Deputy Davin is something like Rip Van Winkle. He must have gone asleep before the land of Ireland was purchased by the farmers of this country from the landlords and he is only wakening up now. I am afraid Deputy Davin is in very close spiritual accord with Deputy Cowan, who lifted a little corner of the Iron Curtain to-night and showed his views in regard to property ownership in this country. He made it clear that he would not agree even with the Minister's proposal that a fair price should be paid for the land acquired even if the Bill were not retrospective.
I think it a pity that Deputies should have gone so far out of their way in an endeavour to find some excuse for failing to accept the principle of this Bill. There is nothing in the Bill except to endorse and emphasise what our fathers sought when they fought for the land for the farmers of the country, what every other Irishman fought for—fixity of tenure, free sale and fair rent. These principles are, as far as possible, embodied in this Bill. The men who fought for the principles are dead but could they see these principles derided in an Irish Parliament they would turn in their graves. Six feet of Irish earth would not be sufficient to keep them down if they thought that an Irish National Parliament was going to trample on the principles of fixity of tenure and free sale.
I should like to dwell a little longer on Deputy Davin's attitude. Deputy Davin wants to class every farmer of this country, whether he owns five, 15, 20, 100 or 200 acres, as landlords and as enemies of the people, as people who should be wiped out. He wants to have the land owned by the State and to have the administrative work done by civil servants. I do not want that. I believe in independence for the individual owner of the land. I believe that the individual owner of the land should be secured in his ownership as long as he performs his social duties to the people.
That is a deliberate misrepresentation.
If Deputies insist on interrupting, they have got to take what is coming to them. If the Minister is prepared to accept the suggestion which I have made, if he is prepared to make his Bill retrospective to the date which I have suggested, I am prepared, reluctantly, to withdraw this Bill on his giving that assurance. I should like to know whether the Minister is prepared to make his Bill retrospective.
I answered that question in reply to Deputy Collins.
The Minister is not prepared to make it retrospective?
That is a matter for Parliament, not for the Minister.
The First Stage of the Bill will come in good time before the House.
Go back to 1923, when all the poor landlords are dead!
Is there to be a motion about the adjournment?
